Talk:Central Europe/Archive 2

Bias?

The following sentence seems to be both wrong and biased, at least from Polish point of view: mainly through the attempt by post-Communist governments in former Eastern European lands to create national images distancing themselves from their predecessors. Poland was always a Central European country, because a) it lies in Central Europe b) its culture is definitely different than the one in Eastern European countries. 194.145.96.51 (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider also the article, "Geographical centre of Europe." Nihil novi (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Climate changes

Do I have the impression or this article is not let to have a modern shape? Our work has been simply reverted, then partial restored and so on. I ask editors not to jump in edit wars as if there isn't enough time in the world. It's also kind of tired to see so many fact tags. Instead of placing them all over, one should make the sacrifice to write the article. Is it to much what I ask? Marc KJH (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Romania isn't in Central Europe

I removed some pretty wild WP:OR, somebody had placed Romania in here. While there are different sources in use, not one places Romania in Central Europe. The CIA Factbook, the definitions of the UN and the Time Almanac all class Romania as an Eastern European country and not one source had been given for it being in Central Europe. Please don't add personal views to Wikipedia, source your claims and use talk pages. JdeJ (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

NATO: Romania is in Central Europe

The NATO offical report places Romania in central Europe, Don't remove that link again Rezistenta (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't, and I missed it the last time. However, the CIA Factbook and the United Nations both place Romania in Eastern Europe and don't include it in their definitions of Central Europe. Please don't remove that, sources conflict here. JdeJ (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

NATO has definitely a more valuable opinion than yours. Marc KJH (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at this link http://www.bizcity.ro/marketing/romania-cea-mai-premiata-tara-la-central-europe-cristal-awards-35349.html Romania most awarded in Central Europe. Marc KJH (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Or this one http://www.prologiseurope.com/romania_home.php .. Central Europe Romania. What both these links show? That even in usual links there is mentioned Romania as being part of Central Europe not only in NATO, EU etc. Marc KJH (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't assume ownership over articles. I don't deny that there are some sources that place Romania in Central Europe, but the point I'm making is that there are several sources that don't, including the CIA Factbook and the United Nations. But instead of acknowledging that, you simply deleted all mentioning of that fact. In addition, you deleted fact tags added by other users without providing any source. That's just plain vandalism JdeJ (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not vandalism when more people agree with me. Including NATO :) Marc KJH (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

--- I am not trying to make any decision here, and I see the votes have been cast already, but as far as it is a question of credible sources, I don't think you can include CIA or NATO - they have an obvious geopolitical bias. Britannica, on the other hand, only has a cultural bias, but one that can surely be accepted, as this is the English Wiki. - Golioder (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Content Dispute- Romania in Central Europe

A user has alerted me that there is a content dispute on this article, whether Romania is in Central Europe. An admin has protected this article for 3 days, so this dispute can be resolved without edit warring. In the past, I've offered some simple informal mediation, and I also make that offer here. A completely neutral party would be the best way to try helping the resolution of this dispute. Are all parties acceptable to this? Steve Crossin (talk to me) 18:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You meant Central Europe :) Marc KJH (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I did. I corrected that. :P Anyway, I'm awaiting responses. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 19:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept it. Marc KJH (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Steve, you're welcome. I should point out that I don't see the content dispute, though. Two Romanian users are deleting all allusions to sources that place Romania in Eastern Europe rather than Central Europe, they delete fact tags, delete tags about original research. Deleting conflicting sources to give the impression of one's own version being the only one is what I call vandalism and WP:POV. Nonetheless, I welcome any outside view on this topic. JdeJ (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ, so, if I understand right from you: NATO is vandalising the article placing Romania in a wrong place. How brilliant of you! You think you're smarter than NATO??? or Romanian Gov.???Marc KJH (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The above comment is typical of the user. Marc, you're not NATO, you're a vandal using a report by the NATO. I'm not the UN or the CIA either, I'm a user using them as sources. Nobody is vandalising except you. JdeJ (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have better sources than NATO :)) In Army they know very well where Central, East, West is... But I hope you can present better sources...if you can. Marc KJH (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest measureing your words when you talk about my person, you were the one which was sitematicaly deleting the NATO source and acussing me for personal atack when I said removing links without explaining why is called vandalism, be more original next time

• P.S. Mark chill down a lil' bit Rezistenta (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, Okay. I'd ask that everyone remain cool. Generally, in content disputes, each party should propose a version, and provide their sources. What I would suggest is that each party provide their sources as to why/why not the disputed content should be included in the article. We should probably start from there. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 19:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, Steve, to be honest I really like the present form. So, I don't have any issue with the present one. Marc KJH (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The need for sources goes without saying. The CIA Factbook identifies Romania as Southeastern [1] along with Bulgaria and the ex-Yugoslav states. Central Europe is defined as Hungaria, Slovenia, Germany, Austria and others. The United Nations Statistics Division also places the country in Eastern Europe [2]. These are two pretty "heavy-weigh" sources and I'll look for more. In the meantime, I jmention in passing that more "light-weigh sources" such as Lonely Planet also places Romania squarely in Eastern Europe. In other words, that Romania is part of Central Europe is at best contested, yet any attempt to present both views in the article has been deleted at sight. In addition, any fact tag added has also been deleted JdeJ (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Romania is a country at the crossroads of Central Europe 46% (Transylvania, Banat, Crişana, Maramureş and Bukovina) is situated in Central Europe, 38% Southern Europe (Wallachia and the balkanian Dobruja) and Eastern Europe 16% (Moldavia without Bukovina) this is why the geographic position varies, furthermore is more Central European then Southern European or Eastern European Rezistenta (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ, if the CIA factbook and UN locates Romania in Southerastern Europe (though i wonder why thes do that) you can mention it in the article Southeastern Europe, but it's not a reason to delete Romania from the article Central Europe, because they are also very important organizations, like NATO, who locates the coutry in Central Europe. And not just organizations like NATO, but also scientific publications locates Romania in Central Europe and they also explain why they do that. I would like to suggest you: Paul Robert Magocsi, Historical Atlas of East Central Europe, University of Washington Press. Seattle & London. 1993. Pages 2-4. --Olahus (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Olahus, I'm not suggesting deleting Romania from this page. I did at first because I overlooked the source by NATO, but it is just as valid as those sources I'm using. What I'm suggesting is to make it clear that Romania is included in some definitions of Central Europe and isn't included in other definitions. The present version allows only one interpretation where there are in fact many. JdeJ (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just noting that I'm still observing the discussion. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And how do you want to do it, JdeJ ? As you surely know, Slovenia, a former Jugoslav republic, is often considered to be southeastern European. Even Hungary is sometimes considerated to be located in Southeastern Europe (especially by Rupert von Schumacher, Hermann Gross, Ulrich von Hassell, Otto Schulmeister, Karl Christian von Loesch, Franz Tierfelder). I suggest you a compromise. Let's add a phrase in the article: the countries Slovenia and Romania (located form the geographical point of view at the contact between Central Europe and Southeastern Europe, but mostly in Central Europe) as well as Hungary (located form the geographical point of view only in Central Europe) are sometimes cosidered to belong politically to Southeastern Europe. --Olahus (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to make it clear that when I've been speaking about vandalism here, I refer only to Marc KHJ. All edits I've seen by Olahus have been perfectly responsible and in line with good wikiquette. To answer the question, I'd suggest the same solution as the one used in the article [[3]] where both maps and the text make the different interpretations of the concept clear. I'd also wish for a bit more substantial sources. JdeJ (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to mention another source: Encyclopedia Britannica says that Romania is a country in southeastern Europe.

And a remark: A similar controversy concerns Talk:Mitteleuropa

Austrian (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Austrian, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian are dialects of the Romanian language. Though, in Wikipedia, in the title of article of those idioms, they are called "languages", not dialects: Aromanian language, Meglenoromanian language, Istroromanian language. As you can see, the opinion of E.Britannica is irrelevant for Wikipedia. And, as I know, Wikipedia doesn't allow to quote with other encyclopedias. From that reason, a foreign encyclopedia cannot be a source. --Olahus (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not correct. We don't need to follow Britannica in every case, but it's one of the most respected encyclopedias in the world and certainly not irrelevant. It's a fairly usual procedure on Wikipedia to take Britannica into account.JdeJ (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I already have shown above, it's not really a usual procedure on Wikipedia to take Britannica into account. --Olahus (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but let me respectfully point out that you haven't showed that it's not a usual procedure to use Britannica as a source. There are literally thousands of articles on Wikipedia that explicitly use Britannica as a source, it is probably the most common source in all of Wikipedia. You can find a list to the articles sourcing them here [4]. JdeJ (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ, you speak German, right? In this case you surely can understand this (Transformationsprozesse im südlichen Mitteleuropa – Ungarn und Rumänien) and this/or 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) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I speak German and that's a good and credible source. Once again, I'm not advocating the deletion of Romania from this page, only reflecting that there are also many sources that places it in Eastern Europe and not in Central Europe.JdeJ (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Romania is placed sometimes to Eastern Europe from the same reason as in the case of many other former communist countries: Poland, Czechoslowakia, Hungary, GDR, Bulgaria etc --Olahus (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work, everybody, discussing the sources. Keep going. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Olahus' first link (tuebingen) links to a collection of essays about "transformation processes in southern Mitteleuropa", resulting from a 1999 conference. An extract from the preface starts with the sentence

Am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts stellt sich die aktuelle Frage, welche osteuropäischen Staaten zu welchem Zeitpunkt in die Europäische Union aufgenommen werden.

(At the end of the 20th century the question arises which Eastern European states will be admitted to the EU, and at which point in time.)

So this particular source apparently includes Romania as an "Eastern" European country, as well as belonging to southern "Mitteleuropa". (Whether the German word "Mitteleuropa" means the same as its literal translation "Central (or 'middle') Europe" is another matter.)

I think a better source would be a book whose actual topic is the idea of Mitteleuropa/Central Europe. Perhaps I will go and look for some.

--Austrian (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Austrian, I alraedy explaned above the reason for the inclusion of Romania, Hungary etc to Eastern Europe. Should I really repete what I already said? --Olahus (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Austrian, concerning the books, I already mentioned a very good source: Paul Robert Magocsi, Historical Atlas of East Central Europe, University of Washington Press. Seattle & London. 1993. Pages 2-4. Did you read the whole discussion? --Olahus (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because it kind of fits and someone above wanted a "real" citation, meyers grosses taschenlexikon, Mannheim, Leipzig etc. 1999, vol. 15, p.30 has: "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 Rumaenien gerechnet, gelegentlich auch die Niederlande, Belgien und Luxemburg ([see also] Ostmitteleuropa).". the Ostmitteleuropa entry (in vol. 16) does not mention Romania, though. Yaan (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Romania belongs to the Alpine-Carpathian zone of East Central Europe. Here are some images scanned from the source I mentioned above:

• The atlas: 1; 2
• The information: 3; 4; 5
• The reference and the bibliography (bordered in red).
  --Olahus (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think, the main reason why some people can't believe that Romania is mainly a Central European Country, has something to to with an optic illusion caused by the extention of 2 important Romanian neighbours in the former Austrian-Hungarian lands. The first and most important county that I would like to mention here is Serbia, a mainly Balkan state, who incorporated the Vojvodina. The other state is Ukraine, to whom Transcarpathia, Galicia and northern Bukovina belong today. Those two countries expanded in Central European lands, but still remained mainly outside it (Serbian is located mainly in the Balkans and Ukraine is located mainly in Eastern Europe north of the Black Sea). From that reason, Romania seems to look in this map like a "peninsula" of Central Europe. But, as I already wrote above, this is only an optical illusion created by the territorial extention of the two neighbours Serbia and Ukraine. I think we should describe Romania as it is, considering its own territorial extention, not depending on the territorial extention of its southern or northern neighbours. Is Serbia's location in Europe subject to Romania's location? No, it's not. Is Ukraine's location in Europe subject to Romania's location? No, it's not.
--Olahus (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to cite from other books:

• 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. --Olahus (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If your source lists only 46 percent of Romania in Central europe, then the entire country isnt in central europe.... and one of your sources also lists that half of Croatia is in central europe, so why is croatia being excluded and romania included?? doesnt seem very consistent to me. Meanwhile croatia was 100% in the Austro Hungarian empire and Romania was only 46%, and both countries are partly in the Balkans. Im ok with both or either countries being there but i think you might need to provide more sources. seems weak at the moment to me. --KevinBas (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about the first source, right? It presents the Danube-Sava-Kupa line as the northernmost limit of the Balkans. By the way, why do you pretend from me to bring more sources as long as you dind'n show any source? --Olahus (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you really find it useful to count the percentages? Romania is a specific country where three regions meet: Central Europe, Eastern Europe and South-Eastern Europe.

Transylvania is certainly Central European. Even today, it distinguishes from the other two main regions (demography, religion, there’s less Orthodox culture there) and some voices are raised to grant some form of autonomy to Transylvania.

Wallachia belongs rather to South-Eastern Europe. It was a part of the Roman Empire; the region was under an Ottoman occupation for quite a long time (it’s not historical but cultural argument).

Moldavia remains Eastern Orthodox and has Byzantine culture.

Romania cannot be called Eastern European as there’s too much Roman influence. Central Europeans would also be surprised seeing an Eastern Orthodox country in Central Europe (Romanian Orthodox Church originates from Wallachia and Moldavia, most Roman Catholics live in Transylvania). Finally, no one would agree to place e.g. Transylvania in the Balkans.

On the other hand, we can’t leave it like this, calling Romania a “sui generis” state. Various parts of the country belong to different regions and there’s no sense in disputing which influence is the most important (46% or 51% - does it change anything?). I’d propose to place Romania in articles about all the three regions and precise the situation in brackets.

Central Europe: Romania (Transylvania)

South-Eastern Europe: Romania (Wallachia)

Eastern Europe: Romania (Moldavia)

Montessquieu (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Transylvania: some voices doesn't mean by far 'most voices. Those "voices" come mainly from members of the Hungarian minority who hope on this way to provide for the entire Hungarian population from Transylvaian an cultural authonomy (not just for the Szekelys). We can't even say that there is a "less orthodox culture", just maybe a catholic influenced Orthodoxy (present in the arhitecture of many orthodox churches, especially on the wooden churches in Maramures und Apuseni-Mountains)

Present-day Wallachia was only for 16 years entirely included to the Roman Empire (see here). Rather Banat and Transylvania remained entirely in the Roman Empire for a longer period. But is the belonging to the Roman Empire a condition to exclude a territory/country from Central Europe? In this case we should exclude Switzerland, Austria and Slovenia from Central Europe. And concerning the Ottoman Occupation, Wallachia was only a Ottoman vassal state. It never belonged to the Ottoman Empire, as e.g. most Hungary belonged. Ottoman tropps din't had bases in the vasaal states (so we cannot speak about an Ottoman Occupation), only in the territories who belonged directly to the Turks (in Wallachia only 3 cities on the Danube shore belonged directly th the Ottoman Empire: Turnu-Magurele, Giurgiu and Braila). The muslim population (so here can be included the Turks too) weren't even allowed to settle in the Ottoman vassal states. So, the muslim culture could verly sparsely spread over Wallachia (excepting the 3 danubian cities Turnu Magurele, Giurgiu and Braila).

Moldavia is eastern Orthodox like most Romanians. But even here, the spreading of Byzantine culture is limited: see the arhitechture of many monasteries in northern Moldavia (e.g. Putna and many others). In Moldavia live around 300.000 Roman Catholics, the so-called Csango.

And one important thing: we are speaking here about Central Europe, not Western Europe. Central Europe is the part of Europe who lies in the center of the European Continent, where the influences of western, southern, northern and eastern Europe congregate. It's natural to have a lutheran northwestern corner of Central Europe and an orthodox southeastern corner of Central Europe.

Besides, Central Europe is mostly defined not by religions, but by physical-geographical criterias.--Olahus (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote „some voices” and not „most voices” – just to point out that the region does differ; I didn’t have any intention to suggest that it makes it less Romanian or anything like this. All the regions are placed in one country and it’s natural that they influence each other.

Being a part of the Roman Empire doesn’t exclude any area from Central Europe. It’s just one of the characteristics of the region but no hard “criterium divisionis” can be established: Central Europe distinguishes from other regions by various cultural (architecture, music, way of life <see Biedermeier> etc.) and historical elements. If any region has “enough” Central European characteristics, it gains Central European character. Please don’t regard it as promotion nor as degradation, it’s just a cultural fact.

As to the Ottoman Empire: it’s not a political issue. In fact, there was no major difference between being occupied and being a vassal state in this case. The specificity of the Ottoman rule on conquered territories was an obligation to pay certain amount of money (tribute), cultural and religious autonomy was maintained. Social scientists seem to agree on the fact that it’s the Ottoman influence that distinguishes South-Eastern Europe from other regions – tributary obligations and cultural autonomy contributed to diminishing of prestige of governmental authorities in the region (it’s the main characteristic of the South-Eastern European cultural circle). The Muslim culture doesn’t play so important role here.

Moldavia is Eastern European. It’s a part of the Byzantine cultural area from a long time ago – again, Orthodoxy is not the criterion of belonging to this cultural circle, it’s the effect of its existence. Eastern European (Byzantine without significant Ottoman influence) culture is characterised by various elements, e.g. excessive governmental administration, certain level of acceptance for smaller control of the authorities (just think about Greek officials in 16th century, Phanariotes in 18th century…).

There are even Muslim areas in Central Europe and it’s normal, but they still have Central European characteristics. Central Europe is NOT defined by geographical criteria!!! It’s an area of western culture and many eastern social influences. The mix created a specific region.

Western Christianity is a product of Western culture. Catholicism is more conservative than Protestantism and Central Europe is more conservative than Western Europe. The religion is not a criterion, it’s an effect. Orthodox Church is a product of Eastern European culture. However, religious affiliation doesn’t assign the cultural one – you can see the difference between the Orthodox Church in Russia, Greece and France. Muslims in North-Eastern Poland do differ from the ones in Iran.

I still think that Romania is a meeting point of three cultural regions – and it’s normal that they influence one another. Montessquieu (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Montesquies, it's obvious that you don't know too moch about Romania. You write that Biedermann was'n present in Romania. How did you come to this conclusion?!? And about the Ottoman influence, how should the Ottomans influence the Danubian Principalities since they could'n even settle there? Only the rulers of those states were in contact with the Turks. Not the same think can I say about Germans, Hungarians and later Jews who were always allowed to settele in the Principalities, and even established some settlements (I'm not talking here only about Transylvania, but also about Moldavia and Wallachia, especially about Moldavia). In present-day Romania you can find only one region with a doubtless Ottoman cultural influence: Dobruja. --Olahus (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misinterpret my posts. I didn't write that Biedermeier wasn't present in Romania. What's more, I wrote that the most significant Ottoman influence in South-Eastern Europe wasn't the cultural (sensu stricto) one. Montessquieu (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add some more sources:

• 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. --Olahus (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the concensus then?? unless theres further support for Romania being in central europe, then i dont agree that it should fit under the definition of 'usually meant to include'. The fact that the major encyclopedias exclude it should be enough reason to exclude it from the above definition. it shows that it usually does not fit under the definition. its really common sense i think. and like said above other countries fit under the definition less commonly too but they arent usually considered in central europe. I think it should be removed... too much pushing of pov on this article! it doesnt matter what one source says, or what the romanian government says, its not a mainstream idea that romania is in central europe. --Mestvolj (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You may want to see THIS article: it's NATO's final report on the research works concerning inter alia South-Eastern Europe. Page 12: "Defining the Balkans and South-Eastern Europe. How to define a region?" Montessquieu (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Central Europe with the center in Czech Republic"

I don't oppose to the statement of Ms. Klestil-Löffler but I doubt whether her opinion is an appropriate source. What's more - I don't think it's a good idea to delimit the [geographical?] centre of Central Europe as it's borders are disputed and there's no cultural centre of it... Montessquieu (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's right. The map should be removed from the article. --Olahus (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just the caption that needs to be removed. That "with the center in the Czech Republic" seemed like a WP:POINT addition from the beginning anyway (was originally added by Olahus here, even though Prague is indeed occasionally referred to as the "center of central europe". Olahus seems to prefer his self-made maps with clearly defined borders, even when the article says that there are no clear borders, and when his map for some reason includes Alsace-Lorraine. Yaan (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yaan, whatever so say: take a look at the map and you'll see that the map shows the darkest colour in Czech Republic. I just wonder why. Is the Czech Republic "more central european" than his heighbours Germany, Austria, Slovakia and Poland? --Olahus (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your eyes are deceiving you. just checked with a photo editor and its the same color as the rest. but yeah, there are many possible centers to europe depending on different definitions on how far europe extends. that should be removed..--KevinBas (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the same colour (I didn't doubt it), but the intensity of the colour is different. --Olahus (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn’t mean removing the map. I think it’s not perfect (no Lithuania, too small part of Ukraine, no Transylvania etc.) but it’s better than nothing. Montessquieu (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Geographical centre of Europe describes this pretty well, it is a clear POV to claim it is in Czech (just as much as it is to say it is in Poland or any other country, for that matter). Just as we can't decide about the center of Europe, the center of Central Europe remains undefined. Pundit|utter 20:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Check again where the centre of Europe is. Board who is noble (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The geographical centre of Europe has (almost) nothing in common with Central Europe. Central Europe is not a geographical term. Montessquieu (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Any addition of unreferenced text to this controversial article will be deleted on sight. Those who will engage in revert war despite this warning will be blocked. Please make yourself familiar with the fundamental wikipedia polices about article content: wikipedia:Attribution. `'Míkka>t 22:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop deleting tags, thanks

Sadly enough, the Romanian army of Wikipedia users continue to vandalise this article. I don't know how many times it has been pointed out that fact tags are not to be removed unless sources are provided. This edit warring by many Romanian users is only reflecting badly on the whole country, and I find that sad. Please note that the tags will be reinserted as long as no sources are provided and the many very vague statements remain. I hope some administrator would take the time to look into what appears to be a rather well-organised campaign of extreme POV-pushing. JdeJ (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Germany think Romania is a Central European country

I'm a german user and still think Romania is a Central European country. So don't push it please. 80.228.190.14 (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the tags (but maybe not all of them) have been added abusive. The persons who added them shuld better ask in the talk page why they did it. But this kind of users never bring some sources. They only contest that what other user write here. --Olahus (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I put the references in the article.--Olahus (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No you didn't. You just removed the tags without providing sources. Please add sources for the statements that are tagged and I will eagerly read them. And what is "abusive tagging"? Sorry to say so, but it appears to be the tagging of claims you like. JdeJ (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To take just one examples, where's the source for this statement "In most of the English-speaking, western world, the countries included in the Central Europe region are"? You just keep removing the tag but provides no source for the claim. And where's the source for the map? JdeJ (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

didn't know countries can think! The problem is that there are different definitions of Central Europe. And we need to make this clear instead of fighting which is the one and only true definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.246.113 (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Transylvania (wich was part of Hungary until 1919) had Central-European culture, due to it's protestant - catholic culture of its leading nations. But Orthodox Romania is Eastern European. --Celebration1981 (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Politics

As an Austrian I must oppose the statement about "liberal politics" in Central Europe. The politics of this countries varies very strongly, especially in economics (free-market economy of Switzerland and social-market Austria). Politics of Central Europe ranges from conservatism to moderate and sometimes liberal politics. For example, abortion on request is illegal in most or restricted countries of Central Europa and same-sex marriage is not recognised in any of the countries of Central Europe. Incest is also punished in most of the countries unlike to countries like Belgium, France or the Netherlands. 62.47.189.129 (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find this statement in the article. CE is certainly not liberal, in fact it may be characterised by relative political conservatism. From ages. Montessquieu (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced text was deleted. `'Míkka>t 17:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Alpine countries, again

Germany is no more alpine than France or Italy are, so could we please stop giving the impression that (Alpine countries) = {Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Germany, Slovenia}, when these five countries in fact only form a strict subset of (Alpine countries)? Yaan (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This someone's self-made classification is deleted. And by the way, "Alpine countries" article written. `'Míkka>t 17:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Yaan (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Alpine countries are officially Italy, France, Switz., Liech., Austria, Germany and Slovenia BECAUSE they are home to the alps. The alpine nations are informally Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein and sometimes Slovenia becuase the alps dominate their territory! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.150.48 (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What about Median Europe?

French Wikipedia seems to have reached a reasonable consensus. They distinguished two separate entities: Central Europe (fr:Europe centrale) - territories of cultural heritage of the German Empire, Austria-Hungary and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Czech Rep., Slovakia, Slovenia) - and Median Europe (fr:Europe médiane): Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croationa, Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria and Serbia. It's cited as the result of 10 years of discussion on what we're discussing here :) It's thus not Eastern Europe (different cultural circle), nor Central Europe which is too limited geographicaly. The term "Central and Eastern Europe" is mentioned as an absurd (the countries of Central Europe and Eastern Europe are two different worlds). The concept (unanimously admitted by the geographers) describes non-Russian countries under the Soviet influence after 1945, what was not long enough to efface the cultural and historical heritage of those countries.

Latvia and Estonia are excluded as belonging to the Nordic cultural and linguistic area

Ukraine and Belarus are also excluded because of a strong Russian influence and ethno-linguistic evolution through Russia

Cited source: http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/catalogue/3303331280057/ (in French)

Regards, Montessquieu (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It actually calls for a separate article. And it is you who has all the information, apparently :) Pundit|utter 17:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I understood the suggestion :) I'll translate it when I have a bit more time. Someone would have to check grammar etc. Montessquieu (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not good. I don't think is good. Marc KJH (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he writes a new article with all the references proper, even if taken from French Wikipedia, I don't think it'll be something improper for inclusion... Pundit|utter 19:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive seen a definition like this before (except one that includes Albania, Bosnia and Macedonia as well) - and I'm iffy on this one. There's no reason to exclude those three countries. As far as ROMANIA goes - it does not belong on the main list. Just like the French wikipedia said - ALMOST HALF of Romania (e.g. Transylvania) is in Central Europe. Not even 50%. The country itself is not fully in Central Europe. The French one also mentions Croatia, and says HALF of Croatia is in Central Europe, but not fully again. For consistency's sake, you cannot include Romania and exclude Croatia. I believe both should stay off the list, as they're not FULLY C. European countries but there's POV pushers here, and they won't allow for that (it's really too bad bias has to get in the way). I don't think this definition needs its own article like the French wiki, but can be added to this article, to include these countries that are less frequently included (but sometimes) included in Central Europe. --Buffer v2 (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the intent was to rewrite Central Europe, but AFAIK write a separate entry, grounded in references, and introducing the idea of Median Europe. If the content is well documented, there are no reasons not to write such an article. Pundit|utter 19:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's better documented than you might imagine, but I have to admit that it's used rather in specialist/scientific working papers than in everyday use. Central Europe, East-Central Europe, Median Europe, Central and Eastern Europe - they are all different entities as various criteria of division are applied to each of them. Montessquieu (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

VANDALISM

Someone has totaly changed the map order and removed all the maps where Romania did not appear. Are there any administrators here? Montessquieu (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no vandalism. All the maps should include Romania as well. It's a vandalism not to show the real Central Europe, and I totally agree it should include Romania as well. Marc KJH (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources, please. Without sources any information, even reasonable, cannot be included. Pundit|utter 16:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can find better sources than NATO...be my guest. I trust more NATO than you.Marc KJH (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

But you don't have to trust me at all. I am not a cited source here. However, with a plethora of sources NOT including Romania, and one important source doing so, it clearly calls for being reported as ambiguity (the article should state exactly that: Romania according to sources X, Y and Z is not CE while according to sources A and B is). Rewriting the article so that it ignores the sources not including Romania is just another POV, with the detriment to the project. Pundit|utter 16:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The majority of sources include Romania in Central Europe. It's so obvious why. You just have to look on the map. Romania is as much Central European as Poland is. And I mean by all means. If you consider culturally, Poland is slavic people (thus belonging to East) while Romanians are latin (thus belonging to West). Just to give an example.Marc KJH (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not discussing how things should be. I'm only referring to sources and it is not so obvious to me. The only source you have is NATO for now. On the other hand, CIA World Factbook locates it in Southeastern Europe, and not in Central Europe. At least this controversy has to be reflected in the article - and this is the only source I cross-checked, so quite likely there may be others not placing Romania in CE. By the way, it is good not to edit articles you feel emotional about - why don't you take a break from Central Europe for a while? You were blocked once for your edits here, chill-out is nothing wrong :) Pundit|utter 16:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

About NATO stating that Romania is Central European - Marc KJH, why did you remove from the footnote this text? 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. (...) 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. It comes from the same NATO report, just about five lines further.

Ethnic origin, language and cultural affiliation are different criteria, I think it's not very difficult to understand.

I would never call Romania Eastern European, but it cannot simply "become" Central European because somebody would like it to be. I'd advise you to read the definition of Central Europe at first.

I think we really need an article on Median Europe. Montessquieu (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Marc should be barred from editing this article. He's obviously biased - I mean he is Romanian. He never makes any references, all his "contributions" to the discussions here include "yes Romania is in C. Europe" with no credible sources or explanations to back his statement up. Btw, "Latin" countries are Southern Europe. I've always argued against Romania being included in Central Europe - ONE source including it, while hundreds of others don't - does not mean that the country is in Central Europe. And btw, "Latin" countries are Southern European countries - NOT necessarily Western. Im sorry, but there's an economic aspect of how people view Central Europe - and Romania is highly underdeveloped. It's one of the poorest countries in Europe (and the poorest in the EU), and a country like Bosnia, which went through a grueling 3-4 year war, still had the same GDP per capita as Romania from the time the war ended up until like 2005/2006... Sorry, but no one considers it Central Europe, and it sure isn't a common viewpoint. Nothing against Romania, I have Romanian friends, but use a NEUTRAL standpoint - if you can't, stop editing. --Buffer v2 (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, just being Romanian may theoretically mean having a better access to information (after all Romanians may know more and follow more of the discussions on Romania). However, I do agree that all contributions must be seriously grounded. I don't think any of us has a problem with edits contradictory with own views, as long as they are sourced. Pundit|utter 22:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. But I'm sorry, Marc KJH is a vandal. I've tried editing this article before, providing credible sources, and all he did was revert my edits (it was impossible to change a thing) - him and his Romanian peers. Just look at his edits, they're all biased. No sources, nothing. I think you said it earlier in the page (or was it someone else) - there's obviously POV-pushers on this page. --Buffer v2 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Largest capitals in Central Europe deleted

I deleted pointless pissing contest among a dozen of countries as unencyclopedic. Just tyhe same, one can make a list of lagrest countires by area, by population denisty, by population, by number of cities, by number of lakes, etc.

Instead, I added a column "Capital population" into the list of states. Please fill it by data from the same year, with references.

Also, I see the column for population as "2008 est." I find it rather ridiculous to have an stimate like "22,276,056", i.e., up to a single person. This cannot possibly be true. Such exact numbers can be only from statistial data on an exact date, e.g., in census. `'Míkka>t 17:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Pundit|utter 18:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry but I removed it. If theres consensus on keeping it, bring it back in. Just seemed like another useless category to me. I don't understand what the point of adding it is - it seems off topic and somewhat redundant - jumping from explaining the borders of Europe, to going to describing the size of the cities in specific countries. People can click on the country pages and see the capital, and see the populations from there. There's no need to add it here in my opinion. --Buffer v2 (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that was essentially Mikka's intention - to avoid "pissing contests" and marginalize the discussion on sizes, etc. :) Going one step farther is fine, too, although a table with cities wouldn't do much harm in my view. Pundit|utter 00:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• On another note: EconomistBR, you have ignored my request for clarifying your academic credentials twice already. Your name on Wikipedia suggests credentials, being a graduate or at least a student of economics. Please, be so kind as to confirm these credentials, as usurping these without grounds is against policies. Pundit|utter 22:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with CE, but you had to post it here.

First you accuse me of being disruptive and now this.

You are just trying to smear and defame my nickname. I expected more from someone who claims to have a PhD. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 01:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your credentials have a lot to do with the discussions, here as well. If you're saying you are an economist, you're making a claim to a highly respected occupation. Professional education in this discipline requires a lot of learning in the fields of geography, politics and economics, all relevant for the current discussion. Your several edits and comments, as well as the style of disputing the matter, make me doubt if the profession you make a claim to, is indeed the one you are. I gave you the link to Wikipedia policies in this respect and clearly you cannot use a nickname suggesting credentials, if you don't have them. I don't want in any way to smear or defame your nickname (how even could it be defamatory? If I ask somebody who wears a T-shirt from Cornell University if s/he studied there, is it offensive?). I cannot influence your expectations towards me, but if you want, I can quite easily prove that what I write about myself is true. I am expecting the same from you, according to the guidelines. And frankly, I would be even satisfied by your writing whether you are a real economist or not, as I trust you wouldn't lie (which means that you don't have to prove anything). Pundit|utter 01:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit War between EconomistBR and Olahus

I provided source for the inclusion of Bulgaria. You removed so I tagged the article for lack of balanced geographical coverage. You then removed that too.

You are pinning everything on the word "usually" which honestly means very little. I removed that weasel word, but you refuse to accept that as well.

I mean, can I edit this article at all? ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 21:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to enter the debate between Olahus and you, but I find it quite unusual that three different editors seem to find your edits in a very narrow category (all on regions on Europe) quite disruptive. Perhaps you may consider a break from editing these? Pundit|utter 21:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Olahus, a Romanian editing articles related to Romania.

Pundit, a Polish editing articles related to Poland.

But somehow the Brazilian is the one being disruptive, hum...quite odd.

Maybe you should stop editing articles related to your country and edit articles related to mine for the sake of Neutral point of view.

Now for the flood... ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 22:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No offence, but maybe you would find it unusual as well if a Polish person started writing unusual stuff about geography of Brazil... Pundit|utter 22:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Olahus's edits. Marc KJH (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Buffer_v2, Olahus, Mikkalai, Marc_KJH, Gregorik and Monstessquieu this Edit warring must stop

With over 50 edits with just one day, this pointless edit war is going nowhere.

I think we must accept that there is more than just 1 definition. This is happening at the Eastern Europe article as well.

If we accept more than just one properly sourced definition we can accommodate all the diverging opinions and end this Edit War which is wearing out everybody.

So please, Buffer_v2, Olahus, Mikkalai, Marc_KJH, Gregorik and Monstessquieu let's come together and hammer out a deal.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 01:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I very much like and second this proposal. Moreover, I believe this is the only possible solution: to sort out and mention ALL credible and sourced definitions and approaches. Pundit|utter 01:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

From cultural point of view, from historic point of view Romania does belong to the list. While others, like Bulgaria, definitely not. You have to agree with this, unless I see a change in your edits to accept this I really can't see a progress related to the article. Marc KJH (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Marc, you should try to understand that all edits have to be grounded in sources, and not in our views. That's it, we can't negotiate anything else. Pundit|utter 04:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The edits made here are based on several sources that claim very different things.

Can we have two different definitons for CE?

That would be perfect.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The so-called edit warring that is going on for a month here is nothing but an absurd POV-push by some Romanian nationalists. I'm not denying that some sources put Romania in Central Europe, and that's something most fairly neutral editors seem to agree upon. It's equally evident that some sources don't put Romania in Central Europe. The only sensible thing given this would be to account for the differences in opinion, but the Romanians are determined to only allow their version and their actions speak volumes. Anytime a tag is added, a Romanian is swift to delete it. Never by providing any sources, of course not, since they know they are right and don't have to bother about sources. Marc's comment that "All the maps should include Romania as well. It's a vandalism not to show the real Central Europe" is quite telling for the POV-push. In my humble opinion, this continuous lack of an understanding of what neutral sources are and the lack of interest in compromising is one of the strongest signals that Romania is not Central European (at least not culturally). At least I haven't seen any Czechs, Slovaks, Austrians or Slovenians engaged in such a tremendous and unbalanced POV-push over any issue. JdeJ (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ, please etop the personal attacks against me. You are the one who is trying to push his own POV here, because I am the one who brought sources for his statement. If I would push for my own POV, I would'n have broght sources. But I'm only citing that what many sources (not one source and not few sources) claim. Did you cite any source till now, JdeJ? Did you cite from any book or something like that? It's incredible that even so, you are the one who dare to accuse me of of pushing my (!?!) own POV. JdeJ, you're impertinent, you're rude and you're a vandal. --Olahus (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware of what POV means. Believe it or not, it is NOT a term used for those who don't subscribe to the truth as presented by the Romanian users. It's a term for those who only accept one version and try to make their version of the truth the only acceptable. Going as far as to delete fact tags at will if they want that "fact" to be true. And yes, I've cited quite many sources and you would have found them above on this very page if you would have bothered to check. And yes, you're citing what some sources say as long as the sources suit you. When there are sources that don't suit your own view, you try to suppress them. NPOV is trying to account for all versions, as I've been doing from the start. POV is trying to monopolise one version and only present that view and that is precisely what you have been doing for weeks already. I haven't seen you present a single source that don't include Romania in Central Europe and as there are many such sources, your failure to include them, or even to accept that others include them, is just a long POV-push. JdeJ (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop stalking and harassing people, I urge you JdeJ to stop edit warring here and on other Romanian articles. Marc KJH (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a word of justification: my edits appear on a discussion page, the only change I made to the article (as far as I remember) was 1) expanding a footnote which was not complete 2) adding a template.

As for now, it's difficult to find sources in English defining Central Europe and, if everyone agrees, I would leave the definition as it appears in the article as long as some sourced text can be provided. As to the rest, we can introduce a rule: information+reliable source or nothing. If sources differ, it should be visible in the article. A lot of articles can be found on the [Visegrad Group website] Montessquieu (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Montesquieu, the Visegrad Group is just a part of Central Europe, not Central Europe itself. The denomination "Central Europe" occured a long time before the founding of the Visegrad-Group.--Feierabend (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's clear but they have various articles on the website, e.g. T.G. Ash who is hardly available free of charge anywhere else:) Some of those articles are not limited to Visegrad Group but concern the whole Central Europe. Montessquieu (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was approved per discussion (non-admin closure). Proposal I designed to end the Edit Warring passed, five editors supported the measure, no editor opposed it.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal I

I didn't see any proposals for conflict resolution.

Proposal I

• 1. CIA's definition:....
  2. Nato's definition:....Romania etc.

• If a third definition is found, with or without Romania, that would be added as a third definition.
• If a fourth definition is found, with or without Romania, that would be added as a fourth defintiion.

• If a source coincides with an existing definition that source would be added to reinforce the existing one.

• The sources would be ordered according to the number of sources reinforcing it.

Does everybody agree? ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume the CIA definition + the encyclopedias are classified as the first definition (which they should be) - the moment you remove Romania from the list (and add it as another definition), the Romanian vandals will revert your edits, and their POV-agenda will continue. There's NO hope of editing this article because of the vandals here. --Buffer v2 (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the proposal, as for the disruptive edits...Wikipedia is acting against it: Marc_KJH has been blocked from editing for 1 week.

The message is clear: Edit Warring will not be tolerated.

I urge the other parties involved in this dispute to give their opinions on the Proposal I so that this Edit Warring can end.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I support EconomistBR in the proposal, it is the only rational solution, and also in line with Wikipedia policies. Pundit|utter 18:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. --Buffer v2 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK (even if this NATO source is not unambiguous: Romania is situated at the contact of Central Europe with Eastern Europe and the Balkan Peninsula) Montessquieu (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if Romania is added under that definition, add Croatia as well. There's no way you can include Romania and not have Croatia included in the definition (have you people done any research on this?) I've only found Romania in one source as a Central European country, and found countless of others which include Croatia (a Catholic country, an economy up to C. European standards, having belonged to the Austro-Hungarian empire, undoubtedly more Central European than Romania) and the whole Yugoslavia region as a whole (before the breakup, Yugoslavia was considered Central Europe was it not?) I'd prefer that both countries are excluded from the main list, but if they are added as another definition - fitting under the "maybes" (and Romania specifically), you cannot exclude Croatia, and possibly even Serbia as their northern region is defined as being Central Europe (Voyvodina [spelling?]). It lacks total consistency. --Buffer v2 (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the proposal by EconomistBR and agree with Buffer v2 that Croatia is at least as good a candidate for being Central European as Romania.JdeJ (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ok, than stop vandalizing the article and start providing sources. --Olahus (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Next time I'm reporting your for personal attack, your constant accusation about me vandalising starts to look like harassment. Marc KJH was just blocked for the third time for that offense, and I wouldn't want you to go the same way. You're actually a quite valuable editor to many articles although you have got completely stuck on this one. And let me be very clear about one thing asking for sources is not vandalism. What I've done repeatedly is to restore tags that you have deleted. The whole purpose of tags is to ask for sources. So when you say that I should stop vandalising and provide sources, it looks like you have got things the wrong way around. It is you who are deleting tags asking for sources and then it's your task to provide those sources. This has been pointed out to you so many times that I don't think you don't know it, so you disruptive behaviour is probably due to other factors. The one closest to hand would be you being yet another Bonaparte sock. JdeJ (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Buffer: you seem to misunderstand the policies. What you're writing is defending your own original research (and if we were allowed to take it into account, you'd be quite persuasive indeed). Remember - any, even the most ridiculous idea can be reflected in Wikipedia, provided that it is supported by valid, trustworthy, third-party (not having any interest in the issue) sources. Therefore either bring sources, or let it go, as arguments about Croatia are pure OR at the moment. Pundit|utter 15:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not inventing my own definition. I've said that I've done research on it and found sources for it (not just one source, but multiple, so it doesn't constitute as being original research). I've also tried editing the article with valid sources before, only to have people remove them (and have no intention of discussing it with me on talk pages). As I am busy with exams right now, and I have papers to write, I don't have the time to do research on it again. But here's just one for you that I ran across from the Median Europe article - a researcher in conjunction with NATO doing a paper on NATO/EU in the Balkans. http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/01-03/calin.pdf Pg. 12 "...with the Central Europe stricto sensu, i.e. Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and no doubts hereafter Slovenia and Croatia" Is that enough for you? --Buffer v2 (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely, because it is not clear whether the sentence refers to Central Europe meaning Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia or to Central Europe understood as all 6 countries (it can be Central Europe plus Slovenia and Croatia, or Central Europe sensu stricto: 4 core countries and hereafter two others). Pundit|utter 23:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. You're right, it's not very clear - I might look into that more later. Someone edited and added the NATO and CIA definition headings (which may have been somewhat premature), but didn't adjust the countries which belonged to each definition so I fixed that. Whether we want to revert to the old one for now, or stick with this one - I don't know. Like I said, wasn't discussed so might be premature, but I'm okay with the change (as we did agree that we'll be adding different definitions of Central Europe based on different sources).--Buffer v2 (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

State Chart

Is this chart really necessary? To me it seems redundant - this article isn't here for the purposes of giving you stats of certain countries. If you want that, go to their individual country pages. I think the lists of the countries themselves (just the names) should be sufficient, plus it will ensure consistency with the other regions of Europe pages: Western Europe and Eastern Europe. And it will allow for other definitions to be added without making a whole mess of the page with useless charts. Don't even know why it was added in the first place - like I said, really redundant and doesn't contribute to the content of the article (we're discussing which areas fit into the region of Central Europe - not the make up of certain countries which may fall into the region). Opinions please. --Buffer v2 (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• support - Since the articles WE and EE don't have charts, this article shouldn't havve one either.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  well, it is not an argument - perhaps they are lacking such :) But which chart are we discussing? Pundit|utter 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The chart that I just removed in the "States" section, which listed all the countries, their population, capital, area etc. It's unnecessary - if you want that information, go to their respective country pages. --Buffer v2 (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Romania

It is clear that Romania is not a Central European country by definition. The NATO source is inconclusive- apart from beeing the only one. I can find a million sources dating back to the Cold War which state that Yugoslavia was a South Central European state (its successors now beeing the former yugoslav states). Still, I'm not claiming that Serbia is TYPICALLY Central European- that is ridicilous. Not to mention Romania which lies further east. Both states are PARTIALLY (by large scale though) Central European, but claiming that they are predominantly Central European doesn't match the facts. Which is why I think Romania should be listed in the Carpathian basin/Pannonian plain section. These countries are located at the crossroads of several European regions and cannot be fully included into any of them. Regards, NeroN_BG

NeroN_BG, don't put Romania in the same pot with Serbia. Serbia is located (excepting Vojvodina) mostly in the Balkan Peninsula. How big is Vojvodina's share on Serbia's surface? 20% ? 25% ? What does Romania's position on "further east" to do with this article?--Olahus (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, sources :) Discussions on percentages and interpreting geography is OR. We can't do that. We can only report valid results of other people's categorizations: if you have reliable sources saying that Serbia is Central European, fine (or African or Asian, for that matter - we take the valid sources as they are). Pundit|utter 15:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Olahus, so where should we count Romania- into North America <if not "in the same pot" as Serbia>? Romania and Serbia are both in Central Europe partially, and pretty much equally. Vojvodina and Belgrade regions account for approximately 33% of Serbia's territory, and, even more important, over 60% of its population. (Serbia's territory covers 76,000 km- Vojvodina taking 22,ooo (with 2,2 million people) and Belgrade region another 4,000- with another 2 million people).

Romania's position further east means that there is no country in Central Europe as east as Romania. Countries to the west of RO have more geographic arguments to claim they are CE, as they all follow, pretty much, the patterns drawn by the Central European Time Zone. I insist that Romania is as typically Southeast European as it is Central European- in minimum case scenario. NeroN_BG

• Country Profile on Romania - University of California -> South-Eastern Europe
• Centre for the Study of Central Europe SSEES UCL -> no research on Romania
• Centre for South-East European Studies SSEES UCL -> wide research on Romania

Montessquieu (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"I insist that Romania is as typically Southeast European as it is Central European" - I agree and, on the contrary, I'm not sure whether I would call Romania typically South-Eastern European as well. All we need are sources. Montessquieu (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no NATO definition of CE yet, this is a violation of Proposal I

IMO, NATO may stay as a definition of CE if a definition is found. Right now all we know is that NATO considers Romania to be CE, but that's not a definition.

If a NATO definition for CE is not found, that will considered a violation of Proposal I, and it would have to be removed for the sake of fairness. We are looking for whole definitions and not for individual remarks. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically you're right, although in most non-academic publications definitions lack clarity and are often not even called "definitions" per se. I'd incline towards recognition of working definitions (how do authors/institutions use words, even if they don't "define" them). However, the NATO understanding is very vague indeed. I don't think the CE region is described consistently in their publications and thus may be difficult to include in Wikipedia articles. Pundit|utter 17:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree. None of the sources we've cited (including the CIA Factbook, the encyclopedias) really "define" Central Europe. They just list the states they believe are a part of it. So in which case, you might as well remove all the states from the list. I didn't know we were agreeing to "definitions", but rather different views of credible sources which list different states in the region. We could always go back to the "region usually means" and list the countries which are included in the majority of the sources (CIA, encyclopedias etc.) and then a "maybe" group which lists countries like Romania (by NATO) and Croatia (by various different sources)... because the "definitions" you're looking for do not exist. --Buffer v2 (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, I don't know why we can't just relabel the section to "States" and list the different sources like I did, and the countries which fall under their definition. This would avoid the dispute of having to use "usually means" and "sometimes", as we're just listing the states included under different sources. The Eastern Europe and Western Europe articles take this approach as well. And looking at your first proposal, I don't believe it was clear enough - I thought I was agreeing to what I just said - that the definitions of the region = the countries in the region. There's really no other way to do this in my opinion. Encyclopedias just list the regions of Europe, and the CIA Factbook and UN (although the UN does not include Central Europe as a region) do the same - going into no further discussions of what Central Europe is exactly - as the latter two mostly use the classification for statistical purposes. And on the other side, people here seem to push genuine research papers (which would go into depth as to what C. Europe really is) off to the side and brand it as "original research". So which way is it? Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding by what you mean by "definition"? By definition do you mean: a) a description of what makes Central Europe what it is, or b) just a list of countries each source considers C. Europe (without "individual remarks" - single countries?) Please elaborate. If it's b), I will accept it. If it's a), I disagree.--Buffer v2 (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd accept any clearly consistent use of the word, without saying "our definition is..." but not contradictory at least within one source. Pundit|utter 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you mean by relabelling to "States".

I can agree to changing the label from "Definitions" to "States", but preserving each source individually.

The problem with relabelling to "States" is that we can't find an authoritative source to use as THE definition. I could agree to a return to the "States" label with a single definiton if the Arbitration Committee issued a ruling about it or if we could find 5 or 6 strong sources defining CE as same thing.

Right now, even the Columbia Encyclopedia citation is IMO illegal, its definition of CE is simply a link to a Wikipedia map that has no source http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Regions_of_Europe_Map.png

By listing each definition individually we don't risk passing on the notion that a source is more important that the others.

By "definition" I mean:

"b)just a list of countries each source considers C. Europe, without "individual remarks" - single countries".

That's what happened at the WE and EE articles. A bunch of different sources each with its own list of countries.

I don't like this solution, but we can't find an authoritative source to use as definition. So we have to list every single single definition just to avoid edit warring and for the sake of fairness.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and I do agree. I'm beginning to question NATO as a source for the simple reason that it does not dedicate anything on its site to defining Central Europe, and may list Romania as a Central European country for many reasons (error/carelessness). The reason that I'm leaning towards is that they simply didn't care. It's not exactly on the top of their agenda to have a small blurb of a country as being up to perfect standards (and who knows who inside NATO uploaded that?). And the fact that its listed as an individual remark would also lead me to believe that its insufficient as a source, and Im sure like Pundit said, may lack consistency in their publications (if they ever do mention Central Europe). Don't really think they can be considered a reliable source. So I do agree that that source should be removed. HOWEVER, Ohalus did provide a source above that includes Romania to the list, so that could replace it. It could be headlined under "Other sources". Pardon me if this isn't making much sense right now - my head is in a twirl. lol --Buffer v2 (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This NATO link : http://nato.mae.ro/index.php?lang=en&id=209 also lists Romania as CE. So NATO definitely considers Romania to be CE. The problem is that I searched NATO definition for Poland, Germany...etc but couldn't find it.

IMO without a complete definiton of CE, it makes very little sense to mention NATO as a source for definition. NATO is right now an incomplete source, quite useless IMO.

IMO NATO is as good a source as CIA. NATO is a multinational alliance whereas CIA is simply an agency of the US government.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we are supposed to grade among valid sources. Also, honestly, I personally value CIA World Factbook much higher than what the Romanian Permanent Delegation to NATO writes about their own country (keep in mind, it is not a NATO source). NATO itself is a military treaty but so far has not been publishing information about the world, while CIA, maybe because of the nature of their intelligence work, has to be very precise and updated about all regions (and as it happens also does publish a professional almanac about the globe). I agree with EconomistBR that to include NATO as a source we need at least ONE consistent document that lists Central European countries, or list all European countries with some categories given, etc. Otherwise it is very possible that we just end up using one document, while another is contradictory, but we still attribute NATO with some particular approach. Pundit|utter 15:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is Olahus - he seems to have deleted his reference which had Romania listed as C. European country...?? We kind of need that right now. --Buffer v2 (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Romania is part of CE

Romania was/is/will be always part of CE.Panel 2008 (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody cares about your opinions, we care about sources. Provide some sources and stop edit warring. Or not even edit warring, your just vandalising JdeJ (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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) 18:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please restore the proper page

Would someone please take the time to restore the agreed-upon compromise that has been worked out instead of Palen2008's blatantly unsourced POV-push? JdeJ (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have, and I've dropped a line at WP:AN as he seems to have broken WP:3RR. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

pictures

This article in my view is going downhill. The images are practically eliminated. I added the map with the CIA World Factbook depiction - comments appreciated, but please don't delete the image without a discussion. Pundit|utter 17:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• support - The CIA map should stay. Since the articles EE and WE have maps that refer to the sources on the map, the CE should have maps as well. One thing, right now the CIA map is in the wrong section. Maybe someone could correct that.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  Hi, thanks. Move if you believe it makes better sense, I placed it higher just because I think it is better to have some picture visible in the first screen. Pundit|utter 18:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  I removed the "Pre-WW1 Central Europe" map as it's not sourced and not accurate (e.g. Polish territories incorporated by Russia...). Montessquieu (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the map - theres a MAJOR flaw with it. You're using CIA's definition - which is fine, but you're excluding Hungary in the map (and it is under CIA's definition). But I do support adding the map once it's fixed --Buffer v2 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My slip. I will correct it right away. Pundit|utter 21:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The map is good but I think the pre-WW2 map was OK too, no need to remove it, Poland wouldn't have been included in CE at the time as part of Russia (EE). AuH, Germ and CH would've been the states comprising CE at that time. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

it was still CE - those lands were incorporated by Russia, but they did differ, and were administratively separated (Duchy of Warsaw, Kingdom of Poland etc.). The attempts of Russification were confronted to multiple uprisings and so-called "organic work". Because of strong censorship, underground education was established, including illegal Flying University. The most famous Polish Romantic poets (see Three Bards) as well as Chopin come from this region, they are listed as the most prominent representatives of Central European culture. Because of cultural difference, it was impossible to make this territory Eastern Europe, many people lost their lives to protect their western cultural heritage and that's why I don't agree to call it Eastern Europe. Montessquieu (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. Poland was not a part of Russia. After the Partitions of Poland, its North-Eastern part was incorporated by Russia, North-Western by Prussia and Southern by Austria. Those territories are included on the removed map as parts of AuH & Germ. Montessquieu (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

EconomistBR, Buffer v2, JdeJ and NeroN BG

Those 4 users vandalized hardly the article. None of those three made an effort to provide sources (as I did). I suggest them again to provide sources before they cancel my edits. If they cannot provide sources, I want to remember them that this is not their own Wikipedia. As I didn't even thought to make changes without sources, they should do the same.

But who are actually those three users?

• EconomistBR, a user from Brazil who knows as much about Europe, as I know about Bhutan. Not to say that he insists to make his own rules on Wikipedia. If Romania doesn't match on his "Proposal 1", than it shold be removed, because doesn't match to mister EconomistBR's rules. Besides, I mentioned in the last month both in the article and in the talk page around 5 sources who claims that Romania is located in Central Europe. But, of course, EconomistBR doesn't show the intention to include them in the article because they don't match with his personal point of view. Economist BR is also not engaged to provide serious sources, he just browse the Google-page.
• Buffer v2, a user who uses sockpuppets to contaminate the article with his personal point of view.
• JdeJ, a user with obvious anti-Romanian intentions, as everybody can read here, where he writes about Romania: Romania has both the largest concentration of Romas and the most beggards and undernourished people in Europe. How is possible that somebody, who has so few knowledges about Romania, insist to ignore and modify my edits who are quoted? Oh yes, not to mention: As in the case of the other already mentioned users, JdeJ doesn't provide any source.
• NeroN BG, a user who, like the other four users mentioned above, isn't able to provide sources, but who insists to impose his personal point of view based probably on his own feelings. And not just that he insists to modify the article without sources, but he "enjoys" also the congratulatiosn of JdeJ for his "input" (see here). NeroN BG has a very "original" way to handle, eg. I wrote him here a message, but shortly after he emptied his talk page in order to behave as if he wouldn't have read my message, by replacing an existing image with a non-existing one. Well ... what can I say?

And now for all: I want to know in how far CIA is relevant for this article? Why do those users insist to cite only CIA as a source, as lons as CIA dosn't ever provide a definition for Central Europe? CIA factbook is only relevant concerning the statistical country data informations because they are collected from the statistical bureaus of each country and they are permanently actualized. But how did those users come to the conclusion that CIA includes to Central Europe only the countries that are already listened ?!? I'm asking this because this map and this map are also released by the CIA (as it is mentioned here). So, isn't CIA ambigous?

I remade a list of sources concerning Romania's location in Central Europe:

• Paul Robert Magocsi, Historical Atlas of East Central Europe, University of Washington Press. Seattle & London. 1993 Romania belongs to the Alpine-Carpathian zone of East Central Europe. Here are some images scanned from the source I mentioned above:

The atlas: 1; 2

The information: 3; 4; 5

The reference and the bibliography (bordered in red).

• See here: Durch die ehemalige Zugehörigkeit des westlichen Landesteils zum Österreich-Ungarischen Reich zeichnen sich die Rumänen durch eine mitteleuropäisch geprägte Kultur und Mentalität aus.

• Transformationsprozesse im südlichen Mitteleuropa – Ungarn und Rumänien: See here

• See also here and here: 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..

• A source presented by the user Yaan: 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 Rumaenien gerechnet, gelegentlich auch die Niederlande, Belgien und Luxemburg ([see also] Ostmitteleuropa)."

• 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 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. --Olahus (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• 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.

• Géographie universelle (1927), (Paul Vidal de la Blache and Lucien Gallois). Author Emmanuel de Martonne. See here: the Central European Countries are: Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania. The Author also provides a description of Central Europe (see here and here).

• Harms Handbuch der Geographie (see here) includes Romania to Erstern Central Europe (Ostmitteleuropa), here.

• And yes, the well-known NATO-source: here.

Please insert the comments concerning this text below this edit (not between the lines). Thanks! --Olahus (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure you don't confuse Central Europe with East-Central Europe (Ostmitteleuropa). Regards, Montessquieu (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Between the 13 sources I provided here, only 2 are about East-Central Europe (Ostmitteleuropa). Cheers, --Olahus (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Olahus! Everybody who doesn't think the way Olahus does is anti-Romanian and should be banned from Wikipedia. Everybody who changes anything Olahus has come up with vandalises Wikipedia. Ok, sorry for the sarcasm but it's hard to this fanatic POV-pusher with his sock-vandalism and repeated personal attacks seriously. JdeJ (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel disturbed because I exposed your behavior in this encyclopedia? --Olahus (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Olahus, let me say something about my sock puppetry. First of all, I never edited much on wikipedia - I never knew what sock puppetry was (I guess you could say it's my fault for not familiarizing myself with the rules - fine). WHY did I use that other account? FOR ONE SOLE SEASON, you and your Romanian meat puppets (still convinced that they're meat/sock puppets of yours, they both created their accounts on April 15, a few days after the edit warring started - always backing you in every instance, right there when you needed them) kept reverting all my edits. I thought it was a personal issue that you had against me, and I thought Id create another account to get that out of the way, so I could actually edit without having it reverted. I found out that was against the rules - fine, I was banned for a week for it. And notice how that sock puppet was used once or twice, and never again? When I found out that that wasn't working, and that you were just POV pushing, and had no personal problems against me, I stopped using it. There you go. I won't excuse myself for doing it, but just trying to shine some light on it as it seems like you're trying to attack me. And FINALLY, ADD YOUR SOURCES IN - no one's stopping you, but we agreed - there was concensus - on formatting the page as Eastern Europe and Western Europe is formatted - separate definitions. You can't add Romania to the CIA World Factbook list because CIA doesn't mention it. Romania is still mentioned as a Central European country, so what exactly is your problem? --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Buffer v2, you're accusings against me are ridiculous and they can be only regarded as a proove of ridiculousness. I don't use sockpuppets and it was already prooved (if you still have doubt about it, you may ask again for a request). Concerning the CIA factbook, I already prooved that it is abiguous, because the maps from CIA factbook present all the former communist countries (excepting the former soviet republics) plus Germany ans Austria as "Central European". Meanwhile, in the separate description of the countries, onls some of those countries are presented as "Central European". But the worst thing in the CIA factbook is that:

• The reliable informations from this source are only the statistical datas of the countries. The rest of the informations (like the location of the countries) are not based of some sources, they are just "given".
• The CIA factbook does not provide a definition of Central Europe.

Besides, why should be the information from the CIA factbook be regarded as more reliable as the sources provided by me? Many of the sources I broght are of scientific origin and this feature has the CIA factbook definately not concerning the location of the countries. --Olahus (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No Olahus, I'm not disturbed because you "exposed my behaviour". I'm very used to simple-minded nationalists POV-pushers accusing anybody opposing their agenda for being against their country. I've been called similar things regarding about 30 countries, each and every time by nationalist editors who have been blocked repeatedly. Anyone with the least sense of intelligence will surely understand that with perhaps ten of my 4000 contributions to Wikipedia concerning Romania, I'm not anti-Romanian and I'm not pro-Romanian. I am disturbed by how dishonest you are, by how you vandalise Wikipedia, by how you seem to enjoy disrupting genuine Wikipedia editors, by your use of sock-puppets. JdeJ (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you want to say, JdeJ. You're embarrased because I am the one who broght sources not you. Please, try better to explain this statement. It's obviously a anti-Romanian exposure of you. I don't care what other users say about you. I just know you're attitude regarding Romania. --Olahus (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You're obviously taking his statement out of context. I see no bias against Romania there - in fact, he says that those statements have nothing to do with whether a country is Central European or not - supporting the fact that it can be added as a Central European country. Stop trying to twist the guy's words and leave him alone. Furthermore, can you please give us a link to that map that you claim is from the CIA World Factbook? And I wish I could read your sources but I don't speak German, so I can't - and no one said they were inferior to the CIA's sources... BUT LIKE I SAID, we AGREED on separate definitions - AND you are FREE to add those in as well. I would be okay with adding a map that includes all countries of all different sources if that makes you happy (not just the map of CIA's definition). Just try and stick to the agreement that we made that the page will be formatted by different definitions (completely fair) otherwise this page will spin back to edit warring. --Buffer v2 (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As Buffer correctly points out, Olahus is taking a statement out of context. It wasn't I who came up with any of those descriptions of Romania, and Olahus knows it. He just twitches the truth to gets his way, as always. I would also like to point out one thing. There are quite many Romas in Romania and Olahus thinks I'm anti-Romanian for saying so. That would mean that he thinks there's something wrong with there being many Romas in a country, thus exposing his own racism. If I say that there are many Catalans in Spain, many Bretons in France, many Scots in the UK or many Hungarians in Slovakia, would anyone think I'm anti-Spanish, anti-French, anti-UK or anti-Slovakian? Surely not, so what's the problem in this case? Nothing but Olahus's racist attitude. JdeJ (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Defamatory and slanderous accusations made by Olahus against EconomistBR

• Olahus calls EconomistBR vandal:"Those 3 users vandalized hardly the article"
• Olahus calls EconomistBR ignorant:"EconomistBR, a user from Brazil who knows as much about Europe, as I know about Bhutan"
• Olahus calls EconomistBR dictator: "Not to say that he insists to make his own rules on Wikipedia"
• Olahus ridicules EconomistBR as a person: "it shold be removed, because doesn't match to mister EconomistBR's rules."
• Olahus accuses EconomistBR of having bias:"EconomistBR doesn't show the intention to include them in the article because they don't match with his personal point of view."
• Olahus calls user EconomistBR corrupt: "Economist BR is also not engaged to provide serious sources"

The insults and defammatory accusations made by Olahus are designed to create hostility and edit warring. Olahus benefits from edit warring.

I ask other users to denounce and expose Olahus' false accusation and insults so that we can request Wikipedia:Administrators punishment against him.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully support EconomistBR in denouncing Olahus, it's quite clear that Olahus is only on Wikipedia to disrupt, vandalise and to attack other users. JdeJ (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. This is getting ridiculous. Unless he changes his act, he should be punished. His POV-pushing is a cause of edit warring, vandalism and flaming on this article, and it's really getting out of hand. --Buffer v2 (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you both, Olahus by constantly insulting us he is causing this endless edit warring and disruption. IMO we should compile a list of his insults and accusations and go talk to an administrator.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course you did vandalize the article. You violated my sourced edits. Isn't it called vandalism? --Olahus (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

All you do is insult me.

Proposal I was agreed upon by five editors, so it is enforceable. If you are against Proposal I make a new proposal or shut up about it⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 02:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok, I will make a new proposal in the next few days and I'm sure it gonna be better than yours. But at least, i must say that I appreciate that you stoped reverting my quoted edits in the last few days. --Olahus (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Defamatory and slanderous accusation made by JdeJ against Olahus

I want an explanation of this edit. --Olahus (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm it DOES have a definition. It defines the regions by with the countries that are apart of it. NATO doesn't. --Buffer v2 (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And an explanation you will have. You falsified the source and lied about it. You yourself uploaded a map from Texas University and named it the CIA map, then you replaced the previous map with your own "discovery". Just how you decided that this map [5] is the CIA Factbook map is beyond me. So I called it source falsification because you falsified the source. JdeJ (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In the page of the Texas University, the map is described as being taken from the CIA. See here. --Olahus (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough but that definition is from 2001, an older version. If you're going to put that map in, add it in, but leave the other CIA map in as well, and label it correctly. --Buffer v2 (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't make that map a CIA Factbook map. JdeJ (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The map is described as coming from CIA by somebody from the University of Texas, but on the CIA site you can't find this map at all, so the attribution goes to Texas, I guess. It definitely is against what the CIA World Factbook says, but some other CIA publication definitely can be contradictory - you only have to find this particular source. Also, the license for the picture is unclear and cannot be assumed to be GPL/GNU. Pundit|utter 01:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Though the map dindn't came directly from CIA, it doesn't mean that it wasn't taken from there. It might have been removed from there. E.g this map is also from the CIA, but you cannot find it in the currently databese. Websites are permanently renewed.

Jdej accused me of falsifying sources and I expect an apology from him. --Olahus (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw, this map is still wrong, because in the CIA factbook, Estonia is mentioned as it would belong to C.E. : see here: Estonia, a 2004 European Union entrant, has a modern market-based economy and one of the highest per capita income levels in Central Europe. --Olahus (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You claimed the map to be from the Factbook, but it's not. So don't expect any apology for merely pointing out that you were wrong. Having said that, I do recognise that you are good at finding sources and that many of the maps you have contributed to Wikipedia are of great value. If you would just tone down the Romanian nationalism a bit and stop attacking users who disagree with you, I do believe you to be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. JdeJ (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jdej, you accused me that I falsificated a source and this was obviously a calumniation against me. I presented a serious source that didn't mach to your personat point of view, so you started being impertinent. And btw., what connection do you see between Romanian nationalism and the issue about Central Europe?!?

The Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection is a very serious map database from the University of Texas at Austin, and if you think different, than you should explain it in the talk page. Maybe this screenshot will help you somehow. --Olahus (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why CIA current map (the World Factbook is frequently updated) whas changed into some map taken from University of Texas, cited as CIA map of 2001... And why are there two separate "definitions" by Mayers? If this publishing house cannot decide whether Romania is CE or not, it should be mentioned in ONE entry. Montessquieu (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite true, the CIA map based on the World Factbook is the one we should use. As for Mayers and all the other definitions, what's the point with them? I'm not saying they should be deleted, but it's rather obvious that Olahus hasn't been searching for different definitions of Central Europe, he's only searching for definitions including Romania. In other words, the current version is pretty skewed. JdeJ (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ, I dint' look only for versions that include Romania. I will present also another sources, that didn't include Romania.--Olahus (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

About Estonia: each country's geographical classification is specified in the "Geography" section, subsection: location. About Géographie universelle - it was published in 1927, e.g. Bulgaria is placed in the book on Mediterranean Peninsulas... Montessquieu (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What does Bulgaria has to do in this discussion? --Olahus (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to show that the collection is rather far from contemporary concepts of Europe's division. New source here. Montessquieu (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I also share JdeJ's concerns. It's pretty obvious that Olahus searched for sources which included Romania and no others, so I feel that this article has taken on a new bias. I wish people would put their nationalism away and leave this article free of any bias. IT'S REALLY unfortunate. --Buffer v2 (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with editors JdeJ and Buffer v2, Olahus searched and drowned this article with sources promoting his Romanian obsession.

We might as well change the name of the article to Romania Rules or Romania in Central Europe, I am sure Olahus wouldn't mind.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Folks! Just one question: what the hell does Romanian nationalism to do with Romania's location in Central Europe??? Please answer my question. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Olahus, our concern is that you went out and did the research - fine, but your intention was to find sources which had Romania as Central Europe. Those sources are fine, but if we're going to throw in random sources, we should get a variety that emphasize other possible definitions. I feel like we're getting a one sided view to this, and I don't believe that the Romanian definitions you found are the most common ones out there.. --Buffer v2 (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

STOP

Stop this whining at once. No one has been the subject of a serious personal attack, but they will be if this continues. Can't you bloody warmongers co-operate? Good god, there isn't as much controversy even at the Arab-Israeli conflict. It saddens me to think you would viciously attack each other over who gets to be in a block of land. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not whining, I felt offended by Olahus.

This is what he wrote:

• Olahus calls EconomistBR vandal:"Those 3 users vandalized hardly the article"
• Olahus calls EconomistBR ignorant:"EconomistBR, a user from Brazil who knows as much about Europe, as I know about Bhutan"
• Olahus calls EconomistBR dictator: "Not to say that he insists to make his own rules on Wikipedia"
• Olahus ridicules EconomistBR as a person: "it shold be removed, because doesn't match to mister EconomistBR's rules."
• Olahus accuses EconomistBR of having bias:"EconomistBR doesn't show the intention to include them in the article because they don't match with his personal point of view."
• Olahus calls user EconomistBR corrupt: "Economist BR is also not engaged to provide serious sources"

I have the right to complain about these insults, that's not whining. Another things, these accusations and insults don't foster an environment where cooperation can exist.

You would help more by denouncing those insults instead of lumping everybody into the same bag.

I still feel I deserve an apology from Olahus.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 06:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

By repeting that what you already wrote above, you just prove how ridiculous you are. It looks somehow like SPAM, don't you think that?--Olahus (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, Hexagon1 clearly didn't read my post since he accused me of warmongering, which is totally unfair. I have up until now not offended you in anyway Olahus.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Warmongering is that what you did. You started a edit war yesterday, not I. --Olahus (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring shall continue until we are both suspended

EconomistBR, please stop vandalizing the article. You're deleting my references because they don't matsch to your personal point of view. I also included sources that did't include Romania, but you continued to vandalize. As you know, by making such edits, you're violating the Wikipeida rules. --Olahus (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing, you are trying to shove a reference from 1927 and an outdated map from the

CIA down everybody's throat. This is just wrong and unnacepatable.

You don't care about what anybody has to say.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 21:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

EconomistBR, You're ridiculous again and again and again ... You think a map from 1927 is outdated? Why? Is it against the Wikipedia rules? Does Wikipedia have a date limit? I think it does'n, so please stop vandalizing the article --Olahus (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am adding this new insult to your growing list of uncivil and childish comments about my person.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

...whining...., bloody warmongers... - don't you think you yourself could calm down a bit? Mediating by adding to personal attacks rarely helps. Pundit|utter 17:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"we are both suspended" ?? Dream on. I not the vandal here, but maybe somebody else. --Olahus (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You were warned. If you violate the WP:3RR again and you will blocked.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I have a proposal. Let's rephrase the definition in this way:

As Central Europe is usually defined the center of the European continent. The region has no precise borders, but some states are considered in the majority of cases to be a part of this European macroregion: Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia. Sometimes Slovenia and Switzerland are excluded. Seldom, even Hungary is excluded.

Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg are also located sometimes to Central Europe.

Romania (who's territory is located by around half of his territory in Central Europe and only a small part in Southeastern Europe) is considered, depending on the source to Central Europe or Southeastern Europe. In a similar situation is Croatia, located by half in Central and Southeastern Europe.

Some other countries are located mostly outside this region, but they share a part of their territory in Central Europe: France (northeast), Italy (north), Serbia (north) and Ukraine (west).

Please correct my spelling mistakes. So, what do you think about my proposal? --Olahus (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes Hungary Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland are excluded but sometimes Germany and Austria are excluded as well - CE is sometimes limited to Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary (see for example Interfax Central Europe). Montessquieu (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Based on my research, the Visegrad Four is the conventional definition of Central Europe. I never see Slovakia, Hungary or Poland excluded. Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg are less commonly included in Central Europe than other countries. They plain don't belong there and I don't believe there's enough research to prove that they are considered by the English-speaking world as Central Europe. Switzerland and Liechtenstein could fit the definition of less commonly included however. The problem with your definition is that you're picking and choosing definitions, and many of them conflict with what you're saying. But I also dont agree with how the article is shaping out to be now. I THINK the fact that you brought this proposal to our attention, then you might be willing to have the article reverted to how it was before? Where the CIA definitions, along with the encyclopedic are the "Usually" states, where as Romania and Croatia would fit into the "maybes"? Makes things much more simpler - the page is a complete mess right now. TOO MANY random sources thrown into the article at the moment. --Buffer v2 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the "Visegrad Four", you shold't mention them here, but in the article East-Central Europe, because those states are the nucleus of East Central Europe. --Olahus (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Buffer v2, Olahus is definitely picking only the sources that fit his POV, but unfortunately he is allowed to do so. Unless we convince an administrator to stop him we are powerless.

I also agree that we have too many definitions, but we can't reach a consensus or find a definite source.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My point of view? What is that? Remeber: I am the user who brought sources to this article. Not you. You just vandalized the article by deleting my sources and modifying the article according to your personal point of view. --Olahus (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Partial oppose. We are not looking for a single definition, we are trying to accomodate all the diverging definitions.

I have "NO" problem with two of the sources you provided.

1.3 Meyers Grosses Taschenlexikon(1999) good source

1.4 Mayers Enzyklopädisches Lexikon(1980) good source

1.5 Géographie universelle(1927) bad source, outdated source

The CIA map is contradicting The World Factbook, which means it is outdated as well.

The CIA map and the 1927 source get either deleted or moved to a new section called old definitions.

Does anybody else agree with this?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to decide weather a source is dated or not? Does any wikipedia rule say that there must be a time limit for the sources? And if you tink that the source from 1927 is dated whay did you never (i repet: never !!!) contested the mentioning of Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 ???? Maybe because it matched with your personal point of view? The issue concerning the "dated" sources is ridiculous and useless because Wikipedia doesn't have a "time limit" for the sources. --Olahus (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You are really hostile. 1911 and 1927 are old sources. That source is 81 years old, don't you agree that it may be a little outdated?

Let's move them both to a new section called old sources, ok?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have problems with definitions in general for this article. Central Europe is not clear cut like the regions of Eastern Europe and Western Europe are. There's literally hundreds of definitions out there. I find it totally unnecessary to add random definitions, while leaving out a handful of others. It may, unintentionally (although that isn't the case here) leave out other, more common definitions. It ends up being somewhat POV-ish (and in this article, it looks like its the case). But that isn't necessarily the fault of the editor. Another thing that I object is using German sources – not an attack against Olahus (just a general comment on using sources in other languages). I have an issue with directly translating "Mitteleuropa" (spelling?) to "Central Europe". It may have a different connotative meaning, and even so, if you have a source using "Mitteleuropa" - that term has its own article does it not (which would lead me to believe that there is indeed a difference in the way that Germans view "Mitteleuropa" vs. how we view "Central Europe")? Put it there, not here. Can anyone who's a fluent German speaker comment on this? Would Mitteleuropa actually translate literally to Central Europe, with the same connotative meaning? (I realize that it translates to Middle Europe, so really what I'm looking for is the connotative meaning). Does it mean the same thing it would mean to an English speaking person? Maybe I'm thinking about it the wrong way... Anyways, MY VIEWS have ALWAYS been removing Romania and Croatia (I'm 1/2 Croat, 1/4 Dutch, 1/4 German – very proud of my Croatian background – however, you do not see any biases coming from me Olahus - maybe its time to follow suit?). They are not usually considered Central European. Yes, there are sources that say they are sometimes - that's fine. If you wish to add a note saying, to a lesser extent, or less commonly, that works for me. But I don't agree with equating these two countries with the countries mentioned in the encyclopedias and CIA (like it or not, it's a valid source, the term "Central Europe" is all about perception - no strict definitions). If the majority of sources list those countries, I think it should be fair to just list them as usually being part of the region. I'm just really disappointed that this article has gone down to shreds - all because of never ending POV pushing, and obvious nationalistic reasons for making edits – bias. Before Ohalus accuses me of being biased with Croatia (as I have added it in) - if Romania is added, I honestly cannot see a reason why you would not add Croatia. This is just an opinion – and an educated one. I've done plenty of research on this. Croatia is cited more often as Central European than Romania. It's POV to exclude Croatia while having Romania on there, and I would see it as an incomplete definition. So, my proposal is - scrap all the definitions - theres hundreds out there, how are you going to judge which is more valid or more common? Secondly, add in the countries acknowledged by CIA, and other encyclopedias (who are pretty much mentioned in all other sources - widespread support for this) – Germany, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia. And if Olahus is so hell bent on adding Romania, add it in along with Croatia, but add it in as "sometimes included in Central Europe", because the fact of the matter is it isn't mentioned in 90%+ of the sources out there like the aforementioned countries, so it is fair to list it as "sometimes". --Buffer v2 (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I say Central Europe is an exact enough translation of Mitteleuropa, Germans generally use this word when wanting to translate "Mitteleuropa" into English. Compare Central America and Mittelamerica. Central Asia is a bit different, but this may be a reflection of Russian terminology. Yaan (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the heads up. Guess I was wrong. Still doesn't explain why that Mitteleuropa article exists though. Makes it seem like Germans view C. Europe differently than the rest of the world - and perhaps they may. Now Olahus - "Who are you to decide weather a source is dated or not? Does any wikipedia rule say that there must be a time limit for the sources? And if you tink that the source from 1927 is dated whay did you never (i repet: never !!!) contested the mentioning of Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 ???? Maybe because it matched with your personal point of view? The issue concerning the "dated" sources is ridiculous and useless because Wikipedia doesn't have a "time limit" for the sources." Olahus, that's a little hypocritical, don't you think? Let's take a stroll back to last month when you were erasing all my referenced edits and calling them original research - who were you to decide whether my sources were valid or not (in fact theres a few of them in the article now)? And in fact you said that I needed consent and to compromise on the talk page. How about you take your own advice right now? If enough people disagree with what you added in there, isn't it original research as you called it? Stop playing games please. --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I was ready to support your counter-proposal, but apparently MittleEuropa does mean Central Europe.

Compromise that's what we are lacking. Thanks God, I am from Brazil so I can't be really affected by the outcome of this, but the thing is I am growing really tired.

I feel like just unwatching this page and forgetting all about it.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My post "sometimes Germany and Austria are excluded as well - CE is sometimes limited to Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary" was a response to this text in the proposal: "Sometimes Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland are excluded." I just wanted to show that it's not the best idea to introduce such a definition. Personally, I am close to the definition included in Géographie universelle (but I wouldn't cover the whole Romanian territory nor Germany west of Elbe). Montessquieu (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that Germany and Austria are sometimes excluded? --Olahus (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As Buffer v2said, "the Visegrad Four is the conventional definition of Central Europe." Montessquieu (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Floristic regions?

Can someone please explain to me why this was added? It seems totally unnecessary and out of place. How does the plant make up of Europe influence the meaning of Central Europe – a word that is defined by political and sociological aspects? Come on now, Olahus. Are you that desperate to find anything to bolster Romania belonging to Central Europe? I'm sorry, but his edits are just getting out of hand. --Buffer v2 (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be a verifyable definition, tough. And if biologists use it, it should be worth to at least mention it. Yaan (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The floristic regions should go, completely irrelevant here. JdeJ (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a possible meaning of the term "Central Europe", is it not? It is used in the sciences, and it is verifyable. Plus I think the botanists who came up with this definition at least made their heads up about it. I don't know if it deserves an own section, but a mention is definitely OK, if not desirable. Yaan (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummm they named that region Central Europe because it geographically coincided with the middle of Europe. It has no sociological or political relation to the common sense of the word "Central Europe" - which is political and sociological. Are we to suddenly start calling the Scandinavian countries Boreal countries too? Or the UK as an Atlantic country? Or Belarus and Ukraine as Central Russian countries? Can't you see that it's totally irrelevant? Just because the plant make up of Romania is identical to the plant make up to the rest of the middle of Europe doesn't make that whole area Central Europe in our sense of the word. --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And by what convention do we define Wikipedia's sense of the word? Yaan (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a political/sociological term. I don't mean Wikipedia's. I mean this article's specifically. Let me just say it this way - if you asked these scientists what countries they think constitute Central Europe, they would not answer with their botanical definition, would they? A definitions thats narrowly based on classifying areas of Europe on their plant species. It has nothing to do with this article. The problem is that this botanical definition is used of context. It just doesn't belong here. I'm really not sure what part of this you don't understand. --Buffer v2 (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Buffer v2, do you try again to push for your personal point of view? I remember you the definition of 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. --Olahus (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So, Central Europe is not jast a political/sociological, but also a physical grographical term.--Olahus (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You know what Olahus? Stop accusing me of being biased and being a POV-pusher. It seems that's all you do whenever you disagree with someone. And it's quite obvious that the only POV pusher here is you. And it's not like this opinion comes just for me - everyone on this talk page agrees with it. You are completely biased and should be barred from editing this page. And tell me, what reason would I have to exclude this map? What's my motivation? What POV do I have?

I'm not going to repeat myself on the use of that map. It was obviously hand picked by you to further your Romanian nationalistic agenda - and even worse, quite out of place and irrelevant to the topic. Physical geographies can define Central Europe, but the plant make up of Europe suddenly sets the boundaries of Central Europe? Taken out of context.

And finally, if you are going to post something in German, translate it. For the last time, not everyone here speaks German, and I'm not even sure what you just quoted above. I mean - isn't this the English wikipedia, and not the German one? --Buffer v2 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Buffer, why dind't you say so? Of course, I will translate is for you: "Central Europe; the central part of Europe, the transit zone between the oceanic Western, the subtropical South and the partially subpolar Northern Europe. The delimitation is unclear, because especially to the west and to the east where definite natural and cultural borders are missing. Usually, under as Central Europe it is ment the Alps and the region noth of it till the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, the region around the river Vistula and the Carpathian countries." --Olahus (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Buffer, explain me once again: What the hell does Romanian nationalism to do with Romania's location in Central Europe???--Olahus (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Olahus would score more credibility points if he stopped accusing everybody else except him of being a POV-pusher. Personally I don't mind reading German, but Buffer is right to point out that it might be a good idea to translate for those who don't understand. It's not really like I'm posting long texts in French either :) Lastly, the quote in German is, you must admit, very vague. JdeJ (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to figure out what we are going to do on April 28th, 2008. I wished people would say what they want done to the article so we can discuss it. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Everybody take a deep breath

The problem is that things here have gotten personal. Actually, Olahus has contributed quite a number of valuable sources and we shouldn't just ignore them. Yes, he has acted in such a way that he has put off most other editors, but if we look at what he has brought to the article, he has probably found more sources than anybody else. I suggest we all, myself included, try to behave a bit better here and focus on factual discussions on the content of the article. JdeJ (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree with the way the article is presently? What should change?

Survey of the present article in order to generate consensus.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was accepted per discussion (non-admin closure).

Proposal II

I've pretty much explained my reasoning for this above so Ill keep the reasoning short: definitions of Central Europe not concrete, hundreds of definitions out there, innefficient and unorganized to add them all, adding some will result in unintentional biases (uneven views), definitions for the Eastern Europe and Western Europe articles may work because they're clear cut, but this isnt the case here. So my proposal (basically going back to how it was before):

---

The region Central Europe usually includes:
[list nations here which are mentioned in most sources (75%+)]
Austria
Czech Republic
Germany
Hungary
Liechtenstein
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Switzerland

Sometimes, the region may also extend to include:
[list nations here which are sometimes found in articles/journals/books/encyclopedias etc. but not as commonly found as the ones above]
Croatia
Romania

---

Procedure for adding additional states: To add another state to either of these lists requires a compilation of sources and having it presented in the discussion page (here). Most likely won't happen in the "usually" list but rather in the "sometimes" section - so enough evidence must be presented to prove your case, and you must get consensus for the change to take place.

Okay, now we vote. --Buffer v2 (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the above proposal. JRWalko (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the obvious solution. What the hell have you been arguing over all this time when something simple like this does the job? Supportify. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• support. I fully support Proposal II. Great initiative Buffer v2. I can't wait to move on from this article. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• comment: in how far is this proposal better than my proposal? --Olahus (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• support. I fully support the proposal made by Buffer. JdeJ (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• support. I'm also fully support the proposal II. mb_nl (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• don't support, because Olahus's proposal is somehow better (more accurate). --Feierabend (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• support. The rule is sensible, while in Olahus' proposal the wording was occasionally not fully encyclopedic. Pundit|utter 15:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• oppose not encyclopedic? actually he is the only one which brought academic sources for his proposal... Rezistenta (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  The proposal itself has a lot of descriptions, but no sources. The previous discussion brings a lot of sources, many have been contested as outdated or mainly historical. I'd myself would honestly go for a yet another approach (describing the current understanding with current sources, but have a section on how the notion of Central Europe evolved historically, where there would be a natural place for the older publications and pictures). I also believe that there should be one map visible in the first screen of the article, showing the most common understanding of the region. Pundit|utter 17:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• i will not support because:
  • the so-called "list nations here which are mentioned in most sources (75%+)" is a original research and it's forbidden by wikipedia policies. Btw., it's impossible to establish the amount of sources that include or not a country to Central Europe; not to say that the quality of the information (e.g. is the information scientific or not?) my vary pretty much. And besides, the sources that exclude Slovenia aren't seldom.
  • this formulation isn't enough suitable to prevent further disputes, because in the same group with Romania and Croatia may occur some other pure balkanic countries ... what about this map? Will we include now e.g. Albania, Bulgaria and Macedonia to the same category with Romania and Croatia? Well ... think about it. Those 2 countries share half or more of their territory in Central Europe, and in the case of Romania, only a small part is located in Southeastern Europe. NATO locates Romania in Central Europe, CIA not. Mayers locates Romania in Central Europe, E.B. not. That's why I said that it is considered, depending on the source to Central Europe or Southeastern Europe: See those maps:

• 
• 

--Olahus (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

the map Olahus refers to very outdated, any reference to it should be ignored. He will argue otherwise because he is a pro-Romania fanatic.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't even support the information provided by this map, but it can't be called "old", since it's from 2001. Besides, you are the one who brought this map in the discussion. --Olahus (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• comment What's wrong with your proposal? It conflicts with many definitions. For example, saying that Hungary is sometimes excluded - where did that come from? I have never through my research come across Hungary being excluded - in fact, it's part of the the traditional Central Europe - the Visegrad Four. Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg being mentioned - they are rarely mentioned at all. You could have thrown it in the bottom part of your definition with north Italy, north Serbia, northeastern France and Western Ukraine. Liechtenstein isn't even included in your proposal - which it should be. And another major flaw with your definition is that you're assuming fixed boundaries of Central Europe - e.g. Romania+Croatia having half their territory in Central Europe - okay, a number of sources do say that, but that doesn't make it the golden standard of defining Central Europe - i.e. anything north of the Soca-Krka-Sava line is Central Europe. You do the same with portions of Serbia, Italy, France and Ukraine. There are many other physical definitions. Basically, your definitions are picky and choosy, and MANY conflicting sources exist to counter them. I think my proposal is the ONLY way out of this mess. I've said it before, there are too many definitions out there, and you went far into specifics - specifics which are contradictory to a number of sources out there. My definition is not original research. And dont get too technical with arguments such as having a problem with figuring out how many sources consider which countries as Central Europe - it doesn't matter. What matters is that it's true that most sources out there define those countries as belonging to Central Europe, and fewer consider Croatia and Romania. As far as your map goes - it means nothing. I'd like to see how many people can come up with a decent number of sources to justify adding Albania and Macedonia to the region. AND if you wish, to stop that problem, we could include - "Sometimes, all the former communist countries of Eastern Europe are included (save the former Soviet states)" - which is true. That would solve it. I however expected that you would disagree with this proposal which is unfortunate. Are you willing to make any changes with mine to suit yours? It seems like it's either your way or no way. Maybe mediation will help solve this issue.. --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A. Mutton and E. Schenk don't include Hungary to Central Europe. They are as well many German authors who sustains the belonging of Hungary to Southeastern Europe: Hermann Gross, Ulrich von Hassell, Otto Schulmeister, Karl Christian von Loesch and Franz Tierfelder. Concerning Slovenia, even the recent sources don't include always Slovenia in this definition (e.g. Meyers Grosses Taschenlexikon or the "contested" source from 1927: Géographie universelle, or this source. And if we take in account Buffer's argument according the Visegrad-group, than we surely have to exclude Slovenia Slovenia is also a member of some Southeastern European organizations, like the Southeast European Cooperative Initiative. And read read here: Balkan States - West (Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia). Beside, even before 1991, Jugoslavia was almost always considered to be a Balkan country.--Olahus (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're making a point that Slovenia should be moved from "usually" to "sometimes" section. Naturally, it is a matter of debate, but even if this change is reasonable (and I can see why it may well be) I don't think it disqualifies the proposal as a whole. Pundit|utter 02:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you move Slovenia (I can understand why you'd take this standpoint) to the "Sometimes" group, then Switzerland and Liechtenstein would have to be moved also - sorry but I don't agree with moving Hungary - I'm sure those sources are one of the few that take this standpoint. But now the problem is how would you compensate for them being mentioned in C. Europe moreso than Croatia and Romania? Or would you just leave them all in the "sometimes" definition. Olahus, I'm waiting for you to propose another definition. You obviously don't agree with mine - and it hasn't gained consensus. You know what issues I have with your definition, so can you please come up with an alternative so we can get this article back to tip top (or somewhat) shape? --Buffer v2 (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

At the moment it is more or less 10-4 in favor of the proposal (assuming that the author is for it as well), which is reasonably close to consensus, but more votes are necessary to make it clear one way or another. I believe that we do not introduce more differentiations than the ones that are proposed. Countries in the "sometimes" section can have links to sources, which place them in CE and the readers will see for themselves how typical/reliable the links are. In any case, the proposal can be voted as it is, as it introduces the principles - while I think we all agree that reasonable minor changes can be introduced later. Pundit|utter 03:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat reluctant to step into this mess, but I'd say I support the proposal. Seems like a reasonable compromise. Klausness (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• another comment: I would also like to point out how IRONIC Olahus' comments are. His proposal uses the SAME FORMAT as mine - he uses "maybe", "seldom" etc. Olahus, can you tell us how that isn't original research? How are you judging on the fact that Switzerland, Hungary or Slovenia are sometimes excluded? By the number of sources you find out there that exclude Slovenia? Just like my format? Except the difference with mine and his is that I try to eliminate the complexities of the definitions, keep it simple, to try and come to a fair compromise. Instead, his definition is full of specific details which contradict a number of sources out there. This is the only fair compromise, as it avoids contradiction, and takes into account ALL sources out there without going into major detail which would include hundreds of definitions - quite unnecessary, unorganized, and leads to an uneven view. --Buffer v2 (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• comment What does Britannica say about this? Squash Racket (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Britannica includes all the aforementioned countries in my list except Croatia and Romania. Seems pretty consistent with other encyclopedias. --Buffer v2 (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly though, they seem not to have an article on "Central Europe" per se. Where have you found this?Pundit|utter 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The encyclopedias Meyers Grosses Taschenlexikon and Mayers Enzyklopädisches Lexikon do include Romania.--Olahus (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support then. Usually when we have a dispute like that, Britannica helps. Simple, easy-to-understand definition anyway. Squash Racket (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the article Europe from Columbia Encyclopedia and search results for "Central Europe" from Encarta. These basically seem to agree with the definition, Slovenia needs some confirmation though. Squash Racket (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support With minor corrections though, even on the maps provided by Olahus above, only parts of these countries are highlighted as Central Europe. So "Sometimes, the region may also extend to include parts of" would be better instead of the current wording, but if this current proposal is seen as an unchangeable compromise then I suppose it's better than nothing. Hobartimus (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support I support Proposal II. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Montessquieu (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I was asked to chip in because I have full access to the Encyclopedia Britannica - to confirm Romania or Croatia are never described in any article as being a part of Central Europe. It tends to consider the Balkan Peninsula as a seperate location, or as a part of Eastern Europe. Neıl ☎ 10:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment to comment --Romania is not a balkanic country. See Balkans. Panel 2008 (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Balkan peninsula with northwest border Soča-Krka-Sava

• I strongly diasagreeNot to mention it's way to bias, but missleading. Romania is part of CE even if a bunch of guys like you hate this. Panel 2008 (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• disagree: This is a notion impossible to define, because it depends on the background of the speaker. E.g., Austrians very often consider Central Europe to be the region of former Austria-Hungary which excludes Germany and does NOT follow borders of today's states. One the other hand, somebody from Western Germany would probably include the Benelux states etc... Nahabedere (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Proposal II for the supporting reasons adduced above. Nihil novi (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I believe ~70% should be enough for consensus (when looking at the votes, keep in mind that there are a few "suspected" editors - briefly discussed here. Proposal II seen here is the change we're advocating. This page is at a standstill, and the current version has seen lots of disapproval, so for the time being this is the best alternative. Please remove everything from CIA (here) to the maps ([here]) and add in the accepted proposal. Also change the "Definitions" subheading to "States".

The accepted proposal:

---

The region is usually meant to include include:

• Austria
• Czech Republic
• Germany
• Hungary
• Liechtenstein
• Poland
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• Switzerland

Sometimes, the region may extend to include Croatia and Romania.

---

 Done Happy‑melon 20:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Map proposals

I want to make two proposals of maps. The fist map include also the Benelux-states, considered in elder sources (50-60 years old) to be located in Central Europe.

• 
• 

--Olahus (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

These maps surely can be used in the historical section, supported by the old sources. I don't think it makes sense, with the sources we currently have, to use them as main maps. Clearly most of the sources with high credibility do not place Romania in CE even tentatively. Pundit|utter 21:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Romania is represented by a lighter red colour in the maps. --Olahus (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than focusing on the maps, I think we should focus on getting a unified definition first. --Buffer v2 (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Olahus's proposal. But I suggest to have Romania with strong color.Panel 2008 (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• oppose - I oppose the inclusion of any map that conflicts with the definition offered by Proposal II~. A map could be added for as long as it fully and completely agrees with Proposal II. The horrible conflict over this article has to end.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Romania has to be included in the list

Romania has to be included in the list, because it's part of CE. Panel 2008 (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"specialized editors"

In our discussion it seems to me that we have editors (Panel2008 and Feierabend) with a particularly low edit count, who started editing very recently and clearly specialize in articles related to Romania and its position in Europe. I find it very unusual, but I would like to suggest that these users should perhaps familiarize with Wiki policies first. Pundit|utter 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, even JRWalko and Mb_nl did't have many edits in last time. Maybe they lost the excercise.  ;) --Olahus (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

True, too - although they seem not to be engaged in articles on Romania, but on Poland, and edit 2-3 months longer, but in essence, indeed. Pundit|utter 16:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, it is quite clear that JRWalko is a real separate person and a valuable editor, isn't it? What I am saying is that I find it quite suspicious that some new editors with very low edit counts become active only on one particular topic. Pundit|utter 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on, do you think that the participation of the users Panel2008 and Feierabend will change the final result of the voting? :) --Olahus (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pundit, be a democrat! Ok? --Feierabend (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a democrat and, consequently, I believe in "one person, one vote" principle. Also, I believe that content disputes should be resolved by editors with certain amount of edits and experience. This is why I have my doubts and suspicions about accounts with low edit count, active only in one particular area, especially when they miraculously intensify their presence in voting. Pundit|utter 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had my suspicions about Panel 2008 and Marc KJH (luckily the Marc account has been banned recently). --Buffer v2 (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I haven't been editing much or contributing to the discussion as much as I'd like to but that's largely a result of the fact that we can't build a consensus. I originally started on this article because there were blatant omissions that didn't reflect scholarly work on the issue, now I feel there is too much inclusion. To put it simply, my bias is one of the field of political science, and in this field CE has a fairly well understood meaning - that which is reflected in most of what Buffer is arguing. Whether we talk about the missile shield in CE, political perceptions in CE, religious traditions in CE, the role of CE in NATO or the EU, all these things have clear meaning. When writing the Clash of Civilizations, Huntington, despite all his faults was surrounded by very serious, elite scholars on the issue, check his biblio if you're in doubt. If you take a look at his analysis of the region you'll find that while PORTIONS of the countries in question DO lie in culturally CE areas, the states themselves DO NOT. From my knowledge of the field his ideas on the matter of CE are the most widely referenced and accepted in virtually every international journal on international relations. I can find sources to prove that the Earth is flat and that the world will end tomorrow, this is the internet after all. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform and not to confuse and if editors are not willing to accept what people studying this topic have concluded to be the right thing, then well, I can't really help that.

I'm throwing my support behind buffer for the remainder of this discussion, clearly I am not some kind of a puppet and my edits are not limited to this topic. If necessary I can gladly provide references to support the proposals outlined by buffer that will reflect current, scholarly work on the subject. I would only ask to be informed of such a need on my talk page as I'm fairly busy and don't have time to engage in futile edit wars with those driven by unyielding OPINION of the matter. The CIA, UN geo experts, Foreign Affairs journal, offer a wide enough range of opinions to allow a consensus to be reached. JRWalko (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

maps and sourced definitions

Is there an agreement to restore contemporary and undisputed sourced approaches, such as the CIA World Factbook take on the issue as well as its map? In the current state the article lacks the useful information and picture, which has not been contested in particular by anyone (it was opposed in a move to delete all maps if the map with Romania cannot be placed). Pundit|utter 01:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• oppose - I can't believe you are proposing this. Proposal II just ended a 2 month old dispute over this article and yet you propose a de facto restoration of Proposal I which although I liked, it simply didn't work and it was a mess.

As Proposal II made clear there will be no more citation of sources individually. For now on there will only 1 definition of CE, as agreed under Proposal II. Besides, the CIA World Factbook source is included in the article as part of the expression "usually".

I am sorry if I sound angry or aggressive to you, I don't wish that. It's just that I am tired, I want to move away from this awful mess and unwatch this article. Proposal II offers the only real hope of having that happen.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I inserted a map that matches with the Proposal II. --Olahus (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

EconomistBR, apologies accepted. I probably have not phrased myself well, neither. I just wanted to have a map in the first screen, be it CIA or a new, better one, based on the proposal. Thansk to Olahus for doing so! Hopefully, it'll go up in time :) Pundit|utter 17:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

New edit war?

See Panel 2008's edits. Montessquieu (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not edit war. But you can't force me to think Romania is not part of Central Europe. Panel 2008 (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're violating Proposal II. If you don't agree with Proposal II, propose an alternative and we will vote on it. Finally, we don't care about what you think. We care about what the sources say, and the majority of the sources don't include Romania as Central Europe, which is why it's listed as "sometimes". --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about 12 people who think that Romania is not part of Central Europe. This pseudo-vote of only 11 people has absolutely no relevance in the history of Romania. I have all the rights to believe that Romania is part of Central Europe. Me, as a Romanian I think I know better than you do. Panel 2008 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that it does not have relevance to the history of Romania and you have all rights to your beliefs. However, Wikipedia's content is governed by certain rules. The "pseudo-vote" decided about resolving a content dispute. If you have issues with this solution, you have to convince others that you are right, by bringing new, valid sources. Pundit|utter 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was right. 6 people, users from Wikipedia can't decide if a country belongs or not to a certain region. It's a pseudo-vote that has no relevance because it's a relative truth (established by only 6..). I'm looking for absolute truth. Panel 2008 (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

But they can decide about content, so if you want another one, you have to make reason with other editors. Pundit|utter 17:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, that pseudo-vote has no relevance to the truth that Romania is a Central European country. You can find 6 people to tell me that 2+2=8 but I will still think that 2+2=4. Panel 2008 (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And can you explain to us how your psuedo-vote of 1 against the rest is the absolute truth? It's really a black and white situation: Romania isn't mentioned in most sources, but rather in the minority of sources only - thus, it can't equal as being "usually belonging" to the region; but rather sometimes. You fail to bring any sources, and all your edits are POV. Like I said, you're free to make your own proposal, and we'll vote on it. Until then, let's not resort to edit warring. A lot of us have had enough of that already. --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC) And one more thing, we're not arguing that Romania isn't part of CE - like you say in your edit summaries. You're twisting the truth. We're arguing that it's sometimes considered as being CE - which is the truth.--Buffer v2 (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

People just ignore Panel 2008.

There is nothing more to discuss, nothing more to argue, it's over.

Proposal II represents a consensus (18 editors voted on it) and it will be enforced. Someone pelase drop a line for an administrator, Philippe for example and say that Panel 2008 is violating a consensus that was reached by 18 editors.

This crap has gone on for too long.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have already filed a report on 3RR violations. Pundit|utter 19:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

About northern Italy

Encyclopedia Britannica call Italy a country of "central-southern Europe", then the continental section of Italy can be considered part of central Europe.--Swirlan (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Italy is located in the central part of Southern Europe, istn' it? --Olahus (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Romania is part of Central Europe

Romania is generally considered as part of CE, and please don't start a new edit war by saying it's not since it is. Panel 2008 (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying it isn't. The article says that it's sometimes considered Central Europe. Again, you're violating Proposal II. You've also been warned plenty of times before for edit warring and a ban may be pending if you continue. --Buffer v2 (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Since no one is saying it isn't I will re-insert it where it belongs. To the proper section. Just to see it, since you agree with me. Panel 2008 (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing two things: what the editors believe and think (which is interesting for a discussion, but not for the article's content), and what the sources say. We are obliged to report only the information from valid sources. In cases of discrepancy (as here) we have to report this discrepancy, that's all. Pundit|utter 18:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There are enough sources to state Romania is part of Central Europe. That's all. Panel 2008 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There are also as many, if not more, that do not place it there. Our duty is to justly reflect this ambiguity and show the readers, that in some sources Romania is in CE, and in some isn't. Pundit|utter 21:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That means Romania can be listed in the list without any problem. Panel 2008 (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, because in case of other listed countries there is no discrepancy. If Romania was included it would suggest that it is indisputably considered as CE by all valid sources, which simply is not true. Pundit|utter 16:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The truth can't be the subject of voting and pooling

Let's face it: the truth can't be the subject of voting and pooling. Romania is part of Central Europe. This cannot be changed. --Panel 2008 (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We are not disputing truth. We are trying to most adequately reflect what the sources say. If they are not unanimous, we should report the discrepancy. Pundit|utter 16:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources that underline and legitimize Proposal II

-Romania not CE:

• https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ -CIA World Factbook
• http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#europe -UN Statistics
• http://www.encyclopedia.com/beta/doc/1E1-Europe.html -The Columbia Encyclopedia
• http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/uncsgn/RES%20(UN)%20E%20updated%20(1-9%20CONF).pdf -UN Group of Experts on Geographical Names.

-Romania is CE:

• Map of Central Europe provided by the Central Intelligence Agency - CIA (2001)
• Meyers Grosses Taschenlexikon (1999)
• Mayers Enzyklopädisches Lexikon (1980)
• Géographie universelle (1927)

Proposal II is based on 8 different sources and was evaluated by 18 independent editors .

• ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Other strong sources, official from President of France that Romania is a country from Central Europe

http://www.zf.ro/articol_159499/sarkozy___romania_va_fi_prima_tara_din_europa_centrala_cu_care_franta_va_semna_un_acord_de_parteneriat_strategic__evz_.html Read there. --Panel 2008 (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, on another note: Australia is in European Union, and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation is just a cover for Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, according to another president. But I'm just kidding. Seriously, whatever the link proves, is already reflected in the article. The fact that according to many sources Romania is not in CE has to be reflected, too (just as much as the fact that it in many cases is). Pundit|utter 22:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That one who said Bush has no relevance here, since he made a mistake. But the President of France hasn't made any mistake. Is that clear for you or not? --Panel 2008 (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not, thanks for asking. What is the difference concerning the validity of sources here? Pundit|utter 04:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop spamming the discussion pages. Can't you just stick to one subheading?? i.e. the one that says "Romania is in Central Europe"??--Buffer v2 (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And you stop making personal attacks will you? Panel 2008 (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how that was a personal attack? --Buffer v2 (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You wrote a lot of them above and please don't repeat yourself again. I will start an RfC against you.Panel 2008 (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, be civil. Also, be advised that RfC is never "against" an editor. We all are trying to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, being emotional (on both sides) does not help this purpose. Pundit|utter 20:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You do that please. CIA, President of France..etc, said Romania is part of Central Europe. Now is time for you to accept it on the list. Panel 2008 (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

More edit-warring

Guess who's restarted. --221.114.141.220 (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You are sock of User:Buffer v2. Do you have something against that CIA, President of France said Romania is part of Central Europe? Get a life. Panel 2008 (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Do a checkuser on me and said IP... until you have facts that I am using a sock puppet, don't try to attack me with false accusations . --Buffer v2 (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

IP is an open proxy. You had and recognized you used socks. Your sock linked to your own page. That's the proof.Panel 2008 (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have used a sock. Is there a reason why you and Ohalus bring that up every time you try to attack me? I've always explained that using that sock was an honest mistake. Get over it. Look up the location of that IP - it will not be from Calgary, Alberta, Canada, which is where I am. Stop your attacks on me or I'll involve an admin. Do a CHECKUSER if you wish and leave me alone. --Buffer v2 (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's Kawasaki, Japan, actually, since that's where I'm typing this. And it's an open proxy? Really? What magic IT tool do you have indicating that, son? Whatever it is, it's broken. And "Your sock linked to your own page" apparently means "left a message on someone's page", so apparently it's a bad Babelfish translation. --221.114.141.220 (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected

The page is now protected for seven days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Had you read the discussion or the mediation cabal process, you'd find out that the consensus was reached long ago. There is only one editor (currently blocked for vandalism) who fiercely opposes it. There is not much common ground that we need to seek, as it is already there :) Pundit|utter 04:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're really blocking us in a corner here jossi - we already went through all these steps, the page was protected before, consensus was reached, and we went through mediation, where that one editor (Panel 2008) had nothing to support his arguments, and the mediator recognized that - see here. He ignored the mediators advice, and even if we did go to another dispute resolution method, there is no doubt that he'd ignore them again - and back to edit warring we'd go. Panel 2008 has brought NO reliable sources (in fact, after 2 months, I think the only source he brought was a politicians quote - hardly reliable). To add to that, he really leaves no space for compromise. He has yet to propose another alternative format, after being encouraged to do so. Basically, all he gives us to work with is "Romania is in Central Europe!!!". This isn't going to go anywhere. He is the only one who stands in the way of peace on this article - and it's clear to all editors involved here that he is a vandal. --Buffer v2 (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Buffer v2, the administrator Jossi is not denying the fact that a consensus was reached or invalidating 'Proposal II, he simply doesn't know about it. Administrator Jossi most likely protected the article because someone requested or something warned him.

IMO the message Jossi posted is simply the standard one for these type of cases.

Look on the bright side, sometime tomorrow Panel 2008's block will expire but with this protection we'll have another week of peace.

I agree with the protection, thank you Jossi for it. One full week of peace!!!!

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to resume editing before the protection expires, please make a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no real need for unprotecting. It is just that protection is a tool meant for repetitive vandalisms or edit wars with many editors involved, not just one (after all, there are other disciplinary tools for individuals). While it is not necessary to change the protection level, the action just seems to me unsuitable for the situation. Still, it may help in case of unexpected wave of IP vandalizing edits, so I guess it is for good ;) Pundit|utter 15:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please update the "European Union-related topics" template link at the end of the article to {{European Union topics}}. Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. – Ricky81682 (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

map removal

Buffer, why have you removed this map? Wasn't it showing exactly what the Proposal II stated? If you think something else may be better, perhaps you can prepare a map yourself, or make suggestions here - having a map in the top of the article is of great convenience for the readers... Pundit|utter 19:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Another map was made, and uploaded in its place. It's not the map that Proposal II accepts. In this different map, Croatia is in dark red (the color for the countries accepted as "usually" being CE), and the Benelux countries, along with Romania as light red. A clear violation of the proposal. Do you have a copy of the old map? I don't have photoshop or any other good editing software to edit the map back to its older version. --Buffer v2 (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I see... I'm a bit time pressed right now, maybe somebody else will make a map before I am able to do it :) Pundit|utter 00:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Poland thinks Romania is part of Central Europe

Poland thinks Romania is part of Central Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.168.185 (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we get an admin here? It's fairly obvious who this is... --Buffer v2 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Serbia is a part of Central Europe

You can read it on article about Serbia: Serbia (Serbian: Србија, Srbija), officially the Republic of Serbia (Serbian: Република Србија, Republika Srbija, is a landlocked country in Central and Southeastern Europe, covering the southern part of the Pannonian Plain and the central part of the Balkan Peninsula... Serbia is historically, culturally and geographically part of Central Europe. It was a part of Hapsburg Monarchy, and historically (from middle ages) was turned to Central and Western Europe (Hungary, Austria, France...) so, Serbia is NOT in group with Bulgaria, Greece, FYR Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro because they are more closely to countries like Turkey, Russia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.172.150 (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

SOME ARGUMENTS FOR SERBIA

1)Vojvodina and Belgrade areas (Pannonian argument)

• Significant part of Serbia's territory (around 33%, including Vojvodina and the Belgrade area) belongs to CE- geographically, historically and culturally.
• 60% of Serbia's overall population live in this northern third of the country; its primary cities- Belgrade and Novi Sad- are both by all criteria CE-an.
• Based on its multiculturalism, history and geography, the position of Vojvodina is institutionalized by the Serbian Constitution as the autonomous province of Serbia; Belgrade region having a special autonomy as well
• Hundreds of thousands of Serbs live in (geographically) non-Serb parts of the Pannonia

Bad argument. The Belgrade area is located mostly in the Balkan Peninsula, south of the rivers Sava and Danube, where the almost entire population live. --Olahus (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you have never been to Belgrade but you can at least look at its map. Largest municipalities of Belgrade, some of which are New Belgrade, Zemun and Palilula but also several more, are located in CE. I have the official 2002Census data. NeroN_BG

2)Central Serbia

• Large part of Central Serbia is adjacent to the Pannonian plain via the Sava and Danube floodplains (geography)

• Central Serbia has also been subject to Austrian rule and was a separate Habsburg crownland on 3 occassions (additionally, Banovina of Macva (Lower Syrmia) was an integral part of Hungary for centuries, as well as the Carpathian part of Serbia along the Danube)
• Raska (Sandzak) region of Serbia was occupied by Austria-Hungary since 1878 (history)

- the point being that Serbia is no less CE-an than the countries provided, by all criteria. Far from beeing exclusively CE-an, these countries are all bi-regional and atypical, at least. NeroN_BG

Central Serbia is located (excepting very small parts located noth of the rives Sava and Danube (e.g. Palilula, Zemun) in the Balkan Peninsula.--Olahus (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Another misconception. Pannonian plain doesn't end immidiately at Sava and Danube, but covers its southern floodplains as well. The more accurate boundary would be the Dinaric one, since Bosnia also claims to be a Pannonian nation for the same reasons. NeroN_BG

Serbia is doubtless Balkanic, not Central European

• 1) The large majority of the population in the Belgrade region live south of the Sava and Danube rivers.
• 2) As least 2/3 of Serbia's surface is located in the Balkan Peninsula, while only 1/3 in C.E. If we consider Kosovo to be a part of Serbia, the share in the B.P. is even higher than 2/3 and the share on C.E. smaller than 1/3.
• 3) Even if we take the entire Serbian share on the Pannonian Plain in account, it still covers by far less than half of it's territory. Moreover, the Pannonian plain by itself isn't a criteria to consider a country to be Central European.
• 4) There is no definition of Central Europe who include the Serbian state in it.
• 5) I know that many Serbs live in northern Croatia, but they are also many Serbs who live in Bosnia, and their number is even higher.
• 6) A question: why don't you want your country to be considered to be Balkanic? Do you assocciate it with someting bad? --Olahus (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

argumentation

Let me remind you, that all arguments have to be provided with valid, third-party reliable sources Pundit|utter 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

Why is Romania on there

which sources list romania as being part of central europe? I have never seen any.. and I have never heard romania referred to as a central european country.. look at its cultural, social, and economic aspects. Doesnt really match the central european character at all. Can someone provide some research showing that Romania is in Central Europe? --Baseodeux (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

They are lots of sources that proves that Romania is a Central European country:

• Paul Robert Magocsi, Historical Atlas of East Central Europe, University of Washington Press. Seattle & London. 1993 Romania belongs to the Alpine-Carpathian zone of East Central Europe. Here are some images scanned from the source I mentioned above:

The atlas: 1; 2

The information: 3; 4; 5

The reference and the bibliography (bordered in red).

• See here: Durch die ehemalige Zugehörigkeit des westlichen Landesteils zum Österreich-Ungarischen Reich zeichnen sich die Rumänen durch eine mitteleuropäisch geprägte Kultur und Mentalität aus.

• Transformationsprozesse im südlichen Mitteleuropa – Ungarn und Rumänien: See here

• See also here and here: 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..

• A source presented by the user Yaan: 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 Rumaenien gerechnet, gelegentlich auch die Niederlande, Belgien und Luxemburg ([see also] Ostmitteleuropa)."

• 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 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. --Olahus (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• 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.

• Géographie universelle (1927), (Paul Vidal de la Blache and Lucien Gallois). Author Emmanuel de Martonne. See here: the Central European Countries are: Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania. The Author also provides a description of Central Europe (see here and here).

• Harms Handbuch der Geographie (see here) includes Romania to Erstern Central Europe (Ostmitteleuropa), here.

• And yes, the well-known NATO-source: here. --Olahus (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, 95% of those sources are in German. while that doesnt really matter in most cases, in this cases it does, considering how mitteleuropa has an article of its own. Those sources dont belong here.. and romania doesnt belong on this page either.. it belongs on the mitteleuropa page. germans may view romania as being in central europe.. that doesnt relate to this article. your sources are irrelevant to this article. others pls add to the discussion.. do you believe romania should be downgraded to the rarely category as well? for the reasons i stated. --Baseodeux (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Mitteleuropa (Central/Middle Europe) is a German term equal to Central Europe. See here. Besides, not all the sources are German. --Olahus (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

i am aware of that. the whole point is that because a separate page exists, that that must mean that German views on what constitutes Central europe is different than that of the English world views. makes sense? Germans may think Romania is in CE.. fine but that should be in the mitteleuropa article.. not on this article.. uless you can show sources in english.. romania is an orthodox country in Eastern europe.. geographically it isnt even in central europe. it has a poor economy.. the poorest in the EU, and a character that contrasts greatly with the characteristics of CE. It is not a Central European country. --Baseodeux (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all Romania hasn't the poorest economy from EU, that's Bulgaria. Second your hungarian extremist pov attitude and the removal of sourced content highly backed up by encyclopedic references is called vandalism and if you continue this way your adventure on wikipedia will suffer a premeture ending. Have a nice day . Rezistenta (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a compromise from April 2008. You're POV is not interesting. Besides, you just deleted a quoted information.--Olahus (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell me why that mitteleuropa article exists? It is distinct from the Central Europe article. It serves to show that Germanys view of who constitutes CE is different from the english worlds view... which is obvious considering there are very few sources in English listing Romania as Central Europe. Why else does that article exist? It is as simple as that. Erasing encyclopedic sourced info is vandalism? I wasnt aware that NATO is 'encyclopedic' material. your source is missrepresented according to that April 2008 agreement as well. according to it, one source cannot equal adding it to the sometimes category. There must be enough sources to warrant its addition ... Finally, theres a reason whz every month someone jumps in on this article and argues for Romania's removal from the list.. because no one in Europe sees Romania as a Central European country. Do you consider it a bad thing to be Eastern European? Is that why you are attacking me? Take ur POV elsewhere. And FYI, not that its any of your business, Im not Hungarian.. Im English thank you very much. --Baseodeux (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

First: there is not just the NATO-source, but also a French one (Géographie universelle). Twice: Mitteleuropa is a German term equal to Central Europe (as you can read in the article). And besides, if you think that Romania should be mentioned in the article Mitteleuropa, than why don't you add it there? The mention of German sources for the article Central Europe is not against the rules of this Encyclopaedia.--Olahus (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are some randomly picked references who present Romania as part of Central Europe and which proves this view actually is used on regular basis Rezistenta (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

SPTI's international channels include: HBO Romania (Central Europe)

Global real estate consultant Cushman & Wakefield has expanded its presence in the key emerging markets of Central & Eastern Europe to establish its own office in Romania, Central Europe’s second biggest market after Poland - British Polish Chamber of Commerce

International Association of Geomorphologists - Prof. DAN BALTEANU (Romania) - Central Europe

Balkanic and CE-an Serbia

• Unlike you I am not trying to prove anyone that my country isn't Southeast European- because it is, and so is Romania for that matter by an overwhelming majority of all related research data. source1 However, these countries are biregional, meaning that they cannot be included FULLY into either of them. Serbia is both Balkanic and Central European country by all standards, ratio (CE-SEE) 1/3- 2/3 by geography, and 2/3- 1/3 by population.
• 1) Belgrade region is a separate territorial unit (similarily to Vojvodina) with a geographic span well into CE. When it comes to demographics it is equally proportionate- even if the rivers were the fixed criteria- which they aren't.
• 2) At least 1/3 of Serbia geographically belongs to CE. Alongside the floodplains that percentage rises up to 45%, where an overwhelming share of the population lives. Serbian people live in CE-an part of Serbia on a much larger scale and most of its biggest cities are located north. I would like to remind u that the Pannonian standard (by geography, culture, history etc)- is also Romania's main argument in its claim.
• 3) Unlike the NATO definition used by Romania, Serbia has a geography, history and culture tied to the CE region (as it does with the Balkans of course). UN describes it as both Southern and Central European country.
• 4) Bosnia and Herzegovina is a South Central European and a Balkanic country. NeroN_BG

i find olahus' comments funny.. from what ive read on the discussion page, he is the one who doesnt like romania being associated with the balkans and SE Europe.. but sorry Olahus.. everyone sees Romania as a SEE-Balkan country.. not that theres anything wrong with that. why do YOU associate it with something bad? i think the balkans are beautiful.. being well travelled, i have been to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Romania.. and I would agree that Serbia seems to be more central european.. they have a different attitude as compared to Romanians.. and their country is more developed.. how Romania is in the EU, and Serbia isn't.. I don't know. i find Belgrade to be a much more civilized city than Bucharest.. but then again, my interests dont lie in politics all that much. more geography. and I will agree that my opinions don't count on this subject.. as it is NPOV.. just stating what I think for discussion's sake.. even Sarajevo.. being a muslim dominated city (dont really see what is Islamic about Sarajevo besides the mosques. one woul never guess that its muslim if you didnt read about it before going there), from what I see, has more in common with their northern central european neighbors than Bucharest. Genetically, they even look more central-western european..seems like a large portion of Bosnians, being more geographically in Central Europe fall into the western european halogroup.. which was funny cause I thought Bosnians would look like the typical Russian or something. NeroN, if you have sources showing serbia is in CE, show it.. looking at the proposal that was accepted.. thats how you can add a country to the list. --Baseodeux (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, of course. Nobody outside Romania see Romania as Central European, but some Romanian users have been pushy enough to have it included. I don't quite know why, just like you I don't think it's better or worse being the one or the other and Romania won't be one notch better or worse to live in regardless of what Wikipedia says. However, I lost interest in arguing about it, it's really very irrelevant JdeJ (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

@NeroN_BG: 1)The inclusion of Romania prom political reasons to SE Europe isn't something new for me (see EB, CIA factbook etc), but they are also many definitions of Central Europe who include Romania and this is not the case of Serbia who is located only by 2/3 in the Balkan Peninsula. And the overwhealming part of the Belgrade metropolitan area is also located in the Balkan peninsula. 2)Since when are the floodplains in Northern Serbia a part of Central Europe? 3)Serbia's geographic, historic and cultural ties to CE (or even Western Europe) are by far not as big as in the case of Romania. Besides, I don't find a mentioning of Serbia to Central Europe in the sources you have shown me. 4)Unless I see a definition of Central Europe who include Bosnia, I won't believe this. Bosnia is a 100% Balkanic contry from geographical, political and cultural point of view.--Olahus (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

@Baseodeux: your comments are unworthy to be answered.--Olahus (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

@JdeJ: remember that you voted for the actual version of the article too. It wasn't me who voted for it. Besides, if you agree with that what Baseodeux said, you're completely unillumined and naive. --Olahus (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My comments are unworthy to be unanswered? Who do you think you are? no one in their right mind would place Romania as a CE country. It's gypsy land. It's completely uncivilized, and dirty... Serbia is a far more advanced country than Romania... ever been there? Or Bosnia? Doubt it... dont think you have the experience to comment on those nations.. Serbia is more central european.. culturally, socially, historically than Romania... dont know where that Romania is more Central european than Serbia comment came from. i dont believe anyone in europe would share your views. and I never said Bosnia is in central europe.. i just said that its character is more centrally european than Romania.. Ive been there. you havent. have the wit to keep your mouth closed in this instance. furthermore, most of what i said was for discussions sake, like i explained. --Baseodeux (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Baseodeux, what you just wrote above is defamatory and slanderous. As I already said: your're edits are unworthy to be answered and you just have proven it. --Olahus (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Olahus. Baseodeux, please don't resort to very bad behaviour that some of the Romanian users have displayed on this page. Both you and Olahus would do well to read WP:CIVIL. JdeJ (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal III

proposal III is simple. the collection of sources by olahus and the other romanians was filled with bias. they ignored the multitude of sources that excluded romania from central europe and collected the few, less than 1% of the sources that included romania. proposal III... is..

Remove Romania from the 'sometimes' area and add it to the 'rarely' area on the article.

Europe and the world does not see Romania as central europe. Not enough to be added to the 'sometimes' category. The addition to the sometimes category was done thru collection bias by the romanian users.

PLEASE VOTE, and REMEMBER as per wikipedia policies.. silence means consent.

I support the proposal.--Baseodeux (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Silence does not mean consent in this case. There was a massive fight over this article a while back, and this compromise was reached because some sources put Romania and Croatia in CE, and some did not. Both those seeking inclusion and seeking exclusion agreed to that proposal. The sources used are reliable, and any claim of bias in them is your opinion. I don't think you'll find many other users that will complain that NATO is Romania-biased. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jeremy on most accounts. Silence definitely doesn't mean consent and I don't want to a new edit war here again. Neither would I call the sources provided by Olahus biased. Some may be (just like some that don't include Romania) may be, but many of them are completely reliable. However, the NATO source is one of the few I would not trust too much. Not because of any bias in NATO, of course, but because of the very vague way it's written. Having said that, I move the article stay as it is. JdeJ (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Silence means consent, I've seen it happen twice already on other articles. If you oppose a proposal you must tell it otherwise the proposal will pass and you will have to make a new proposal to restore the status-quo.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost sure that Baseodeux is a sockpuppet of an other user. Hmmm... let's think who it can be. --Olahus (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If that is what you think, why don't show the courage to stand behind your words and report him. Statements like the one you made above are cowardly weasel actions and have no place on Wikipedia. JdeJ (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't some sort of online mecca of chivalry, nor will it ever be. I concur that if one believes him to be a sock puppet they should report him, though. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My attempt at staying away from this article failed. Olahus, I thought I'd jump in and say that I don't know who you're accusing of being his puppet – based on our history, I'm inclined to think it's me.. but like JdeJ said, do a checkuser if you wish. You've done it before. Stop throwing baseless accusations at people. --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• oppose. Baseodeux, this article is a can of worms. I've never seen anything good come out of this article only nasty arguments, insults, resentment, wasted time and mutal anger. I dislike this article so much that I don't even watch it anymore, I am just passing by.

I prefer Proposal II it has brought peace and stability to this article and 18 editors (a few biased) voted on it.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Central Europe - Mitteleuropa

Why is there an extra Mitteleuropa article. That's just the German term for Central Europe, having two articles is nonsens. We dont have extra Frankreich, Amerika, Demokratie, Blähungen,... articles cause this is ENGLISH wiki not anglo-german wtf!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.246.113 (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbia

1)Serbia lies to the WEST of Romania, Bulgaria; (directly) south of the Visegrad group (CE) nations. Let me use the Croatian argument: how could a country which lies directly to the SOUTH of CE be considered- EE??? 2)Serbia is a biregional, rather than a single-regional state. It is as Balkan- as it is CE-an taking that most of its population lives in the northern, CE part of the country. Demographics speak in favour of CE, while geography speaks more in favour of the Balkans.

• As far as Romania goes I don 't think its geography is overall CE-an- Transylvania and Banat beeing the exceptions. IF you decide to include the Transylvanian plateau (which should NOT be included in any manner) than lets also include the Carpathians of Serbia and the areas as south as the Dinaric Alps. I'm simply using the Romanian argument here, nothing else- if we're playing by a single standard that is.

3)Serbia, taking its small size (7 million) and closer proximity to CE has been more profoundly influenced by it than the largest country of the southeast, Romania (23 million), which again, lies EAST of Serbia. 4)History of SRB, especially its north, has always been tied to Central and West Europe (ever since the Frankish invasion in 810 onwards). Serbian kings and emperors were intermarried with the houses of Anjou and Venice for centuries. 5)Romania cannot and is not viewed as a fully CE-an country. It is a border state between the centre, east and southeast of Europe. (same as SRB, only we border 2, not 3 regions- SEE and CE)

• Bismarck cinsidered Serbia CE-an; so did many other authors (article!). i'll provide the historical references first.
• the reason i'm in this discussion is to prove that the argument is pointless since Romania as well as some other states could be percieved in more than just one ways.

NeroN_BG

While I would agree that Serbia is more Central European than Romania... you seem to be inventing your own definition here. Do you have sources which place Serbia within Central Europe? --Buffer v2 (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• • 1)East Central Europe by Erik Herron

2)Central Europe, University of Washington Press- Robert Magocsi

3)East Central European federalism, Vojtech Masntny, Columbia University, Institute of East Central Europe

4)Michael Foucher, subregions of CE

(i'll add more sources shortly)

NeroN_BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.208.162 (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of those speak of East-Central Europe, which is a term of its own, and one not equating to Central Europe. The French one - you haven't provided a link for. Those links don't do it for me. Sorry. --Buffer v2 (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Central European Serbia

1)James Madison Uni

2)Uni of Texas

3)CEan geography

4) Wiki commons, South Central Europe

NeroN_BG

Ummm sorry NeroN, but your proposal is filled with POV. Based on your sources, I oppose your proposal. There sure aren't enough of them.. the only 'valid' one that may be useful is number 2, but it's too generic, and is a wider definition of CE.. certainly not a source that would justify adding Serbia to the list, as you'd have to add all those other countries as well.. Wikipedia as a source itself is completely useless btw. And it seems like you've been hunting for sources with a search bias. --Buffer v2 (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Western culture

As Western culture of Central European states is one of the basic characteristics, I've added a map. Please, don't remove it just because Romania is not placed there - it's Huntington's point of view and his World-wide known book is a basic reading for all the Political Science students. Montessquieu (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly labeled as CE as defined by a certain publication, so I'd think it would be fine. If the publication is notable enough to have an article, I don't think it would be a bad thing to make mention of it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Olhaus is back... But it would be better if he could explain his edits here. The map is labelled and the source is reliable (in general the book is very famous). Montessquieu (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm of course the only reason it's being removed is because Romania isn't included... I have never seen any other user on this website more POV agenda focused than Olahus.. So ridiculous. --Buffer v2 (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The map is on the wrong place in this article. If the map represents the clach of civilizations in Europe (established on religious criterias, an importand criteria but actually not the single one to define the culture of a country(people) by Huntington in his work The Clash of Civilizations, then the right place for this mapf is this article. First, we don't have even a section for the Central european culture. Once we had it , but it was deleted by the administrator Mikkalai (see here). However, Montessquieu, if you proove that the Western culture is caracteristic for Central Europe and if you think that the Western Culture is defining for Central Europe, than you should reinsert the section "Culture" in the article (with references, of course) and only in this case a cultural map could be helpful. But as long as you don't bring a source for it, this map has no say in this article. --Olahus (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

@ Buffer v2: if you sustain Montessquieu's opinion, help him to proove his opinion. POV-ish is only the inclusion of this map without any coherency with the article (in the actual form). --Olahus (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Huntington, in his Clash of Civilizations, at first defined and described major civilizations of the world: the map doesn't represent any clash (this is Huntington's vision) but Western civilization at all. However, maybe you're right and a section on Central European culture would be useful here. I may try to do it, but a bit later when I have more time, I have no problem with reliable sources. Regards, Montessquieu (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! I think we reached a consensus on this issue. Regards! --Olahus (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Central Europe: different points of view

I've just added a review of the main attitudes towards Central Europe, gathered together by prof. Jerzy Kłoczowski from the International Federation of Institutes of East-Central Europe. I don't know - move it up or down, but I think it should not be removed. Montessquieu (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a great idea, especially seeing the conflict over the definition that has occurred here at Wikipedia. It needs sources, however- I only see a couple, and the bullet points lower in the section needs citations as well. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This "review" was taken from Kłoczowski's book cited at the beginning. I think that this author, UNESCO expert on Central Europe and professor of very prestigious universities may be a reliable source. Montessquieu (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a goog idea to add this paragraph, Montessquieu. Keep doing that good work! --Olahus (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see the citations now. Looks good. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New map ? (proposition)

Hello everyone, I think that the French Wikipedia has a good map. It should be consistent with final conclusions of our previous discussions. It's based on a proposition of the Ständiger Ausschuss für geographische Namen (StAGN, Permanent Committee on Geographical Names), an institution participating in the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (Dutch- and German-speaking Division) [6]. It was prepared by Prof. Peter Jordan (biography) from the Austrian Academy of Sciences (chair of the Dutch- and German-speaking Division of the UNGEGN[7]). Two maps are presented HERE. One of them shows the cultural borders of European regions, while the other one adopts those regions into political frontiers (of course this version is less accurate). Wiki versions of those two maps (merged info one map) are available. It looks like this (in German and French):

There is an article by P. Jordan with precise explanation, but I can't read German. What do you think? Montessquieu (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The UN seems like a reliable source. It can be added, but there is no need to remove anything else in the article. Just add it in as another definition and make sure its clearly sourced and you won't hear any opposition from me... except, we need an English version of the map? :) --Buffer v2 (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Of course I don't want to remove anything, and I'll try to prepare an English version of the map (but as for now I don't know how to do it). I'm waiting for some propositons as to the position of the map (we don't need any new edit war, it's better to discuss the things in advance). Montessquieu (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The author of this map is the Ständiger Ausschuss für geographische Namen, an unaffiliated board from Germany without mandatory tasks. If you want to, I can scan the article from the magazine Europa Regional, where wth map and the additional article was publishes first. The point of view of the article is very germanocentric and I think that the point of view presented in the article would be perfect for the article Mitteleuropa. --Olahus (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't like 99% of your sources of Romania being included in Central Europe German? I dont remember seeing a single English source. We bypassed that fact. Who cares what language it comes from? As long as it's sourced, I don't see a single thing wrong with it. It is from a UN body anyway. Seems perfectly fine with me. On another note, the Mitteleuropa article shouldn't even exist, as this is an English encyclopedia, and based from what I've gathered, and others have told me, there is no differentiation from the English views of Central Europe and the German speaking views. --Buffer v2 (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

They are not only German sources that include Romania in Central Europe. See here some other sources:

SPTI's international channels include: HBO Romania (Central Europe)

Global real estate consultant Cushman & Wakefield has expanded its presence in the key emerging markets of Central & Eastern Europe to establish its own office in Romania, Central Europe’s second biggest market after Poland - British Polish Chamber of Commerce

International Association of Geomorphologists - Prof. DAN BALTEANU (Romania) - Central Europe

Of course, the NATO -source (see also the official Romanian point of view), the statement of N. Sarkozy and the ("dated") source from Geographie Universelle from Vidal-Lablache are also not German sources.

I'm not against the map presented above, but I don't see why we shouldn' rather present a map that include all the sources? Why should we take only a single source in account? See also WP:UNDUE.

However, the Baltic states are usually not considered to be Central European, but this single source does include them too. Therefore, I make the proposal to include the Baltic states in this map too, but with a light red colour. --Olahus (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Besides, Buffer, what exactly do you mean to be an "UN body" ? --Olahus (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Mitteleuropa article shouldn't even exist.--Olahus (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a complete and detailed map presented by an academic institution. Yes, it's a German institution, the map was prepared by a professor from the Austrian Academy of Sciences who presides the Dutch- and German-speaking Division of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names. It does mean that he's competent in this matter, and this proposition was accepted by an institution closely cooperating with the United Nations (they organise various UN conferences). Why is this source incredible / which sources are more credible? Montessquieu (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I will cite you someting from this article about the authors of the map: "Er ist ein selbstständiges wissenschaftliches Gremium ohne hoheitliche Funktionen mit Sitz im Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie in Frankfurt am Main." I repeat: the map is germanocentric, because it reagard as central European only the regions that had more or less contact with the German culture or history. This definition is unique, so it can't be regarded as representative. It includes countries that are never else included to Central Europe: the Baltic states (because of the presence of the Baltic Germans). By far not all the German definitions of C.E. are germanocentric, but this one is surely one. The inclusion of Dalmatia and Istria in C.E. is also very disputable, because the authors of the map took only the 120-years old Austrian presence into account, but neglected the 400 years old Italian (Venetian) presence that left by far more traces there than the Austrians.

As I already said above, I can scan the article where the map was made from. The original article is in German. --Olahus (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is here. It's not very helpful for me as I don't know German. However, this "vision" is very popular in Poland (a country which is far from being germanophile). I do understand your objections as to the Baltic states - Lithuania is certainly Central European, while Latvia and Estonia rather are not (especially Estonia is certainly a Northern European state). However, this doesn't interfere with adding this map as another definition, does it? Montessquieu (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I called this theory "germanocentric" because it takes only the German presence in these regions/countries into account, but neglects the presence of other states/cultures. The theory ios pretty original. I don't know weather the Poles do or not regard as Central European the regions with a formerly German presence. I know only abou Międzymorze which is not a theory about Central Europe. Though, I have nothing aganinst the inlcusion of the map presented by you, but a describing text would be very helpful. Maybe the merging of the article Mitteleuropa with Central Europe and the inclusion of the map in the chapter "Mitteleuropa" would be the best idea. --Olahus (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, connecting CE with German presence resembles Naumann's theories, you may be sure that it's not admitted outside Germany (or at least German-speaking countries). I just wanted to say that the map (not its explanation) is rather consistent with our previous discussions. It would be great if you could write one-two sentences which could serve as explanation to the map.

As to the "Mitteleuropa" article: I'd merge it, but in this case a separate section should be introduced with detailed explanation of the theory (Mitteleuropa is Central Europe in German, but in other languages it has ideological meaning: it describes a concept of CE as the area of German hegemony), starting from Naumann and finishing on the revival of the idea during the Hitler era.

I'd suggest adding a new section on history of the concept of Central Europe. It would be better to make it in a sandbox at first. I can help (depending on time), but other contributions are indispensable as the concept may controversial and various sources are necessary to avoid any "national" point of view. Montessquieu (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Floristic regions again

If nobody objects - I will be removing the "Central European" floristic region of Europe. It is totally irrelevant... What does the plant species make up of Europe have to do with anything? Totally random and don't know why it was added in the first place... --Buffer v2 (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Object. It is relevant because it shows the phytogeographical limits of Central Europe. --Olahus (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Im actually not looking for your opinion in this case. You put the map in from what I remember and thus, that makes your opinion biased. On other grounds, your inclusion of this map was a result of a source collection bias (looking for a source to specifically push an agenda [find cases where Romania is included in Central Europe]). However, since you have voiced your "objection", I won't remove the map until I hear other opinions and will ignore the silence means consensus guideline. Majority will rule. So please comment - a simple "Agree" or "Disagree" will suffice. Don't know how long it will take for people to comment; it might take a while considering the activity on this article has really dropped but that map really bothers me. This article - Central Europe is a socipolitical geographical term, not a random collection of "Central European" categories that any random scientists will make. However, I may be the only one who feels this way, so going to wait for other people's opinions on this. --Buffer v2 (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Weather you like it or not, my opinion is important too, as everybody's opinion is. But first of all, explain me please what is a "sociopolitical geographical term" ?!?

However, Central Europe may be defined by different critereas and a balanced article should mention all of them: geopolitical, cultural, historical, morphogeographical, phytogeographical, climatical etc. --Olahus (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)