Talk:Central Europe

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" [1] 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 [2]; 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). [3]. 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 [4] 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.)

Also, I don't think this or this book (p. 603: "Central Europe may be considered as embracing the present numerous German States and Switzerland; including in the former those portions of the Austrian and Prussian empires which, previous to the French Revolution, belonged to the German empire") represent an exclusively German POV. Yaan (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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 [5], [6], [7] (via [8]). 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. [9](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 [10]; Lithuania [11]; Ukraine [12] 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: [13]. 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 [14]. 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[15] 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)

According to this map http://www.cee-portal.at/Bilderordner/Maps/Europa-im-Hochmittelalter-(.jpg Raguza was part of the Croatian state.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:37, 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)

The 'debate' is continued here as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Great_Schism_1054_with_former_borders.png Fakirbakir (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Central Europe is a Czech invention

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)

Response to third opinion request (Inclusion of {{Geographical imbalance}} template):

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 [[16]] 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 [17]), and as such, it's not worth my time and trouble. By contrast, the Europe article has around 9000 hits daily ([18]). 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)