Talk:Balkans

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)

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)

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)

Western balkans

The article currently gives a definition of "Western Balkans" only by the EU. The USA also has some definition as 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)

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)

@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)

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 semi-protected or unprotected 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)

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)