Talk:Central Europe

The Map of Central Europe should be changed

In the Map of the Central Europe, appears Belarus in full size, if Belarus is to be considered rather than Romania a Central European Country then I think it should added also Romania, by the way cultural Romania belongs to Central Europe due to its latinity and latin origin of the people more than other countries which have nothing to do with Latinity, eg. Hungary.

Please sign your edits. I agree that the map needs changed. It should be similar to Eastern Europe. Belarus is not in Central Europe. --Noitall 17:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Why should the Latin heritage be an argument to consider Romania as part of central Europe? All other Latin European countries are arguably not part of central Europe: Italy, Spain, Portugal, France etc. Tomeasy (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Central Europe Is the New EU states?

Is it true that people call the newly joined states of the EU Central Europe? I never heard of this. Please give me links to any sites with this.

I do wonder too. I do not think that Malta, Cyprus or the Baltic States do belong (geographically) to Central Europe. MartinBiely 20:59, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

See the rest of this talk page. Last time I saw it was in the Guardian, some weeks or maybe 1½ months ago. I don't think anyone really hold Cyprus etc to be Central European, it's just that since most of the new member states actually are, and the others are fairly small, the other are easy to neglect. /Tuomas 21:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i think so

Visegrad Four

Is there any other name for this region in Central Europe, since Visegrad isn't really the name of the region?

Definition

Is there a clear definition for this term, or do countries to which it refers vary?

We could really do with a map on this type of page Theresa knott 10:27 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

What relationship does this have with the German idea of Mitteleuropa?

"Mitteleuropa" is no idea but just the German translation for "Central Europe". Achim

Mitteleuropa is in fact from Austria-Hungary. I've documented it now. --Shallot 12:50, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm a Central-European myself, though my neighbours are definitely Eastern-Europeans. That is the problem: some parts of Europe changed locations so many times that it might cause lots of confusion. Just watch the history of Warsaw, before WWII called Paris of the North (I have a french guidebook from late 20s), after the war became Eastern-European city, now moving to the West.

According to cultural definitions I know and use, Central Europe is the region of both eastern and western influences, with a melting pot formed in the last years of existence of Austria-Hungary. Most of my friends often argue that the reasons behind calling this part of the world Central Europe are mostly cultural and not historical or geographical. Most of the Central-European countries indeed share some part of late XIX and early XX century history, but the most important part is the culture. We share the same culinary traditions (cofee as opposed to Eastern tea, apple cakes as opposed to cheesecakes, beer as opposed to vodka), similar night-life styles (coffee-houses as opposed to restaurants and bars), and a set of basic words (you can call for a waiter using german expression Ober anywhere, from Ljubliana to Cracow and from Vienna to Bucharest). Can this be turned into wikipedia article?Halibutt 23:06, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Marginal note to "German expression Ober": It is very Austrian, Germans as such don't understand it...Jakob Stevo

Shouldn't Lithuania (or maybe all the Baltic Republics) and western (Greek Catholic and Ukrainian speaking) Ukraine also be included and Switzerland and Germany (except for Saxony, Mecklenburg and Brandenburg) excluded?

That's what think. Germany is and was consdered a Western European country throughout ages.Halibutt 18:55, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm note to sure about the exclusion of Germany. It's what i personally do when stressing how Austrian mentality has more to do with Slovakian than "Prussian", but that's only one aspect of the term. I definitely think that Lithuania should be included. Let's just call in Non-Romance Catholic Europe ;-)Jakob Stevo 21:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Most of Germany, as well as Switzerland, fits the profile IMO. Lithuania probably also fits, Latvia is borderline, and so are Belarus and Ukraine as well as Croatia, Serbia and Romania. --Shallot 11:21, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

As stated above, for me Central Europe is almost equal to Austria-Hungary and its' cultural area (Bavaria, Congress Poland, Romania). That's why Galicia (Central Europe) should be included. Especially that there is still a lot of Central Europe in Western Ukraine (contrary to other parts of this beautiful country, which are more or less russified). Halibutt 22:29, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

One of the key and defining features of being a Central European is an attitude a la "I'm a Central-European myself, though my neighbours are definitely Eastern-Europeans". Eastern European often in turn translates into uncultured or "nekulturny" and in turn creates new (not just edit) wars...But we do like each other, really :-) Refdoc 18:39, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yup :) Halibutt 19:57, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Part of the confusion stems from geography versus politics. Consider what the people in those countries themselves learn at school about the geographic location of their countries. The Swiss geography schoolbooks say that Switzerland is in Central Europe. A young character in the German film Die fetten Jahre sind vorbei, 2004, (called and spelled The Edukators in the US) says at one point "here in Central Europe". The Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Polish geography schoolbooks teach the children the same, that their countries are in Central Europe, and have done so for decades — communism, fascism, or democracy.

The fact that the geographic terms "east" and "west" were hijacked for symbolic use to mean "communist" and "capitalist/democratic" respectively says nothing about geography.

Europe has its geographically central area just like the US has its Midwest (which no one splits into an "Atlantic" part and a "West-Coast" part). That has been overlaid by the symbolic, non-geographic application of the geographic terms in Europe.

Carca220nne 14:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

'Mitteleuropa' is just the German translation for Central Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.229.187 (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am Swiss and consider myself a Central European. I think, additional to the geometrical center, culture should also be took into consideration. Switzerland, Germany and Austria share a very similar culture, that also strongly resembles the one of the "farther eastern" countries of Central Europe... I think, "Western Europe" starts with France. Of course, this is only my oppinion. But I'd say, Switzerland is definitely Central European.--84.227.46.43 (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

Is this article from http://www.wordiq.com/cgi-bin/knowledge/lookup.cgi?title=Central_Europe or (as I think myself) has that site stole this article, without mentioning the GFDL? Jeroenvrp 23:51, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sites_that_use_Wikipedia_for_content#wordIQ. Maximus Rex 23:53, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copies_of_Wikipedia_content_(low_degree_of_compliance)#WordIQ instead.Halibutt 19:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Regions in the east and the south

While the stuff about the Danube being the border are too imprecise and too deterministic, Vojvodina is actually a region rather Central European in character. It's certainly no less Central European when compared to places in Romania or so. The better part of Galicia which is in Ukraine is also Central European. Central Croatia and Slavonia are, too. There are probably others that I can't name offhand.

These were all places that spent the better part of the last millenium in similar circumstances as did the areas already described as Central Europe -- you can see it in their history, their architecture, cultural traditions of the indigenous peoples, even the general mentality (although that's more volatile due to migrations).

Drawing maps based on current country borders is a fun exercise, but cannot be accurate when it comes to terms like these. The page Southern Europe suffers from a similar problem, too (and it's even more pronounced there). --Shallot 15:34, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Western parts

Austria is _very definitely_ part of every useful definition of Central Europe not just in the "German concept".

Would you agree that Austria is Central European in the Austrian/German mindset? - that's how I read "German concept". --Ruhrjung 00:35, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

No I would not. This is not a complexed little Austrian getting upset about bundesdeutschen Chauvinismus. This is me (who happens to be Austrian, but which probably isn't of such an importance here) saying on basis of a common cultural background that there is no useful explanation for why Vienna should _not_ be Central European other than the Cold War period's definition. Jakob Stevo 12:26, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Our cuisine is heavily Czech, there is a history of Slavic settlement from the early Middle Ages on (place names like Tauplitz which happens to be a spa - toplica 200km off the next Czech or Slovenien border speak a clear language), the country is largely Catholic as opposed to much of Germany or Switzerland, a very large proportion of the so called "Germanisms" e. g. in Croatian are basically Austrian (It's only in Austria that Schlag or Schale are used to mean cream and cup respectively!). Not to talk of the ambiguous "mentalitiy" which is also in many ways closer to Czech and Slovak than to German.

The only definition that leaves out Austria would be one based in very recent history, let's say "former Communist countries with a Cahtolic and/or Protestant tradition" which is only referring to a period of 45 years after WW II. Doesn't make sense to me. Jakob Stevo 19:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you, but all in all the Tuomas version is preferable and the one suitable to continue to work from as it comments the development of the understanding of the concepts of Western Europe, Central Europe, and Eastern Europe. What I miss the most is references to the common Central European culture, where pre-Nazi Berlin, München and many other German metropols belonged to a mesh stretching to the Black Sea. Naturally, a notion of Jewish contributions to this culture would be of importance. At the same time I must state my own too limited knowledge (if I were to write more than I've done, then I would have to read a lot on the subject first). I would happily have put some effort into such a project, but the current bellicose athmosphere here indicates that I for my own mental well-being better wait some time. Meanwhile maybe someone else will find reason to...
;-)

I would also like to remind about that not only Austria-Hungary, but also Germany stretched far wider to the east than present-day Germany does. And the issue of what is German mentality is not a simple one. One can't neglect that before 1918 the differences between Lübeck and München (Thomas Mann) or between Freiburg and Königsberg (not to mention the "settlements" in Wiburg, Saint Petersburg and Balticum) were of quite another magnitude than today's misunderstandings between new and old states of the republic.

Finally, I wish I could defuse some of the impression that I be overwhelmed by Great Germany's role. In reality, I believe the importance was in the interaction between different ideas and cultural expressions, and for me German language was most of all a good conductor for this exchange.
--Ruhrjung 00:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Your claim that "Today some people try to revive this notion [The Alpine group as central european contries] in English, not least those who hold a German leadership role in the European Union to be natural" is ridiculous.

I don't know about you, but I've followed English language news papers rather closely for the last ten years (and less closely also French, Dutch and Scandinavian), and it's quite obvious and not the slightestly ridiculous. However, I'm not sure if this remark is merited in the article.--Ruhrjung 09:37, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I've already showed you that for instance Britannica refers to Germany as a country of central Europe. Is Britannica (or other English-language encyclopedias) among those?

It is your right to consider Germany not a central European country, but Wikipedia should reflect the usage in English. Elizabeth A

The leadership stuff for .de is a bunch of insinuation that tries to find a political subtext in the fact they're fairly suitable for "central" based on a simple look at the map. The dated interpretation of the term Mitteleuropa also looks like more of the same agenda. But then, the "Alpine countries" stuff is a very stretched designation if it incorporates .de, most of which is not Alpine. This is a byproduct of a different kind of agenda, the one that tries to stuff all the countries into convenient little boxes. That's silly beyond belief... As it has been discussed before, there are valid reasons to include parts of not only Slovenia and Croatia but also Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Romania, Serbia into the page, we shouldn't try to restrict it to country borders because by and large the borders of the region don't match them. --Shallot 08:25, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

On current usage, I don't really know if it's worth anything, but you might want to compare the following:

• http://www.centraleurope.com/
• http://www.cefta.org/ (The Central European Trade Agreement)
• http://www.cebd.com/ (The Central European Buissiness Daily)
• http://www.agr.hr/jcea/ (Journal of Central European Agriculture)
• http://www.cecta.org/ (Central European Countries Travel Association) – "an umbrella organisation, at the heart of New Europe, bringing together the collective interests of Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland"
• http://www.algonet.se/~mljung/ (Central European Skiing)
• http://users.ox.ac.uk/~oaces/ (Oxford Austrian and Central European Studies)

In one case above Germany is included.

--Ruhrjung 09:37, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

(cross-posted):

As you may have noticed, I have already showed you that both the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and the last edition of it, states that Germany is "a country of central Europe" and a "country of north-central Europe traversing the continent's main physical divisions", respectively.

http://81.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GE/GERMANY.htm http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=109145&tocid=0

Here is the Columbia entry as well:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ge/Germany.html

"Located in the center of Europe, it borders the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France on the west; Switzerland and Austria on the south; the Czech Republic and Poland on the east; Denmark on the north; and the Baltic Sea on the northeast."

You may also want to have a look at the article on Europe. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, Central Europe includes "Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary".

http://www.bartleby.com/65/eu/Europe.html

Elizabeth A

The CIA World Factbook 2003 lists exactly the countries we currently list as the 'core' Central Europe: Here is a list in which you will find that Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Switzerland are classified as Central Europe. I reckon this is a sensible list, including as regards common use. Sinuhe 15:10, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I rest my case.

In this kind of situations, I usually write something with the effect of I'm convinced that history will prove me to have been right. In this case I won't. Not because it seems too pompous, and not since I'm certain to have been wrong, but since I hold it to be possible, maybe even likely, that people in general, in a not so distant future, will come to think of Germany as a Central European country rather than as Western European.

;-)

--Ruhrjung 00:51, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Tuomas, there was pretty much a silent consensus for months about the definition including countries from both sides of the former Iron Curtain. I'm not sure I see a point in constantly bringing this up again. --Shallot 21:07, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've had other things to concentrate on in the last weeks. Today it's raining and I've nothing else to do. ;-> /Tuomas 10:59, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Space Cadet's version[1] is clearly preferable as it points out the CIA Fact Book as one authoritative source of counting Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Germany to present-day Central Europe. With respect to present-day usage in English, I think it's enough to read newspapers. Compare for instance:

• http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=UTF-8&q=western-europe+OR+western-european+german+OR+germany
• http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=UTF-8&q=central-europe+OR+central-european+german+OR+germany&start=10&sa=N

Central Europe is not frequently and not particularly in the Western world taken to include these countries. It may become so, one day, but we are not there yet, and an encyclopedia must be conservative and honest with regard to language usage. --Ruhrjung 18:25, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

Those searches are indicative, but perhaps more indicative of something else: the fact is, the most common distinction between parts of Europe these days is that some are western and that some are eastern. While the northern ones are sometimes grouped, there's little or no grouping between the southern ones. Similarly, the central ones aren't so often grouped. But then, this article concentrates at the central ones and if we go beyond the facts that contradict the article's very meaning, the inclusion of .de et al is just fine. Perhaps we just need less partisan phrasing... again :P --Shallot 19:46, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Regarding a less partisan phrasing I think the attempts to mould the different conceptions of Central Europe as one singular "truth" suppressing the other is the same as begging for instability and bad prose and deranged disposition of the article. When I've tired of correcting this error, someone else will – sooner or later. For a different approach, see Scandinavia. That article has not been without a similar kind of dispute. /Tuomas 11:16, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When there are several conflicting definitions (and there's at least four here: that it doesn't exist, that it's Mitteleuropa, that it's the countries east of the Iron Curtain, and the geographical definition), you can't have a single article without at least a hint of a choice between them. And as soon as you do that, someone finds the choice wrong, or even worse offensive, and undoes it, and then we go in circles... --Shallot 12:31, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have, since my first encountered conflict at Wikipedia, serious doubts about the way Wikipedia handles concurrent views. I also find that the way wikipedia works, intelligent and knowledgeable contributions seem disfavored, which is an incentive for all of us to become more of stubborn fighters. And this is bad.

In an edit summary, you write that you've never seen the Baltic states referred to as Central European. I wish I could agree, but in the last few months I've seen plenty of that in phrases like "the new Central European members of the European Union" in contexts where no other category of "new members of the European Union" are mentioned. I've noticed this in English texts, but also in Finnish, Spanish and Swedish. This language gives only two possible interpretations; either is the writer ignorant of the Baltic states, or has the writer started to count them to Central Europe. For a similar phrasing, you may want to see Euroscepticism#Euroscepticism in Central Europe. /Tuomas 05:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, applying Occam's Razor, the writer is ignorant. Nothing strange about that, really. --Shallot 13:12, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New Map

First of all, great map! It's better than the one I made. I noticed some person added on Danube Group. Is this an actual classification? Also, is anyone going to add a color-coded key to countries like Belarus, Lithuania, Romania, and Ukraine, since they've been listed under Central Europe? Just Wonderin. --24.189.3.230, 21:51, 23 May 2004

Eastern parts

Hi, I can not agree with you: Several other countries also have regions that have historically been part of the central European kingdoms and empires - ALL territory of Poland-Lithuania including Belarus and Ukraine is very often considered as part of Central Europe - I will give you an example from contemporary British historical researches if you want. Excluding other Ukrainian territories but Carpathian Ruthenia and Galicja and including Belarus and Lithuania makes no sense.Yeti 15:46, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How about, exempli gratia, Donetskor Crimea? --212.76.33.75, 16:52, 5 Jun 2004

I suppose we could limit Lithuania to the southern region and Belarus to the western ones, but Ukraine is much larger than either of them and it spreads much further to the east, so it doesn't make sense to include all of it either. --Shallot 17:02, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we should limit Lithuania to the south. It does make sense do say western Ukraine, probably also western Belarus, but there isn't much to slice up about Lithuania. I remember feeling quite like coming home when getting out the Riga-Vilnius bus :)

Jakob Stevo 00:21, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We can not mix Central Europe in historical with political sense. In historical sense all territory of Poland-Lithuania belongs to Central Europe. The border between Lithuania (later Poland-Lithuania) on the west and Muscovy and Tatar Khanates on the east existed for 500 years. Donetsk and Crimea never were parts of the state. It is why almost all Ukraine (without easternmost parts) CAN be considered as Central Europe. Maybe we could replace Galicia and Carpathian Ruthenia with more general: western and central Ukraine or something like that?Yeti 15:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's a valid data point, but I'm afraid that's just one, we need to find a balance between various viewpoints. It wouldn't make sense to extend the definition so far to the east and at the same time restrict it in the west as is being proposed by others... --Shallot 21:26, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is OK with me to include Ukraine's "western and central parts". There is just to many different definitions of the term. For Germany (as to not restrict it to much in the west) I would state that it has "often been considered as Central Europe as a whole" while some historians only include parts of it (which again probably can not be limited to Catholic). Jakob Stevo 09:23, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Germany revisited

I don't think anyone disagree with Germany historically having been counted to Central Europe. However, [[Germany]] links to the Federal Republic of Germany, that prior to 1991 was West Germany and today ends at the Oder-Neisse line. The historical notion is correct for the times when Austria and Prussia and Silesia and... were all parts of Germany. ;->
--Ruhrjung 10:03, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

What is it that makes Germans Western European? Of course much of it was considered Western on political grounds for much of the 20th century (not before like 1950s though, let's be honest about it). I don't remember my exact source, but I do believe that "Western Europe" was used in a certain period to disqualify the "decadent" places like France, England,... - which shows that people did not see themselves as Western European. Besides, you are probably "Wessi"? Have you ever managed to convince an "Ossi" of being "Non-Central"?

I have some relatives in former East Germany, and I remember the exciting time when we with West Berlin id-cards were allowed unrestricted visits to East Berlin. I can't think of one single Ossi who would think of the re-united Germany as anything else than Western European. They may be "formerly East-European" in the same sense as they in their own mind may consider their land "formerly Prussian", but if someone today lable them as "Central European" or "Prussians" (which isn't unheard of) then it's clearly alienating, a sign of not being from there. My experiences of Thuringia are rather limited, but from Weimar I have very much the same impression.
--Ruhrjung 20:41, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

We are not talking of "Eastern Europe". As far as I know, "Western European" (in a political sense) is no contradiction to "Central European".

I agree, but our friend Elizabeth doesn't[2]. --Ruhrjung 02:37, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

It is a bad habit of some English speakers that they at some point started to say "Central European" meaning only the parts behind the Iron Curtain, and of course, the media took it over, that's just people after all, but as an encyclopedia we should try to avoid "inaccurate" use of the term: Neither sociologists nor geographers nor historicians would ever restrict themselves to such limitations, at least most of them. You are talking of a "Central Europe" in a political sense, which actually never existed before 1990. The term's much older though. Jakob Stevo 21:23, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not only the English speakers share this bad habit. Have you never noticed how eager most Germans have been to establish West Germany as an entity different from the prior Prussia-led constructs, totally in accordance with allied propaganda? By defining post-1948 Germany as West-European we decree our (new) cultural and ideological belonging to the traditions represented by Switzerland, France, Benelux, Scandinavia and UK. But that's of lesser relevance here. This is the English wikipedia, and unless we report specific usage in local non-English languages, the only thing that counts is usage in English.
--Ruhrjung 02:20, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

It's not only a historical notion, also cultural: Ever tried to get some proper "Quark/Topfen" or "Kohl/Kraut" in "Western European" France or Spain? Well, they are basic ingredients in Poland and Croatia, and - Germany. Much of it, anyway. Of course you can insist that you are Western European, I just don't see the point. What's bad about being Central European? --Jakob Stevo 16:40, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You miss the point totally when you discuss if it's good or bad to be a Central European. Of course such sentiments may be the foundation, but in any case, the only thing that counts is the honesty of Wikipedia. The text could state that some/many/most Austrians view themselves as Central European or alternatively maybe as both Western European and Central European. However, in present-day English discourse Central Europe is the same as the new members of EU (and possibly some of the candidates), a more polite expression for Rumsfeld's New Europe.
--Ruhrjung 20:41, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

No, sorry no. New Europe includes, amongst others, Bulgaria, which is most definitely not Central Europe. Maybe in daily-papers discurse Central Europe is indeed limited to the "new ones", but surely not in any culturologic, geographic or historical discurse, which are at least as accurate a measure. And, look a line or two lower: it actually does clearly state that nowadays the word is often used only for the "new ones" on this and that grounds. But that is not the only and as I and others see it not even the most accurate use of the term. Why shouldn't that be enough? --Jakob Stevo 21:23, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since the repeatedly reinserted text doesn't say "the most accurate use of the term Central Europe would be" – instead it says "frequently" and "particularly in the Western World" (implying English usage included), and that hints directly at that news papers discurse which you argue for disregarding. However, also statistic reports and scientifical reports, as for instance covering intra-EU issues or the past elections, frequently group present-day Germany with Western Europe. Germany before 1945 and 1918 is of course another issue.
--Ruhrjung 02:06, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

Well, it was not my idea to write "generally, particularly in the Western world" if you want you can change that introduction. But again: Of course in a "political" sense Germany may be Western European. But the term Central European has many other meanings, not only historically, even up to this date, where it is clear that Germany is included. If this was a political encyclopedia, I would probably agree on your definition, but it is much more, fortunately. --Jakob Stevo 10:28, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to modify the wording (within my field of competence – culture and ethnology are not my cup of tea), but am somewhat disappointed in the response from Elizabeth. /Tuomas 10:55, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A single source

Is it really so difficult to find a single source backing your claim up? Now, both the CIA World Factbook as well as all English-language encyclopedias I've seen, including Britannica and the Colombia encyclopedia, clearly states that Central Europe includes Germany. It may be your personal opinion that Germany is not Central European, but such a claim needs to be substantiated. Show me reliable sources, or stop changing the article back to your version. Elizabeth A

Your comments in the edit summaries do not make you seem very serious or honest. Why do you argue that I should promote an uniquely personal view when I try to coordinate the opinion you represent with other opinions represented here and in our days' English?

The present-day usage in newspapers has been extensively demonstrated above. Similarly the usage in touristic contexts and in governmental information. When it comes to text books on political science, it would require more (much more) work to falsify or support my impression, based on having read a number of such books, so to put it bluntly, that is nothing I am prepared to do, neither do I propose that the article specifically be to argue anything in that respect.

May I remind you that your removal of a reference to a source (CIA World Factbook) is contrary to good Wikipedia practice, and may I kindly ask you to refrain from such in the future? /Tuomas 07:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your sources. Where are they? Is it impossible to find, say, a single English-language encyclopedia which support your personal view? Do you have any evidence that Germany is not generally considered Central European by English-language encyclopedias? Cite your sources! Elizabeth A

Stop being ridiculous. I've supported your point by working in your point of view and your source reference in the text, and the only thing you do is asking me where my evidence is while stubbornly removing the reference to your source again and again. It's easy to get the impression that you do your best to annoy. Can you please explain why you disregard the lists above and the amendments made by others than you? It's hardly the appropriate thing for you to od to request "more evidence" when the currently presented sources on present-day usage talks against you. /Tuomas 16:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Stop being ridiculous yourself. Is there any evidence that the Alpine countries are not frequently considered Central European? Since you do not wish to show me any sources, I have to believe it is not. Then there is no reason to write that Poland etc. are "frequently taken to include", while the Alpine countries are "only included in some encyclopedias etc". In fact, all sources state that the Alpine countries are part of central Europe, and I must consider it proved that they are in fact generally included in the English-speaking world when talking about this region. Your view is the minority view, and if you wish to have that view included in the article - as a minority view - you have to cite some sources. You are not a source, and Wikipedia is not a place for original and your very personal opinions. Elizabeth A

Stop being ridiculous yourself. Is there any evidence that the Alpine countries are not frequently considered Central European?

Last time I examined the lists above, it was something like 80%-20% on the list of www-links and no occurences at all of obvious/stated inclusion of Switzerland/Liechtenstein/FRG in the referred English language news, but plenty of occurences of inclusion of Poland–Hungary. /Tuomas 21:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since you do not wish to show me any sources, I have to believe it is not.

This is unbelievable. Why do you demand that I should show you any other sources than has already been listed at this very talk page, when you so far have behaved as a broken record disregarding anything that has been written here since you entered here in early May? /Tuomas 21:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Then there is no reason to write that Poland etc. are "frequently taken to include", while the Alpine countries are "only included in some encyclopedias etc".

It doesn't say only. /Tuomas 21:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In fact, all sources state that the Alpine countries are part of central Europe, and I must consider it proved that they are in fact generally included in the English-speaking world when talking about this region.

In fact, you have not yet showed one single occurence in present-day news paper usage that includes Liechtenstein in the concept of Central Europe, but the list above shows plenty of example of the opposite. /Tuomas 21:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your view is the minority view, and if you wish to have that view included in the article - as a minority view - you have to cite some sources. You are not a source, and Wikipedia is not a place for original and your very personal opinions. Elizabeth A

This is not my personal opinion. I have included your edits with those of other wikipedians — and taken into account the credibility of the sources they have presented aswell as your sources; and taken into account the credibility your and their behavior give reason to.

But I strongly resent your ways of editing: again and again brushing aside the contributions by other editors. So far you've not even started to comment on the changes made by others, and not yet ever tried to establish any version that aims at including other points of views than your own. This is deplorable. /Tuomas 21:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Ruhrjung has posted some references to a couple of rather obscure home pages which hardly can be considered relevant. Please cite reliable and relevant sources; that is, sources like those Sinuhe and I have cited, Britannica, Colombia, CIA World Factbook etc. Are you not able to find a single English-language encyclopedia supporting your POV?

I would be happy to include your POV as a minority view in the way you want to mention the majority view (i.e. "some encyclopedias consider etc.") if you are able to cite some reliable sources which support this view! At least one! So far I haven't seen a single source. Wikipedia cannot use User:Tuomas as the source for an encyclopedia article. Then you perhaps should consider making your own homepage? Elizabeth A

Still missing the sources. Do you think we should write "However, some Wikipedia users holds that Central Europe does only include the Visegrád group of the Central European countries; so far this view hasn't been supported by any other sources"? Elizabeth A

What would be a better source to document "frequent usage", "present-day understanding" etc, than google test and the links to English language news in google news with the key word Central Europe(an)?

I have never asked you or anyone else to take my word for granted. By your repeated implications of that, you use a infamous propagandist technique that I think in English is dubbed strawman. This is one of the reasons why I by now view your appearance here with quite some suspicion.

What I ask you to do is to take a look at edits and talk-page arguments by others than yourself, and tell how and why they are to be neglected. It's no use to dismiss them without explaining how. You don't convince anyone that way. Particularly not after you have behaved the way you have.

If you think that a google-test comes up with obscure results, then explain how a google test should be constructed to come up with a more credible result. /Tuomas 23:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not want "google tests", I want reliable sources. If all English-language encyclopedias and similar authoritative sources use one definition, then Wikipedia should also use that definition. An encyclopedia should be conservative and stick to common English usage.

Then it shouldn't say that it reflects "frequent usage" or "present-day usage" or any similar constructs. /Tuomas 00:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is no proof other than your word that the definition used by all encyclopedias cited so far is not common English usage.

Where have I said anything about that?

I am, contrary to you, working with the material on this talk page and in the different edits done to the article. /Tuomas 00:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not think Wikipedia should use geographical definitions not supported by any other encyclopedia.

And you are not the person who should complain about the behaviour of other contributors or be "suspicous". Elizabeth A

So?

Do you care to explain why not? /Tuomas 00:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Switzerland is Western European, not Central European!

LOL! John Calvin's society were all Western Europeans. How is Suisse distant from France? TheUnforgiven 09:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Russia ? :-)))

Politically, geographically and culturally Russia belongs to Eastern Europe and Asia. Physical location of Königsberg/Kaliningrad does not change anything here. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Huh, ex occidenta lux?

This now fasionable term is so arbitrary, that you may define it as you like. Let's follow logic:

1. Central Europe is a region, hence it is geography that matters.

2. Poland is declared by Poles to represent a part of Central Europe (although Western Europeans do not think so).

3. Kaliningrad is situated to the west from the Polish capital.

4. Kaliningrad is part of what region? Central Europe, of course.

5. Kalinigrad is politically a part of the Russian Federation. Hence, the Russian Federation also belongs to Central Europe.

Set me right where I'm mistaken. I don't known how you would prove that Warsaw is part of Central Europe and Kalinigrad is not. --Ghirlandajo 20:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Very well, Sentence 5 is the main part where you are wrong. That I have a couple fingers of mine on top of the keyboard doesn't mean that my whole body is on top of the keyboard. That France has a department of it in South America, doesn't make it a South American nation. That Spain has two cities in Africa, don't make it an African nation. And that Russia has a tiny region in Central Europe doesn't make it a Central European nation. That's the geographical argument.

OK, following your logic... That Russia has some regions in Europe doesn't make it an European nation... That Russia has some regions in Asia doesn't make it an Asian nation too... So, Russia is situated out of any continents? Or is it a continent in itself? ;)

The British Empire used to sprawl on all five/six continents, so it was not European too? --Ghirlandajo 21:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't care about your misapplications of logic, nor about your false analogies, nor about discussing with someone who pretends to be a fool. Nor do I have the time to educate you if your ignorance of logic is truly as complete as you seem to pretend. And as a sidenote the very labelling of Europe as a "continent" is itself a POV unsupportable-by-logic piece of terminology -- so if you're to start with whining about "Central Europe", why don't you start whining about "Europe" period? As for Russia, it can be considered European or Asian, or both, but that's again besides the point. As for the British Empire it was a global affair and only European in the sense that it was ruled from a European nation. And this paragraph is the last I consent to play with you. Aris Katsaris 22:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I haven't consented to "play" with you at all. You'd better continue applying your exceptional intellectual abilities and faultless logic to the articles like Viktor Krum or missionary position. Grow up, and then return here to discuss more serious subjects than harrypottermania. --Ghirlandajo 10:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You think I'll be ashamed with any article I've contributed to, whether that's "List of sex positions" or Harry Potter trivia? I'm not ashamed of them at all, nor do I see any reason to be. It's you who should be ashamed for your stupid games of disrupting Wikipedia and intentionally misapplying logic. Your latest tactic of considering fannish or sexual articles supposedly shameful, only makes it clear that discussing with you is irrelevant.Aris Katsaris 03:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Don't be silly. The percentage of area and population of Kaliningrad oblast is simply tiny in comparison to the whole of the Russian Federation. You can say that K. is CE, sure, but that doesn't allow for the analogy to be expanded by several magnitudes by including the whole RF. --Joy [shallot] 10:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The second part you are wrong is in Sentence 1. Central Europe is a region, but "Central Europe" is also a *term*. And thusly the *usage* of the term is also important, even if said usage contradicts your logic. Aris Katsaris 20:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Both the term and the article on it is a mess. I used Kaliningrad instance as a way to draw attention to the fact that "Central Europe" is a vague POV term whose meaning is not properly determined. Probably some mention of it should be made in the page. It is nonsense that the city of Kant is put into Eastern Europe, whereas the Muslim and culturally Asian Tirana or Sarajevo are classified as belonging to Central Europe. Geography and logic are completely ignored by the Poles and their neighbours who promote this term. Where belongs Finland? or Greece? --Ghirlandajo 20:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, Central Europe (or Mitteleuropa) is pretty well defined for centuries regardless of the logics of your original research here. It's only recently been shadowed by the "Eastern Bloc" and "Western Bloc" usage, as the article explains. Have you heard of any credible sources that would refer to Russia as part of Central Europe ? --Lysy ^(talk) 21:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

If it is such a well-defined concept as you say, please answer my questions on Greece and Finland. Also, isn't it time to remove your impertinent remarks from the article on "half-Asian" Curonian Spit, now that the summit in Durban is over? --Ghirlandajo 21:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, what is your problem with "the Poles and their neighbours". Is this something personal ? --Lysy ^(talk) 21:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's something personal: my great grandmother was Polish. Actually, I only pointed out that it is the Poles who get most nervous when their country is alluded to as part of Eastern Europe. --Ghirlandajo 21:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That "Central Europe" (and for that matter "Eastern" and "Western Europe" also) is a vague term of fluid and possibly POV meaning is already mentioned and described in the article quite clearly IMO, and I think that I've made it even clearer in my reworking of the introduction. You hurting articles to make a point or "draw attention to facts" is annoying. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. As for whether Albania or Serbia's inclusion are ridiculous or not, instead of "drawing attention to facts", you should have made a better contribution by seeing whether a lack of references to them as Central European would have justified their removal or not. I've not researched the issue myself, so I just mentioned in the intro that the inclusion of these countries in Central Europe is rarer than with Poland or Czechoslovakia -- which I believe is indeed the case. Aris Katsaris 21:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

If we use Central Europe as a "term", I daresay there is a big difference between Christian Serbia and Muslim Albania. How such different entities could be united under the same "cultural" heading? --Ghirlandajo 21:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you disputing the accuracy of the article, or just making random observations about how bizarre our world is? I'm not interested in discussing random observations. Aris Katsaris 22:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Kaliningrad should be mentioned, the question is how to do it without implying that Russia proper is in it. How about, "the Kaliningrad territory (or region) of Russia"? --Noitall 22:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Support. --Ghirlandajo 22:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. I'll need to see historical references for the usage of the term as applied to Kaliningrad. Aris Katsaris 03:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Do you oppose Lysy's edit, it seems fine to me. --Noitall 03:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I've not seen Kaliningrad "commonly" referred to as Central European. Trying to google up references to it in conjuction with the words "Central European" has come up largely blank also -- almost all seem to refer to its neighbours instead. So, yeah, I disagree with the article saying it is commonly included in "Central Europe" if it's not. Aris Katsaris 03:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

You haven't seen many things in this world yet. Read Britannica 1911 or any other 19th-century source mentioning the term and see whether East Prussia (and Germany, in general) was considered a part of Central Europe. If the latter is primarily a geographical term, as the article claims, transfer of the region to another country shouldn't affect it belonging to Central Euroep at all. --Ghirlandajo 06:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. Geographically it is between Central and Eastern Europe. Culturally and historically, it is closer, I believe, to Poland and thus Central Europe. I think google (actually other writers) have basically ignored it. And the term Central Europe is actually sort of new since the dissolution of the Soviet Union (everything before was East-West). Since it has been ignored, I think the a rational argument could be based on a geographic and cultural association. It can't be ignored, it is sitting there like the elephant in the middle of the room. Interested in your opinion. --Noitall 03:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

East Prussia used to be part of Germany. Historically, Germany was regarded as part of Central Europe. I hope noone would deny that. After WWII, Eastern Prussia was divided between Poland and USSR. Now, the Polish sector is part of Central Europe, and the Russian sector is not? What is the logic of it? --Ghirlandajo 06:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The term is actually much older than the division onto Western and Eastern Blocs. Reading the article might help, Noitall. When it comes to cultural terms, the Central Europe is (at least in Poland, Ukraine, Bohemia and Slovakia) strongly associated with the legacy of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Thus Russia is completely out, both mainland and its dependencies. However, politically, East Prussia and Kaliningrad-to-be used to be a part of Northern Europe prior to WWII. AAMoF around WWI the area was referred to as either part of Central Europe (parts of it were regarded as Mitteleuropa) or Northern Europe. It wasn't after WWII and its annexation by USSR, that it shifted to Eastern Europe... Halibutt 05:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

And reading the article might not help if the issue is not addressed. We are discussing what to refer to it today. I did not address the entire history back to the Vikings. During the Eest-West split, it was in "Eastern Europe" as was much of "Central Europe." What should it be referred to today? I stated that it should not be ignored. A little less condescention and a little more enlightenment would help. --Noitall 05:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Interbellum"-formations?

I don't understand the end of the following sentence:

The German term Mitteleuropa (or alternatively its literal translation into English, Middle Europe) is sometimes used in English to refer to an area somewhat larger than most conceptions of 'Central Europe'; it refers to territories under German(ic) cultural hegemony until World War I (encompassing Austria and Germany in their interbellum-formations but usually excluding Balticum north of East Prussia).

Does the writer perhaps mean prebellum (if such a word exists), since he refers to World War I previously? ("Interbellum" would mean between wars, but which two wars are meant? Perhaps the clause should be deleted entirely (thus reading "encompassing Austria and Germany but usually excluding..."). Also, shouldn't Austria be changed to "Austria-Hungary"?

Critic9328 06:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes

I fail to see the sense of the recent changes made to this article. What's this so-called "Adratic group"? I see no reasoning in it. Also, the author reclassified Slovenia from an Alpine country to a part of the "Adriatic group" and said that it is partially an Alpine country, but that it takes pride in its "Adriatic-ness". There is absolutely no reason for that statement. What is "Adriatic-ness" anyway?

It all looks to me just like another excuse to include Croatia into Central Europe. edolen1 20:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Neither of the sources mentioned: "Encyclopædia Britannica, the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and the Columbia Encyclopedia, as well as the CIA World Factbook" does mention any Adriatic group nor Croatia as part of Central Europe. This is simply soapboxing. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, Croatia is an interesting case. I think Croatia is quite similar to Romania (particularly Transylvania), in that it is economically-advanced in comparison to the rest of Southeastern Europe, and politically it has been much more closely associated to Central Europe. However, just as Romania isn't counted as part of Central Europe, I don't think Croatia should. It isn't commonly allocated to the region, and there are some cultural differences,. Additionally, Croatia isn't commonly considered to be Central European in common political usage. Southeastern European is the best descriptor for it, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Adriatic-ness is something different and hasn't really got anything to do with geographical groupings such as Central and Southeastern Europe. Slovenia and Croatia are both Adriatic in the same way that Spain and Greece are seen as Mediterranean. Adriatic-ness - an identification with the Adriatic Sea - is a "cultural" thing, that is also influenced by tourism. But it's not a particularly prominent term and borders a bit on original research. Ronline ✉ 09:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. Croatia is economically far more advanced than Romania and the rest of the South-East Europe. Its GDP per head of population is bigger than that of Slovakia, Poland, the Baltic Republics etc. It ranks second in Central and Eastern Europe in the number of internet users and has by far the longest network of motorways (autobahns) (around three times more than Poland). As of the 11th century it formed part of the Croatian-Hungarian Kingdom through the so-called personal union (joint king) and as of the 16th century till 1918 it was part of the Hapsburg Monarchy. On the other hand, Romania was part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries and its culture resembles that of its Balkan neighbours (Bulgaria and Serbia). Also, unlike Croatia which is predominantly Catholic, Romania is Orthodox - another feature of a typical Balkan country. Furthermore Croatia went through Renaissance, Reformation, Baroque, Enlightment and so on which no country under Ottoman rule did.

We all think that we are more advanced then the other. I would not say Croatia is "far more advanced then Romania". Both countries stand at a GDP/cap of about $10.000 (give or take $1500 here and there). And on top of that Croatia still has the old shaddow of the Yugoslav wars which it still has to deal with. As a last clarification, Romania was never part of the Ottoman Empire. Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece were at different times parts of Ottoman provinces, however not Romania. In fact a good chunk of Romanian history, that is about 600 years, Romanians fought against the Ottomans until the last war with them in 1877-78, which the Turks lost.Constantzeanu 00:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What "you" think or not think is your private matter. I may or may not agree with you and vice versa. However, there are some scientific indicators that can help us shed some life on this question. According to the World Bank (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf) the GNP per capita of countries in Central and Eastern Europe (+Turkey) was as follows:

Slovenia 14 810 USD

Czech Republic 9,150 USD

Hungary 8,270 USD

Estonia 7,010 USD

Croatia 6,590 USD

Slovak Republic 6,480 USD

Poland 6,090 USD

Lithuania 5,740 USD

Latvia 5,460 USD

Turkey 3,750 USD

Russian Federation 3,410 USD

Romania 2,920 USD

Bulgaria 2,740 USD

As for the "Yugoslav wars" aspect you point out, I could only say that it is rather astonishing that a country that was in a war for five years and had 14 thousand of its citizens killed and suffered 27 billion dollar of war damage is performing THREE times better than Romania.

As for the Ottoman Empire you are only partly right. Here is what the Britannica says about Romania: "Nearly four centuries of Ottoman Turkish domination between the 15th and 19th centuries reinforced the Romanians' attachment to the East. Hardly had the principalities achieved independence than they were forced to confront the relentless advance of Ottoman armies into southeastern Europe. By recognizing the suzerainty of the sultan and by paying him annual tribute, the Romanians avoided direct incorporation into the Ottoman Empire. The Romanians thus preserved their political institutions, laws, and social structure, and they avoided a massive settlement of Muslims onto the land. (...) Ottoman domination reached its height in the 18th century during what is generally known as the Phanariot regime. The Romanian principalities were now vital military bulwarks of the empire, as Russia and the Habsburg monarchy pressed relentlessly against its frontiers, and Ottoman officials decided to replace native princes with members of Greek or Hellenized families from the Phanar district of Constantinople who had amply demonstrated their loyalty to the sultan. As a consequence, the autonomy of the principalities was drastically curtailed, and the payment of tribute and the delivery of supplies rose precipitously. "83.131.0.243 09:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well as you yourself noticed, the Romanian principalities were never inside the Ottoman Empire. They were not vylayets or pashalyks but countries that payed a certain anual fee in order for the Ottomans to stay out. As far as your source is concerned, I am sorry but it must be a little outdated: my source is the ciaworldfactbook.com which you are welcome to consult any time. Yes Croatia is doing a little better then Romania, but they are pretty much the same. If you also count the late Romanian economic growth(some would call it a boom), then I don't know how much better Croatia is doing. About the "Yugoslav War", my argument was that Croatia has not come to terms with it, regardless of economics. Croatia is very much linked to those wars, even though from the economic point of view it may be an attractive tourist option. Constantzeanu 01:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that Encyclopaedia Britannica is an authoratitive source and certainly one of the best sources there is. As far as economic performance is concerned I beg to differ over how "similar" Romania and Croatia are. By the same token, I suppose there are not to many differences between countries in Central and Eastern Europe. And that is not true. As far as economic growth is concerned most of it is in the countries with low GDP per capita (exceptions being some Baltic countries) and Romania is one of them. Foreign investments are flowing into the country taking advantage of low labour costs. As for the Yugoslav wars, I am really not sure what you mean by Croatia being "very much linked with it". I am not going to go into details now but I fail to see how five years of foreign occupation by a neighbouring country could possibly erase a shared history that Croatia has with other countries of the former Hapsburg Empire. And for your information, tourism may be the only thing you probably associate Croatia with, but it only comprises 8 per cent of Croatian GDP. I know you are probably confused by the fact that Romania and Bulgaria will be in all likelyhood joining the EU before Croatia which is economically far more advanced. But ask anyone in western Europe and most of them will tell you that this expansion is a political one. Similarly, according to the EUROSTAT, most Europeans would vote against Romania and Bulgaria if given an opportunity. Also, despite the war Croatia doesn't have a problem of abandoned children living on the street or leper colonies or plethora of other social plights that Romania has been afflicted by. 83.131.91.63 10:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

UPDATED Croatia

The recent edit: "About one half of Croatia is also considered Central European, while the other is considered as a Mediterranean. By that Croatia is a very specific country on intersection of two major european regions, with ritch mixture of cultural influences, but also a country of turbulent history."

How is one half of Croatia distinguishable from the other? Which half of Croatia? If that is to be included, then this should be explained. I've never heard of Croatia referred to as a Mediterranean country. It can be referred to as Central or Eastern European and more specific, a Balkan country. Definitely not a Mediterranean country (it doesn't even border the sea). Saying that "Croatia is sometimes considered Central European" is enough in my opinion. Some consider it central european, others don't. End it at that. Looking for opinions.

Agreed. I think that simply stating that Croatia is sometimes regarded as Central European is enough. edolen1 19:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not a Mediterranean country (it doesn't even border the sea)? Except it has more than 1000km coastline and numerous islands:-) --€ro 17:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

LETS GO ONE BY ONE - Mediterranean -> http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/Thesaurus/00002903.htm UN classifies Croatia into the group of Mediterranean nations. Croatian coastline being more than 5300 km long, confirms this. - Central Europe - through 900 years of Austro-Hungary during which 99% of its present territory was under that republic which was classified as Central European. Proofs:

• http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3166.htm - US officially classifies croatia as in between central and eastern europe, which means it may be in this Central classification since countries that go more East are included (ie Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary)
• The area that is considered more South (south of Sava being the maximum territory of south known as widest value of area of Balkands) makes less than 50% of the territory, and the North which is geographically 100% in Central Europe has more than half of Croatia's territory (50%+X). Not withstanding that area below Sava is still considered Central European too without disagreements up to a point. This is mentioned to pullin for the fact that north and northe west Germany technically are hard to prove central European Geographically, same goes for eastern Poland, eastern Slovakia. (this argument is finalised in the conclusion)

- Balkans - Both Croatia and Slovenia became more Balkanly noted since 1914 due to KSRS and Yugoslavia I and II being formed. Confusion arrises today with the notion of Western Balkans. To see that it is not a firm thing one can go to Lonely Planet http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/destinations/europe/croatia/see and then on the side see a link to Western Balkans book which is basically almost all of old Yugoslavia, Croatia and Slovenia inclusive. So yes, due to the two being both in central and south and eastern europe in some part - it all depends which aspect one allows to predominate. - Eastern Europe - I believe one needs not to prove this.

Conclusion Because, Croatia is not a mere dreamer to be Central European oriented country but has much facts that can support its belonging to CE, and because there are nations recognising its Central European identity this group must allow it to be part of it. Many countries in Europe have more than one "region" For example, Austria is both central and western, it does not mean Slovakia is western nor does it deny it to be central. Logically, there must be like I said some common background tolerating it to be in Central European website, and I believe there is annough.

Conclusion2: Croatia and Slovenia cannot be put in a same basket, as they are different like USA and Mexico. Even in former Yugoslavia Slovenia was Europe, slovenian mentality and high cultral habbits were very much unlike the rest of the country. On the other side Croatians, at least those ones who speak Shtokavian (90% of them) are a typical Balkan nation, with their war heroes and Haag convicts, same as Serbians and Bosnians. That's the fact and not any 'smoothly-hide-the-truth' propaganda can change it. Cheers; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Encarta Britannica did set Croatia under "southeastern end of central Europe" in 1995 and 1996. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.82.238.198 (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Once in the East, Now Back in the West

How about this as a new definition for Central Europe?...those countries from the former eastern/communist bloc which profess Western Christianity. This includes 2 Protestant countries (Estonia, Latvia) and 7 Roman Catholic countries (Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia). Culturally and historically, they all belong to the Western World (Western Europe, Anglo-America and Australasia), and all are in the EU with the exception of Croatia (a temporary delay).

No original reseach, please. --Lysy^talk 17:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

See here [3] . --JNZ (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Romania

Romania by most definitions is also considered as a Central Europe country. It has this status definitely more than let's say Croatia. --Eliade 14:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please provide sources and then include this. When you claim something, you're supposed to prove it. Good luck. Todor→Bozhinov 14:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Im curious as to which definitions is Romania defined as a Central European nation. I have never, nor do I know anyone who would consider Romania in Central Europe. Croatia, which is sometimes considered Central European culturally is rooted to Central Europe much moreso than Romania. It's also a more modern, developed and economically stronger state than Romania. 22:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)~

Romania is belongs to East Balkan. Traditionally and culturally, as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.183.114.55 (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Geographically it's fully in Central Europe (if you divide it in 3 parts, the line between Central and Eastern goes right through Istanbul, which is at the east of Romania). Culturally it's definitely in Central Europe, considering it's in the EU and NATO and has always been ally of the west. "Religiously" is the only criteria that might put it in Eastern Europe. All in all, it definitely does belong in Central Europe. But with the amount of antiromanian propaganda on the Internet, I'm not surprised at all, and I will not waste my time trying to convince anyone of that. And considering there are even some people who believe even Ukraine (!) is not in Europe, why am I even surprised? 86.120.210.195 14:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Benelux

Arn't the Benelux part of Central Europe. Germany for example has extremely close cultural ties to the Neatherlands, Luxembourg and parts of Belgium. I think the Benelux countries should at least be partially mentioned here as they are culturally and linguistically very closely related to Germany and are also considered to be part of Germanic Europe. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Germanic Europe" does not mean "Central Europe". Montessquieu (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Croatia should be added

Croatia is missing! Croatia should also be listed as central European country it belongs to Central Europe geographicaly and historicaly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.134.99 (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2007

Croatia

Geographically, Croatia is as much a Central European country as it is a Balkan one (only part of the country is in the Balkans geographically, by the most common definition of the Balkan peninsula). Culturally, even more so. Historically, it's Central European. As defined by modern politics, it's in the Balkans, but the cultural and financial differences between Croatia and, for example, Albania, are vast. Between Croatia and the countries defined here as Central European, the differences are incomparably smaller. Furthermore, most Croatians never visit Albania, Bulgaria etc. in their life, while many visit northern Italy and Austria on a regular basis.

You definitely could, and actually should. write that it's debatable but what with Roman Catholicism as its religion, a Central European history, a predominantly Central European culture and a Central European way of life, it's definitely an understatement to just say that some of Croatia's regions are in some way Central European...

Also, having read on this discussion page the claim that Croatia doesn't have a sea border, I just have to wonder, with all due respect, how someone can be so uninformed about simple geography and still edit this page. Croatia has a long border on the Adriatic Sea (part of the Mediterranean Sea), opposite Italy and is considered a Mediterranean country, regardless of other labels, such as Central European, Eastern European etc. It has the third largest number of islands in Europe, after Norway and Greece.

And as for the claim that it is questionable whether Croatia is better developed than Romania and Bulgaria, it is as questionable as whether France is better developed than Croatia. That is, not questionable at all.

I suppose the best definition of Croatia was one I read some time ago in a German textbook: that it's a Central European-Balkan-Mediterranean country. I know that sounds ridiculous, but it really is the most correct, though funny, way to put it.--Blancodio 01:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that Croatia is a Central European country with Mediterranean touch. And I would also like to point out that maybe the most apparent evidence that places Croatia culturally in Mitteleuropa is the fact that Croatian children as their second foreign languages ( English being the first) select German, in central, northern and eastern parts and in southern and western parts Italian is commonly spoken. I myself speak Italian, German, English and French and almost everyone else speaks at least one more language besides English. It is also good to know that official language in Croatia untill 1848.! was Latin which was replaced with Croatian after being in use for hundreds of years. Also Croatian GDP is MUCH higher than e.g. Romanian or Bulgarian despite the fact that Croatia waged a five-year war and still has around 12000 refugees (internal-displacement.org ). Kontrolleur Cro 01.23 CET, 13 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 01:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is ridiculous. Most Croats identify themselves as a part of Central Europe but with a Mediterranean influence. Most Croats feel they have more in common with Central Europe (geographically, historically and culturally) than with the Balkans and the Orthodox Eastern Europe. It’s like somebody would consider the U.S. to be a part of Latin America. I don’t know why this is even being discussed here since the Croats and their Central European neighbours to the north don’t have any problem placing the country in Central Europe. --84.217.47.194 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I agree that Croats could be added, and especially if the majority has the feeling you describe, surely you'll be able to provide viable sources on that. Remember that Wikipedia only reflects social processes that can be referenced. Pundit|utter 19:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Croatia is Central European and numerous sources identify it as that. The only problem is that it's neither part of the Visegrad Group nor the Alpine countries. Dalmatia is sometimes excluded. You'll have to find a way to address that issue. JRWalko (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I’m a Croat and most (if not all) of my countrymen that I know feel that we have more in common culturally with the Catholic countries of Central Europe and the Mediterranean (Italy particularly). That’s why I find this discussion to be ridiculous. It’s hard to prove this statement to a foreigner since there have not been any polls on this issue in Croatia that could prove this. As far as I know, polls on how people in a particularly country identify themselves haven’t been conducted in any country in the world. I don’t know what country you’re from but I’m sure you have an opinion on how you and the majority of your countrymen identify yourselves - Western Europe, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, the Baltics?. Official Croatian sources say that Croatia is both a Central European and a Mediterranean country and this is what we learn in school. But this is also how we feel. We have more in common both culturally and historically with CE than with the Balkans. This is not an issue of nationalism or politics but a fact. --84.217.47.194 (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand your view. If you really care about mentioning Croatia as more Central European than it already is (the article mentions it as occasionally included) look for verifiable and viable sources in English on that. I'm sure there are scholars in Croatia and abroad who publish on this important issue. Pundit|utter 22:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said above Croatia is NOT part of the Visegrad Group and NOT part of the definitions in those texts mentioned. It should be added but with it's own source. You can't just attach something new to a citation that doesn't talk about it. JRWalko (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, someone added Croatia. I personally view Croatia as a Central European country, but can someone please supply an academic source? Otherwise, it's POV. --Buffer v2 (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Here you go www.alpeadria.org/italiano/index.php?did=Strategien.Alpen-Adria_engl.doc - Alpe-Adria is a regional alliance since 1978, and hereby defines it as Central Europe - all of Croatia's territory in the region

Alpe-Adria is not a relevant source, its importance has diminished after the break up of SFRJ, and it's not a factor any more. The only source to confirm what country belongs to Central Europe, being also a much stronger recent economic alliance is CEFTA and all the countries that belong to it. Cheers.24.86.110.10 (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Alpine countries

Maybe it's only me, but if Germany is included within Alpine countries, shouldn't France and Italy then be included, too? No matter how I think it over, my conclusion is that they are much more "Alpine" than Germany ever was. Yaan (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the name is used in an illogical way indeed, but what can we do... In fact these doubts are even incorporated in the article, e.g. when saying that In the article on Europe, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia counts Germany (that then reached east of the Baltic) but not Switzerland to Central Europe; Liechtenstein is not mentioned. In other articles of that encyclopedia, France and Switzerland are included.. The more sources you find, the better. Pundit|utter 00:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my question is not whether France and Italy are part of Central Europe, but whether Germany should be labeled an "Alpine country", esp. when France and Italy are not. I don't think you can find many sources for that. Yaan (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is probably historical and quite irrational, just like Western/Eastern classifications (Finland being often considered "Western" while East Germany "Eastern). Here is one source, but you definitely should dig more if you want to write a grounded definition of alpine countries. Pundit|utter 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it seems this source may be basing on some of previous Wikipedia articles anyway. So, more research is advised. Pundit|utter 00:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this stuff for now. If someone prvides sources, we can put it back. And Germany did reach to further east in the past, but not further east than the Baltic sea. Yaan (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term in Chinese

From Chinese Wikipedia a commentator from the PRC mentions that mainland Chinese media never use the term Central Europe in news broadcasts or contemporary documentaries, and instead still sticking to the Cold War-era definitions of Western and Eastern Europe [4]. To many Chinese, the term Central Europe seems to be confined to history textbooks particularly 19th and pre-WWII European history. Any independent source backing up this phenomenon? Is it because China was politically tied with the now historical Eastern European Communist states? --JNZ (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Doouble-Article -Mitteleuropa

Why is there an extra "Mitteleuropa" article (Mitteleuropa is just the German translation of Central Europe) ??? It doesn't make any sence translating an English expression into German an then make an extra article about it in the en.wiki !!! no need 4 that! just ABSURD!!! M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.204.109 (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mitteleuropa is a German concept assuming the creation of buffer states in Central Europe dominated by Germany (WW I). Central Europe refers to the history and culture of the region. There is a difference when a German expression is used in other languages. Montessquieu (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

CROATIA IS NOT CENTRAL EUROPE, CROATIA IS BALKAN!

Adding Croatia to the list is not acceptable, since there's no scientific facts to confirm that. Cental Europe is just the northern part of Croatia, while the bigger part of croatian territory geografically belongs to the Balkans. Also, culturally Croatians are much closer to the other Balkan nations, than to any Central European nation including Slovenians. In fact Croatians, Serbians and Bosnians speak IDENTICAL LANGUAGE-Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian, or ex-SerboCroatian, which makes them UNSEPARABLE forever. Slovenia vs. Croatia is like Central Europe vs. Balkan, or USA vs. Mexico. That's a fact, and if it kills someone, it's his problem. If we go by the weird logic that 'Croats don't visit Albania or Bulgaria', which by the way is not true, than Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro should be added to the list of the countries too. It doesn't matter that Croatia has a catholic tradition, also Albania has a catholic tradition, so what? Should we put Albania as a Central European country? And also all those 'opinions and feelings of Croats' above are nothing else but pure POVs, and nobody should take them seriously. As a matter of fact, many of those 'true Croats' are continuously spreading lies, hatred and racial messages against everyhing that is connected to ex-Yugoslavia, Serbia or Balkans through the discussion pages. That fact says how miserable they all are and how far can they go with their frustrations. Their senseless propaganda is dying and in all their desparation they become more and more aggressive even trying to change the articles at wikipedia without any approval, changing with it it's value and truthfulness. Anyway, administrators on wikipedia should STOP all those intrudors, erase the changes they did to the article about Central Europe, and present the truth, and the truth is: generally CROATIA IS BALKAN, NOT CENTRAL EUROPE. Cheers.24.86.110.10 (talk) 04:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm.. Albania does not have a Catholic tradition... Slovenia and Croatia are the only Catholic countries in the Balkans. And to counter your linguistic view of defining nations in a region - German is spoken in Belgium, yet it's not considered a Central European country. Also, countries can overlap in different regions (e.g. Slovenia both in Balkans and Central Europe, Germany in Western and Central Europe, Poland in Eastern and Central Europe, Turkey in Europe and Asia... etc.) From a neutral stance, I personally see Croatia as Central European but I agree that there needs to be proper citation for it. And Your whole little rant is all POV, and is obviously biased. --Buffer v2 (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT a place for 'your personal opinions' or 'how you see things', but a place for TRUTHFUL facts. All the rest is a POV! From the thousand links you can 'google' that identically define what is Central Europe, here's the one in which Central Europe is defined as: Austria, Slovenia, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and Switzerland. There's no any mentioning of Croatia, or any other Balkan country. Remember and enjoy: http://www.einnews.com/central-europe-region/News —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

... Are you kidding? Your whole rant was full of "personal opinions" and POVs, and I specifically said that proper citation should be provided for the Croatia insertion. You should be barred from editing this page, as it's obvious that you are totally biased. P.S: a news feed is hardly an accurate source for this. Use some common sense and realize that real academic references are what wiki is looking for. --Buffer v2 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A BEAUTIFUL MAP OF THE WEST BALKANS

This map was published in the CROATIAN newspaper 'Jutarnji List' from Zagreb these days. It shows all the west BALKAN countries: CROATIA, Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania and partially recognized Kosovo. It talks about the West Balkan countries and their progress on their way to EU. You don;t need to be too smart to conclude that Croatia is a part of the west BALKANS, and not of The Central Europe. The news and journalists are a HIGHLY ACCURATE source for all this, as they belong to the regions about they write about, they are highly educated individuals and they know the real situation of what they write about. Cheers24.86.110.10 (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to the map of the WEST BALKANS: http://www.jutarnji.hr/EPHResources/Images/2008/03/04/kartavelika.jpg

Western Balkan region is not relevant to being in Balkan. Another example of such regional mishap is CEFTA, Central Free Trade Association which encompases even Moldova. Therefore these are name simplifcations and not political or geographic definitions. Croatia is for a while now trying to identify itself, but so does Slovenia, as the Bridge between Central and Western Europe and South East Balkan Europe. Naturally such actions result in the countries being misplaced or alligned to the Balkans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.82.238.198 (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I am giving you facts, and you can say whatever you like and do whatever you like with the list of the countries. It is not that relevant as are the facts that come from most of the other sources on the net. Anyway, since we're having Croatia one day on, another day off the list, maybe the best way to define this country is-as being a Balkan (the southern part) and a Central European (northern part, north of the river Sava) country. This matches geographically the border between these 2 regions and more importantly-it ALMOST matches the division of the people's 'balkan-attitude' (Dalmatia, eastern parts of Slavonia, Lika) and 'european-attitude' (western Slavonia, Zagorje, north Istria) of the very heterogenous croatian nation. Everyone satisfied? Cheers.24.86.110.10 (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You cannot invent a definition of your own without having proper citation. The sentence: "Several other countries like to portray themselves as part of Central Europe, too[2][3], probably due to Central Europe sounding more prestigous than either Balkans or Eastern Europe." will be removed. Furthermore, please indent (makes things more organized and clear in the discussion pages! :) ), and to the person who posted two before this, make sure you sign your edits please. --Buffer v2 (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets calm down, both of you, if I can beg you. There is no one simple definition of Central Europe. Simply CE has no canonical members yet. Only the core is sure. Austria, Czechs, Hungary, Slovakia. Even Poland I have seen to be removed - but this one is still almost canonical, the nxt Germany and Slowenia and then Croatia.. And it also depends what other regions you recognise. In some divisions there is division of Europe only to West and East, in other ocassions central Europe is included in different situaation the division recognises also South and North Europe bat not such regions like Balkan and if does make more detailed division then there is Balkan - and redifines the other regions of cours. So just one example when someone even trustworthy make an instance of classification does not make precedens. Reo ^ON | +++ 19:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

the boundary line of Central Europe is not clearly done

Picture

Can we please stick to the "fuzzy" picture? There are no clearly defined borders of Central Europe, anybody claiming otherwise please provide sources ("Central Europe contains ..., ..., ... and ..., nothing more and nothing less"). Yaan (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. the "Hsitorical and Geographical" map - Why does this definition include Poland in its post-1945 borders, but not the northern part of East Prussia? Why the Slovak and Hungarian, but not the Polish lands ceded to the Soviet Union after 1945? Sure one could sensibly call Koenigsberg or Lvov "historically Central European"? Yaan (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Especially so when we list Stefan Banach under "Central European contributions to world culture"? Yaan (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Central Europe during the cold war

I removed the statement that the cold war essentially removed the concept of western europe. Contrary to what I wrote in the edit summary, said statement is not disproved in the following reference. But I can offer this google scholar link as evidence to the contrary (look at the dates of the papers).

Now that Romania and Croatia have been added...

This article totally seems inconsistent. After doing some research (academic journals, papers), I've discovered that the term traditionally applied to the countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia (the Czech Republic, Slovakia now), Hungary and Yugoslavia (up until the early 90s) - e.g. see Central_European_Initiative (formerly the Pentagonale). Now, of course we all know that the definition varies from source to source, and of course countries like Austria, Germany etc. are usually included as well (JUMPING OUT OF THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION). I CAN understand Croatia being added to the list, but not Romania. Croatia can be argued to have a Central European character and belong to the group (formerly part of the Habsburg Monarchy, Kingdom of Hungary, Yugoslavia [never part of the Warsaw Pact, most economically advanced country in Eastern Europe during the Cold war], being a CATHOLIC country etc.), but Romania cannot. For one, it's an Orthodox country, never really fully part of any Central European empire, and don't really believe anyone considers it Central European. If you can justify adding Romania to the list, how can you justify not adding other countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina (Catholic/Orthodox/Islamic country, formerly part of the Habsurg Monarchy, part of Yugoslavia), Serbia, Montenegro, the Ukraine etc.? Furthermore, the blue map specifically excludes the Balkan area from the definition, which I believe is wrong, because Central Europe is not a recent term (i.e. one that was developed post-the Yugoslavia breakup, when the Balkans term began to resurface again), and countries can overlap in regions. So if you're jumping outside the traditional definition of Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and including states like Liechenstein and Switzerland (even the quoted encylopedias dont agree on these two countries), and going as far as including Romania, how can anyone disagree with adding other countries to the list? So my solution is either: Remove Romania at the least (there are sources citing Croatia as central european out there but they needed to be added if Croatia will stay), or keep Romania and add other countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, the Ukraine to the list in the main (top) section of the article (specifically mentioning that they are sometimes considered Central Europe and the definition varies). I believe this is a fair compromise. Think this article needs to be really worked on and fixed. Opinions please.--Buffer v2 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing, although travel sites aren't the most accurate source for a wikipedia (and I'm not suggesting that they be used as a source of info at all), they do offer an interesting perspective: at the first few travel sites I checked out on Google using Central+Europe+travel as the search, I got three different interpretations of Central Europe: 1) Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany, Austria, Hungary; 2) Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary; 3) Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia. Take it how you wish. Like I said, this article is inconsistent - either make it restrictive, or include all possible countries in the region (and not hand picking some - i.e. Romania). --Buffer v2 (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to the editor above but rather to everyone - how about we stick to what the sources say and not just define things according to our own views? Most sources that do in-depth analysis of the region allude to its Catholic and/or relatively conservative nature - this clearly excludes some of the recently added states. JRWalko (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Buffer v2! Romania is a country at the crossroads of 3 european macroregions: Central Europe (46%: Transylvania, Banat, Crişana, Maramureş and Bukovina), Southern Europe (38%: Wallachia and the balkanic region Dobruja) and Eastern Europe (16%: Moldavia without Bukovina). Croatia is located half in Central Europe (north of the Sava River) and half in the Balkans (south of the Sava river). Bosnia is located completely in the Balkans. Serbia is located mostly in the Balkans (exceppting Vojvodina in the north). Ukraine is located mostly in Eastern Europe (excepting Transcarpathia, Galicia, Bukovina in the west).--Olahus (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Olahus, is this your definition or can you provide a reference for it? And can you explain why you removed Bosnia and Herzegovina from the culturally Central European section? Can you explain why [based on this definition] the Balkans are excluded from Central Europe (if it's based on the negative political connotation, then that's wrong, because that's only a recent change to the way we view the word). Please explain, thanks.--Buffer v2 (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming funny. Either add Romania and Croatia as half:half central European and Balkan countries, either remove them both. Switching them on and off gives a very unserious impression to readers. Regards.24.86.110.10 (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think they should both be removed... Olahus keeps adding Romania back with no sources at all. He's Romanian so it's obvious that he's biased. Sorry Olahus, but Romania is not in Central Europe. Unless you can find a source in English stating that Romania is in central Europe, it stays off. You shouldn't bring your personal bias to an encyclopedia. Stop the edit wars please. --Buffer v2 (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia rule who constrains me to quote a source in English. --Olahus (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there any admins out there cause this is getting a wee-bit ridiculous. Ohalus isn't replying to my posts on his "talk" so I don't know how to address this. His references aren't valid (It looks like the one he put for Romania was from some www of a firm, and it was IN Romanian), and if you look at all his edits, they're favorable towards Romania. Why? Cause he's Romanian and is obviously biased. --Buffer v2 (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I replied in your talk page. I brought sources, you brought nothing. Besides, I'm not biased. And how do you know that I an a Romanian? And what are you? A Turk? --Olahus (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, about time. Your profile says you have a Romanian wiki page - which would obviously lead me to that conclusion. I'm Canadian with a German-Croatian-Dutch background. I don't need the sources - you're the one who's changing the article - you should provide a source - not your POV, which is what we've been getting. Find a source that says Romania belongs to Central Europe, and I'll be satisfied (your Croatia reference has no link btw). So far you've failed to do that. You've used some firm site from Romania (don't speak the language) but highly doubt that it mentions anything about Central Europe or the percentages that you've been throwing around. --Buffer v2 (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've translated your reference (my bad, it was in German), and it says nothing about Central Europe. It talks about why Germans should invest in Romania. The percentages that you showed by the reference slot are nowhere to be found. Ironically, theres a section of the page that says "[Romania is...] the ideal call center location in Eastern Europe". Care to explain this? --Buffer v2 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You translated nothing. This is the text: Durch die ehemalige Zugehörigkeit des westlichen Landesteils zum Österreich-Ungarischen Reich zeichnen sich die Rumänen durch eine mitteleuropäisch geprägte Kultur und Mentalität aus. --Olahus (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The web page you are talking about is [5]. It is an advertisement by a Cologne businessman who wants Germans to invest in Romania. It says that Romania is an "ideal location for a call center in Eastern Europe", and mentions as an advantage the cultural proximity of Romania to Germany, given the strong central European influence on Romanian culture and mentality. I do not consider it a good source. (The NATO report [6] is a better source, I think, but far from ideal).

I think the article should mention that countries such as Romania are sometimes counted as Central European, or under the influence of Central European culture (whatever that is...), but I would not list Romania in the list at the beginning of the article.

--Austrian (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you jump to conclusions too fast. Romania, as it is well known, is considered by all major sources as being part of Central Europe.--Marc KJH (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in biased opinions from Romanians. What major sources? No encyclopedia lists them as in Central Europe, neither does the CIA World Factbook. Do a search in Google for "Romania is in Central Europe" (w/ the quotations), and you'll come up with 3 entries... nothing from any academic sources - only opinions on a message board. Do it for other real Central European countries and you'll see thousands of entries.

P.S. Ohalus, your source is hardly a credible one. It's a site promoting investment in Romania... CONSIDER THE SOURCE. Romania is not a typical Central European country (and it's news to me that some even consider it in Central Europe) - it's an Orthodox country in Southeastern/Eastern Europe and it's really ridiculous that anyone can add any made up fact on here and have it stay. However, I would be more than happy to come to a fair compromise and have Romania and Croatia listed as "sometimes considered Central European" --Buffer v2 (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Buffer, you're ridiculous. I answered already yesterday those stupid questions in your talk page. I think you have nothing better to do in your real life. And don't explain me how Romania is, because I surely do know it better. Good night and sleep well. --Olahus (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Olahus, Romania is part of Central Europe. There's no doubt about it. Panel 2008 (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ohalus, I'd recommend that you just stick with the one account. ;) Thanks. Furthermore, stop reverting people's edits. And you just don't seem to leave any room for compromise. Stop being stubborn please. This isn't the "Ohalus encyclopedia" - it's an open encyclopedia for all. You're free to write one of your own on your own time if you wish, but here, at least make an attempt to work with others. --Buffer v2 (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you think that there is only one person here? There are more. I'm not Olahus and you should know that your variant sucks. Romania is indeed part of Central Europe. Panel 2008 (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's called IPs "Panel 2008". Please stick to your Olahus account. --Buffer v2 (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you suffer from PARANOIA. Please check a doctor first. Panel 2008 (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please, refrain from personal attacks. Also, assume good faith. All information can be added, but has to be grounded in verifiable, trustworthy resources. If the claim that the new states belong to Central Europe is true (meaning that this category is commonly used in some circles, be it academic or just by average Joes), it definitely should be possible to support it with sensible and credible sources in English. Pundit|utter 00:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

He started first with allegations. He should stop first. Panel 2008 (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not about who started first, but about who is mature enough to be the first to stop. Anyways, I hope you both will be able to respect the rules and constructively contribute to Wikipedia :) Pundit|utter 18:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove "Culturally Central-European" section

This section should be removed. It's completely AMBIGUOUS. There is no "Central European" culture, and really, the only thing that could touch on it is the Catholic nature of the countries in the region (in which case, some of the countries listed shouldn't even be on there). Furthermore, there are no references supporting any of those. Comments please.--Buffer v2 (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not ambiguous at all. It must stay. Panel 2008 (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Central European culture does exist, even if it's often ignored. If you need some readings, click here. Regards, Montessquieu (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct map

Correct map should be add it. It should include whole Romania. Panel 2008 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

why is romania on here?

Hi all. First time editor! usually just stick to reading wikipedia but came across this article and was confused as to why romania is on the list. it may sometimes be considered central european but comon' if you took a random sample, how many people would really include romania in the list? if you add romania, then you might as well add serbia and maybe even the ukraine and bosnia because they are sometimes considered in central europe too but they surely dont belong as the common definition. the common definition includes the countries that are listed by encyclopedias and the CIA world factbook. just because you find one source listing a country as central europe doesnt make it always belong in the definition. its a loose term! post your opinions. i can see this was talked about earlier on this discussion page but i think a few users on here are being somewhat stubborn and biased because they are from romania..... dont attack me please. just making an observation. not into the drama. but i def agree that it should be sometimes considered central european but if it is added in that category add other countries like serbia, ukraine, bosnia and croatia because im sure it would be easy to find sources for them too. --136.159.195.7 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I used to think so, too, but my (german) encyclopedia at home actually does list Romania as part of Central Europe "in the wider sense" (it does not list any other Balkan countries, though). I can look up the exact description (and the title of the encyclopedia) after easter holiday, if you like. But encyclopedias are not citeable on WP anyway, so you may as well just believe me. Yaan (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Romania is a central european country. That's all. It's not even Balkanic. Panel 2008 (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm yes it is. I'd like to see that German encyclopedia source. Yes, in the "wider sense", thus it shouldn't be listed as always being Central European because it's not. Through my research (I've actually done a paper on this in university), I've found more sources listing Croatia, and even Bosnia and Serbia as Central European than Romania. Sorry but I (and most others), except the Romanian members here (you're right OP, Panel 2008 is completely biased - denying that Romania isn't partly in the Balkans??) agree that Romania should be listed as "Sometimes" Centrally European.

P.S. Panel, if you don't have anything useful to contribute, then consider not posting at all? It seems like all your replies on this page are one sentence replies with no explanation of your thoughts or outside support. --Buffer v2 (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just one more thing - you cannot claim that Romania is ALWAYS considered Central European when encyclopedias, and sources like the CIA World Factbook obviously contradict that claim (e.g. CIA World Factbook lists it as a Southeastern European country). It just doesn't make sense does it? --Buffer v2 (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep your own original research elsewhere. If you can't accept the reality is your own problemPanel 2008 (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's my "original research" (what does that mean exactly? Yes, I did do the research), and it's valid. It's not my opinion. I have valid sources for the recent changes I made, I suggest that you play by the rules and stop reverting my edits. Furthermore, what do you mean by "unfair changes" in your edit summary? --Buffer v2 (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Read about WP:OR and accept that you don't have a consensus. If you want to be blocked you may continue the way you started. Panel 2008 (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Btw, you don't have a consensus with Romania being added to the main list. There's only a few of you, who are clearly biased in the matter contributing your thoughts. This isn't the first time someone has questioned why Romania is on the list. --Buffer v2 (talk) 06:50, 21 March 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)

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 [7] 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 [8]. 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 [[9]] 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 [10]. 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)

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)

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)

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 3 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)

Defamatory and slanderous accusation 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)