Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nationalities and cultures in Eastern Europe

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is not a fruitful approach, but an awkwardly composed list with unclear and controversial inclusion criteria, and an unneeded potential battleground. Sandstein (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of nationalities and cultures in Eastern Europe

[edit]
List of nationalities and cultures in Eastern Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is quite problematic. First, we already have Category:Ethnic groups in Europe, though I understand categories and lists can coexist, so let me move on. It imposes a rather arbitrary definition for "Eastern Europe" - the Czech Republic and Austria can be considered part of Central Europe, Greece part of Eastern Europe, etc. Third, it ignores some rather important groups like the Turks of Bulgaria (almost 10% of that country's population). And even if we do list those, there are always the Lipovans, the Vietnamese Czechs, the Chinese of Romania, etc, etc. Fourth, it perpetuates controversy: recognition of the Bosnians, the Moldovans, the Macedonians (absent here) isn't a given, and we don't need yet another battleground for those disputes. Fifth, the content is nothing new: it merely copies a couple of paragraphs from the lead article on each language and ethnicity. Such text duplication isn't very helpful. Finally, the whole "who's who"/"more about..." format isn't very professional or standard. As it's not really needed and we can do without, then I suggest we delete. Biruitorul (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Incompleteness is not a criterion for deletion. The possibility of controversy is not a criterion for deletion. Yes, the article could be improved, but there is some substantial information here (more than can be covered in a category), and several references for the information. Sure, the list repeats information found elsewhere, but the value of a list is in gathering together similar bits of information in a useful, quickly-surveyable format, to ease information finding, comparisons, and so forth. I can see how it could use some tightening up (more concise descriptions of the ethnicities), but none of the concerns raised by the nomination necessitate deletion. Nick Graves (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I personally don't like the format of the article (like the nominator, I find the "who's who" and "more about" headings to be unencyclopedic), the article does bring a good deal of information into one space. I don't like a lot of it, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT would apply to the reasons that I dislike the article. Mandsford (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator seems to misunderstand what we use lists for, with his argument that "It copies information from elsewhere". We use them to do exactly that. Also, he makes IDONTLIKEIT and "It's incomplete", which aren't valid arguments for deletion. After eliminating these, there's really nothing left to suggest deletion. Celarnor Talk to me 23:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Joschka Fischer, "Excuse me, I am not convinced". Could you please point to, let's say, a Featured List that dumps text like that from other articles? Inevitably, there will be some overlap between, say, President of the United States and List of Presidents of the United States. In no way does that imply we should accept a list that simply reduplicates page after page of text. Biruitorul (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't expect there to be any cross-content between a list and the articles linked to the list. Although the state of the article can be improved by other methods by deletion and thus doesn't fly as an argument in favor of the radical solution of deletion, I'll go along with your request for the sake of achieving consensus. List of Countries, List of Archbishops of Canterbury, List of Oz books, List of Popes, and FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives are all great examples of articles that coalesce information in a manner like this. Granted, they do it in a better way than this article, but again, that's a "improve this" argument, not a "delete this" argument. Celarnor Talk to me 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you meant "...there not to be any cross-content..." and that's correct, I do expect some overlap. But I also expect, and more importantly WP:L does, that "Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate wikipedia article (e.g. "republic") and a list complementary to that topic (e.g. "List of republics")." This is precisely what is happening here: a random cut-and-paste job where the articles themselves do just fine.
Most of the lists you showed have one or two sentences of prose description. Some of the Oz items have a little more, which is understandable given many of the articles they point to are redlinks. The FBI list has more text, but not from the lead, but rather regarding the specific juncture between these guys and the FBI (ie, they're wanted).
A fundamental problem is that "Eastern Europe" remains undefined. Going by the UN's "wonderful" definition, the Baltics, the former Yugoslavia, Greece and Albania are excluded while much of Austria-Hungary (arguably "Central Europe") is included, etc, etc. As long as no stable definition of the term exists (and keep in mind that Wikipedia offers around 6), creating a stable version of this list is a fool's job.
For the record, many of the other articles that use "Eastern Europe" in the title (and only a handful exist) are also junk, and have the same definitional problem: Gender roles in Eastern Europe after Communism, GPA in Central and Eastern Europe, Eastern European cuisine, Music of Eastern Europe, HIV/AIDS in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and possibly Renaissance architecture in Eastern Europe. Biruitorul (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the reasons I indicate below myself, Biruitorul has made a full argument in which one of the points was that the list merely replicates info from other articles. While I personally feel that lists with more than the minimal info are a waste of space (if you cannot keep the list laconic, you don't really need it is what I say), and would thus agree with deleting the list just on this rationale, it does not strike me as constructive to obstinately pretend that there were no other reasons why this list may not be needed here. Dahn (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying this list isn't without issues; far from it. I think the article is in terrible shape and needs extensive trimming and table-ization. But I also realize that per our deletion policies, if it can be fixed by other methods than deletion (such as actually improving the article), then it isn't a good candidate for deletion. Other than the state of the article, the only other problem is a relatively trivial one with ample precedent; WikiProject Geography has encountered the issue of defining regions of Europe before, and they resolved it by using the UN definition by consensus. I don't understand what the issue is with that. Celarnor Talk to me 02:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what does WPGEO use the supposed UN definitions for? If it is for its clerical assignments: why does it matter here? (Wikipedia is not a source.) If it is for settling the matter in articles, then I'm afraid I cannot believe it actually suppresses other sources (I couldn't count the policies it would break if it were to do that). Either way, there is a large gap between using a definition as a guideline and imposing it, one which you do not take into consideration: when and if I create a list around a definition, I impose that definition and marginalize all other arguments, because it would be impossible to create an alternative without it being a POV fork (whereas, when I, say, use the UN as the main source in an article on a geographical concept, I merely serve info to the reader). In any case, the one we are discussing seems to be the only list so far to use Eastern Europe as its domain of reference, so it doesn't even happen elsewhere. Dahn (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely pointless list. The info it supposedly structures could never actually be summarized within a list, and, from the very start, it introduces three subjective variables. One has to do with the definition of nationalities and especially cultures (which, especially in Europe, is not textbook - or, if it is, it is so very many textbooks saying different things). Another is about the definition of Eastern Europe, and any claim to know the exact borders of a geo-cultural entity strikes me as amusingly overconfident. As for the third: who decided that there actually is a connection between nationalities (whatever they are) and cultures (whatever they are)? Why not "nationalities and juggling clowns" or "elephants and culture"? The least we have of these willy-nilly "let me show you it can be done" lists the better. Oh, and: did anyway suggest we need articles that group ethnicities per place? Because, let me tell you, we already have such articles. here, here, here etc etc. If the national level is not enough, then surely we are opening the flood gates. There is then "no reason not to create" an article such as Nationalities and cultures of Albania, Ukraine and China or Demographics of North-Central Southwestern Europe... And to my esteemed colleague above I say: no, we don't keep lists to duplicate info, we keep lists to reduce clutter. The article we are discussing is nothing other than clutter. Dahn (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grouping ethnicities by nation is fine and good, but what about by region? The act of removing that makes a fairly obvious hole in the project, if you ask me; you then have a bunch of articles but no way to group them together. If anything, this would encourage the development of similar articles such as List of nationalities and cultures in Western Europe, which is a good thing, not a bad thing. Your main issue seems to be that "Eastern Europe" isn't defined by anybody; however, the UN has a wonderful definition of Western Europe and Eastern Europe. The straw man arguments of "Nationalities and Cultures of North-Central Southwestern Europe" and "Nationatlities and cultures of Albania, Ukraine and China" do not enjoy such definition. And if you think that deleting a list simply because it has information that is available elsewhere is valid, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, as that is simply ridiculous.Celarnor Talk to me 01:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about region? I do believe I already answered to the main point: if you have them by nations (and in so many ways that even this gets redundant), why also have them by region? Especially when the definitions of regions are vague (see below), and since the reader is presumably able to click from one areas of his concerns to the next. Since we do not edit here to ensure that any combination of concepts results in a bluelink, and since we don't start with the presumption that our readers are idiots, we really don't need to state the exact same thing on several pages. The only result of that would in fact be self-contradictory, tiresome or completely isolated, "autistic" articles. As for the content that is already present and its duplication, deleting it is so ridiculous in fact that we have been doing it for ages on pages like this one and through policies.
Why not have them by region? It's perfectly encyclopedic to do something by region as well as some other level (the lists of State forests, the lists of state forests by region, List of Wars#Wars by Region, et cetera. If you think that we can't include anything other than names of articles in lists, well, then, we might as well scrap our entire navigational system, because that is exactly what lists are designed to do (See List of Popes, a featured list); provide brief summaries of linked topics in one article to help you find what you're looking for. This makes them more useful than categories for such things. Celarnor Talk to me 02:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Why not"? Because you would be replicating info one click away, and creating lists/articles that are all but identical. If why not, then why not also by sub-sub-region, by time zone, by climate zone etc.? If we can do it, there is no reason not to do it, right? The one actual example you can cite so far refers to wars by continents (and two lists of wars by sub-continental region), which is not quite the same thing, is it? Also note that there are yet no articles on "wars by country", which means that there is actually little or no duplication there.
And, as I think I told you before, nobody here seems to be objecting to the list just because it repeats the articles, so you're flogging a dead horse with the "List of Popes thing". Here's why: if you remove the more substantial bits of text from the popes list (and I don't ultimately care if that happens or not), and even if you were to strip it down to only the names of the popes in chronological order, you would have a useful instrument providing substantial info that is not readily available in one article or another. If you take the "nationalities and cultures" list and strip it down to its essentials, you have something that can already be reached through several channels (articles, other lists, categories) and is not "frozen" at an artificial and arbitrary level. See what I mean? Dahn (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to claim I use fallacies, you'd better start with exploring your argument above. In it, you basically tell me that a thing could not have several equally valid definitions because you know of one valid definition [supposing that "wonderful" definition does exist]. How about comparing the definitions that are out there, and seeing how much they vary? Or, if not, I suggest renaming the list to List of nationalities and cultures in "Eastern Europe" as once defined by the UN (Eastern Europe, not the nationalities and cultures). Dahn (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in any one individual academic or even one individual country's definition, as they are inherently biased beyond usefulness when there are better, more objective ones available. I am suggesting that we go by the standard definition that is agreed upon by a body composed of the countries themselves, as well as other geography and international studies-related experts, like WikiProject Geography does. Celarnor Talk to me 02:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you are basically saying is "I have one criterion I like and use, so you'd better discard the notion that acceptable sources may disagree." Let me shed more light on my argument: there is no "standard definition", and the definition supposedly used by the UN would still not be (and most likely not aim to be in this case) a standard for anything other than the UN. The notion is subjective, and it will have subjective definitions. And, finally, this subjectivity and the many definitions it created have themselves been the subject of an entire scientific literature (from historiography to the study of mentalities). So you have no point. Dahn (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Eastern Europe is a region which can be easily defined, and the list of its several nationalities and cultures adds to the understanding to this region. This is, in my opinion, enough to constitute encyclopedic relevance. Further work on the article may be necessary, but that is no argument for its deletion. --Abrech (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I shouldn't quote your former Foreign Minister twice in one discussion, but again, "Excuse me, I am not convinced". You say Eastern Europe is "easily" defined: as the maps at Eastern Europe suggest, that is far from being the case. Greece, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Croatia, the Baltics... The region has quite a few contested members. Biruitorul (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "easily defined" is not a correct statement. It is probably correct that the article should spend some scrutiny on defining the term "Eastern Europe". As to the relevance: Think of the causes of WW I, think of the time of the iron curtain etc. Throughout the 20th century, Eastern Europe and its national and ethnic diversity had a dramatic impact on overall history. Czecheslovakia, Slovakia, Czeck Republic, development of Yugoslavia etc. You can't understand this without a look at the nationalites and cultures of Eastern Europe, and this is not fully reflected by an article on the ethnic diversity. --Abrech (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree one needs to know about Eastern Europe's ethnic complexity in order to understand her modern history. That's why we have individual articles on each of those groups (which this list just dumps into one place), this, this, this, this, etc, etc. Biruitorul (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.The region "Eastern Europe" is not and cannot be a definite number of regions.In one glance i didn't see Romaniotes and they are distinct from other jewish populations.But thats because Greece is not in it even though its in the eastern part of Europe.This eastern definition seems to be something like "eastern post-communist block" Europe and seems biased in the countries it includes.Only Finland was not communist from those in the list.Also i saw [[[Gorani]] and Albanians and Bulgaria as well.A great number of peoples are not listed and what regions and peoples make the "criteria" vary.Too confusing and generic in a misleading sense.And the "nationalities" found in Europe means the ones that were there up to a specific date? Vague and relative.Megistias (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arbitrarily defines "Eastern Europe" and equates ethnic groups with nation-states. Duplicates verbatim (wtf?) the text of the respective articles. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above the definition of Eastern Europe is arbitrary and does not even conform internally with that used in other WP articles. The content too is duplicated in the Ethnic Groups in Europe article. Pointless.Xenovatis (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above, I don’t see the point of this list, too. Putting aside that the definition of Eastern Europe is arbitrary, it also stands out as unique since there are no other relevant lists as "List of nationalities and cultures of Western Europe" , or “Northern Europe” (within the Arctic circle?), just Europe , Eurasia maybe? It is a slippery slope and the respective categories (and various nationalities, peoples and cultures articles) can cover these. LapisExCoelis (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – This list was originally developed to help me understand Twentieth Century East European history. For the last one hundred years there have been many wars, massacres and killings all based on the aspirations of one country or culture clashing with others. The body count is HUGE! This has also affected Wikipedia since many Wikipedia editors are openly hostile and rude to other editors whose family history is rooted in the “other” culture or country. Eastern European history is not just the clash of two countries – but by a chaotic series of hostilities between many different peoples. By getting down to the basics, distinguishing between Sorbs and Serbs; Romanians and Romani; Moldavians and Macedonians; Ruslyn and Belarus help understand what happened. The look and feel of this list was patterned after the results of “Google” search but restricted to Wikipedia. I listed most of the countries of Eastern Europe and included “cultures” for those groups of people that had or have aspiration of becoming countries. Hyperlinks are restricted to articles about the people and their languages. Built for HISTORIANS not GEOGRAPHERS. Bobanni (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why dump text like that? And what does your desire to understand history have to do with us, or with Wikipedia policy? Can't one understand these differences by simply typing Sorbs and Serbs? Who would confuse Macedonians and Moldovans - remember: we assume our readers are not idiots. What third-party sources (do check WP:V, an official policy) consider these and only these to be "cultures" of "Eastern Europe" (both of which are highly contestable notions)? Biruitorul (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Laudable as your aim to educate yourself is I can't help remarking that WP is not your personall Spark's Notes. It is an encyclopedia and hence should be geared towards the remaining 99.999999% of the internet's readership as well. Do however feel free to move the page to your user sandbox if you feel you neet it as a crib. This should take care of both your educational needs as well as help de-clutter WP.Xenovatis (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - moreover, the creator already has this in his userspace. Biruitorul (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly? And isn't such a list a WP:RS, WP:V and WP:SYN violation? Biruitorul (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per default - no one for deletion has scored even one valid point to warrant such a move. For example: Vietnamese Chechs are the ethnic group and shouldn't be included into this list, or you have to change the title. And where to draw a line between Eastern and Western culture? It's a simple subject to settle. Try language groups: Slavic, Finno-Ugric, Greek, Oriental. We're losing Romania but it can be fixed by establishing which culture was more influential there - Oriental or Roman? The same problem would be with Iran in the Middle East. Still Iran is more Oriental than Germany. greg park avenue (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"More Oriental"? That smacks of Orientalism and if someone were uncharitable, prejudice. May I suggest that one should be more carefull when using such formulations in the future or would that be too Oriental of me?Xenovatis (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a moment - how do you know the Vietnamese Czechs have no culture of their own? Or the Turkish Austrians, the Syrian Romanians, or for that matter the American Czechs (of whom there are many thousands and I'm sure a few at least have citizenship)? Second, please review WP:OR. If it's such a "simple" and "settled" matter, would you care to adduce some third-party sources to back up your claim? By your definition, Finland and Estonia are Eastern European but not Latvia and Lithuania - do you stand by that? And what are "Oriental" languages?
Also, your claim that Romania is more Oriental than Roman, aside from being OR, is rather dubious OR. Transylvania - 43% of Romania's territory - was under Ottoman control for just 140 years (less time than the Romans controlled it) and their influence there was minimal. Her Austrian and Hungarian elites strove to demonstrate close ties to the West by using Latin and promoting Catholicism, as did many Romanians by uniting with the Roman Church in 1700. Moldavia and Wallachia, where Turkish influence was stronger, were no less Romance-speaking.
And where do these people fit? You see, this "simple" and "settled" matter is neither. Biruitorul (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This way we should exclude Poland from Eastern Europe too, because 90% of its population is Roman-Catholic? Come on, Biruitorul, you can do better than that. greg park avenue (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the issue: the issue is that your claim of Romania, and Transylvania in particular (parts of which, let us not forget, were uniformly German for about 800 years) being more "Oriental" than "Roman" are not only OR, but demonstrably false OR. And, well, yes, Poland's (and Croatia's) Catholicism (and her participation in the Enlightenment) make her less "Eastern" than, say, Belarus. I'm not arguing Poland (or for that matter Romania) isn't Eastern European - just that the term is not "simple" and "settled", and that your attempts to settle the question have thus far relied purely on OR, which cannot (NOR being an official policy) be the basis for an article. Biruitorul (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try this, American way, maybe less OR(?): draw straight line from sea to shining sea betweeen Szczecin and Udine. In the south, Balkan Peninsula, Aegean and points beyond would be Eastern Europe. In the north, Finnland and points southeast including Baltic states would belong too. So what we got in between? All Romania and Eastern Austria, which was also included in this article, would be Eastern too. Including Vienna and Bucharest, that's where Orient Express was heading from Paris via Zurich, some compromise, hah?. And Transylvania ain't even on no map any more. Don't recommend to cut Balkans neither along nor across in half just like those geniuses from the Leage of Nations once tried long ago and see what they come up with after. I don't wanna another Balkan War, my son is in drafting age. Cheers. greg park avenue (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, I don't mean to sound like a maniac, or like Jacques Derrida. Of course Eastern Europe exists. It's just that, per WP:OR, we need definitions. Yours is not a bad one, but your or I can't make up our own definitions - we need outside sources to do that. Biruitorul (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Biruitorul. My best bet is this article goes to the recreational area for now meaning closing without consensus. Cheer up! greg park avenue (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vary vague title and content. Who will draw the line and define cultures of Eastern Europe in general? Just imagine the duplication of content when one culture may have multiple sub cultures/ groups. It is very WP:POV. Meander₪ 16:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. A laudable intention behind the page (going on what the article's creator has said here), but it just doesn't work. There are too many issues of OR and general vagueness of terms to warrant this list. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and K. Lastochka - well-intentioned, but the scopes of neither the list as a whole nor any one of its members may be accurately set without inviting the chronic nosebleed arguing over defining nationalities, ethnicities, languages, cultures and religions. Moreover this master list is somewhat presumptuous - why not include all European groups as well and make it simply "European"? This, as it stands, is a Greatest-Hits album of contentious points from an entire continent. István (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valuable list - if somebody has something good to add, please do. It says so right near the top. The possibility of a future problem is no reason to delete an article. If people think it's incomplete, they can improve it. AGF baby, AGF. Horlo (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Potential for conflict is but one of the objections to this list, but not the only one (if that were the case, we wouldn't have articles like Transnistria or Holodomor). However, the other issues: no sources, no definition of "nationality", "culture" and "Eastern Europe", simple text dumping where in this case the linked articles and categories amply suffice, duplication of national-level articles (plus European ethnic groups) all remain unaddressed. Biruitorul (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominator and Dahn. Too vague title and unclear criteria as fas as what is included in that list.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The categories are better for this, they can nicely overlap and such. Are we sure this article isn't copyvio? It seems unwiki yet very cohesive, and the first edit was surprisingly complete. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty sure it's not a copyio. What the original author seems to have done is copied text from the articles on the relevant groups which are already here on Wikipedia (which is itself a problem, as other contributors have pointed out). Exactly where that stands in relation to the GFDL I couldn't tell you right at the moment, but my educated guess is that it's clean. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like Hexagon, I'd have to say that categories just work better for this kind of a thing. This is impossible to maintain, maybe if it was just "List of nationalities in Eastern Europe" but even that would pose a problem with redundancy . The DominatorTalkEdits 17:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_nationalities_and_cultures_in_Eastern_Europe&oldid=1142220862"