File talk:CentralEurope.png

Some sources that include the whole of Romania in Central Europe

• Mayers Enzyklopaedisches Lexikon File:Central Europe (Mayers Enzyklopaedisches Lexikon).PNG

• University of Texas [1]

Oh, I see. So a source which counts the Balkans among Central Europe is a trustworthy source, right? The Balkans were NEVER part of Central Europe no matter how many (clueless?) American sources say so. -- CoolKoon (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Clueless or not, it is an academic source. The earlier version had absolutely no source. I am very curious about the number of authors that define Central Europe nowadays based on a century-old borders (don't forget that the map refers to present times, not to historical delimitations) Iaaasi (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"historical delimitations" Then why are they using EET in Romania?

Also funny to see, you digging up these "sources", but in fact all of the well known sources marks Romania as EE or SE country e.g.: CIA, NATO, UN

One more thing, please stop showing plain maps without any other context, so here is my ref from Texas, would you kindly and post your ref like me? --Csendesmark (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• The University of Texas at Austin [2]

Here is the ref: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe.html Iaaasi (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

+ another source [3] Iaaasi (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And btw, EET is also used in your beloved Transylvania. CIA, NATO, UN don't split Romania between CE and EE Iaaasi (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wallachia & Moldavia(region of Romania)

Recently user Iaaasi keeps marking whole Romania as a CE country, but as culturally as geographically it belongs to another region. Wallachia & Moldavia wasn't part of Central Europe, hence it shouldn't be included in the map either. If you accept (full)Romania as a CE country, we should add Belarus, Ukraine and the country of Moldavia too. --Csendesmark (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You have sources for Romania above. You can add any country if you have sources Iaaasi (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I see those, but don't ignore sources which doesn't support your theory! --Csendesmark (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Light green = countries sometimes included. Sometimes = less than a half of time, which can be 45% or 30%. Iaaasi (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you that Transylvania and Bucovina is part of CE, but maps onlyaccidentally mark the whole of Romania as part of CE. --Csendesmark (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Accidentally? Unintentionally? The map drawers marked the whole of Romania by mistake? Iaaasi (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

New source: [4] Iaaasi (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So you found an other jpg/png/svg whatever, but why dodn't you color the map according to your first reference?

quote: University of Texas [5]

You have include Bulgaria, Serbia, F.Y.R.O.M, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro & Albania, according to your reference?

Cos they're called CE states "Sometimes = less than a half of time".

Can you update the map, according to YOUR references? :D --Csendesmark (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You are free to do it by yourself, if you opened the subject. I don't have the necessary time Iaaasi (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that map should be updated in accordance with this source: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/central_europe_pol01.jpg lib.utexas.edu is reliable source and contains many maps of very good quality. PANONIAN (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the map is supported by a reliable source. But we must analyze if it is a fringe view or not. Some maps that can be helpful in drawing the map are here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Central_Europe

For instance are there enough sources that indicate Albania as a Central European country? In the case of Romania, I found such references in an official report of the Council of Europe and in a report of the Foreign_Broadcast Information Service: [6] Iaaasi (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody said that Romania has nothing to do with CE (I reverted to a version where half Romania is marked as CE), however Romania is in a very special geographical position. Why I am saying this? Banat Bukovina & Transylvania is belongs to CE for obvious reasons. Moldavia(the region) is clearly EE and Wallachia is often mentioned as a SE region and some sources naming the Dobrudja region as part of Balkans. So I wouldn't mark whole country as CE at all, because in this case we shall mark each touched country as "area sometimes included as part of CE" like ?France? When you went to Commons:Administrators' noticeboardk for the admin's help, your reasoning were "splits Romania between Central Europe and South-Eastern Europe", (which is the crystal clear truth). I cant understand why the Ukrainians, Belorussians, Serbs, Croatians or Russians, or even the Lithuanians/Latvians/Estonians not forcing this. Which I mentioned before, there are some accidental & rare sources, which are not really about geographical subject. So I am not surprised on User:Russavia's decision. Why are you still want this so hard? There is no point to fill half of Europe as CE. It's like if a Russian editor wants to mark the whole Russian Federation as an European country, but the fact it's 2/3 territory in Asia, they know it, they accept it. End of story. --Csendesmark (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but all what you did is writing an essay based on your personal opinions ("obvious reasons", "clearly" - these epithets should be supported by something). I never denied the split of present-day Romania between CE and EE before WWI, but this map refers to year 2012. Do you have a significant number of present-day sources / maps that say that make this division? Iaaasi (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see your point, so you suggest you don't want to see that line. But also suspect you never read the actual article about CE on the English Wiki. Please let me quote that:

"Some sources also add neighbouring countries (for historical, geographical and/or cultural reasons):" You're welcome

• historical: was part of Hungary /Austria-Hungary for a very long time
• geographical: the Carpats dividing the area very distinctly
• cultural:The dividing line between the Western and Eastern Christian rite. Only cooutries with the Western rite as the predominant religion (i.e. catholicism) belong to Central Europe.

Okay, I told my reasoning, for the second time, and don't answer with more Google stuff, answer with some real reasons, here is the time. Csendesmark (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It is very interesting that Christine Feehan, a romance-paranormal writer. is considered a reliable author on English Wikipedia Iaaasi (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Whhhhaaat does this have to do with the original topic??? Csendesmark (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You directed me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe and the given source for the Carpathians as geographical border between CE is EE is http://www.christinefeehan.com/dark_series/research.php

On the other hand, Orthodoxy is the predominant religion in Transylvania, so it would belong to Eastern Europe by this criterion Iaaasi (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the problem is that there are several approaches to the concept of "Central Europe". In the geographical sense, Csendesmark's map looks pretty good and I support that. On the other hand, in the political sense Romania may be part of Central Europe (especially since the country joined the EU). This is also supported by a report of the Council of Europe. On the third hand :-), in the cultural sense the current situation is less clear (to me). A solution could be to feature different maps even in the lead... Koertefa (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Maps should be based on reliable sources, not on personal thoughts. Can you please provide a source that supports your view about Central Europe in geographical sense? I've found only a map sketched by cultural criteriaIaaasi (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that we should argue based on reliable sources. Why do you think that the website "http://141.74.33.52" (the source of your map) is reliable? Moreover, it only treats a part of Romania as (culturally) Central Europe (just like the original map of Magnus Manske). By the way, the following map suggest a similar cultural division for Romania regarding CE: [7]? Its description is "European regions as proposed by Ständiger Ausschuss für geographische Namen (StAGN), German PNG version" and it is based on the source: P. Jordan: "Großgliederung Europas nach kulturräumlichen Kriterien", Europa Regional 13 (2005), Heft 4, Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde, Leipzig. Cheers, Koertefa (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: I will try to look for a decisive reference about the geographical criterion. Koertefa (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, File:Grossgliederung_Europas.png is actually drawn after my map. If you look in the bottom left corner of it, you will see a reference to P. Jordan. I found it online [8] after google-ing P. Jordan: "Großgliederung Europas nach kulturräumlichen Kriterien", Europa Regional 13 (2005), Heft 4, Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde, Leipzig. I personally don't agree with it (for example the Central European character of Transylvania has diluted a lot, not to talk about (Romanian part of) Bukovina, which was under Habsburg rule for only 145 years, and where only a few historical buildings remind one about those years). But it is the only map owned by us that explicitly calls the cultural criteria, so I have to accept it. There is no debate to be made here.

In my opinion, the current form the legend of the map is misleading (light green = regions sometimes included in CE). That is incorrect. The light green areas + dark green areas represent in fact "CE by Cultural Criteria, according to P.Jordan".

All the other maps refer to countries of CE (the political criterion is always considered). I think a synthesis map, which puts together views from different authors, is not recommened because it can be affected by our subjectivity. It is also difficult to say if some views are fringe or not.

"The Columbia Encyclopedia defines Central Europe as: Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary.[52] The World Factbook[53] Encyclopedia Britannica and Brockhaus Enzyklopädie use the same definition adding Slovenia too. Encarta Encyclopedia does not clearly define the region, but places the same countries into Central Europe in its individual articles on countries, adding Slovenia in "south central Europe".[54]"(en.wikipedia article). My proposal is to use independently File:Central_Europe_(Brockhaus).PNG ("CE by the political criteria according to The World Factbook Encyclopedia Britannica and Brockhaus Enzyklopädie") and [9] as "CE by cultural criteria according to P.Jones" Iaaasi (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Later edit: In fact I can't find the confirmation for the Encyclopedia Britannica map Iaaasi (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That's also fine with me, but it would be better to present only one map in the beginning, and show the various alternative definitions later. Koertefa (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If we choose to present only a single map in the lead, how do we establish which one of the available set has a higher precedance? Iaaasi (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

By a consensus. :-) Koertefa (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like original research to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position  :) 11:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not get it, I do not want to combine anything and I do not want to advance a position. So why should it be OR? I just want to settle a dispute (map selection) based on a consensus, which is the recommended practice. :-) BTW: I could be convinced to use any of your three maps as the "main" map. Koertefa (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your comment, I thought you are proposing to keep in the lead a synthesis map that is intended to put together all views. If we have to select a single map, I would incline to choose the first one or a combination of the first 2 maps (indicating that Slovenia is not included by Columbia Encyclopedia). 06:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Erratum/Corrigendum in Jordan (2005)

In the PDF version of the paper by Jordan (2005) given as source in the file description overleaf (https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-48072-8) there is an erratum of fig. 6 included in which the three baltic states are included in the core countries of Central Europe; see also StAGN Website Empfehlung zur Großgliederung Europas… --Gretarsson (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)