Talk:Central Europe/Archive 1

The Map of Central Europe should be changed
In the Map of the Central Europe, appears Belarus in full size, if Belarus is to be considered rather than Romania a Central European Country then I think it should added also Romania, by the way cultural Romania belongs to Central Europe due to its latinity and latin origin of the people more than other countries which have nothing to do with Latinity, eg. Hungary.


 * Please sign your edits. I agree that the map needs changed.  It should be similar to Eastern Europe.  Belarus is not in Central Europe. --Noitall 17:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Why should the Latin heritage be an argument to consider Romania as part of central Europe? All other Latin European countries are arguably not part of central Europe: Italy, Spain, Portugal, France etc. Tomeasy (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Central Europe Is the New EU states?
Is it true that people call the newly joined states of the EU Central Europe? I never heard of this. Please give me links to any sites with this.
 * I do wonder too. I do not think that Malta, Cyprus or the Baltic States do belong (geographically) to Central Europe. MartinBiely 20:59, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * See the rest of this talk page. Last time I saw it was in the Guardian, some weeks or maybe 1½ months ago. I don't think anyone really hold Cyprus etc to be Central European, it's just that since most of the new member states actually are, and the others are fairly small, the other are easy to neglect. /Tuomas 21:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i think so

Visegrad Four
Is there any other name for this region in Central Europe, since Visegrad isn't really the name of the region?

Definition
Is there a clear definition for this term, or do countries to which it refers vary?

We could really do with a map on this type of page Theresa knott 10:27 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

What relationship does this have with the German idea of Mitteleuropa?


 * "Mitteleuropa" is no idea but just the German translation for "Central Europe". Achim


 * Mitteleuropa is in fact from Austria-Hungary. I've documented it now. --Shallot 12:50, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm a Central-European myself, though my neighbours are definitely Eastern-Europeans. That is the problem: some parts of Europe changed locations so many times that it might cause lots of confusion. Just watch the history of Warsaw, before WWII called Paris of the North (I have a french guidebook from late 20s), after the war became Eastern-European city, now moving to the West.


 * According to cultural definitions I know and use, Central Europe is the region of both eastern and western influences, with a melting pot formed in the last years of existence of Austria-Hungary. Most of my friends often argue that the reasons behind calling this part of the world Central Europe are mostly cultural and not historical or geographical. Most of the Central-European countries indeed share some part of late XIX and early XX century history, but the most important part is the culture. We share the same culinary traditions (cofee as opposed to Eastern tea, apple cakes as opposed to cheesecakes, beer as opposed to vodka), similar night-life styles (coffee-houses as opposed to restaurants and bars), and a set of basic words (you can call for a waiter using german expression Ober anywhere, from Ljubliana to Cracow and from Vienna to Bucharest). Can this be turned into wikipedia article?Halibutt 23:06, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Marginal note to "German expression Ober": It is very Austrian, Germans as such don't understand it...Jakob Stevo


 * Shouldn't Lithuania (or maybe all the Baltic Republics) and western (Greek Catholic and Ukrainian speaking) Ukraine also be included and Switzerland and Germany (except for Saxony, Mecklenburg and Brandenburg) excluded?


 * That's what think. Germany is and was consdered a Western European country throughout ages.Halibutt 18:55, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm note to sure about the exclusion of Germany. It's what i personally do when stressing how Austrian mentality has more to do with Slovakian than "Prussian", but that's only one aspect of the term. I definitely think that Lithuania should be included. Let's just call in Non-Romance Catholic Europe ;-)Jakob Stevo 21:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Most of Germany, as well as Switzerland, fits the profile IMO. Lithuania probably also fits, Latvia is borderline, and so are Belarus and Ukraine as well as Croatia, Serbia and Romania. --Shallot 11:21, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * As stated above, for me Central Europe is almost equal to Austria-Hungary and its' cultural area (Bavaria, Congress Poland, Romania). That's why Galicia (Central Europe) should be included. Especially that there is still a lot of Central Europe in Western Ukraine (contrary to other parts of this beautiful country, which are more or less russified). Halibutt 22:29, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

One of the key and defining features of being a Central European is an attitude a la "I'm a Central-European myself, though my neighbours are definitely Eastern-Europeans". Eastern European often in turn translates into uncultured or "nekulturny" and in turn creates new (not just edit) wars...But we do like each other, really :-) Refdoc 18:39, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yup :) Halibutt 19:57, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Part of the confusion stems from geography versus politics. Consider what the people in those countries themselves learn at school about the geographic location of their countries. The Swiss geography schoolbooks say that Switzerland is in Central Europe. A young character in the German film Die fetten Jahre sind vorbei, 2004, (called and spelled The Edukators in the US) says at one point "here in Central Europe". The Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Polish geography schoolbooks teach the children the same, that their countries are in Central Europe, and have done so for decades — communism, fascism, or democracy.

The fact that the geographic terms "east" and "west" were hijacked for symbolic use to mean "communist" and "capitalist/democratic" respectively says nothing about geography.

Europe has its geographically central area just like the US has its Midwest (which no one splits into an "Atlantic" part and a "West-Coast" part). That has been overlaid by the symbolic, non-geographic application of the geographic terms in Europe.

Carca220nne 14:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

'Mitteleuropa' is just the German translation for Central Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.229.187 (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright
Is this article from http://www.wordiq.com/cgi-bin/knowledge/lookup.cgi?title=Central_Europe or (as I think myself) has that site stole this article, without mentioning the GFDL? Jeroenvrp 23:51, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * See Sites_that_use_Wikipedia_for_content. Maximus Rex 23:53, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * See Copies_of_Wikipedia_content_(low_degree_of_compliance) instead.Halibutt 19:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Regions in the east and the south
While the stuff about the Danube being the border are too imprecise and too deterministic, Vojvodina is actually a region rather Central European in character. It's certainly no less Central European when compared to places in Romania or so. The better part of Galicia which is in Ukraine is also Central European. Central Croatia and Slavonia are, too. There are probably others that I can't name offhand.

These were all places that spent the better part of the last millenium in similar circumstances as did the areas already described as Central Europe -- you can see it in their history, their architecture, cultural traditions of the indigenous peoples, even the general mentality (although that's more volatile due to migrations).

Drawing maps based on current country borders is a fun exercise, but cannot be accurate when it comes to terms like these. The page Southern Europe suffers from a similar problem, too (and it's even more pronounced there). --Shallot 15:34, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Western parts
Austria is _very definitely_ part of every useful definition of Central Europe not just in the "German concept".
 * Would you agree that Austria is Central European in the Austrian/German mindset? - that's how I read "German concept". --Ruhrjung 00:35, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
 * No I would not. This is not a complexed little Austrian getting upset about bundesdeutschen Chauvinismus. This is me (who happens to be Austrian, but which probably isn't of such an importance here) saying on basis of a common cultural background that there is no useful explanation for why Vienna should _not_ be Central European other than the Cold War period's definition. Jakob Stevo 12:26, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Our cuisine is heavily Czech, there is a history of Slavic settlement from the early Middle Ages on (place names like Tauplitz which happens to be a spa - toplica 200km off the next Czech or Slovenien border speak a clear language), the country is largely Catholic as opposed to much of Germany or Switzerland, a very large proportion of the so called "Germanisms" e. g. in Croatian are basically Austrian (It's only in Austria that Schlag or Schale are used to mean cream and cup respectively!). Not to talk of the ambiguous "mentalitiy" which is also in many ways closer to Czech and Slovak than to German.

The only definition that leaves out Austria would be one based in very recent history, let's say "former Communist countries with a Cahtolic and/or Protestant tradition" which is only referring to a period of 45 years after WW II. Doesn't make sense to me. Jakob Stevo 19:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you, but all in all the Tuomas version is preferable and the one suitable to continue to work from as it comments the development of the understanding of the concepts of Western Europe, Central Europe, and Eastern Europe. What I miss the most is references to the common Central European culture, where pre-Nazi Berlin, München and many other German metropols belonged to a mesh stretching to the Black Sea. Naturally, a notion of Jewish contributions to this culture would be of importance. At the same time I must state my own too limited knowledge (if I were to write more than I've done, then I would have to read a lot on the subject first). I would happily have put some effort into such a project, but the current bellicose athmosphere here indicates that I for my own mental well-being better wait some time. Meanwhile maybe someone else will find reason to... ;-)

I would also like to remind about that not only Austria-Hungary, but also Germany stretched far wider to the east than present-day Germany does. And the issue of what is German mentality is not a simple one. One can't neglect that before 1918 the differences between Lübeck and München (Thomas Mann) or between Freiburg and Königsberg (not to mention the "settlements" in Wiburg, Saint Petersburg and Balticum) were of quite another magnitude than today's misunderstandings between new and old states of the republic.

Finally, I wish I could defuse some of the impression that I be overwhelmed by Great Germany's role. In reality, I believe the importance was in the interaction between different ideas and cultural expressions, and for me German language was most of all a good conductor for this exchange. --Ruhrjung 00:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Your claim that "Today some people try to revive this notion [The Alpine group as central european contries] in English, not least those who hold a German leadership role in the European Union to be natural" is ridiculous.
 * I don't know about you, but I've followed English language news papers rather closely for the last ten years (and less closely also French, Dutch and Scandinavian), and it's quite obvious and not the slightestly ridiculous. However, I'm not sure if this remark is merited in the article.--Ruhrjung 09:37, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I've already showed you that for instance Britannica refers to Germany as a country of central Europe. Is Britannica (or other English-language encyclopedias) among those?

It is your right to consider Germany not a central European country, but Wikipedia should reflect the usage in English. Elizabeth A


 * The leadership stuff for .de is a bunch of insinuation that tries to find a political subtext in the fact they're fairly suitable for "central" based on a simple look at the map. The dated interpretation of the term Mitteleuropa also looks like more of the same agenda. But then, the "Alpine countries" stuff is a very stretched designation if it incorporates .de, most of which is not Alpine. This is a byproduct of a different kind of agenda, the one that tries to stuff all the countries into convenient little boxes. That's silly beyond belief... As it has been discussed before, there are valid reasons to include parts of not only Slovenia and Croatia but also Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Romania, Serbia into the page, we shouldn't try to restrict it to country borders because by and large the borders of the region don't match them. --Shallot 08:25, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * On current usage, I don't really know if it's worth anything, but you might want to compare the following:
 * http://www.centraleurope.com/
 * http://www.cefta.org/ (The Central European Trade Agreement)
 * http://www.cebd.com/ (The Central European Buissiness Daily)
 * http://www.agr.hr/jcea/ (Journal of Central European Agriculture)
 * http://www.cecta.org/ (Central European Countries Travel Association) – "an umbrella organisation, at the heart of New Europe, bringing together the collective interests of Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland"
 * http://www.algonet.se/~mljung/ (Central European Skiing)
 * http://users.ox.ac.uk/~oaces/ (Oxford Austrian and Central European Studies)
 * In one case above Germany is included.
 * --Ruhrjung 09:37, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

(cross-posted):

As you may have noticed, I have already showed you that both the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and the last edition of it, states that Germany is "a country of central Europe" and a "country of north-central Europe traversing the continent's main physical divisions", respectively.

http://81.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GE/GERMANY.htm http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=109145&tocid=0

Here is the Columbia entry as well:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ge/Germany.html

"Located in the center of Europe, it borders the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France on the west; Switzerland and Austria on the south; the Czech Republic and Poland on the east; Denmark on the north; and the Baltic Sea on the northeast."

You may also want to have a look at the article on Europe. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, Central Europe includes "Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary".

http://www.bartleby.com/65/eu/Europe.html

Elizabeth A


 * The CIA World Factbook 2003 lists exactly the countries we currently list as the 'core' Central Europe: Here is a list in which you will find that Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Switzerland are classified as Central Europe. I reckon this is a sensible list, including as regards common use. Sinuhe 15:10, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I rest my case.
 * In this kind of situations, I usually write something with the effect of I'm convinced that history will prove me to have been right. In this case I won't. Not because it seems too pompous, and not since I'm certain to have been wrong, but since I hold it to be possible, maybe even likely, that people in general, in a not so distant future, will come to think of Germany as a Central European country rather than as Western European.
 * --Ruhrjung 00:51, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
 * --Ruhrjung 00:51, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Tuomas, there was pretty much a silent consensus for months about the definition including countries from both sides of the former Iron Curtain. I'm not sure I see a point in constantly bringing this up again. --Shallot 21:07, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I've had other things to concentrate on in the last weeks. Today it's raining and I've nothing else to do. ;-> /Tuomas 10:59, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Space Cadet's version is clearly preferable as it points out the CIA Fact Book as one authoritative source of counting Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Germany to present-day Central Europe. With respect to present-day usage in English, I think it's enough to read newspapers. Compare for instance: Central Europe is not frequently and not particularly in the Western world taken to include these countries. It may become so, one day, but we are not there yet, and an encyclopedia must be conservative and honest with regard to language usage. --Ruhrjung 18:25, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=UTF-8&q=western-europe+OR+western-european+german+OR+germany
 * http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=UTF-8&q=central-europe+OR+central-european+german+OR+germany&start=10&sa=N


 * Those searches are indicative, but perhaps more indicative of something else: the fact is, the most common distinction between parts of Europe these days is that some are western and that some are eastern. While the northern ones are sometimes grouped, there's little or no grouping between the southern ones. Similarly, the central ones aren't so often grouped. But then, this article concentrates at the central ones and if we go beyond the facts that contradict the article's very meaning, the inclusion of .de et al is just fine. Perhaps we just need less partisan phrasing... again :P --Shallot 19:46, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Regarding a less partisan phrasing I think the attempts to mould the different conceptions of Central Europe as one singular "truth" suppressing the other is the same as begging for instability and bad prose and deranged disposition of the article. When I've tired of correcting this error, someone else will – sooner or later. For a different approach, see Scandinavia. That article has not been without a similar kind of dispute. /Tuomas 11:16, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * When there are several conflicting definitions (and there's at least four here: that it doesn't exist, that it's Mitteleuropa, that it's the countries east of the Iron Curtain, and the geographical definition), you can't have a single article without at least a hint of a choice between them. And as soon as you do that, someone finds the choice wrong, or even worse offensive, and undoes it, and then we go in circles... --Shallot 12:31, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I have, since my first encountered conflict at Wikipedia, serious doubts about the way Wikipedia handles concurrent views. I also find that the way wikipedia works, intelligent and knowledgeable contributions seem disfavored, which is an incentive for all of us to become more of stubborn fighters. And this is bad.


 * In an edit summary, you write that you've never seen the Baltic states referred to as Central European. I wish I could agree, but in the last few months I've seen plenty of that in phrases like "the new Central European members of the European Union" in contexts where no other category of "new members of the European Union" are mentioned. I've noticed this in English texts, but also in Finnish, Spanish and Swedish. This language gives only two possible interpretations; either is the writer ignorant of the Baltic states, or has the writer started to count them to Central Europe. For a similar phrasing, you may want to see Euroscepticism. /Tuomas 05:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, applying Occam's Razor, the writer is ignorant. Nothing strange about that, really. --Shallot 13:12, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New Map
First of all, great map! It's better than the one I made. I noticed some person added on Danube Group. Is this an actual classification? Also, is anyone going to add a color-coded key to countries like Belarus, Lithuania, Romania, and Ukraine, since they've been listed under Central Europe? Just Wonderin. --24.189.3.230, 21:51, 23 May 2004

Eastern parts
Hi, I can not agree with you: Several other countries also have regions that have historically been part of the central European kingdoms and empires - ALL territory of Poland-Lithuania including Belarus and Ukraine is very often considered as part of Central Europe - I will give you an example from contemporary British historical researches if you want. Excluding other Ukrainian territories but Carpathian Ruthenia and Galicja and including Belarus and Lithuania makes no sense.Yeti 15:46, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * How about, exempli gratia, Donetskor Crimea? --212.76.33.75, 16:52, 5 Jun 2004


 * I suppose we could limit Lithuania to the southern region and Belarus to the western ones, but Ukraine is much larger than either of them and it spreads much further to the east, so it doesn't make sense to include all of it either. --Shallot 17:02, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should limit Lithuania to the south. It does make sense do say western Ukraine, probably also western Belarus, but there isn't much to slice up about Lithuania. I remember feeling quite like coming home when getting out the Riga-Vilnius bus :)
 * Jakob Stevo 00:21, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * We can not mix Central Europe in historical with political sense. In historical sense all territory of Poland-Lithuania belongs to Central Europe. The border between Lithuania (later Poland-Lithuania) on the west and Muscovy and Tatar Khanates on the east existed for 500 years. Donetsk and Crimea never were parts of the state. It is why almost all Ukraine (without easternmost parts) CAN be considered as Central Europe. Maybe we could replace Galicia and Carpathian Ruthenia with more general: western and central Ukraine or something like that?Yeti 15:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * That's a valid data point, but I'm afraid that's just one, we need to find a balance between various viewpoints. It wouldn't make sense to extend the definition so far to the east and at the same time restrict it in the west as is being proposed by others... --Shallot 21:26, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It is OK with me to include Ukraine's "western and central parts". There is just to many different definitions of the term. For Germany (as to not restrict it to much in the west) I would state that it has "often been considered as Central Europe as a whole" while some historians only include parts of it (which again probably can not be limited to Catholic). Jakob Stevo 09:23, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Germany revisited
I don't think anyone disagree with Germany historically having been counted to Central Europe. However, Germany links to the Federal Republic of Germany, that prior to 1991 was West Germany and today ends at the Oder-Neisse line. The historical notion is correct for the times when Austria and Prussia and Silesia and... were all parts of Germany. ;-> --Ruhrjung 10:03, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)


 * What is it that makes Germans Western European? Of course much of it was considered Western on political grounds for much of the 20th century (not before like 1950s though, let's be honest about it). I don't remember my exact source, but I do believe that "Western Europe" was used in a certain period to disqualify the "decadent" places like France, England,... - which shows that people did not see themselves as Western European. Besides, you are probably "Wessi"? Have you ever managed to convince an "Ossi" of being "Non-Central"?
 * I have some relatives in former East Germany, and I remember the exciting time when we with West Berlin id-cards were allowed unrestricted visits to East Berlin. I can't think of one single Ossi who would think of the re-united Germany as anything else than Western European. They may be "formerly East-European" in the same sense as they in their own mind may consider their land "formerly Prussian", but if someone today lable them as "Central European" or "Prussians" (which isn't unheard of) then it's clearly alienating, a sign of not being from there. My experiences of Thuringia are rather limited, but from Weimar I have very much the same impression. --Ruhrjung 20:41, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * We are not talking of "Eastern Europe". As far as I know, "Western European" (in a political sense) is no contradiction to "Central European".
 * I agree, but our friend Elizabeth doesn't. --Ruhrjung 02:37, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * It is a bad habit of some English speakers that they at some point started to say "Central European" meaning only the parts behind the Iron Curtain, and of course, the media took it over, that's just people after all, but as an encyclopedia we should try to avoid "inaccurate" use of the term: Neither sociologists nor geographers nor historicians would ever restrict themselves to such limitations, at least most of them. You are talking of a "Central Europe" in a political sense, which actually never existed before 1990. The term's much older though. Jakob Stevo 21:23, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Not only the English speakers share this bad habit. Have you never noticed how eager most Germans have been to establish West Germany as an entity different from the prior Prussia-led constructs, totally in accordance with allied propaganda? By defining post-1948 Germany as West-European we decree our (new) cultural and ideological belonging to the traditions represented by Switzerland, France, Benelux, Scandinavia and UK. But that's of lesser relevance here. This is the English wikipedia, and unless we report specific usage in local non-English languages, the only thing that counts is usage in English. --Ruhrjung 02:20, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * It's not only a historical notion, also cultural: Ever tried to get some proper "Quark/Topfen" or "Kohl/Kraut" in "Western European" France or Spain? Well, they are basic ingredients in Poland and Croatia, and - Germany. Much of it, anyway. Of course you can insist that you are Western European, I just don't see the point. What's bad about being Central European? --Jakob Stevo 16:40, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * You miss the point totally when you discuss if it's good or bad to be a Central European. Of course such sentiments may be the foundation, but in any case, the only thing that counts is the honesty of Wikipedia. The text could state that some/many/most Austrians view themselves as Central European or alternatively maybe as both Western European and Central European. However, in present-day English discourse Central Europe is the same as the new members of EU (and possibly some of the candidates), a more polite expression for Rumsfeld's New Europe. --Ruhrjung 20:41, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * No, sorry no. New Europe includes, amongst others, Bulgaria, which is most definitely not Central Europe. Maybe in daily-papers discurse Central Europe is indeed limited to the "new ones", but surely not in any culturologic, geographic or historical discurse, which are at least as accurate a measure. And, look a line or two lower: it actually does clearly state that nowadays the word is often used only for the "new ones" on this and that grounds. But that is not the only and as I and others see it not even the most accurate use of the term. Why shouldn't that be enough? --Jakob Stevo 21:23, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Since the repeatedly reinserted text doesn't say "the most accurate use of the term Central Europe would be" – instead it says "frequently" and "particularly in the Western World" (implying English usage included), and that hints directly at that news papers discurse which you argue for disregarding. However, also statistic reports and scientifical reports, as for instance covering intra-EU issues or the past elections, frequently group present-day Germany with Western Europe. Germany before 1945 and 1918 is of course another issue. --Ruhrjung 02:06, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * Well, it was not my idea to write "generally, particularly in the Western world" if you want you can change that introduction. But again: Of course in a "political" sense Germany may be Western European. But the term Central European has many other meanings, not only historically, even up to this date, where it is clear that Germany is included. If this was a political encyclopedia, I would probably agree on your definition, but it is much more, fortunately. --Jakob Stevo 10:28, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I've tried to modify the wording (within my field of competence – culture and ethnology are not my cup of tea), but am somewhat disappointed in the response from Elizabeth. /Tuomas 10:55, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A single source
Is it really so difficult to find a single source backing your claim up? Now, both the CIA World Factbook as well as all English-language encyclopedias I've seen, including Britannica and the Colombia encyclopedia, clearly states that Central Europe includes Germany. It may be your personal opinion that Germany is not Central European, but such a claim needs to be substantiated. Show me reliable sources, or stop changing the article back to your version. Elizabeth A

Your comments in the edit summaries do not make you seem very serious or honest. Why do you argue that I should promote an uniquely personal view when I try to coordinate the opinion you represent with other opinions represented here and in our days' English?

The present-day usage in newspapers has been extensively demonstrated above. Similarly the usage in touristic contexts and in governmental information. When it comes to text books on political science, it would require more (much more) work to falsify or support my impression, based on having read a number of such books, so to put it bluntly, that is nothing I am prepared to do, neither do I propose that the article specifically be to argue anything in that respect.

May I remind you that your removal of a reference to a source (CIA World Factbook) is contrary to good Wikipedia practice, and may I kindly ask you to refrain from such in the future? /Tuomas 07:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your sources. Where are they? Is it impossible to find, say, a single English-language encyclopedia which support your personal view? Do you have any evidence that Germany is not generally considered Central European by English-language encyclopedias? Cite your sources! Elizabeth A

Stop being ridiculous. I've supported your point by working in your point of view and your source reference in the text, and the only thing you do is asking me where my evidence is while stubbornly removing the reference to your source again and again. It's easy to get the impression that you do your best to annoy. Can you please explain why you disregard the lists above and the amendments made by others than you? It's hardly the appropriate thing for you to od to request "more evidence" when the currently presented sources on present-day usage talks against you. /Tuomas 16:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Stop being ridiculous yourself. Is there any evidence that the Alpine countries are not frequently considered Central European? Since you do not wish to show me any sources, I have to believe it is not. Then there is no reason to write that Poland etc. are "frequently taken to include", while the Alpine countries are "only included in some encyclopedias etc". In fact, all sources state that the Alpine countries are part of central Europe, and I must consider it proved that they are in fact generally included in the English-speaking world when talking about this region. Your view is the minority view, and if you wish to have that view included in the article - as a minority view - you have to cite some sources. You are not a source, and Wikipedia is not a place for original and your very personal opinions. Elizabeth A

Stop being ridiculous yourself. Is there any evidence that the Alpine countries are not frequently considered Central European?
 * Last time I examined the lists above, it was something like 80%-20% on the list of www-links and no occurences at all of obvious/stated inclusion of Switzerland/Liechtenstein/FRG in the referred English language news, but plenty of occurences of inclusion of Poland–Hungary. /Tuomas 21:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since you do not wish to show me any sources, I have to believe it is not.
 * This is unbelievable. Why do you demand that I should show you any other sources than has already been listed at this very talk page, when you so far have behaved as a broken record disregarding anything that has been written here since you entered here in early May? /Tuomas 21:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Then there is no reason to write that Poland etc. are "frequently taken to include", while the Alpine countries are "only included in some encyclopedias etc".
 * It doesn't say only. /Tuomas 21:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In fact, all sources state that the Alpine countries are part of central Europe, and I must consider it proved that they are in fact generally included in the English-speaking world when talking about this region.
 * In fact, you have not yet showed one single occurence in present-day news paper usage that includes Liechtenstein in the concept of Central Europe, but the list above shows plenty of example of the opposite. /Tuomas 21:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your view is the minority view, and if you wish to have that view included in the article - as a minority view - you have to cite some sources. You are not a source, and Wikipedia is not a place for original and your very personal opinions. Elizabeth A
 * This is not my personal opinion. I have included your edits with those of other wikipedians &mdash; and taken into account the credibility of the sources they have presented aswell as your sources; and taken into account the credibility your and their behavior give reason to.


 * But I strongly resent your ways of editing: again and again brushing aside the contributions by other editors. So far you've not even started to comment on the changes made by others, and not yet ever tried to establish any version that aims at including other points of views than your own. This is deplorable. /Tuomas 21:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Ruhrjung has posted some references to a couple of rather obscure home pages which hardly can be considered relevant. Please cite reliable and relevant sources; that is, sources like those Sinuhe and I have cited, Britannica, Colombia, CIA World Factbook etc. Are you not able to find a single English-language encyclopedia supporting your POV?

I would be happy to include your POV as a minority view in the way you want to mention the majority view (i.e. "some encyclopedias consider etc.") '''if you are able to cite some reliable sources which support this view! At least one!''' So far I haven't seen a single source. Wikipedia cannot use User:Tuomas as the source for an encyclopedia article. Then you perhaps should consider making your own homepage? Elizabeth A

Still missing the sources. Do you think we should write "However, some Wikipedia users holds that Central Europe does only include the Visegrád group of the Central European countries; so far this view hasn't been supported by any other sources"? Elizabeth A

What would be a better source to document "frequent usage", "present-day understanding" etc, than google test and the links to English language news in google news with the key word Central Europe(an)?

I have never asked you or anyone else to take my word for granted. By your repeated implications of that, you use a infamous propagandist technique that I think in English is dubbed strawman. This is one of the reasons why I by now view your appearance here with quite some suspicion.

What I ask you to do is to take a look at edits and talk-page arguments by others than yourself, and tell how and why they are to be neglected. It's no use to dismiss them without explaining how. You don't convince anyone that way. Particularly not after you have behaved the way you have.

If you think that a google-test comes up with obscure results, then explain how a google test should be constructed to come up with a more credible result. /Tuomas 23:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not want "google tests", I want reliable sources. If all English-language encyclopedias and similar authoritative sources use one definition, then Wikipedia should also use that definition. An encyclopedia should be conservative and stick to common English usage.
 * Then it shouldn't say that it reflects "frequent usage" or "present-day usage" or any similar constructs. /Tuomas 00:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is no proof other than your word that the definition used by all encyclopedias cited so far is not common English usage.


 * Where have I said anything about that?


 * I am, contrary to you, working with the material on this talk page and in the different edits done to the article. /Tuomas 00:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not think Wikipedia should use geographical definitions not supported by any other encyclopedia.

And you are not the person who should complain about the behaviour of other contributors or be "suspicous". Elizabeth A


 * So?
 * Do you care to explain why not? /Tuomas 00:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Switzerland is Western European, not Central European!
LOL! John Calvin's society were all Western Europeans. How is Suisse distant from France? TheUnforgiven 09:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Russia ? :-)))
Politically, geographically and culturally Russia belongs to Eastern Europe and Asia. Physical location of Königsberg/Kaliningrad does not change anything here. --Lysy (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Huh, ex occidenta lux?


 * This now fasionable term is so arbitrary, that you may define it as you like. Let's follow logic:


 * 1. Central Europe is a region, hence it is geography that matters.
 * 2. Poland is declared by Poles to represent a part of Central Europe (although Western Europeans do not think so).
 * 3. Kaliningrad is situated to the west from the Polish capital.
 * 4. Kaliningrad is part of what region? Central Europe, of course.
 * 5. Kalinigrad is politically a part of the Russian Federation. Hence, the Russian Federation also belongs to Central Europe.


 * Set me right where I'm mistaken. I don't known how you would prove that Warsaw is part of Central Europe and Kalinigrad is not. --Ghirlandajo 20:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Very well, Sentence 5 is the main part where you are wrong. That I have a couple fingers of mine on top of the keyboard doesn't mean that my whole body is on top of the keyboard. That France has a department of it in South America, doesn't make it a South American nation. That Spain has two cities in Africa, don't make it an African nation. And that Russia has a tiny region in Central Europe doesn't make it a Central European nation. That's the geographical argument.
 * OK, following your logic... That Russia has some regions in Europe doesn't make it an European nation... That Russia has some regions in Asia doesn't make it an Asian nation too... So, Russia is situated out of any continents? Or is it a continent in itself? ;)
 * The British Empire used to sprawl on all five/six continents, so it was not European too? --Ghirlandajo 21:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't care about your misapplications of logic, nor about your false analogies, nor about discussing with someone who pretends to be a fool. Nor do I have the time to educate you if your ignorance of logic is truly as complete as you seem to pretend. And as a sidenote the very labelling of Europe as a "continent" is itself a POV unsupportable-by-logic piece of terminology -- so if you're to start with whining about "Central Europe", why don't you start whining about "Europe" period? As for Russia, it can be considered European or Asian, or both, but that's again besides the point. As for the British Empire it was a global affair and only European in the sense that it was ruled from a European nation. And this paragraph is the last I consent to play with you. Aris Katsaris 22:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I haven't consented to "play" with you at all. You'd better continue applying your exceptional intellectual abilities and faultless logic to the articles like Viktor Krum or missionary position. Grow up, and then return here to discuss more serious subjects than harrypottermania. --Ghirlandajo 10:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You think I'll be ashamed with any article I've contributed to, whether that's "List of sex positions" or Harry Potter trivia? I'm not ashamed of them at all, nor do I see any reason to be. It's you who should be ashamed for your stupid games of disrupting Wikipedia and intentionally misapplying logic. Your latest tactic of considering fannish or sexual articles supposedly shameful, only makes it clear that discussing with you is irrelevant.Aris Katsaris 03:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly. The percentage of area and population of Kaliningrad oblast is simply tiny in comparison to the whole of the Russian Federation. You can say that K. is CE, sure, but that doesn't allow for the analogy to be expanded by several magnitudes by including the whole RF. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The second part you are wrong is in Sentence 1. Central Europe is a region, but "Central Europe" is also a *term*. And thusly the *usage* of the term is also important, even if said usage contradicts your logic. Aris Katsaris 20:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Both the term and the article on it is a mess. I used Kaliningrad instance as a way to draw attention to the fact that "Central Europe" is a vague POV term whose meaning is not properly determined. Probably some mention of it should be made in the page. It is nonsense that the city of Kant is put into Eastern Europe, whereas the Muslim and culturally Asian Tirana or Sarajevo are classified as belonging to Central Europe. Geography and logic are completely ignored by the Poles and their neighbours who promote this term. Where belongs Finland? or Greece? --Ghirlandajo 20:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, Central Europe (or Mitteleuropa) is pretty well defined for centuries regardless of the logics of your original research here. It's only recently been shadowed by the "Eastern Bloc" and "Western Bloc" usage, as the article explains. Have you heard of any credible sources that would refer to Russia as part of Central Europe ? --Lysy (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is such a well-defined concept as you say, please answer my questions on Greece and Finland. Also, isn't it time to remove your impertinent remarks from the article on "half-Asian" Curonian Spit, now that the summit in Durban is over? --Ghirlandajo 21:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, what is your problem with "the Poles and their neighbours". Is this something personal ? --Lysy (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's something personal: my great grandmother was Polish. Actually, I only pointed out that it is the Poles who get most nervous when their country is alluded to as part of Eastern Europe. --Ghirlandajo 21:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That "Central Europe" (and for that matter "Eastern" and "Western Europe" also) is a vague term of fluid and possibly POV meaning is already mentioned and described in the article quite clearly IMO, and I think that I've made it even clearer in my reworking of the introduction. You hurting articles to make a point or "draw attention to facts" is annoying. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. As for whether Albania or Serbia's inclusion are ridiculous or not, instead of "drawing attention to facts", you should have made a better contribution by seeing whether a lack of references to them as Central European would have justified their removal or not. I've not researched the issue myself, so I just mentioned in the intro that the inclusion of these countries in Central Europe is rarer than with Poland or Czechoslovakia -- which I believe is indeed the case. Aris Katsaris 21:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * If we use Central Europe as a "term", I daresay there is a big difference between Christian Serbia and Muslim Albania. How such different entities could be united under the same "cultural" heading? --Ghirlandajo 21:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you disputing the accuracy of the article, or just making random observations about how bizarre our world is? I'm not interested in discussing random observations. Aris Katsaris 22:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Kaliningrad should be mentioned, the question is how to do it without implying that Russia proper is in it. How about, "the Kaliningrad territory (or region) of Russia"? --Noitall 22:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. --Ghirlandajo 22:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'll need to see historical references for the usage of the term as applied to Kaliningrad. Aris Katsaris 03:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Do you oppose Lysy's edit, it seems fine to me. --Noitall 03:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've not seen Kaliningrad "commonly" referred to as Central European. Trying to google up references to it in conjuction with the words "Central European" has come up largely blank also -- almost all seem to refer to its neighbours instead. So, yeah, I disagree with the article saying it is commonly included in "Central Europe" if it's not. Aris Katsaris 03:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * You haven't seen many things in this world yet. Read Britannica 1911 or any other 19th-century source mentioning the term and see whether East Prussia (and Germany, in general) was considered a part of Central Europe. If the latter is primarily a geographical term, as the article claims, transfer of the region to another country shouldn't affect it belonging to Central Euroep at all. --Ghirlandajo 06:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a difficult one. Geographically it is between Central and Eastern Europe.  Culturally and historically, it is closer, I believe, to Poland and thus Central Europe.  I think google (actually other writers) have basically ignored it.  And the term Central Europe is actually sort of new since the dissolution of the Soviet Union (everything before was East-West).  Since it has been ignored, I think the a rational argument could be based on a geographic and cultural association.  It can't be ignored, it is sitting there like the elephant in the middle of the room.  Interested in your opinion.  --Noitall 03:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * East Prussia used to be part of Germany. Historically, Germany was regarded as part of Central Europe. I hope noone would deny that. After WWII, Eastern Prussia was divided between Poland and USSR. Now, the Polish sector is part of Central Europe, and the Russian sector is not? What is the logic of it? --Ghirlandajo 06:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The term is actually much older than the division onto Western and Eastern Blocs. Reading the article might help, Noitall. When it comes to cultural terms, the Central Europe is (at least in Poland, Ukraine, Bohemia and Slovakia) strongly associated with the legacy of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Thus Russia is completely out, both mainland and its dependencies. However, politically, East Prussia and Kaliningrad-to-be used to be a part of Northern Europe prior to WWII. AAMoF around WWI the area was referred to as either part of Central Europe (parts of it were regarded as Mitteleuropa) or Northern Europe. It wasn't after WWII and its annexation by USSR, that it shifted to Eastern Europe... Halibutt 05:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * And reading the article might not help if the issue is not addressed. We are discussing what to refer to it today.  I did not address the entire history back to the Vikings.  During the Eest-West split, it was in "Eastern Europe" as was much of "Central Europe."  What should it be referred to today?  I stated that it should not be ignored.  A little less condescention and a little more enlightenment would help.  --Noitall 05:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Interbellum"-formations?
I don't understand the end of the following sentence:

The German term Mitteleuropa (or alternatively its literal translation into English, Middle Europe) is sometimes used in English to refer to an area somewhat larger than most conceptions of 'Central Europe'; it refers to territories under German(ic) cultural hegemony until World War I (encompassing Austria and Germany in their interbellum-formations but usually excluding Balticum north of East Prussia).

Does the writer perhaps mean prebellum (if such a word exists), since he refers to World War I previously? ("Interbellum" would mean between wars, but which two wars are meant? Perhaps the clause should be deleted entirely (thus reading "encompassing Austria and Germany but usually excluding..."). Also, shouldn't Austria be changed to "Austria-Hungary"?

Critic9328 06:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes
I fail to see the sense of the recent changes made to this article. What's this so-called "Adratic group"? I see no reasoning in it. Also, the author reclassified Slovenia from an Alpine country to a part of the "Adriatic group" and said that it is partially an Alpine country, but that it takes pride in its "Adriatic-ness". There is absolutely no reason for that statement. What is "Adriatic-ness" anyway?

It all looks to me just like another excuse to include Croatia into Central Europe. edolen1 20:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Neither of the sources mentioned: "Encyclopædia Britannica, the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and the Columbia Encyclopedia, as well as the CIA World Factbook" does mention any Adriatic group nor Croatia as part of Central Europe. This is simply soapboxing. --Lysy (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, Croatia is an interesting case. I think Croatia is quite similar to Romania (particularly Transylvania), in that it is economically-advanced in comparison to the rest of Southeastern Europe, and politically it has been much more closely associated to Central Europe. However, just as Romania isn't counted as part of Central Europe, I don't think Croatia should. It isn't commonly allocated to the region, and there are some cultural differences,. Additionally, Croatia isn't commonly considered to be Central European in common political usage. Southeastern European is the best descriptor for it, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Adriatic-ness is something different and hasn't really got anything to do with geographical groupings such as Central and Southeastern Europe. Slovenia and Croatia are both Adriatic in the same way that Spain and Greece are seen as Mediterranean. Adriatic-ness - an identification with the Adriatic Sea - is a "cultural" thing, that is also influenced by tourism. But it's not a particularly prominent term and borders a bit on original research. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 09:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Croatia is economically far more advanced than Romania and the rest of the South-East Europe. Its GDP per head of population is bigger than that of Slovakia, Poland, the Baltic Republics etc. It ranks second in Central and Eastern Europe in the number of internet users and has by far the longest network of motorways (autobahns) (around three times more than Poland). As of the 11th century it formed part of the Croatian-Hungarian Kingdom through the so-called personal union (joint king) and as of the 16th century till 1918 it was part of the Hapsburg Monarchy. On the other hand, Romania was part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries and its culture resembles that of its Balkan neighbours (Bulgaria and Serbia). Also, unlike Croatia which is predominantly Catholic, Romania is Orthodox - another feature of a typical Balkan country. Furthermore Croatia went through Renaissance, Reformation, Baroque, Enlightment and so on which no country under Ottoman rule did.
 * We all think that we are more advanced then the other. I would not say Croatia is "far more advanced then Romania". Both countries stand at a GDP/cap of about $10.000 (give or take $1500 here and there). And on top of that Croatia still has the old shaddow of the Yugoslav wars which it still has to deal with. As a last clarification, Romania was never part of the Ottoman Empire. Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece were at different times parts of Ottoman provinces, however not Romania. In fact a good chunk of Romanian history, that is about 600 years, Romanians fought against the Ottomans until the last war with them in 1877-78, which the Turks lost.Constantzeanu 00:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What "you" think or not think is your private matter. I may or may not agree with you and vice versa. However, there are some scientific indicators that can help us shed some life on this question. According to the World Bank (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf) the GNP per capita of countries in Central and Eastern Europe (+Turkey) was as follows:
 * Slovenia 14 810 USD
 * Czech Republic 9,150 USD
 * Hungary 8,270 USD
 * Estonia 7,010 USD
 * Croatia 6,590 USD
 * Slovak Republic 6,480 USD
 * Poland 6,090 USD
 * Lithuania 5,740 USD
 * Latvia 5,460 USD
 * Turkey 3,750 USD
 * Russian Federation 3,410 USD
 * Romania 2,920 USD
 * Bulgaria 2,740 USD
 * As for the "Yugoslav wars" aspect you point out, I could only say that it is rather astonishing that a country that was in a war for five years and had 14 thousand of its citizens killed and suffered 27 billion dollar of war damage is performing THREE times better than Romania.
 * As for the Ottoman Empire you are only partly right. Here is what the Britannica says about Romania: "Nearly four centuries of Ottoman Turkish domination between the 15th and 19th centuries reinforced the Romanians' attachment to the East. Hardly had the principalities achieved independence than they were forced to confront the relentless advance of Ottoman armies into southeastern Europe. By recognizing the suzerainty of the sultan and by paying him annual tribute, the Romanians avoided direct incorporation into the Ottoman Empire. The Romanians thus preserved their political institutions, laws, and social structure, and they avoided a massive settlement of Muslims onto the land. (...) Ottoman domination reached its height in the 18th century during what is generally known as the Phanariot regime. The Romanian principalities were now vital military bulwarks of the empire, as Russia and the Habsburg monarchy pressed relentlessly against its frontiers, and Ottoman officials decided to replace native princes with members of Greek or Hellenized families from the Phanar district of Constantinople who had amply demonstrated their loyalty to the sultan. As a consequence, the autonomy of the principalities was drastically curtailed, and the payment of tribute and the delivery of supplies rose precipitously. "83.131.0.243 09:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well as you yourself noticed, the Romanian principalities were never inside the Ottoman Empire. They were not vylayets or pashalyks but countries that payed a certain anual fee in order for the Ottomans to stay out. As far as your source is concerned, I am sorry but it must be a little outdated: my source is the ciaworldfactbook.com which you are welcome to consult any time. Yes Croatia is doing a little better then Romania, but they are pretty much the same. If you also count the late Romanian economic growth(some would call it a boom), then I don't know how much better Croatia is doing. About the "Yugoslav War", my argument was that Croatia has not come to terms with it, regardless of economics. Croatia is very much linked to those wars, even though from the economic point of view it may be an attractive tourist option. Constantzeanu 01:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that Encyclopaedia Britannica is an authoratitive source and certainly one of the best sources there is. As far as economic performance is concerned I beg to differ over how "similar" Romania and Croatia are. By the same token, I suppose there are not to many differences between countries in Central and Eastern Europe. And that is not true. As far as economic growth is concerned most of it is in the countries with low GDP per capita (exceptions being some Baltic countries) and Romania is one of them. Foreign investments are flowing into the country taking advantage of low labour costs. As for the Yugoslav wars, I am really not sure what you mean by Croatia being "very much linked with it". I am not going to go into details now but I fail to see how five years of foreign occupation by a neighbouring country could possibly erase a shared history that Croatia has with other countries of the former Hapsburg Empire. And for your information, tourism may be the only thing you probably associate Croatia with, but it only comprises 8 per cent of Croatian GDP. I know you are probably confused by the fact that Romania and Bulgaria will be in all likelyhood joining the EU before Croatia which is economically far more advanced. But ask anyone in western Europe and most of them will tell you that this expansion is a political one. Similarly, according to the EUROSTAT, most Europeans would vote against Romania and Bulgaria if given an opportunity. Also, despite the war Croatia doesn't have a problem of abandoned children living on the street or leper colonies or plethora of other social plights that Romania has been afflicted by. 83.131.91.63 10:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

UPDATED Croatia
The recent edit: "About one half of Croatia is also considered Central European, while the other is considered as a Mediterranean. By that Croatia is a very specific country on intersection of two major european regions, with ritch mixture of cultural influences, but also a country of turbulent history."

How is one half of Croatia distinguishable from the other? Which half of Croatia? If that is to be included, then this should be explained. I've never heard of Croatia referred to as a Mediterranean country. It can be referred to as Central or Eastern European and more specific, a Balkan country. Definitely not a Mediterranean country (it doesn't even border the sea). Saying that "Croatia is sometimes considered Central European" is enough in my opinion. Some consider it central european, others don't. End it at that. Looking for opinions.


 * Agreed. I think that simply stating that Croatia is sometimes regarded as Central European is enough. edolen1 19:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely not a Mediterranean country (it doesn't even border the sea)? Except it has more than 1000km coastline and numerous islands:-) --€ro 17:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

LETS GO ONE BY ONE - Mediterranean -> http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/Thesaurus/00002903.htm UN classifies Croatia into the group of Mediterranean nations. Croatian coastline being more than 5300 km long, confirms this. - Central Europe - through 900 years of Austro-Hungary during which 99% of its present territory was under that republic which was classified as Central European. Proofs:
 * http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3166.htm - US officially classifies croatia as in between central and eastern europe, which means it may be in this Central classification since countries that go more East are included (ie Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary)
 * The area that is considered more South (south of Sava being the maximum territory of south known as widest value of area of Balkands) makes less than 50% of the territory, and the North which is geographically 100% in Central Europe has more than half of Croatia's territory (50%+X). Not withstanding that area below Sava is still considered Central European too without disagreements up to a point. This is mentioned to pullin for the fact that north and northe west Germany technically are hard to prove central European Geographically, same goes for eastern Poland, eastern Slovakia. (this argument is finalised in the conclusion)

- Balkans - Both Croatia and Slovenia became more Balkanly noted since 1914 due to KSRS and Yugoslavia I and II being formed. Confusion arrises today with the notion of Western Balkans. To see that it is not a firm thing one can go to Lonely Planet http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/destinations/europe/croatia/see and then on the side see a link to Western Balkans book which is basically almost all of old Yugoslavia, Croatia and Slovenia inclusive. So yes, due to the two being both in central and south and eastern europe in some part - it all depends which aspect one allows to predominate. - Eastern Europe - I believe one needs not to prove this.

Conclusion Because, Croatia is not a mere dreamer to be Central European oriented country but has much facts that can support its belonging to CE, and because there are nations recognising its Central European identity this group must allow it to be part of it. Many countries in Europe have more than one "region" For example, Austria is both central and western, it does not mean Slovakia is western nor does it deny it to be central. Logically, there must be like I said some common background tolerating it to be in Central European website, and I believe there is annough.

Conclusion2: Croatia and Slovenia cannot be put in a same basket, as they are different like USA and Mexico. Even in former Yugoslavia Slovenia was Europe, slovenian mentality and high cultral habbits were very much unlike the rest of the country. On the other side Croatians, at least those ones who speak Shtokavian (90% of them) are a typical Balkan nation, with their war heroes and Haag convicts, same as Serbians and Bosnians. That's the fact and not any 'smoothly-hide-the-truth' propaganda can change it. Cheers; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Encarta Britannica did set Croatia under "southeastern end of central Europe" in 1995 and 1996. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.82.238.198 (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Once in the East, Now Back in the West
How about this as a new definition for Central Europe?...those countries from the former eastern/communist bloc which profess Western Christianity. This includes 2 Protestant countries (Estonia, Latvia) and 7 Roman Catholic countries (Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia). Culturally and historically, they all belong to the Western World (Western Europe, Anglo-America and Australasia), and all are in the EU with the exception of Croatia (a temporary delay).


 * No original reseach, please. --Lysytalk 17:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See here . --JNZ (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Romania
Romania by most definitions is also considered as a Central Europe country. It has this status definitely more than let's say Croatia. -- Eliade 14:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources and then include this. When you claim something, you're supposed to prove it. Good luck. Todor→Bozhinov 14:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Im curious as to which definitions is Romania defined as a Central European nation. I have never, nor do I know anyone who would consider Romania in Central Europe.  Croatia, which is sometimes considered Central European culturally is rooted to Central Europe much moreso than Romania.  It's also a more modern, developed and economically stronger state than Romania.  22:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)~


 * Romania is belongs to East Balkan. Traditionally and culturally, as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.183.114.55 (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Geographically it's fully in Central Europe (if you divide it in 3 parts, the line between Central and Eastern goes right through Istanbul, which is at the east of Romania). Culturally it's definitely in Central Europe, considering it's in the EU and NATO and has always been ally of the west. "Religiously" is the only criteria that might put it in Eastern Europe. All in all, it definitely does belong in Central Europe. But with the amount of antiromanian propaganda on the Internet, I'm not surprised at all, and I will not waste my time trying to convince anyone of that. And considering there are even some people who believe even Ukraine (!) is not in Europe, why am I even surprised? 86.120.210.195 14:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Benelux
Arn't the Benelux part of Central Europe. Germany for example has extremely close cultural ties to the Neatherlands, Luxembourg and parts of Belgium. I think the Benelux countries should at least be partially mentioned here as they are culturally and linguistically very closely related to Germany and are also considered to be part of Germanic Europe.  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Germanic Europe" does not mean "Central Europe". Montessquieu (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Croatia should be added
Croatia is missing! Croatia should also be listed as central European country it belongs to Central Europe geographicaly and historicaly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Croatia
Geographically, Croatia is as much a Central European country as it is a Balkan one (only part of the country is in the Balkans geographically, by the most common definition of the Balkan peninsula). Culturally, even more so. Historically, it's Central European. As defined by modern politics, it's in the Balkans, but the cultural and financial differences between Croatia and, for example, Albania, are vast. Between Croatia and the countries defined here as Central European, the differences are incomparably smaller. Furthermore, most Croatians never visit Albania, Bulgaria etc. in their life, while many visit northern Italy and Austria on a regular basis.

You definitely could, and actually should. write that it's debatable but what with Roman Catholicism as its religion, a Central European history, a predominantly Central European culture and a Central European way of life, it's definitely an understatement to just say that some of Croatia's regions are in some way Central European...

Also, having read on this discussion page the claim that Croatia doesn't have a sea border, I just have to wonder, with all due respect, how someone can be so uninformed about simple geography and still edit this page. Croatia has a long border on the Adriatic Sea (part of the Mediterranean Sea), opposite Italy and is considered a Mediterranean country, regardless of other labels, such as Central European, Eastern European etc. It has the third largest number of islands in Europe, after Norway and Greece.

And as for the claim that it is questionable whether Croatia is better developed than Romania and Bulgaria, it is as questionable as whether France is better developed than Croatia. That is, not questionable at all.

I suppose the best definition of Croatia was one I read some time ago in a German textbook: that it's a Central European-Balkan-Mediterranean country. I know that sounds ridiculous, but it really is the most correct, though funny, way to put it.--Blancodio 01:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that Croatia is a Central European country with Mediterranean touch. And I would also like to point out that maybe the most apparent evidence that places Croatia culturally in Mitteleuropa is the fact that Croatian children as their second foreign languages ( English being the first) select German, in central, northern and eastern parts and in southern and western parts Italian is commonly spoken. I myself speak Italian, German, English and French and almost everyone else speaks at least one more language besides English. It is also good to know that official language in Croatia untill 1848.! was Latin which was replaced with Croatian after being in use for hundreds of years. Also Croatian GDP is MUCH higher than e.g. Romanian or Bulgarian despite the fact that Croatia waged a five-year war and still has around 12000 refugees (internal-displacement.org ). Kontrolleur Cro 01.23 CET, 13 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 01:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion is ridiculous. Most Croats identify themselves as a part of Central Europe but with a Mediterranean influence. Most Croats feel they have more in common with Central Europe (geographically, historically and culturally) than with the Balkans and the Orthodox Eastern Europe. It’s like somebody would consider the U.S. to be a part of Latin America. I don’t know why this is even being discussed here since the Croats and their Central European neighbours to the north don’t have any problem placing the country in Central Europe. --84.217.47.194 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. I agree that Croats could be added, and especially if the majority has the feeling you describe, surely you'll be able to provide viable sources on that. Remember that Wikipedia only reflects social processes that can be referenced. Pundit | utter  19:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that Croatia is Central European and numerous sources identify it as that. The only problem is that it's neither part of the Visegrad Group nor the Alpine countries. Dalmatia is sometimes excluded. You'll have to find a way to address that issue. JRWalko (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I’m a Croat and most (if not all) of my countrymen that I know feel that we have more in common culturally with the Catholic countries of Central Europe and the Mediterranean (Italy particularly). That’s why I find this discussion to be ridiculous. It’s hard to prove this statement to a foreigner since there have not been any polls on this issue in Croatia that could prove this. As far as I know, polls on how people in a particularly country identify themselves haven’t been conducted in any country in the world. I don’t know what country you’re from but I’m sure you have an opinion on how you and the majority of your countrymen identify yourselves - Western Europe, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, the Baltics?. Official Croatian sources say that Croatia is both a Central European and a Mediterranean country and this is what we learn in school. But this is also how we feel. We have more in common both culturally and historically with CE than with the Balkans. This is not an issue of nationalism or politics but a fact. --84.217.47.194 (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally understand your view. If you really care about mentioning Croatia as more Central European than it already is (the article mentions it as occasionally included) look for verifiable and viable sources in English on that. I'm sure there are scholars in Croatia and abroad who publish on this important issue. Pundit | utter  22:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above Croatia is NOT part of the Visegrad Group and NOT part of the definitions in those texts mentioned. It should be added but with it's own source. You can't just attach something new to a citation that doesn't talk about it. JRWalko (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, someone added Croatia. I personally view Croatia as a Central European country, but can someone please supply an academic source?  Otherwise, it's POV. --Buffer v2 (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here you go www.alpeadria.org/italiano/index.php?did=Strategien.Alpen-Adria_engl.doc - Alpe-Adria is a regional alliance since 1978, and hereby defines it as Central Europe - all of Croatia's territory in the region

Alpe-Adria is not a relevant source, its importance has diminished after the break up of SFRJ, and it's not a factor any more. The only source to confirm what country belongs to Central Europe, being also a much stronger recent economic alliance is CEFTA and all the countries that belong to it. Cheers.24.86.110.10 (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Alpine countries
Maybe it's only me, but if Germany is included within Alpine countries, shouldn't France and Italy then be included, too? No matter how I think it over, my conclusion is that they are much more "Alpine" than Germany ever was. Yaan (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the name is used in an illogical way indeed, but what can we do... In fact these doubts are even incorporated in the article, e.g. when saying that In the article on Europe, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia counts Germany (that then reached east of the Baltic) but not Switzerland to Central Europe; Liechtenstein is not mentioned. In other articles of that encyclopedia, France and Switzerland are included.. The more sources you find, the better. Pundit | utter  00:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, my question is not whether France and Italy are part of Central Europe, but whether Germany should be labeled an "Alpine country", esp. when France and Italy are not. I don't think you can find many sources for that. Yaan (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is probably historical and quite irrational, just like Western/Eastern classifications (Finland being often considered "Western" while East Germany "Eastern). Here is one source, but you definitely should dig more if you want to write a grounded definition of alpine countries. Pundit | utter  00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it seems this source may be basing on some of previous Wikipedia articles anyway. So, more research is advised.  Pundit | utter  00:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this stuff for now. If someone prvides sources, we can put it back. And Germany did reach to further east in the past, but not further east than the Baltic sea. Yaan (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term in Chinese
From Chinese Wikipedia a commentator from the PRC mentions that mainland Chinese media never use the term Central Europe in news broadcasts or contemporary documentaries, and instead still sticking to the Cold War-era definitions of Western and Eastern Europe. To many Chinese, the term Central Europe seems to be confined to history textbooks particularly 19th and pre-WWII European history. Any independent source backing up this phenomenon? Is it because China was politically tied with the now historical Eastern European Communist states? --JNZ (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Doouble-Article -Mitteleuropa
Why is there an extra "Mitteleuropa" article (Mitteleuropa is just the German translation of Central Europe) ??? It doesn't make any sence translating an English expression into German an then make an extra article about it in the en.wiki !!! no need 4 that! just ABSURD!!! M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.204.109 (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mitteleuropa is a German concept assuming the creation of buffer states in Central Europe dominated by Germany (WW I). Central Europe refers to the history and culture of the region. There is a difference when a German expression is used in other languages. Montessquieu (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

CROATIA IS PARTIALLY CENTRAL EUROPE, BUT CROATIA IS ALSO BALKAN!
Adding Croatia to the list is not totally acceptable, since there's no scientific facts to confirm that. Cental Europe is just the northern part of Croatia, while the bigger part of croatian territory geografically belongs to the Balkans. Also, culturally Croatians are much closer to the other Balkan nations, than to any Central European nation including Slovenians. In fact Croatians, Serbians and Bosnians speak IDENTICAL LANGUAGE-Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian, or ex-SerboCroatian, which makes them UNSEPARABLE forever. If we go by the weird logic that 'Croats don't visit Albania or Bulgaria', which by the way is not true, than Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro should be added to the list of the countries too. It doesn't matter that Croatia has a catholic tradition, also Albania has a catholic tradition, so what? Should we put Albania as a Central European country? And also all those 'opinions and feelings of Croats' above are nothing else but pure POVs, and nobody should take them seriously. As a matter of fact, many of those 'true Croats' (or Croatian nationalists) are continuously spreading lies, hatred and racial messages against everyhing that is connected to ex-Yugoslavia, Serbia or Balkans through the discussion pages. That fact says how miserable they all are and how far can they go with their frustrations. Their senseless propaganda is dying and in all their desparation they become more and more aggressive even trying to change the articles at wikipedia without any approval. Anyway, administrators on wikipedia should STOP all those intrudors, erase the changes they did to the article about Central Europe, and present the truth, and the truth is: generally CROATIA IS BALKAN, and just partially CENTRAL EUROPE. Cheers.24.86.110.10 (talk) 04:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ummm.. Albania does not have a Catholic tradition... Slovenia and Croatia are the only Catholic countries in the Balkans. And to counter your linguistic view of defining nations in a region - German is spoken in Belgium, yet it's not considered a Central European country.  Also, countries can overlap in different regions (e.g. Slovenia both in Balkans and Central Europe, Germany in Western and Central Europe, Poland in Eastern and Central Europe, Turkey in Europe and Asia... etc.) From a neutral stance, I personally see Croatia as Central European but I agree that there needs to be proper citation for it.  And Your whole little rant is all POV, and is obviously biased.  --Buffer v2 (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is NOT a place for 'your personal opinions' or 'how you see things', but a place for TRUTHFUL facts. All the rest is a POV! From the thousand links you can 'google' that identically define what is Central Europe, here's the one in which Central Europe is defined as: Austria, Slovenia, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and Switzerland. There's no any mentioning of Croatia, or any other Balkan country. Remember and enjoy: http://www.einnews.com/central-europe-region/News —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ... Are you kidding? Your whole rant was full of "personal opinions" and POVs, and I specifically said that proper citation should be provided for the Croatia insertion.  You should be barred from editing this page, as it's obvious that you are totally biased.  P.S: a news feed is hardly an accurate source for this.  Use some common sense and realize that real academic references are  what wiki is looking for. --Buffer v2 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A BEAUTIFUL MAP OF THE WEST BALKANS
 * This map was published in the CROATIAN newspaper 'Jutarnji List' from Zagreb these days. It shows all the west BALKAN countries: CROATIA, Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania and partially recognized Kosovo. It talks about the West Balkan countries and their progress on their way to EU. You don;t need to be too smart to conclude that Croatia is a part of the west BALKANS, and not of The Central Europe. The news and journalists are a HIGHLY ACCURATE source for all this, as they belong to the regions about they write about, they are highly educated individuals and they know the real situation of what they write about. Cheers24.86.110.10 (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Link to the map of the WEST BALKANS: http://www.jutarnji.hr/EPHResources/Images/2008/03/04/kartavelika.jpg
 * Western Balkan region is not relevant to being in Balkan. Another example of such regional mishap is CEFTA, Central Free Trade Association which encompases even Moldova. Therefore these are name simplifcations and not political or geographic definitions. Croatia is for a while now trying to identify itself, but so does Slovenia, as the Bridge between Central and Western Europe and South East Balkan Europe. Naturally such actions result in the countries being misplaced or alligned to the Balkans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.82.238.198 (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I am giving you facts, and you can say whatever you like and do whatever you like with the list of the countries. It is not that relevant as are the facts that come from most of the other sources on the net. Anyway, since we're having Croatia one day on, another day off the list, maybe the best way to define this country is-as being a Balkan (the southern part) and a Central European (northern part, north of the river Sava) country. This matches geographically the border between these 2 regions and more importantly-it ALMOST matches the division of the people's 'balkan-attitude' (Dalmatia, eastern parts of Slavonia, Lika) and 'european-attitude' (western Slavonia, Zagorje, north Istria) of the very heterogenous croatian nation. Everyone satisfied? Cheers.24.86.110.10 (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You cannot invent a definition of your own without having proper citation. The sentence: "Several other countries like to portray themselves as part of Central Europe, too[2][3], probably due to Central Europe sounding more prestigous than either Balkans or Eastern Europe." will be removed.  Furthermore, please indent (makes things more organized and clear in the discussion pages! :) ), and to the person who posted two before this, make sure you sign your edits please.   --Buffer v2 (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets calm down, both of you, if I can beg you. There is no one simple definition of Central Europe. Simply CE has no canonical members yet. Only the core is sure. Austria, Czechs, Hungary, Slovakia. Even Poland I have seen to be removed - but this one is still almost canonical, the nxt Germany and Slowenia and then Croatia.. And it also depends what other regions you recognise. In some divisions there is division of Europe only to West and East, in other ocassions central Europe is included in different situaation the division recognises also South and North Europe bat not such regions like Balkan and if does make more detailed division then there is Balkan - and redifines the other regions of cours. So just one example when someone even trustworthy make an instance of classification does not make precedens.  R eo  ON   |   + + +  19:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture
Can we please stick to the "fuzzy" picture? There are no clearly defined borders of Central Europe, anybody claiming otherwise please provide sources ("Central Europe contains ..., ..., ... and ..., nothing more and nothing less"). Yaan (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Re. the "Hsitorical and Geographical" map - Why does this definition include Poland in its post-1945 borders, but not the northern part of East Prussia? Why the Slovak and Hungarian, but not the Polish lands ceded to the Soviet Union after 1945? Sure one could sensibly call Koenigsberg or Lvov "historically Central European"? Yaan (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Especially so when we list Stefan Banach under "Central European contributions to world culture"? Yaan (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Central Europe during the cold war
I removed the statement that the cold war essentially removed the concept of western europe. Contrary to what I wrote in the edit summary, said statement is not disproved in the following reference. But I can offer this google scholar link as evidence to the contrary (look at the dates of the papers).

Now that Romania and Croatia have been added...
This article totally seems inconsistent. After doing some research (academic journals, papers), I've discovered that the term traditionally applied to the countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia (the Czech Republic, Slovakia now), Hungary and Yugoslavia (up until the early 90s) - e.g. see Central_European_Initiative (formerly the Pentagonale). Now, of course we all know that the definition varies from source to source, and of course countries like Austria, Germany etc. are usually included as well (JUMPING OUT OF THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION). I CAN understand Croatia being added to the list, but not Romania. Croatia can be argued to have a Central European character and belong to the group (formerly part of the Habsburg Monarchy, Kingdom of Hungary, Yugoslavia [never part of the Warsaw Pact, most economically advanced country in Eastern Europe during the Cold war], being a CATHOLIC country etc.), but Romania cannot. For one, it's an Orthodox country, never really fully part of any Central European empire, and don't really believe anyone considers it Central European. If you can justify adding Romania to the list, how can you justify not adding other countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina (Catholic/Orthodox/Islamic country, formerly part of the Habsurg Monarchy, part of Yugoslavia), Serbia, Montenegro, the Ukraine etc.? Furthermore, the blue map specifically excludes the Balkan area from the definition, which I believe is wrong, because Central Europe is not a recent term (i.e. one that was developed post-the Yugoslavia breakup, when the Balkans term began to resurface again), and countries can overlap in regions. So if you're jumping outside the traditional definition of Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and including states like Liechenstein and Switzerland (even the quoted encylopedias dont agree on these two countries), and going as far as including Romania, how can anyone disagree with adding other countries to the list? So my solution is either: Remove Romania at the least (there are sources citing Croatia as central european out there but they needed to be added if Croatia will stay), or keep Romania and add other countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, the Ukraine to the list in the main (top) section of the article (specifically mentioning that they are sometimes considered Central Europe and the definition varies). I believe this is a fair compromise. Think this article needs to be really worked on and fixed. Opinions please.--Buffer v2 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and one more thing, although travel sites aren't the most accurate source for a wikipedia (and I'm not suggesting that they be used as a source of info at all), they do offer an interesting perspective: at the first few travel sites I checked out on Google using Central+Europe+travel as the search, I got three different interpretations of Central Europe: 1) Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany, Austria, Hungary; 2) Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary; 3) Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia. Take it how you wish.  Like I said, this article is inconsistent - either make it restrictive, or include all possible countries in the region (and not hand picking some - i.e. Romania).  --Buffer v2 (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to the editor above but rather to everyone - how about we stick to what the sources say and not just define things according to our own views? Most sources that do in-depth analysis of the region allude to its Catholic and/or relatively conservative nature - this clearly excludes some of the recently added states. JRWalko (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Buffer v2! Romania is a country at the crossroads of 3 european macroregions: Central Europe (46%: Transylvania, Banat, Crişana, Maramureş and Bukovina), Southern Europe (38%: Wallachia and the balkanic region Dobruja) and Eastern Europe (16%: Moldavia without Bukovina). Croatia is located half in Central Europe (north of the Sava River) and half in the Balkans (south of the Sava river). Bosnia is located completely in the Balkans. Serbia is located mostly in the Balkans (exceppting Vojvodina in the north). Ukraine is located mostly in Eastern Europe (excepting Transcarpathia, Galicia, Bukovina in the west).--Olahus (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Olahus, is this your definition or can you provide a reference for it? And can you explain why you removed Bosnia and Herzegovina from the culturally Central European section?  Can you explain why [based on this definition] the Balkans are excluded from Central Europe (if it's based on the negative political connotation, then that's wrong, because that's only a recent change to the way we view the word).  Please explain, thanks.--Buffer v2 (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming funny. Either add Romania and Croatia as half:half central European and Balkan countries, either remove them both. Switching them on and off gives a very unserious impression to readers. Regards.24.86.110.10 (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they should both be removed... Olahus keeps adding Romania back with no sources at all. He's Romanian so it's obvious that he's biased.  Sorry Olahus, but Romania is not in Central Europe.  Unless you can find a source in English stating that Romania is in central Europe, it stays off.  You shouldn't bring your personal bias to an encyclopedia.  Stop the edit wars please.  --Buffer v2 (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia rule who constrains me to quote a source in English. --Olahus (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there any admins out there cause this is getting a wee-bit ridiculous. Ohalus isn't replying to my posts on his "talk" so I don't know how to address this. His references aren't valid (It looks like the one he put for Romania was from some www of a firm, and it was IN Romanian), and if you look at all his edits, they're favorable towards Romania. Why? Cause he's Romanian and is obviously biased. --Buffer v2 (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I replied in your talk page. I brought sources, you brought nothing. Besides, I'm not biased. And how do you know that I an a Romanian? And what are you? A Turk? --Olahus (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, about time. Your profile says you have a Romanian wiki page - which would obviously lead me to that conclusion.  I'm Canadian with a German-Croatian-Dutch background.  I don't need the sources - you're the one who's changing the article - you should provide a source - not your POV, which is what we've been getting.  Find a source that says Romania belongs to Central Europe, and I'll be satisfied (your Croatia reference has no link btw).  So far you've failed to do that.  You've used some firm site from Romania (don't speak the language) but highly doubt that it mentions anything about Central Europe or the percentages that you've been throwing around. --Buffer v2 (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've translated your reference (my bad, it was in German), and it says nothing about Central Europe. It talks about why Germans should invest in Romania.  The percentages that you showed by the reference slot are nowhere to be found.  Ironically, theres a section of the page that says "[Romania is...] the ideal call center location in Eastern Europe".  Care to explain this? --Buffer v2 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You translated nothing. This is the text: Durch die ehemalige Zugehörigkeit des westlichen Landesteils zum Österreich-Ungarischen Reich zeichnen sich die Rumänen durch eine mitteleuropäisch geprägte Kultur und Mentalität aus. --Olahus (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The web page you are talking about is .  It is an advertisement by a Cologne businessman who wants Germans to invest in Romania.  It says that Romania is an "ideal location for a call center in Eastern Europe", and mentions as an advantage the cultural proximity of Romania to Germany, given the strong central European influence on Romanian culture and mentality.   I do not consider it a good source.  (The NATO report  is a better source, I think, but far from ideal).
 * I think the article should mention that countries such as Romania are sometimes counted as Central European, or under the influence of Central European culture (whatever that is...), but I would not list Romania in the list at the beginning of the article.
 * --Austrian (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you jump to conclusions too fast. Romania, as it is well known, is considered by all major sources as being part of Central Europe.--Marc KJH (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in biased opinions from Romanians. What major sources?  No encyclopedia lists them as in Central Europe, neither does the CIA World Factbook.  Do a search in Google for "Romania is in Central Europe" (w/ the quotations), and you'll come up with 3 entries... nothing from any academic sources - only opinions on a message board.  Do it for other real Central European countries and you'll see thousands of entries.
 * P.S. Ohalus, your source is hardly a credible one. It's a site promoting investment in Romania... CONSIDER THE SOURCE.  Romania is not a typical Central European country (and it's news to me that some even consider it in Central Europe) - it's an Orthodox country in Southeastern/Eastern Europe and it's really ridiculous that anyone can add any made up fact on here and have it stay. However, I would be more than happy to come to a fair compromise and have Romania and Croatia listed as "sometimes considered Central European" --Buffer v2 (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Buffer, you're ridiculous. I answered already yesterday those stupid questions in your talk page. I think you have nothing better to do in your real life. And don't explain me how Romania is, because I surely do know it better. Good night and sleep well. --Olahus (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Olahus, Romania is part of Central Europe. There's no doubt about it. Panel 2008 (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ohalus, I'd recommend that you just stick with the one account. ;) Thanks.  Furthermore, stop reverting people's edits.  And you just don't seem to leave any room for compromise.  Stop being stubborn please.  This isn't the "Ohalus encyclopedia" - it's an open encyclopedia for all.  You're free to write one of your own on your own time if you wish, but here, at least make an attempt to work with others.  --Buffer v2 (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you think that there is only one person here? There are more. I'm not Olahus and you should know that your variant sucks. Romania is indeed part of Central Europe. Panel 2008 (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's called IPs "Panel 2008". Please stick to your Olahus account.  --Buffer v2 (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, you suffer from PARANOIA. Please check a doctor first. Panel 2008 (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, refrain from personal attacks. Also, assume good faith. All information can be added, but has to be grounded in verifiable, trustworthy resources. If the claim that the new states belong to Central Europe is true (meaning that this category is commonly used in some circles, be it academic or just by average Joes), it definitely should be possible to support it with sensible and credible sources in English. Pundit | utter  00:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He started first with allegations. He should stop first. Panel 2008 (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not about who started first, but about who is mature enough to be the first to stop. Anyways, I hope you both will be able to respect the rules and constructively contribute to Wikipedia :) Pundit | utter  18:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove "Culturally Central-European" section
This section should be removed. It's completely AMBIGUOUS. There is no "Central European" culture, and really, the only thing that could touch on it is the Catholic nature of the countries in the region (in which case, some of the countries listed shouldn't even be on there). Furthermore, there are no references supporting any of those. Comments please.--Buffer v2 (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not ambiguous at all. It must stay. Panel 2008 (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Central European culture does exist, even if it's often ignored. If you need some readings, click here. Regards, Montessquieu (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct map
Correct map should be add it. It should include whole Romania. Panel 2008 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

why is romania on here?
Hi all. First time editor! usually just stick to reading wikipedia but came across this article and was confused as to why romania is on the list. it may sometimes be considered central european but comon' if you took a random sample, how many people would really include romania in the list? if you add romania, then you might as well add serbia and maybe even the ukraine and bosnia because they are sometimes considered in central europe too but they surely dont belong as the common definition. the common definition includes the countries that are listed by encyclopedias and the CIA world factbook. just because you find one source listing a country as central europe doesnt make it always belong in the definition. its a loose term! post your opinions. i can see this was talked about earlier on this discussion page but i think a few users on here are being somewhat stubborn and biased because they are from romania..... dont attack me please. just making an observation. not into the drama. but i def agree that it should be sometimes considered central european but if it is added in that category add other countries like serbia, ukraine, bosnia and croatia because im sure it would be easy to find sources for them too. --136.159.195.7 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I used to think so, too, but my (german) encyclopedia at home actually does list Romania as part of Central Europe "in the wider sense" (it does not list any other Balkan countries, though). I can look up the exact description (and the title of the encyclopedia) after easter holiday, if you like. But encyclopedias are not citeable on WP anyway, so you may as well just believe me. Yaan (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Romania is a central european country. That's all. It's not even Balkanic. Panel 2008 (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ummmm yes it is. I'd like to see that German encyclopedia source.  Yes, in the "wider sense", thus it shouldn't be listed as always being Central European because it's not.  Through my research (I've actually done a paper on this in university), I've found more sources listing Croatia, and even Bosnia and Serbia as Central European than Romania.  Sorry but I (and most others), except the Romanian members here (you're right OP, Panel 2008 is completely biased - denying that Romania isn't partly in the Balkans??) agree that Romania should be listed as "Sometimes" Centrally European.
 * P.S. Panel, if you don't have anything useful to contribute, then consider not posting at all? It seems like all your replies on this page are one sentence replies with no explanation of your thoughts or outside support.  --Buffer v2 (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just one more thing - you cannot claim that Romania is ALWAYS considered Central European when encyclopedias, and sources like the CIA World Factbook obviously contradict that claim (e.g. CIA World Factbook lists it as a Southeastern European country). It just doesn't make sense does it? --Buffer v2 (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep your own original research elsewhere. If you can't accept the reality is your own problemPanel 2008 (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's my "original research" (what does that mean exactly? Yes, I did do the research), and it's valid.  It's not my opinion.  I have valid sources for the recent changes I made, I suggest that you play by the rules and stop reverting my edits.  Furthermore, what do you mean by "unfair changes" in your edit summary?  --Buffer v2 (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Read about WP:OR and accept that you don't have a consensus. If you want to be blocked you may continue the way you started. Panel 2008 (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw, you don't have a consensus with Romania being added to the main list. There's only a few of you, who are clearly biased in the matter contributing your thoughts.  This isn't the first time someone has questioned why Romania is on the list.  --Buffer v2 (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Romania is exactly as Central European as Russia is European, that is - not exactly. Yes the northwestern portion of the country is "central european" on account of its religious legacy and inclusion in Austria Hungary. The rest however is not. It's not all at like any other country already included in the definition. The original organization of the article was correct - some countries are known as CE and some regions of other countries are known as CE. Buffer is right that you just can't ignore the most important sources just because you found two that recognize it. I can find a 100,000 sources saying Kosovo for example is a state - but that does not make it so. If something is indisputable it should be recognized as that but if something isn't then it needs to be noted. Romania just isn't universally recognized as CE. By the way - "CE is politically liberal"? Are you joking? That can't be more wrong. JRWalko (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)