Talk:Eastern Europe

Turkey

Turkey is definitely in Western Europe because it is Muslim and NATO member.--Certh 09:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean Eastern Europe. For me, it's transcontinental. 217.159.144.141 (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

How is Turkey not listed in South-eastern Europe when Cyprus is? Actually, why isn't it listed in the first place? The beginning of the article has sources from the CIA and UN that lists Turkey as part of Southern Europe. In most organizations, it is considered part of Europe (including being eligible to be in the EU), and geographically, it has a part in Europe. Although small, it contains its largest city (Istanbul), which is also one of the largest cities in Europe. 67.80.124.125 (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Huntington, religions and civilizations

"As the ideological division of the Cold War has now disappeared, the cultural division of Europe between Western Christianity, on the one hand, and Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Islam, on the other, has reemerged." Because Huntington says so? WTF? "It follows the so-called Huntington line of "clashing civilizations" corresponding roughly to the eastern boundary of Western Christianity in the year 1500. This line runs along what are now the eastern boundaries separating Norway, Finland, Estonia and Latvia from Russia, continues east of Lithuania, cuts in northwestern Ukraine, swings westward separating Transylvania from the rest of Romania, and then along the line now separating Slovenia, Croatia and northern Serbia from the rest of ex-Yugoslavia. In the Balkans this line coincides with the historic border between the Hungarian Kingdom (later Habsburg) and Ottoman empires, whereas in the north it marks the then eastern boundaries of Kingdom of Sweden and Teutonic Order, and the subsequent spread of Lutheran Reformation. The peoples to the west and north of the Huntington line are Protestant or Catholic; they shared most of the common experiences of Western European history – feudalism, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution.

The 1995 and 2004 enlargements arguably brought the European Union's eastern border up to the boundary between Western and Eastern Orthodox civilizations." Again, what the heck is Eastern Orthodox civilization? "Most of Europe's historically Protestant and Roman Catholic countries (with the exception of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Croatia, and the various European microstates) were now EU members, while most of Europe's historically Eastern Orthodox countries (with the exception of Greece and Cyprus) were outside the EU." The middle ages have long passed, the inclusion criteria in the EU does not depend on what the population believes for fuck's sake. Aside from that the article is about Eastern Europe, not the EU.

"This was, however, temporary, as the 2007 accession of Bulgaria and Romania, both predominantly Eastern Orthodox and located in Southeastern Europe, have shifted the EU's borders further east to reach the west coast of the Black Sea." Wow. So what?

First sign your comments. Second, I don't see any discussion here so your removal of that section was not warranted. I don't exactly see how the section in question is "racist" but I do see how it's important for it to remain in the article. Huntington is one of the most widely read and respected political scientists which gives his opinions more weight than virtually anything any editor may write here. JRWalko 17:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This article presents Huntingtons book with hisview/definition of "civilization along religious lines" as a source and reference. Reading his article he himself seems to have recanted/changed his views and conclusions. Besides all that Western Europe and Eastern Europe aren't and never were so easily defined. Poland and Slovenia are largely Catholic, while Greece is largely Greek Orthodox yet... they seem to be on the other camp (you know what I mean). Then we have Albania, and others with large muslim populations. These are only the major examples, there are more that show that Huntington was simply wrong. Does his (recanted) view upon the matter have to appear at all? The religious point should be mentioned (a la Western Europe) but his view and his didn't somehow redefine the whole concept of Eastern Europe, simple as that. In my opinion we should remove all references to his book asap. Flamarande (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No Flamarande we don't know WHAT U MEAN by saying Poland, Slovenia and Greece in the other hand seem to be on the other camp.Can u be so polite to enlight us here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.209.38 (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Western and Eastern Europe

Topographical maps of Western and Eastern Europe from U.S. Army Topographic Command from 1950s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.111.58 (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

updating the definition w/o erasing previous entry

Hi All,

I read this article a few ago and have been thinking about the definition ever since. I don't think the definition is entirely wrong or bad but I do disagree with it in many ways. However, this isn't a precise science and hence I don't think it would be right for me to change or even erase what the original author wrote. I would like to expand on it and give a different, and I believe qualified, opinion. I've used wiki for years but never even thought of registering until I came across this article. But I love the tool and would like to contribute to its quality and development. So please get in touch with me and tell what I need/ can do.

Thanks

jida Jidapubic (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to contribute but I suppose your opinion is not more or less 'qualified' than other editors'. So please edit the section, but be ready for criticism if appropriate. Gregorik (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Common British definition of "Eastern Europe"

The common British definition of the term is synonymous with "former Soviet bloc states". In the UK an "Eastern European" is anyone from a former Soviet bloc state. They are often a target of news media, especially right wing papers like the Daily Express, talking about Romanian gypsies and so on, portraying the Roma people the same as the Romanian people, which they are not.--Tablemount (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This error is covered in the article: "As of the early 21st century, The Economist and other sources argue that "Eastern Europe" is a mala fides (consciously misleading and inaccurate) socio-economic and cultural stereotype routinely used by Western conservatives for post-Communist countries.[13][14] It is asserted that the double standard becomes apparent when a comparison between Western Europe and the more developed regions of "Eastern Europe" reveals broad similarity in indicators such as quality of life, budget deficit and corruption. In fact, a global quality of life index by International Living (2010) places four "Eastern European" countries in the top 30 with Hungary leading at the 20th place.[15] "[T]he term 'Eastern Europe' has become meaningless, both as a generic geographic or economic label."" Gregorik (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the paragraph above mentioned because it is an opinion article and not a definition. Furthermore, this opinion does not reflect any official position. It would be misleading to cite only one columnist where there are many others that use this term daily without the negative connotation above mentioned. In fact, there are several Wikipedia policies aimed to avoid such an unbalanced view. It may be certainly mentioned somewhere in the article discussing different opinions on the matter, but certainly not in the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.120.67.3 (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the preceding opinion.Arcillaroja (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The only "opinion piece" here is your argument. The paragraph states facts, is well placed and justified. Gregorik (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the argument of one [anonymised] magazine writer. I think you can add something about the term being criticised, and cite the piece in question ... but the amount of attention this addition tries to give to it gives it WP:Undue weight, esp. as most usages of "Eastern European" are cultural/geographic, not economic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to argue against that the negative connotations of the term "Eastern Europe" are important to discuss. It's obviously not the argument of a single writer. I agree with WP:Undue weight (for now), so I'll start a new section in the article dealing with these connotations. Gregorik (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Shortened paragraph included in a subsection. The info is relevant and should stay. Gregorik (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think someone else already answered you... But I think you already know that don't you? Anyway... I think it's good to remember it once in a while--Arcillaroja (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"In fact, the notion of ‘Eastern Europe’ as a geographical and political entity is of very recent origin. It took hold during the Cold War when it reflected the newly created reality of a post-1945 Europe forcibly partitioned into two mutually hostile power blocs. But, as the author explains, two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the notion of an Eastern Europe that takes in the Czech Republic—situated in the continent’s middle—while placing Greece—a country at its south-eastern fringe—in Western Europe, is obsolete and misleading. The definition ignores the very different ways the formerly communist-ruled European countries have developed since the end of the Cold War, and can actually be harmful, as was demonstrated during the recent economic downturn." (Christopher Cviic, Royal Institute of International Affairs Journal) http://www.oldcastlebooks.co.uk/main.php?select_isbn=9781842433409

You cannot really argue with the Royal Institute of International Affairs, or Leon Marc (currently an ambassador to The Netherlands), who wrote the linked book on the subject. The subject is far from undue weight, and is going back. Gregorik (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Added the article to WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks. Gregorik (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between an opinion and a definition. What you mentioned above is clearly from the firs sort. Furthermore, not everyone that uses this term has necessarily a political view. I want also to remind you that if you as Hungarian national feel that the term is patronizing or racist or whatever, is just your feeling, and not representative of an entire population or set of nations. There are changes indeed in history and in the way geopolitical maps are conceived but we cannnot change how reality is. Saying things such as that there are no difference between western an eastern Europe which is what this paragraph seem to imply is simply laughable. As for the templates, if you feel that this can help, then they are welcome.--Arcillaroja (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"we cannot change how reality is". The reality is that the geopolitical term 'Eastern Europe' is ludicrously obsolete and you're hard pressed to find any progressive thinkers/politicians who do not agree with that. This is not an opinion but hard (geopolitical/economic) fact. If the article fails to reflect this, then the article is out of touch with reality. The templates are helpful to guide folks until this article takes shape. Gregorik (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

" The reality is that the geopolitical term 'Eastern Europe' is ludicrously obsolete" See? another opinion :) --Arcillaroja (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

When a geopolitical 'opinion' is coming from an established historian, politician or think tank, it automatically becomes a definition. When a huge body of historians begin to opine that the label 'Eastern Europe' is obsolete, patronizing etc., it becomes a prevalent definition. That is what's happening here. Gregorik (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. But I have to disagree... There are many think tanks and other (well funded I may add) "personalities" or institutions which aim is to support a certain view or set of ideas. That does not mean that these ideas become a definition (thank God for that!). It does not even mean that they are true. --Arcillaroja (talk) 09:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, I obviously agree, as any sane person would. A number of wrong ideas came from the wrong think tanks throughout the past century. One of these was Nazism, another one was the stereotypical Cold War term 'Eastern Europe'. Both of these are (and should be) phased out by now. Gregorik (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is important to include all of the different definitions that some English speaker may use. This is a reference for those who want to understand, not a politcal-correctness contest. It should be noted that some of the terms may be disliked by those living in the aareas. I don't have a problem with this having an English centered view of the topic because it is an _English Word_. The objections should be noted in the article because they provide information. But, the varying definitions should all be included, no matter how offensive somebody finds them. We are trying to help people understand speakers, understand history, and understand how to use terms. There is too much emotion inserted into the information!Wax025 (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a clearly problematic definition, since the term is misused for political purposes, even though it contradicts science (Geography in this case). The boundary between Europe and Asia is defined by Ural mountains. How can whole Russia be a part of Eastern Europe? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent disruptive edits

What exactly is wrong with this information? Can you give any reasons that cite wiki policy? I suspect its just prejudice. Those statements are balanced, not overly controversial, and well sourced. What more do you want? ValenShephard (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:Undue weight and WP:WEASEL just to name two. Further, adding a lot of references does not mean that the statement is stronger. Some references provided are rather weak in that they are blogs, websites that are devoted to one view, or papers that are addressing other issues and mention this as a side topic. You can also google how many times the term Eastern Europe is used to refer to these countries and then say something like "the majority of western media uses this term to refer to blablabla", and then add big media names. That is POV. Also trying to educate the reader by repeating the idea that these countries are malevolently named Eastern Europe by conservatives is not the role of wikipedia. --Arcillaroja (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As usual, Arcillaroja should expect to be ignored due to his long history of (ethnocentric, ultraconservative etc.) bias on WP, and his edits should be reverted safely. (I'm a longtime contributor to WikiProject Countering Systemic bias.) In the meantime, I've added this neglected article to multiple Wikiprojects. Gregorik (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess we will need to keep trying to keep the well sourced info in the article, even if itopposes Arcillaroja (if indeed he does have a long history of disruption). Of course, edits referring negatively to conservativism will offend his sensibilities. ValenShephard (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not know I was a conservative :) Anyway that does not change this discussion does it? --Arcillaroja (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The most important thing is that I dont agree with the reasons you gave for removal. Undue weight? Nah, there are other viewpoints offered on how to name the region, so this gives a better view of the opinions in reality. Weasle words? Which ones? I would glady help remove/replace them. ValenShephard (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

a better view of the opinions in reality? Why is it important to repeat one view several times throughout the article? Adding links to such a view and repeating this idea several times is POV. Gregorik... we know each other a long time and It's ok to be courteous. Anyway, if you feel like scaring me off by threats or by trying to isolate me... be my guest. If you want to accuse me of being disruptive because I try to keep this article NPOV, just send and ArbCom request. --Arcillaroja (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic article

Real encyclopedias like English Britannica and German Brockaus encyclopedia don't consider Poland Hugary Czech R. and Slovakia as Eastern European countries. It must be removed, because it's unencyclopedic. Moreover European Scientific academies (and the British Royal Society) use the Central Europe term. European Union also use this term for the countries. Only united Nations use old cold war terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.88.240 (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, but please give examples (links) of these academies so that their definitions can be incorporated in the article. Gregorik (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's funny to agree with yourself :)--Arcillaroja (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be a new user, but it's not me. I'm waiting for his input. Gregorik (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To user Arcillaroja: I could care less what you believe, but the truth is that other Budapest editor is not me and I don't know him. Now please stop polluting the board with your wikistalking [1] and get a life. Gregorik (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What a coincidence! ==>> [[2]] --Arcillaroja (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you reverted what is standing above? It's not my fault that you ip was recognized by the system. BTW, do you know that is not allowed what you did? If you don't believe me we can ask for and admin intervention, but I don't want it to go that far because I think that you would be banned then. Just try to be neutral and friendly. --Arcillaroja (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt I would be banned for anything I'd do. On the same note, if you check my page you'll see that I'm a wikisloth. Sorry for deleting your line. I'm not obsessive about the article, which has a low viewership anyway (ranked 8991 [3]) and I agree to disagree. So I'm open to discussion with you and others. :) Gregorik (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ruthenia

My nationality is Lemko Rusyns http://www.lemko-olk.com/map_lem_2008.html) as the last Ruthenians whom can understand old Rus language (http://izbornyk.org.ua/psrl3235/lytov02.htm), was former compatriot Andy Warhol who used to tell: „I am from nowhere“. I would like to promote our old history renesaince included our old Rus language and a new sensationally discover by paleonthologists into Caspic sea (http://roksalan.narod.ru/sitemap1.htm) and on my website (http://www.jancoo.eu/) I will write both English and Ruthenians, my mother tongue and promote Wiki projects and opensorce apllications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.24.203.241 (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Definition

I changed "Eastern Europe is a region placed in the eastern part of Europe. The term is highly..." to "eastern Europe is a highly ... term. The old first sentence tells the reader nothing that isn't obvious. Huw Powell (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Definition

I would think that a 'Linguistic Definition' would constitute a definition of Eastern Europe. It's no secret many people define Eastern Europe as Slavic Europe, however incorrect that may be. Would be good to add a section regarding it, brief description of divisions of Slavic languages and it's relationship to other definitions(ie, West Slavic and Central Europe), link to the Slavic Language article, add the oddly placed Language map(found next to history) next to it, and another sentence regarding other non-slavic languages spoken in Eastern Half of Europe. Just my two cents. (polskaGOLA) (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding controversy

There is a lot of dispute about the term so I decided to add it. I hope to complete it soon. --Rejedef (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You've introduced some very good new links to the article. Expect some resistance though from some elements. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the term is actually common in European academic papers so it may be better to just accept it. One can continue to reject the reality and use W and E Europe as in 1970s but they have less and less usage today. I see no reason to oppose well-referenced facts, unless going into vandalism by simply deleting the whole section. That would undermine, however the idea of a free encyclopaedia through censoring criticism. I would appreciate your support, however, hoping you understand the change that took place in late 1980s.--Rejedef (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding opinionated information supporting a certain point of view is NNPOV. Selecting sources in order to support certain ideas is called cherrypicking. There is a clear difference between East and West Europe in terms of culture, language groups, social and economic standards, history, religion, racial groups, migratory movements, etc. Nobody can deny this. The information added is highly opinionated and should never be presented as facts. Arcillaroja (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I added names of scholars having similar standing. Are you so sure? Culture: Check which areas were involved in intellectual movements. Language groups: Please check to which lands certain languages are actually assigned. Social Standards: check indices such as gender equality. Economic standards: Please verify. History: please explain what you mean? Religion: Check where the Western Church (Catholic and Protestant) actually operates. Racial groups: I thought Europeans are prevalently Caucasian. Do you mean racial sub-cathegories? Even they are profoundly mixed. Check where say Nordic race lives. To be honest, I find your grouping on race very controversial as it it rather racist. Migrations: Please verify it. We can certainly deny this. Many scholars, like Larry Wolff, do deny this. There is no proof it is highly opinionated. If you think it is opinionated, you should be able to prove which part of it.--Rejedef (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please can you add citations for the various scholars you claim have this opinion. Please can you also find statements of the more normal view, and give citations. The article in The Economist was written as though the concept of Eastern Europe was invented in 1945. It suggests that as the conditions of 1945-1991 no longer apply, the term should be dropped. I had thought that the concept of Eastern Europe has existed for hundreds of years. This is where research into the "controversy" would be useful, rather than merely recycling one side's POV.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The concept is older, but it did no have such disapproving meaning and it was also unshaped until 19th/20th century, according to Iryna Vushko: http://www.timeandspace.lviv.ua/files/research_papers/Vushko_empires_2.pdf. What do you mean by 'normal'?--Rejedef (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

One shall have a clearer idea what is 'normal'.--Rejedef (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Rejedef, I'll try to contribute to your Controversy section in January (no time till then). Larry Wolff ([4]) and Edward Lucas ([5]) are excellent sources, but you need clickable reference links. Cheers. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I might be inactive, too. Thanks for your help. I find it actually fascinating because all my life I believed in these divisions because I just took them as I was taught but there are people who actually challenged theat misled understanding, brought some facts and proved that we ned to think again about European identity. Personally I experienced that Europeans are actually very similar, despite nationalistic approaches.--Rejedef (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyway: these are resources I found very interresting (sorry for repeating):

• Iryna Vushko: :::*http://www.timeandspace.lviv.ua/files/research_papers/Vushko_empires_2.pdf
• Edward Lucas: a TED lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcTOSxcv2_o
• Larry Wolff: the whole book is very interesting http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JHm2c1jg2mAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Larry+Wolff+eastern+europe&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W9L7TonHJpGyhAeV9OXWAQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Larry%20Wolff%20eastern%20europe&f=false

--Rejedef (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

@Rejedef, I understand your point of view, and I assume good faith but you have to understand that wikipedia does not try to challenge anything, and neither should we. That there are some scholars that have certain opinions, do not make them facts. Similarly adding only references and statements supporting one view (that European identity does not have divisions) and not the other is in itself POV. And btw, an opinion column in the economist is by no means a reliable source.

Well, though there is a lot of controversy which we must include.--Rejedef (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Gregorik, If there is no East or West Europe, Why should there be Central Europe? I suppose we should delete the article all together? Btw, I thought you said you were not going to pay much attention to these articles... Arcillaroja (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I think we definitely should pay attention to these articles but not from very biased and obsolete point of view. I do support Gregorik in his views. --Rejedef (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Look: It is not writing what I think or staring facts. This is just mentioning opinions of distinguished scholars who actually spent a lot of time in their life, and not on Wikipedia to research the topic. This is why I added at the beginning, or the end of sentences, or paragraphs, expressions such as 'according to Wolff'.

Some organisations do not recognise regions in Europe, others do, while doing it in many ways.--Rejedef (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Geographical group - even more controversy: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/divisions.html--Rejedef (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

More to research: http://141.74.33.52/stagn/JordanEuropaRegional/tabid/71/Default.aspx http://www.sofiaecho.com/2010/01/10/839942_the-economist-eastern-europe-a-bogus-term http://www.ce-review.org/99/23/lovatt23.html --Rejedef (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. These have been discussed already in Central Europe talk page. I'll try to add some neutral wording to the article first. I do think that we should use information regarding the controversy of these and related geopolitical terms. Arcillaroja (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, though we need to actually consult it all with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Western_Europe#Adding_Controversy --Rejedef (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Arcillaroja, I'm not sure if anyone cares whether you agree or disagree with any developments on these articles: you have the wrong kind of history of editing on WP, and your edits will most probably be reverted. Remember that I declined to take you to RfC/UserConduct last year. That said, I still assume good faith basically. (Btw, all I said is that I won't be a regular on these pages.) ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 16:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Gregorik, try to be less aggressive with me or I'll be the one that will take you to RfC/UserConduct. Don't forget that you accused me before and the whole thing backfired. I think you should stick to your previous resolution of only intervening in more important articles than this and related ones. If you think you are able to contribute neutrally, please be a bit less arrogant. About the only source that we have, the economist opinion column, I think it is not a reliable source to work with. What else do we have to support this section? Arcillaroja (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, guys - maybe let's stop the sort of debating and actually put the section to the article because it has been discussed for 2 weeks already? If you ant to edit it, you are free to do so but please don't delete the whole section, ok? --Rejedef (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I had thought that you were going to develop this and put in something balanced, and with more citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

Is this better? It needs citations and statements of who these people are before it would be ready.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to understand somehow what Wolff, Iskandar, Wilczur, and Szulecki are saying (and when). The citation for Wolff quotes two book titles, but gives no idea of what he is arguing. This really needs a lot more work. Showing the counter-argument is almost impossible, because the article does not explain what the academics are allegedly saying. All we really have is a magazine article, that could easily have been a straw man.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think that the Controversy section is warranted. If no one else does it, I'll wikify and clarify it a bit later. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about this addition?

According to Martin W. Lewis and Kären E. Wigen, since the fall of the iron curtain the boundaries of Eastern Europe have been pushed eastwards constantly giving rise to “The bizarre situation… of a continent with a West an a Center but no East”

I also think that we should make this subsection also usable for Central Europe and Western Europe since these articles are closely related and affected by the same controversy. Arcillaroja (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, but then please be proactive about it; that does not include deleting referenced information from the article. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 14:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok I'll add the sentence above. The edit you refer to is about a paper that is NOT from the UN. That's is why I delete that. Please note that the information is in my opinion relevant and that is why I think it's well placed. It is just not from the UN. Arcillaroja (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Extra info

One definition describes Eastern Europe as a cultural (and econo-cultural) entity: the region lying between Central Europe and Western Asia, with main characteristics consisting in Byzantine, Orthodox and minor and limited Ottoman influences.

The references mentioned do not support this statement. In the first one you add the webpage of the StAGN. In the mentioned webpage there is no mention whatsoever of the information given (namely there is no explicit mention to the cultural differences of Central and Eastern Europe) and there is certainly no mention to the historical perspectives that are given. Please note that there is a link in this page to a paper written in German that it is not offered in English and therefore it’s unsuitable for the English wikipedia unless this is translated. It is also important to know that the distinction between Eastern and Central Europe is highly controversial and does not belong to the lead.

The second reference, it is said that eastern Europe is "a strip of thirteen countries that runs north and south in an uneven band several hundred miles wide, from the Baltic Sea to the Aegean[...], comprise five major religious groups, three of which are Christian". This means that the countries you want to exclude from Eastern Europe are included in this definition although not explicitly. The Characteristics mentioned in order to divide Eastern from the rest DO NOT EXPRESS that there is a clear difference between eastern and central Europe. And this is not my opinion, this is what the reference says and DOES NOT say.

Some of the Western advocates of this view are the OECD, the World Bank, and US Vice President Joe Biden. The references for the supposed claim do not discuss the difference between central and eastern Europe and of course they do not define these regions in nay way.

Hence removed. Gregorik, I'd like to point, once again, that adding information with no suitable references in the hope that your personal interpretation or vision will be there as no one will take the time to check these references is contrary to what Wikipedia should be. It would be more useful to be less tendentious and more objective. These concepts are very controversial, and we should try to be as neutral as possible.

So this sentence is edited as follows:

One definition describes Eastern Europe as a cultural (and econo-cultural) entity: the region with main characteristics consisting in Byzantine, Orthodox and minor and limited Ottoman influences.

Arcillaroja (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Your statement that "a paper written in German that it is not offered in English and therefore it’s unsuitable for the English wikipedia" is not supported by Wikipedia policy. WP:NOENG says: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."--Toddy1 (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Toddy1, Thank you for the correction. Nevertheless I feel that it would be at least unfriendly to add strong statements to the lead based on a document that not every editor can read. I also think that if we include a reference to such a paper, it would be more neutral to add it to the Controversy section. Arcillaroja (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Central Europe

It isn't evident from the article why there is the section 'Central Europe'. For now, I've marked it as {{offtopic}}. It should either be explained right at the beginning of the section as well as in the lead, or the section should be removed. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eleassar! I'm not very sure if I understand your comment correctly. Would you like to delete any mention to 'Central Europe' from the article? The concept of Central Europe and the countries in this subsection are closely related to what Eastern Europe is. These countries are classified as Eastern or Central Europe depending on who writes about them. What do you think that it would be a good addition to this article? Arcillaroja (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I wanted to ask. What is the relationship between Central and Eastern Europe. This is not explained in the article so it seemed to me like the section should be removed. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 23:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Pre-1989 Map

This isn't actually a pre-1989 map since the countries have their current names.

Căluşaru' (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

ISN'T IT AN IRRATIONAL AND RACIST DIVISION? AND IS RUSSIA EUROPEAN OR NOT?

How about Russia? Does Russia belong to Europe, at least part of it stretchs from Ukrainian,Belorussian,Finnish and Norwegian vicinity to the Caucasus? If it does, isn't Eastern Europe located in Russia? And aren't countries such as Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary (as well as part of Russia) located in Western Europe? In fact AREN'T Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary part of Western Europe? Has anyone in the United Nations responsible for its irrational definitions of "Eastern Europe," "Western Europe," etc. (is he or she from the Third World, by the way?) ever looked at the map? By the way, "Eastern Europe" is at present a negative, racist term. It seems to have been such as a result of its use by the media individuals in US, Britain (strong hate-propaganda against the Poles there), Germany, France, Italy, Holland (again, strong hate propaganda against the Poles). The term is at present a synonym for "the worst dump." As a result, nobody wants to be in Eastern Europe anymore. I read in the wikipedia that Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania (located in the deep east of Europe, bordering Russia) are allegedly "Northern European" or "Western" countries now. On what grounds? Is it on the grounds of changed political interests? Should the terms "Eastern Europe," "Central Europe," "Western Europe","Northern Europe," and "Southern Europe" be properly redefined, preferrably by true-blue Europeans and not folks from the US or the Third World? Most importantly, shouldn't the term "Eastern Europe" be made a matter-of-fact, neutral term and not a disrespectful and hate-filled one? How can the term be made neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.130.171 (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Since someone came along with minor grammatical corrections and this popped up, I have to ask WTF? There has always been "European Russia" and other. "Eastern Europe" aligned to the former Soviet-dominated/annexex territories is a Cold War artifact, the heart of Europe, central Europe, lies within "Eastern Europe." Think former Austro-Hungarian empire as being at the center. Any of these terms are hate-filled only if used by hate-filled people, which has nothing to do with geography. Don't blame the terminology, hold the individual accountable. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Northern Caucasus is not part of Europe

Southern Caucasus is part of Asia, so how Northern Caucasus can be Eastern Europe?Also Caucasians are Asian people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.235.163.18 (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversy
Even though this term "Eastern Europe" is in common usage, some academics and journalists have criticised it. For example, Edward Lucas took the definition of Eastern Europe as being the former communist block, and suggested that the East-West divide became obsolete after the fall of the Iron Curtain. He argued that in terms of economics and governance, some "eastern European" countries were more advanced than some of what he called "western European" countries. His view is supported by Larry Wolff, Adel Iskandar, Aleksander Wilczur, and Kacper Szulecki.