Talk:Balkans/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Greece not 100% in Balkans

Not all of Greece is in Balkan. Lesbos, Chios, et al., is Asia Minor. Also, Crete (Mediterranean island), Rhodes (Asia Minor/Mediterranean island) ect. are not Balkans. Factually wrong to state otherwise. Even the map on this article says so! --Nikoz78 (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree you, look at map of article. Lesbos is dark as asian turkey or italy.--Ollios (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if the map changed lately but Crete, Rhodes etc are not even in the map. Certainly the info in the article is wrong and has to be changed. --E4024 (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hellooo... Does anyone hear me? Where are all the users interested in the Balkans? :-) --E4024 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the Balkans as a "geopolitical and cultural region", not restricted to the actual peninsula itself. If that was the case, only the landlocked Republic of Macedonia and Kosovo (with the appropriate note) would be 100% in the Balkans, since all the other countries have islands, and islands can by definition not be a part of the peninsula. The two maps in the section "Definition and boundaries" shows the difference between the two notions. The case of the Greek islands along the Turkish coast (Lesbos, Chios etc.) is interesting, since they at least by some definitions actually could be said to be Asian. But even they belong definitely to the geopolitical and cultural region. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

And Meis? Where is Meis island? --E4024 (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes! Definitely a borderline case, by all standards, but even if it should not be included in the Balkans, it would not change the percentage of Greece significantly.

By the way: We call it Kastelorizo here on Wikipedia.

In the harbour of Kastelorizo there used to be a large sign proclaiming "Welcome to Europe!" Sadly, it is now gone. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Now there is a signboard inviting people to "Eniște's restaurant". There are intelligent people everywhere... --E4024 (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

if you are putting km2 in article, you can't say that we are just talking about Balkan as "geopolitical and cultural region", Article need to be divided. You can't mix all of them. You need to talk about each of them under the another headline. In geography, Greece not 100% in Balkans. This isn't a contempt same as in Romania case. This is a geographical information. --Ollios (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we are keeping the islands out, not to create confusion... --E4024 (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I also think most people here do not have much of a sense of humour so let me write it more seriously: In the article we say "islands are excluded" so that the Asian islands of Greece are not taken into account but then the "area" of Greek territory in the Balkans is equal to the area of Greece itself! What a miracle... --E4024 (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Roma demographics?

I'm always disheartened by the attention to detail given to the numerically insignificant Jewish populations of Eastern and Southern Europe, and the very vague and passing mention alloted to the large Roma population. Does anyone have any more information or statistics on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.147.164 (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitions

I came to this article today because I realised that I didn't know what was meant by "Balkan peninsula". Having read through the article I'm more or less satisfied I understand, but the article certainly doesn't make it easy!

• The first sentence is : "The Balkans is the historical name of a geographic region of southeastern Europe." In the next paragraph, it says, "The Greek name for the Balkan Peninsula is...", as though "Balkan Peninsula" had already been defined.
• The section headed Definitions and boundaries begins: "The Balkans are adjoined by water on three sides..." That is not a definition. It should specify, "The Balkan Peninsula is defined as that part of the continent that lies between..." or some such. Also, it is apparent from the article that "Balkans" and "Balkan Peninsula" are not coterminous, so that makes this sentence even more confusing, and in fact I unconciously skipped over it completely the first time I read it.
• The section headed Current common definition says, "In most of the English-speaking, western world, the countries commonly included in the Balkan region are..." Again, this is not a definition. It's a demarcation. The section heading should be changed to show that.

My feeling is that the lead should be re-written or edited to show clearly what is understood by the terms "Balkans" and "Balkan Peninsula" and what the differences between them are (see the section above re Greece, and this discussion here). The Definitions and boundaries section should then be edited so that definitions clearly define, and boundaries bound. I am not being bold because I am not an expert in geography, nor in the Balkans. I hope that somebody with the expertise will be willing to address these issues. Scolaire (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of any response, I have decided to be bold after all. Scolaire (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The section, "Ambiguities and controversies", has been tagged since May 2008. In my opinion, it adds nothing to the article - since the region is neither striving for political unity nor asserting sovereignty, arguing over where to draw the boundary is at best an academic pastime. I am removing the section accordingly. The sections below that I have moved up into the "Balkans" section. Scolaire (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Northern edge of Balkan peninsula

A peninsula is bounded on three sides by water, the fourth boundary being the point at which the peninsula bulges from the larger land mass. Given this, shouldn't the northernmost boundary of the peninsula be a line from the upper reaches of the Adriatic Sea (roughly Trieste) to upper reaches of the Black Sea (roughly Odessa)? Such a line would place some of Slovenia, virtually all of Croatia, much of Hungary, most of Romania, about half of Moldova, and small parts of Ukraine in the Balkan Peninsula (in addition to the other regions already listed). I seem to remember this definition being in older forms of this article and cannot understand why it has been removed. Khajidha (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of Odessa being mentioned as part of the Balkan peninsula; the northernmost definition only goes up to the Danube AFAIK. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

See the following map - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Balkan_peninsula_line.jpg This is the definition I had always been taught in school back in the 1980s and 1990s. To me, it seems clear that the area north of this three river line that is currently used in the article is part of the Balkan peninsula and not part of the mainland of Europe. It seems similar to saying that the northernmost point of the Florida peninsula is at Ocala or that the northernmost point of the Indian peninsula is at Hyderabad. If you were to erase the portion of Europe that this article calls the Balkan peninsula, the area I am talking about would STILL stick out into the sea as a peninsula. Therefore, it seems strange that it is not considered part of the Balkan peninsula. Khajidha (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you went to school, but I for one have never heard of a peninsula being defined in terms of a pencil line drawn on a map. At any rate, Wikipedia requires reliable sources. There is a cited source that says the peninsula is bounded by the Danube-Sava line, and a half-dozen more could easily be found. Unless a reliable source can be found for your Trieste-Odessa definition, that silly image should be removed, and the fully/significantly/partly classification should be restored. Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The line represents the point where the peninsula bulges down from the mainland, which IS the definition of a peninsula even in this article. A peninsula is an extension of land from the mainland surrounded by water on the other three sides. If the Adriatic and Black Seas represent the two sides, then the line between them represents the top of the peninsula. Khajidha (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I just did a quick search myself, most of the sources I found didn't give a northern limit or seemed to be similar to the following from the Columbia Encyclopedia: southeasternmost peninsula of Europe, c.200,000 sq mi (518,000 sq km), bounded by the Black Sea, Sea of Marmara, Aegean Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Ionian Sea, and Adriatic Sea. Although there is no sharp physiographic separation between the peninsula and Central Europe, the line of the Sava and Danube rivers is commonly considered as the region’s northern limit. The Balkan Peninsula therefore includes most of Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, continental Greece (including the Peloponnesus), Bulgaria, European Turkey, and SE Romania. These countries, successors to the Ottoman Empire, are called the Balkan States. Historically and politically the region extends north of this line to include all of Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, and Romania. Notice that your three river definition is not given as an absolute division, but as a convenient point. Also note that the regions I mentioned are mentioned as being "historically and politically" part of the region. Part of the confusion is that there is no clear cut division between the peninsula and the mainland. In fact, by one definition of a peninsula it ISN'T one as it has no isthmus between the peninsula and the mainland. Khajidha (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not about to go around changing anything, but just for the record - I completely agree with Khajidha. A peninsula is defined as "a piece of land that is bordered by water on three sides but connected to mainland" (current wikipedia description), or something similar. I have not yet run across a dictionary that actually says where that border goes, but logical thinking suggests that it ought to be the shortest point between the ends of the peninsula. So, geographically and mathematically, the Balkan Peninsula is technically the entire landmass between Odessa and Trieste. Now, I understand that The Balkans in a historic and cultural context is as described in teh article. But, as Khajidha says - if you remove the entire mass of land south of the Sava-Danube, the lands north of it (i.e. Slavonia, Vojvodina and Wallachia) would still qualify as a peninsula in their own right, limited by...you guessed it - the Trieste-Odessa line ;) BigSteve (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Percentages

The article currently contains the following text:

Countries which are partially located in the peninsula:

• Serbia (66%)
• Croatia (50%)
• Slovenia (33%)
• Romania (6%)
• Turkey (3%)

This is complete nonsense. Where is the source that backs this up? Am I really supposed to believe that exactly 66 per cent of Serbia, 50 per cent of Croatia and 33 per cent of Slovenia are on the peninsula? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced. It says in the next paragraph that all of Slovenia is outside the peninsula as defined, being north of the Danube-Sava-Kupa line, so I'm not sure what that 33% is supposed to represent, anyway. Scolaire (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

CHANGE THE MAP!!!

On the map it seems that Kosovo has been put as an independent republic,while the truth is is that it is a disputed territory,so i suggest that some more neutrality to the case,for example adding uncompleted borders which show the disputed territory,like a half country.—Preceding unsigned comment added by СРПСКИЦАР (talk • contribs) 16:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify which map are you talking about? There are many maps in the article, and most of them show Kosovo as part of Serbia, so if anything the neutrality problem goes in the opposite direction. The two maps on top are File:Balkan topo en.jpg, which only labels "Serbia and Montenegro" (too bad), and File:Balkanpeninsula2.png, which marks the Serbia–Kosovo border by a different colour than the other borders. — Emil J. 16:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, what are the percentages of Greece's territory in the Balkan peninsula and out of the peninsula? Are we going to correct the info in the article? --E4024 (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Western balkans

The article currently gives a definition of "Western Balkans" only by the EU. The USA also has some definition as bullshit becoming apparent in the embargo http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/balkans/balkans.shtml By the title one could think that all of the Balkans are under the embargo, but in the text the region is specified. The embargoes imposed by the USA (and perhaps other countries) are also of interest.

Alexander.mitsos (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo

There needs to be a consensus on Kosovo, rather than the current practice of alternately adding and deleting it. My own position is that if it is recognised by a significant number of UN member states, then it is recognised. Scolaire (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless "a significant number" is a relative thing, while "lacking UN recognition" is an objective and certain one. It is early for such a thing, let's wait for the Tribune's opinion and the number of states recognizing it at the end. --79.101.227.5 (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Omitting Kosovo altogether is Serbian POV. Including Kosovo without further comment is Kosovar POV. Neither is acceptable, since Wikipedia should be neutral and should not take sides in the dispute. The only reasonable and NPOV solution is to include Kosovo, but with a clarification that its independence is not generally accepted. The "current practice of alternately adding and deleting it" is not going away whatever solution we choose, because there is no shortage of POV-pushers on both sides, we have to live with it. — Emil J. 10:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think most of us would agree that Wikipedia's position on the issue should be that if the majority of the UN states recognize Kosovo's independence, we should include it among the ranks of other Balkan states. However, as someone mentioned, it is too early for that; so in keeping with a NPOV, we should include it on the list, but with a separate clarification of it's disputed independence as Emil J. proposed. However, by doing this we still appear to take a side by placing Kosovo within a list of countries which are within the Balkan peninsula. Even with the comment of it's disputed independence it still appears to lean in the Kosovar favor. Therefore, I propose we leave it on the article with the note of it's disputed independence, but move it from the list of "countries which are geographically fully located within the Balkan peninsula" and place it as a subset of Serbia. This would recognize it's de facto independence without intruding upon Serbia's sovereignty. Dr.Karajlic (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with previous comment, but am still seeing Kosovo in the list of 'countries' on Balkans. Can someone please change that because, whether a one like it or not, Kosovo is not a country. Will it, and when will it be, it's not on us to decide. -- Milos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.194.106 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No kosovo here:

List of sovereign states

So, it will not be here also. --Tadija^speaks 11:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Tadija, I guess you're forgetting that you are placed under a 1RR parole. kedadial 13:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, i am not, that was lifted long, long time ago! But you reverted without explanation, so you should question your self. --Tadija^speaks 15:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"No, i am not, that was lifted long, long time ago!"

• Then could you please provide a link to the 1RR sanction lift, otherwise I'll have to report you for breaching the sanction.

"But you reverted without explanation, so you should question your self."

• I reverted you the same way EmilJ (talk · contribs) did (a really experienced and neutral editor). Kosovo is clearly presented in a NPOV fashion. Cheers. kedadial 15:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You may ask User:Prodego, he will tell you. Well, you shouldn't just blindly revert as other users did, you should tell why you did it. As kosovo is not on List of sovereign states, it shouldn't be added as country, as it was agreed here above. It is not neutral, as it is presented with it's flag, and in the same line with normal recognized states. --Tadija^speaks 15:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What is or is not in another WP article is not relevant for this article. Nevertheless, contrary to your repeated false assertion, Kosovo is on the List of sovereign states, albeit with special treatment (i.e., it is in the "Other states" section rather than the main list). This is exactly what we do here: Kosovo is listed, but it is treated as a special case (i.e., there is a disclaimer that its independence is disputed). This is a compromise between Serbian POV, which would have no Kosovo on the list, and Kosovan POV, which would be to list Kosovo in the same way as other countries. Clearly, neither of these two is acceptable. What is not clear is whether the current wording and formatting of the disclaimer is sufficient, and you are welcome to suggest improvements. As a matter of fact, I wonder why the article does not include the standard {{Kosovo-note}} template, I guess I'll add it (though that's only good as a footnote, not as a short inline warning).—Emil J. 14:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And by the way: the idea mentioned above (and unsuccessfully attempted to be implemented in the past) to list Kosovo as a subitem under Serbia does not work because of organization of the list: Kosovo is geographically fully located in the Balkan peninsula, whereas Serbia is not, thus they have to be on different sublists, which prevents them to be listed next to each other.—Emil J. 14:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Amended. I reused the {{Kosovo-note}} template that was already in the article. Hope everyone is okay with it. Cheers. Kedadi 14:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia Request for Comment

The Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To EmilJ: I am very sorry for my hurry. Unforgivable. --Factuarius (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, no problem. It happens to all of us. — Emil J. 16:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Stanford's 1878 Ethnological map

Olahus: I seen you removed the Stanford's 1878 Ethnic composition map of the Balkans from the article. This map is of historical significance since upon that map the Congress of Berlin created Bulgaria as a state in 1878 and shaped her borders. I also noticed that you also removed it from any other article of wikipedia including the very article of the Berlin's Congress by saying that it is wrong. Wikipedia is not judging an historical document as it is a 1878 map as right or wrong, especially a map upon a treaty was determined. WP works with references, documents and facts, leaving the reader to judge for himself what is right and what is wrong. So if you really have censuses that denying what the map is picturing you have to put them into the articles, with the necessary references. My opinion is that the current article is better to avoid such maps because I believe that a day will come when the article will have 20 or 30 of them. But since for the time being had only one, of somewhat pro-Bulgarian view showing even eastern Thrace having a Bulgarian majority, it is good to give also a second opinion about, from a very well known cartographer of the era, enough serious as to influence a major treaty. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Politik of Balkans

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Grossgliederung_Europas.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.237.100.168 (talk) 12:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ethnographic maps

Jayron, the problem with Stanford's map, apart from it being an outlier, is the claim that it was used by the Berlin congress. This has yet to be sourced. I think that absent this special reason, we should try to include more widely accepted maps. Kostja (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The census in Eastern Rumelia fully shows that the map of Stanford is wrong. There is not a single piece of evidence that suggests that the Greeks were a majority in areas shown as Greek-populated in the map. --Gligan (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not why this map is included here. It is included here because of its importance to the outcome of the Treaty of Berlin. Stanford basically used a different definition of "Greek" than other cartographers. This can be explained in the caption, but is not a reason for the map's removal. Athenean (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No such thing as Balkan or Balkan Peninsula

Let's discuss term Balkan from Geographical point of view. For some part of land to be considered as a peninsula, sea (water) sides must be longer than mainland side. That is not the case with, so called, Balkan Peninsula. Mainland side, from Trieste to Odessa, is long about 1330kn, which is more than east sea side, from Odessa to Cape Matapan, which is long 1230kn. And other, west side, from Trieste to Cape Matapan, is something shorter from land side – 1270kn long. In fact, no one in geography study is sure how some land, with so large mainland side, could be called Peninsula. Geographical name Balkan peninsula (Balkan) was first used by German geographer J. A. Zeune (1809.), and the name of Balkan matches with meaning to Bulgarian “Old Mountain”. Zeune was wrong while thinking for that mountain to be located in middle mountain range on the area of South-Eastern Europe. Manny European scientists started to point out that distinct toponymyc misleading. However, with that entire toponymycally illogical geographical name Balkan peninsula (Balkan), serbian scientists and politicians adopted it with great pleasure. Namely, in that term, they found a significant tool in the Greater Serbian policy of conquering non-serbian countries and their populace in the territory of former Yugoslavia (royal and the “socialist”). Simply, they “invented” slogan “Balkan historical tradition”. Jovan Cvijić (1865.-1927.), greater serbian Balkanologist,chauvinist and racist, thoroughly used this slogan in his “scientific” (anthropological) works: “Most of the Croatian population is populated by notable “Balkan historical tradition” and “Croatians are Serbians of Roman Catholic religion”. In scientific (geographical) literature exists two versions of the artificial (conventional) northern boundary of so-called Balkan peninsula (Balkan): 1. Dunav-Sava-Kupa-Bay of Rijeka (Istrian peninsula is not part of “Balkan”) 2.Dunav-Sava (to its source)- Soča, tal. Isonzo (up to its mouth in the Gulf of Trieste). “Parents” to the second version of the boundary are Russian scientists. Under this boundary Slovenia and Italy are also part of “Balkan” because of its location on north-eastern part of “Balkan peninsula” (see work: Enciklopedičeskij slovar geografičeskij nazvanij, Moscow, 1973.;Ed “Sovetskaja encyclopedia”).

The so-called Balkan peninsula, from any standpoint, is NOT a peninsula!!! It is in fact South-Eastern part of European continent. Many modern scientists and politicians for such a geographical area are using proper name – South East Europe.

If you still want to use terms Balkan or Balkan Peninsula, use it without including Croatia in it no matter political or geographical context. (see www.meridijani.com for more info) --Tsumetai Ryujin (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Shall we... delete the article? GregorB (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Balkan Peninsula article should be deleted and replaced with South East Europe article as there is no scientific foundation to call South East Europe, Balkan. It's made up term which, unfortunately, caught up. At the very least be correct and make section like "Criticism to term Balkan" and use that insert written by prof. dr. sc. Dragutin Feletar. TRyujin (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a minute. A peninsula is a land mass surrounded on three sides by water. Nothing else, regardless of ratio of height to width etc. We need not be redefining concepts that have been accepted universally in English.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 06:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Amen - not to mention ripping pages out of dictionaries, encyclopedias, geography and history textbooks that have existed for over two centuries. Nonsensical talk page diatribe. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like every country has its own definition of peninsula. The term Balkan is incorrect and should not be used based on ad populum basis. TRyujin (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Romania?

Is it possible to someone to give me a clue on why Romania's mainland is considered in the article as a non-Balkan country? Cannot understand why (geographically speaking) Belgrade or even Trieste considered Balkans and Bucharest is not. Also historically and culturally speaking Romania was always part of the Balkans, playing a major role in the events. --Factuarius (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it, the article is dealing with the geographical term Balkans. The geographical criterion is south of rivers Sava and Drava. Historically or culturally speaking, you are right. Maybe you should add a section about historical Balcans. But beware, according to that, northwest countries Italy, Slovenia and Croatia are not included as they were part of Austria-HungaryHammer of Habsburg (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Hammer of Habsburg. I Understand the western borders to the north are Sava and Drava rivers, but Romania has nothing to do with them and Danube is a lot south to, say, Trieste living Romania outside. The question is can we consider Belgrade or Trieste part of the Balkans and Bucharest not? As for the section you suggested I am afraid this will call for a wider discussion, and I am not sure if that is the best solution. I believe Romania must be included as a total in the article and cannot see any reason to the contrary. But this is not a thing I can do by myself without any farther discussion. I will wait in case some other editors here disagree. Thanks again for your answer, --Factuarius (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

@Hammer of Habsburg you say "But beware, according to that, northwest countries Italy, Slovenia and Croatia are not included as they were part of Austria-Hungary". Considering that only part of Romania should be taken as Balkan, since Transylvania was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvania . --Manuelciosici (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In most cases a peninsula is "separated" from the mainland of a continent/island by some kind of a landmark (usually a river and/or a mountain). As an example I'll give the Iberian peninsula and the Pyrenees, which seperate Andorra, Spain and Portugal from the rest of Europe. Romania is not a Balkan country. It's more of a Central-Southeastern European country, although in many cases it's location is misinterpreted by the media in western countries due to various vactors like EU admission together with Bulgaria (a Balkan country) and a long history of involvement in Balkan events like the Second Balkan war when it even gained South Dobruja, which is on the other side of the Danube and is part of Bulgaria. Danube is de facto the real border of the peninsula. Rbaleksandar (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

@Factuarius there is an article from the Romanian historian and prime minister http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Iorga Nicolae Iorga on the official Romanian Cunsulate in Boston webpage (see http://www.roconsulboston.com/Pages/InfoPages/Commentary/Balkan.html where he clearly states that Romania is not geographically, culturally and historically part of the Balkans. --Manuelciosici (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"Romania is not geographically, culturally and historically part of the Balkans." Yes, and we should explain it like that. If you put 3% for Turkey, you can't say 100% for Romania. People in Romania should be proud of it because they are Balkan, Central Europe and also East Europe country. They deserve to be in all these articles but not entire Romania --Ollios (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Synvet Map

I removed that map because it isn't an ethnographic map but a map connecting ehtnicity to religion. I don't think that anyone can argue that Mussulmans isn't an ethnic description of any kind or that there is no nation called Serbo-Croats or Bulgar-Greeks.--ZjarriRrethues (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Lejean map

I have replaced the Lejean map because it is filled with errors [1]. It also shows ALL of Epirus as inhabited exclusively by Albanians, which is at odds with every other map. I have replaced it with one from National Geographic, a far more reliable source, from 1918. Athenean (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That map doesn't show Cham Albanians and the Serbian map ommits presence of Albanians in Kosovo in which they were a majority. Also why are you removing sources about Synvet map being pro-Greek and saying in the summary that you're removing only Lejean map? [2] [3]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Because the source (if you read it carefully), says that Synvet's map is favorable to the Greek cause, not Synvet himself. There is a world of a difference there. Athenean (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, I also note that the Lejean map also shows almost all of Kosovo as inhabited by Serbs, especially Pristina and Pec. Yet that doesn't seem to bother you. Athenean (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it is just a viewpoint among many viewpoints of the era, while the 1918 Serbian map isn't a map among many maps we have about that era.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that makes absolutely no sense. Athenean (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We have 6 maps about the 19th century each representing a view, while for the early 20th century we have just 3 maps and because of that only a narrow variety of views is represented.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that makes sense to you, but it still doesn't to me, and I doubt it does to anyone else either. Athenean (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, Stanford's map being full of errors didn't stop its inclusion in multiple articles. So we'll either remove both or none of them. Kostja (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the same source says that Synvet's map was Greek: [4]. So you wouldn't mind that it's usage as a reference that Synvet's map was pro-Greek? Kostja (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that all such labels as 'pro-Greek', 'pro-Bulgarian', 'pro-Serbian', 'pro-Albanian', 'pro-Macedonian' etc. ought to be removed and their further use discouraged (at least in the case of maps) by means of some WP regulation. They put a disproportionally heavy connotation (generally negative), and what is more important, even if properly sourced such labels are after all the opinion of someone else who may well in turn be 'pro-something' and 'anti-another'. I propose to discuss this and consider the introduction of some WP recommendations to that end. Apcbg (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that such captions should be removed (maps must be shown in their proper context) but I agree that a general policy needs to be established. The question is currently being discussed here. Kostja (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice; I have put my proposal (which I uphold) there too. Best, Apcbg (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, double standards are not acceptable in Wikipedia so either Lejean's map must be reinserted or Stanford's map removed. Kostja (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is maybe your 30th time you try to remove Stanford's map. Every time by using another excuse. When not using pure edit war. So your problem is not Athenean, is Stanford. I understand edit warring is your preferal way of acting but then that's not acceptable. And please stop speaking on behalf of WP. --Factuarius (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Athenean removed Lejean's map because it was error filled. According to this source, Stanford's map lacks "scientific value" and is "exaggerated and partial". So if we follow Athenean's criteria, this map should be removed as well. I don't speak on Wikipedia's behalf, I thought that double standards were indeed acceptable here. If you think that they are, I'm afraid that it would be pointless to continue discussing this with you. Kostja (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Every single ethnological map of the date have the same problem since with the exception of an Ottoman Army's very round census and only for males, no official Ottoman censuses existed before 1878. Despite that the maps played key role during the preliminary treaty of San Stefano and the Congress of Berlin as the only available tools. Thus their presence are valuable presenting the tools upon the map of the Balkans created during their most significant period at the end of the 19th Century. --Factuarius (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Source for this? Kostja (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Slovenia/Balkans/Nato

First of all I would like to stress that most geographical literature is NOT considering Slovenia as a part of the Balkan regions. The reasons for that are many. Second, someone should correct the text saying Slovenia became the part of NATO in 2009, when it's obvious it did so already in 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO) Third: this whole article is in need of some serious revision, since many of the data presented is not sourced and is many times obviously incorrect (i.e.: the percentage already mentioned above) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.159.199.53 (talk • contribs)

Romania / Balkans / NATO

Romania became part of NATO in 2004 and not 2009 as the text mentions when it says "As of April 2009,[29] Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Slovenia are also members of NATO". See http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2004/04-april/e0402a.htm --Manuelciosici (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Moldova part of Balkans or not?

I wanted to know that, is Moldova part of Balkans or Greater Balkans? Can anyone help? (QadeemMusalman (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC))

Italy

The article is confusing since the first paragraph where it is written that the western limit is the Kupa/Kopa river which is eastward Trieste. Then, the map showing the limits clearly indicate that Trieste is not part of the Balkans. Therefore, why indicating that Italy is part of the Balkans?? Italy is not part of the Balkan peninsula since the end of WWII (lost of Zara). Therefore, saying that Trieste is part of the Balkan peninsula is completely wrong. Instead of saying that Italian geographers do not consider Trieste (and Istria) part of the Balkans, I would say that the most common theory indicates that Italy is not part of the Balkans and that there is another theory that extends the limits including also Trieste.--Simone976 (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

other possible origin

How can you people so confidently assert that the name is of Turkish origin, but at the same time conveniently ignoring the fact that the name is also the name of some regions in Central Asia, it is a province in Turkmenistan. Clearly then the name could also be of Iranian origin from Central Asia and being brought to Europe by Turks who got the name from an Iranian origin, they could have merely carried it there, borrowing it. The name is also encountered at the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea. There is also the Balkan Peninsula in Central Asia. The term stands for 'rolling hills' (from Persian, Barkhwan/Barkhan/Balkhan). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.121 (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Maps are incorrect

This is a matter that has been discussed a lot of times as far I can see from the other comments, but I would like to remind this once more. Even though -some- maps show Kosovo with separated lines, the majority of them do not. As a fellow Albanian I need to point out the majority of the information here points towards serbia and gives huge factual errors especially in the Maps. Just because Serbia does not approve its independence It does not mean that it should be excluded from the maps in such a way.

I would do it myself but I am not really familiar with wikipedia editings so I would like someone to fix the maps as It is causing a lot of misdirection especially for people who do not know Balkan and its background.

Just the other day I was criticized at my presentation about balkans of why my map which had Kosovo was incorrect because "wikipedia" says otherwise, and I nearly facepalmed to that action.

As far as neutrality goes, I do not think not including a state to the maps proves your neutrality as it shows favoritism towards Serbia and most of the People whom I have shown this agree that It needs something done but probably wont work because most of the editors at Wikipedia are Serbian thus allowing all this information mislead to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.115.134.29 (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I just saw all the maps in the article of the Balkans. All of them are correct, including the one of the Balkan peninsula as defined by the Soča-Krka-Sava border in the north (which depicts the then existing country of Serbia and Montenegro.) Therefore I do not understand your concern about the maps in said article. --Estaurofila (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2011 (UT

I guess you didn't even take the time to read through my post. The maps defining the pennisula are correct, problem is that a state that should be in the maps is not included, take [5] that for example. As the first picture the visitor sees when entering the page, it shows Kosovo as if it doesn't exist, not even an annotation was made to show that something is there. It could be just because the map is outdated and I know that its hard to find a replacement but that map is wrong if it is ignoring it. Also the next 6 maps below that do not show Kosovo either. Someone needs to do something about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.115.134.29 (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Istanbul Population

even though i had given references, an unregistired user changed back the population of istanbul according to Istanbul page. there are just two references in that page. reference 1 is dead. reference 2 says 10,018,735 for 2000(this number isn't at page). I mean, istanbul page can't be reference because there is no real population references in the page.

ın 2004, according to new law, all istanbul province was included in istanbul metropolitan municipality. [6] so istanbul province and istanbul metropolitan municipality have some borders now and it's all population is 13.255.685(2010), urban population is 13.120.596(2010). but we don't have any legal part which is called city or central in istanbul. we have just istanbul metropolitan municipality and its districts. please look [7] it is the 2010 version of old (2000) city population. it says 12.9 million. population of istanbul definately more than 8.800.000 --Ollios (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

hello

is there anybody there?

istanbul population according to website in article: 8,803,468(Principal City Population)-2000 [8] and also I am really curious about how did you find Istanbul European Population(5.000.000?) ? It isn't in the reference website.

and

SAME WEBSİTE but NEW INFORMATION (2010): Principal Istanbul-city population is 12,946,730-2010 [9]

about today's europe İstanbul city-population, I have just found this [10] sorry it is Turkish.

It says

Istanbul total population:13.255.685

Istanbul urban population:13.120.596 (98,98%)

Istanbul total europe population: 8.571.374 (64,66%)

so according to minumum scenario, Istanbul total europe-urban population is more than 8.000.000--Ollios (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The term "Balkan" is probably cognate with Persian term بالكانه bālkāneh , which means "balcony (of Europe)"

There are dozens of etymological explanations. Every etymological explanation of the term "Balkan" is linguistic. And the claim that is the Persian word, is just equally correct as the other claims are. UKscientist (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)In Persian language there is term بالكانه bālkāneh from which derived the term "balcony" and most probably the term "Balkan". Persians invaded Europe dozens of times and later , during the turkish invasion of Europe, Persians served in turkish army as generals.

And why should it be mentioned in the lead? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok , maybe there is not a reason to be mentioned in the lead, but there is not a reason to be deleted aswell. Please, put it back in text, in place which is appropriate.UKscientist (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you place it in the appropriate place, which you found already? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 November 2011

The term "Balkan" is probably cognate with Persian term بالكانه bālkāneh , which means "balcony (of Europe)"

There are dozens of etymological explanations. Every etymological explanation of the term "Balkan" is linguistic. And the claim that is the Persian word, is just equally correct as the other claims are. In Persian language there is term بالكانه bālkāneh from which derived the term "balcony" and most probably the term "Balkan". Persians invaded Europe a few times and later , during the turkish invasion of Europe, Persians served in turkish army as generals. The Ottoman Empire, like all other empires, was hired professionals (soldiers, stonecutters, craftsmen, etc.) of different ethnic backgrounds. Turkish language is full of persian and arabic loanwords, and these influences are evident in the whole turkish culture...

I hope that my request will be considered.UKscientist (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

UKscientist (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"...dozens of times...". What nonsense. As for your request, we don't publish original research here. Athenean (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Please propose a specific change to the article, with reliable sources, and gain consensus before filing an {{edit protected}} request. Anomie⚔ 23:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, my mistake. Can I say "a few times". There are many of etymological explanations. Every etymological explanation of the term "Balkan" is linguistic (bulgarian, turkish, persian, etc.). The claim that is the persian word, is just equally correct as the other claims are. You can prefer turkish explaination, but I still claim that the term "Balkan" came from persian language. The term "Balkan" and the term "balcony" have the same root in that persian word (بالكانه bālkāneh). UKscientist (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't comment on the etymology of Balkan itself (most authors seem to agree it is directly from Turkish, but the further etymology beyond that appears unclear), but I must certainly correct the misunderstanding that English balcony is in any way related to it. Balcony comes from French balcon, in turn from Italian balcone < Ital. balco, which in turn was either a loan from Germanic (Lombardic) *balkō (cf. OHG balko, Mod. German Balken, 'wooden beam'), or, according to some hypotheses, derived from an ancient Latin palica < palus. No idea where that Persian bālkāneh would fit in, or whether it indeed exists. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 November 2011

Can you put this sentence in 'Etymology and evolving meaning' section. Here is a reliable source http://books.google.com/books?id=-EuFwLQhvYMC&pg=PA27&dq=balkans+etymology+persian&hl=en&ei=Xgm4TqebCpSy8QORstjoBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=balkans%20etymology%20persian&f

Other etymological explanation is that the term "Balkan" came from Persian words بالا bālā 'big, high, upper, above' and خانه khāna 'house, upperhouse, room'. UKscientist (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Cities over 200,000

Serbian cities are listed with metro area numbers as opposed to city limits, while other cities are given in city limits. For example Novi Sad is given as 381k (don't know where this n umber came from) while the city limits number is 221 k, and metro is 335k. Numbers should be consistent across the board for city limits or metro area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.71.245 (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, an IP have changed the populations of Serbian cities with agglomerations and inflations; or added new ones which actually in city limits are below 200,000. I will tommorow try to equalize and source all the cities.--JeanPirès (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• There are many cities which aren't in Balkan Peninsula in the list.

These cities don't belong the list besause they are not in Balkan Peninsula.

• Cluj-Napoca *Iași *Ljubljana
• Timișoara *Brașov *Novi Sad
• Craiova *Bucharest

I am not sure about cities in below. I think they are border cities same as Istanbul

Belgrade, Galați & Zagreb

They are located near border river(Danube and Sava), if they have population from the other side of river(which is not in Balkan like Asian part of İstanbul) we need to put "*" after them with all Romanian cities(most of Romania are not in Balkans. That's why the country can't be a "Balkan Country") because there is a rule under the list. "[*] Besides comparison between the cities of the Balkan countries, the table also shows cities of non-Balkan countries that are located (Çorlu and Trieste) or that are partially located (Istanbul) in the Balkan peninsula"--Ollios (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Grammar check request

As I have only basic understanding of English grammar, I probably made series of mistakes in mine edits these days and will be good if someone with good English skills check the article for grammar and minor mistakes, especially the punctuation, I think I made many mistakes there(commas , "").--JeanPirès (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Balkans: List of territories

The list is inherently biased as it is based on a single personal opinion, and not on a published synthesis of multiple reliable sources. Such a synthesis may be found, for example, in the book Contesting Europe's Eastern Rim: Cultural Identities in Public Discourse by Lilijana Šarić et al. (particularly Chapter 4). Especially dubious is an undisputed inclusion of Slovenia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If this list is based on the opinion of one source then find multiple reliable sources rejecting its claim. Your claim that Slovenia has to be excluded is also not supported by multiple sources. The current source inherently is reliable. I can't figure for what reason NPOV Americans - Robert Bideleux and Richard Taylor would be biased for the inclusion of some states in the Balkans in their book, that is ridiculous. Still nothing seems to be dubious in this claim of the book, Croatia, Serbia are officialy part of the Balkans according to the EU see here, so which remains dubious, Slovenia? Then multiple reliable sources refuting are needed. And furthermore, altough this could be defined as past, prior to the collapse of Yugoslavaia whole of it was considered as part of the Balkans by multiple sources. Regards. --JeanPirès (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My claim is is not that Slovenia has to be excluded, but that it is not always included. It is mostly not included. Multiple reliable sources that do not include Slovenia are already cited in the book I linked, among them Todorova (1997), Stokes (1997) etc. Also the linked official EU terminology does not include it. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed Slovenia is not always included. However this does not mean that it is mostly excluded, more sources not including Slovenia have to be found for this claim, or a source directly claiming it is mostly excluded. Therefore I suggest that a good option is next to Slovenia to add in brackets "sometimes excluded" or similar and next to it the sources - e.g. * Slovenia(Sometimes excluded from the Balkans). And what exactly Todorova and Stokes say, they do not include Slovenia or claim it is excluding? Because I don't know the page for which you are talking in Contesting Europe's Eastern Rim: Cultural Identities in Public Discourse could you link it to see it?--JeanPirès (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's [11]. According to the linked source, which is an overview of other sources, it is "sometimes included", not "sometimes excluded". --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Page 56 right? I read it but I did not saw such thing to be said there but most likely I am making a mistake. When this is said then I suggest that "sometimes included" could be written in brackets too but keeping Slovenia in the list as some sources claim that Slovenia is a Balkan state. --JeanPirès (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for the arguing, I did not know that you are administrator. As the links you provided say, Slovenia should be marked as occassional Balkan country or deleted. --JeanPirès (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources for "occassional Balkan country", "sometimes included" or "mostly excluded" should be provided.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The cited book contains the sentence "Most articles explicitly exclude Slovenia from the Balkans". According to [12], major international organizations classify Slovenia as part of East Central Europe rather than Balkans as well. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Since there are sources for "occassional Balkan country", "sometimes included" or "mostly excluded" (I can not verify them but I accept they exist based on AGF) we could list Slovenia here and add a note that Slovenia is "sometimes included" but "mostly explicitly excluded"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-offtopic comment: Slovenia is participant of the Balkan Games since it became independent state.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Balkan-bashing in the lede

There was a little too much Balkan-bashing in the lede for my taste, so I removed it and added some relevant and more neutral information about languages, religion. We could say similar things about all geographical regions (e.g. Middle East and wars of religion, western Europe and colonialism), but that doesn't mean these things should go in the lede of an article.

I support your removal. "A tendency of each region to view the cultures and religions to its South and East as more conservative and primitive" exists and is defined within article about Nesting Orientalisms and its section nesting Balkanisms. Maybe this concept could be mentioned in in the body of the article instead of too much Balkan-bashing?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cyprus?

Should Cyprus (a region closely tied to both Greece and Turkey) be included under "topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted" for purposes of the discretionary sanctions authorized at WP:ARBMAC? Or is this relationship too tenuous, and should some other basis be sought if special attention is required to disruptive activity in Cyprus-related articles? — Richwales 01:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic problems is ethnic problems. I'm sure arbmac can be broadly interpreted to include Cyprus. CMD (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Everyone please be aware that I've proposed (at WP:RFAR) that the existing ArbCom discretionary sanctions for the Balkans should be clarified / expanded to cover Cyprus. — Richwales 16:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

?? Unrelated Use of Sources in the section "History and geopolitical significance"

This section contains an argument about Ottoman massacres following political dominance in 16th century, ambiguously spanning three centuries: " [...] The Ottoman Turks started a forcible assimilation and Islamisation on all non-Muslim peoples, there were series of Ottoman mass murders and massacres in the Balkans. [...]" The cited reference is titled "The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus" by Vahakn Dadrian, a book that is only about late 19th and early 20th century insurgencies in Ottoman Empire. It doesn't mention any large massacres or deportations in the region as implied by the argument, thus is not an appropriate reference.(This is the edit it was added, I guess: ) A previous uncited and ambiguous argument claims, "[...] This campaign met big resistance, [...] civilians were choosing to be executed instead of converting to Islam which resulted in a number of massacres. After the kills, the Balkan population decreased from three to four times [...]". (This is the edit: ). This is the earliest argument about population reduction in the Balkans from 16th century to 18th, but in that argument and the cited source, they are investigated briefly and in an economic context and not related to state-led conversion and resulting massacres. ()

I think that the current argument is a mixture of these previous ones, but it is not factual. The book by Dadrian is academic but unrelated. Thus I'm removing this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.194.176 (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Dadrian is not known to be a very objective academician. See the critism to his academic work at the article Vahakn Dadrian. --E4024 (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Vahakn Dadrian is an academic and as such his book qualifies as a reliable source. There is also absolutely nothing "ambiguous" about the statement, this seems like just another case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Athenean (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the academic quality of the book by Vahakn Dadrian. There might be allegations on its authenticity and political nature of his work might arose some suspicion, but I can't comment on them based on my current knowledge. But I think both of these comments miss the points made above:

1-) The argument, "By the end of the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire had become the controlling force in the region after expanding from Anatolia through Thrace to the Balkans. The Ottoman Turks started a forcible assimilation and Islamisation on all non-Muslim peoples, there were series of Ottoman mass murders and massacres in the Balkans." implies state-led mass murders since 16th century. But this argument lacks evidence, as the referred work by Vahakn Dadrian has as its subject only late 19th and early 20th century insurgencies in Ottoman Empire. In addition, the referred source doesn't mention any large massacres or deportations in the region as implied by the argument. Thus the book by Vahakn Dadrian is not a valid source.

2-) One of the previous argument sharing the first sentence with the deleted argument, that I presumed to have led to this current argument is ambiguous and uncited: " The Ottoman Turks started a forcible assimilation and Islamisation on all non-Muslim peoples which was the largest in the history of the region and continued in the entire period of Ottoman rule. This campaign met big resistance, the weaponless civilians were choosing to be executed instead of converting to Islam which resulted in a number of massacres. After the kills, the Balkan population decreased from three to four times smaller than it was before (from about 10 million to 3 million), but even though the Balkan peoples succeeded to preserve their identity till the end of the Ottoman rule." It is ambiguous and not cited, thus not appropariate.

3-) The paragraph continues with folk heroes of the region. The paragraph in its current state remains informative about the effect of the Ottoman dominance on the formation of the national identity of the people of the region.

4-) The argument about population decrease between 16th and 18th century and later increase in the region, based on tax data is still in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.194.176 (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request declined

This is a courtesy notification that an amendment request this page was named in has been declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Turkey's western borders

Not exactly correct in the article. The region of Karaağaç (now part of Edirne) was returned to Turkey, by Greece, after the Turkish Liberation War, as a war reparation. --E4024 (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the name in lead

Why do we not have it in the lead? Because it is Turkish? Maybe because we could not find anything that comes close to any ridiculous explanation from another (say Latin or Greek) language? Is there some Turkofobia here? Was it not enough to try to expell all the Turks from the Balkans, for a whole century, beginning with the Greek indepedence and culminating in the Balkan Wars? Now we are trying to eliminate the word? We already made it Southeast Europe politically. Now let us make the geography: "Southeast European Peninsula". Poor Jimbo, when you had a dream of "a free encyclopedia that everyone could edit" did you ever imagine that some would use this freedom for their national historic resentments? --E4024 (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You'd get a lot further in discussions if you didn't open them with what seems like almost rhetorical questions about Turkofobia. Perhaps instead of immediately bringing up ethnic conflict, you could instead propose an addition? CMD (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason of my behaviour is easy to find in the recent "history" of the article. A user eliminates the reference to "Turkish" in the lead but in the edit summary only refers to a map (which certainly also happened to have a reference to Turks). Every behaviour is understandable, one should only look around. P.D. This an exception to my behaviour of neglecting certain users and will not be repeated much. --E4024 (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Cultural map

I've removed the cultural map File:Grossgliederung Europas-en.svg. (For a start, it shouldn't be in the lead, as there's a better image there already.) It's an interesting map, to be sure. You can see the southern boundary of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, what looks like bits of the Sardinian Empire France nabbed, and a hint of pre-Second World War Poland in Ukraine. However, it's defining not the Balkans, but Southeastern Europe. They're often synonymous, but not always, and in addition this is a German map, and German terms could have very different implied meanings. I doubt they're synonymous at all here, especially as I've never seen Moldova or Cyprus defined as part of the Balkans. The map belongs somewhere on Southeast Europe, and if it is here, somewhere where it helps illuminate the different cultures of the Balkans (which seem to be mostly Southeastern but with a little bit of Central). CMD (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Etymology of "Balkans"

Hi. I looked just now at the sources for the claim that the word "Balkans" is of Turkish origin (meaning "a chain of wooded mountains"), and I am not especially impressed by the quality of these sources — at least, not to the extent that I would consider this to be established as being the most "generally believed" explanation for the word. The excerpt from the Todorova book (Imagining the Balkans), supporting the Persian origin, appears on the surface to be a better-quality source. Rather than jump feet first into the article and starting making bold changes, however, I'd like to first ask others what they think. Comments, anyone? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Unreadable Paragraph?

I could make little sense out of this. I realize it might be a literal quote from a source, but surely something could be done?

"Alternately. It is belived that name Balkan came after envetion of Byzant from turks mongols - meaning in Albanian Bal(front head)and Can for the mongols, so it become the front head of can, for the mongols kingdom, but in Albanian language it is very clear even today if you sey Balkan - it's mean kahn front head on Byzantine Empaier, Albanian or Iliryan was the first language spoken , was the language of Kostandin the creator of Byzant.......the name may have derived from the Persian bālkāneh or bālākhāna, meaning "high, above, or proud house," and brought to the region in the 11th and 12th centuries by Turkic tribes who applied it to the area.[5]"

75.71.200.117 (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Maps not in English

{{not English}}

In the "Demographics" section, File:AtlBalklang.jpg and File:AtlBalkrelig.jpg, and File:Balkans-ethnique.JPG are labelled French. -- Beland (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This would be one for some graphic-savvy folks to take care of (Wikipedia:Graphics Lab maybe), not translators, doesn't take fluency in different languages to know what "Italie" is supposed to be--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

(Republic of) Macedonia in list of "territories"

The article currently includes a list of "Territories whose borders lie entirely within the Balkan peninsula". I wonder whether this might be a case where it would be appropriate to reduce possible confusion by identifying Macedonia as the "Republic of Macedonia" — possibly via {{flag|Macedonia|name=Republic of Macedonia}} (Republic of Macedonia). The part of WP:MOSMAC allowing the use of "Republic of Macedonia" in "articles dealing with geography, where reference to a geographical or sub-national meaning of 'Macedonia' could also be plausible" would seem to be applicable in this situation. Please note that I am not proposing to use the generally forbidden "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or "FYROM". Any thoughts on this? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman map of 1907 calling the Rhodope mountains "Balkan of Rhodope".

It states in the article that Balkan means wooded mountain in the Turkic language, now I found a map which confirms this. There is a Ottoman map of the Balkans of 1907 in which the Rhodope Mountains are named "Rodop Balkanı" (Balkan of Rhodope). Which probably means wooded mountains of Rhodope.DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Map of Adrianople Vilayet.

Nice catch. I've been trying to explain for some time now that Angelina Jolie's movie got it wrong by a mile. --Laveol ^T 20:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Romani people or Gipsy people?

'Gipsy' is a common word used to indicate Romani people in English, but it may be considered to carry very pejorative connotations by those so described. Self-designation Roma is common, also much. Because all Romanies use the word Romani as an adjective, the term began to be used as a noun for the entire ethnic group. Today, the term Romani is used by most organizations—including the United Nations and the Council of Europe. Jingiby (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand the concern over "Gypsy" and would like to respect it to the greatest degree possible. However, for the sake of clarity to the average reader, I believe the name "Gypsy" needs to be mentioned — at least parenthetically as part of a first reference, something like Romani (Gypsies). Otherwise, many readers simply will not understand (or will misunderstand) which ethnic group is being referred to. BTW, the most common English spelling is "Gypsy" (with Y, not I). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. Jingiby (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox can't handle this many countries

It appears that the {{Infobox peninsulas}} template currently has a limit of seven countries — "country", followed by "country 1" through "country 6". Any countries beyond that are simply ignored. Right now, it looks like we need the template to handle at least one more country. I'll leave a comment about this on the template's talk page — but if anyone here is a template expert and wants to try updating the template to handle more countries, that might be faster than waiting for someone who isn't immediately and personally affected by the problem to get around to working on it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the template has been updated. Someone might want to review the order of countries in the infobox — were they originally intended to be in alphabetical order? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Croatia as part of wetsren balkans

There is no source which claims that croatia was or is not anymore part of western balkan and I have some which claim that it is. See European Economic and Social Commitee, EUISS, CEPI, European Union External Action (EEAS), German Federal Ministry of Education and Research - Western Balkans, IIEA (Institutue of International and European Affairs) - Croatia joins the EU, European Council of Foreign Relations "The periphery of the periphery: The Western Balkans and the Euro crisis.", Austrian Foreign Ministry - Western Balkans and European Energy Security and Related Issues - Busek: Western Balkans should join EU as a block. Before reverting my edit again please show me sources which claims that croatia is not part of western balkan anymore or ever was. regards Seader (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There are enough officiall EU sources of their institutions or member state instutitions given that proove that croatia is (was at least till EU membership) a western balkans state. Some try to argue with the political change that croatia joined the EU that its affiliation to the western balkans changed and that its not part of it anymore. For that a reliable source is needed which clearly confirms this change, which is not given yet. Till there is not such an officiall source given this conclusion that croatia left the western balkan is only personal thinking (PoV) for which is no space in this article. Regards Seader (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There is an identical discussion caused by Seader on Croatian page of W. Balkans. You can see a full answer there or someone or I will post it here later. Seader puts a mass of sources about that Cro belongs to W.B., but the truth is that his sources are outdated. All of them take a place in 2009, 2008, 2004, maybe even later. Today, a political situation is different. It is quite ridiculous how Seader ignores facts and gives self-interpretations about this situation. For him, it is more important to put a lot of sources that do not describe nowadays EU political situation than to accept new believable sources. I'll put here just a few sources that clearly say that Croatia is not a part of W.B., but I have them even more. Accordingly, here European Investmen Bank (EIB), Western Balkans Environment Programe, European Commission you can see that Croatia is separated as a Member State of EU while other countries of W. Balkans are mentioned and described separately. In the last source[13], I know that Seader will shout "Look, there is Croatia mentioned in the article of W. Balkans!" but if you read carefully, you'll see that Croatia is mentioned for 2012 (note: Cro entered into EU 1st July 2013). Further reading will take you to the conclusion that there is not one single word about Croatia anymore. At the final conclusion on the bottom, EU gives a clearly statement which countries are considered as a Western Balkans: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo. Finally, the most expressive proof that Croatia is not a part of Western Balkans is a map given by EU. (Your eyes are not lying to you! :) ). Have nice day, everyone! Billiboom (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wishfull thinking. That u mention ur more detailed answer at croatian page: I nullifiedur sources there because they do not proof your point. You could only provide there one EU and one UN source which allow the conclusion that croatia is not part of western Balkan, but none of your sources states and proves your point that croatia is not part of western balkans anymore because it joined the EU. Till now you are doing original research which is against Wikipedia regulations:"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.". You are giving weird argumentations and even ignoring facts in your own shown sources (of which some even prooved my point and you are ignoring now): For this source of yours you wrote: "I know that Seader will shout "Look, there is Croatia mentioned in the article of W. Balkans!" but if you read carefully, you'll see that Croatia is mentioned for 2012 (note: Cro entered into EU 1st July 2013)". Of course croatia is mentioned for 2012 because its a report about the trading in 2012. There is no report for 2013 because we are still in 2013. Also u say that at the bottom "EU gives a clearly statement which countries are considered as a Western Balkans". Thats a wron interpretation again. Please read correctly, it is written about "EU Delegations" in these countries and croatia, now as member of the EU , of course does does not need/have an EU Delegation. Please what kind or weird argumentation do you use here to proove your point? You failed yet ro bring up an officiall source which clearly confirms your point and as long as u cant provide a source which states that croatia is not part of western balkan anymore because it joined the EU it keeps being your PoV and for that is no space in this article. You yet tried to put your PoV in different ways in this article, with not proofing sources or a map now, where it is not really clear what this map really shows because it contradicts with the written text in the source. You can keep here telling everyone how ridiculous I ignore facts and give self-interpretations about this situation but in the end it is you who makes original research and fails to provide a source which confirms your point of view and not me. regards Seader (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)