Talk:East-Central Europe

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Europe This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. inactive .Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

the user Montessquieu made a point in Central Europe and Eastern Europe that a separate entry on Median Europe is needed. As this notion differs significantly from Central Europe, a redirect is not a good solution. 24/48h given to Montessquieu for preparing a solid article is probably better than a blank page, as well as a misleading redirect. Pundit|utter 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was deleted? Marc KJH (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for your comments to the article. I think it's better to discuss everything here than to start a new edit battle. If any statement is not cited, it means that it was taken from the French version. The map is also from the French article, where Latvia and Estonia do not form Median Europe (why? "other precisions" in the article). Best regards, Montessquieu (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Daniel Calin's journal - is it fair to base the views of one fellowship researcher that has partnered with NATO as NATO's official views? I don't think so. This should be changed. This isn't NATO's views, it's only the view of a particular researcher, a researcher who doesn't belong to NATO but has conducted a study in conjunction with them.

And Greece isn't in the Balkans? That's news to me... --Buffer v2 (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Greece/Balkans - article's abstract: South-Eastern Europe (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, FYROM, Romania, Slovenia, plus the continental parts of Greece and Turkey). According to this exhaustive definition both Greece and Turkey will be dealt with as important actors in SEE. It is also important to explain the present meaning of "the Balkans" term, i.e. the region consisting of most of the countries in the former Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia – Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, FYROM, plus Albania and Bulgaria. Due to their proximity, very often, Romania as well as Greece are incorrectly regarded and dealt with as Balkan countries. It's cited author's point of view. He distinguished South-Eastern Europe and the Balkans (probably not in geographical but historical and cultural sense) being a part of South-Eastern Europe. Montessquieu (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I kindly suggest that the silly map is kept outside this article. If someone is interested in using the map (a fine collection of WP:OR at its worst) then please take the time to gain a consensus for how the map should look here first, before inserting it again. At present, it had funny ideas such as European Turkey being included but not Asian Turkey (no support in the article). Finland and Greece were included, suggesting that the creator (probably a good contributor with the best of intentions) of the map has not understood the sources. Halecki, in 1950, used the term to refer to areas outside pre-war USSR that had fallen or risked falling under communist occupation. So to include Finland and Greece is just wrong, plain and simple, as neither became communist. And the creative divisions of Yugoslavia are interesting to watch but not matched by any sourced material. In short, the map is a total mess, even more so than the article. JdeJ (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European but not Asian Turkey: "plus the continental parts of Greece and Turkey" by Calin. If the map is controversial, I may propose a separate map for each definition (Halecki's vision may be précised that it has its origins in 1950s). What do you think?

Yugoslavia: I agree, it's not sourced and should be removed. It was just a translation from French Wikipedia.

I did understand Halecki's idea, I was trying to make the map neutral (to avoid voices that certain contributors are included on the map and the others are not). Maybe it wasn't the best solution. Montessquieu (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this comment on the article's modifications history. Unfortunately, no precision appeared on the talk page. Without concrete reservations, it is impossible to discuss any changes of the article. This talk page is designed to discover any original research and incorrect facts. Please, write your objections here (as other users have already done), then it may be easier to come to agreement. Everyone may present sources which contradict presented information, different sources may be then opposed and any inaccuracies may be removed. Please note that various definitions are presented to avoid unilateral and arbitrary solutions. If you regard it as mess and have any ideas as to the article's structure and/or content, this is the place to express that. Thanks. Montessquieu (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea that any unsourced information (which is not obvious and cannot be explained e.g. using different Wikipedia articles) should be removed. But I propose to indicate any objections here at first. Montessquieu (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been contested (of course without any prior objection on the talk page) that the reference to

This is your own conclusion, not supported by the reference, and was rightly removed by mukadderat. Please read carefully the policy

WP:SYNTH. `'Míkka>t 17:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The source is lacking and I tagged it so. I don't think it makes sense to delete the whole paragraph, including one solid looking reference, altogether. Pundit|utter 17:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise to read "The Tragedy of Central Europe" by Milan Kundera but I don't know if English version is available online (it was published in English by "New York Review of Books" (Polish version here). You can always look at Huntington's famous theory of Clash of Civilisations and his list of major civilisations (a map is included) - I hope it'll be clear then, if not - look at any good book on comparative study of civilisations. I'm unable to find any source stating that the term "Central and Eastern Europe" is incorrect because I can't find any single source defining the term - it's the only place where any controversies could "officially" be mentioned. The article on Central and Eastern Europe is completely unsourced (any single source!). The term is widely used, but I've never heard about any researcher who would try to explain this term (and I think it would be a difficult, if not impossible task). If anyone's able to provide scientific sources on Central and Eastern Europe (which don't just use the term but explain it), I'd be happy to read it. PS. In this case, to avoid original research, I can propose to remove both: the statement on controversy of the term "Central and Eastern Europe" and the article on "Central and Eastern Europe" itself. It's not possible to prove that some term is incorrect if it's not defined. What do you think?

And a few words about the origin of "Central and Eastern Europe". After 1945, East-Central Europe became communist, only few researchers were interested in the region, language barrier, informational blockade and Soviet policy also contributed here. After 1989 researchers from East-Central Europe could freely (without any intervention of censorship) say: "hey, it's Central Europe here!" and nobody could object. But in Western Europe, habituated to the fact that "pure" Central Europe was Germany, Austria etc., found it hard to pronounce. It was clear that this region couldn't be called "Eastern", so this neologism appeared. It has never been result of any scientific research. If such a research exists, please provide me with references. Montessquieu (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TO MIKKALAI: 1) Look at Huntington's map of major civilisations (here), try to find Central Europe and Eastern Europe and you'll see that one is dark-blue (as the rest of the Western civilisation), and the second one is sky-blue (as the rest of the Orthodox civilisation). If you need direct statement that exactly those two regions belong to different civilisations, see Kundera's essay. 2) Loucas' article explains the differences between Central Europe, Eastern Europe and Middle Europe. Read pages 8-11. 3) If anything is still unclear, write it here before making changes. Montessquieu (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to reorganise the article, as adding new contributors would make it even less clear than it is now. As the definition of this concept is not unanimously agreed, it is still necessary to maintain various points of view, but I propose to put Halecki first (he's the first one who used this concept) and maybe Magocsi (if not - please move him to "other contributors"), but I think that it's not indispensable to create new section for everyone who wrote a book on ECE. The section sacrificed to other contributors is the place.

Dear anonymous user who added prof. Koźbiał. The professor's point of view if certainly very valuable, but it could not remain in the article without being rewritten. I'd suggest the following wording:

• Jan Koźbiał distinguished two subregions in East-Central Europe:
  • Northern subregion, including Germany/Austria, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and other Baltic states, and Russia;
  • Southern subregion, including (please complete).

The author suggests that with Germany and Russia the northern subregion constitutes a safe triangle, where each from three main parts dominates in certain time period (Germany in the Middle Ages, Poland in 16th and 17th centuries, and Russia till the revolution).

As you have probably noticed, it would be necessary that you complete this fragment as to the southern subregion; précising the revolution in Russia (including internal link to a proper article in Wikipedia) would also be nice. The book's title is not so important to put it in the article's body, but its presence is necessary in a footnote (which also must be added in order to protect this fragment from being deleted). Please double-check the book's title, as I am not sure whether such a book exists - isn't it a chapter in "Studia Interkulturowe Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej"?

Best regards, Montessquieu (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Central and Eastern Europe and this article separate? They deal with the same topic, why not merge?- _J.Logan`^t: 14:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed it, and if within reasonable time there is no interest, the merge will be done. After all, there is no West-Central Europe article, and this article is already short, and copies a lot of things from Central Europe article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fənɛ́tɪks.fərɛvər (talk • contribs) 12:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The UN source that was used to reference the existence of a East-Central Europe or Central Europe no longer exists. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there has been little agreement on how to subdivide Europe, and even if the UN would be the ultimate authority to decide, other (mostly serious) subdivisions exist. Countries like the Czech Republic, Germany or Poland, are profoundly attached to the concept, as a part of their identity.

Secondly, the document which you quote, is a document developed by the UN Statistical division, for its own use, and it is not by any stretch supposed to be used outside its offices to group countries or give authority, according to the UN helpdesk. Also, other UN divisions, like the Geographical Division of the UN, do recognise Central Europe.

Thirdly, the United Nations DOES acknowledge Central Europe. In its document from 2006, it has clearly suggested what European regions are in Europe. That DOES include Central Europe. The description of Central Europe there is extensive and is officially proposed. Please consult: United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names.--Fənɛ́tɪks.fərɛvər (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, map lists Lithuania as Eastern Europe and ethnically simmilar Latvia as not. The same problems as in Bulgaria but not an eastern europe. How? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.200.65.99 (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same corrupt clan based economics and politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.200.65.99 (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather depressing viewpoint. Unfortunately, it's global these days. Bulgaria is Orthodox, and Latvia is default Lutheran (or atheist), if it explains a little. there are more, just read more Wiki :)--Fənɛ́tɪks.fərɛvər (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge East-Central Europe into the main article Central Europe. Most of the data already is shared between these two articles, and West-Central Europe article doesn't exist anyway. Merge seems to be a logical step to include minor concepts relating to Central Europe--Fənɛ́tɪks.fərɛvər (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose East-Central Europe is a geopolitical term describing one of the Three Europes. 2001:8003:9008:1301:70BF:5EFB:E84A:9D69 (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080317144933/http://www.sipa.columbia.edu:80/ece/about/mission.html to http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/ece/about/mission.html

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

Y 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.—

Hi, whoever has added the UNGEGN division list as a list of European regions has misunderstood the reference material. The UNGEGN is a group of experts, and the group is split into (linguistic) divisions. If the divisions come together, you don't get Europe, you get the entire expert group; the romano-hellenic division includes France, and even Canada (! Fer Cry's Sake), which is fine for a list of expert groups, but not as a list of countries purportedly constituting East-Central Europe. TLDR: Someone has mistaken the UNGEGN itself for Europe and the rest of the world. The UNGEGN reference will in the fullness of time be removed, if there is no objection. T 85.166.162.64 (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell me why is Austria in this subregion called East-Central Europe? 2001:8003:9008:1301:70BF:5EFB:E84A:9D69 (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile Europeans use older traditional cultural/civilizational borderlands for the definition of Central Europe, the Americans want a purely Geographical term (somewhere in the middle of the continent) , neglecting the old cultural/civilizational borders. they are clearly opposing points of view.--Csataelőkészítő (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]