Talk:Eastern Europe

Kaliningrad

@103.58.92.10: The arguments used in the edit summary of this edit are fallacious.

• First of all, there aren't 800 definitions of Central Europe, like Western Europe. Certainly not 800, but there are at least as many definitions of Central Europe as of Western Europe. Here are some quotes from the Central Europe article: "The issue of how to name and define the Central European area is subject to debates"; "The comprehension of the concept of Central Europe is an ongoing source of controversy"; "views on which countries belong to Central Europe are vastly varied". In fact, the second sentence says "Central Europe includes contiguous territories that are sometimes also considered parts of Western Europe, Southern Europe and Eastern Europe". Implying that Central Europe is somehow a well-defined area is utterly false.
• Second of all, Kaliningrad is located clearly in the central part of Europe. This is an opinion, not an argument, and the opinion is clearly not supported by reliable sources. Out of ten maps presented in the Map gallery in the Central Europe article, based on the definitions used in various sources, Kaliningrad is coloured in one, and then with the label "Countries considered to be Central European only in the broader sense of the term".
• Third of all check Central Europe#States, Kaliningrad is included. Kaliningrad is included in the discussion there, but not as an obvious part of Central Europe, only in the category "Some sources also add ..."

Stating without any reservations that Kaliningrad lies in Central Europe is completely inappropriate.

On another note, please make yourself familiar with WP:BRD. Your original introduction of this controversial statement here was a Bold edit, which is fine. However, when I Reverted it here, your next step should have been to start a Discussion in the talk page. I have now done this for you. Please keep the discussion here until a consensus is formed, see WP:CONSENSUS. Regards! --T*U (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Red Square, Moscow, Rusia.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Caucasus or Transcaucasia (South Caucasus)

Hello @Archives908, in the section Eastern Europe#Caucasus it is said about Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (plus Abkhazia, Artsakh and South Ossetia) only. Thus link to Transcaucasia region (South Caucasus) is clearly more proper than to general Caucasus region, which includes Russian North Caucasus too. Delasse (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware of the differences. However, the term Caucasus is not used definitively in this case. European Russia is already included under "Former Soviet states", which by default includes the North Caucasus region. Archives908 (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Archives908 Still, I do not see why your version is better than mine. Delasse (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Not saying its better or worse, just slightly unnecessary since the North Caucasus is already included under another acceptable definition (its grouped in with European Russia), so it's not like the region is being deliberately omitted. Furthermore, the term "Caucasus" (which has been used for many years here) is not an exhaustive definition, the section could always be expanded to include information about the North Caucasus. Although, I'm not sure what would be said or what benefits that would bring to the article since it is already grouped in with Russia proper. Regardless, the existing terminology remains acceptable since its more inclusive and probably more widely recognized- as your own BBC source confirmed. Archives908 (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The current opening sentence is a textbook example of how NOT to start a Wikipedia article. It's literally redundant, with no informational value, like saying "Red is the color red" or "New York City is the city of New York". I changed it to something less pointless, which was reverted, on the grounds that we can do better. Perhaps, but "Eastern Europe is the eastern region of Europe" is objectively worse. Identifying it as the region "adjacent to Asia" at least tells the reader something (a basic geographic fact that is otherwise missing from the lede, by the way). If someone has better suggestions, I'm glad to hear them. But if we can't identify the subject with a simple declarative statement of what it is, the alternative isn't to write "Red is red", but to explain why we can't, such as "Eastern Europe is a region with a wide range of geopolitical, geographical, ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic definitions." -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the rationale to alter the lead. The only issue here, is that technically speaking Eastern Europe is not the only landmass "adjacent to Asia". From a wider perspective, the Western most portion of Eurasia (including Western Europe, Southern Europe, Northern Europe) is all "adjacent to Asia". Not to mention, so is Oceania and other landmasses surrounding Asia. Perhaps, it's minor nitpicking, however, it could be confusing to readers. It's possible that readers may assume Eastern Europe is the only region "adjacent to Asia"- when it's not. Asia itself is so vast, Eastern Europe is not adjacent to all of it. More specifically, Eastern Europe only borders Central Asia and Western Asia (if I'm not mistaken). I'm not entirely opposed to the suggestion presented above, but some time to brainstorm alternatives wouldn't be a bad thing. Perhaps we can somehow try and focus more on Eastern Europe's geography within Europe (ie. east of Western Europe)? Or, we can alter the lingo of the suggestion to avoid using vague/ broad definitions of the massive neighboring landmass that is Asia (ie. west of Central Asia)? Any other editors have recommendations? Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I wrote: "Eastern Europe is a region of Europe adjacent to Asia." No one who understand the words of this sentence would think it refers to the Pacific Ocean or Africa. It does not imply in any way that it is the "only" place adjacent to Asia. "Adjacent" simply means that X and Y are next to each other. Eastern Europe (as a region) and Asia (another region) have a shared border, therefore they are adjacent. This is basic geographic terminology. (As for describing eastern Europe as "east of western Europe" that's just as uselessly obvious as calling it "the eastern region of Europe".) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Pejorative

I've added a paragraph about this term being also pejorative in some contexts; this probably should be split into a dedicated section. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)