Talk:Central Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Different points of view

My suggestion is to divide the article into the section of the perspective of different countries or groups of countries.

For example, in the countries of the cultural heritage of Habsburg monarchy (Czech R., Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia), generally accepted is the idea that the countries of this cultural heritage are central european. It is also important in this sense to mention that this concept of central Europe is the oldest one and enjoys (from the cultural and historical perspective) the biggest plausability. Note that "old" central Europe as described excludes Germany and Poland and, of course, Benelux countries.
Therefore, I deem that the map provided in the introduction is showing a biased view and the view that is strongly influenced by political development after 1990-ies.
Second issue is that after the fall of comunism there was a need to include a buffer-zone between old west and old east Europe. For that reason Germany and Poland were becoming central Europe only politicaly. For Germany it is reasonable because West Germany was part of west Europe and East Germany part of east Europe.
Geographicaly seen, none of these approaches is correct as the center of Europe (looked from east-west perspactive) is around Finnish-Russian border.
German term Mitteleuropa has nothing to do with central Europe as it was created and misused in the 30-ies in Germany to embrace Germany and Austria-Hungary as the countries of German interest.
Finally, the view that I find the most appropriate is the one taking into consideration history and culture. That one is what I have written at the beginning - lands of cultural heritage of Habsburg monarchy. All other views are not encyclopedical and are to much politicaly or only politicaly influenced. Despite that, all the views should be described but, of course, with the title of the section clearly showing whose approach it is and how old it is.

Reagrds,Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC) The states listed in the section States is totally biased. If there is a list of the concepts described under, then I dont see the point in listing the countries on the base of only one view. If it is done so, then the list must be linked with the criteria that it follows.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to make up a definition that someone finds most appropriate. The idea is to mirror what is done outside wp. For some texts from before 1930 that use "Central Europe" to refer to, among other countries, Germany, try this or this (p.79). I admit they may be not the most authorative sources on usage of the term Central Europe, but at least they are better than no source.
And Mitteleuropa is actually just the German word for Central Europe, just as Mittelamerika is the German word for Central Amerika and Mittelasien is one German word for Central Asia. For a list of (mostly) pretty old books that use the term, try google books. Yaan (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. I know what is German Mitteleuropa. The issue is that it is German POV and is pretty much defined since beginning of 20 century and later "misused". But then it should stand somewhere that it is German POV of central Europe. I have read a little bit english written papers from the period before WWI and they all go along with the "Habsburg Monarchy theory of central Europe" [1] p310 map; and even better one, describing what is central europe and how Germany included itself into it to create "cental powers" but much later in the 20th century [2]; ever since that time, central europe definitions are exclusively political. I suggest to describe central europe as historical and cultural term and not political or war or after cold war-related. The issue I am trying to explain that there are several aspects of the term like historical, cultural, political, geographical. Moreover it must be stated that the whole concept is disputed as political creation, for example by the majority of French authors. French authors (vast mayority) include UK, France and Germany to be west E, Poland part of east E. etc. Moreover, some countries listed as standardly central European are at the same time listed as west European (Switzerland, Austria and Germany). [3]. If this is the case, then it must be said in the article named "central E." that these countries are SOMETIMES included into central europe. Otherwise, both articles are misleading and refuting eachother.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that different authors have different opinions about what exactly is central europe, and that this should be reflected in the article. But I don't think there is anything contradictory about some countries being central european and some-other-european at the same time. Saying that Germany (including East Germany?) is part of Western Europe does not imply it can't be part of Central Europe at the same time. Just like the UK's membership in the Commonwealth of Nations does not mean that the UK can't be part of the Council of Europe. In particular, the UK's membership in the Council of Europe does not mean Great Britian is only "sometimes" part of the Commonwealth.
If you can find some sources that argue the whole term is a political creation, feel free to cite them in the article. But your map in [4] shows Germany and Italy just as prominently as it does show Austria-Hungary (maybe the wrong paper?), and your essay by György M. Vajda seems to be arguing for a new definition of what Central Europe is, rather than pointing out what was traditionally meant by the term (That said, he seems to make the claim that Austro-Hungaria was commonly known as the "Monarchy of Central Europe", but at least in the English language this claim, if that is what he meant, seems not so convincing.)
Also, I don't think this or this book (p. 603: "Central Europe may be considered as embracing the present numerous German States and Switzerland; including in the former those portions of the Austrian and Prussian empires which, previous to the French Revolution, belonged to the German empire") represent an exclusively German POV. Yaan (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My suggetion (1) is to remove the list of countries that is totally incosistent to the rest of the article. The list should have all the countries that are at least once (according to one view) part of central europe in one coherent list. The list states, for example, that Hungary is always considered CE, but later, there are several definitions that exclude Hungary, i.e. saying that Hungary is only sometimes included. (2) create maps for each concept explained. (3) delete the existing intro map as it is showing only one point of view and excluding, for example Russia, which is also sometimes included. There should also be said in the beginning that geographical central europe is at the crossroads of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, that is important fact that many seem to neglect.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but...

In Italy MittelEuropa is used and not Europa Centrale (the italian translation) or Central Europe, no. It's Mitteleurope! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. In Italy the current use of the term MittelEuropa is related to territories of Central Europe historically connected with the Austrian Empire and now parts of countries of Eastern and of Southern Europe: i.e. Austria,Czech Rep., Slovakia, Tanscarpathia, Galicia, Wolinia, Bucovina, Transylvania, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Trentino Alto Adige, Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia. Therefore Switzerland, Lombardy and Piedmont are not considered MittelEurope. --Deguef (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Memel terr. is Central Europe

By most def. the Memel Ter. of Lithuania (former East-Prussia) is part of Mitteleuropa. It should therefore be represented in the article and the map! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


  • I strongly object that the part of Switzerland south of the Alps can be considered Central Europe. If it is the case also Northern Italy with Milan and Turin should be considered Central Europe. --Deguef (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources that discuss whether the whole or parts of Switzerland and Italy are part of Central Europe? That would be very helpful. — Kpalion(talk) 16:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently there are Swiss MPs who do think Switzerland is part of Central Europe, see [5], [6], [7] (via [8]). Obviously different people are going to have different opinions about what exactly Central Europe is. Maybe the current map is not particularly useful in conveying the vagueness of the term. There used to be a different map, but it was removed by a certain user who insisted on Romania being part of Central Europe. Yaan (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I would consider Lugano as Southern Europe, Geneva as Western Europe and Bern as Central Europe.--Deguef (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Southern europe?

According to the wikipedia article on southern europe either from a geo-political , mathematical , as defined by the UN ..etc, many of the balkan countries should be included in the definition of southern europe. A personal definition of southern europe cannot be accepted in this article and should rely at lest in the UN definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


I have read all the criteria that are listed in the explanatory part (curent views od CE). What I find wrong in the article is the initial map that is provided. I counted all countries according to all concepts/views of CE listed and the map is not showing coherent information compared to these concepts. The following information is showing how many times each country depending on different criterion (excluding three encyclopedias) is qualified for central Europe. Czech R, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia: 8 times each; Croatia: 7 times; Austria, Slovenia: 6 times; Germany: 3 times; Switzerland: 2 times What seems to be wrong is that countries like Austria, Slovenia, Germany and Switzerland are shown on the map as CE, even though they are part of CE by far less criteria than Croatia is, and Croatia in not shown in the map nor on the list as CE. The second thing done wrong is the Map of Central Europe, according to Lonnie R. => the map is not showing what is written in the text about his criteria. The article must be redone. Especially the list of countries that states that according to MAJORITY of sources Germany and Switzerland are included in CE. That is refuted in the article later on. The map should therefore state different position.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

We didn't add all maps and theories, you can only see some of them. The map in the intro was created based on discussion lasting for months (or rather years?) in which many editors participated. See earlier discussion, archives for a number of proposals. Squash Racket (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand, but even the maps provided for separate views are false. For example the one based on Lonnie R.; according to him, Kingdom of Hungary and Polish Kingdom and the area inbetween I gues is CE.=> Slovenia does not belong to be coloured red and the red colour should be extended to Lituania and Croatia as these two kingdoms were part of Polish-Lituanian and Hungarian Kingdom respectively. In the section states in the introduction sentence incorrect is the statement that majority of sources include the following states, as it is later in the article (by naming all the sources/views) refuted. The second group of countries (under) is part of central europe according to the same criteria (history, geography, culture) so I find this explanation redundant. It is also not correct to state that some sources ADD some of the countries from the second list. The example would be the fifts concept, where Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and probabbly all orthodox south slavs would be CE. So these countries would not be added to the first list but would create CE on its own, excluding the first list of "majority sources countries".Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The "map of Johnson" was based on how the World Bank and the OECD defines CE. (He only cited them in his book.)
Johnson added important notes, but we won't create additional maps based on every additional remark. Notes help the readers to better understand the concept.
I repeat: not all sources/views are mentioned in the theories' section, it is only a selection. It is also important to not equalize a non-English pocket encyclopedia with a major English reference. Squash Racket (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Squash Rocket do you really think that English Encyklopedia is better then for example Croatian only becouse its English?please lets be serious here.Polish, Hungarian or Croatian scholars can tell u far more about Central Europe than anybody else can.Definately more than so gloryfied by you them Big English Sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

@squash rocket I strongly oppose your approach. Not only you are rasistic with it but are also trying to say that science outside english speaking community is "under" the encyclopedic level. The aim of wikipedia is not to reffer to sources from a certain language region but to discover truth and reveal it in an easy way to general public. You can look at any other language pocket (say russian) and see that the russian science view is not dominant in the article. Furthermore, it is not present in the article at all. Second, central Europe was and will never be a geographic term. If this is what some "english speaking" scientist that you are reffering to are saying, than they should be avoided in evary sense.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

and tell me please, which approach was used to list the countries? None. It is done arbitrary without any criteria. Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic unscientific article

First of all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all famous Encyclopedias use the Central Europe term. All European Geography society of national scientific academies use the C.E. term too. Therefore the denial of this term is unencyclopedic and unscientific. It is a geographical (scientific) qustion rather than political.

Encyclopedia Britannica Cambridge Encyclopedia American Columbia Encyclopedia

German Brochaus Encyclopedia

French Larousse and French Encyclopædia Universalis

All of them Use the Central Europe term.

United Nations is chiefly a political organisation rather than scientific.

Europe (orthographic projection).svg
Geography is one of exact sciences. For that reason, geographic center of Europe is located in Ukraine. If you argue that C.E. is something that does not include the center of Europe - it is no longer scientific in the scope of geography, but some other approach. E.g. West Germany is located in the west Quarter of the continent and according to nongeographical criteria is located in C.E. Likewise, Ukraine is geographical central Europe, but due to usage of nongeographical criteria is classified into east Europe. All of the sources that you listed above use political borders (the borders of modern states)to determine the term. Therefore, they (even though encyclopedias) use political, cultural, historical or other criteria (not geographical) to define the term. I don's see a reason why all other marginal views deserve their space on this article and the worldwide institution not? Explain why do you dislike UN? It is the most quoted source in Wikipedia, btw. Please sign your work next time. Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Your map is based on political (country) borders instead of geographical! UN use old cold-war terms. Ukraine is not located in the geographical center of Europe. It is easliy determinable when you see a map! Encyclopedias were written by academic scholars and scientists, they represent te official scientific viewpoint of a country. And all important Europen encyclopedias use the Central-Europe term! Please don't write nonsenses!-- (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You must have skipped history classes about cold war.
Extreme points of Europe.png
Depending on geographic method used, the center of Europe is either in Belarus, Lithuania, Poland or Ukraine. French National Geographic Institute defines Lithuania to be center of the Continent. [9](This is science). Even if the most western point in Poland is taken, it is still dubious that Switzerland is CE and Belarus and Lithuania or Ukraine are not. This is evidence enough that the article is not explaining geographic CE but rather political or some other perspective.

Geographic c. of Europe [10]; Lithuania [11]; Ukraine [12] etc... If you were little more scientific, you would know that "official scientific viewpoint" does not exist, except when in the field of mathematics, and still, even there, there are contoversies.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You confuse geometry and geography:) Countries with Eastern Orthodox majority aren't Central European. They have neveer called as Central Europe. Why do you try to dispute an academic/encyclopedic fact? You can find Central Europe term and its countries in every national Encíclopedia. Therefore you lost the debate. Europe is a cultural term rather than physical reality. Europe and Asia is 1 and the same Continent. Read the Eurasia article. There are a artificial borderline between the two. The idea of separate Europe from Asia is based on a very old cultural border and background. Toponyms and Geographical names are based on traditions rather than geometry!

Europe and Central Europe are cultural terms. We agree. The others claimed that it is geographical: that is false. I argued that CE is not scientific in the scope of geography but a historical, cultural and political term.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Great Schism

Debate whether teritories of some baltic states were aligned with east church in the 11th century. An editor recently deleted the map [File:Great Schism 1054.svg] claiming that it falsely shows the schism in Baltic area. I have found a source from Vatican that shows Baltic area as being alligned with East church in 11th century: [13]. Some maps show that it was not affected by the east-west division because other religions were present there [File:Great Schism 1054 with former borders.png], and some maps show that it belonged to the west church [14]. Can someone help to explain this to put the final map of the schism in the article? (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

First about the maps. 1. The compiler of the first map you refer to must have been seriously deranged (excuse my expression). Note that the map does not cite any sources, may I add that no such historical sources exist. The website it comes from seems to belong to a third party tour operator who neither has anything to do with the official Vatican, nor with the academia.
2. The second map contains numerous mistakes and shortcomings as well. First, it does not indicate what time period it refers to. (I assume it's the 13th century, judging from the political boundaries.) Second, Finland has never been Orthodox, especially since it was part of the Catholic Swedish Kingdom back in the 13 c. Part of Lithuania showing allegiance to Rome and the other half Eastern Orthodox? The country must have been seriously schizophrenic. Adding to the schizophrenia, it was never controlled by the Teutonic Knights (as the map indicates). Lithuania was pagan at the time implied by the political boundaries. And Orthodox Constantinople missing from the map???
In the territories of present-day Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, there were no Catholic or Orthodox churches neither in the 11th nor in the 12th centuries. (Anybody show me the sources and I eat my hat.) Neither were any of these territories dominions of any Christian overlord. The Livonian Crusade commenced with the war against Livonians and Latvians only in 1198. In 1208, the crusade against Estonia started. Note that no contemporary Catholic chronicles or Russian letopisi make any mention of Christianity as already present in the named territories, hence the crusade. The Christianization of Lithuania, which was fiercely pagan, took place only in 1387, making it the last part of Europe other than Lapland and non-Slavic parts of modern Russia to become Christian (Catholic).
What puzzled me the most in the version of the Schism map I removed from the article was the coastal area around the Gulf of Riga painted as Orthodox in 1054. Show me the sources! (Of course, there are none.)--Vihelik (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the elaboration. The issue is: are there any good maps? According to your explanation, would this one fit?
Great Schism 1054 with former borders.png
And, yes, it should represent the time of 1054. Thx in advance!! (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think your map is basically good to go, if just two more inaccuracies are taken care of. 1. The current version of your map delineates Old Prussia as a political entity. The Teutonic State in Prussia within the boundaries indicated was not founded until the beginning of the 13th century. I suggest to get rid of the northern and eastern borders of Prussia on the map (between other gray areas), but keep the tribal name Prussians. Also, Old Prussians were not Christian (neither Catholic nor Orthodox) in 1054. Since they were forcibly converted only in the 13th century during the Prussian Crusade, all areas inhabited by the Prussians in 1054[15] should also remain gray. (The blue section is Prussia is particularly bizarre: Old Prussians have never been Orthodox.)

Final comment: the line between the blue and gray areas in eastern Baltic should run straight, there is no need for the present westward bulge between Latvia and Estonia. This bulge was created, again, in the 13. century. I do like your map, my comments are meant to make it even better!--Vihelik (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to correct it.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I have just one problem. Raguza (Dubrovnik). It was under Croatian control prior to 1054 if I am right, but I am not sure. Maybe we should repair those borders there (the surrounding area of Raguza).Fakirbakir (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
According to this map Raguza was part of the Croatian state.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Good remarks. Can someone do the mentioned adjustments that were mentioned above and file the picture in the text??Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The 'debate' is continued here as well: Fakirbakir (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Central Europe is a Czech invention

In the eighteenth century, the Czechs were already beginning to apply the term „Central Europe” to their own territory and the idea of Pan-Slavism[1] began to take hold. Until this time, throughout many centuries, there was peace within Hungary, where peoples of different languages, religious backgrounds and cultures lived without the expression of any anti-Hungarian feelings but, as Pan-Slavism began to spread, hatred and animosity took hold. Karl MarxXE "Karl Marx" said: „Pan-Slavism is not only a goal for the unification of the Slav people but it is also a goal to destroy a thousand years of history in Europe. In the interest of this, we have to erase Turkey and half of Germany from the maps of Europe. When Pan-Slavism has reached this goal then the Slavs will begin to subjugate Europe. Europe has only two choices, to accept Pan-Slavism or to conquer Russia and eradicate the center of Pan-Slavism.”[2] It was Pan-Slavism which caused the anti-Hungarian feelings which have existed since that time and have been increasing in intensity.

Frantisek Palacky, the Czech historian, stated that the Hungarians were an obstacle to the unification of the northern and Southern Slavs. In 1919, the Czechs supported the idea of creating a corridor through Hungarian territory to join Czechoslovakia to Yugoslavia, which was only possible with the disintegration of Hungary. Fortunately this corridor was not created, although Hungary was divided.

There is a power which fuels this hatred against the Hungarians, which is never mentioned but which can not be ignored and this is the Orthodox Church which adopted the Byzantine idea of state in which the state is more important than the individual. This is a factor which caused the development and strengthening of the idea of nationalism in states where the Orthodox Church was the primary religion, such as Serbia. The Byzantine Orthodox Church had to support the state. Such a state was stronger than a state that was primarily Roman Catholic and whose legal system was based on Roman Law, where the emphasis is on the rights of the individual. The Orthodox Church doctrine was based on national interest and was inclined to mercilessness and hatred. The Catholic Church doctrine was based on love of fellow-man. We cannot ignore the fact that in an Orthodox State, people of any other religion could never receive equal rights before the law. In the Orthodox State of Serbia, ethnic cleansing took place against the Albanians and is still continuing against the Hungarians in Vajdaság (Northern Serbia). There have been reports in the news about hate crimes in Serbia against the Hungarians, a problem which is presently being discussed in the EU parliament. It is this racial hatred which threatens the stability of Central Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szorostalpas (talkcontribs) 12:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting thoughtful viewpoint. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the Czechs got nice treatment by the "Catholic Church doctrine based on love of fellow-man", when some 2,2 million people (of 3M population) were erased from the Czech Crown lands following the 1621 Battle of White Mountain and ensuing Germanization and re-Catholization. According to some sources, as many as 40,000 people were burned alive by the fellow-loving Catholics for being Protestant in the Czech lands. This brought some status quo for the next 150 years in the area (that is what Marx had in mind), however we saw in 1848 and following decades, that nobody was really happy with that, including those peaceful Hungarians catholics you are talking about.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance tag

This is article is an ongoing topic of debate. And as said already in the lead of the article the very conception of Central Europe as a cultural an geopolitical region is controversial in itself to say the least. What is central Europe and which are its constituents is not clear. In addition to this, the article implies that some countries are part of Central Europe, while others are excluded. Not all views are documented and many discussed here are supported by bias resources (most of them online). This on its own justifies a maintenance tag. Arcillaroja (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Check your edits before confirming them. Please try to do a little bit more than just reverting without thinking/checking (as regards the tag, I have no position on it, you can put it in manually).Cimmerian praetor (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I ll'do. you are right. It was not wise to revert the whole group of edits. I'll add the maintenance tag manually. On a different note, The following assertion ("The United Nations Group Of Experts On Geographical Names (aka StAGN) defines Central Europe both as a distinct cultural area and a political region.") is not correct in that StAGN is not The United Nations Group Of Experts On Geographical Names but a collaborator. With these sorts of claims is difficult to keep assuming good faith. Furthermore, I want to remind follow editors that this is Wikipedia in English and the StAGN is an organ that is mainly active in German speaking countries. This and the explanation given in the paper mentioned should be clearly reflected and I doubt that it should be mentioned in the lead. Arcillaroja (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Arcillaroja, you have what appears to be a 3 year old history of vandalizing a set of political articles, including this one and Eastern Europe. Your edits continue to be unconstructive, your arguments remain biased and dated. You seem to question the very validity of the concept of Central Europe, yet the lead makes it clear that the concept is well-established to say the least, and widely used. That said, the UNGEGN paper is quite important in terms of a current definition of Central Europe. The article presents at least eight different, sometimes conflicting but well researched, theories on Central Europe, which results in an article that is among the most balanced on English Wikipedia. Thus your placing an 'unbalanced' tag is questionable. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 09:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed Gregorik. We know each other for a long time. As an editor I can question concepts and views on different matters. That is what wikipedia is all about. As you have done in the past, you enrich your comments with personal attacks. I think it would be better to soothe the general tone. And back to the article. The paper you have mentioned has been discussed earlier. If you read it, you will see that in their own words, there is not a solid definition on what Central Europe is and what it stands for. They give general guidelines. To use those guidelines to support a statement such as "The United Nations Group Of Experts On Geographical Names defines Central Europe both as a distinct cultural area and a political region" seems on its own, a perfect example of a POV edit. This paper would have had a follow up that, as far as I know, never came. On a different note, if you care to read the section titled "What is the StAGN?" on their webpage you will see that the StAGN IS NOT the same thing as the United Nations Group Of Experts On Geographical Names. For all this, I think that the maintenance tag is well placed, and that the above mentioned statement fails to show the neutral point of view which is given in the original paper. It should not be place in the lead of the article as an absolute truth. I hope you are able to see why these changes form a real concern when looking at the article. Arcillaroja (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Look, I've submitted the talk page to Wikipedia:Third opinion (and to WP:AVI), that's the gentlest thing I could do. StAGN worked very closely with the UNGEGN (both are significant entities), and I believe my previous arguments are adequate, but feel free to intimate your further arguments. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 10:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I've also put the article on WP:CSBOT, hope you'll agree with that. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 09:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
If you feel that is a good idea to add the article to WP:CSBOT then please do. Remember that also your view could be seen as systemically biased. In the meantime I'd appreciate it if you leave the tag as it is until further consensus is reached. I notice that you are trying to support your view of what Central Europe is by adding references that appear to form part of a certain political stream interested in presenting (Central Europe) as a set of European Countries (also no consensus on which ones are those) that are culturally farther away from eastern influences than from western ones. This is indeed a perfectly respectable opinion. But is nonetheless, an opinion. And it should be presented that way. My point being: it is not our role to present opinions as absolute truths.
A sentence like "The United Nations Group Of Experts On Geographical Names defines Central Europe both as a distinct cultural area and a political region" seems POV in that is inaccurate (it is written by a StAGN member, an independent collaborator body and does not hold nay official position), in that the paper adds lots of nuances to that statement wich are not reflected, in that it is a paper that never had the claimed follow up, and in that because of it being placed in the lead of the article, it could be WP:RSUW. Arcillaroja (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: In accordance with the guidelines at the Third Opinion project page, since no editor has chosen to give an opinion upon your request within six days, it has been removed. While you may re-list it there if you still desire an opinion, you are much more likely to obtain assistance if you move on to some other form of dispute resolution or make a request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That is unfortunate... Because the reference given to support the statement regarding Central Europe says clearly the the paper follows a discussion within StAGN and NOT that the paper represtes the oficial view of The United Nations Group Of Experts On Geographical Names. The paper is adressed to them and NOT from them. Furthermore, this paper IS UNFINISHED. As I said before, this paper has been discussed in the past and rejected for all these things mentioned. And That is why I removed it.Arcillaroja (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Arcillaroja, the paper was not rejected by anyone on these boards, including admins. Also, it is neither unfinished or unofficial. Where on earth did you read that? StAGN, aka the Constant Committee for Geographical Names are a pretty authoritative board themselves, you are expected to trust their papers. StAGN are seated in the Federal Agency for Cartography and Geodesy (in Frankfurt am Main), which in turn is part of the Federal Ministry of the Interior (Germany). It doesn't get any higher profile than that. You need to realize that you are waging a futile private war against these 2 articles, and it will probably be exposed as vandalism by an admin or two since it clearly stems from what seems to be a sort of right-wing geopolitical bias. That said, I won't be back on these boards until the autumn as I'm going on another holiday. Cheers. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 11:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Grgorik, I've been following this and related articles longer than you have and I can assure you that this paper has been discussed before. If you doubt it, please search for related discussion in these articles (West, Eastern and Central Europe). If the paper is finished, please provide the follow up. I said that the paper does not hold the official view of The United Nations Group Of Experts On Geographical Names, if there is such a view. I never said anything about the "officiality" of the paper itself. You deliberately tergiversate my words and opinions. Please don't. The paper discusses the existence of a geopolitical entity and they say that is not clear what it is. They even say that some countries that may be included within this entity may not meet the requirements described. And there is where I have concerns. Hence, the tag. You rewrote the sentence for it to be more accurate. I agree with that. That the sentence is in the lead, might be rather a case of undue weight. I think you know this too. About the rest of your flamboyant discourse I have not much to say. You have accused me repeatedly of being a vandal and a right winger and these sort of things in the past and now again. I don't care much about it, because I know that you set yourself in a ridiculous position by accusing others just because they don't agree with your views. I find it nevertheless impolite of you. I honestly thought you would accuse me of being some pro soviet editor! In any case, I'll stay right were I am. Apparently, despite of being a right winger, I cannot afford to pay one and half month of vacation unlike others ;) And to finish, I'd like to add that I strongly oppose editors that due to their national affiliation cannot hold a neutral point of view when discussing such articles, as it is your case. Dear friend, you represent why Wikipedia is rather weak when it comes to geopolitical articles. But you also know that. Arcillaroja (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have the feeling that you're about twice my age, and still I'm forced to advise you to use common sense at this point and realize that this article is, quite simply, neutral. Instead, you are throwing personal attacks and a general attack on WP. The remaining outstanding issue (StAGN) is already resolved by having it rephrased. It is hard to argue now that the article is "unbalanced". It presents about 8 different definitions of Central Europe last I checked. But enough of repeating myself. The point is: WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Alternatively, describe how this article could be "even more" neutral in your book. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 09:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that is the problem. You shouldn't make so many assumptions about me, my age, my ideology etc... Btw, I think you would be rather shocked if you knew me personally. The tag is in place because the article keeps being focused on speculation. The article you refer to is not clear as to what is Central Europe and what are its constituents. That has been discussed already. Furthermore, claiming that Central Europe is a cultural homogeneous region is a rather weak statement (For example, Germany and Poland... culturally homogeneous? In respect to what exactly? Race? language? political and economic system?... Well, they both fought in WW2 but...). What's more important is that such a statement lacks a proper reference. The introduction to the paper that you think you've found does not name these "8 theories" you like to talk about, because the paper is not complete, Gregorik. And even if it was, you cannot present them as the Holy Word, because they are theories. As I said before, you should not try to describe the world according to your personal or national affiliations. Hence tag and rev. And please, spare me from your menacing messages in my personal page... Thanks --Arcillaroja (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Because I think your view of Central Europe and Central European geopolitics in general is skewed and hostile (readers can take a look at your edit history), a third opinion would be welcome. The only real problem is that no one else really cares about this article -- which has much to do with WP's classic systemic bias problem. So I'm stuck with you, but it's quite clear that you harm these articles if and when you're not kept in check (also, I never leave "menacing messages" on anyone's page, only warning tags when due). This is a stalemate until someone with a good grasp of Central European culture (and no agenda!) looks in here. Until then, please explain what exactly do you regard as hard facts in the cases of Eastern Europe and Central Europe. Cheers. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Gregorik, I have no agenda, nor am I some infiltrated american conservative think tank editor as you apparently try to imagine. Edits like your last one (20:18, 9 November 2011) in Eastern Europe show that you have a very particular way of thinking about this and related articles. Of course I personally don't agree with your views. I also see that you are yet another hungarian editor that because of national/nationalistic affiliations tries to impose a certain view on articles related to his own country. Mainly because of the fact that, supposedly, many people identify Hungary or other countries mentioned in this article with Eastern Europe, which in turn is popularly identified with poverty and underdevelopment. Hence, your motivation. But changing views is not wikipedias's role. You have to realize that editing articles so that they keep in line with certain personal opinions or ideas is not constructive and certainly not neutral. And wikipedia should be always neutral. Maybe you are part of that famous "WP's classic systemic bias problem" without realizing it. And by the way, any reader can also check you long history of edit warring and lack of a polite attitude towards other editors. Arcillaroja (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I like my attitude, it's mostly polite but confrontative, which is not a bad thing. Last I checked, you are far from being an established historian or politologist, and you consistently fail to provide references to your edits. (What does that make you?) Let me be polite but confrontative once again: The article does not present my personal views: it presents the established views as laid down by countless experts over the decades before and after the Cold War. No self-respecting historian or encyclopedia subscribes to Cold War-era views as of the 2010's. This has to include Wikipedia. Now let's see a rundown of the historians and encyclopedias who/that are featured in the article and all argue that Central Europe is a separate entity from Eastern Europe: Jerzy Kłoczowski, Ronald Tiersky, Peter J. Katzenstein, Lonnie R. Johnson, The Columbia Encyclopedia, The World Factbook, Encyclopedia Britannica, Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, Meyers Big Pocket Encyclopedia, Cross Currents: A Yearbook of Central European Culture, Constant Committee for Geographical Names. Let me ask again, are you in the same league as these sources? If yes, where are your credentials? If no, where are your peer-reviewed sources that back up your views and contradict these and several other "pro-Central European" sources?.. When it all adds up, are you a valuable contributor to the Central Europe and Eastern Europe articles, or a troll with an axe to grind? Once again: Cold War views =/= Neutral. 21st Century views == Neutral. By the way, I asked for WP:Third opinion again. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 18:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request (Inclusion of {{Geographical imbalance}} template):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Central Europe and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The {{Geographical imbalance}} template is reserved for articles whose coverage of a topic is biased towards the predominant view of one particular geographic region, particularly when it is known that other dissenting perspectives exist. From reading the article, I was immediately aware that the concept of central Europe (and which countries are considered part of it) is not well-defined or agreed upon by everyone. I was then introduced to many different conceptions of what central Europe is, including a map for each one. Considering the difficulty in writing an article on a topic like this, I would have to say that this is probably one of the most geographically balanced articles on Wikipedia that I've read in awhile. Therefore, I have to agree with Gregorik that the maintenance tag is inappropriate at this time. If anyone believes that there is yet another distinct perspective on Central Europe which has not yet been addressed, I would suggest adding that perspective to the article rather than adding a maintenance tag.——SW— comment 17:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Snottywong! Thank you for your input. Please take a minute to follow the discussion on [[16]] for further information on the issue that this and related articles have regarding its neutrality and the reason why this tag is placed. Arcillaroja (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

More power to Snottywong! Yes, he can dig through the lengthy ANI case, but I doubt it would change his mind regarding this article. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 02:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

On a different note, Arcillaroja, I would say the ANI discussion was an edifying round for both of us: your behavior was called "very tenacious", "unusual" and "illogical", with 3 separate admins urging me to file a User Conduct complaint against you. On the other hand, I was threatened with some sanctions by a fourth admin. (I hope you liked my WP:Ignore all dramas reply.) This is a peripheral article with around 800 daily hits (see [17]), and as such, it's not worth my time and trouble. By contrast, the Europe article has around 9000 hits daily ([18]). My point is, I won't be a regular here any soon. If you continue to edit it, do your best, just do not ruin it please. Cheers. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 02:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you would honestly sum up your offensive accusations the way you just did. I am going to try to give some more neutrality to the article. Which means that I will try to remove any cherrypicking, specially from the lead. I will also add information based on the sources discussed. I hope you feel more fulfilled in editing other articles. You said before you were not interested in these and related articles. Yet you keep coming back and adding POV edits. After the ANI incident, I hope you soothe your tone. Arcillaroja (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
There was no ANI incident, it was a cool discussion, nothing more. Neither of us was banned, that's what counts in the end. Again, please do not ruin the lead, and add reliable sources to any inclusion. Thank you. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
If Gregorik is prepared to let the matter drop, that would save us all some trouble. Opening up a WP:Request for comment is one of the options he should consider. That is how content issues get solved. Continuing to needle Arcillaroja here on the article talk page is not a good option for him since it could lead to sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Mitteleuropa, the German term

Two minor remarks: i) are comma in section headings good style? ii) Why is "Flora" a subsection of this section? One more serious remark: I have no idea how English speakers use the term Mitteleuropa (in fact I am curious how they'd pronounce it...), but the following fact stated in the article is new to me (as a German): In Germany the connotation is also sometimes linked to the pre-war German provinces east of the Oder-Neisse line... Can we have a reference for it? I doubt it is used by many in this way. Also I haven't heard of any Germans who would have "pejorative connotations" to the term Mitteleuropa. The article writes "sometimes" and "some", but are these "some" really relevant to be mentioned in a wikipedia article? It seems the whole section relies heavily on a single source (Johnson, Lonnie R. (1996). Central Europe: enemies, neighbors, friends). No idea what Mr Johnson knows about Germans, but perhaps these statements should be supported by more references if possible. bamse (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Could you look up some other sources and correct that section? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Not at all my field of expertise. Also not sure what you want me to correct. To start with I suggest to read the source (Johnson) to see whether he specifies whom he means by "some Germans" and whether he relies on other sources. Unfortunately I don't have access to that book. Unless there are other sources confirming Johnson's claims, it will be difficult to do much about it as there is likely not a source claiming the opposite. bamse (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
From your first post I thought that you were German or at least knew the German culture well. If so, you might be authentic to write about how Germans use the word "Mitteleuropa", since you would have a better chance to look up sources (e.g., written in German), even if it is not your field of expertise. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am German, but that is fairly irrelevant here as we need a WP:RS or at least should ask the majority of Germans, not one in 80 Million... I don't have any sources on the subject myself. FWIW, Duden doesn't mention any pejorative connotations here. A google book search turned up this (page 20) which might be of interest. The text says that the term "Mitteleuropa" was coined in the atmosphere of German imperial politics during WWI. Footnote 32 on the same page (referring to "Mitteleuropa") says: that the political coinage of the term (not the linguistic introduction) is generally ascribed to: Friedrich Naumann, "Mitteleuropa", Berlin, 1915. The footnote mentions as another source for the main text (which mostly deals with the term "Ostmitteleuropa", so not sure how relevant this source is): Frank Hadler, "Mitteleuropa - Zwischeneuropa - Ostmitteleuropa. Reflexionen ueber eine europaeische Geschichtsregion im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert." In: "Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas. Berichte und Beitraege. Leipzig 1996, pages 34-41. But in any case those are history books, so they say little about how the term is seen by Germans today (most of which are not Historians)... bamse (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
in everyday German Mitteleuropa is just the German translation of Central Europe, like Mittelamerika is the German translation of Central America; any other meanings or connotation may exist but are not common (and most of the time neverheard of) (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

False statement about Carpathain Mts

"Geographically speaking, the Carpathian mountains divide the European Plain into two sections: the Central Europe's Pannonian Plain in the west, and the East European Plain, which lie eastward of the Carpathians"

Unfortunately, this is a false, unsourced information and it has to be eliminated.

Central Europe according to P. Jones

Original figure of P. Jones's map.
New figure of P. Jones's map.

Some users try to exchange these two maps (both claim to be "Central Europe according to P. Jones, Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography") without any *explanation*. The two maps are not the same, there are clear differences in the southern parts. I am not against changing this map, but I would like to get some explanation why a change is needed. Especially, which of the two maps represent P. Jones's view? Thanks in advance, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: Update: this [19] is the original map of P. Jones. It seems that the old map of this article is more precise (and therefore it should be kept), since, e.g., Istria is included in CE according to Jones, while it is missing from the map some editors try to use. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Linking to the result of a Google Books search

Recently an editor added an external link which is simply a Google search. This is not allowed by WP:ELNO, point #9, and I recommend that it be removed. And, is it possible that the three Dragon* accounts named User:Dragonstudents, User:Dragonerstudents and User:Dragonsstudents are all operated by the same person? Please see WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, it is not a simple "google web search" as you called it. It is from the google books, the World's largest digital library of printed books from the earliest to the newest books.--Dragonsstudents (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Google book search list is not a WP:RS, choose your titles from the list, read them, and then use specific books as references. Vsmith (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It was a shocking type of demonstration with the high numbers of books from older eras/ages to prove the actual sentences, because many people tried to relativize them. --Dragonsstudents (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If it is a 'shocking type of demonstration' then you should be able to find a published author who has drawn the same conclusion you have. Otherwise it is WP:OR. I have fixed the title of this section per your observation that it was actually Google Books. The wording of WP:ELNO is "Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you use wrong definitions and terms which caused semantic error for you. Because Google books is not a webpage search or simple search engine/aggregator, it is the word's biggest digital (scanned) library of printed books. Just a simple question: Have you ever opened the inserted links?--Dragonsstudents (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Romania is not Central European country

Only Transylvania (present-day western Romania) was historically part of the Central European Habsburg empire. Romania was/is an Orthodox country, their cultural artistic and societal development are/were related (and very similar) to Serbia Bulgaria, with old-slavonic chrurch language and Romanians officially used cyrillic alphabet until the 1870s.

Ukraine is not Central European country, despite the fact that many books depict it central European (which were written by non-European authors and therefore which are often laymen in the exact European history and geography).

Romania is a balkan (which means Soth Eastern Europe) country.

One non-working link does not make the revelation true. The concept of Central Europe is fluid, and not nevessarily geographically correct - most "Central European" countries are in fat western European geographically.-- (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


Romania is not a wrongly duplicated entry, as User:Koertefa, suggests. There are 3 sources ([20], [21], [22]) that include the whole of Romania in Central Europe, while the other 2 sources ([23] and [24]) include,the regions Transylvania and, respectiively, Bukovina. However these 2 sources presented above attest that Transylvania and Bukovina are in C Europe, but do not say that the rest of Rom is in E Europe / SE Europe (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it is still a duplicate. I will think about the proper way of addressing this issue. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Few definitions placing Romania in Central Europe is enough. We are not to make original research here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

NeroN BG's Revert

Dear User:NeroN BG, could you please explain your recent revert [25]? First, (a) it is very strange that you have called my well-explained edits "vandalism" just because you did not agree with them. You should read WP:VANDAL about what vandalism is. You have also (b) reverted the correction of obvious typos, such as the missing parenthesis at the end of the entry of Serbia. Why? And, finally, (c) could you bring some reliable sources which support that the whole Serbia is considered part of Central Europe? These [26][27] maps are obviously not such sources. Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Central Europe is Poland,the Czech Republic,Slovakia and Hungary, the Wyszehrad Group

As above.And what is Germany doing here?And Austria and Switzerland too.What?Are you people blind?Look at the map and if you have bad eyesight then wear glasses and if it still doesn't help then help yourselves with rulers.Measure the centre between all four edges of Europe: a)western in western Portugal, b)eastern in the Urals, c)northern in Lapland and d)sothern in Malta and you will see that the centre encompasses ONLY those four countries:Poland (my country),the Czech Republic,Slovakia and Hungary.

Thats's geography;it's most important but after securing that position let's look at other,less important factors such as:nations,history,national characters/mentalities,cultures,religion.

Poles,Czechs and Slovaks are all Western Slavic and Eastern Lechitic nations so we have a very strony linkage with Hungary as exeption but next factors prove that it's only one exception.

Common history of nations squeezed between a few powers such as :Russia,Germany,and Osman Turkey and Habsburg Austria in the past;nations that have been facing hardships coming from at least one of them always in their history,often being occupied by one or more of them which solidified their national characters together with the Christian religion (Catholic and protestant).

By three out of four of them being Western Slavic,we have common mentality,customs and traditions,unseen both in Western and Eastern Europe.We are distinct from both.Our economies are also in between the rich West and poor East as one can easily witness by comparing our GDPs,nominal and with PPP.

Also,in our previous centuries we were experiencing rule of monarchs of common dynasties such as the Jagiellons and Andegawens who bounded us together in many ways,for instance in common foreign and military policies and threats (,Germans,Osman Turks,Russians).This is not what one sees in Germany,Austria and (oh please) Switzerland that were once under German influence which we can see even today.How can anyone link Germans to Poles,Czechs,Slovaks and Hungarians?Are you people crazy?There are NO links between our nations and Germans whatsoever so please remove Germany,Austria and Switzerland and leave only REAL UNDISPUTED Central European nations:Poles,Czechs,Slovaks and Hungarians and their countries because you people are trying to link those that have never been linked.If you people want to pretend that this is an encyclopaedia then act like you're writing one and not a list of wishful thoughts of German lobbies.Germany is in Western Europe - just look at the map - that's first,and then read books on European history - that's second.

Putting the Germans together with Poles,Czechs,Slovaks and Hungarians is the best way to sabotage the whole concept and understanding of Central Europe.It's just a way to make the Germans feel even more conceited;they always say that they are so 'cultured',such 'philosophers','inventors' and stuff like that,and they feel that they are the hub of the universe so you should understand that a nation that thinks of itself as the hub of the universe must brainwash others into believing in its supposed centredness in everything and that includes being the centre of the continent.How annoying and we don't want to be associated with the Germans.Good riddance Germans! (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Łukasz,a Pole,a REAL Central European79.190.240.130 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear REAL Central European, you have forgotten about a few things regarding Extreme points of Europe. First of all, if you include islands like Malta (which is not actually the southern point - it is a Greek island of Gavdos), you cannot forget about Iceland, possibly Madeira (westernmost). Then you have Cape Flissingsky in the east, and Svalbard in the north, unless you recognise Cape Fligely as the most northernmost point of Europe. Many of these places are missed on many maps of Europe due to their little importance, while they actually do matter - Svalbard has its Svalbard Global Seed Vault, Iceland is a country, Madeira has a large population and Franz Joseph Land is literally on the oil- and gasfield, while being one of the last places of Earth to be very little impacted by humans ([1][2]). Current measurements indicate that depending on how you define Europe's borders, Geographical midpoint of Europe is either in Lithuania, Hungary, Estonia or Belarus. Poland is in western Europe, north-western or south-eastern. For cultural reasons it is called Central Europe. Geographically it also makes sense, but remember all of these things.-- (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^
  2. ^
Culturally Central European countries were always both Poland and Germany, Czech Republic and Slovakia, Switzerland, Austria and Hungary. They share a lot of culture and history.-- (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

United Nations

The latest (10/31/13) United Nations stats tables doesn't acknowledge a regional division of Central Europe, identifying four geographic region of Europe (North, South, East and West). The source is the UN Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings, revised Oct. 31. 2013. It's important to note in the article that not every governing body or authority recognizes a distinct geographic region called "Central Europe". Liz Read! Talk! 16:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The scheme was created for the internal use of UNSD only.-- (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Other UN agencies recognise Central Europe (UNHCR, Cartographic section).-- (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, so Europe is the only continent on the globe, which had no central part... Very logic Cold-War era thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Response from the UN about the geoscheme

Found on Wikipedia:

"Seeing all the spats about European sub-divisions (Europe is quite small for dividing!), I have decided to contact the UN and as what they think abou the fact that their geoscheme is so extensively used on Wiki. This is what I received:

"Dear xxxxx,

Thank you for your email.

The geographical groupings used by the United Nations Statistics Division follow the M49 Standard for Area Codes for Statistical use, details of which can be found here: The designations employed and the presentation of material at this site do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations. "Regions" are so drawn as to obtain greater homogeneity in sizes of population, demographic circumstances and accuracy of demographic statistics (another example is Russia -- it is in the continent of Asia but it belongs in the Eastern Europe "region"). This nomenclature is widely used in international statistics but it is by no means universal. I hope this is useful. Best regards, The UN Demographic Yearbook Team."

Another statement: "Dear XXXXX, You have contacted the United Nations Statistics Division. In regard to the designation "Eastern Europe", please be advised that, as per the "Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use (M49)", which is an international set of 3-digit numerical codes for statistical country reporting, the designations "Eastern Europe", "Western Europe", "Northern Europe" and "Southern Europe" and the assignment of countries to such groupings are intended for statistical convenience and do not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations. Best regards, Kimberly Gruber United Nations Kimberly Gruber Information Systems Officer Statistics Division UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) DC2-1640 New York, NY 10017 Tel: +1 212 963 8076 E-mail: [email protected]"

"It seems Wikipedia abuses the geoscheme, while there is actually an openly proposed geoscheme by the Geographical sub-division:"-- (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Violation of Wikipedia's NPOV rule

On the second of February, I edited the article about Central Europe to provide multiple points of view regarding the categorization of Poland as a Central European country. I did this in good faith, believing that I am contributing to Wikipedia by providing more than one point of view (without removing the original statement). Of course, whilst doing so, I backed up my modification with references to authoritative organizations like the European Union and the United Nations. Unfortunately, two days later, the user Powertranz began his quest to revert my edit. He continued to do so, effectively censoring another point of view and going directly against Wikipedia's rule of NPOV. Since this was basically turning into an edit war, earlier today I decided to post the following on Powertranz's talk page:

"This is regarding your persistence on removing a neutral point of view from the article about Central Europe. You claim that the fact many people and various important organizations see Poland as Eastern Europe should not be included within said article. In essence, you are censoring other points of view and trying to replace them with only yours; this goes directly against the rules and principles of Wikipedia.

You claimed that: "If you want to say that some people consider Poland as eastern Europe than you might as well state that some consider the Czech republic, Hungary, Slovakia, etc as eastern Europe. The side note is pointless and irrelevant to the geopolitics." This is simply incorrect. To start off with, I think we can both agree that the European Union and the United Nations (both of which I have mentioned in my references) are not just "some people". Whether you agree with them or not, it is a fact that these two organizations are powerful and hold much authority. If (arguably) the two most important supranational/global organizations in Europe consider Poland an Eastern European country, then your statements that it's just a "side note" that is "pointless and irrelevant to the geopolitics" is simply invalid.

Lastly, it is worth noting that you have accused me of vandalism. Frankly, I find that insulting. I'd like to point out that your actions and stubborn reluctance to accept more than one point of view are detrimental to the article, violate the rules of this online encyclopedia and resemble vandalism much more so than what I have done. I have been kind with you, but I am losing my patience. If you want, we can start offending and reporting ourselves like a bunch of children and see how that works out, or you could just learn from your mistakes and move on."

He did not heed my words (I am not sure if he even read them) and reverted my edit once again. Now I am not even sure if he is prepared to break the rules just to get his point across or if he is "trolling". Either way, because I do not have the authority to impose sanctions and I see no point in an edit war, I've decided to turn here. I would appreciate it if someone with authority could step in, assess the situation fairly and take the appropriate course of action.


Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It is sad to see that no one here is concerned with upholding the rules of Wikipedia. -- Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Apparently some users have problems with the fact that Poland is in Central Europe. Quoting ONE United Nations agency and its goeoscheme, destined ONLY for its INTERNAL use and CONVENIENCE, they CLAIM it is THE GEOSCHEME, representing ALL UN, and superior to absolutely everything, perhaps even Mother Earth :D. I would capitalise POV more than I can here.-- (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
This problem actually sorted itself out once Powetranz was warned by someone with authority and decided to rethink his actions, so I'm not sure why you have decided to get interested in this now. Moreover, considering that you began your response by stating a controversial categorization as if it was a universally accepted fact, I think you completely missed the point I was making. What I generally tried to achieve (and eventually managed to do so) is to make sure that the article isn't biased, since before it stated that Poland was in Central Europe and that was it. However, it is not as simple as that. Some class it as Central European, some call it Eastern Europe, whilst others say it is East-Central... a very small minority even call it Western European! The two most popular categories for Poland seem to be Eastern Europe and Central Europe, so it is important that both of these are represented as widely accepted points of view rather than universally accepted facts. Whether you like it or not, there are plenty of people and significant organizations out there that still think of Poland as an Eastern European country.
Finally, the fact that the UN (and the EU, which you seem to have ignored completely) put Poland in Eastern Europe says something - even if it is for statistical purposes only, there is always a reason for why something is grouped with group x instead of group y. -- Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

False sentence

This sentence is false: The United Nations doesn't acknowledge a regional division of Central Europe, identifying four geographic region of Europe (North, South, East and West). One agency doesn't. Others do.--MagenUK (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, UNESCO (The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) acknowledges Central Europe. See 28 900 google results fro "Central Europe" term from the site: --Uniformis (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Freedom of Press Index needs updating ASAP -- (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done - duplication of position #12 rectified. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
No. It is not done. There is a new report - 2014.-- (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the correct version. Unfortunately, I cannot do it myself. Central European media are considered as free. Some of the top scoring countries are in Central Europe:

-- (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A), the content in need of 'updating' should have been specified clearly. The link originally provided was broken & I repaired it later when I finally understood what the issue actually was (please see this talk page's history). All I could see as being wrong was that the #12 ranking was repeated for 2 countries.
B) What do you mean when you say that you can't do it yourself? You've just added the layout here! Feel free to add it to the page yourself as, after your uncivil behaviour, and due to the current personal emergency I have informed you of after the demand you left on another talk page pertaining to the map and necessity for information updates, I feel particularly disinclined to hurry up and do anything in order to accommodate you. It's only a minor learning curve. Other editors may end up assisting you if you mess anything up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems that that some people, like Irina, wish to pursue their personal issues...-- (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
What 'personal issues' would that be? This could make or break... er, what?
I'll tell you what, since this appears to be a matter of extreme urgency to you, open an account and do a cut and paste from the list above into the article. Naturally, you can't do it as an IP, so what could be preventing you from opening an account? Blocked a few too many times, eh? Favonian has already spotted you. I know you. Don't try the delegation game with me again. I'll get to it when I get to it... if I get to it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You are a bit of a nasty character, and a vandal, too. Please take your luggage of hate and go back to the past where you belong, perhaps the Cold War era :)-- (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC) EDIT My preference would be to remove this comment as this contributor has been blocked (again) for multiple account abuse for WP:POV pushing. Will leave it for the record as violation of WP:CIVIL and an array of other violations. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Subsection 'Countries (regions) occasionally included in Central Europe'

As it's been suggested that the subsection would be more aptly named as 'Regions occasionally included in Central Europe', I thought it best to revert to the current title (as per section name) pending discussion.

I don't think it's appropriate to remove 'countries' from the title as, in contemporary terms, kingdoms and empires have now become nation-states (or, in lay terms, countries). Due to the fact that historical concepts are equally as influential, having 'regions' in parentheses is not particularly informative.

Under the circumstances, I would perceive 'Countries and regions occasionally included...', or 'Countries or regions...' as being both neutral and informative.

Any thoughts from other contributors? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

'Countries and regions' sounds like the best option, but I think the heading is a bit too long. Perhaps it could just be 'Other countries and regions' instead of 'Countries and regions occasionally included in Central Europe'? Since it is under the 'States' heading, and there are clear descriptions of what this section is about, I personally think it would be obvious enough that such a title is referring to places categorized by some sources as Central European. -- Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I fully support your proposed change. As the current title is a subsection of a section, it's unnecessarily long. 'Other countries and regions' is clear in and of itself and, considering that it's fully defined directly under the heading, I can't see any reason to even consider it to be contentious. Nevertheless, given that other contributors may have a well supported policy/guideline objection, there is now a section here on the talk page should it be deemed necessary to go through a WP:BRD process. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Map and infobox at the top

There was a very nice infobox and map at the article for Eastern Europe, however - as Szaboci pointed out - map and further info is biased and has no references provided, the lead explains the complexity of the topic this is why there should not be a map picked and put on the top to mislead the casual reader. The same can be applied to the Central Europe article. We can assume that for these reasons articles for northern, western and southern Europe never had infoboxes. However, people have been stopping me from removing the infobox and map from this article. It should be removed for reasons stated earlier. If not, then the infobox at Eastern Europe should be restored and pages for Northern Europe, Western Europe and Southern Europe (perhaps Southeastern Europe and East-Central Europe also). We should either have infoboxes that show the most widely-accepted definitions of these regions (showing expert opinions and popular ideas) or have no infoboxes for them at all, letting the articles speak for themselves by showing the various theories that experts have come up with. No article should be an exception, so I see no reason why Central Europe is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Lolwut if people keep reverting and give stupid reasons like "no consensus", but don't actually join the discussion then... waaat — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • If you want to be taken seriously, IP user hailing from the United Kingdom, please start an account. You blanked out what you don't like which is not a valid argument. Nobody knows what "biased" means to you, and what it is that you want exactly. Biased in what way? Continent-wise? Countries? Languages? Or the size of the infobox? You didn't say. You need to form an argument also for removing the box containing article title and the geographical map showing corresponding part of the planet Earth with no national borders. You haven't done that. – But, let me explain... Being part of Central Europe (the long edge of the Cold War) is like belonging to God. If you say you belong to God, you probably do. This is not a bias... This is a belief you're entitled to have... Usually, the infobox contains key words appearing in the article. For example, China is not in the article, therefore China is not included in the infobox. However, the countries mentioned in the article should be OK there in the box also. Poeticbent talk 14:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I think my argument is clear enough. If Eastern Europe and all the other parts of this continent are not allowed to have infoboxes, then why should Central Europe have one? Regardless of what you think about it, CE is not the centre of the world... it's a silly social construct like any other (just like Western, Eastern, Northern, Southern Europe etc.). As such, it deserves the same treatment as the other parts. The reason why any infobox is biased in an article like this one is because there is more than one theory of what constitutes each part of Europe (and Europe itself for that matter). An infobx can only show one point of view, not multiple ones. An infobox is placed at the top and takes up a large amount of space, thus promoting that POV above others. One option I suggested is to simply include all of the states that are most commonly associated with the corresponding part of Europe that we're talking about, thus making it quite large - but that way we'd be inclusive and show multiple points of view rather than exclusive and show fewer theories. I personally think the infobox at Central Europe is quite nice and inclusive, but if it is to stay then I think the infobox that was removed from Eastern Europe (which I do believe was used as a basis for improvement of the infobox at CE) should be restored and articles for Northern, Western and Southern sections of Europe should have similar infoboxes made for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Are your 'suggestions' backed up by verifiable and reliable secondary sources, or is this your own original research/POV? As per Poeticbent's response, I would 'suggest' that you create a user account and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before embarking on a crusade to clean up infoboxes according to your own logic. Oh, and do remember to sign your comments on talk pages as you've been contributing long enough to have acquainted yourself with the rudimentaries. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Chill out. I'm not sure if you've read this discussion before commenting, because your response doesn't seem quite valid in this case. But fine, I see it's a well-developed bureaucracy here so I'll back down before the master strikes me. I was just trying to be consistent - one user pointed out good reasons as to why there shouldn't be a userbox at Eastern Europe, I saw his point and realized the exact same applies to Central Europe. Don't see what's there to be a prick about; I suggested a simple question, received no answer and was told to make an account. Anyway, I'll go restore the infobox at Eastern Europe, but the user who removed it might not be happy about that. Btw, I haven't been editing that long really - more than just one person uses this IP, so you're probably talking about someone else. (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that 'more than just one person uses this IP' is all the more reason for creating your own user account. Note, also, that I did read your comment. My policy pointers may appear to be off-topic, but are suggestions that you, as a newbie, familiarise yourself with key policies, guidelines et al. For example WP:BRD applies if you wish to make bold changes. Discussions do not take place in edit summaries on other articles (per your reference to [ this 'good reason' (sic)) but on the corresponding talk page of the article in question. Another example is that you don't blank anything unless you provide valid, policy-based and consensus-based content because you believe that you have a better approach (or any other form of objections to the content).
Above all, familiarise yourself with the articles you wish to work on, your fellow Wikipedians and the fact that not everyone would agree with you as to where and when infoboxes are useful. As you can see, responses on this talk page by long-term, hard-working editors and contributors are kept terse. It is always useful to check the entire talk page (including archives) in order to understand both the rationale and context for the content you wish to contest. It may also assist you in recognising that comments such as, "I see it's a well-developed bureaucracy here so I'll back down before the master strikes me." are both uncivil and unwarranted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

National Geographic

New Balkan States And Central Europe Map 1914:

Central Europe Map 1951:

Central Europe And The Mediterranean Map 1939: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


UNESCO (The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) acknowledges Central Europe. See 28 900 google results fro "Central Europe" term from the site: --Uniformis (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert of most recent edits due to violation of NPOV

I reverted the recent edits of user tanper. The reason: Croatian pov vandalism and deletion of a lot of sourced information. The edit comment "Christian" was by autocorrect sry. Kind regards Seader (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I again reverted his edit due to heavy violation of NPOV by forcing Croatia into Central Europe by placing Croatia in several places in the article. Also Romania and Serbia have been deleted from the article but depending on the definition of Central Europe they are also part of it. The sources which show that croatia is also listed in Southeast Europe have all been deleted with other sources informations in this article and replaced by PoV and non relevant stuff. There is no clear generally accepted definition of Central Europe and the article is reflecting this fact pretty well in his current state. The recent edits change that picture in a not approprriate way. Therefore I reverted Tanpers edits. Kind regards Seader (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Error, see below.

Sources deletion/addition and States Reformation

I've found a lot of sources not to relate to the text or what they are cited for, hence my deletion of them. But since some consider it as too much of a radical step, we probably should discuss it.

I advise for the following sources to be deleted (expect "Ok." one in Croatia).


[1] - This might be the only valid source, but it's not The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, but a The Free Dictionary article which just uses it as a source.

[2] - Ok.

[3] - Apperantly here lies the source for Croatia being in SE Europe, but when it opens on the page where it only speaks of Slovenia (and it mostly covers it as CE). This does not relate to Croatia, but is listed there.

[4] - This one talks about Balkan, and then excludes a part of Croatia, which again means it can't be used for making decisive placing of the country, considering for what it is used as a source.

[5] - An US college program used as a source? Really?

[6][7] - A programme that lists Italy, Slovakia and Ukraine as South East Europe as well. I don't think this is legit to use as a source, but if it's used it should be attributed to all the countries.

And then two "sources" (books) which can in no way be checked, but I doubt them based on the past experience.


[3] - Apperantly here lies the source for Croatia being in SE Europe, but when it opens on the page where it only speaks of Slovenia (and it mostly covers it as CE).


[8] - This one basically annulates itself since it lists Serbia as both CE and SEE, which means it can not be attributed to only one claim. What I mean by this is that you can write Serbia - Central Europes [this source], but alernatively is placed in SE Europe [the same source]. It doesn't make any sense in the way it's used.

[9] - Just look at the page (does not seems as something that should be sourced), and then the same problem arises as with the past source.

[10] - I see no mention of Serbia's geographic location so I don't understand why it is listed as a source.

[11] - here's in english: Mentions only Vojvodina (not Macva and Belgrade) and does not support the claim it was cited for, just a link to a page of what I presume is the government of Vojvodina.

[12] - No mention of Central Europe, just Austrian Occupation (for meagre 30 or so years).

[13] - A map that shows expansion of Habsburg Monarchy, not Central Europe.

With Serbia, there just aren't sources. If anyone can provide some reliable, please do so.

States should be reformed then as well. I propose: -moving Croatia to the usual understanding (as it usually is) -deletion of the regions that do not have sources for those claims (Russia, Ukraine, etc.) unless someone provides them (I don't think that should be too hard) - Merging of Romanias. We have 2 of them which makes no sense. Those two blocks of Other countries and regions could be merged. - Removing the [alternatively, it is placed in...] for Croatia and Slovenia as aesthetically it wouldn't look good and then mentioning that below (where it says for Austria and the rest) with cited sources.

Also, we could introduce new sources, but this should be a priority.

Lastly, some of sources/links aren't functioning, but I don't know exactly which one now (aren't mentioned here) Tanper (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia
  2. ^ UNHCR - Croatia
  3. ^ a b Armstrong, Werwick. Anderson, James (2007). "Borders in Central Europe: From Conflict to Cooperation". Geopolitics of European Union Enlargement: The Fortress Empire. Routledge. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-134-30132-4. 
  4. ^ Federal Agency for Civic Education Germany (german)
  5. ^ Florida State University - Croatian Program - Security & Cooperation in South Eastern Europe
  6. ^ European Commission - Development programmes - Operational Programme 'South East Europe (SEE)'
  7. ^ Andrew Geddes,Charles Lees,Andrew Taylor : "The European Union and South East Europe: The Dynamics of Europeanization and multilevel goverance", 2013, Routledge
  8. ^ "Serbia: Introduction". Michigan State University. Retrieved 3 October 2014. 
  9. ^ "Serbia - Southeastern Europe Travel Guide". Balkans 360 - Southeastern Europe Travel Guide. Retrieved 3 October 2014. 
  10. ^ "Serbia: On the Way to EU Accession". World Bank Group. Retrieved 21 October 2014. 
  11. ^ "Vlada Autonomne Pokrajine Vojvodine – Index". 27 January 2010. Retrieved 31 January 2010. 
  12. ^ The Austrian Occupation of Novibazar, 1878–1909. Retrieved on 29 October 2011.
  13. ^

I will answer to this during the next few days when I find some time to sort the sources. There is enough reliable sources which declare Croatia as part of southeast europe. Geographically it is between southeast and central europe. Depending on the source it is in central or in southeast europe. Since there is no clear generally accepted definition of southeast Europe and therefore Central Europe it is not possible count such border countries like Croatia into Central Europe without additional informations about the other definitions and relatedness to other areas without violating WP:NPOV. The article in its current state is showing this complicated situation quite well and the made changes changed this picture in a not appropriate way. Same goes for the added football part which also violated the "no original research" guidelines. Kind regards Seader (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Very busy at the moment so I did not got much time yet to sort the sources but here a beginning that Croatia is not that easy to put only in Central Europe since there are a lot of sources used in the past which claim that its in the Balkans, which we all agree is in Southeast Europe:
Officiall sources from EU-Institutions or Member states:
European Economic and Social Commitee, European Union Institute for Security Studies, European Union External Action, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research - Western Balkans, Austrian Foreign Ministry - Western Balkans, Western Balkans Investment Framework (WBIF), European Commission - Trade - Western Balkans, European Commission - Press Release
Literature sources:
  • (German); Tado Juric; Westbalkan-Erweiterung der EU - Europäisierungsprozess in Bosnien und Herzegowina, Serbien und Kroatien – ein Vergleich, Schriften zur Europapolitik, Band 21, Hamburg 2013, ISBN 978-3-8300-7377-2 (Translation of Title: Western Balkan enlargement of the EU - Europeanisation process in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Croatia - a comparison)
  • (German):Editors:Prof.Dr.Gudrun Peschutter, Prof.Dr. Hans-Eggert Reimers, Prof.Dr.Michael Schleicher; Leopold Maurer, Osterweiterung der Europäischen Union; Stuttgart 2004; ISBN 3-8282-0279-9 ; page 135
  • (German): Van Meurs, Wim: Den Balkan integrieren. Die europäische Perspektive der Region nach 2004. In: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, Frankfurt 2003, page 37
  • Sanjay Kathuria;Western Balkan Integration and the EU: An Agenda for Trade and Growth; The World Bank, Washington 2008, ISBN: 978-0-8213-7472-6
  • Florian Trauner; The Europeanisation of the Western Balkans - EU justice and home affairs in Croatia and Macedonia; Manchester University Press; 2011; ISBN: 978-0-7190-8345-7
  • Editor: Vera Stojarová,Peter Emerson ; Jakub Sedo , Party Politics in the Western Balkans; New York; 2010; ISBN13 978-0-415-55099 ; page 73
  • SME Policy Index: Western Balkans and Turkey 2012: Progress in the implementation of the small business act for europe; OECD & European Union; 2012; ISBN 978-92-79-26076-6
  • Energy in the Western Balkans: the path to reform and reconstruction; International Energy Agency, United Nations Development Programme; 2008
  • Robert Hayden , From Yugoslavia to the Western Balkans: Studies of a European Disunion, 1991 - 2011; BRILL, Balkan Studies Library; ISBN 978-90-04-24190-9
Kind regards Seader (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I see some changes have been made, such as replacing sources for Croatia and deletion of Russia and Ukraine, as well as some other changes.

I deleted the questionable sources I listed here before (the ones about Serbia), and currently there are none. So it would be great if someone can add some valid sources. Otherwise, there is no point in keeping Serbia there.

Also, since Luxembourgh is deleted from 'Countries' section, it should probably also be removed from other places in the text (tables, etc.). Tanper (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Central European Time

I've tagged the Central European Time section as being speculative. While there are references for 20th century adoption this standardised regional time, the references for the 19th century adoption are dubious at best, most particularly for entities which were simply regions under major empires. Suggesting that Slovakia and the Czech Republic adopted Central European Time in 1890, for example, is a serious stretch of reality. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be best if it were "The areas of current "xxxxx" started using CET in xxxx". Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, Slovenia and Hungary were part of Austria-Hungary then, so technically none of them were indepent countries (though Austria was the "head"). The only puzzling thing is how Czech Republic addopted it in 1890, Hungary in 1891 and Austria in 1893. If the Austria-Hungary adopted CET, it is to be assumed all parts of it adopted it in the same time.Tanper (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm agreeable to that as a compromise. Nevertheless, a the only citation is for Poland (and that's simply a footnote to backdating to it to align with the adoption of CET in Austria), I think a genuine RS is needed to establish the dates. I don't want to presume anything to be non-AGF, therefore it could be that there were regions slower on the uptake... some, apparently, pre-dating Austria. As that section in the CET article is also entirely unreferenced, I'd be reticent to simply transpose the dates given to the format you're suggesting. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Central Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

  • Added archive to

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Archived version confirmed as being correct. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Central Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

1 archive confirmed as correct; 1 x no capture available removed. Thanks, Cyberbot II! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Central Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

  • Added archive to

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed as correct. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Central Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Central Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

  • Corrected formatting/usage for
  • Corrected formatting/usage for
  • Corrected formatting/usage for
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to
  • Added {{dead link}} tag to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Central Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

  • Added archive to

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Between Eastern and Western Europe

The change I made before this edit expands the introduction to account for one group's central Europe not always being another group's central Europe. Also, if located between east and west, then it should also be located between north and south but this wasn't mentioned. In fact, there is no need to explain that centre lies between east and west so I deduced that the references were to the still used 2-Europe design. Obviously asides East Germany, Eastern Europe here tends to be the Communist states before 1990. I feel like mentioning early on that Central Europe is not "centred" on the midpoint of the continent. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


I noticed in the globalisation paragraph that Slovakia is mentioned twice with two different rankings --Exmak (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Central Europe"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA