This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Weasel words tag
Hello everyone :) There's been no discussion here for several months. I'd like to know whether you're satisfied (more or less) with the content of this article; if this is the case, I'd suggest removing the weasel words tag from the top of the article. After heavy discussions, almost every single sentence in this article is sourced now... Kind regards, Montessquieu (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Darken the red a bit more Croatia on the map, specifically Central and Slavonian Croatia
Please darken Croatia's red a bit more, especially the top half should be dark red as that part of the Country above Sava is unarguably in Central Europe. Otherwise, lighten the dark in countries that you mention most commonly refered to as Central European who have parts that are geographically not Central European, for example south Slovenia or western Germany (which I doubt anyone wants to do). Thank You.Public (talk) 1:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.70.188 (talk)
New map
The new map is not bad, but Zakarpattia Oblast in Ukraine is not that large. Plus, as it's about the definition, it should be placed where the definition is. Squash Racket (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello.
That area in Ukraine is not just the Zakarpattia Oblast, but also the actual former Austrian province of Galicia during the Austo-Hungarian Empire. That area also belonged to Poland.
So, all of that area, not just Zakarpattia, belonges culturally and historically to Central Europe.
Even Zakarpattia Oblast is rarely associated with Central Europe, so I don't agree with the inclusion of Galicia. Based on that reasoning you could have added Dalmatia too. But that's not a big issue. Squash Racket (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Switzerland south of Alps is not Central Europe or Northern Italy has to be also considered Central Europe
People, language, culture, history, flora, climatic conditions are the same of Lombardy. In this case also Northern Italy should be considered Central Europe.--Arnaldo Mauri (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Which part of Switzerland is south of the Alps? Squash Racket (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The whole Canton Tessin (Ticino), part of Grisons (Grigioni), a small part of Valais (Gondo). --87.2.142.15 (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I checked Ticino's article:
Most of the land is considered within the Alps (Lepontine Alps), but a small area is part of the plain of the River Po which drains the north of Italy.
I don't see an issue here. The article does mention that rarely Northeastern Italy is considered part of Central Europe, but Italy is obviously a part of Southern Europe. Squash Racket (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
On my view Italian Switzerland, Southern France, Corsica and Slovenian Istria are Southern Europe. --Arnaldo Mauri (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Maps
I oppose using that map as it highlights and overemphasizes Romania over the actual Central European countries. Some English references consider Transylvania Central European because of its Roman Catholic/Protestant Hungarian and German population and cultural ties to pre-TrianonHungary.
I'm OK with that map showing Central Europe with another one recently created by a Romanian user that shows territories/lands sometimes considered Central European. Squash Racket (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
They are dozens of sources considering Romania and Croatia to be located on CE. However, they are also anough sources who doesn't put them there. Thia issue have been already discussed and we have a consessus. I don't want write again that what I alredy have written. If you va anything new to say, something that hasn' been told yet - do it. This map map ia a pure original research. --Olahus (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
That map shows the core European states (according to the concensus definition). Blurring the borders indicates that the definition includes some neighboring regions. The map created by you overemphasizes two regions, while disregards other ones similarly "sometimes" considered Central European. Most of the relevant English sources don't present Romania as a Central European state.
Because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality
We have enough high quality English sources about Central Europe, we don't need to cite German ones. Squash Racket (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
They are also dozens of reliable English sources that mention Romania as a Central European Country. --Olahus (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think nobody considers the whole of Romania to be Central European, remembering that Romania has coast at the Black Sea, as well. Black Sea is not in Central Europe. Hobartimus (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hobartimus, Romania (as well as Croatia) is a country located at the junction of the Balkan Peninsula with the Carpathian Bassin - that's those country don't really belong entirely to one of them and are considered to be both Southeastern European and Central European- Additionally, Romania is also somtimmes considered to be Eastern European (as well as the other former member states of the Warsaw pact). However, Romania is only sometimes (by far not always) regarded as Central European. I already discussed this issue alot last year, but if you want to, I can enumerate the dozens of sources again (I only need to use the copy/paste function). I also believe that the map should include the Baltic states and the Benelux states too. --Olahus (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I see absolutely no concensus for that OR map, only for the definition. It was only User:Olahus who decided to emphasize what we call "sometimes" regarded as part of Central Europe, but disregard regions/lands that are "rarely" considered part of it. There was never concensus to include that map as I can see from the thread above, so stop falsely referring to it. Suggesting that Bucharest is somehow "sometimes" in Central Europe while Mukachevo and Subotica are not is ridiculous, unencyclopedic and misleading. Or should we include the whole Ukraine too as Zakarpattia Oblast is considered a part of Central Europe? I repeat: there was no concensus to include that map, probably because it overemphasizes Transylvania (hmm... the whole Romania) while is silent about Vojvodina and Zakarpattia Oblast, also parts of the former Kingdom of Hungary.
This map, created by a Romanian editor is acceptable to me as it shows all the relevant regions that are sometimes/rarely considered parts of Central Europe:
Central European states and historic lands at times associated with the region
Speaking of concensus: User:Buffer_v2 supported the map you keep removing just four days ago (read his edit summary), so I'd say we have a concensus to include that map.
I don't think the inclusion of the whole of Romania is justified at all while dropping Vojvodina or Zakarpattia Oblast. The map this way looks strange, I'm stunned Olahus doesn't realize in this form it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
Or as Britannica puts it: Romania — Country, northeastern Balkan Peninsula, southeastern Europe. That too is OR? Squash Racket (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
shows the actual Central Europe, blurring the borders indicates the definition is not carved in a stone, but also not cherrypicking among the states that the majority of sources does NOT consider a Central European state. User:Buffer_v2 simply removed the above map supporting only this one. Squash Racket (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't wriet stupidities and don't mix things that are not related one to each other. They are reliable sources that do regard Romania (they don't say "partially Romania", but "Romania") as Central European. Such informations you will never read about Serbia or Ukraine.--Olahus (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This map is an original research and it is proposed for deletion. I wonder which source was used to draw the southern and eastern "borders" of Central Europe. Probably none. --Olahus (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
They are enough yources who put Romania to Central Europe:
[1] The description of Romania in the website of NATO: Romania is located in South-East Central Europe, north of the Balkan Peninsula, on the Lower Danube, within and outside the Carpathian arch, bordering on the Black Sea.
Romania belongs to the Alpine-Carpathian zone of East Central Europe according to Paul Robert Magocsi, Historical Atlas of East Central Europe, University of Washington Press. Seattle & London. 1993 (See the information, the reference and the bibliography). See a map.
Meyers grosses Taschenlexikon, Mannheim, Leipzig etc. 1999, vol. 15, p.30: "Mitteleuropa, der mittlere Teil Europas, [...] im W und O fehlen natuerl. grenzen. Meist versteht man unter M. die Stromgebiete von der Schelde bis zur Weichsel und das Stromgebiet der Donau bis zur Maehr. Pforte. Zu M. werden i. Allg. Dtl., Schweiz, Oesterreich, Polen, Tschech. Rep., Slowak. Rep., Ungarn, i.w.S. auch Rumänien gerechnet, gelegentlich auch die Niederlande, Belgien und Luxemburg." See also the map.
Geographisches Handbuch zu Andrees Handatlas, vierte Auflage, Bielefeld und Leipzig, Velhagen und Klasing, 1902. About Romania's location (observe: Romania was composed on that time only by Wallachia, western Moldavia and northern Dobruja. The Central European Transylvania, Banat, Crisana, Maramures and Bukovina belonged to Austria-Hungary and those territories cover 46% of present-day Romania): "Rumänien gehört zu den Landschaften, die den Übergang von Mittel- nach Osteuropa vermitteln". The source presents the Danube-Sava-Kupa line as the northern border of the Balkan peninsula. Concerning the name of the Balkan Peninsula and the political entities, the ource says: So lange der Sultan von Konstantinopel noch Herr der ganzen Halbinsel wa, nannte man sie die Türkei; aber dieser Ausdruck passt für die heutige politische Lage nicht mehr, denn neben dem türkischen Gebies liegen noch drei durchaus unabhängige Staaten auf der Halbinsel onhe die beiden abhänhigen Länder Bulgarien und Bosnien zu rechnen. Die politische Übersicht gestaltet sich folgendermaßen: Bulgarien mit Ostrumelien, Serbien, Montenegro, Türkei (ohne Bosnien, Herzegowina und Kreta), Bosnien und Herzegowina, Kreta und das ebenfalls auf der Halbinsel gelegene österreichische Kronland Dalmatiens.
Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, 7. Auflage, 12. Band, F.A.Brockaus Wiesbaden 1971: Mitteleuropa: der mittlere Teil Europas, das Übergangsgebiet zwischen dem ozean. West- und dem subtrop. Süd- und dem teilweise subpolaren Nordeuropa. Die Abgrenzung ist unsicher, da bes. im W und O klare Natur- und Kulturgrenzen fehlen. Gewöhnlich versteht man unter M. die Alpen und das Gebiet nördlich davon bis zur Nord- und Ostsee, das Weichselgebies und die Karpatenländer.
Mayers Enzyklopöädisches Lexikon, Band 16, Bibliographisches Institut Mannheim/Wien/Zürich, Lexikon Verlag 1980: Mitteleuropa: Teil Europas, umfasst etwa ds Gebies der Staaten Niederlande, Belgien, Luxemburg, BRD, DDR, Polen, Schweiz, Österreich, Tschechoslowakei, Ungarn und Rumänien, die nördlichen Randlandschaften Italiens und Jugoslawiens sowie die nö. Randgebiete Frankreichs. Verschiedentl. werden die Niederlande, Belgien und Luxemburg nicht zu Mitteleuropa gerechnet.
Die große illustrierte Länderkunde, Band I, C. Bertelsmann verlag, 1966, page 507: Rumänien is ein Donaustaat wie Ungarn und ein Karpatenstaat wie die Tschechoslowakei. Bei allen drei Ländern bestimmen Ebenen und Hügelländer, die von Randgebirgen umschlossen werden, das landschaftliche Gundgefüge.' [...]In weit geschwungenen Bogen bilden die Ostkarpaten das Rückgrat Rumäniens und schließen im Norden, Osten und Süden das tertiäre Hügelland Siebenbürgens ein.
Neues Lehrbuch der Geographie, II.Teil, Erste Hälfte. Prof. Max Eckert. Verlag von Geork Stilke, Berlin, 1935. The autor divides Europe in many regions. One of those regions is: "Sudetisch-karpatisches Zentraleuropa", composed by: Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania. Another european region is "Südosteuropäische Halbinsel (Balkanhalbinsel)", composed by: Jugoslavia, Albania, Greece, Bulgaria, the European Turkey.
Harms Handbuch der Geographie (see here) includes Romania to Erstern Central Europe (Ostmitteleuropa), here.
Neues Lehrbuch der Geographie, II.Teil, Erste Hälfte. Prof. Max Eckert. Verlag von Geork Stilke, Berlin, 1935. The autor divides Europe in many regions. One of those regions is: "Sudetisch-karpatisches Zentraleuropa", composed by: Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania. Another european region is "Südosteuropäische Halbinsel (Balkanhalbinsel)", composed by: Jugoslavia, Albania, Greece, Bulgaria, the European Turkey.
Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, 7. Auflage, 12. Band, F.A.Brockaus Wiesbaden 1971: Mitteleuropa: der mittlere Teil Europas, das Übergangsgebiet zwischen dem ozean. West- und dem subtrop. Süd- und dem teilweise subpolaren Nordeuropa. Die Abgrenzung ist unsicher, da bes. im W und O klare Natur- und Kulturgrenzen fehlen. Gewöhnlich versteht man unter M. die Alpen und das Gebiet nördlich davon bis zur Nord- und Ostsee, das Weichselgebies und die Karpatenländer.
Mayers Enzyklopädisches Lexikon, Band 16, Bibliographisches Institut Mannheim/Wien/Zürich, Lexikon Verlag 1980: Mitteleuropa: Teil Europas, umfasst etwa das Gebies der Staaten Niederlande, Belgien, Luxemburg, BRD, DDR, Polen, Schweiz, Österreich, Tschechoslowakei, Ungarn und Rumänien, die nördlichen Randlandschaften Italiens und Jugoslawiens sowie die nö. Randgebiete Frankreichs. Verschiedentl. werden die Niederlande, Belgien und Luxemburg nicht zu Mitteleuropa gerechnet. See the map
Die große illustrierte Länderkunde, Band I, C. Bertelsmann verlag, 1966, page 507: Rumänien is ein Donaustaat wie Ungarn und ein Karpatenstaat wie die Tschechoslowakei. Bei allen drei Ländern bestimmen Ebenen und Hügelländer, die von Randgebirgen umschlossen werden, das landschaftliche Gundgefüge.' [...]In weit geschwungenen Bogen bilden die Ostkarpaten das Rückgrat Rumäniens und schließen im Norden, Osten und Süden das tertiäre Hügelland Siebenbürgens ein.
this and this: Der Begriff „Mitteleuropa“ ist nicht genau definiert. Im wesentlichen umfaßt Mitteleuropa Deutschland und seine östlich/nordöstlich/südöstlich angrenzenden Nachbarn, wobei sicherlich die Slowakei, Ungarn und Rumänien zu Mitteleuropa zu zählen sind, die nächsten Staaten dann schon eher zum Balkan. --Olahus (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Please stop your personal attacks especially after revert warring over your strange map that nobody would ever draw about Central Europe. Thank you.
You should nominate the map you don't like for deletion, your speedy notice was removed. That map has been supported by at least four editors so far.
We have enough high quality English sources covering Central Europe, so please stop adding German sources as English ones are preferred. The term "Mitteleuropa" is a bit loaded political term anyway not to mention the very strange and marginal concepts like "Sudetisch-karpatisches Zentraleuropa".
"Karpatenländer" as part of "Mitteleuropa"?:
The chain of mountain stretches in an arc from the Czech Republic in the northwest to Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Ukraine and Romania in the east, to the Iron Gates on the Danube River between Romania and Serbia in the south.
Based on that why wouldn't you include Serbia or Ukraine?
Besides the German sources you used tend to be encyclopedias, tertiary sources, not secondary ones. Their use in a controversial issue like that is questionable. Please focus on English language, secondary sources, because these are available on that topic.
Regarding the English sources: NATO is a military organization, not a neutral scholarly one. It is interested in showing Romania as integrated in Europe as possible and Romania became a member of that organization.
Differing from ideas of Eastern Europe and Central Europe, the concept is based on different criteria of distinction and has different geographical spread.
I couldn't find an "About us" section at mitteleuropa.de, but it looks like a personal website of someone:
Meine Seite Mitteleuropa.de soll Brücken bauen(...)
My first question is: why do you noticeably avoid using English language, secondary sources, the ones that should be used in a controversial issue like that when available?
My second question is: why do you think your comment helped your strange looking map in any way? We are not talking about the definition now, but about which maps depict "Central Europe" the best way. Based on English sources Wallachia and Moldavia don't have much to do with Central Europe, while Zakarpattia Oblast and Vojvodina — as parts of the formal Kingdom of Hungary — do. The latter are absent from your map somehow.
I still think we should have the map depicting the core Central European states (according to the definition you keep referring to) and the one showing core states + historical regions/lands (sometimes considered Central European) and was recently created by a Romanian editor. Squash Racket (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I couldn't help noticing that you keep referring to my ethnicity (ie: Romanian editor) while you talk about the map that I created.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with this. Maybe you think that by creating the map, I, as a Romanian am saying that Transylvania is a Hungarian land that was unfairly given to Romania. I assure you that this is definitely not the case.
I didn't include Transylvania and Bukovia as Romanian territories that are sometimes considered part of Central Europe just because they were part of Austria or respectively, the Kingdom of Hungary in the past. There are many other reason to include them (geographical, architectural, cultural and so on).
Transylvania and Bukovina were Romanian territories, inhabited by a Romanian majority, under foreign rule.
There are many definitions of Central Europe and Romania as a country, could be placed in both Central or South-Eastern Europe.
If you refer to countries and not just regions, I don't think that it would be wrong to say that the whole of Romania is sometimes considered part of Central Europe. Therefore I don't think that this map is wrong.
Please don't add your political assumptions about what I or others think, stay on topic. I mentioned you're a Romanian, because I didn't remember your name (here) and was lazy to check. The map added by Olahus misses Vojvodina and Zakarpattia Oblast just because the whole Ukraine and Serbia are usually not referred to as Central European.
For example above Olahus referred to a German source above that says "Mitteleuropa" contains "Karpatenländer". That's quite a broad definition. Based on that should we include Serbia and Ukraine or rather switch to the map based on undisputed core countries + the other map expanded with historical regions/lands?
I think the key thing here is to use English language, secondary sources as these are preferred here. One thing is sure: the whole Romania is not shown as a Central European country by the majority of English sources, while the former territories of the Kingdom of Hungary are.
If we look at an English language, secondary source (Central Europe, by Lonnie Johnson, Oxford University Press), it says:
The frontiers of medieval empires and kingdoms provide another criterion for defining Central Europe and they correspond to a great extent to the religious frontiers between the Roman Catholic West and the Orthodox East.
And that:
Central Europeans generally agree on which peoples are to be excluded from this club: for example Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians and Russians.
German sources, tertiary sources not to mention obscure websites don't overwrite this one. Squash Racket (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It's clear that Croatia, Serbia, Romania (South-Eastern Europe) and Ukraine (Eastern Europe) are part Central European. But out of those countries only Croatia and Romania could be sometimes considered Central European because a significant amount of those countries are part of Central Europe as opposed to Serbia and Ukraine where only a small part of the country is part of Central Europe.
As I said before it depends on what the definition of Central Europe is. My map is a region based definition, while Olahus' map is a country based definition. Both maps are correct.
I think that you probably believe that Romanians are not worthy of being considered Central European as opposed to the Hungarian minority in Transylvania.
I've already asked you above to keep your political assumptions to yourself. It is not me who has an offensive map on his userpage containing territories of neighboring countries, but User:Scooter.
Read the above citations from an Oxford University Press book titled "Central Europe" containing an analysis, not a passing reference. It says peoples associated with the Eastern Orthodox Church (like Serbs, Romanians, Russians) are not considered Central European. Is that clear?
Another simple option is this: as the topic is too controversial, drop all the maps, so that the readers will have to read the text. Squash Racket (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I never have read something more stupid as this thing from the Oxford-book praised by you. I cite: "The Carpathian Mountains, which curve from the eastern end of the Bohemian Massif along the Polish and Ukrainian borders down into Romania, also have separated the inhabitants in the plains north and east of this mountain chain from the peoples living south and west of it: Poles and Ukrainians from Slovaks, Hungarians, and Romanians." Ha! Ha! Ha! I never knew that the Romanians are living only to the west of the Carpathians, but if the Oxford-author says that ... Ha! Ha! Ha! --Olahus (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Trying to discredit the source you don't like was not successful especially in the light of German pocket encyclopedias and obscure websites you try to present as decisive references here.
I would also like to ask you to not add your comment in the middle of mine, it's disrespectful. And read WP:CIV. Squash Racket (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Each userpage is a place where the user can post whatever content he likes. That map was created by myself and it shows territories with Historic significance for Romanians.
Since you involve religion and ethnicity into the definition of Central Europe. I believe that Non-Indo-European peoples like Hungarians shouldn't be considered Central European, because they originated in Central Asia and only came to be in Central Europe 1000 years or so, ago.
I don't see any reason why the maps should be removed. Both of the Central Europe maps are correct. One shows Central Europe based on historic regions and the other based on countries.
If you continue to make false assumptions about others without any proof despite a request to stop, it's not your own business anymore. "Historic Romanian territories" is an offensive term for a map like that whether you acknowledge that or not. The English, secondary source involved religion, not me."I believe that" is not enough here.Sources agree on Hungarians being Central Europeans.Squash Racket (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Squash Racket, I don't know what exactly you're inteding to do, but I hope this time you won't start to argue with Romanian users again. I am not in the mood to battle, so I will give you an as short as possible answer. First of all, it's true that sources in English are prefered in Wikipedia, but sources in foreign langages are accepted too and there is no scale of reliability value for sources written in foreign languages (I repeat: there is no such thing in wikipedia!). I use many German sources for a very simple and logical reason: I live in Germany, not in England, not in Romania, not in the US. However, I still didn't miss to present English sources too - the NATO-source, the source from the Romanian embassy in Washington and, of course, Magocsi's atlas. There is also a French source there. Concerning Serbia and Ukraine - believe me or not, I never ever found sources as much reliable as the ones above who decriebs those countries as Central European. Never. Maybe it's because Serbia has a too share in the Balkan Peninsula (as well as a direct Otoman rule for many hundred years, someting that never existed in Romania - excepting Dobruja). In the case of Ukraine, from historical (excepting a very small part in the West), cultural and linguistic reasons it was too much bounded to Russia. However, let's return to Romania. You wrote somewhere that Romania is considered to be Central European just because it contains territories that formerly belonged to Austria-Hungary. It's false, because even the "Small Romania" (the country before 1918) was considered to be transitory country from Central to Eastern Europe (but not, I repeat not a Balkan country - Dobruja had even then an amount of only 12% of Romania's surface, today it's even lesser: 6%). I already wrote more about it in your talk page, but unfortunately you deleted it. I mentioned 20 sources - maybe 4 of them are not reliable - but 16 are. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Please don't add your comment in the middle of mine, this was the second time. Thank you. For the record: I deleted your comment from my talk page, because you continued to argue there, even though I had asked you earlier to continue the discussion here, not on my talk page.
Hmm... to me it seems a Romanian user was trying to initiate a "battle" making false assumptions about me, not vice versa, perhaps we haven't read the same discussion. I simply asked him to stop that. Or shouldn't I?
If you live in Germany, getting English, secondary references is probably easier than in Romania as you seem to have access to many different sources.
I won't repeat my above comment about the quality and nature of the sources you presented, about the difference between passing references and deep analysis, between military organizations and neutral scholarly ones, between secondary and tertiary sources, about "Karpatenländer" (probably incl. Serbia and Ukraine) and "Sudetisch-karpatisches Zentraleuropa", but my position hasn't changed much.
To me the state-based approach (including the controversial states, but disregarding controversial regions/lands) very clearly fails as a basis for a map. If anything, the map with the ridiculous detour to Romania should be nominated for deletion and I would be curious about the community's opinion about it. A decision to include two controversial states, but disregard controversial historic regions/lands led to the creation of that map.
The map based on the narrow definition which contains all the countries that are generally considered part of Central Europe by English sources and the other one based on a broader definition are both acceptable. If you want to include the whole Romania on the second map instead of just Transylvania, feel free to do, though I don't agree with it. Even that would look kind of strange. (How about some of the Baltic states that are around as Central European as Bucharest?)
But a map of Central Europe containing Wallachia and Moldavia, while at the same time missing Zakarpattia Oblast and Vojvodina is NOT encyclopedic material. Squash Racket (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Squash Racket, from the 16 reliable sources, only 3 are pocket encyclopaedias - and even so, they have not a smaller value just because they are pocket encyclopaedias. You can say what you want - this map is an OR, or tell me please why is Oradea shown as central european, while Miercurea Ciuc not ? Just a question. You want a new map that represents also Vojvodina and Western Ukraine? No problem. I agree with your proposal. --Olahus (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
We already have a map based on the broader definition, only Transylvania is marked instead of the whole of Romania, I don't know what "proposal" you are talking about. If you want to mark the whole of Romania, do it, but as I said I don't agree with it, that is only what you are pushing for, that is not "my proposal".
I won't repeat my above comment about the quality and nature of the sources you presented, about the difference between passing references and deep analysis, between military organizations and neutral scholarly ones, between secondary and tertiary sources, about "Karpatenländer" (probably incl. Serbia and Ukraine) and "Sudetisch-karpatisches Zentraleuropa". Another problem with your sources is that they are overwritten by English sources and this is the English wikipedia. Magocsi talks about East Central Europe, another concept. I really should copy and paste everything from above or will you rather read it there?
The map based on the narrow definition is the best one that we have as it only contains the states that are undisputed/generally depicted as Central European by the majority of sources. By blurring the borders it is only emphasized that the definition is not carved in stone and some neighboring regions are sometimes also considered Central European. As User:Buffer said in his edit summary: it "does a better job in that it doesn't explicitly limit Central Europe to a certain area (fading colors)." If you think the borders of the core states are blurred too much, then modify the map so that it's clearer that it only shows the 9 core states of Proposal II. I don't know what kind of "original research" you are talking about as this is by far the best referenced map when it comes to the concept of Central Europe. Squash Racket (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
quote: "Maybe it's because Serbia has a too share in the Balkan Peninsula (as well as a direct Otoman rule for many hundred years, someting that never existed in Romania - excepting Dobruja)."
Serbia's share in the Balkan peninsula is about 2/3, which is a majority. However most of its population lives in the north, in the former Austro-Hungarian part of the country, which could not even remotely apply to Romania.
"Many hundreds of years of Ottoman rule". If I recall it correctly, Serbia and Romania were both declared independent from the Ottoman Empire in 1878, at the same time. Before that they were both suzerains to the Porte. Actually, Wallachia and Moldova were dependent from Istanbul since the early XV century. Serbia did not lose its independence until 1540, and retrieved it in 1804. In the meantime it was occupied by Austria 3 times for a period of 50 years. 200 years of Ottoman rule, plus the suzerainty period of 50 years in the 19th century. MUCH less than Romania's 5 centuries.
French speaking Romanian authors are not that good of a reference.NeroN_BG
Quote: Serbia's share in the Balkan peninsula is about 2/3, which is a majority. However most of its population lives in the north, in the former Austro-Hungarian part of the country, which could not even remotely apply to Romania.
Some corrections:
Regarding Serbia
Serbia (excluding Kosovo) has a population of 7.4 million people and a surface area of 77.400 square km.
Vojvodina (which belongs to Central Europe) has a population of just over 2 million and a surface area of 21.500 square km.
Therefore about 27% of the Serbians (excluding Kosovo) live in Vojvodina (Central Europe) and not more than half like you claim.
And also Vojvodina is about 28% of Serbia (excluding Kosovo) and not a third like you claim.
Regarding Romania
Transylvania and Bukovina are part of Central Europe and they account for 36% of the population and for 46.1% of the surface area of Romania.
Neron, removal of well-referenced, relevant material from an Oxford University Press is not OK. You also messed up another reference, a classification by Jerzy Kłoczowski. If you want to add new stuff, do it without deleting what you don't like and messing up others' work.
Squash Racket, it's true that the European macroregions don't have precise borders. There are still enogh quoting about Romania's localtion in Central Europe, even if we exclude Magocsi's work. I woul like to propose this map that include the Baltic states as well as the benelux states too (they are sources for this claim too). If you want to, we can change the intensity of the colours too: verry dark red for countries taht are always regarded as Central European (Germany, Austria, Poland, Czech, Slovakia), dark red for countries that are most often considered to be C.E. (Hungary, Slovenia, Sweitzerland), light red for regions (not countries) that are regarded as C.E. (Northern Croatia, Vojvodina, Transylvania, Bukovina, Western Ukraine), very light red for regions taht are only occasionally regarded as CE (southern Croatia, other regions of Romania, the Baltic states, the Benelux-states).--Olahus (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
@ NeroN_BG: Wallachia and Moldavia always existed during the last 8 centuries, while Serbia didn't exist for many hundred years until 1817 when it got a status that Wallachia and Moldavia never have lost. Wallachia (since 1415) and Moldavia (since 1498) have been tributary states where the Turks (and generally the Muslims) were never allowed to settle. Meanwhile, the christians of other confessions than Orthodox were allowed to live there, and almost every city had a consistent Roman-Catholic population (Csango's, Poles and Germans in Moldavia: Baia, Targu Neamt, Cotnari, Suceava, Bacau, Roman, Siret; Germans in Wallachia: Campulung Muscel, Ramnicu Valcea, Targoviste, Cutea de Arges). They influenced those county so much that many orthodox churces got a Gothic influence see here and here and here), this is something unique in the orthodox world. Serbia was conquered up to 1389/1459 (don't tell me abou Zeta and Bosnia, they're not located in present-day Serbia) and the state didn't continue to exist because it was completely included into the Ottoman Empire, as a Pashaluk/Sandzak/Villajet. It became an Ottoman province and it had the same history as other states in the Balkan Peninsula and large regions became islamized. It was occupied together with Lesser Wallachia by the Austrian Empire between 1718-1739 but it didn't left any traces in the country. Serbia (as well as Bulgaria) got an important Russian cultural influence (caused by the panslavistic movements of that time), while Romania got such influences from France.--Olahus (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
You must be joking with your proposed map. I won't even comment on it. But probably an RFC is needed or an admin should sort this out as "discussion" with you doesn't really lead anywhere.
Regarding the German references about Mitteleuropa:
According to Fritz FischerMitteleuropa was a scheme in the era of the Reich of 1871-1918 by which the old imperial elites had allegedly sought to build a system of German economic, military and political domination from the northern seas to the Near East and from the Low Countries through the steppes of Russia to the Caucasus.[1] Professor Fritz Epstein argued the threat of a Slavic "Drang nach Westen" (Western expansion) had been a major factor in the emergence of a Mitteleuropa ideology before the Reich of 1871 ever came into being.[2]
So let's just stick to English, secondary sources about Central Europe instead of German ones about Mitteleuropa. The two are not really the same.
If you believe that the term Mitteleuropa is not the same with Central Europe, tell me please how would you translate Central Europe into German? It's like saying that "Mittelamerika" ist not the same with "Central America". Every German-English dictionary translates the German term "Mitteleuropa" with "Central Europe". Fischer explaned what Mitteleuropa have been before 1918, but what's about the time after 1918? I totaly disagree with this map because it's POV-ish. Sorry, but the map is really worthless and I already explaned it enough during the last days. Scooter's map is fine. --Olahus (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I had mediated over part of the dispute that led to the "proposal" version. The problem was that there were a large collection of sources. Some countries were universally accepted as "Central Europe"- every source listed them. Others were only in some of the sources. The eventual agreement was to say that "Central Europe generally includes... and sometimes is also extended to..." That's where the this map came from- the accepted states are in dark red, and the "sometimes" states (Romania and Croatia) are in a lighter red. I believe the new shaded-red map is OR, because the sources aren't splitting countries; e.g., either "Romania" appears in the list of countries, or it doesn't. If we make the map cover parts of countries, even if it's the part of a contested country that is adjacent to the accepted country, this Wikipedia article is creating a new definition that isn't derived from sources. By definition, that's OR. We need to report what sources say only. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Not really. Most of the sources Olahus presented refer to Mitteleuropa, a very broad definition containing numerous other countries besides Romania:
According to Fritz FischerMitteleuropa was a scheme in the era of the Reich of 1871-1918 by which the old imperial elites had allegedly sought to build a system of German economic, military and political domination from the northern seas to the Near East and from the Low Countries through the steppes of Russia to the Caucasus.[3] Professor Fritz Epstein argued the threat of a Slavic "Drang nach Westen" (Western expansion) had been a major factor in the emergence of a Mitteleuropa ideology before the Reich of 1871 ever came into being.[4]
He simply didn't mention that Mitteleuropa is so large, he singled out Romania in a bit POV-ish way.
English references consider Transylvania a part of Central Europe as part of the former Kingdom of Hungary and later Austria-Hungary, but Romania is added only to Mitteleuropa which is depicted as an expansionist German ideology or scheme in the above quote from an English source.
This map showing "Mitteleuropa" was recently linked by a Serbian editor to prove that Serbia is part of Central Europe. So I'd say, if English, secondary sources use the term "Mitteleuropa" with a different meaning to Central Europe, let's focus on what English, secondary sources actually say about Central Europe.
Probably when Germans want to differentiate between the historically-politically loaded "Mitteleuropa" ideology and the region of "Central Europe" they use "Zentraleuropa" instead, though others consider these synonyms.
As Mitteleuropa is such a controversial concept/ideology, I think using English, secondary sources explicitly dealing with Central Europe is even more important than in other cases. Squash Racket (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Squash Racket, I already cited Fritz Fischer 15 lines above and I already answered you. So, please stop this spam. Every German-English dictionary translates the German term "Mitteleuropa" with the English term "Central Europe". See here and here and here and here and here --Olahus (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
From the book Central Europe:
Some German speakers are sensitive enough to the pejorative connotations of the term Mitteleuropa to use Zentraleuropa instead.[5]
So unless we have a proper deep analysis about Mitteleuropa I'd drop German passing references (like dictionaries, pocket encyclopedias etc.) on the subject especially when we have enough English, secondary sources containing real analysis. Mitteleuropa is a controversial, ambiguous concept. Squash Racket (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It's completely wrong see my answer from the Request for comment - I mean the edit from 15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)- --Olahus (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm..I didn't edit anything at that time. So your answer below somehow overwrites an Oxford University Press reference? Squash Racket (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Request for comment
A request for comment on maps of Central Europe. —harej 03:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Map of the core countries of Central Europe + Croatia, Romania, a state-based approach not including historical regions/lands. Based on the above mentioned poll. The "sometimes" countries marked with light red are included based on German references to Mitteleuropa, but this ambiguous concept/ideology/scheme may refer to other countries/regions depending on the source (for example see next map). (drawn by User:Olahus)
Map of Mitteleuropa: contains the states and regions marked on User:Scooter20's map + Istria and the Baltic states (hope I haven't missed anything). Based on a map by the Ständigen Ausschuss für geographische Namen (StAGN), a German federal scientific committee with a geographical focus. Mitteleuropa as an expansionist ideology/scheme for German domination from the time of the German Empire and later Nazi Germany might cover larger territory than that. (added by User:NordNordWest)
These are the relevant attempts so far, but these are only here to indicate the problem. As obviously the definition is not totally exact, there could be hundreds of other similar maps created. Please add your comments, suggestions, new maps below. Squash Racket (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The only question here is: does the German term "Mitteleuropa" mean the same thing with Central Europe? My answer is: YES, because every German-English dictionary translates the German term "Mitteleuropa" with the English term "Central Europe". See here and here and here and here and here and so on... --Olahus (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Some German speakers are sensitive enough to the pejorative connotations of the term Mitteleuropa to use Zentraleuropa instead.[6]
So unless we have a proper deep analysis about Mitteleuropa I'd drop German passing references (like dictionaries and the like) on the subject especially when we have enough English secondary sources about Central Europe.
"Map of the core countries of Central Europe" is the best referenced map that we have of the narrow definition of the region. (Update:There is actually an uploaded version without blurred borders, I changed the link.)
A broader definition of Central Europe results in something like Scooter20's map which is to me similarly acceptable as such. Squash Racket (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The blue map is a bit antiquated, because it doesn't include the changes that came from the mediation. The red/light red map was the one based off of the standing agreement. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Squash Racket, your disputes with Romanian editors are well-known in Wikipedia (especially on the articles Transylvania and Csangos)and even here you are trying to remove Romania from the article though you know that most of the sources brought by me are realiable. Most of the sources brought by me are German because I live in Germany and I have mostly German books available. So then, you are trying to say that only English source are reliable and after I explaned you that this is a nonsense because there is no rule in Wikipedia that rejects foreign language sources, now you try to discredit the German term "Mitteleuropa" because most of my sources are German, but as you can see, the term Mitteleuropa is almost always perceived positive and 87% of the web pages prefer to use the term Mitteleuropa instead of 13% for Zentraleuropa (1,810,000 hits for Mitteleuropa and 280,000 hits for Zentraleuropa). I also proved you that every German-English dictionary translates "Mitteleuropa" with "Central Europe". Furthermore, I also presented the English-laguage NATO-source and the French source (by Paul Vidal de la Blache, Lucien Gallois and Emmanuel de Martonne) who also say that Romania is a Central European County, but you behave as if I wouldn't ever present those sources and you insist to fashion a map that says that does absolutely not mention Romania - as if Romania would never be considered Central European (therefore, you insist to put Romania in the same pot with other countries that are never regarded as Central European - Spain, Russian, Greece, Sweden etc. It's a true nonsense what you are trying to do here). So, Squash Racket, I ask you politely to assume good faith while editing in wikipedia. Keep a level head and leave your disputes with Romanian editors behind. --Olahus (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop the personal attacks please, especially coming from an editor who was already topic banned once because of disruptive behavior and numerous times blocked for edit warring, block evasion, wikistalking and tag team revert warring. I was editing the articles Transylvania and Csangos a while back, that's true. Excuse me, why is that a problem?
There is a narrow definition of Central Europe which is depicted in map No.1 very well even according to Proposal II. The map of Mitteleuropa was drawn by a German federal committee called Ständigen Ausschuss für geographische Namen (StAGN) and according to its German article (linked) geographical societies, ministries, academies etc, are represented in it. I guess the map is acceptable as a modern interpretation of the Mitteleuropa concept. And for some reason they only included Transylvania on that map.
Yes, we generally accept foreign sources, but:
the problem is — as shown by English sources — that the term is politically loaded and as in the era of the German Empire and Nazi Germany it meant a German expansionist ideology/a scheme for German domination, and it is now an ambiguous, controversial term.
I think the term "Karpatenländer" as part of Mitteleuropa includes Serbia and Ukraine too
other sources cited above refer to strange concepts like "Sudetisch-karpatisches Zentraleuropa"(?)
but a map based on a broad or "old" definition of Mitteleuropa would include other countries besides Romania and Croatia as a Serbian editor pointed out above
NATO is military organization, not a scholarly, neutral one; it had interest in showing Romania integrated into Europe as much as possible and Ro became a member since
there are enough English, secondary sources about Central Europe, which definitely overwrite German tertiary sources, pocket encyclopedias, dictionaries etc.
deep analysis overwrites passing references
As I said Scooter20's map too is acceptable to me. Squash Racket (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Saw the RFC. Regardless of whether we believe pejorative connotations for Mitteleuropa, it includes the Baltics while "Central Europe" does not. "Mitteleuropa" is a historical term while "Central Europe" is a geographic term. We should be arguing whether the two are the same (question posed in the RFC request). Magocsi's "Historical Atlas of Central Europe" has a rather cogent discussion on what that geographical term means, apologies I don't have the bandwidth to reproduce, perhaps someone else does. PetersVTALK 17:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It's true that in English texts "Mitteleuropa" is a historical term, but in German texts is has the same meaning as the English term Central Europe and it is a Geographical term. (see here and here and here). --Olahus (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Squash Racket, the fact that you mention my former (and all of them expired) blocks and topic bans are clear prooves of personal attacks of you against me, because you are trying to discredit me toward other users with things that have abosulte no relation to the issue we have here. I strongly hope, there is an adiministrator here to read those slanders of you against my person.
Concerning the source from the information from the Ständiger Ausschuss für geographische Namen (StAGN), I will cite you directy from the text of the article where this map was created from: "Der Ständige Ausschuss für geographische Namen (StAGN) ist das für die Standardisierung geographischer Namen zuständige Gremium im deutschen Sprachraum. Er ist ein selbstständiges wissenschaftliches Gremium ohne hoheitliche Funktionen mit Sitz im Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie in Frankfurt am Main. I know this source too and I accept it, but we cannot say that this source is the only valid. This source only prooves again what I already said. Romania is sometimes considered to be Central European - not always. Baut what you are trying to do is to exclude Romania completely, as if it would never be included to Central Europe. This is the nonsense that you are trying to impose. There is no wikipedia rule that gives you the right to impose your POV disregarding reliable sources.
I also prooved you that the term ist not politically loaded in the German speaking world. The term was also used in the 1930's and 1940's, but today not. In 87% of the German sourced it is used, even the source from the Ständiger Ausschuss für geographische Namen uses it.
The definition about the "Karpatenländer" doesn't mention Serbia and Ukraine.
The concept "Sudetisch-karpatisches Zentraleuropa" is not strage, it desigantes some countries located within the Carpathian arch: Czechoslovakia, Romania, and the county located more or less between them:Romania . And very interesting is that the source is from 1935. So, as you can see, the term "Zentraleuropa" was used in the Nazi-era too.
I don't see any definition of Central Europe on this site mentioned by you, there is nowhere to read which countries should be redarded as Central European and which should be excluded.
NATO is an official source and a reliable one too. You say that "had interest in showing Romania integrated into Europe as much as possible" - please tell me what makes you believe that presenting Romania as central European, it is "presented as integrated in Europe"? I don't see any sense here. Maybe you could explane us this personal point of view that you have.
Sure. And my sources are reliable too, and they belong to all the possible categories.
"Deep analysis overwrites passing references." - yes, but not original researches, which you seen to inpose here. --Olahus (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
A topic ban is a FACT, blocks are FACTS, negative assumptions about me and my editing at other articles without presenting facts are called personal attacks. Nevermind the minor fact that it was User:Olahus who attacked me instead of commenting on the topic and I just answered with a few FACTS.
the map of the German committee includes Transylvania, not Romania; and I didn't say I fully accept this source, I only say this seems to be a modern interpretation of Mitteleuropa, not one from the era of the German Empire or Nazi Germany; on the contrary, I suggest disregarding German sources on this topic as I don't see usually how they separate the modern and the historical interpretation as all I get here is passing references
the term in English is politically loaded as can be seen in English references and this is still the English Wikipedia (BTW the English source clearly mentions the negative connotations among German speakers)
the cited definition only mentions Karpatenländer and the Carpathian Mountains are in Serbia and the Ukraine too
the concept "Südetisch-karpatisches Zentraleuropa" is not strange, but definitely fringe
it's only a map, not a definition, here's a definition of Mitteleuropa as a German expansionist ideology:from the northern seas to the Near East and from the Low Countries through the steppes of Russia to the Caucasus
NATO is military organization, not a scholarly, neutral one; it had interest in showing Romania integrated into Europe as much as possible and Ro became a member since
Deep analysis overwrites passing references — it wasn't me who was "Ha ha ha!" laughing at an Oxford University Press reference specifically written about Central Europe in the thread just above while relying on German pocket encyclopedias at the same time. Squash Racket (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Squash Racket, you are the one whjo started to bring personal attacks against me and accosing me to make false reffereings. And I repeat: my expired blockings from the past are not related to this topic, you mention them onyl to damage my reputation and therefore, this is a personal attack of you against me. The English source says that some Germans speakery dislike the term Mitteleuropa. But, as I have proove to you 87% accept it. And please be kind and explain me exactly why you believe that the concept "Südetisch-karpatisches Zentraleuropa" fringes. Concerning the expansionist ideology, we don't have reasons to believe that this term was also used after WW2. Maybe before (and even then only sometimes), but definatly not after tha fall of the Nazi-regime. And for sure not today. Concerning the NATO-source, you still counldn't explain me why you believe that this organization is interested to show Romania as much as possible integrated in Europe, but mostly why do you believe that a country would look as better integrated into Europe if it is presented as Central European? Concerning the book from the Oxford University Press (everytime you insist to link those 3 words to the related article in order to influence the reader's opinion): the book says that the Romanian people is living to the west of the Carpathians - well that ist as much strange as funny. Very funny. And very wrong. --Olahus (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
A topic ban is a FACT, blocks are FACTS, negative assumptions about me and my editing at other articles without presenting facts are called personal attacks. Nevermind the minor fact that it was User:Olahus who attacked me instead of commenting on the topic and I just answered with a few FACTS.Besides that I initiated this RFC to get third opinion, 3 of the 4 maps in my proposal were created by Romanian editors. I support map No.1 and map No.2, both of which were created by Romanian editors. So much about that...
I suggest disregarding German sources on this topic as I don't see usually how they separate the modern and the historical interpretation as all I get here is passing references, don't even know from which time period; the two seem to mix
the term in English is politically loaded as can be seen in English references and this is still the English Wikipedia (BTW the English source clearly mentions the negative connotations among German speakers)
the cited definition only mentions Karpatenländer and the Carpathian Mountains are in Serbia and the Ukraine too
the concept "Südetisch-karpatisches Zentraleuropa" is not strange, but definitely fringe
a definition of Mitteleuropa as a German expansionist ideology:from the northern seas to the Near East and from the Low Countries through the steppes of Russia to the Caucasus
NATO is military organization, not a scholarly, neutral one; it had interest in showing Romania integrated into Europe as much as possible and Ro became a member since; it wouldn't look "better", it would look less Balkanic; if you say Romania is Central European, Russia is less likely to object; BTW NATO refers to South-East Central Europe and the Balkan Peninsula, so it's not fully clear whether they talk about Southeast Europe or East Central Europe, but the Balkan Peninsula is clearly mentioned; it also says "the intra-Carpathian space, opening to Central Europe", to me that sounds like they talk about Transylvania, not the whole of Romania
Deep analysis overwrites passing references — it wasn't me who was "Ha ha ha!" laughing at an Oxford University Press reference specifically written about Central Europe in the thread just above while relying on German pocket encyclopedias and obscure websites like bizcity.ro/ and prologiseurope.com as decisive references at the same time. Squash Racket (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Squash Racket, you already wrote it and I already wrote the answer for thos issues. The discussions on this theme will only constitute further in copy/paste edits. We must try to come somehow to a progress. --Olahus (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
(drop in via rfc) To answer the question whether Mitteleuropa and Central Europe are the same: They are and at the same time they are not:
Mitteleuropa as a scientific historiographical term, esp. in English, is different from Central Europe
Mitteleuropa as a casual term is the German equivalent of English Central Europe. The majority of Germans does not know about the early 20th century concept and uses "Mitteleuropa" the same way Anglophones use "Central Europe".
Regarding the definition of borders: As the controversy eg above shows (i.e. differing sources, not differing editor opinions), there are no clearly defined borders, especially to the East. The article should simply state who said when how CE is defined, and the maps should be captioned accordingly, instead of trying to find a solution. --Skäpperöd (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Squash Racket, now concerning the NATO-source: how do you come to the conclusion that a country would "look better" if it is described a "Central European" instead of Balkanic? I don't know exactly what you mean. But let's return now to the sentences where teh term "Balkan" is used to describe Romania's position. I cite you from the NATO-page: "Romania is located in South-East Central Europe, north of the Balkan Peninsula, on the Lower Danube, within and outside the Carpathian arch, bordering on the Black Sea. It lies between 43º 37' 07" and 48º 15' 06" latitude north and 20º 15' 44" and 29º 41' 24" longitude east. The parallel of 45º north latitude (midway between the Equator and the North Pole) crosses Romania 70 km north of the capital, and the meridian of 25º east longitude (midway between the shore of the Atlantic and the Ural Mountains) passes 90 km west of Bucharest. Romania is situated at the contact of Central Europe with Eastern Europe and the Balkan Peninsula, at the junction of major west-east and north-south European routes. Three elements have decisively marked the destiny of this area: the Carpathian Mountains, the Lower Danube and the opening to the Black Sea. With their arched form, the Carpathians determined the position of three big historical regions -- the intra-Carpathian space, opening to Central Europe, the area east of the mountains, opening to the North Pontic steppes and the one south of the mountains, facing the Balkan Peninsula. The Danube (Europe’s second longest river), which separates the Carpathian area from the Balkan world, has always provided a connection between Central Europe and the Black Sea, and has opened a gate towards the Mediterranean and the eastern world. Therefore, Romania equally belongs with the Danubian and the Black Sea states, its territory constituting a bridge between Central and Southeastern Europe and the Near East." Now my answer: take a look on this map. As you can see, the Balkan Peninsula is located south of the Danube and it is very true that Romania shares also a small part of the Balkan Peninsula (more precise: Northern Dobruja or 6% of Romania's surface). But Romania is located mostly outside the Balkan Peninsula. --Olahus (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
it also says "the intra-Carpathian space, opening to Central Europe", to me that sounds like they talk about Transylvania, not the whole of Romania
Regardless of that NATO is a military organization, not a scholarly, neutral one; it had interest in showing Romania integrated into Europe as much as possible and Ro became a member since. (As I noted above.) Squash Racket (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Recent Changes
I don't know what Olahus is trying to do... Well I do know actually... the changes he is bringing in are a result of research from a biased agenda - to have Romania included in as many sources as possible in Central Europe. Some of the sources are insignificant, compared to others which would carry greater weight that are excluded. I disagree that Mitteleuropa and Central Europe are the same terms. They both carry different connotations, and should be not be considered the same. While I don't have time to read the above debate, I am just posting this to tell people that we have gone through this before. We have voted down Olahus' past attempts of turning this page into one full of original research, full of POV, and completely biased. I have reverted this page to the copy a day or so before Olahus began his changes. I personally wish he would stop, because this is getting old. We have gone through months arguing this, and it seems now that it has gone somewhat quiet here, he thinks he can try to institute his agenda again. This is just getting sad and this article's credibility is at risk. On a different note - this discussion page is getting too long - perhaps someone could archive bits of it? :) --Buffer v2 (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose I should also mention that we have reached CONSENSUS in the past regarding this topic, and a proposal was agreed on by all editors here, that if we are to institute major changes to the article (which I see Olahus doing), it must be approved of by other editors (or we will resort back to edit warring, which none of us want). If you are new to this article, feel free to look at the history of this discussion page... You'll see that we are going in circles again, and the only person here standing in the way of the credibility of this article is Olahus. I don't like pin pointing people personally, but here, it's far too obvious that Olahus is not respecting the users here, and is going against Wikipedia policies (NPOV, original research), and is completely biased in his dealings on this page. His past actions prove it. Please do not let this article fall victim to his games. --Buffer v2 (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Buffer v2, I only want to say that Romania is sometimes included to Central Europe too. And by far not always. And without sources it is not possible. Most of the sources I brought are relioable. So, where is the problem then? --Olahus (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
We must also establish if we should include or not a map on the top of the article. And if we do, then which map? I would rather say that maps should appear only associated to a definition. If we still put a map on the top of the article, then we should choose one that corresponds to the text from the top of the article. --Olahus (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
We don't need to bring up Romania again- at MEDCAB everyone agreed to say it was "sometimes" included, which is how the "States" section is worded. The MEDCAB showed a number of sources showing both- see WP:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22 Central Europe#Sources that underline and legitimize Proposal II.. A good example of an English source is this map by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Simply put, there are acceptable sources on either side. Let's keep the discussion on the new maps that are to be included. I'd propose sticking with File:Central Europe (proposal 2).PNG, because it matches the consensus wording. Keep in mind that a map showing part of a country would need a source saying that part of the country is included. If there is one, great, but as I recall the sources being debated were maps or lists of countries, which don't divide below the national level. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
And you bring a map to illustrate your point that includes Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania too (besides Croatia and Romania). The CIA map doesn't exactly match Proposal II to say the least. (BTW this means that this map is a mistake or is it from an older version of the Factbook?)
The link to the mediation lacks most sources on one side. I guess Britannica and Encarta overwrites dubious sources like German pocket encyclopedias and I don't see them mentioned there. Historically the former territory of the Kingdom of Hungary is counted as a Central European territory, so it's not difficult to find sources — I mean real, English, secondary sources — supporting Transylvania, Vojvodina, Zakarpattia Oblast and Croatia. Which means probably it was a mistake to base the definition on a controversial state-based approach, when the "sometimes included" territories rather correspond to historical regions, not modern states.
In a controversial issue reliable, English, secondary references overwrite, not complement foreign language sources. We do accept non-English sources if:
no English sources are available (clearly not the case here)
the issue is not controversial (look at this talk page and decide for yourself).
English sources only overwrite foreign-language sources when its a choice between sources making the same claim; the only policy dealing with them is WP:VUE. Besides, my point wasn't to argue for inclusion or exclusion of anything, it was to point out that this issue is long settled. The decision was made a long time ago how to handle the multiple sources, and it was done with a broad range of editors. The potential dubiousness of sources was already discussed. This discussion began about the inclusion of the new maps, and whether they constitute original research. That's what we should be discussing here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality
We have English, secondary sources about Central Europe, which are of higher (not just equal) quality than foreign language tertiary sources. Even if we examine encyclopedias, we do so by reading Britannica or Encarta, not Meyers Lexicon and the like. Admins I've dealt with so far very quickly dismissed non-English sources if English sources stated something otherwise. They are wrong?
I think the map is from 1996. This is the only source that considers all the former commnunist states (plus Austria and the entire Germany, minus the Soviet Union) to be Central European. We can include them, and mention that they appear in a lone and proeminent source. I believe that this is the only source that includes the entire Balkan Peninsula (minus Greece) to Central Europe. If I am wrong, correct me please. --Olahus (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
And is there some explanation anywhere how did this map was created or this is just another passing reference? Squash Racket (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I have issues with the CIA source... as who knows how much thought or research was put into it. It could have been made as a mode of classification for the CIA for whatever reason, but I don't think the creators of the map dug deep enough to actually give an accurate representation of Central Europe. But, since I have seen a few sources including all countries from the Eastern Bloc, minus the new Soviet states and Greece, I am okay with adding it as a side note - but not as a major definition, which we agreed on MONTHS ago with concensus. I also have a huge problem with using German sources as do the people above me. Mitteleuropa and Central have different connotations and we cannot assume that they are the same unless there is an explicit reliable source stating that there is a direct link there (that Germany's view of Middle Europe coincides with the English-speaking view of Central Europe). But I'm very skeptical of this assumed link, and think all German references to Middle Europe should be removed (it has its own page on the English wikipedia anyways, which would imply that there is a difference). And because there are COUNTLESS ideas of what constitutes Central Europe, I fear that by including some (Olahus' proposed sources), that we are ignoring others, which may be more widespread and commonly accepted.. in that way, this page becomes original research and biased. So really, I think we need to limit the number of sources going onto this page (regarding the major definition of Central Europe) - limit it to the encyclopedias, the UN, whatever... which we did in the proposal that resulted in the definition we have in the "States" section. Those are my concerns, and I believe they are valid. --Buffer v2 (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Specific sources aside, that's exactly what I'm saying. There was a map that followed the proposal, using different shades for the "always" and "sometimes" states. Since no changes have been made to the proposal, we should keep the matching map. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, but all those specific German sources added by Olahus should not be there... and not only because of the language. Like I said, they are a result of search bias, and because of countless numbers of definitions of Central Europe, we are probably ignoring other more prominently accepted definitions... so this article's credibility is at risk. --Buffer v2 (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Jeremy, I took a closer look at the mediation, and to my surprise you were mediating the case. It would have been nice to know that, now I understand some of your comments better:
Besides, my point wasn't to argue for inclusion or exclusion of anything, it was to point out that this issue is long settled.
Would it be a problem if we reopened the case as now a fringe view seems to be overemphasized in the article? Do we have a problem with the maps or rather with the definition that was mediated?
Romania in English sources:
HIV/AIDS in Southeastern Europe: Case Studies from Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania; by Thomas E. Novotny, Dominic Haazen, Olusoji Adeyi; published by World Bank Publications; ISBN9780821354834
NATO after 2000: the future of the Euro-Atlantic Alliance by John Borawski, Thomas-Durell Young; published by Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001; ISBN9780275971793, p. 95:Southeast Europe Initiative (SEEI) of NATO: Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia and Croatia.
Europe unites: the EU's eastern enlargement by Peter A. Poole, published by Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003; ISBN9780275977047; p. 93, chapter 7:Romania and Bulgaria: Seeking to stabilize Southeast Europe
Southeast European Times: sponsored by the US European Command, a central source of news and information about Southeastern Europe in ten languages: Albanian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Croatian, English, Greek, Macedonian, Romanian, Serbian and Turkish.
I don't know how many sources do you need to to say that something we deal with is a fringe view. Squash Racket (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Emmanuel de Martonne: a French geographer adding Romania to Central Europe seven years after the formation of the Little Entente? Well... Do we need references from 1927 here? Squash Racket (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay I just re-read the whole discussion which has been going on for nearly two weeks... Sorry, I seemed to have misunderstood the issue. Let me state what I support... Leaving the major definition (the "always" group, and "sometimes" group of Croatia and Romania) alone... it must stay unless someone makes a new proposal, and a majority vote in favour of it... anyone is free to do that, but without consensus, it should not change. Number two - Concerning the maps, I am okay with the 'green' one currently up, but with that said, I much rather prefer the 'red' one with the fading colors. 3) My biggest problem is the 8 new maps that I believe Olahus added. I've discussed my reasons above (that was what my postings in this discussion topic of "Recent Changes" focused on... but perhaps I am going off topic here? Can anyone comment on their opinions about the new 8 maps added? And I apologize to Olahus for my comments directed at him.. I looked at a few of the comments above, and got the wrong idea... --Buffer v2 (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I did add the map of the Visegrád Group and the map based on the definition of Columbia Encyclopedia, but just to balance it a bit as the obscure sources somehow made it into the gallery. And references in the gallery from the 1920s, 1950s, 1960s?
You can't have the red one with the fading colors, because it is not exactly based on the Proposal II definition.
If we have a map, it should be either based on the core countries or on the core countries+historical regions (that's the green map). The problem is the state-based Proposal II itself, because the map based on it overemphasizes Romania and Croatia, though neither countries are regarded as Central European by mainstream sources. The state-based approach gives an absolutely false impression, disregards Vojvodina and Zakarpattia Oblast, while includes Wallachia, Moldavia and Istria, regions less likely to be depicted as Central European. Squash Racket (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The basic question is wether the composition of Central Europe is state-based or rather province-based. Is we follow the state-based paradigm Romania, Croatia, Ukraine are all out of Central Europe and Switzerland, Slovenia, Hungary in Central Europe. On the other hand with a province-based composition, Italian Switzerland (Tessin and parts of Grisons and Wallis) and Istria (both Slovenian and Croatian) are Southern Europe. Slavonia, Banat, Transylvania, Bukovina etc are Central Europe.--Arnaldo Mauri (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
To all the participants at this discussion: this talk page seems to look like a forum page. Moreover, everybody is trying to impose an original definition of Central Europe. But nobody seems to understand that Central Europe does not have precise borders. The definitions of Central Europe are extremely different, starting from the Mutton-definition and ending to the Economist-definition. If we compare those two versions, we see that only the Czech Republic is regarded as Central European by both of them. --Olahus (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you don't understand what I mean: some users are trying here to make an original research by analyzing an amount of sources. We can cite every source we want, but we are not allowed to post our personal conclusions in the article. We cannot know by how many percentages every country is regarded as Central European. It's simply impossible. We may say that the definition of Brockhaus ist very common (maybe the most common too?) - though this is also somehow POV-ish, because we cannot proove why we believe this. All the answers we have are the results of original researches and conclusions of our personal perception. By the way, what makes you believe that De Martonne's work is dated or unreliable? Which Wikiepdia rule did you led to this conclusion? And concerning the pririty of English toward foreign-language-sources, I think you misinterpret something: this rule does not establish the priority of reliablity of English sources, but only the demand to use the English version of a source. For example: if we cite from a web page and this web page is multi-lingual (German, English, French), we should cite rather from the Enghish version then from the German or French. If a book was translated from a foreign language into English, we should use the English version in the citation instead of the original version if possible. --Olahus (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you misinterpret this rule:
Because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality
It says English sources are preferred. I hope you don't say that the majority of admins misinterpret the rule? They tend to dismiss all non-English sources when it comes to controversial topics like this one.
A French guy making claims about Central Europe 7 years after the formation of the Little Entente is hardly acceptable. Just as I wouldn't accept references about Mitteleuropa from the 1930s. Chance that it's historically-politically biased, wrong to use it here. Squash Racket (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
You misinterpret the rule, Squash Racket. This rule doesn't say that the enumeration of the definitions should show the English sources first. This rule says that e.g. if we we would have an English source (a translation or an English-written work about it) about de Martonne's point of view, we should preffer the English source. Be sure that the admins interpret wery well this rule. You are the one who misinterpret it.
Besides, Emmanuel de Martonne is not just a "french guy", as you rudely call him, but one of the best known French geographer. You can say about you that you are a "hungarian guy", but E. de Martonne was first of all a top-ranking French scientist. --Olahus (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
You absolutely misinterpret the rule, Olahus. Especially in controversial cases, English sources are preferred, but feel free to ask an admin. Squash Racket (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
An administrator already took a position in this issue. --Olahus (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Then why don't you know the answer? Squash Racket (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Whoi said that I don't know the answer. You are the one who misinterpret it. --Olahus (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you don't know the answer and misinterpret the rule. ALL admins I've met so far very quickly disregarded non-English sources especially on controversial topics when English references were available. So I think you misinterpret the rule. Squash Racket (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that I misinterpret the rule. But, please, give me an example of such a sitation.
However, I rather believe that the maps and the sources should be mentioned in a chronological order. --Olahus (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you fully misinterpret the rule. We won't add more than 100-year-old maps of Mitteleuropa as a German expansionist ideology just to support your POV.
Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber.
Olahus, you are completely misinterpreting the rule... Squash Racket is 100% right. But regardless of what the rule states about the use of languages: unless you can find a source that DIRECTLY states there is a connection between Mitteleuropa and Central Europe, German sources should not be used. I STRONGLY believe that they have different connotative meanings. Although they may literally translate from one to the other, that doesn't mean anything. This is a very controversial topic, with no hard definition. You are making a pure ASSUMPTION (which is POV) by assuming that Mitteleuropa=Central Europe, and that is messing with the integrity of this page. Besides, a Mitteleuropa article already exists on Wikipedia.. that implies a difference. Feel free to add your Mitteleuropa sources there - but I don't think they belong here. --Buffer v2 (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Squash Racket, I seriosly wonder why you believe that Andrees Handatlas is a German expansionist work. I rather believe you don't have any logical reasons to believe this. Concerning WP:CITE, as I already said: this rule specifies that we should preffer English-written sorces instead of foreign language of equal caliber. For example, this webpage is written in 10 langauges. All the articles are indentical, so they are of equal caliber, and if we cite an article from this page we should use the version written in English, not in one of the other 9 languages.
Buffer v2, if you have a German-English (or English-German) dictionary at home, please see how the term "Mitteleuropa" is translated into English. See also how the English term "Central Europe" is translated into German. --Olahus (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
A 1902 source from the time when Mitteleuropa meant a German expansionist ideology is likely not acceptable in any way. I think that's pretty logical to anyone.
"Equal caliber" means don't use an English low quality website article over a non-English high quality secondary source. Or the admins are wrong when they always beg to use English sources especially in controversial cases. Squash Racket (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Squash Racket, don't write about things you have not the slightest idea. Richard Andree was an internationally appreciated Geographer and not a German political propagandist.--Olahus (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the "equal caliber": if you believe that why don't you give an example? --Olahus (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Olahus, please don't write about things you have not the slightest idea. Mitteleuropa was a German expansionist ideology at the time, so a German source from that time is unacceptable.
An example: an English throwaway website doesn't overwrite a Danish academic level research, but an English reliable source does enjoy preference. Squash Racket (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
How does Larousse refer to Hungary or Poland? Just wondering... Squash Racket (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hold on, you are accusing the geographer Richard Andree of German expansionism, and this is unacceptable. Richard Andree determined the Central European charachter by Geographical features. I will cite you again how he defines Romania "Rumänien gehört zu den Landschaften, die den Übergang von Mittel- nach Osteuropa vermitteln". Richared Andree was an internationally apreciated Geographer. The early editions of the Times Atlas of the World (1895-1900) are based on Andrees Handatlas. Andree also continued the editorship of the Globus (1891-1903). Hungary and Poland are reffered as countries of Eastern Europe (État d'Europe orientale) by Larousse. --Olahus (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
And according to this map published by National Geographic, Hungary is a balkanic country. --Olahus (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether that map by Nat Geo is the full map, they forgot to include all of Greece. I don't think that was serious by the way. They also wrote down your original research or it's just a map? I hope you realize it contains parts of Italy, Austria, and Slovakia too.
OK, the Larousse map is OK, apparently they pushed Central Europe a bit westward. It is still a non-English source.
I'm only saying that the German guy lived in an era when Mitteleuropa meant a German expansionist ideology. Was he able to separate his thinking from that? Do we care? Are there not enough fresh, reliable English sources that we need to include him? We even have English sources about Mitteleuropa of that time, so the source is simply outdated. Squash Racket (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The map from National Geographic expressly include Hungary. If you look on the right side of the map, under the words "Black sea", you will also se a listing of Hungary's countries, something you won't find about Austria or Italy. Besides, Hungary is represented entirely in the map. However, I separated in the article the works from 1902 and 1927. --Olahus (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting. It's not an exact map of the Balkans, and that's enough.
Works from the 1950s and 1960s are also only of historical significance. Squash Racket (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you seem to have no idea about how maps are created. If you see a map of the Iberian Peninsula, you surely will also see some borders of Morocco, that doesn't mean that it is a Iberian country. Huh, why sould works from the 1950s and 1960s have a historical significance? Where does history end from your point of view? --Olahus (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you seem to have no idea how maps are created. If I want to create a reliable map of the Balkans I'd include Greece, and not include Hungary, Austria, Italy, Slovakia etc. OR if I do so, I'd add a definition of the Balkans. Did they add a definition? I mean this is NAT GEO, they probably wrote there something.
The last great change in the concept of Central Europe was the fall of Communism, so pre-1990 sources are historical, afterwards we call them recent works. Besides that pre-1990 works may interfere with other concepts like Little Entente, Mitteleuropa, East Central Europe etc.
The National Geographic map is not about Italy, Slovakia, Austria, but about Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Jugoslavia and Albania, because this map presents detailed inlformations (e.g. the administrative subdivisions) only about those countries and those countries are the only ones represented entirely. Maps don't contain definitions, but Graphic representation, drawn to scale and usually on a flat surface, of features—usually geographic, geologic, or geopolitical—of an area of the Earth or of any celestial body.. Look at this map of the Iberian Peninsula; do you believe that it regards Morocco and Algeria as parts of the Iberian Pensinsula? I doubt it. Don't forget that Romania's and Hungary's borders didn't change since the end of the Second World War, not 1990, not 1991, not 1992. It looks as if you are trying to avoid sources that exclude Hungary.--Olahus (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
You decided to argue for a map of the Balkans that doesn't include the whole of Greece, but includes chunks of Austria, Italy, Slovakia, even Ukraine? And all that either with zero supporting text or text that you are not willing to cite? You are still being serious about that? The map of the Iberian Peninsula left off half of Spain?
Central Europe is a bit larger than Hungary, only one editor focuses on this country so much. The concept of Eastern Europe and East Central Europe did change with the fall of Communism and through that Central Europe too, I hope you realize that. Not to mention new states like Czech Republic, Slovenia, the unification of Germany etc.
If the sources not including Hungary are only of historic significance, we won't include them as current definitions/maps. The absolute majority of English sources besides including Hungary treat it as the basis of the concept (see Visegrád Group). Squash Racket (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the mapf of the Balkans excludes indeed Greece (as well as Austria, Italy, Slovakia and the Soviet Union). I don't know the reasons for it's exclusion, but the article from National Geographic would perhaps explain that. However, I have thought about the separation of CE-definitions before 1990 (beween 1990 and 1992 many countries and regiosn from CE suffered border changes: Germany, Jugoslavia, Czechoslovakia), but I would preffer another array: 1)Before WWI, 2)During the interwar period, 3)During the Cold War, 4) Recent definitions (after the Cold War). --Olahus (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I merged the historical definitions into the already existing history section. The reader first should know the current views on Central Europe, history/outdated definitions only come afterwards. I also merged (mainly the the referenced) parts of the redundant "Definition" section into the lead and existing sections. I cut and pasted the Physical geography to the end of the article, I'm not even sure whether all of it belongs into that article. Squash Racket (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Magocsi
If I can get to it in the next couple of days, I'll summarize his description of Central Europe from his Historical Atlas of same, that may be helpful here. (To the comment directly above at the moment, Magocsi's is the seminal current text in this area.) PetersVTALK 17:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a difference between Central Europe and East Central Europe, just a reminder. If I remember correctly, Magocsi was talking about the latter in a quote above. Squash Racket (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Publication dates
As there seems to be an abundance of sources from after 1990, is it acceptable to include outdated sources from the 1920s, 1950s etc.? For example a French source about Central Europe 7 years after the formation of the Little Entente? Squash Racket (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course. There is no wikipedia rule that establish how old a source should be. But: the mentioning of the year when it was published must appear in the text. --Olahus (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
In short: you reinserted the source after User:Buffer_v2 removed it as outdated, unnecessary. NOW I'm expecting feedback from others, who haven't yet expressed their view on this. Squash Racket (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with de Martonne's work. It shows an interbelic perception of Central Europe. It is mentioned in the descrioption of the source. The year is mentioned too. --Olahus (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
In short: you reinserted the source after User:Buffer_v2 removed it as outdated, unnecessary. NOW I'm expecting feedback from others, who haven't yet expressed their view on this.
(Don't delete my comments, I didn't delete yours.) Squash Racket (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I deleted it because you wrote the identical thing 10 mintes ago, just few lines upper. --Olahus (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
That's why I'm surprised that once again I see your next comment here, when I'm asking for third opinion. At this point User:Buffer_v2 and me would remove the source, you alone support it. What do others think? Squash Racket (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Fine. Let user user say what they think about it. --Olahus (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
There's an abundance of sources out there... I do not believe we need to add such outdated ones... I've voiced my concerns about this above. If we follow this route, we may be overshadowing other definitions of Central Europe from more prominent sources... That results in this article being BIASED, POV, and having ORIGINAL RESEARCH. And it's clear that the 1927 definition has very little influence on the geopolitical term "Central Europe" of today. And sorry Olahus, but I am going to have to call you out on this again: I'm extra weary of the sources you are bringing to the table because your search for sources is biased. I am pretty sure that you have never showed us a source which hasn't included Romania, which may emphasize the fringe theory view that was expressed above. The sources you bring to the table overwhelmingly include Romania, which is NOT the case from what I've found of the sources out there. And how prominent are those German encyclopedias exactly? (I've also argued against the use of German sources because the Mitteleuropa and Central Europe most likely have different connotative meanings). To sum up, most importantly, I also suggested that we should not be adding all those individual sources, as the "States" section of the article seems to summarize them well enough.--Buffer v2 (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
We already have in the top of the article a "definion" of the states who are "usually considered" to be Central European. So I don't believe that the enrichment with sources would have a bad influence of the article. I also don't see in how far the mentionin of the souces dating from the period before WWI and WWII are problematic. I clearly mention in the decription the year when it was issued so that the reader can't confuse the things. From the myps drawn by me according to the sources brought by me only the half include Romania, so we really cannot say that the're "overwhelmingly include Romania". Concerning "Mitteleuropa" I already wrote you above, in the section Recent Changes. --Olahus (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You are not listening. I specifically said that it doesn't matter if they literally translate to one another. They have different connotative meanings (I realize English is not your first/primary language, so please look up the word "connotative"). Mitteleuropa, from my research is a heavily historical/politicized word, while Central Europe is heavily geographical. That is why there should not be Mitteleuropa sources on this page. I don't mind 'enriching' the article with different sources, but you and others are adding outdated and non-English sources, which distorts the view of what Central Europe means today. The word has evolved, and I can guarantee you that it does not have the same meaning it did in the past. Please don't run around in circles.. and please respond to my German sources concern (knowing now that I have told you that it does not matter if they translate literally)... and it seems like you are on the outside as far as using German and older sources. The rest of us seem to disagree with you. It is time to clean up this article. --Buffer v2 (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You guys said you wanted an outside viewpoint, so here's what I have to say about older sources in general: don't use them if possible when there are more recent sources. Dialogue changes and becomes outdated. I took a look at border changes in Europe and World Wars and Greater Romania and decided that terminology and dialogue about where in Europe countries are located may have affected by the two World Wars. 1927 is too old for a source that concerns European borders and divisions because World War 2 changed a lot of that.
Sources that I would think are very reliable would be the most recent geographical classifications by the UN which has a Romanian permanent representative or the European Union which Romania is a part of. This UN country profile and this EU country profile say Southeastern Europe.
I separated in the article the works from 1902 and 1927. I hope there is no confiosion now anymore. Concerning Romania particulary. What kind of country is Romania in relation to Central Europe? a) A country usually regarded as Central European? b) A country only sometimes regarded as Central European? c) A country never regarded as Central European? I think the right answer id b). The UN country profile and the EU country profile says that Romania is a Southeastern European country, while the NATO country profile and the country profile of the Romanian embassy in London say that Romania is located in the southeastern part of Central Europe. And this page of the European Commission also reagrds Romania as a Central European country. However, other pages claim that Romania is an Eastern European country (as Hungary too). --Olahus (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The maps from 1950s and 1960s went into the same section. There is no more confusion, the historical (pre-1990) definitions are separated IF we keep them.
The EU article was written by a Romanian, the embassy is the Romanian government, NATO dealt with Romania in the frames of the Southeast European Initiative. Squash Racket (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the Southeast European Cooperative Initiative include Hungary too, so Hungary is a Southeastern European country, right? In the country profile NATO says clearly where Romania is located, the rest are supposals. And concerning the EU article as well as the country profile from the Romanian embassy - where is the problem that is was written by Romanians? Concerning the historical signifiance, I answered here. --Olahus (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The Slovenian concern was that they were a Central European country, not part of SEE, but once Hungary joined, they quickly followed suit.
Excuse me, but this article is unreferenced. IF they included Hungary, it's probably just another reason to not take seriously NATO as a source in this topic. But we can ask others for feedback.
NATO is a military organization with its own geopolitical strategy; it's not a neutral scholarly one
NATO's own description is dubious ("the intra-Carpathian space, opening to Central Europe ...") You call THAT clear?
Should we accept Romanian sources to prove a point about Romania?
Besides all that the historical definitions will be merged into "The history of the concept", as there's no reason to repeat that section where we talk about the CURRENT definition. Squash Racket (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Now, tell me please what benefit should have NATO saying that Romania is Central European instead of Eastern Europe or Southeastern Europe or Southern Europe or whatever? Maybe you interpret the sentence "the intra-Carpathian space, opening to Central Europe ..." as dubious, but I don't doubt that you clearly understand the meaning of this sentence: "Romania is located in South-East Central Europe"' from the same page. However, why is the official point of view of the state Romania so problematic? Sure, we must look out about WP:POINT, but I believe that it is important to mention what the Romanian official are saying about Romania. Remember: I read about the official point of view of Romania, not the point of viwe of an anonymous Romanian blogger. I already answered you about the historicity of the term Central Europe (see Talk:Central Europe#Recent_Changes).--Olahus (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The term "South-East Central Europe" is dubious in itself. Does it refer to Southeast Europe? East Central Europe? At least that military organization would clearly refer to our subject and wouldn't contradict itself ("the intra-Carpathian space, opening to Central Europe") in the same material... I don't doubt that you clearly understand that the NATO source should be dropped.
You haven't answered anything relevant there about that, so the historical definitions will be merged into "The history of the concept", as there's no reason to repeat that section where we talk about the CURRENT definition of Central Europe. Squash Racket (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Southeast Europe means: "in the south-east of Central Europe" - as you can see in the page of the Romanian Enbassy in London. --Olahus (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
If we accept even Romanian sources, I guess you no more object to adding Serbia in the "sometimes Central European" category. There are better sources than that depicting Serbia as Central European. Squash Racket (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
After reading into the discussion about Romania I think the answer is between b and c, Romania is occasionally referred to as part of Central Europe and often considered a part of Eastern or Southeastern Europe. The definition section makes that pretty clear, so where is the editing problem? In other articles, I would recommend identifying Romania with Southeastern Europe rather than Central Europe. One thing I am certain on is that there are too many maps in the "after the cold war" section. Can some of them be removed? It's a little silly to have so many especially since there is already a map in the definition section of the article which already covers the time period after the cold war. Sifakatalk 01:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not against removing the non-English references (there are enough English ones) and the UN map of Central and Eastern Europe. Squash Racket (talk) 06:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This reference in French is about East Central Europe and rather belongs into that article, less into Central Europe. Some inline citations wouldn't hurt either...
The same author has co-written a book titled "Central Europe Between East and West" (2005), probably fits this topic better. Squash Racket (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The book is about East-Central Europe, but - at the beginning - it summarizes various points of view on Central Europe (as a starting point for further studies). Montessquieu (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Walk a Mile in His Shoes - Origin?
What is the origin and history of the common phrase "Walk a Mile in His Shoes"?
Orthodox countries are not Central European countries
Central European countries haven't own civilization type or own culture type, they had Western-European type of culture, of course in their national colors. All western Scholars states there are only two European types of civilizations: Western (Cathlic-Protestant) and Orthodox (the Eastern) Serbia and Romania dispose two former Central European territories. Transylvania was part of Hungary until 1919, wich had western type (Protestant-catholic) culture. Trasylvania became part of Orthodox Romania. The other little place is Vojvodina , wich was part of Hungary until 1919. Vojvodina became part of Orthodox Serbia in 1919.
Both countries, Romania and Serbia had a balkanian type Orthodox culture and Eastern type historical social background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebration1981 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Due to the new edit war, I would like to copy here a comment I have made in November 2008.
In clasifying countries I would use / make reference to more criteria.
I am a Romanian reader of Wikipedia and I do not have sufficient time to look for sources or edit articles (I like to read only), however I would like to contribute with an opinion (although "Nobody cares about your opinions"). I would like to suggest to all the people who are in the business of finding sources and editing articles to consider (if deemed reasonable) to following:
1. Eventually Romania will have to be listed as mainly belonging to one of the 3 regions mentioned in the disputes above and below. Regardless of the region where Romania will be listed (as mainly belonging to such region) a link should be included to articles and sources indicating reasons why Romania is sometimes considered as being part of other European Regions. I think the purpose of Wikipedia (ideally) is to have non-contradictory information in different articles and this is the reason why Romania should not be listed as mainly belonging to two or more regions or to no region at all.
2. When listing Romania among the Eastern European countries one would have to enumerate the sources which list Romanian in this region together with other Eastern European countries (Ukraine, Moldavia, Belarus, Russia), but without also listing Poland, Hungary Slovakia and so on. One would have also to analyze the criteria of such listing.
3. When listing Romania among the Southern European countries or among the Central European Countries one would have to mention as well the criteria used by the authors and also bearing in mind the other countries listed therein (I refer to the sources).
4. When trying to establish to which region Romania mainly belongs (based on a set of sources as I do not think you will find a source to establish this for you), you will have to pick up a criterion and establish whether from that point of view Romania is mostly central, eastern or southern bearing in mind at all times the regional differences within Romania itself. After finalizing such exercise for several criteria that you might have in mind (or that you have chosen to describe) you should analyze each result and draw the final conclusion.
[As a personal finding (not documented herein), I have noticed that Romania is listed as a Eastern European country when the criteria is: former communist state (together with other central European countries), economic development (in antitheses with Western European countries not with Central European countries), former Russian sphere of influence, orthodoxy, but never when it comes to cultural ties (except for orthodoxy which is anyway not relevant in the case of Romania which is more connected to the Greek orthodox church than to the Slav orthodox churches with which it often comes into conflict), climate or other geographical criteria, foreign affairs orientation, political views of its inhabitants. It is listed as a Southern European country when it comes to Balkan affairs, corruption but never when it comes to conflicts in Southern Europe, climate or other geographical criteria. It is rarely mentioned in the same group with Spain, Portugal, Italy (often when the criterion of the listing is Latin heritage), Greece, Bulgaria (often when the criterion of the listing is orthodox heritage) and Albania (often when the criterion of the listing is economic development). When listing Romania among the Central European countries, authors often refer to economic development (which is indeed lower than in other Central European Countries, but higher than in the case of most Balkan countries), cultural ties, geographical criteria including climate, foreign affairs orientation, political views of its inhabitants. Romania is not listed among the Central European countries when reference is made to the first wave of eastern countries to join the EU, in sources dating back in the early 90' until mid 90' when Romania was not eligible for joining EU or when reference is made to the level of foreign investments.] If you will not make very clear the criterion or the group of criteria you have in mind when classifying countries in certain groups of countries and if you will not mention sources which also use the same criteria with the ones you chosen as relevant for the comparison, you will compare apples with pears and finally draw the conclusion that Romania is not a plum. Please excuse me for not getting involved also in the research for sources. I believe that would be too complex, just like the classification you are trying to make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.146.73.70 (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Central Europe based on Western Culture
What were the differences between Western and Orthodox societies and cultures?
Medieval Historic Criterions of West in the European Continent
Medieval appearance of parliaments (the dietal-system), self-government like status of big royal/imperial cities, medieval appearance of banking systems and social effects and status of urban bourgeoisie, medieval appearance of universities and the medieval appearance of secular intellectuals, Philosophy: Scholasticism and humanist philosophy,the knight-culture and the effects of crusades in the Holy Land, medieval usage of Latin alphabet and medieval spread of movable type printing, The medieval western theatre: Mystery or cycle plays and morality passion plays, The architecture and fine-arts: Romanesque Gothic and Renaissance styles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebration1981 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Current (31 May 2009) map
I really like the current map on this page. It shows the variations in definitions of the term "Central Europe" fairly well. Could someone prepare similar maps for the other regions of Europe?
However, I think it might be better if the legend said "Area usually included" instead of "Area part of". The current phrasing seems to denigrate the differing opinions. Or maybe I'm overreacting. Thoughts? Khajidha (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"Especially American" Popular Culture?
This sentence is insane: However, in Western (and especially American) popular culture, much of the region is still erroneously associated with Cold War era "backwardness".[14][15][16] The three citations are an article about the film Hostel 2 portraying a negative image of Slovakia, and two essays which don't support the supposed citation at all. All we've concluded is that the guy who wrote Hostel 2 doesn't like Slovakia. This is not enough evidence to justify a blanket statement about the entirety of American pop culture. Besides, on a purely anecdotal level, is there anyone here who really thinks Americans are more biased against Central Europeans than, say, the French or the British? I'm deleting the offending parenthesis; if anyone has actual evidence of a systematic American bias against Central Europe that outweighs that present in Western European pop culture (good luck), feel free to discuss it here.
CarolinianJeff (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Your argument is so besides the point here. The emphasis of the sentence is on "still erroneously associated with", not "especially American". Excuse me. (I'm not going to revert it though.) Gregorik (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The centre of Europe is in Lithuania
The centre of Europe is in Lithuania 4km north of Vilnius. The name Europe in Lithuanian language means the land at the sea: Europe in Lithuanian language pronounces 'jurop' and this is the most ancient form still used in Lithuanian language for showing the direction towards something in this case towards the sea, but if you use the form 'juropa' equivalent to Europa, then it would mean the land at the sea or surrounded by sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.244.46 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
map point
I propose adding the former Memelland region (Prussia) to the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.144.244 (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
User Gregorik (Hungary)has personal interests in changing what he thinks its perceived about Central Europe by the West. Being involved in the Central European University, means that User Gregorik (Hungary) has a personal conflict of interests in this article. What's more, the sentences removed are not encyclopaedia and do not add relevant information. I think that wikipedia should not be used to express wishes or ideas that are personal and subjective. And mr. Andras, I think it's a good idea to ask admin control over the article. No reason to be scared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.205.208 (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
2nd warning placed on User 82.95.205.208's page per admin request. (User Gregorik was never a student/lecturer at the C.E.University by the way.) Gregorik (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
This debate is now over as I've lost patience and interest after admin's reply: "Stale report. User has not edited in 10 hours. They haven't really be warned, the warnings should be on the talk page, not the 'user' page. There's no guarantee that they've seen them on the user page. (GedUK)". 82.95.205.208, excuse me. Gregorik (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Details, Details!
Not all of Lorraine is Germanic. Only Germanic Lorraine is Germanic and therefore Central European! The list should include the former Memel ter. if you are going to include and rightfully so, the former northern-East Prussia/Kaliningrad Oblast- Russia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.150.48 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Different points of view
My suggestion is to divide the article into the section of the perspective of different countries or groups of countries.
For example, in the countries of the cultural heritage of Habsburg monarchy (Czech R., Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia), generally accepted is the idea that the countries of this cultural heritage are central european. It is also important in this sense to mention that this concept of central Europe is the oldest one and enjoys (from the cultural and historical perspective) the biggest plausability. Note that "old" central Europe as described excludes Germany and Poland and, of course, Benelux countries.
Therefore, I deem that the map provided in the introduction is showing a biased view and the view that is strongly influenced by political development after 1990-ies.
Second issue is that after the fall of comunism there was a need to include a buffer-zone between old west and old east Europe. For that reason Germany and Poland were becoming central Europe only politicaly. For Germany it is reasonable because West Germany was part of west Europe and East Germany part of east Europe.
Geographicaly seen, none of these approaches is correct as the center of Europe (looked from east-west perspactive) is around Finnish-Russian border.
German term Mitteleuropa has nothing to do with central Europe as it was created and misused in the 30-ies in Germany to embrace Germany and Austria-Hungary as the countries of German interest.
Finally, the view that I find the most appropriate is the one taking into consideration history and culture. That one is what I have written at the beginning - lands of cultural heritage of Habsburg monarchy. All other views are not encyclopedical and are to much politicaly or only politicaly influenced. Despite that, all the views should be described but, of course, with the title of the section clearly showing whose approach it is and how old it is.
Reagrds,Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The states listed in the section States is totally biased. If there is a list of the concepts described under, then I dont see the point in listing the countries on the base of only one view. If it is done so, then the list must be linked with the criteria that it follows.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not supposed to make up a definition that someone finds most appropriate. The idea is to mirror what is done outside wp. For some texts from before 1930 that use "Central Europe" to refer to, among other countries, Germany, try this or this (p.79). I admit they may be not the most authorative sources on usage of the term Central Europe, but at least they are better than no source.
And Mitteleuropa is actually just the German word for Central Europe, just as Mittelamerika is the German word for Central Amerika and Mittelasien is one German word for Central Asia. For a list of (mostly) pretty old books that use the term, try google books. Yaan (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort. I know what is German Mitteleuropa. The issue is that it is German POV and is pretty much defined since beginning of 20 century and later "misused". But then it should stand somewhere that it is German POV of central Europe. I have read a little bit english written papers from the period before WWI and they all go along with the "Habsburg Monarchy theory of central Europe" [3] p310 map; and even better one, describing what is central europe and how Germany included itself into it to create "cental powers" but much later in the 20th century [4]; ever since that time, central europe definitions are exclusively political. I suggest to describe central europe as historical and cultural term and not political or war or after cold war-related. The issue I am trying to explain that there are several aspects of the term like historical, cultural, political, geographical. Moreover it must be stated that the whole concept is disputed as political creation, for example by the majority of French authors. French authors (vast mayority) include UK, France and Germany to be west E, Poland part of east E. etc. Moreover, some countries listed as standardly central European are at the same time listed as west European (Switzerland, Austria and Germany). [5]. If this is the case, then it must be said in the article named "central E." that these countries are SOMETIMES included into central europe. Otherwise, both articles are misleading and refuting eachother.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree that different authors have different opinions about what exactly is central europe, and that this should be reflected in the article. But I don't think there is anything contradictory about some countries being central european and some-other-european at the same time. Saying that Germany (including East Germany?) is part of Western Europe does not imply it can't be part of Central Europe at the same time. Just like the UK's membership in the Commonwealth of Nations does not mean that the UK can't be part of the Council of Europe. In particular, the UK's membership in the Council of Europe does not mean Great Britian is only "sometimes" part of the Commonwealth.
If you can find some sources that argue the whole term is a political creation, feel free to cite them in the article. But your map in [6] shows Germany and Italy just as prominently as it does show Austria-Hungary (maybe the wrong paper?), and your essay by György M. Vajda seems to be arguing for a new definition of what Central Europe is, rather than pointing out what was traditionally meant by the term (That said, he seems to make the claim that Austro-Hungaria was commonly known as the "Monarchy of Central Europe", but at least in the English language this claim, if that is what he meant, seems not so convincing.)
My suggetion (1) is to remove the list of countries that is totally incosistent to the rest of the article. The list should have all the countries that are at least once (according to one view) part of central europe in one coherent list. The list states, for example, that Hungary is always considered CE, but later, there are several definitions that exclude Hungary, i.e. saying that Hungary is only sometimes included. (2) create maps for each concept explained. (3) delete the existing intro map as it is showing only one point of view and excluding, for example Russia, which is also sometimes included.
There should also be said in the beginning that geographical central europe is at the crossroads of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, that is important fact that many seem to neglect.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but...
In Italy MittelEuropa is used and not Europa Centrale (the italian translation) or Central Europe, no. It's Mitteleurope! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.105.47.82 (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree. In Italy the current use of the term MittelEuropa is related to territories of Central Europe historically connected with the Austrian Empire and now parts of countries of Eastern and of Southern Europe: i.e. Austria,Czech Rep., Slovakia, Tanscarpathia, Galicia, Wolinia, Bucovina, Transylvania, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Trentino Alto Adige, Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia. Therefore Switzerland, Lombardy and Piedmont are not considered MittelEurope. --Deguef (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Memel terr. is Central Europe
By most def. the Memel Ter. of Lithuania (former East-Prussia) is part of Mitteleuropa. It should therefore be represented in the article and the map! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.84.189.214 (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Switzerland
I strongly object that the part of Switzerland south of the Alps can be considered Central Europe. If it is the case also Northern Italy with Milan and Turin should be considered Central Europe. --Deguef (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources that discuss whether the whole or parts of Switzerland and Italy are part of Central Europe? That would be very helpful. — Kpalion(talk) 16:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently there are Swiss MPs who do think Switzerland is part of Central Europe, see [7], [8], [9] (via [10]). Obviously different people are going to have different opinions about what exactly Central Europe is. Maybe the current map is not particularly useful in conveying the vagueness of the term. There used to be a different map, but it was removed by a certain user who insisted on Romania being part of Central Europe. Yaan (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I would consider Lugano as Southern Europe, Geneva as Western Europe and Bern as Central Europe.--Deguef (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Southern europe?
According to the wikipedia article on southern europe either from a geo-political , mathematical , as defined by the UN ..etc, many of the balkan countries should be included in the definition of southern europe. A personal definition of southern europe cannot be accepted in this article and should rely at lest in the UN definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.184.35 (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Proposal
I have read all the criteria that are listed in the explanatory part (curent views od CE). What I find wrong in the article is the initial map that is provided. I counted all countries according to all concepts/views of CE listed and the map is not showing coherent information compared to these concepts. The following information is showing how many times each country depending on different criterion (excluding three encyclopedias) is qualified for central Europe.
Czech R, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia: 8 times each;
Croatia: 7 times;
Austria, Slovenia: 6 times;
Germany: 3 times;
Switzerland: 2 times
What seems to be wrong is that countries like Austria, Slovenia, Germany and Switzerland are shown on the map as CE, even though they are part of CE by far less criteria than Croatia is, and Croatia in not shown in the map nor on the list as CE.
The second thing done wrong is the Map of Central Europe, according to Lonnie R. => the map is not showing what is written in the text about his criteria.
The article must be redone. Especially the list of countries that states that according to MAJORITY of sources Germany and Switzerland are included in CE. That is refuted in the article later on. The map should therefore state different position.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
We didn't add all maps and theories, you can only see some of them. The map in the intro was created based on discussion lasting for months (or rather years?) in which many editors participated. See earlier discussion, archives for a number of proposals. Squash Racket (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand, but even the maps provided for separate views are false. For example the one based on Lonnie R.; according to him, Kingdom of Hungary and Polish Kingdom and the area inbetween I gues is CE.=> Slovenia does not belong to be coloured red and the red colour should be extended to Lituania and Croatia as these two kingdoms were part of Polish-Lituanian and Hungarian Kingdom respectively. In the section states in the introduction sentence incorrect is the statement that majority of sources include the following states, as it is later in the article (by naming all the sources/views) refuted. The second group of countries (under) is part of central europe according to the same criteria (history, geography, culture) so I find this explanation redundant. It is also not correct to state that some sources ADD some of the countries from the second list. The example would be the fifts concept, where Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and probabbly all orthodox south slavs would be CE. So these countries would not be added to the first list but would create CE on its own, excluding the first list of "majority sources countries".Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The "map of Johnson" was based on how the World Bank and the OECD defines CE. (He only cited them in his book.)
Johnson added important notes, but we won't create additional maps based on every additional remark. Notes help the readers to better understand the concept.
I repeat: not all sources/views are mentioned in the theories' section, it is only a selection. It is also important to not equalize a non-English pocket encyclopedia with a major English reference. Squash Racket (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Squash Rocket do you really think that English Encyklopedia is better then for example Croatian only becouse its English?please lets be serious here.Polish, Hungarian or Croatian scholars can tell u far more about Central Europe than anybody else can.Definately more than so gloryfied by you them Big English Sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.49.204 (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
@squash rocket I strongly oppose your approach. Not only you are rasistic with it but are also trying to say that science outside english speaking community is "under" the encyclopedic level. The aim of wikipedia is not to reffer to sources from a certain language region but to discover truth and reveal it in an easy way to general public. You can look at any other language pocket (say russian) and see that the russian science view is not dominant in the article. Furthermore, it is not present in the article at all. Second, central Europe was and will never be a geographic term. If this is what some "english speaking" scientist that you are reffering to are saying, than they should be avoided in evary sense.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
and tell me please, which approach was used to list the countries? None. It is done arbitrary without any criteria. Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic unscientific article
First of all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all famous Encyclopedias use the Central Europe term. All European Geography society of national scientific academies use the C.E. term too. Therefore the denial of this term is unencyclopedic and unscientific. It is a geographical (scientific) qustion rather than political.
Encyclopedia Britannica
Cambridge Encyclopedia
American Columbia Encyclopedia
German Brochaus Encyclopedia
French Larousse and French Encyclopædia Universalis
All of them Use the Central Europe term.
United Nations is chiefly a political organisation rather than scientific.
Geography is one of exact sciences. For that reason, geographic center of Europe is located in Ukraine. If you argue that C.E. is something that does not include the center of Europe - it is no longer scientific in the scope of geography, but some other approach. E.g. West Germany is located in the west Quarter of the continent and according to nongeographical criteria is located in C.E. Likewise, Ukraine is geographical central Europe, but due to usage of nongeographical criteria is classified into east Europe. All of the sources that you listed above use political borders (the borders of modern states)to determine the term. Therefore, they (even though encyclopedias) use political, cultural, historical or other criteria (not geographical) to define the term. I don's see a reason why all other marginal views deserve their space on this article and the worldwide institution not? Explain why do you dislike UN? It is the most quoted source in Wikipedia, btw. Please sign your work next time. Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Your map is based on political (country) borders instead of geographical!
UN use old cold-war terms. Ukraine is not located in the geographical center of Europe. It is easliy determinable when you see a map! Encyclopedias were written by academic scholars and scientists, they represent te official scientific viewpoint of a country. And all important Europen encyclopedias use the Central-Europe term! Please don't write nonsenses!--78.92.106.176 (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You must have skipped history classes about cold war. Depending on geographic method used, the center of Europe is either in Belarus, Lithuania, Poland or Ukraine. French National Geographic Institute defines Lithuania to be center of the Continent. [11](This is science). Even if the most western point in Poland is taken, it is still dubious that Switzerland is CE and Belarus and Lithuania or Ukraine are not. This is evidence enough that the article is not explaining geographic CE but rather political or some other perspective.
Geographic c. of Europe [12]; Lithuania [13]; Ukraine [14] etc...
If you were little more scientific, you would know that "official scientific viewpoint" does not exist, except when in the field of mathematics, and still, even there, there are contoversies.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
You confuse geometry and geography:) Countries with Eastern Orthodox majority aren't Central European. They have neveer called as Central Europe. Why do you try to dispute an academic/encyclopedic fact? You can find Central Europe term and its countries in every national Encíclopedia. Therefore you lost the debate. Europe is a cultural term rather than physical reality. Europe and Asia is 1 and the same Continent. Read the Eurasia article. There are a artificial borderline between the two. The idea of separate Europe from Asia is based on a very old cultural border and background. Toponyms and Geographical names are based on traditions rather than geometry!
Europe and Central Europe are cultural terms. We agree. The others claimed that it is geographical: that is false. I argued that CE is not scientific in the scope of geography but a historical, cultural and political term.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Great Schism
Debate whether teritories of some baltic states were aligned with east church in the 11th century. An editor recently deleted the map [File:Great Schism 1054.svg] claiming that it falsely shows the schism in Baltic area. I have found a source from Vatican that shows Baltic area as being alligned with East church in 11th century: [15]. Some maps show that it was not affected by the east-west division because other religions were present there [File:Great Schism 1054 with former borders.png], and some maps show that it belonged to the west church [16]. Can someone help to explain this to put the final map of the schism in the article?93.138.3.152 (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
First about the maps. 1. The compiler of the first map you refer to must have been seriously deranged (excuse my expression). Note that the map does not cite any sources, may I add that no such historical sources exist. The website it comes from seems to belong to a third party tour operator who neither has anything to do with the official Vatican, nor with the academia.
2. The second map contains numerous mistakes and shortcomings as well. First, it does not indicate what time period it refers to. (I assume it's the 13th century, judging from the political boundaries.) Second, Finland has never been Orthodox, especially since it was part of the Catholic Swedish Kingdom back in the 13 c. Part of Lithuania showing allegiance to Rome and the other half Eastern Orthodox? The country must have been seriously schizophrenic. Adding to the schizophrenia, it was never controlled by the Teutonic Knights (as the map indicates). Lithuania was pagan at the time implied by the political boundaries. And Orthodox Constantinople missing from the map???
In the territories of present-day Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, there were no Catholic or Orthodox churches neither in the 11th nor in the 12th centuries. (Anybody show me the sources and I eat my hat.) Neither were any of these territories dominions of any Christian overlord. The Livonian Crusade commenced with the war against Livonians and Latvians only in 1198. In 1208, the crusade against Estonia started. Note that no contemporary Catholic chronicles or Russian letopisi make any mention of Christianity as already present in the named territories, hence the crusade. The Christianization of Lithuania, which was fiercely pagan, took place only in 1387, making it the last part of Europe other than Lapland and non-Slavic parts of modern Russia to become Christian (Catholic).
What puzzled me the most in the version of the Schism map I removed from the article was the coastal area around the Gulf of Riga painted as Orthodox in 1054. Show me the sources! (Of course, there are none.)--Vihelik (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the elaboration. The issue is: are there any good maps? According to your explanation, would this one fit? And, yes, it should represent the time of 1054. Thx in advance!!78.1.136.36 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I think your map is basically good to go, if just two more inaccuracies are taken care of. 1. The current version of your map delineates Old Prussia as a political entity. The Teutonic State in Prussia within the boundaries indicated was not founded until the beginning of the 13th century. I suggest to get rid of the northern and eastern borders of Prussia on the map (between other gray areas), but keep the tribal name Prussians. Also, Old Prussians were not Christian (neither Catholic nor Orthodox) in 1054. Since they were forcibly converted only in the 13th century during the Prussian Crusade, all areas inhabited by the Prussians in 1054[17] should also remain gray. (The blue section is Prussia is particularly bizarre: Old Prussians have never been Orthodox.)
Final comment: the line between the blue and gray areas in eastern Baltic should run straight, there is no need for the present westward bulge between Latvia and Estonia. This bulge was created, again, in the 13. century. I do like your map, my comments are meant to make it even better!--Vihelik (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to correct it.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I have just one problem. Raguza (Dubrovnik). It was under Croatian control prior to 1054 if I am right, but I am not sure. Maybe we should repair those borders there (the surrounding area of Raguza).Fakirbakir (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Good remarks. Can someone do the mentioned adjustments that were mentioned above and file the picture in the text??Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
In the eighteenth century, the Czechs were already beginning to apply the term „Central Europe” to their own territory and the idea of Pan-Slavism[1] began to take hold. Until this time, throughout many centuries, there was peace within Hungary, where peoples of different languages, religious backgrounds and cultures lived without the expression of any anti-Hungarian feelings but, as Pan-Slavism began to spread, hatred and animosity took hold. Karl MarxXE "Karl Marx" said: „Pan-Slavism is not only a goal for the unification of the Slav people but it is also a goal to destroy a thousand years of history in Europe. In the interest of this, we have to erase Turkey and half of Germany from the maps of Europe. When Pan-Slavism has reached this goal then the Slavs will begin to subjugate Europe. Europe has only two choices, to accept Pan-Slavism or to conquer Russia and eradicate the center of Pan-Slavism.”[2] It was Pan-Slavism which caused the anti-Hungarian feelings which have existed since that time and have been increasing in intensity.
Frantisek Palacky, the Czech historian, stated that the Hungarians were an obstacle to the unification of the northern and Southern Slavs. In 1919, the Czechs supported the idea of creating a corridor through Hungarian territory to join Czechoslovakia to Yugoslavia, which was only possible with the disintegration of Hungary. Fortunately this corridor was not created, although Hungary was divided.
There is a power which fuels this hatred against the Hungarians, which is never mentioned but which can not be ignored and this is the Orthodox Church which adopted the Byzantine idea of state in which the state is more important than the individual. This is a factor which caused the development and strengthening of the idea of nationalism in states where the Orthodox Church was the primary religion, such as Serbia. The Byzantine Orthodox Church had to support the state. Such a state was stronger than a state that was primarily Roman Catholic and whose legal system was based on Roman Law, where the emphasis is on the rights of the individual. The Orthodox Church doctrine was based on national interest and was inclined to mercilessness and hatred. The Catholic Church doctrine was based on love of fellow-man. We cannot ignore the fact that in an Orthodox State, people of any other religion could never receive equal rights before the law. In the Orthodox State of Serbia, ethnic cleansing took place against the Albanians and is still continuing against the Hungarians in Vajdaság (Northern Serbia). There have been reports in the news about hate crimes in Serbia against the Hungarians, a problem which is presently being discussed in the EU parliament. It is this racial hatred which threatens the stability of Central Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szorostalpas (talk • contribs) 12:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Interesting thoughtful viewpoint. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the Czechs got nice treatment by the "Catholic Church doctrine based on love of fellow-man", when some 2,2 million people (of 3M population) were erased from the Czech Crown lands following the 1621 Battle of White Mountain and ensuing Germanization and re-Catholization. According to some sources, as many as 40,000 people were burned alive by the fellow-loving Catholics for being Protestant in the Czech lands. This brought some status quo for the next 150 years in the area (that is what Marx had in mind), however we saw in 1848 and following decades, that nobody was really happy with that, including those peaceful Hungarians catholics you are talking about.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Maintenance tag
This is article is an ongoing topic of debate. And as said already in the lead of the article the very conception of Central Europe as a cultural an geopolitical region is controversial in itself to say the least. What is central Europe and which are its constituents is not clear. In addition to this, the article implies that some countries are part of Central Europe, while others are excluded. Not all views are documented and many discussed here are supported by bias resources (most of them online). This on its own justifies a maintenance tag. Arcillaroja (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Check your edits before confirming them. Please try to do a little bit more than just reverting without thinking/checking (as regards the tag, I have no position on it, you can put it in manually).Cimmerian praetor (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I ll'do. you are right. It was not wise to revert the whole group of edits. I'll add the maintenance tag manually. On a different note, The following assertion ("The United Nations Group Of Experts On Geographical Names (aka StAGN) defines Central Europe both as a distinct cultural area and a political region.") is not correct in that StAGN is not The United Nations Group Of Experts On Geographical Names but a collaborator. With these sorts of claims is difficult to keep assuming good faith. Furthermore, I want to remind follow editors that this is Wikipedia in English and the StAGN is an organ that is mainly active in German speaking countries. This and the explanation given in the paper mentioned should be clearly reflected and I doubt that it should be mentioned in the lead. Arcillaroja (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Arcillaroja, you have what appears to be a 3 year old history of vandalizing a set of political articles, including this one and Eastern Europe. Your edits continue to be unconstructive, your arguments remain biased and dated. You seem to question the very validity of the concept of Central Europe, yet the lead makes it clear that the concept is well-established to say the least, and widely used. That said, the UNGEGN paper is quite important in terms of a current definition of Central Europe. The article presents at least eight different, sometimes conflicting but well researched, theories on Central Europe, which results in an article that is among the most balanced on English Wikipedia. Thus your placing an 'unbalanced' tag is questionable. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 09:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed Gregorik. We know each other for a long time. As an editor I can question concepts and views on different matters. That is what wikipedia is all about. As you have done in the past, you enrich your comments with personal attacks. I think it would be better to soothe the general tone. And back to the article. The paper you have mentioned has been discussed earlier. If you read it, you will see that in their own words, there is not a solid definition on what Central Europe is and what it stands for. They give general guidelines. To use those guidelines to support a statement such as "The United Nations Group Of Experts On Geographical Names defines Central Europe both as a distinct cultural area and a political region" seems on its own, a perfect example of a POV edit. This paper would have had a follow up that, as far as I know, never came. On a different note, if you care to read the section titled "What is the StAGN?" on their webpage you will see that the StAGN IS NOT the same thing as the United Nations Group Of Experts On Geographical Names. For all this, I think that the maintenance tag is well placed, and that the above mentioned statement fails to show the neutral point of view which is given in the original paper. It should not be place in the lead of the article as an absolute truth. I hope you are able to see why these changes form a real concern when looking at the article. Arcillaroja (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Look, I've submitted the talk page to Wikipedia:Third opinion (and to WP:AVI), that's the gentlest thing I could do. StAGN worked very closely with the UNGEGN (both are significant entities), and I believe my previous arguments are adequate, but feel free to intimate your further arguments. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 10:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I've also put the article on WP:CSBOT, hope you'll agree with that. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 09:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
If you feel that is a good idea to add the article to WP:CSBOT then please do. Remember that also your view could be seen as systemically biased. In the meantime I'd appreciate it if you leave the tag as it is until further consensus is reached. I notice that you are trying to support your view of what Central Europe is by adding references that appear to form part of a certain political stream interested in presenting (Central Europe) as a set of European Countries (also no consensus on which ones are those) that are culturally farther away from eastern influences than from western ones. This is indeed a perfectly respectable opinion. But is nonetheless, an opinion. And it should be presented that way. My point being: it is not our role to present opinions as absolute truths.
A sentence like "The United Nations Group Of Experts On Geographical Names defines Central Europe both as a distinct cultural area and a political region" seems POV in that is inaccurate (it is written by a StAGN member, an independent collaborator body and does not hold nay official position), in that the paper adds lots of nuances to that statement wich are not reflected, in that it is a paper that never had the claimed follow up, and in that because of it being placed in the lead of the article, it could be WP:RSUW. Arcillaroja (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
About your Third Opinion request: In accordance with the guidelines at the Third Opinion project page, since no editor has chosen to give an opinion upon your request within six days, it has been removed. While you may re-list it there if you still desire an opinion, you are much more likely to obtain assistance if you move on to some other form of dispute resolution or make a request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
That is unfortunate... Because the reference given to support the statement regarding Central Europe says clearly the the paper follows a discussion within StAGN and NOT that the paper represtes the oficial view of The United Nations Group Of Experts On Geographical Names. The paper is adressed to them and NOT from them. Furthermore, this paper IS UNFINISHED. As I said before, this paper has been discussed in the past and rejected for all these things mentioned. And That is why I removed it.Arcillaroja (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Arcillaroja, the paper was not rejected by anyone on these boards, including admins. Also, it is neither unfinished or unofficial. Where on earth did you read that? StAGN, aka the Constant Committee for Geographical Names are a pretty authoritative board themselves, you are expected to trust their papers. StAGN are seated in the Federal Agency for Cartography and Geodesy (in Frankfurt am Main), which in turn is part of the Federal Ministry of the Interior (Germany). It doesn't get any higher profile than that. You need to realize that you are waging a futile private war against these 2 articles, and it will probably be exposed as vandalism by an admin or two since it clearly stems from what seems to be a sort of right-wing geopolitical bias. That said, I won't be back on these boards until the autumn as I'm going on another holiday. Cheers. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 11:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Grgorik, I've been following this and related articles longer than you have and I can assure you that this paper has been discussed before. If you doubt it, please search for related discussion in these articles (West, Eastern and Central Europe). If the paper is finished, please provide the follow up. I said that the paper does not hold the official view of The United Nations Group Of Experts On Geographical Names, if there is such a view. I never said anything about the "officiality" of the paper itself. You deliberately tergiversate my words and opinions. Please don't. The paper discusses the existence of a geopolitical entity and they say that is not clear what it is. They even say that some countries that may be included within this entity may not meet the requirements described. And there is where I have concerns. Hence, the tag. You rewrote the sentence for it to be more accurate. I agree with that. That the sentence is in the lead, might be rather a case of undue weight. I think you know this too. About the rest of your flamboyant discourse I have not much to say. You have accused me repeatedly of being a vandal and a right winger and these sort of things in the past and now again. I don't care much about it, because I know that you set yourself in a ridiculous position by accusing others just because they don't agree with your views. I find it nevertheless impolite of you. I honestly thought you would accuse me of being some pro soviet editor! In any case, I'll stay right were I am. Apparently, despite of being a right winger, I cannot afford to pay one and half month of vacation unlike others ;) And to finish, I'd like to add that I strongly oppose editors that due to their national affiliation cannot hold a neutral point of view when discussing such articles, as it is your case. Dear friend, you represent why Wikipedia is rather weak when it comes to geopolitical articles. But you also know that. Arcillaroja (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I have the feeling that you're about twice my age, and still I'm forced to advise you to use common sense at this point and realize that this article is, quite simply, neutral. Instead, you are throwing personal attacks and a general attack on WP. The remaining outstanding issue (StAGN) is already resolved by having it rephrased. It is hard to argue now that the article is "unbalanced". It presents about 8 different definitions of Central Europe last I checked. But enough of repeating myself. The point is: WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Alternatively, describe how this article could be "even more" neutral in your book. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 09:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe that is the problem. You shouldn't make so many assumptions about me, my age, my ideology etc... Btw, I think you would be rather shocked if you knew me personally. The tag is in place because the article keeps being focused on speculation. The article you refer to is not clear as to what is Central Europe and what are its constituents. That has been discussed already. Furthermore, claiming that Central Europe is a cultural homogeneous region is a rather weak statement (For example, Germany and Poland... culturally homogeneous? In respect to what exactly? Race? language? political and economic system?... Well, they both fought in WW2 but...). What's more important is that such a statement lacks a proper reference. The introduction to the paper that you think you've found does not name these "8 theories" you like to talk about, because the paper is not complete, Gregorik. And even if it was, you cannot present them as the Holy Word, because they are theories. As I said before, you should not try to describe the world according to your personal or national affiliations. Hence tag and rev. And please, spare me from your menacing messages in my personal page... Thanks --Arcillaroja (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Because I think your view of Central Europe and Central European geopolitics in general is skewed and hostile (readers can take a look at your edit history), a third opinion would be welcome. The only real problem is that no one else really cares about this article -- which has much to do with WP's classic systemic bias problem. So I'm stuck with you, but it's quite clear that you harm these articles if and when you're not kept in check (also, I never leave "menacing messages" on anyone's page, only warning tags when due). This is a stalemate until someone with a good grasp of Central European culture (and no agenda!) looks in here. Until then, please explain what exactly do you regard as hard facts in the cases of Eastern Europe and Central Europe. Cheers. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Gregorik, I have no agenda, nor am I some infiltrated american conservative think tank editor as you apparently try to imagine. Edits like your last one (20:18, 9 November 2011) in Eastern Europe show that you have a very particular way of thinking about this and related articles. Of course I personally don't agree with your views. I also see that you are yet another hungarian editor that because of national/nationalistic affiliations tries to impose a certain view on articles related to his own country. Mainly because of the fact that, supposedly, many people identify Hungary or other countries mentioned in this article with Eastern Europe, which in turn is popularly identified with poverty and underdevelopment. Hence, your motivation. But changing views is not wikipedias's role. You have to realize that editing articles so that they keep in line with certain personal opinions or ideas is not constructive and certainly not neutral. And wikipedia should be always neutral. Maybe you are part of that famous "WP's classic systemic bias problem" without realizing it. And by the way, any reader can also check you long history of edit warring and lack of a polite attitude towards other editors. Arcillaroja (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I like my attitude, it's mostly polite but confrontative, which is not a bad thing. Last I checked, you are far from being an established historian or politologist, and you consistently fail to provide references to your edits. (What does that make you?) Let me be polite but confrontative once again: The article does not present my personal views: it presents the established views as laid down by countless experts over the decades before and after the Cold War. No self-respecting historian or encyclopedia subscribes to Cold War-era views as of the 2010's. This has to include Wikipedia. Now let's see a rundown of the historians and encyclopedias who/that are featured in the article and all argue that Central Europe is a separate entity from Eastern Europe: Jerzy Kłoczowski, Ronald Tiersky, Peter J. Katzenstein, Lonnie R. Johnson, The Columbia Encyclopedia, The World Factbook, Encyclopedia Britannica, Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, Meyers Big Pocket Encyclopedia, Cross Currents: A Yearbook of Central European Culture, Constant Committee for Geographical Names. Let me ask again, are you in the same league as these sources? If yes, where are your credentials? If no, where are your peer-reviewed sources that back up your views and contradict these and several other "pro-Central European" sources?.. When it all adds up, are you a valuable contributor to the Central Europe and Eastern Europe articles, or a troll with an axe to grind? Once again: Cold War views =/= Neutral. 21st Century views == Neutral. By the way, I asked for WP:Third opinion again. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 18:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Central Europe and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.
The {{Geographical imbalance}} template is reserved for articles whose coverage of a topic is biased towards the predominant view of one particular geographic region, particularly when it is known that other dissenting perspectives exist. From reading the article, I was immediately aware that the concept of central Europe (and which countries are considered part of it) is not well-defined or agreed upon by everyone. I was then introduced to many different conceptions of what central Europe is, including a map for each one. Considering the difficulty in writing an article on a topic like this, I would have to say that this is probably one of the most geographically balanced articles on Wikipedia that I've read in awhile. Therefore, I have to agree with Gregorik that the maintenance tag is inappropriate at this time. If anyone believes that there is yet another distinct perspective on Central Europe which has not yet been addressed, I would suggest adding that perspective to the article rather than adding a maintenance tag.——SW—comment 17:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Snottywong! Thank you for your input. Please take a minute to follow the discussion on [[18]] for further information on the issue that this and related articles have regarding its neutrality and the reason why this tag is placed. Arcillaroja (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
More power to Snottywong! Yes, he can dig through the lengthy ANI case, but I doubt it would change his mind regarding this article. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 02:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
On a different note, Arcillaroja, I would say the ANI discussion was an edifying round for both of us: your behavior was called "very tenacious", "unusual" and "illogical", with 3 separate admins urging me to file a User Conduct complaint against you. On the other hand, I was threatened with some sanctions by a fourth admin. (I hope you liked my WP:Ignore all dramas reply.) This is a peripheral article with around 800 daily hits (see [19]), and as such, it's not worth my time and trouble. By contrast, the Europe article has around 9000 hits daily ([20]). My point is, I won't be a regular here any soon. If you continue to edit it, do your best, just do not ruin it please. Cheers. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 02:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't doubt that you would honestly sum up your offensive accusations the way you just did. I am going to try to give some more neutrality to the article. Which means that I will try to remove any cherrypicking, specially from the lead. I will also add information based on the sources discussed. I hope you feel more fulfilled in editing other articles. You said before you were not interested in these and related articles. Yet you keep coming back and adding POV edits. After the ANI incident, I hope you soothe your tone. Arcillaroja (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
There was no ANI incident, it was a cool discussion, nothing more. Neither of us was banned, that's what counts in the end. Again, please do not ruin the lead, and add reliable sources to any inclusion. Thank you. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
If Gregorik is prepared to let the matter drop, that would save us all some trouble. Opening up a WP:Request for comment is one of the options he should consider. That is how content issues get solved. Continuing to needle Arcillaroja here on the article talk page is not a good option for him since it could lead to sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Mitteleuropa, the German term
Two minor remarks: i) are comma in section headings good style? ii) Why is "Flora" a subsection of this section? One more serious remark: I have no idea how English speakers use the term Mitteleuropa (in fact I am curious how they'd pronounce it...), but the following fact stated in the article is new to me (as a German): In Germany the connotation is also sometimes linked to the pre-war German provinces east of the Oder-Neisse line... Can we have a reference for it? I doubt it is used by many in this way. Also I haven't heard of any Germans who would have "pejorative connotations" to the term Mitteleuropa. The article writes "sometimes" and "some", but are these "some" really relevant to be mentioned in a wikipedia article? It seems the whole section relies heavily on a single source (Johnson, Lonnie R. (1996). Central Europe: enemies, neighbors, friends). No idea what Mr Johnson knows about Germans, but perhaps these statements should be supported by more references if possible. bamse (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Good point. Could you look up some other sources and correct that section? KœrteFa{ταλκ} 07:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Not at all my field of expertise. Also not sure what you want me to correct. To start with I suggest to read the source (Johnson) to see whether he specifies whom he means by "some Germans" and whether he relies on other sources. Unfortunately I don't have access to that book. Unless there are other sources confirming Johnson's claims, it will be difficult to do much about it as there is likely not a source claiming the opposite. bamse (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
From your first post I thought that you were German or at least knew the German culture well. If so, you might be authentic to write about how Germans use the word "Mitteleuropa", since you would have a better chance to look up sources (e.g., written in German), even if it is not your field of expertise. KœrteFa{ταλκ} 10:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am German, but that is fairly irrelevant here as we need a WP:RS or at least should ask the majority of Germans, not one in 80 Million... I don't have any sources on the subject myself. FWIW, Duden doesn't mention any pejorative connotations here. A google book search turned up this (page 20) which might be of interest. The text says that the term "Mitteleuropa" was coined in the atmosphere of German imperial politics during WWI. Footnote 32 on the same page (referring to "Mitteleuropa") says: that the political coinage of the term (not the linguistic introduction) is generally ascribed to: Friedrich Naumann, "Mitteleuropa", Berlin, 1915. The footnote mentions as another source for the main text (which mostly deals with the term "Ostmitteleuropa", so not sure how relevant this source is): Frank Hadler, "Mitteleuropa - Zwischeneuropa - Ostmitteleuropa. Reflexionen ueber eine europaeische Geschichtsregion im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert." In: "Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas. Berichte und Beitraege. Leipzig 1996, pages 34-41. But in any case those are history books, so they say little about how the term is seen by Germans today (most of which are not Historians)... bamse (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
in everyday German Mitteleuropa is just the German translation of Central Europe, like Mittelamerika is the German translation of Central America; any other meanings or connotation may exist but are not common (and most of the time neverheard of)134.3.76.108 (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Original figure of P. Jones's map.New figure of P. Jones's map.
Some users try to exchange these two maps (both claim to be "Central Europe according to P. Jones, Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography") without any *explanation*. The two maps are not the same, there are clear differences in the southern parts. I am not against changing this map, but I would like to get some explanation why a change is needed. Especially, which of the two maps represent P. Jones's view? Thanks in advance, KœrteFa{ταλκ} 10:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
P.S.: Update: this [21] is the original map of P. Jones. It seems that the old map of this article is more precise (and therefore it should be kept), since, e.g., Istria is included in CE according to Jones, while it is missing from the map some editors try to use. KœrteFa{ταλκ} 12:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, it is not a simple "google web search" as you called it. It is from the google books, the World's largest digital library of printed books from the earliest to the newest books.--Dragonsstudents (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Google book search list is not a WP:RS, choose your titles from the list, read them, and then use specific books as references. Vsmith (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
It was a shocking type of demonstration with the high numbers of books from older eras/ages to prove the actual sentences, because many people tried to relativize them. --Dragonsstudents (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
If it is a 'shocking type of demonstration' then you should be able to find a published author who has drawn the same conclusion you have. Otherwise it is WP:OR. I have fixed the title of this section per your observation that it was actually Google Books. The wording of WP:ELNO is "Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you use wrong definitions and terms which caused semantic error for you.
Because Google books is not a webpage search or simple search engine/aggregator, it is the word's biggest digital (scanned) library of printed books.
Just a simple question: Have you ever opened the inserted links?--Dragonsstudents (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Romania is not Central European country
Only Transylvania (present-day western Romania) was historically part of the Central European Habsburg empire. Romania was/is an Orthodox country, their cultural artistic and societal development are/were related (and very similar) to Serbia Bulgaria, with old-slavonic chrurch language and Romanians officially used cyrillic alphabet until the 1870s.
Ukraine is not Central European country, despite the fact that many books depict it central European (which were written by non-European authors and therefore which are often laymen in the exact European history and geography).
Romania is a balkan (which means Soth Eastern Europe) country.
One non-working link does not make the revelation true. The concept of Central Europe is fluid, and not nevessarily geographically correct - most "Central European" countries are in fat western European geographically.--89.128.236.143 (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Romania
Romania is not a wrongly duplicated entry, as User:Koertefa, suggests. There are 3 sources ([22], [23], [24]) that include the whole of Romania in Central Europe, while the other 2 sources ([25] and [26]) include,the regions Transylvania and, respectiively, Bukovina. However these 2 sources presented above attest that Transylvania and Bukovina are in C Europe, but do not say that the rest of Rom is in E Europe / SE Europe 79.117.175.171 (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, it is still a duplicate. I will think about the proper way of addressing this issue. KœrteFa{ταλκ} 14:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Few definitions placing Romania in Central Europe is enough. We are not to make original research here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.127.189.107 (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
NeroN BG's Revert
Dear User:NeroN BG, could you please explain your recent revert [27]? First, (a) it is very strange that you have called my well-explained edits "vandalism" just because you did not agree with them. You should read WP:VANDAL about what vandalism is. You have also (b) reverted the correction of obvious typos, such as the missing parenthesis at the end of the entry of Serbia. Why? And, finally, (c) could you bring some reliable sources which support that the whole Serbia is considered part of Central Europe? These [28][29] maps are obviously not such sources. Thanks, KœrteFa{ταλκ} 12:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Central Europe is Poland,the Czech Republic,Slovakia and Hungary, the Wyszehrad Group
As above.And what is Germany doing here?And Austria and Switzerland too.What?Are you people blind?Look at the map and if you have bad eyesight then wear glasses and if it still doesn't help then help yourselves with rulers.Measure the centre between all four edges of Europe:
a)western in western Portugal,
b)eastern in the Urals,
c)northern in Lapland and
d)sothern in Malta
and you will see that the centre encompasses ONLY those four countries:Poland (my country),the Czech Republic,Slovakia and Hungary.
Thats's geography;it's most important but after securing that position let's look at other,less important factors such as:nations,history,national characters/mentalities,cultures,religion.
Poles,Czechs and Slovaks are all Western Slavic and Eastern Lechitic nations so we have a very strony linkage with Hungary as exeption but next factors prove that it's only one exception.
Common history of nations squeezed between a few powers such as :Russia,Germany,and Osman Turkey and Habsburg Austria in the past;nations that have been facing hardships coming from at least one of them always in their history,often being occupied by one or more of them which solidified their national characters together with the Christian religion (Catholic and protestant).
By three out of four of them being Western Slavic,we have common mentality,customs and traditions,unseen both in Western and Eastern Europe.We are distinct from both.Our economies are also in between the rich West and poor East as one can easily witness by comparing our GDPs,nominal and with PPP.
Also,in our previous centuries we were experiencing rule of monarchs of common dynasties such as the Jagiellons and Andegawens who bounded us together in many ways,for instance in common foreign and military policies and threats (,Germans,Osman Turks,Russians).This is not what one sees in Germany,Austria and (oh please) Switzerland that were once under German influence which we can see even today.How can anyone link Germans to Poles,Czechs,Slovaks and Hungarians?Are you people crazy?There are NO links between our nations and Germans whatsoever so please remove Germany,Austria and Switzerland and leave only REAL UNDISPUTED Central European nations:Poles,Czechs,Slovaks and Hungarians and their countries because you people are trying to link those that have never been linked.If you people want to pretend that this is an encyclopaedia then act like you're writing one and not a list of wishful thoughts of German lobbies.Germany is in Western Europe - just look at the map - that's first,and then read books on European history - that's second.
Putting the Germans together with Poles,Czechs,Slovaks and Hungarians is the best way to sabotage the whole concept and understanding of Central Europe.It's just a way to make the Germans feel even more conceited;they always say that they are so 'cultured',such 'philosophers','inventors' and stuff like that,and they feel that they are the hub of the universe so you should understand that a nation that thinks of itself as the hub of the universe must brainwash others into believing in its supposed centredness in everything and that includes being the centre of the continent.How annoying and we don't want to be associated with the Germans.Good riddance Germans!
Dear REAL Central European, you have forgotten about a few things regarding Extreme points of Europe. First of all, if you include islands like Malta (which is not actually the southern point - it is a Greek island of Gavdos), you cannot forget about Iceland, possibly Madeira (westernmost). Then you have Cape Flissingsky in the east, and Svalbard in the north, unless you recognise Cape Fligely as the most northernmost point of Europe. Many of these places are missed on many maps of Europe due to their little importance, while they actually do matter - Svalbard has its Svalbard Global Seed Vault, Iceland is a country, Madeira has a large population and Franz Joseph Land is literally on the oil- and gasfield, while being one of the last places of Earth to be very little impacted by humans ([7][8]). Current measurements indicate that depending on how you define Europe's borders, Geographical midpoint of Europe is either in Lithuania, Hungary, Estonia or Belarus. Poland is in western Europe, north-western or south-eastern. For cultural reasons it is called Central Europe. Geographically it also makes sense, but remember all of these things.--89.128.236.143 (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Culturally Central European countries were always both Poland and Germany, Czech Republic and Slovakia, Switzerland, Austria and Hungary. They share a lot of culture and history.--161.116.21.65 (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, so Europe is the only continent on the globe, which had no central part... Very logic Cold-War era thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.94.148 (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Response from the UN about the geoscheme
Found on Wikipedia:
"Seeing all the spats about European sub-divisions (Europe is quite small for dividing!), I have decided to contact the UN and as what they think abou the fact that their geoscheme is so extensively used on Wiki. This is what I received:
"Dear xxxxx,
Thank you for your email.
The geographical groupings used by the United Nations Statistics Division follow the M49 Standard for Area Codes for Statistical use, details of which can be found here: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49.htm
The designations employed and the presentation of material at this site do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations.
"Regions" are so drawn as to obtain greater homogeneity in sizes of population, demographic circumstances and accuracy of demographic statistics (another example is Russia -- it is in the continent of Asia but it belongs in the Eastern Europe "region"). This nomenclature is widely used in international statistics but it is by no means universal.
I hope this is useful.
Best regards,
The UN Demographic Yearbook Team."
Another statement:
"Dear XXXXX,
You have contacted the United Nations Statistics Division. In regard to the designation "Eastern Europe", please be advised that, as per the "Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use (M49)", which is an international set of 3-digit numerical codes for statistical country reporting, the designations "Eastern Europe", "Western Europe", "Northern Europe" and "Southern Europe" and the assignment of countries to such groupings are intended for statistical convenience and do not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations.
Best regards,
Kimberly Gruber
United Nations Kimberly Gruber
Information Systems Officer
Statistics Division
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)
DC2-1640
New York, NY 10017
Tel: +1 212 963 8076
E-mail: gruberk@un.org"
On the second of February, I edited the article about Central Europe to provide multiple points of view regarding the categorization of Poland as a Central European country. I did this in good faith, believing that I am contributing to Wikipedia by providing more than one point of view (without removing the original statement). Of course, whilst doing so, I backed up my modification with references to authoritative organizations like the European Union and the United Nations. Unfortunately, two days later, the user Powertranz began his quest to revert my edit. He continued to do so, effectively censoring another point of view and going directly against Wikipedia's rule of NPOV. Since this was basically turning into an edit war, earlier today I decided to post the following on Powertranz's talk page:
"This is regarding your persistence on removing a neutral point of view from the article about Central Europe. You claim that the fact many people and various important organizations see Poland as Eastern Europe should not be included within said article. In essence, you are censoring other points of view and trying to replace them with only yours; this goes directly against the rules and principles of Wikipedia.
You claimed that: "If you want to say that some people consider Poland as eastern Europe than you might as well state that some consider the Czech republic, Hungary, Slovakia, etc as eastern Europe. The side note is pointless and irrelevant to the geopolitics." This is simply incorrect. To start off with, I think we can both agree that the European Union and the United Nations (both of which I have mentioned in my references) are not just "some people". Whether you agree with them or not, it is a fact that these two organizations are powerful and hold much authority. If (arguably) the two most important supranational/global organizations in Europe consider Poland an Eastern European country, then your statements that it's just a "side note" that is "pointless and irrelevant to the geopolitics" is simply invalid.
Lastly, it is worth noting that you have accused me of vandalism. Frankly, I find that insulting. I'd like to point out that your actions and stubborn reluctance to accept more than one point of view are detrimental to the article, violate the rules of this online encyclopedia and resemble vandalism much more so than what I have done. I have been kind with you, but I am losing my patience. If you want, we can start offending and reporting ourselves like a bunch of children and see how that works out, or you could just learn from your mistakes and move on."
He did not heed my words (I am not sure if he even read them) and reverted my edit once again. Now I am not even sure if he is prepared to break the rules just to get his point across or if he is "trolling". Either way, because I do not have the authority to impose sanctions and I see no point in an edit war, I've decided to turn here. I would appreciate it if someone with authority could step in, assess the situation fairly and take the appropriate course of action.
It is sad to see that no one here is concerned with upholding the rules of Wikipedia. -- Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Apparently some users have problems with the fact that Poland is in Central Europe. Quoting ONE United Nations agency and its goeoscheme, destined ONLY for its INTERNAL use and CONVENIENCE, they CLAIM it is THE GEOSCHEME, representing ALL UN, and superior to absolutely everything, perhaps even Mother Earth :D. I would capitalise POV more than I can here.--82.127.189.107 (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
This problem actually sorted itself out once Powetranz was warned by someone with authority and decided to rethink his actions, so I'm not sure why you have decided to get interested in this now. Moreover, considering that you began your response by stating a controversial categorization as if it was a universally accepted fact, I think you completely missed the point I was making. What I generally tried to achieve (and eventually managed to do so) is to make sure that the article isn't biased, since before it stated that Poland was in Central Europe and that was it. However, it is not as simple as that. Some class it as Central European, some call it Eastern Europe, whilst others say it is East-Central... a very small minority even call it Western European! The two most popular categories for Poland seem to be Eastern Europe and Central Europe, so it is important that both of these are represented as widely accepted points of view rather than universally accepted facts. Whether you like it or not, there are plenty of people and significant organizations out there that still think of Poland as an Eastern European country.
Finally, the fact that the UN (and the EU, which you seem to have ignored completely) put Poland in Eastern Europe says something - even if it is for statistical purposes only, there is always a reason for why something is grouped with group x instead of group y. -- Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
False sentence
This sentence is false: The United Nations doesn't acknowledge a regional division of Central Europe, identifying four geographic region of Europe (North, South, East and West). One agency doesn't. Others do.--MagenUK (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Not done - duplication of position #12 rectified. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
No. It is not done. There is a new report - 2014.--94.118.41.74 (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the correct version. Unfortunately, I cannot do it myself.
Central European media are considered as free. Some of the top scoring countries are in Central Europe:
A) 94.118.45.206, the content in need of 'updating' should have been specified clearly. The link originally provided was broken & I repaired it later when I finally understood what the issue actually was (please see this talk page's history). All I could see as being wrong was that the #12 ranking was repeated for 2 countries.
B) What do you mean when you say that you can't do it yourself? You've just added the layout here! Feel free to add it to the page yourself as, after your uncivil behaviour, and due to the current personal emergency I have informed you of after the demand you left on another talk page pertaining to the map and necessity for information updates, I feel particularly disinclined to hurry up and do anything in order to accommodate you. It's only a minor learning curve. Other editors may end up assisting you if you mess anything up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems that that some people, like Irina, wish to pursue their personal issues...--31.51.19.223 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
What 'personal issues' would that be? This could make or break... er, what?
I'll tell you what, since this appears to be a matter of extreme urgency to you, open an account and do a cut and paste from the list above into the article. Naturally, you can't do it as an IP, so what could be preventing you from opening an account? Blocked a few too many times, eh? Favonian has already spotted you. I know you. Don't try the delegation game with me again. I'll get to it when I get to it... if I get to it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You are a bit of a nasty character, and a vandal, too. Please take your luggage of hate and go back to the past where you belong, perhaps the Cold War era :)--194.181.135.164 (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC) EDIT My preference would be to remove this comment as this contributor has been blocked (again) for multiple account abuse for WP:POV pushing. Will leave it for the record as violation of WP:CIVIL and an array of other violations. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Subsection 'Countries (regions) occasionally included in Central Europe'
As it's been suggested that the subsection would be more aptly named as 'Regions occasionally included in Central Europe', I thought it best to revert to the current title (as per section name) pending discussion.
I don't think it's appropriate to remove 'countries' from the title as, in contemporary terms, kingdoms and empires have now become nation-states (or, in lay terms, countries). Due to the fact that historical concepts are equally as influential, having 'regions' in parentheses is not particularly informative.
Under the circumstances, I would perceive 'Countries and regions occasionally included...', or 'Countries or regions...' as being both neutral and informative.
Any thoughts from other contributors? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
'Countries and regions' sounds like the best option, but I think the heading is a bit too long. Perhaps it could just be 'Other countries and regions' instead of 'Countries and regions occasionally included in Central Europe'? Since it is under the 'States' heading, and there are clear descriptions of what this section is about, I personally think it would be obvious enough that such a title is referring to places categorized by some sources as Central European. -- Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I fully support your proposed change. As the current title is a subsection of a section, it's unnecessarily long. 'Other countries and regions' is clear in and of itself and, considering that it's fully defined directly under the heading, I can't see any reason to even consider it to be contentious. Nevertheless, given that other contributors may have a well supported policy/guideline objection, there is now a section here on the talk page should it be deemed necessary to go through a WP:BRD process. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Map and infobox at the top
There was a very nice infobox and map at the article for Eastern Europe, however - as Szaboci pointed out - map and further info is biased and has no references provided, the lead explains the complexity of the topic this is why there should not be a map picked and put on the top to mislead the casual reader. The same can be applied to the Central Europe article. We can assume that for these reasons articles for northern, western and southern Europe never had infoboxes. However, people have been stopping me from removing the infobox and map from this article. It should be removed for reasons stated earlier. If not, then the infobox at Eastern Europe should be restored and pages for Northern Europe, Western Europe and Southern Europe (perhaps Southeastern Europe and East-Central Europe also). We should either have infoboxes that show the most widely-accepted definitions of these regions (showing expert opinions and popular ideas) or have no infoboxes for them at all, letting the articles speak for themselves by showing the various theories that experts have come up with. No article should be an exception, so I see no reason why Central Europe is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.146.153 (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Lolwut if people keep reverting and give stupid reasons like "no consensus", but don't actually join the discussion then... waaat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.146.153 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
If you want to be taken seriously, IP user 82.39.146.153 hailing from the United Kingdom, please start an account. You blanked out what you don't like which is not a valid argument. Nobody knows what "biased" means to you, and what it is that you want exactly. Biased in what way? Continent-wise? Countries? Languages? Or the size of the infobox? You didn't say. You need to form an argument also for removing the box containing article title and the geographical map showing corresponding part of the planet Earth with no national borders. You haven't done that. – But, let me explain... Being part of Central Europe (the long edge of the Cold War) is like belonging to God. If you say you belong to God, you probably do. This is not a bias... This is a belief you're entitled to have... Usually, the infobox contains key words appearing in the article. For example, China is not in the article, therefore China is not included in the infobox. However, the countries mentioned in the article should be OK there in the box also. Poeticbenttalk 14:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I think my argument is clear enough. If Eastern Europe and all the other parts of this continent are not allowed to have infoboxes, then why should Central Europe have one? Regardless of what you think about it, CE is not the centre of the world... it's a silly social construct like any other (just like Western, Eastern, Northern, Southern Europe etc.). As such, it deserves the same treatment as the other parts. The reason why any infobox is biased in an article like this one is because there is more than one theory of what constitutes each part of Europe (and Europe itself for that matter). An infobx can only show one point of view, not multiple ones. An infobox is placed at the top and takes up a large amount of space, thus promoting that POV above others. One option I suggested is to simply include all of the states that are most commonly associated with the corresponding part of Europe that we're talking about, thus making it quite large - but that way we'd be inclusive and show multiple points of view rather than exclusive and show fewer theories. I personally think the infobox at Central Europe is quite nice and inclusive, but if it is to stay then I think the infobox that was removed from Eastern Europe (which I do believe was used as a basis for improvement of the infobox at CE) should be restored and articles for Northern, Western and Southern sections of Europe should have similar infoboxes made for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.146.153 (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Are your 'suggestions' backed up by verifiable and reliable secondary sources, or is this your own original research/POV? As per Poeticbent's response, I would 'suggest' that you create a user account and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before embarking on a crusade to clean up infoboxes according to your own logic. Oh, and do remember to sign your comments on talk pages as you've been contributing long enough to have acquainted yourself with the rudimentaries. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Chill out. I'm not sure if you've read this discussion before commenting, because your response doesn't seem quite valid in this case. But fine, I see it's a well-developed bureaucracy here so I'll back down before the master strikes me. I was just trying to be consistent - one user pointed out good reasons as to why there shouldn't be a userbox at Eastern Europe, I saw his point and realized the exact same applies to Central Europe. Don't see what's there to be a prick about; I suggested a simple question, received no answer and was told to make an account. Anyway, I'll go restore the infobox at Eastern Europe, but the user who removed it might not be happy about that. Btw, I haven't been editing that long really - more than just one person uses this IP, so you're probably talking about someone else.
The fact that 'more than just one person uses this IP' is all the more reason for creating your own user account. Note, also, that I did read your comment. My policy pointers may appear to be off-topic, but are suggestions that you, as a newbie, familiarise yourself with key policies, guidelines et al. For example WP:BRD applies if you wish to make bold changes. Discussions do not take place in edit summaries on other articles (per your reference to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Europe&diff=prev&oldid=603477287 this 'good reason' (sic)) but on the corresponding talk page of the article in question. Another example is that you don't blank anything unless you provide valid, policy-based and consensus-based content because you believe that you have a better approach (or any other form of objections to the content).
Above all, familiarise yourself with the articles you wish to work on, your fellow Wikipedians and the fact that not everyone would agree with you as to where and when infoboxes are useful. As you can see, responses on this talk page by long-term, hard-working editors and contributors are kept terse. It is always useful to check the entire talk page (including archives) in order to understand both the rationale and context for the content you wish to contest. It may also assist you in recognising that comments such as, "I see it's a well-developed bureaucracy here so I'll back down before the master strikes me." are both uncivil and unwarranted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Revert of most recent edits due to violation of NPOV
I reverted the recent edits of user tanper. The reason: Croatian pov vandalism and deletion of a lot of sourced information. The edit comment "Christian" was by autocorrect sry. Kind regards Seader (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I again reverted his edit due to heavy violation of NPOV by forcing Croatia into Central Europe by placing Croatia in several places in the article. Also Romania and Serbia have been deleted from the article but depending on the definition of Central Europe they are also part of it. The sources which show that croatia is also listed in Southeast Europe have all been deleted with other sources informations in this article and replaced by PoV and non relevant stuff. There is no clear generally accepted definition of Central Europe and the article is reflecting this fact pretty well in his current state. The recent edits change that picture in a not approprriate way. Therefore I reverted Tanpers edits. Kind regards Seader (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
/
Error, see below.
Sources deletion/addition and States Reformation
I've found a lot of sources not to relate to the text or what they are cited for, hence my deletion of them. But since some consider it as too much of a radical step, we probably should discuss it.
I advise for the following sources to be deleted (expect "Ok." one in Croatia).
Croatia:
[1] - This might be the only valid source, but it's not The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, but a The Free Dictionary article which just uses it as a source.
[3] - Apperantly here lies the source for Croatia being in SE Europe, but when it opens on the page where it only speaks of Slovenia (and it mostly covers it as CE). This does not relate to Croatia, but is listed there.
[4] - This one talks about Balkan, and then excludes a part of Croatia, which again means it can't be used for making decisive placing of the country, considering for what it is used as a source.
[5] - An US college program used as a source? Really?
[6][7] - A programme that lists Italy, Slovakia and Ukraine as South East Europe as well. I don't think this is legit to use as a source, but if it's used it should be attributed to all the countries.
And then two "sources" (books) which can in no way be checked, but I doubt them based on the past experience.
Slovenia:
[3] - Apperantly here lies the source for Croatia being in SE Europe, but when it opens on the page where it only speaks of Slovenia (and it mostly covers it as CE).
Serbia:
[8] - This one basically annulates itself since it lists Serbia as both CE and SEE, which means it can not be attributed to only one claim. What I mean by this is that you can write Serbia - Central Europes [this source], but alernatively is placed in SE Europe [the same source]. It doesn't make any sense in the way it's used.
[9] - Just look at the page (does not seems as something that should be sourced), and then the same problem arises as with the past source.
[10] - I see no mention of Serbia's geographic location so I don't understand why it is listed as a source.
[11] - here's in english: http://www.vojvodina.gov.rs/en/autonomous-province-vojvodina. Mentions only Vojvodina (not Macva and Belgrade) and does not support the claim it was cited for, just a link to a page of what I presume is the government of Vojvodina.
[12] - No mention of Central Europe, just Austrian Occupation (for meagre 30 or so years).
[13] - A map that shows expansion of Habsburg Monarchy, not Central Europe.
With Serbia, there just aren't sources. If anyone can provide some reliable, please do so.
States should be reformed then as well.
I propose:
-moving Croatia to the usual understanding (as it usually is)
-deletion of the regions that do not have sources for those claims (Russia, Ukraine, etc.) unless someone provides them (I don't think that should be too hard)
- Merging of Romanias. We have 2 of them which makes no sense. Those two blocks of Other countries and regions could be merged.
- Removing the [alternatively, it is placed in...] for Croatia and Slovenia as aesthetically it wouldn't look good and then mentioning that below (where it says for Austria and the rest) with cited sources.
Also, we could introduce new sources, but this should be a priority.
Lastly, some of sources/links aren't functioning, but I don't know exactly which one now (aren't mentioned here) Tanper (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
^Andrew Geddes,Charles Lees,Andrew Taylor : "The European Union and South East Europe: The Dynamics of Europeanization and multilevel goverance", 2013, Routledge
I will answer to this during the next few days when I find some time to sort the sources. There is enough reliable sources which declare Croatia as part of southeast europe. Geographically it is between southeast and central europe. Depending on the source it is in central or in southeast europe. Since there is no clear generally accepted definition of southeast Europe and therefore Central Europe it is not possible count such border countries like Croatia into Central Europe without additional informations about the other definitions and relatedness to other areas without violating WP:NPOV. The article in its current state is showing this complicated situation quite well and the made changes changed this picture in a not appropriate way. Same goes for the added football part which also violated the "no original research" guidelines. Kind regards Seader (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Very busy at the moment so I did not got much time yet to sort the sources but here a beginning that Croatia is not that easy to put only in Central Europe since there are a lot of sources used in the past which claim that its in the Balkans, which we all agree is in Southeast Europe:
Officiall sources from EU-Institutions or Member states:
(German); Tado Juric; Westbalkan-Erweiterung der EU - Europäisierungsprozess in Bosnien und Herzegowina, Serbien und Kroatien – ein Vergleich, Schriften zur Europapolitik, Band 21, Hamburg 2013, ISBN978-3-8300-7377-2 (Translation of Title: Western Balkan enlargement of the EU - Europeanisation process in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Croatia - a comparison)
(German):Editors:Prof.Dr.Gudrun Peschutter, Prof.Dr. Hans-Eggert Reimers, Prof.Dr.Michael Schleicher; Leopold Maurer, Osterweiterung der Europäischen Union; Stuttgart 2004; ISBN3-8282-0279-9 ; page 135
(German): Van Meurs, Wim: Den Balkan integrieren. Die europäische Perspektive der Region nach 2004. In: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, Frankfurt 2003, page 37
Sanjay Kathuria;Western Balkan Integration and the EU: An Agenda for Trade and Growth; The World Bank, Washington 2008, ISBN: 978-0-8213-7472-6
Florian Trauner; The Europeanisation of the Western Balkans - EU justice and home affairs in Croatia and Macedonia; Manchester University Press; 2011; ISBN: 978-0-7190-8345-7
Editor: Vera Stojarová,Peter Emerson ; Jakub Sedo , Party Politics in the Western Balkans; New York; 2010; ISBN13 978-0-415-55099 ; page 73
SME Policy Index: Western Balkans and Turkey 2012: Progress in the implementation of the small business act for europe; OECD & European Union; 2012; ISBN978-92-79-26076-6
Energy in the Western Balkans: the path to reform and reconstruction; International Energy Agency, United Nations Development Programme; 2008
Robert Hayden , From Yugoslavia to the Western Balkans: Studies of a European Disunion, 1991 - 2011; BRILL, Balkan Studies Library; ISBN978-90-04-24190-9
Kind regards Seader (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I see some changes have been made, such as replacing sources for Croatia and deletion of Russia and Ukraine, as well as some other changes.
I deleted the questionable sources I listed here before (the ones about Serbia), and currently there are none. So it would be great if someone can add some valid sources. Otherwise, there is no point in keeping Serbia there.
Also, since Luxembourgh is deleted from 'Countries' section, it should probably also be removed from other places in the text (tables, etc.). Tanper (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Central European Time
I've tagged the Central European Time section as being speculative. While there are references for 20th century adoption this standardised regional time, the references for the 19th century adoption are dubious at best, most particularly for entities which were simply regions under major empires. Suggesting that Slovakia and the Czech Republic adopted Central European Time in 1890, for example, is a serious stretch of reality. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It would be best if it were "The areas of current "xxxxx" started using CET in xxxx". Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, Slovenia and Hungary were part of Austria-Hungary then, so technically none of them were indepent countries (though Austria was the "head"). The only puzzling thing is how Czech Republic addopted it in 1890, Hungary in 1891 and Austria in 1893. If the Austria-Hungary adopted CET, it is to be assumed all parts of it adopted it in the same time.Tanper (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm agreeable to that as a compromise. Nevertheless, a the only citation is for Poland (and that's simply a footnote to backdating to it to align with the adoption of CET in Austria), I think a genuine RS is needed to establish the dates. I don't want to presume anything to be non-AGF, therefore it could be that there were regions slower on the uptake... some, apparently, pre-dating Austria. As that section in the CET article is also entirely unreferenced, I'd be reticent to simply transpose the dates given to the format you're suggesting. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Central Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Archived version confirmed as being correct. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Central Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
1 archive confirmed as correct; 1 x no capture available removed. Thanks, Cyberbot II! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Central Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Confirmed as correct. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Central Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 8 external links on Central Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Central Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The change I made before this edit expands the introduction to account for one group's central Europe not always being another group's central Europe. Also, if located between east and west, then it should also be located between north and south but this wasn't mentioned. In fact, there is no need to explain that centre lies between east and west so I deduced that the references were to the still used 2-Europe design. Obviously asides East Germany, Eastern Europe here tends to be the Communist states before 1990. I feel like mentioning early on that Central Europe is not "centred" on the midpoint of the continent. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Globalisation
I noticed in the globalisation paragraph that Slovakia is mentioned twice with two different rankings --Exmak (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Section "Central European countries by geography"
Ban kavalir: You may not have read my edit summary. It consisted of a suggestion for you to read the Wikipedia guideline WP:BRD. When your Bold edit was Reverted, you should Discuss it in the talk page. When you instead choose to just reinsert your edit, now for the third time, it means that you are starting an edit war, which you can read more about here: WP:EDITWAR.
I do not participate in edit wars, so I will not revert your edit. I see now that you have included Switzerland, which is fine. However, you need to answer the following: Given that the whole article underlines that "Central Europe" is not a clear-cut, well-defined concept, and that there exists lots of different definitions, how is it possible to make a list that states exactly what is and what is not Central Europe, even down to percentages of countries. Before you answer, I would suggest that you also read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --T*U (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I fully agree with TU-nor. The article contains many paragraphs of text explaining that there is no single, clear, or agreed-upon definition of what Central Europe is, either as a political (states and borders) or geographical (mountains and rivers) construct. The article goes to great lengths to present multiple valid points of view, citing many reliable sources that nevertheless often contradict each other. To have this followed by a black-and-white list, not only of what countries are definitely in Central Europe or not, but even internally divided, to a precision of "42,1%", is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.
The first part of the list, "Entirely within Central Europe", with the exception of the exclusion of Switzerland which is relegated unsourced to "Mostly within Central Europe", duplicates the initial eight-country list provided in the "States" section, and so is redundant and can be removed, in preference to the more nuanced (and sourced) version above.
The second "Mostly within" part of the list is problematic, in that it directly contradicts the "States" and "Geography" sections that precede it, insofar as it gives undue weight to one or two particular sources. It's all very well for a particular source to make such a claim (if they in fact give these percentage numbers - I don't have access to them), and if the source is reliable it can be cited, but it must be balanced against, and integrated with, the numerous other sources existing throughout the article that give differing viewpoints. Such claims based on single sources without widespread agreement typically should not be presented directly in the "Wikipedia voice", but for example "according to the Geographical Horizon magazine", and placed alongside other valid viewpoints, as has been done in the prior sections. The third part, "Partially within", is unsourced, and appears to be original research.
Therefore I have removed the entire section and its references to the talk page, below, until they can be re-worked appropriately into the other sections in a more balanced and neutral way:
^Geographical horizon (Scientific and Professional magazine of the Croatian Geographical Society), article; On the north border and confine of the Balkan Peninsula, No1/2008, year LIV, ISSN 0016-7266, p.30-33
^Geographical horizon (Scientific and Professional magazine of the Croatian Geographical Society), article; On the north border and confine of the Balkan Peninsula, No1/2008, year LIV, ISSN 0016-7266, p.33
^Croatian society for Systems (Scientific and Professional articles), article; Central Southern Europe as new concept and the Balkan complex, Zagreb, 2017, p.89-115
Recent reverts
Skyhighway,
please do not ignore the information you were told, Romania is counted to Eastern-Europe and not member of the CET time zone, so tendentiously adding those content to this article is improper. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC))
Only because you don't accept it doesn't mean Romania is not part of Central Europe. It is only very hard for you to admit it. Skyhighway (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me, are you kidding? Did you read this article or the Eastern Europe article? Why do you think I would decide which country is where? Romania is officially an Eastern-European country.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC))
Not really. More and more is recognized as a Central European one. Since the GDP per capita and wages are almost the same with Hungary. Just to give an example. Who knows in the near future? Skyhighway (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I think you are mixing geographical context vs. individual charachteristics. The level of GDP has not any connection to any geographical location on that meaning that it cannot change a country's geographical location, thus such statement like Romania would be recognized more and more as a Central European one cannot be interpreted in any means like that.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC))
Romania as Central European country
I can bring 100 sources if you want that supports idea that Romania is nowadays considered as 'full' Central European country. I don't know why people from Hungary and editors that are present here in wikipedia ignore this and still live in the past....Skyhighway (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Map and list in infobox, other lists of states, redux
I have corrected the author name and info and added a citation for the source used as the basis of the infobox map, CentralEurope2.PNG, which is given in its description as "P. Jordan, Großgliederung Europas nach kulturräumlichen Kriterien, Europa Regional, 13. Jahrgang, 2005, Heft 4, S. 162 – 173, Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde (IfL), Leipzig."
I have checked the source and the information in CentralEurope2.PNG doesn't correspond correctly to it, so I've added a "failed verification" template. You can find the two source maps which (should) have been combined to produce the map in the infobox here:
CentralEurope2.PNG represents the "by countries" information in dark green, but omits Croatia, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, which are included by the source. The source includes a portion of Belarus in the "by cultural criteria" information, as well as a larger portion of Italy, which are omitted in CentralEurope2.PNG. There also seems to be a problem with how the western border of Slovenia is drawn.
The map needs to be fixed so that it corresponds to the source, or replaced. One solution could be to replace it with Grossgliederung Europas-en.svg, currrently used in the "Mitteleuropa" section, which contains an accurate representation of Jordan's work. It may not be the most suitable for that section anyway, because it represents a contemporary conception of Central Europe, rather than the older conception of Mitteleuropa that is mainly discussed in that section. On the other hand, how do we decide exactly, which map to privilege in the top spot of the infobox? Is this German version, including the Baltic states, the best one? There are also about ten other maps, that seem to be randomly placed in the "Politics - Organizations" section, showing different definitions of Central Europe. I would lean toward not having one map presented above all the others, as there doesn't seem to be a solid basis to choose just one. The infobox could simply not show a map, as is done in several other Europe articles.
Similarly, the list of states in the infobox is unsourced. Currently it corresponds neither to the map in its current incorrect condition - because it contains Croatia, which the map does not - nor to the source given for the map, which also includes Luxembourg, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. It also doesn't correspond to the main list given in the "States" section - which is also unsourced - that currently includes neither Croatia nor Slovenia. Furthermore, there are a number of lists later in the article, for example in the "Economy" and "Education" sections, which are contradictory. Some include Luxembourg or Liechtenstein, while others don't, but they all include Croatia and Slovenia. Some include Serbia and Romania, etc.
I tried to remove the list from the infobox, but was reverted. I've marked it with "citation needed". My opinion at this point is that such a list isn't appropriate, for two reasons. First, I think we shouldn't present such a list as a simple fact in the infobox. As I noted in another discussion above, the article contains many paragraphs of text explaining that there is no single, clear, or agreed-upon definition of what Central Europe is, either as a political (states and borders), geographical (mountains and rivers), or cultural (languages and ethnicities) construct. The article goes to great lengths to present multiple valid points of view, citing many reliable sources that nevertheless often contradict each other. To present at the same time a black-and-white list at the top of the article, of which countries are definitely in Central Europe and which are not, goes against WP:NPOV. This is true even if citations are given, but is completely unacceptable when it's unsourced and contradicts other parts of the article.
Secondly, related to that, the list has a long history of inviting edit-warring over changes to it. This isn't surprising, given that there is no general agreement about what countries are or are not considered Central Europe. Having a constantly-changing list due to battling editors is bad for Wikipedia, because it contributes to the idea that Wikipedia is unreliable.
Agreeing fully with IamNotU about removing the list of countries from the infobox. By the same reasoning, also the map should go, since it covers only one of several possible definitions of Central Europe. This will leave us with an infobox with virtully no information, so the infobox itself should be removed. The infobox is in any case a rather recent addition to this article, added in October 2018 by a now indefinitely blocked editor, who did the same for several "X-ern Europe" article. All those other infoboxes have been removed for similar reasons. In reality, none of these regions are well-defined enough to warrant an infobox.
All "X-ern Europe" article are victim to edit warring of the type "My country should/should not be listed here" or "Country Y is certainly/certainly not part of X-ern Europe". In my opinion, the article should be limited to discussions about different definitions of "Central Europe". If any lists are to be presented, they will need explicit inclusion criteria. Getting there is, however, an uphill battle. --T*U (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I waited some time, then went ahead with removing the infobox. For future reference, the citation I added of the source given for the map was: <ref name="Jordan 2005">{{cite journal|access-date=21 January 2019|first=Peter|last=Jordan|journal=Europa Regional|date=2005|title=Großgliederung Europas nach kulturräumlichen Kriterien|trans-title=The large-scale division of Europe according to cultural-spatial criteria|volume=13|issue=4|pages=162-173|publisher=Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde (IfL) |publication-place=Leipzig|via=Ständiger Ausschuss für geographische Namen (StAGN)|url=http://www.stagn.de/DE/1_Der_StAGN/Publikationen/StAGN_GGEuropa/grosseu_node.html}}</ref> I've added a note to the map file to indicate that it doesn't correctly reflect the source. --IamNotU (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Croatia part of Central Europe
Once again it seems that some editors prefer to delete sources rather then read them or take them into account!
This sentence should be part of Central Europe and not other regions:
Croatia is part of Central Europe (54% of the territory mainly in Central Europe)[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] If you read the sources list we can see that more then a few relevant sources would confirm so.
Politically and culturally (see Croatian Ministry of foreign affairs) Croatia is part of Central Europe, but most interesting is the geographical part which people tend to not read when presented with a source. So here is the research exactly on that subject focusing on the border of Central Europe and the Northern Balkans. This is the only and relevant research and professional article on that subject in the World. It focused on the limits of the exact borders between Central Europe and the Balkans, which confirm Croatia is part of Central Europe. The article is written by Radovan Pavić and published by the Croatian Geographical Society, its name and subject; On the north border and confine of the Balkan Peninsula[2] and should be the scientific and by that valid introspective into the subject at hand.
Ban kavalir, at Special:Diff/887754358/887779763 you wrote: "two new relevant sources and references added to existing ones (sources contain translations in English)", but I don't any English translations. The first source, which I translated with Google translate, seems to state that 54% of Croatia is within the lowland region. But it does not say that this is considered "Central Europe" while the rest of Croatia is not. The second reference to "Geographical horizon" (On the north border and confine of the Balkan Peninsula) gives no access to the text, in any language.
Despite this, both of these appear to reference geographical definitions of "Central Europe". This is one way of looking at things, but certainly not the only way.
Some reliable sources place Croatia entirely within Central Europe, others exclude it completely, while others describe it as being partially within it. It may well be possible to describe it as being one way geographically, and another way culturally. WP:NPOV, a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." What this means in this particular situation is that the idea that 54% of Croatia is in Central Europe could possibly be mentioned in the article, if it is supported by authoritative and reliable sources, but it must be presented as only one view of several competing views, that each have widespread acceptance. It is simply not possible to entirely discount the other viewpoints that maintain that Croatia is entirely–or not at all–part of Central Europe, and replace it with a flat-out statement that 54% of it is. I would invite you to respond to the earlier comments above at § Section "Central European countries by geography", which are still open. --IamNotU (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I was not aware that you had opened a discussion earlier since August 2018, where the same user was edit-warring the same information s/he is edit-warring now. Thank you IamNotU and T*U for your great analysis and points with which I fully agree. If this longterm edit-warring and POV-pushing continues against WP:CONSENSUS, I will report this at ANI. Dr.K. 06:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
ANSWER The last subject was the data of all countries, in the TALK page the question of Croatia was not problem but the info-box, since other editors wanted all countries sourced with data (like the one for Croatia and Slovenia) or none. This subject is not the same case, since Croatia is put into the part with other Central European states, which can be seen by many references it is part of it geographically, culturally and politically. The problem is that no one takes sources and references here seriously? How can someones personal view without a relevant reference be the corner stone for changing text whit more sources and relevant references claim to be otherwise? So lets get to the basics if we have put geographical (with the ONLY! professional work which focuses on that exact subject), cultural and political sources which all in majority state Croatia is a majority Central European country, how come it is still edited differently? Since now we have classical math that states more sources and references and more relevant sources and references claim its part of Central Europe. Not to mention official records and national institution which makes it that scientist agree its in Central Europe, but Wikipedia editors who are mostly under educated and under experienced compared to people with a PhD and years long research in a specific field, who are ofc referenced as relevant sources. The final question is are the editors here going to at least try to be professional or not? Bias and personal views are not the same as academic and professional standards. SY dr.sc. Ban kavalir (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Your reply sounds like the screed of an amateur. No serious academic tries to denigrate his opponents as under educated and under experienced sic while parading their own alleged credentials as if in a cheap circus at market square. Also using all-capitals with exclamation marks cf. (with the ONLY! professional work which focuses on that exact subject) to promote sources you agree with, comes across as yet another sign of amateurism. When you recover from this bout of haughtiness, you are welcome to seriously answer the objections put forward by multiple editors on this talkpage. Dr.K. 02:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Ban kavalir: I am not sure I understand all you are saying. Anyway, your comment the question of Croatia was not problem but the info-box is off the mark, since we are not referring to the infobox discussion, but to the discussion further up in the section § "Central European countries by geography" regarding the last time you tried to introduce "54% in Central Europe".
It is only possible to state that Croatia has 54% ... in Central Europe if we have an exact definition of the borders of Central Europe. No such definition exists. On the contrary, the introduction to the list says the concept of Central Europe is an ongoing source of controversy and views on which countries belong to Central Europe are vastly varied.
Furthermore, your suggested edit says 54% of the territory mainly in Central Europe (my bolding). A normal interpretation of "mainly" suggests that the 54% are not completely within CE, but only mainly within CE, but that is just nonsense, so whatever do you mean by "mainly"?
Finally, it would be very helpful if you would please learn – and follow – Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Removing sources because they do not support your preferred POV is plain disruptive, see WP:NPOV. I could also recommend that you read about WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD before you try to edit any more articles. --T*U (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
^ abGeographical horizon (Scientific and Professional magazine of the Croatian Geographical Society), article; On the north border and confine of the Balkan Peninsula, No1/2008, year LIV, ISSN 0016-7266, p.30-33
The graphic "Central Europe or Mitteleuropa: usage recommendation by the Standing Committee on Geographical Names, Germany" represents historical revisionism of the most blatant kind and is clearly designed to advance a particular political agenda rather than the truth. That graphic has no grounding whatsoever in history or culture. It should be recognized as a flagrant fabrication and promptly removed for it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.25.147 (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Vast removal of updated sources, states
TU-nor has removed updated 2018 sources of the Human Globalization Index, Legatum Prosperity Index, and Corruption Perceptions Index. Furthermore he removes mentions of the Baltic states, Romania and Ukraine from the definition, yet keeps Croatia and Serbia on the lists. None of these reverts are warranted at all, and they reek of potential vandalism. Also, KIENGIR reverted my edits on the states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania and tells me a consensus must be reached, yet no conensus was reached or even discussed regarding incorporating Balkan states like Croatia and Serbia. 185.41.130.3 (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Just be careful, goundless accuations of vandalism may result the opposite you imagine. You consistently pushed also other inappropriate changes, and even if part may be correct, you should follow our policies, like WP:BRD and seek WP:CONSENSUS. By the latter you may understand also the various aspects of consensus, or last stable version, etc. If there is any contest on your edits, they will be reverted or restored to a previous state, it is irrelevant in some cases if it is good or bad, but this is the process here.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC))
Your comment sounds awfully a lot like a threat. Also, what "inappropriate changes" do you speak of? You don't decide yourself what is an isn't inappropriate and appropriate. There was no consensus reached on anything, especially when it came to including Croatia and Serbia to the list. It was you alone who decided what is and isn't. That is not how Wikipedia works. Either the Baltics get included along with Serbia and Croatia, or Baltics and Croatia and Serbia get removed entirely. You cannot cherry-pick based on what you think alone fits the definition. -185.41.130.3 (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
No, my comment does not sound like so, I have warned you with a good faith of WP policies that if you won't follow, may face with consequences. "Inappropriate" may be if you do changes that are contested or do not follow our policies, one problem you acknowledged from my side, regarding the other part ask TU-nor why he reverted, that's why, yes, I don't decide alone. If you still did not read the policies I referred and do not understand that what means to build a new consensus and what is the last stable version before it, please do or do it again. No, I did not decide alone anything, since we are two and excuse me again, not I am the one who would miss how WP works, furthermore I did not "cherrypick" anytthing, just reverted to the last stable per protocoll.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC))
185.41.130.3: Sorry, but I am a bit busy in real life these days, therefore late answer. My revert was mostly procedural, as my edit summary explained by referring to WP:BRD. Unless you are willing to learn and understand how Wikipedia works, especially the policies referred to by KIENGIR, you will be reverted again.
My suggestion to you is this: First you self revert back to the last version by KIENGIR. Then you update the numbers that already are in the article, but without making your other changes. Finally you open one or more discussions in this talk page where you propose the addition of the Baltic states, Ukraine and whatever other changes you want. If you gain consensus for any of these suggestions, they can be added. If not, they can not. As simple as that. That is how Wikipedia works. --T*U (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
185.41.130.3 seems to have lost interest in this discussion, possible because the current version of the article is their preferred version. It is, however, not the consensus version, so there is no way this version can stay without establishing a new consensus here in the talk page. The current consensus version would be the version that has been more or less stable for a long period. However, Croatia and Serbia have been in and out of the listings, and since their inclusion/exclusion never has been thoroughly discussed, there may be doubts about whether there is consensus for including them in the comparison tables.
In order to be able to move on, I will now do what I have asked IP185.41 to do: Restore the version before the IPs additions, but updating the numbers according to the newer sources. Then I will start a RfC about inclusion criteria for comparison listings.
There is, however, also another aspect to this. This article is about a region in Europe, and much of the article is used for discussing different definitions and limitations. It is therefore not obvious that comparison listings between countries that may or may not be included in the various definitions, is within the scope of the article. In several other "X-ern Europe" articles, such listings have largely been removed because of missing inclusion criteria. The RfC will therefore also include a question about whether such listings should be in the article at all. --T*U (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
RfC about comparison between countries
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus that comparison listings should be removed from this article. The content is split to List of central European countries by development indexes, as originally drafted by Mathglot. Further discussion on the newly split list article may continue below or on its talk page. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Should the article contain comparison listings between countries?
If there is consensus for including such comparison listings, what shall be the inclusion criteria?
Note: For background please see several unconcluded discussions on this talk page. In question 2 I have deliberately not asked about which countries shall be included. The endless discussions in similar articles about inclusion/exclusion of specific countries is harmful and can only be avoided if there are clear inclusion criteria. T*U (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Survey
1: Remove comparison listings. This article is about a region with no universally accepted limits, and the article should focus on the region itself and the different definitions of the term "Central Europe", not on individual countries.
2: If there happens to be a consensus for keeping the comparison listings, they should follow the classification used by CIA World Factbook, Encyclopædia Britannica, and Brockhaus (see top right map in article). This delimitation should be mentioned explicitly in connection to the listings. --T*U (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Remove - I don't see how comparing a bunch of countries from a more or less arbitrarily defined geographical area can help an article. What exactly is the reader learning about said region other than the fact that Switzerland is much higher in all the rankings than Serbia? This seems content added for the sake of adding content. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Remove - This article should focus on the dynamic definition of the term "Central Europe". The only comparison list that could possibly be here is a comparison of how common a country is considered part of "Central Europe", but that would require a source that made that comparison already. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Remove Summoned by bot. I'm in agreement with TU-nor. The article should focus more on describing how sources over time have described various countries as being part of Central Europe, and what that means for the entity as a whole, including implications for the formal organizations defined as "Central European" that those countries participate in, rather than getting into the weeds comparing the countries that may or may not belong on the list. I think rankings and comparisons make more sense with all of Europe, and so those rankings can go in the Europe article. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 19:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Mu (wrong question) - TU-nor is right to be concerned about the edit-warring that takes place about what countries to include in various lists, and I strongly support the ongoing efforts to bring some kind of sanity to this article. But I'm afraid I have to give the minority report here, that this question is not well asked. The core subject of the article isn't the term (see WP:REFERS) or definition of what is or is not Central Europe, but Central Europe itself. It should include all the things that are usually discussed, such as history, geography, demographics, economics, politics, culture, weather, and so on. Central Europe, although its boundaries may be fluid, is an actual, real place. In that case, absolutely the article must make meaningful comparisons between the constituent countries, even if there is no precise definition of what those countries are. A blanket keep/remove decision about such comparisons is not helpful. A discussion about how best to present and improve them would be more so. For example, it's established that Wikipedia prefers explanatory prose over inline lists, see WP:USEPROSE and WP:NOTSTATS. Being vague can sometimes be more correct than a falsely-accurate list.
The first comparison list happens to be in the Economy section, "Human development index". I think that a presentation of the variations in that index, which is inherently country-based, is germane to the understanding of the subject of Central Europe. A decision that the information should simply be deleted from the article, because we can't agree on which countries do or do not belong in a list, would be harmful.
What, then, would be a better approach? We could agree to accept the fact that there is no agreed-upon master list of Central European countries, no verifiable basis for setting strict inclusion criteria, and that lists within the article may not conform to said non-existent master list, or to each other. Or, we could agree to base lists on the broadest possible interpretation of what countries belong to the concept of Central Europe - this is done, for example, in the list of European countries by population, where Europe is "broadly defined". Or, we could work towards converting the lists to prose, providing interpretation that might be more informative. For example, we could say something like "the Human Development Index [link to article containing a detailed, sortable table of statistics] varies across Central Europe, but has tended to be higher in the more western German-speaking countries." - or something like that. A very good approach would be to find reliable sources that discuss the human development index in terms of Central Europe, and summarize what they say, without looking in vain for a consistent definition among them that's not to be found. A combination of these approaches could be useful - otherwise, a simple decision to remove all comparison listings from the article risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater. --IamNotU (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that if we find reliable sources that discuss the human development index in terms of Central Europe, we should definitely present it, the key words being "in terms of Central Europe". I have not suggested to remove discussions about HDI or any other theme, only to get rid of the seemingly endless rows of plain comparison listings that does not add anything useful about Central Europe. --T*U (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
You're right that the article contains excessive lists, especially the rankings of countries in various indices, that seem like mostly low-quality filler. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists is clear that prose is preferred, WP:NOTSTATS says Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. Similar articles like Southern Europe, Europe, or European Union don't have such lists. In other words, I do support cleaning up and removing most or all of those lists, per the style and conventions that are already in place. But I'm wary of making a local consensus that we never have any country comparison lists in the article, because it's unnecessary WP:CREEP.
The second question, if I understand correctly, is if there are any remaining or future lists, what countries should be included? You've said I have deliberately not asked about which countries shall be included., but then have suggested a specific list, the one used by CIA World Factbook etc., in answer to the question. It seems to me a consensus here to always use that particular definition in all lists is problematic, as we well know, many people don't agree with it and I doubt that it would in fact avoid the endless frustrating discussions. I wouldn't agree to imposing a rule that a list in no case should contain the Baltic countries for example - it depends on the context. In my experience, people are least likely to disagree with the broadest possible definition, so I'd lean towards that, but only as a rule of thumb, not as strict inclusion criteria. --IamNotU (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I think we mostly agree. In order to be sure that the RFC questions were clear, I may have formulated them a bit too strict. What I hope for, is a consensus that makes it possible to get rid of most of the comparison lists (but present relevant data focused on the region aspect, if found). Regarding the inclusion criteria part, you may be right about the criteria depending on context. The main thing is that the criteria for inclusion in each specific case are made clear. --T*U (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think we agree. I could probably have said the above in a lot less words... basically I agree that the lists are excessive and should be cleaned up. It's good that you brought the issue to the talk page first, but the existing guidelines already support doing that. An RFC decision that "the article should not contain comparison listings between countries" might be interpreted as a blanket prohibition in the future, and the second part, that a particular list of countries (the top right map) must always be used. From what you've said, that's probably not what you intended... --IamNotU (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Split and summarize (Summoned by bot) – There seems to be fair agreement (so far) that the lists are excessive, but not what to do about it, or how. Hence, my Option 3, below. Mathglot (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Option 3: split out table detail into new article, summarize here
The following is a mockup of section 6, Economy from the article, to show how it might look after converting it to a Parent article in Summary style, according to the Option 3 proposal:
Example: section 6, Economy, after Option 3 change
Currently, the members of the Eurozone include Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland use their currencies (Croatian kuna, Czech koruna, Hungarian forint, Polish złoty), but are obliged to adopt the Euro. Switzerland uses its own currency – Swiss franc, Serbia too (Serbian dinar).
World map by quartiles of Human Development Index in 2013.
Very High
Low
High
Data unavailable
Medium
In 2018, Switzerland topped the HDI list among Central European countries, also ranking #2 in the world. Serbia rounded out the list at #11 (67 world).
Overview of the index of perception of corruption, 2015.
90–100
60–69
30–39
0–9
80–89
50–59
20–29
No information
70–79
40–49
10–19
Most countries in Central Europe tend to score above the average in the Corruption Perceptions Index (2018 data),[3] led by Switzerland, Germany, and Austria.
Infrastructure
Industrialisation occurred early in Central Europe. That caused construction of rail and other types of infrastructure.
The child article is good, thanks for doing that! I think the main article doesn't need all the individual subheadings and section links though, it's a bit cluttered (see MOS:BODY). They could be collapsed into just one subheading with a paragraph or so summarizing the indices and one "further" pointing to the new article. --IamNotU (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree that this is a more elegant and compact solution. Good job. By having all the rankings together, I'm noticing now that some rankings need date context. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 21:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I totally agree that it doesn't need all the individual subheadings and section links as well. Posibly we can just keep the higher level ones, or regroup them in a new way that is useful, but less cluttered. I thought about doing away with them right off the bat, but that would have been a bigger change, and it would've made the article look perhaps less recognizable to the regulars here, so I thought, 'Better to take this incrementally.' I knew it would end up looking cluttered (but hopefully, familiar), so totally with you on this.
One nice feature of moving all that stuff out, is that it allows you to see the relationships between the sections better, and also spot problems more easily. It was a pretty quick job, so obviously lots to be done, plus I'm a newbie at this article, so don't want to step on any toes. If you (and other editors) like the idea, I can step back.
The draft article, by the way, can of course be edited by anyone, and I encourage everyone to do so. If you have a radical change you want to try there, without imposing it, one cool trick I've seen, is go ahead and slash and burn and develop your own concept and save it, and then immediately self-revert. That leaves your version in the history, which you can point to with a Permalink at Talk, so people can view it, and compare it with other versions. Mathglot (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this will obviously make the article much better. However, there are a couple of things that this solution does not address:
The remaining text is in many (most) places still focusing on comparison between countries instead of trying to say something about the region itself. I find statements like "Country A is high up on list X, while country B is not" to be mostly irrelevant for an article about Central Europe, while a statement like "The countries in CE tend to be high on list Y, with country C on top" would be more within the scope.
This "child article" will have the same problem as this article currently has regarding inclusion criteria. I see the same endless fights about "Country A is certainly / is certainly not part of Central Europe". And I expect the birth of List of western European countries by development indexes, List of eastern European countries by development indexes etc. with exactly the same problem. Just take a look at the history of all the "X-ern Europe" articles.
The first problem will be solved by working through the themes one by one and then only include those that have something useful (and sourced) to tell about the region. The obvious solution to the second problem is to not make regional lists, but only make List of European countries by development indexes and refer everything to that. --T*U (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, TU-nor, there are indeed things that it doesn't address. I don't disagree with your comment about statements like "Country A is high up on list X, while country B is not" being irrelevant, and I merely threw that out there because I'm new to the article and needed some "filler" there after moving the rankings out, and didn't know what to say. Probably a paragraph of Lorem ipsum would have been a better choice for a mock-up, but your proposal is even better than that.
As to your second point about the child article having "the same endless fights", I have two responses:
You may be right, but Option 3 decouples that argument from this article, which, being the text- and concept-heavy article is the one you can "read"; and moves the "fights" to a List article (boring, fewer page views?). Imho, offloading the fights out of this article is an improvement to the encyclopedia. "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" applies here.
Additionally, the fact that there are fights among editors about what countries belong needn't stop us from considering it. This is a wiki and there are going to be disagreements. And while there may be disagreements among editors about what countries belong, that does not mean that it's impossible to reach consensus about how to word an article to take those disagreements into account. If the disagreements among editors reflect the disagreement among historians and other reliable sources, then the solution is pretty easy: just state in the article that there are disagreements among sources about it, and follow NPOV and WP:DUEWEIGHT in listing all the significant minority positions, right in the article.
You may or may not be right that not making regional lists would be one solution, but if the only reason to avoid creating them is to avoid "endless fights", then I'm opposed to that solution. Avoiding content disputes is not a good way to ensure the best outcome, imho; that kind of abdicates our role somewhat if it lets those who want to vociferously object to something shut down improvement of the article. Now, it could be that you feel like avoiding regional lists is a good idea for some reason that would benefit the encyclopedia, and I'm open to hearing that argument. But, hey: we're an online encyclopedia, and there's no limit to the number of articles we can have. Why shouldn't there be regional lists, for someone more interested in those regions to consult? If someone wants to "fight" about what countries to include, that can be dealt with fairly easily by observing WP:DUE, and in discussion. Having said that, I'm not opposed to your proposal to only make List of European countries by development indexes and refer everything to that, if that's what folks here think makes the most sense as a solution.
TU-nor, since you gave a teensy hint about how you'd like to see it phrased with your "The countries in CE tend to be high on list Y, with country C on top" example, I'd like to see you expand on that, so we can see the full flavor of it. Can you create another section 6 example below, your way, so we can see it? You can either plunk it into this discussion with a collapse header as above, or create a test subpage here at the article just for the purpose (if you've never done that, I can show you), or you can just edit the main article to install your change and do the "self-revert trick" and point to your version here using a Permalink. If you do, feel free to change the Draft page any which way you like, so it matches up with your mock-up the way you want it to, including renaming it if you want.
Tl;dr: But it's also possible to move forward with the Rfc without a new mock-up, and merely find out where people stand on the country comparisons. My opinion is that we can improve this article and kind of finesse the Rfc question by moving the comparisons into a List article. I don't have a strong opinion whether the list article should contain just central European countries, or all European countries. If just Central Europe, I'm not bothered by the fact that that might cause arguments about membership issues; that can be dealt with. Since a Central Europe article exists, if the List article is to be only for all European countries, I'd like to hear the arguments in favor. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
My "fear" about what will happen to a "child article" of regional lists is mainly based on experience from time-consuming discussions and edit wars in other "X-ern Europe" articles. To avoid this, any article of such lists will need clear inclusion criteria, either for the article as a whole or for each list within the article.
Regarding the "rest" content of the main article, I would prefer to start from the other end, asking if there is anything useful to say about e.g. economy that is relevant to the region as such without focusing on individual countries. In order to avoid the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that easily could be the result of taking the lists as a starting point, it would have to be independently sourced. --T*U (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, best of luck with it, however it turns out. If no one works on the draft article for six months, it will get automatically deleted per WP:G13. I won't be watching, but if you want my feedback, feel free to ping me. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Mathglot and TU-nor, thanks for the comments, and I think there's a lot of common ground here. I still think Mathglot's idea of a separate list article is quite reasonable. For example, someone is writing a high-school paper on Central Europe, and they want to see how the constituent countries compare in terms of the Human Development Index. We do already have List of sovereign states in Europe by Human Development Index, but it's not possible to sort that list by region. The same goes for the various other indices. The information does exist in Wikipedia, so it's not urgent, but a more convenient presentation could be helpful. T*U isn't opposed to a separate list article, if there are clear inclusion criteria to avoid endless bickering. My feeling is that there's no good basis for Wikipedia to choose one particular list, like the CIA World Factbook one, over another, and still ahere to WP:NPOV. However, I would support a methodology that is similar to e.g. List of European countries by population. That article has had it's share of arguments about what countries are or are not considered "European", but we've stipulated that it's "Europe, broadly defined". So if someone removes Turkey and Kazakhstan, we can restore them on that basis. As long as there's a reliable source that includes a country in Central Europe, we include it in the list. I think it's possible to give a clear enough explanation of such a methodology, without stepping on either WP:NPOV or WP:SYN, which would be difficult to argue with by editors insisting that some country doesn't belong.
On the other hand, I think that whatever cleanup happens in this article is unrelated to the existence, or not, of a separate list article, except for possible links to it. I don't have any time to contribute to a list article, unfortunately. It could always be created sometime in the future. But I support removing most of the lists either way. It sounds like neither Mathglot, nor anyone else objects. As I said above, I think the original question isn't well-worded, as it might be taken as a consensus for a blanket prohibition on comparison lists in this article in the future. But I would support it if it was interpreted as a consensus to remove the specific "index" lists from the current article, and replace them with prose if relevant. After that, any remaining country lists could be looked at. --IamNotU (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
IamNotU, What is the "region" data that you want to sort by? You said,
We do already have List of sovereign states in Europe by Human Development Index, but it's not possible to sort that list by region.
Is it the numerical value in column one? I made it sortable; does that solve the problem? Or, do you need a "region" column with some data in it? Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Mathglot, what I mean is that there is no straightforward way to see a comparison of Central European countries in that article, because there is no "region" (i.e. X-ern Europe) column to sort on. You'd have to look through the list alphabetically to find the countries you're interested in. I don't understand what the "In region" column is for, but that's not it. I don't think it's possible to make it sortable in that way with a Wikipedia table, because countries may be considered parts of multiple regions, e.g. Central Europe and Eastern Europe. So it's an argument for the utility of a separate Central Europe list. I also understand T*U's apprehension about a proliferation of such lists though, if only because of maintenance issues in ensuring they stay in sync with each other. For example, List of European countries by population has at times become wildly out of sync with List of countries and dependencies by population, which is better maintained, but not sortable by regions like "Europe". --IamNotU (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
IamNotU, I think you may have a point, there. I was thinking about different ways to modify that table (at Soverign EU states by HDI) to sort by region. Even if there's, say, five different reliable sources that define which countries are part of CE, we could do that: we could add five narrow columns, one for each source, so we could sort the big list on CE five different ways. And that would work. So far, so good. But the problem comes in, when you consider the other regions. If WE also has 5, you'd need 25 columns to sort them both every which way; add EE, and now it's 125 columns, so you see the problem. But if we have a separate CE list, then it's just five; eminently doable. And so you're right: that is an argument for the utility of a separate Central Europe list.
I am not as concerned with them staying in sync, because we can farm out common sections of tables or text or whatever to subtemplates, so you only have one copy of the common table (or common part of the table) and each of the different regions can transclude the subtemplates it needs. I can mock that up, or create a test version live and revert it. Mathglot (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really familiar with subtemplates. Is it possible to have a table that's made up of arbitrary rows from another table, and will update when they do? I haven't noticed that before. It would be very useful for tables like List of European countries by population, which is (or should be) just a subset of List of countries and dependencies by population.
If there's a separate Central Europe list, I think it's probably not necessary to have the five columns you describe, to sort it according to five different sourced definitions of Central Europe, if we could just use "CE, broadly defined" for the purposes of constructing a table, in the same way that List of European countries by population uses "Europe, broadly defined". --IamNotU (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)dr
@IamNotU: I didn't see this earlier. Yes, it's definitely possible to have different article contain tables made up of common rows that always contain the same information, so that they do not diverge, even though what rows ("countries") are present, or their default order, and possibly even the cell order within the row, may be different in the two tables. We can talk more about this, and I may try and mock something up, if you're interested and would like to see how that night work. Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@IamNotU: Though I haven't commented lately, I haven't forgotten, just been busy with other things (and still am). However, I still keep coming back to this offline, and thinking about it, and now I'm fairly committed to doing something about it, at some point. It's a rather bigger job (implementation-wise, or actually, design-wise) than I thought, and I'm not making any predictions on timing (yet), but once completed, it will, if done properly, be simple to modify and use, and give you the single-source reusability that you mentioned. I am way in the beginning stages of this, but when I have a draft worth looking at, I will ping you. If you haven't heard from me in a while, come bug me on my Talk page and ask me; I might need that kind of attention to get back to it. Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Orthodox majority countries can not be Central European , because it is a non-western (Semi-Asian) civilization (Huntington)
It is not a secret in history, that countries civilizations are/were not in the same level of development.
It is well-known that Western and Central Europe, ( the so-called Western civilization) was always more developed than Orthodox Slavic or Eastern European civilization.
The differences in culture (material and verbal), legal constitutional, societal, political, economical, infrastructural, technological and scientific development, between Orthodox countries and Western Christian (Catholic-Protestant) countries were similar great, as the differences between Northern America (USA Canada) and Southern- (Latino) America.
MEMENTO:
Western things which were not existed in orthodox world:
1. POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL development: Medieval appearance of parliaments (The parliament is a legislative body(!), DO NOT CONFUSE with the “councils of monarchs” which existed since the very beginnings of human history), the estates of the realm, the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners,
2. Local SELF GOVERNMENT status of big royal/imperial cities, which are the direct ancestors (the continuity) of modern local self governmental systems. Do not confuse the local self governments with the so-called city states. Sovereign city states were the earliest form of states in Human history ( For example: Sumerian city states), and that legal concept has nothing common with the self-governments/local governments of cities within a country or within an Empire.
3. ECONOMY: The medieval appearance of banking systems and social effects and status of urban bourgeoisie, the absolute dominance of money-economy (when the vast majority of trade based on money and the taxes customs duties were collected in money) from the 12th -13th century, instead of the former primitive bartel-based commerce (barter dominated the economies orthodox world until the 17-18th centuries.)
4. HIGHER EDUCATION: The medieval appearance of universities and the medieval appearance of SECULAR intellectuals,
5. CULTURE: Knights, the knight-culture, chivalric code, (and the technological effects of crusades from the Holy Land,)
Music and literature: courtly love, troubadours, Gregorian chant, Ars nova, Organum, Motet, Madrigal, Canon and Ballata, Liturgical drama, Novellas, medieval western THEATER: Mystery or cycle plays, morality and passion plays, which developed into the renaissance theater, the direct ancestor of modern theaters.
Philosophy: Scholasticism and humanist philosophy,
6. The medieval usage of Latin alphabet and medieval spread of movable type printing,
7. TECHNOLOGY: The guild system is an association of artisans or merchants, which organized the training education, and directed master's exam system for artisians. Due to the compulsory foreign studies of the artisian master's candidates, the guilds played key role in the fast spread of technologies and industrial knowledge in the medieval Western World.
8. The defence systems & fortifications: The spread of stone/brick castle defense -systems, the town-walls of western cities from the 11th century. (In the orthodox world, only the capital cities had such a walls . The countries of the Balkan region and the territory of Russian states fell under Ottoman/Mongolian rule very rapidly - with a
single decisive open-field battle - due to the lack of the networks of stone/brick castles and fortresses in these countries. The only exception was the greek inhabited Byzantine territories which were well fortified.)
9. FINEARTS and ARCHITECTURE: western architecture, sculpture paintings and fine-arts: the Romanesque style, the Gothic style and the Renaissance style.
The orthodox church buildings and „palaces(?)” were very little, they had primitive structure and poor decorations, their style were influenced by oriental non-European arabic, persian and Syrian influenced Byzantine ornamentics.
10.The renaissance & humanism , the reformation and the enlightenment did not influenced/affected the Orthodox (Eastern European) countries.
11. Before 1870, the industrialization that had developed in Western and Central Europe and the United States did not extend in any significant way to the rest of the world. In Eastern Europe, industrialization lagged far behind, and started only in the 20th century. Their infrastructural and economic development was also very very slow, and many determinant factors of modern civilization - as we called them as civilized way of life - (railways, the electrification of cities, drain & sewer systems, water pipe systems, spread of tap water and bathrooms, telecommuncations etc... spread many-many decades (60-80 years) later.
It is no wonder that their contribution in science technology and innovations are completely negligible in Human history by the WESTERN standards.--Refreshers (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
This page is not a general forum for espousing your opinions about the subject. I'm inclined to hat and collapse this, per WP:TPO and WP:NOTFORUM, as having nothing to do with improving this article. ("Talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article... . Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines.") I'd prefer to defer to regulars at this article first, as I'm still new (summoned by bot for Rfc above); but I'll do it if no one objects. Mathglot (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
No this is not opibion but simple fact. All lines are true. Central Europe is not semi-asian Orthodox world.--Refreshers (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Collapsing per Mathglot (with thanks). --T*U (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Central Europe, according to central Europeans
I thought this list of "Central Europe" Wikipedia articles in some of the languages of central Europe might be useful:
I thought this might be a starting point on a new section of the article about how the nations of what we call Central Europe see the issue. Naturally, if we do create such a section, we cannot use the content of the Wikipedia articles listed here, but rather the sources that they refer to (or other Central European sources). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
:Serbia is an orthodox country and belongs to the Orthodox civilization, it does not have any cultural similarity with Central European countries.--Refreshers (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Struck comments by blocked sock. IamNotU (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Refreshers, numerous reliable sources include part or all of Serbia in their definition of Central Europe. Numerous others do not. According to the core policy of "neutral point of view", we must present a summary of all significant viewpoints found in reliable sources, even - or especially - when they contradict each other. Therefore it is impossible to present only your preferred point of view, and it is pointless for you to keep trying to persuade people of it here. --IamNotU (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Middle Ground is a well known fallacy in reasoning..
middle ground
You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth.
Much of the time the truth does indeed lie between two extreme points, but this can bias our thinking: sometimes a thing is simply untrue and a compromise of it is also untrue. Half way between truth and a lie, is still a lie.
Example: Holly said that vaccinations caused autism in children, but her scientifically well-read friend Caleb said that this claim had been debunked and proven false. Their friend Alice offered a compromise that vaccinations must cause some autism, just not all autism.
--Refreshers (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Struck comments by blocked sock. IamNotU (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Refreshers: No-one has suggested anything like your "Middle point". What has been suggested, is to say that "Some say A, other say not-A", like in "Some sources include Serbia in CE, other sources do not." --T*U (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Off-topic comments by blocked sock struck and hidden. --IamNotU (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Post-Rfc integration
Note: If you were pinged here and don't know why, it's because you are/were one of the major contributors to this article, and your feedback may be helpful in improving the article following the end of this Rfc.
Hi all, when I created the "Example" (see beige collapse bar, labeled "Example: section 6, Economy, after Option 3 change" under Option 3above), that was just a quick and dirty example, to show how the article would integrate with the new List of CE by dev indexes page, still a Draft at that point. The "Example section 6" was never intended to be "article-ready"; it was just an example.
Now it looks like following the resolution of the Rfc above, that the "Example section 6" was more or less moved into section #Economy on the article page. But it clearly needs more work, to expand it with WP:PROSE. At this point, the Economy section of the article should be revisited by regular editors at this article (or others), to give that section proper prose content and form, rather than just the very abbreviated content that came from a Talk page Example. (To some extent, this is also true of other sections in the article; see those sections which have a {{Further}} link under the section header, pointing to the child page.) Pinging @IamNotU and TU-nor: and still-active major contributors @NeroN BG, Gregorik, and Altenmann:.
You can discuss below if you want, but I think it's maybe just as good or even better just to head straight for the article, and expand as you see fit. We can always hash out any content issues here, as they come up. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice - not sure I'd call myself a "major contributor" to the article though... Thanks also to Feminist for helping to move this along. I think there was actually a consensus after the "Example section 6" above to not do it that way, with all the multiple links to the different subheadings and section links. Unfortunately I don't have time to work on it myself... --IamNotU (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
That was my impression, too. Well, you're a "major contributor" to the discussion, at least. Other editors have been pinged, and at least so far, nobody has reverted Feminist's edits, and if nobody does, then at some point WP:SILENCE takes over. Still, it would be good to hear from others about this, to figure out where we go from here.
And by the way, IamNotU, I haven't forgotten your "countries in multiple regions" / "stay in sync" comment above, and I'm thinking about how we might deal with that. Might take a while to get back with something concrete, but I'm sure it can be done. Mathglot (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
.svg)
Response to third opinion request (Inclusion of {{Geographical imbalance}} template):
Not done - duplication of position #12 rectified. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Luxembourg (position 4)
Liechtenstein (position 6)
Austria (position 12)
Czech Republic (position 13)
Germany (position 14)
Switzerland (position 15)
Poland (position 19)
Slovakia (position 20)
Romania (position 45)
Serbia (position 54)
Hungary (position 64)
Croatia (position 65)
Slovenia (not ranked in 2014, position in 2013: 35)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Archived version confirmed as being correct. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[16]](http://homepages.udayton.edu/~schuerwc/Schism_and_Religious_Divisions.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Baltic_Tribes_c_1200.svg){kind=link}
![[28]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Serbia-ahu2.jpg){kind=link}
![[29]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Srbah2.jpg){kind=link}
