Jump to content

Talk:Eastern Europe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TU-nor (talk | contribs) at 18:32, 31 May 2020 (→Lede image). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Turkey

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


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


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

Huntington, religions and civilizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Western and Eastern Europe

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

updating the definition w/o erasing previous entry

Hi All,

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

Thanks

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

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

Common British definition of "Eastern Europe"

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

This error is covered in the article: "As of the early 21st century, The Economist and other sources argue that "Eastern Europe" is a mala fides (consciously misleading and inaccurate) socio-economic and cultural stereotype routinely used by Western conservatives for post-Communist countries.[13][14] It is asserted that the double standard becomes apparent when a comparison between Western Europe and the more developed regions of "Eastern Europe" reveals broad similarity in indicators such as quality of life, budget deficit and corruption. In fact, a global quality of life index by International Living (2010) places four "Eastern European" countries in the top 30 with Hungary leading at the 20th place.[15] "[T]he term 'Eastern Europe' has become meaningless, both as a generic geographic or economic label."" Gregorik (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the paragraph above mentioned because it is an opinion article and not a definition. Furthermore, this opinion does not reflect any official position. It would be misleading to cite only one columnist where there are many others that use this term daily without the negative connotation above mentioned. In fact, there are several Wikipedia policies aimed to avoid such an unbalanced view. It may be certainly mentioned somewhere in the article discussing different opinions on the matter, but certainly not in the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.120.67.3 (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The only "opinion piece" here is your argument. The paragraph states facts, is well placed and justified. Gregorik (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the argument of one [anonymised] magazine writer. I think you can add something about the term being criticised, and cite the piece in question ... but the amount of attention this addition tries to give to it gives it WP:Undue weight, esp. as most usages of "Eastern European" are cultural/geographic, not economic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to argue against that the negative connotations of the term "Eastern Europe" are important to discuss. It's obviously not the argument of a single writer. I agree with WP:Undue weight (for now), so I'll start a new section in the article dealing with these connotations. Gregorik (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shortened paragraph included in a subsection. The info is relevant and should stay. Gregorik (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone else already answered you... But I think you already know that don't you? Anyway... I think it's good to remember it once in a while--Arcillaroja (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In fact, the notion of ‘Eastern Europe’ as a geographical and political entity is of very recent origin. It took hold during the Cold War when it reflected the newly created reality of a post-1945 Europe forcibly partitioned into two mutually hostile power blocs. But, as the author explains, two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the notion of an Eastern Europe that takes in the Czech Republic—situated in the continent’s middle—while placing Greece—a country at its south-eastern fringe—in Western Europe, is obsolete and misleading. The definition ignores the very different ways the formerly communist-ruled European countries have developed since the end of the Cold War, and can actually be harmful, as was demonstrated during the recent economic downturn." (Christopher Cviic, Royal Institute of International Affairs Journal) http://www.oldcastlebooks.co.uk/main.php?select_isbn=9781842433409

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

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

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

"we cannot change how reality is". The reality is that the geopolitical term 'Eastern Europe' is ludicrously obsolete and you're hard pressed to find any progressive thinkers/politicians who do not agree with that. This is not an opinion but hard (geopolitical/economic) fact. If the article fails to reflect this, then the article is out of touch with reality. The templates are helpful to guide folks until this article takes shape. Gregorik (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" The reality is that the geopolitical term 'Eastern Europe' is ludicrously obsolete" See? another opinion :) --Arcillaroja (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When a geopolitical 'opinion' is coming from an established historian, politician or think tank, it automatically becomes a definition. When a huge body of historians begin to opine that the label 'Eastern Europe' is obsolete, patronizing etc., it becomes a prevalent definition. That is what's happening here. Gregorik (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Recent disruptive edits

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

WP:Undue weight and WP:WEASEL just to name two. Further, adding a lot of references does not mean that the statement is stronger. Some references provided are rather weak in that they are blogs, websites that are devoted to one view, or papers that are addressing other issues and mention this as a side topic. You can also google how many times the term Eastern Europe is used to refer to these countries and then say something like "the majority of western media uses this term to refer to blablabla", and then add big media names. That is POV. Also trying to educate the reader by repeating the idea that these countries are malevolently named Eastern Europe by conservatives is not the role of wikipedia. --Arcillaroja (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, Arcillaroja should expect to be ignored due to his long history of (ethnocentric, ultraconservative etc.) bias on WP, and his edits should be reverted safely. (I'm a longtime contributor to WikiProject Countering Systemic bias.) In the meantime, I've added this neglected article to multiple Wikiprojects. Gregorik (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we will need to keep trying to keep the well sourced info in the article, even if itopposes Arcillaroja (if indeed he does have a long history of disruption). Of course, edits referring negatively to conservativism will offend his sensibilities. ValenShephard (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The most important thing is that I dont agree with the reasons you gave for removal. Undue weight? Nah, there are other viewpoints offered on how to name the region, so this gives a better view of the opinions in reality. Weasle words? Which ones? I would glady help remove/replace them. ValenShephard (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a better view of the opinions in reality? Why is it important to repeat one view several times throughout the article? Adding links to such a view and repeating this idea several times is POV. Gregorik... we know each other a long time and It's ok to be courteous. Anyway, if you feel like scaring me off by threats or by trying to isolate me... be my guest. If you want to accuse me of being disruptive because I try to keep this article NPOV, just send and ArbCom request. --Arcillaroja (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Unencyclopedic article

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

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

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

It may be a new user, but it's not me. I'm waiting for his input. Gregorik (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To user Arcillaroja: I could care less what you believe, but the truth is that other Budapest editor is not me and I don't know him. Now please stop polluting the board with your wikistalking [1] and get a life. Gregorik (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a coincidence! ==>> [[2]] --Arcillaroja (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ruthenia

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

Definition

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

Definition

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

Russia resource

Russia reconquers Eastern Europe via business Russia's Kremlin-backed businesses are snapping up assets in former Eastern Europe, though governments are still wary. BusinessWeek November 17, 2011 Tony Wesolowsky

141.218.36.56 (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding controversy

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

You've introduced some very good new links to the article. Expect some resistance though from some elements. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism of the term is actually common in European academic papers so it may be better to just accept it. One can continue to reject the reality and use W and E Europe as in 1970s but they have less and less usage today. I see no reason to oppose well-referenced facts, unless going into vandalism by simply deleting the whole section. That would undermine, however the idea of a free encyclopaedia through censoring criticism. I would appreciate your support, however, hoping you understand the change that took place in late 1980s.--Rejedef (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding opinionated information supporting a certain point of view is NNPOV. Selecting sources in order to support certain ideas is called cherrypicking. There is a clear difference between East and West Europe in terms of culture, language groups, social and economic standards, history, religion, racial groups, migratory movements, etc. Nobody can deny this. The information added is highly opinionated and should never be presented as facts. Arcillaroja (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I added names of scholars having similar standing. Are you so sure? Culture: Check which areas were involved in intellectual movements. Language groups: Please check to which lands certain languages are actually assigned. Social Standards: check indices such as gender equality. Economic standards: Please verify. History: please explain what you mean? Religion: Check where the Western Church (Catholic and Protestant) actually operates. Racial groups: I thought Europeans are prevalently Caucasian. Do you mean racial sub-cathegories? Even they are profoundly mixed. Check where say Nordic race lives. To be honest, I find your grouping on race very controversial as it it rather racist. Migrations: Please verify it. We can certainly deny this. Many scholars, like Larry Wolff, do deny this. There is no proof it is highly opinionated. If you think it is opinionated, you should be able to prove which part of it.--Rejedef (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you add citations for the various scholars you claim have this opinion. Please can you also find statements of the more normal view, and give citations. The article in The Economist was written as though the concept of Eastern Europe was invented in 1945. It suggests that as the conditions of 1945-1991 no longer apply, the term should be dropped. I had thought that the concept of Eastern Europe has existed for hundreds of years. This is where research into the "controversy" would be useful, rather than merely recycling one side's POV.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The concept is older, but it did no have such disapproving meaning and it was also unshaped until 19th/20th century, according to Iryna Vushko: http://www.timeandspace.lviv.ua/files/research_papers/Vushko_empires_2.pdf. What do you mean by 'normal'?--Rejedef (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One shall have a clearer idea what is 'normal'.--Rejedef (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rejedef, I'll try to contribute to your Controversy section in January (no time till then). Larry Wolff ([4]) and Edward Lucas ([5]) are excellent sources, but you need clickable reference links. Cheers. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I might be inactive, too. Thanks for your help. I find it actually fascinating because all my life I believed in these divisions because I just took them as I was taught but there are people who actually challenged theat misled understanding, brought some facts and proved that we ned to think again about European identity. Personally I experienced that Europeans are actually very similar, despite nationalistic approaches.--Rejedef (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway: these are resources I found very interresting (sorry for repeating):
--Rejedef (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Rejedef, I understand your point of view, and I assume good faith but you have to understand that wikipedia does not try to challenge anything, and neither should we. That there are some scholars that have certain opinions, do not make them facts. Similarly adding only references and statements supporting one view (that European identity does not have divisions) and not the other is in itself POV. And btw, an opinion column in the economist is by no means a reliable source.
Well, though there is a lot of controversy which we must include.--Rejedef (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Gregorik, If there is no East or West Europe, Why should there be Central Europe? I suppose we should delete the article all together? Btw, I thought you said you were not going to pay much attention to these articles... Arcillaroja (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. I think we definitely should pay attention to these articles but not from very biased and obsolete point of view. I do support Gregorik in his views. --Rejedef (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look: It is not writing what I think or staring facts. This is just mentioning opinions of distinguished scholars who actually spent a lot of time in their life, and not on Wikipedia to research the topic. This is why I added at the beginning, or the end of sentences, or paragraphs, expressions such as 'according to Wolff'.
Some organisations do not recognise regions in Europe, others do, while doing it in many ways.--Rejedef (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geographical group - even more controversy: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/divisions.html--Rejedef (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More to research: http://141.74.33.52/stagn/JordanEuropaRegional/tabid/71/Default.aspx http://www.sofiaecho.com/2010/01/10/839942_the-economist-eastern-europe-a-bogus-term http://www.ce-review.org/99/23/lovatt23.html --Rejedef (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Arcillaroja, I'm not sure if anyone cares whether you agree or disagree with any developments on these articles: you have the wrong kind of history of editing on WP, and your edits will most probably be reverted. Remember that I declined to take you to RfC/UserConduct last year. That said, I still assume good faith basically. (Btw, all I said is that I won't be a regular on these pages.) ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 16:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gregorik, try to be less aggressive with me or I'll be the one that will take you to RfC/UserConduct. Don't forget that you accused me before and the whole thing backfired. I think you should stick to your previous resolution of only intervening in more important articles than this and related ones. If you think you are able to contribute neutrally, please be a bit less arrogant. About the only source that we have, the economist opinion column, I think it is not a reliable source to work with. What else do we have to support this section? Arcillaroja (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, guys - maybe let's stop the sort of debating and actually put the section to the article because it has been discussed for 2 weeks already? If you ant to edit it, you are free to do so but please don't delete the whole section, ok? --Rejedef (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought that you were going to develop this and put in something balanced, and with more citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

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

I think we need to understand somehow what Wolff, Iskandar, Wilczur, and Szulecki are saying (and when). The citation for Wolff quotes two book titles, but gives no idea of what he is arguing. This really needs a lot more work. Showing the counter-argument is almost impossible, because the article does not explain what the academics are allegedly saying. All we really have is a magazine article, that could easily have been a straw man.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that the Controversy section is warranted. If no one else does it, I'll wikify and clarify it a bit later. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about this addition?
According to Martin W. Lewis and Kären E. Wigen[1], since the fall of the iron curtain the boundaries of Eastern Europe have been pushed eastwards constantly giving rise to “The bizarre situation… of a continent with a West an a Center but no East” [2]
I also think that we should make this subsection also usable for Central Europe and Western Europe since these articles are closely related and affected by the same controversy. Arcillaroja (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The myth of continents: a critique of metageography, (University of California Press., 1994) Pg.61
  2. ^ http://books.google.nl/books?id=C2as0sWxFBAC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
That's not a bad idea, but then please be proactive about it; that does not include deleting referenced information from the article. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 14:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll add the sentence above. The edit you refer to is about a paper that is NOT from the UN. That's is why I delete that. Please note that the information is in my opinion relevant and that is why I think it's well placed. It is just not from the UN. Arcillaroja (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extra info
One definition describes Eastern Europe as a cultural (and econo-cultural) entity: the region lying between Central Europe and Western Asia, with main characteristics consisting in Byzantine, Orthodox and minor and limited Ottoman influences.
The references mentioned do not support this statement. In the first one you add the webpage of the StAGN. In the mentioned webpage there is no mention whatsoever of the information given (namely there is no explicit mention to the cultural differences of Central and Eastern Europe) and there is certainly no mention to the historical perspectives that are given. Please note that there is a link in this page to a paper written in German that it is not offered in English and therefore it’s unsuitable for the English wikipedia unless this is translated. It is also important to know that the distinction between Eastern and Central Europe is highly controversial and does not belong to the lead.
The second reference, it is said that eastern Europe is "a strip of thirteen countries that runs north and south in an uneven band several hundred miles wide, from the Baltic Sea to the Aegean[...], comprise five major religious groups, three of which are Christian". This means that the countries you want to exclude from Eastern Europe are included in this definition although not explicitly. The Characteristics mentioned in order to divide Eastern from the rest DO NOT EXPRESS that there is a clear difference between eastern and central Europe. And this is not my opinion, this is what the reference says and DOES NOT say.
Some of the Western advocates of this view are the OECD, the World Bank, and US Vice President Joe Biden. The references for the supposed claim do not discuss the difference between central and eastern Europe and of course they do not define these regions in nay way.
Hence removed. Gregorik, I'd like to point, once again, that adding information with no suitable references in the hope that your personal interpretation or vision will be there as no one will take the time to check these references is contrary to what Wikipedia should be. It would be more useful to be less tendentious and more objective. These concepts are very controversial, and we should try to be as neutral as possible.
So this sentence is edited as follows:
One definition describes Eastern Europe as a cultural (and econo-cultural) entity: the region with main characteristics consisting in Byzantine, Orthodox and minor and limited Ottoman influences.
Arcillaroja (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that "a paper written in German that it is not offered in English and therefore it’s unsuitable for the English wikipedia" is not supported by Wikipedia policy. WP:NOENG says: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."--Toddy1 (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Toddy1, Thank you for the correction. Nevertheless I feel that it would be at least unfriendly to add strong statements to the lead based on a document that not every editor can read. I also think that if we include a reference to such a paper, it would be more neutral to add it to the Controversy section. Arcillaroja (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy
Even though this term "Eastern Europe" is in common usage, some academics and journalists have criticised it. For example, Edward Lucas{{who}} took the definition of Eastern Europe as being the former communist block, and suggested that the East-West divide became obsolete after the fall of the Iron Curtain. He argued that in terms of economics and governance, some "eastern European" countries were more advanced than some of what he called "western European" countries.<ref>[http://www.economist.com/node/15213108 The Economist, 7 Jan 2010, ''“Eastern Europe”, Wrongly labelled, The economic downturn has made it harder to speak sensibly of a region called “eastern Europe”''] </ref> His view is supported by Larry Wolff,{{who}}<ref>Larry Wolff wrote about the subject in his books: ''Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment'', (Stanford University Press, 1994) and ''The Idea of Galicia: History and Fantasy in Habsburg Political Culture'' (Stanford University Press, 2010).</ref> Adel Iskandar,{{who}}{{fact|date=December 2011}} Aleksander Wilczur,{{who}}{{fact|date=December 2011}} and Kacper Szulecki.{{who}}{{fact|date=December 2011}}

Central Europe

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

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

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

Pre-1989 Map

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

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

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

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

Since someone came along with minor grammatical corrections and this popped up, I have to ask WTF? There has always been "European Russia" and other. "Eastern Europe" aligned to the former Soviet-dominated/annexex territories is a Cold War artifact, the heart of Europe, central Europe, lies within "Eastern Europe." Think former Austro-Hungarian empire as being at the center. Any of these terms are hate-filled only if used by hate-filled people, which has nothing to do with geography. Don't blame the terminology, hold the individual accountable. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the notion of 86.10.130.171. In fact, I messaged the UN myself and they admitted that this is an internal division that is used by them, and by nome means SHOULD NOT be used as a paragon. I think many wikipedians abused this geoscheme. And yes, in fact the Czech Rep, Poland... are in western Europe (note miniscule - it indicates geographical term), they used to be a part of Eastern Europe (see capital letter indicating non-geographic use, a shortcut for Eatern Bloc countries (1945-1989/90)), but now we tend to call them Central European (note capital), a geographical term to describe cultural distinction for countries from Switzerland to Poland. This diostinction, unlike the Statistical geoscheme, WAS proposed by the UN's geographical sub-division. Here is the document: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/ungegn/docs/23-gegn/wp/gegn23wp48.pdf --131.251.133.25 (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Caucasus is not part of Europe

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

Map of Slavic speaking countries

I don't see any relevance? Nowhere in the article there's any mention that eastern Europe can be defined on linguistic grounds, why the out of context picture of Slavic countries then? Ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.8.24 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No "map of Slavic speaking countries" that I see. ??? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slavic countries are in a few European regions: western-central Europe (the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia), southern Europe (Croatia, western Balkans and Bulgaria), as well as east-central and eastern Europe (Belarus and Ukraine, and Russia), hence there is no mention of the map you want. Slavic Europe ≠ is not eastern Europe; and many people confuse the twain completely, but majority is not always right (look at the map of European midpoints). European part of Russia itself is 40% of all Europe. Remember that. --131.251.133.25 (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greece

I don't understand how Greece isn't showing any cultural connection with Eastern Europe? That's incorrect! Isn't the Ortodox Church the predominant religious affiliation in Greece which is the case in the rest of Eastern Europe? Also their share the same language family with Albania. Szaboci (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response from the UN about the geoscheme

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: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49.htm

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.

It seems Wikipedia abuses the geoscheme, while there is actually an openly proposed geoscheme by the Geographical sub-division: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/ungegn/docs/23-gegn/wp/gegn23wp48.pdf --131.251.133.25 (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Another response: 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: gruberk@un.org

Inclusion of detailed demographics for just Ukraine, Russia and Belarus

Does the Eastern Europe article need a very large table of 40 years of detailed birth, death, and abortion rates for just three of the many Eastern European countries? This seems like undue weight being given to these three countries, and an unnecessary amount of detail. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How Stalin did it

One anonymous IP editor 137.111.13.200 who has not previously contributed to this or to related articles keeps trying to remove info on how Stalin took control of much of Eastern Europe after 1945 in the section "Eastern Bloc during the Cold War to 1989". The material is not at all controversial; it summarizes a 2012 book by Anne Applebaum that has been highly praised by reviewers. She has a Pulitzer Prize for her previous book and many prizes for this one. The IP person did not provide any alternative sources whatever to support any alternative analysis. Rjensen (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean highly praised by the media of the neoliberal establishment? The section is overly long and does not belong here, period, considering that the rest of the section has nothing to do with Stalin or Soviet politics, but merely an overview of post-WWII geopolitics. I have every right to remove that section considering that you have provided no reason why it belongs there in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.13.200 (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romania (under which subsection?)

An editor is trying to add Romania to Central Europe, but Romania is most commonly referred to as Southeastern Europe. None of the countries are added into two sub categories. Should Romania be moved from Southeastern to Central Europe? Discuss! Szaboci (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia is also in 2 sub-categories. 79.117.186.15 (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. This must have been added fairly recently I missed that. I think each country should be added under only one sub category, which is where they are most commonly placed. Szaboci (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also most scholars agree that the Central European states have one major distinction from other Eastern European countries which is the fact that all the mentioned states have a western christian majority. This rule does not apply for Romania nor for Serbia.

Geographically, only some parts of Serbia and Romania are indeed in central Europe, highlighting the fact that thus some sources indeed placed them in Central Europe the right sub category for both states is Southeastern Europe. Szaboci (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's the big deal with placing countries in more than one category. Views as to which country lies where, and which part of Europe is Western/Eastern/Central/Southern/Northern, vary greatly from person to person. We should strive to show multiple points of view rather than just what seems to be the most popular one. I think it's very much ok to say that a country may be classified differently and placed in more than one category (for example: from a cultural and historical perspective, Poland is pretty much Eastern Europe - yet from a contemporary political point of view, it's in Central Europe; geographically it can be placed in both). As long as each statement is backed up with notable sources, then why not? I think as Wikipedians we should feel obliged to remain as unbiased as possible by presenting various points of view. Of course, if someone is trying to remove Romania from one category and place it in another - when there are sufficient sources from both sides - then we should challenge that. But our aim shouldn't be to remove an additional point of view. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Romania is located in Southeastern Europe, with certain portions belonging, geographically, to Central Europe. I do not see why both categories cannot be included? Nicholas (Alo!) 00:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine! Szaboci (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map at the top

Eastern Europe does not have defined borders therefore I do not agree of having a map at the top of the article in the lead giving the impression to the reader that somehow the borders of eastern Europe are definite. I think the maps below the lead are sufficient emphasizing the fact that there are number of definitions (especially cultural, political) available, and definition also vary by each country or region. The map now only covering former communist states of eastern Europe that are eastern Europe in the cold war context disregarding other factors eg. geography, that would possibly include Austria, and Greece as well for instance. Szaboci (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we all agree that Romania for instance can be added to two sub categories meaning Southestern as well as Central Europe because of whatever reasons, it is only logical to accept this basic rule as well when defying the region meaning not pick and choose which map to stay atop. Szaboci (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above criticism. Articles about the other subdivisions of Europe proceed tentatively from the UN-defined delineation. For consistency the E-E article should stick to the same criteria. The present map, unlike the UN-based maps, does not cite any sources. --Vihelik (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it has to stay, judging from the reaction I received here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Central_Europe#Map_and_infobox_at_the_top) I think the bosses aren't so happy about removing infoboxes. 82.39.146.153 (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not have to stay. What "bosses"? As far as I am aware Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. If anyone wants to keep an unreferenced outdated map should join the discussion here. Szaboci (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too, but I think we both know that those who are more experienced and have more authority (admin powers etc.) always get their way here. At least that's the impression I've received looking at this and a few other cases. I even saw one user pushing for change at an article for months with good arguments and people who backed him, but people with more authority refused to accept that - most didn't even take notice. 82.39.146.153 (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do prefer your geographical map, this sums up all the available definitions of the area and does not run along national borders. Szaboci (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poland was always classified as Eastern European until the mid-2000s

Poland is historically and culturally an Eastern European country; always classified as Eastern Europe in the context of the World War II and Post-communism. You can not deny it. If you know the history of Eastern Europe, then you know, that Poland is called "Central Europe" only since 2004, so since the time it was connected to the European Union. Until that time, Poland was always seen as an Eastern European country. Moreover, I get mad when I see i.e. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, or Albania as "South-EASTERN European", while these countries are located more to the west than Poland! Poland extends far more to the east than all western-Balkan countries, so why Poland can't be "at the crossroads of Central and Eastern Europe"?! It's insane how a few American and western-European politicians can change the country's geographical placement. Anyway, Poland was ALWAYS called "Eastern Europe" by the German nazis during the WWII, by the communist occupants, and by the whole "Western world". Yatzhek (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Szaboci (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not provide sources since it's pointless.

  • Poland was a western Christian Kingdom during the middle ages just like the Kingdom of Hungary.
  • Poland was/is part of the renewed central European alliance the Visegrad Group.
  • Polish are western Slavs just like the Czechs or the Slovaks.
  • Poland had enormous German influence just like Hungary, Czechia or the area of today's Slovakia.
  • Vast parts of today's Poland were part of Austria-Hungary (Krakow) and Germany (Gdansk).
  • Polish write with Latin alphabet.
  • Polish are almost exclusively Roman Catholics.

All these commonly known facts place Poland firmly within the western culture and the area known as Central Europe. Please see the Central Europe wiki article for further info and as to why Poland may be referred to as Central European.

In addition to the above. The article does NOT deny the fact that Poland is classified as Eastern European hence the reason it is listed here! BUT so are all the others of the same subcategory. Please refrain from adding unnecessary addition to a list making it look that somehow Poland is a special case. It is not. I would also appreciate if you have any issue with the article first join the discussion here, like I was told. Szaboci (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Szaboci (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements are false.
* So what if Poles are almost exclusively Roman Catholics? Does that make us more "central European" than "eastern European"? Roman Catholicism is NOT a Central European trait. It is largely a South-Western and Southern European trait. Moreover, IF you say that Catholicism makes Poles "Central European", then what about the Croats, who are also nearly exclusively Roman Catholic? How come Croatia, as well as Slovenia (both far more "western" than Poland) are labelled as South-Eastern Europe then?
* Poland is post-communist. That made Poland more integrated to the east and Eastern European culture.
* So what if there is no Cyrillic alphabet in Poland? Does that make us "Central Europeans" instead of Slavic Eastern Europeans? If yes, then explain it to me please, why Bosniaks and the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina (another country placed far more to the west than Poland!) are labelled as South-Eastern Europeans while they write in Latin alphabet?
* Historically Poland extended far more to the east than now, so saying that it was always perceived as a Central European country is a lie. Only people who saw Spain as Berber Africa, or Central Asia as Eastern Europe claimed Poland is central-European. Poland historically was eastern-Europe.
* Nowadays, Poland still extends FAR MORE TO THE EAST than ALL of the western-Balkan countries like: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania, Kosovo etc.. ALL LABELLED AS South-EASTERN EUROPE! How come?
* There is a very good theory, that the largest river in Poland - Vistula - is the borderline between the Central and Eastern Europe. This theory is very good as this is actually how it is from the geographical point of view. That would mean, that Poland is a country situated at the crossroads between Central and Eastern Europe. - That's how it should be stated on Wikipedia. Poland is placed partially in Eastern Europe, and partially in Central Europe.
* The Polish capital - Warsaw - is placed to the east from Vistula, it is way more to the east than the vast majority of the capitals of Balkan countries which are so-called South-EASTERN European. This means Poland is politically more to the east of Europe than Balkan countries, while the Polish government is situated in the eastern part of the country, way closer to the Belarusian border than the German border.
* Poles are Western Slavs, that's right. But this "German influence" that you mentioned made me laugh. You are partially right - Czechs are in fact a little genetically mixed with Germans and Austrians. BUT - Poles as largely Slavic, have some more variable genetic admixtures e.g. from: Jews, Gypsies/Roma, Armenians, Tatars/Mongols, Swedes, Germans, Belarusians, Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Czechs/Slovaks, Serbs/Croats, Lemkos, Romanians/Vlachs etc... As you see a lot of "eastern" peoples of eastern genetic stock lived in Poland in the former centuries and blended in the Polish society by mixing with the inhabitants. However, Slavic people themselves are GENETICALLY FROM THE EAST.
As you see I have responded to all of your arguments. I'm awaiting your answers and further explanations. Yatzhek (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are both right. The categories are loose and vary country to country, region to region and century to century. It really is no point to argue over this. I ain't denying nor does the article that Poland is eastern European with cultural traits connecting it to the East as well. (as listed by yourself) Central Europe in this article is a sub category. It is a subcategory within the Eastern Europe article. Poland maybe referred to as both depending on the author. The categories overlap all the time. I still (and I get your points even though I meant no genetics when I said German influence) see no reason for your addition because then we could do the same thing for each country and this could go on and on...Szaboci (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment

I have started reading through a bit of Inventing Eastern Europe by Larry Wolff and thought that it might be good to mine some quotes from it to serve as starting points for others to add more information to this article.

  1. "[Louis Philippe, comte de] Ségur had a name for the space that he discovered when he seemed to leave Europe but still remained in Europe; eventually he located himself in 'the east of Europe,' which in French, as l'orient de l'Europe, offered also the potently evocative possibility of "the Orient of Europe. As late as the eve of World War I, French scholarship stil alternated between two seemingly similar terms, l'Europe orientale (Eastern Europe) and l'Orient européen (the European Orient)." p. 6

I intend to add more quotes here to this list, but feel free to leave in-line comments. I would normally do this kind of work in a personal sandbox, but doing it more publicly might make it easier for everyone to collaborate. Kind regards, Matt Heard (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional books for source-mining

Good evening. Today I checked a few books out from the library and noticed that none of them were cited as references or listed in the Further reading section: (1) Eastern Europe in the Post-War World, by Hubert Ripka (1961); (2) The Other Europeans, by Anton Zischka (1962); and Europe: East & West, by Norman Davies (2011). The first two are clearly dated, but may provide insights about how Eastern Europe was perceived fifty years ago. I have listed the chapter names from these books in one of my sandboxes. If there are any chapters you would like me to focus on, please let me know. Otherwise, I will try to find some interesting information from these books and will plot out the information and citations in that sandbox. Please feel free to insert any of the information into the Eastern Europe article or even other related articles. Kind regards, Matt Heard (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus

Cyprus is in Europe because it is in the EU. It doesn't border on to any Asian countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.227.71 (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article wording already reflected the fact that Cyprus is considered by many to be in Europe before you made this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Eastern 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 02:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eastern 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 15:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eastern 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:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 16:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a word

I will edit this sentence: "Historians and social scientists increasingly view such definitions as outdated or relegating, but they are still heard in everyday speech and used for statistical purposes." I remove the world "increasingly" and the world "everyday". It is as inaccurate as to say that the view of flat Earth is viewed increasingly as outdated. The Czech republic, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia are NOT Eastern Europe. It is simple fact. Yes it is used by some speech and sometimes for statistical purposes but for example even wikipedia places the Czech republic, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia to Central Europe. The bottom line: Czech republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia are NOT Eastern Europe!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:96CA:4526:3D8D:57A8:694D:D184 (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eastern 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic

If the definition of the Czech republic was used in EVERYDAY speech and used for statistical purposes, then why the hell in every Encyclopedia (including wikipedia) is the Czech republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland referred as the Central Europe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.145.73 (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a political thing. Those who want to distance these countries from a Communist past and stress the German influence prefer the title 'Central Europe'. Those who are irritated with these tendencies tend to use 'Eastern Europe', which is also more traditional (e.g., used by the UN). For similar reasons of prestige, Caucasian states prefer to be called 'Eastern European' to distance themselves from Asia (in spite of geography or anthropology), since Europe is seen as the progressive continent. --Humanophage (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the fact that some systems do not utilize the term "Central Europe", recognizing only the four cardinal direction regions or even just Eastern and Western Europe. All of these systems should be covered here. --Khajidha (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden, Finland, Greece ... are located in Western Europe, Czech Republic is not - ridiculous and childish.--Posp68 (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eastern 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European Union: Central European?

As EddieHugh has remarked, the sources given do not mention "Eastern Europe", nor do any of the other country articles from the same web cite, not even the articles about Romania or Bulgaria. There is thus no foundation for the claim that the "European Union website Europa makes a clear division between East and Central Europe". Moreover, the next claim: "classifying several European countries strictly as Central European" is also inaccurate, since the word "strictly" is not in accordance with the source: The article about Slovenia says "southern Central Europe" and the article about Slovakia says it is in "eastern central Europe" (sic!). --T*U (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eastern 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

‎ 2010s Nationalist Turn

this page should be UPDATED with new imformation and facts about eastern Europe's Nationalist Turn. eastern Europe is known to have nationalist governments and party's. their people are also more nationalistic then people of western Europe. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Economy" and "Major cities"

I have removed the two sections "Economy" and "Major cities". Both of them were based on definitions of "Eastern Europe" that were neither stated nor evident. In the "Economy" section, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia were included, in the "Major cities" section none of them were represented. As long as we cannot give criteria for which countries to include, such comparisons and/or lists are WP:OR. --T*U (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To say nothing of, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia is part of Central Europe.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Lede image

Even if I have removed the Eastern Bloc map repeatedly added by IP2600:1001xxx, I am not completely happy with the current map either, and I think it should be discussed. The following images have been used/suggested during the last years (in order of appearance):

  • 1 Geographic features of Eastern Europe
    1
    Geographic features of Eastern Europe
  • 2 Computer rendering of Eastern Europe
    2
    Computer rendering of Eastern Europe
  • 3 Eastern Europe
    3
    Eastern Europe
  • 4 A common definition of Eastern Europe based on the former Eastern Bloc model
    4
    A common definition of Eastern Europe based on the former Eastern Bloc model
  • 5 The majority religions of Europe
    5
    The majority religions of Europe

Image 1 had been in the article since 2014 when it was changed to image 2 in June this year. In the beginning of September this was again replaced by image 3. Image 4 is what the IP has been edit-warring to introduce.

  • Image 1 or Preferably image 2. There is no way I will support the use of image 4. The lede uses most of its space to explain that there is no precise definition of Eastern Europe. Presenting one specific definition as the main illustration is therefore not the way to go. In fact image 3 has some of the same problem, since the colouring gives at least an indication of border lines. The IP also has a point about the shading not being explained. I suggest going back to an earlier image. I would be fine with either image 1 or image 2, but choosing between them I would prefer the traditional rendering in image 1. --T*U (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support the new suggested image 5. Religion is only one factor in any definition of Eastern Europe, and it is hardly mentioned in the lede. Using this as the main image of the article would be WP:UNDUE. --T*U (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: Religion doesn't strictly mean the church. Religious backgrounds of countries are also defined as cultural backgrounds, because religion is what has influenced the development of nations the longest. They're important in sociology, because they tend to correlate with other societal norms. Often more than common language families, for example. The great majority of European wars have been started or fought on the border areas of those four religions. Protestant Europe, Catholic Europe and Orthodox Europe are all academic terms. Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Without doubt important, but still just one of many possibly defining criteria for Eastern Europe. This image is imho not any more suitable as the main image of this article than the Cold War map. --T*U (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a geographic image would first and foremost be the best option. Image 1 would be ok, if it were a little bit more zoomed out. The fact that it's so zoomed in, makes it a bit too specific imho. I do think that the cold war map is the worst, because it deals with something that is the past - for many a very painful past - so by definition, it doesn't deal with current-day realities. And obviously conjures up all the underlying ethnic, historic, linguistic tensions, creating an edit war in perpetuity. Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! And I see your point about image 1. Changing my preferance to image 2. --T*U (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image 2, image 3 or image 5 . because 2 and 3 are suitably non-specific. Image 5 does not make claims of any regional affiliations, but places the three larger religions of Europe, which inadvertently is also connected to culture and history. Disclaimer: I added map nr 5 Blomsterhagens (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with map 5 as per its talk page this map does not comply with WIKIPEDIA basic rules, like unsourced and clearly incorrect.

Hi Sadko! This discussion took place one and a half year ago. Image 2 was chosen and has been in the article since then until a week ago, when it was replaced by a map, see discussion in the section below. Feel free to join there if you feel for it. Regards! --T*U (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from my user talk page

This is copied from my user talk page, where such discussions does not belong. --T*U (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image used in the inbox covers the whole area that comes under Eastern Europe. (including Central Europe, the Baltic states, and the Balkans), with the countries of the Caucasus, and the transcontinental countries of Turkey and Kazakhstan.

Everything east of Germany and Austria is generally considered the Eastern part of continental Europe. And the image was a visual representation of what there is clearly written in the article itself about what countries come under Eastern Europe.

As Core Eastern Europe is generally Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova. Sometimes the countries of Central Europe, the Baltic states, and whole of the Balkan peninsula is also included in Eastern Europe. The image used in the inbox had the Core Eastern Europe, the extent of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and the transcontinental countries partially falling under Eastern Europe. And the inbox was better than the useless image of an apparent computer rendering of "Eastern Europe" where even Western Europe can be seen. So it was indeed appropriate for the article to have the inbox and the image used in it. Danloud (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Danloud: I do not have time to answer this just now, but I will be back later, hopefully tomorrow. While you are waiting, I would suggest that you take a look at WP:BRD. Also, I would recommend that you look for some sources supporting your claims. --T*U (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Danloud: First of all: Wikipedia is a community project where editors are supposed to cooperate about improving articles. In order to be able to do that, editors need to communicate. It would be very helpful if you would use edit summaries regularly in order to explain the content of and the reasons for your edits. I see that you have been advised about this in your talk page by an administrator. Please take that advice seriously. If the edit needs more explanation than can be packed into an edit summary, then explain in the article talk page. Especially if there is a content dispute, it is the article talk page that is the correct venue for your arguments, not the user talk page of the user you disagree with. That is the reason I have moved your comment here from my user talk.
WP:BRD explains a way to solve disagreements about content. When a Bold edit is Reverted, the next step is not to reinsert the edit, but to Discuss in the talk page. In this case, I see that it was not you who introduced the infobox in the first place, only the map. However, that does not exempt you from the obligation to avoid edit war and initiate discussion. I would prefer that you removed the infobox pending a consensus here in the talk page, but I will not revert you myself.
Now to the content: The map in the infobox is problematic, to put it mildly. In the map you have marked the "Extent of Eastern Europe", as if that was a universal truth. The whole article shows that there exists no such clear definition. The map mainly follows the Cold War/Iron Curtain divide, which (according to the well-sourced lede of the article) are seen as outdated or relegated. The map does not quite follow that line either, since Eastern Germany is not included. And what about Greece? Greece is usually included in Southeastern Europe, often in Southern Europe, traditionally sometimes even in Western Europe (for Cold War reasons), but it is almost never included in Eastern Europe, except in your map, where it is the only country included that did not belong to the East Block. So what are the criteria for inclusion in Eastern Europe in your map? And what sources can you give for those criteria?
Then we come to "Core Eastern Europe". I must admit that I have never come across that before, and I have not been able to find one single source using that description, far less defining it. The "core", as you define it, seem to consist of the countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union, but not including the Baltic states. The inclusion of Moldova, but not Romania in the "core" is one thing that needs an explanation. However, the main problem is the term itself. Unless you can present sources that describe "Core Eastern Europe", this is nothing but original research, see WP:OR.
There has been many discussions in the different "X-ern Europe" articles about adding infoboxes, but it has always been rejected for lack of clear inclusion criteria. In this case, the only information beside the OR map and the OR list of "core" countries is the demonym "Eastern European", linked to a newly created article. There is no need for an infobox.
To conclude: Without clear, sourced inclusion criteria, both for general inclusion and for the "core", the map and infobox should be removed. --T*U (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eastern_Europe&oldid=960017420"