Talk:Balkans

Macedonia

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is Slav Macedonia, not Macedonia! Alexander the Great was not Slav!

That's what I meant by petty nationalistic behaviour. Zocky 23:18 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

There's no end to this discussion. Trust me. Greek nationalists demand that Macedonians should be called Macedonian Slavs and not Macedonians, because Macedonians were an ancienct semi-greek people (see Macedon). There position is completely ridiculous, though - it's like Germans demanding that the French be called something else because Franks were a German tribe or Swedes demanding that Russia changes its name because the name originally comes from a Swedish tribe. There are examples like this all over the world, so the only difference here is Greek nationalism.

I don't want to start an edit war over this, but I don't like them getting their way. Zocky 11:39 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Mr Zocky ! This is nationalism !(see VERGINA SUN) http://home.arcor.de/macedonia/basket/ìndex.html

http://www.macedonianpride.cjb.net

62.47.35.138, please make your case here on the talk or you will be banned. Three broken links and some incoherent shouting doesn't make anyone believe you. Tokerboy

Religion in Albania

I see that Albania is considered to have Muslim majority, but it is not a clear cut case. Most people seeing such statements would be reminded of other Islamic countries, but there is a big difference in Albania. Most people who are considered Muslim now are just "born" into that description as a result of the Ottoman Empire influence from a long time ago. They do not adhere strictly to the 5 pillars. Although you can hear the call of prayer in Tirana and other cities, it is only because the government is really tolerant. There are no doubt "true" Muslims, but there are also many more people who just call themselves Muslim. People of different faiths intermarry without any prejudice. Also all holidays are observed by all people in some form. I think most people are generally religious (as in believing in a higher being), and there are a good deal of atheists (having resulted mostly from the communist regime). These are just my observations. Dori 03:50, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Is it different for Albanians in Kosovo and Macedonia, the Muslim population of Greece, and Bosniaks? Andres 08:05, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I would speculate that this is the case for Albanians. In Greece, there are likely Muslims from other countries that would behave differently. For example, there was a big raucus over the issue of building the only mosque in Athens. This does not mean that all Albanian muslims behave this way, but I *suspect* that the majority does. All the media seems to leave this aspect out and instead focuses solely on stating that there are muslims in the balkans. I don't know if there are any studies anywhere, but I would be interested to know. Dori 16:31, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that would be really interesting. I wrote because I suspected that for example in Bosnia the situation was similar to that of Albania. Then your note should be extended. I think someone who knows might come across this page and inform us. Therefore I think open questions should be fotmulated on the Talk page. Andres 18:10, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Islam in many non-Arabic countries is different from 'Arabic Isalm', I'm not sure that we should consider it to be a less valid form, simply because it is different - the differences are probably worth noting though.

I would think that obeying the five pillars would be a basic requirement though. --Dori 13:00, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Peninsula or not

It seems to me that in this article inconsistency arises because the Balkan peninsula as a physical-geographical concept and the Balkans region as a human-geographical concept are confounded. If we accept the physical boundary along Danube, Sava and the Julian Alps, then a small eastern part of Rumania, a big southern part of Serbia (excluding Vojvodina) and a southern part of Croatia are included. Slovenia is excluded. When Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia were part of Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia partly belonged to the Balkan peninsula. When determining the boundaries of the Balkans region, we have no clear-cut criteria, and we are bound to have disputes because different nations have different ideas of the Balkans region. Andres 05:10, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The whole idea of a peninsula is rather stretched. One could argue that the mentality of people from the Dalmatian coast is much less Balkan than of those in Slavonian plains, which would be the reverse of the above. The page should probably be renamed to "Balkans", it's simpler and avoids that issue. --Shallot 06:44, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think then it would be better to have different articles for the peninsula and the Balkans region. I think there is a peninsula, and the peninsula should include Romania because the corner of the Black Sea is where Romania ends. But this is another issue how to define that peninsula. Andres 09:05, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Possibly. But then you'd probably get a heap of Romanians complaining how they are getting included in the infamous Balkan peninsula. It's a lose-lose situation, really :) --Shallot 17:26, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think the article about the Balkan peninsula could include only physical geography along with the discussion of the existent different conceptions about its boundaries. Then hardly Romanians would complain. Andres 19:17, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

And it seems obvious that the border of the peninsula should run from near Rijeka to near the estuary of Danube (no, rather even the estuary of Dniestr) but how it runs leaves room for convention. Probably Danube is chosen either then the border has a more or less east-west direction. I am curious about that. Andres 21:51, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Let alone the fact that the original definitions of the word peninsula presumed an isthmus, which the Balkans simply don't have, quite the contrary. Its form doesn't even nicely fit the description of being land surrounded by water on three sides. It's really a lousy peninsula almost every aspect. :) --Shallot 12:12, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So, should we go ahead and implement that? Probably first by moving this article to Balkans and then changing the peninsula article to include a discussion about it. --Shallot 23:23, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you split then please let the discussion of nature and natural resources remain in the article "Balkan peninsula". It also should contain the history of the concept of Balkan peninsula along with the different conventions, which still demands research. I only know that the term "Balkan peninsula" was coined by the German geographer August Zeune in 1808. Andres 06:02, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'll just move the article to the shorter and more popular term "Balkans" until we figure out the content exactly. I'd hate to make a mess splitting them up. --Shallot 14:11, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That's OK if you redirect it and mention the peninsula at the top. Andres 15:51, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Balkan communist states vs. Soviets

Yugoslavia, led by Tito, rejected the Soviet idea of merging with Bulgaria

Before 1948, it was Yugoslavia's idea somehow to "merge" with Bulgaria and Albania (see Communist and post-Communist Albania). Andres 06:24, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In Stalin's grand scheme of things, the logical course of events would have been for all south Slavic nations to be in one union which would in turn become part of the Soviet union -- Tito and Dimitrov are simply mentioned to have talked about it in public. Obviously this didn't go particularly well because the different entities couldn't even begin to be made to function as one (an internal problem to Yugoslavia itself, in fact). --Shallot 06:44, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That is probably right. But my concern is that as it goes, Tito is one-sidedly shown as just a victim though he himself seems to have been a smaller-scale imperialist who used to dream about swallowing in one or another form Bulgaria and Albania, and who knows, perhaps even Greece. Andres 19:27, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I see your point. Please feel free to rephrase that sentence. (Although Greece would be _really_ wishful thinking:) --Shallot 20:49, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't have enough knowledge to do this myself. I am not sure the whole issue should be mentioned in this article but if it is then more details are needed for accuracy and clarity. Andres 21:51, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Arvanites, Greeks, Albanians

The paragraphs about the Greek minority in Epirus and later Albanian immigrants in Greece fail to make clear which of them are Arvanites. I think those two paragraphs should be merged to attain more textual coherence and clarity. Andres 08:08, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In the resume of my previous note I inadvertently wrote "Albanian Greeks" instead "Albanians in Greece". But it seems that Greek minority in Albania also should mentioned here. Andres 08:21, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I gave it a shot at fixing this, but I suspect the whole minority thing should not be here since many countries in the balkans have minorities from other countries. I removed a bit about the Arvanites since it was too specific and is included in the article linked. For the record, I think capitalizing the section titles was a good idea :) Dori 05:12, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You are right that in the present state the material about Albanian minorities is overweighed. But I think it would be better to compensate this by adding other material than by deleting this. My reasons: I think it is good to have a section or a separate article about ethnic minorities on the Balkan peninsula both because it helps to understand the ethnic composition of the population on the Balkan peninsula and because the minorities are an actual or potential source of tensions and so have an overall importance for understanding the political situation on the peninsula. Andres 08:05, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I understand this, but it is obvious that there are minorities in all the countries. Since in most cases there are no credible data (all official values are likely to be either overstated or understated) to be able to give specific values, the generality that would result would in my opinion would make the addition useless to the article. Anyone is of course wellcome to give it a shot and we can take it from there. Dori 16:27, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I understand that we don't have enough information. If we don't have numbers, we need not mention them. And I am not saying that you or I must do something or that this should be done right now. I am only noting desiderata. Andres 18:10, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ethnicity vs. nationality

I think it would be better to say "ethnic composition of population" because "nationality" is at least ambiguous, meaning citizenship and only secondarily meaning the belonging to an ethnic group. I didn't touch it because I don't know how to formulate the first sentence if the section about "nationalities". Andres 08:24, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Puzzling definitions

There is a strange thing in this article. The top implies that including Romania and Slovenia to the Balkans is not usual, and further it is said that normally Romania and Slovenia are included to the Balkans. Isn't that strange? Andres 19:08, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

When we say that the Balkans include only the northern part of Greece then we exclude what without doubt belongs to the peninsula (with the exception of the islands)! So I still think that the article should be split.

And, I don't agree that "South East Europe" is an adequate term for the region. It seems to me that South East Europe must be the European South Russia. Andres 19:19, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See why I wanted to move it to the generic "Balkans"? The definition changes on a whim, really :) User:Wetman now added another, slightly different definition, that's basically the mountaineous regions: Dinaric Alps, Balkan, Rodopa, Šar and Pindus mountains. I've seen that definition used in a few places, it's no less valid than any other one. --Shallot 21:01, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I guess I see your point. You mean that "Balkans" is allowed to change on a whim while a peninsula is not? Anyway, I think decribing those changes is part of our task. Andres 21:55, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, I don't think that the peninsula definition is particularly less prone to changes than the other definitions are. We can document all of them in different pages or in one page, they're all pretty much linked. --Shallot 11:22, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Annoying

The very term "Balkans" is idiotic. It's a leftover from the 19th cent. geopolitics, and, the best thing would be to throw it into dustbin, along with "Mohammedans", "Slavonic races", "Indo-Germanic languages", "Cathay", etc.

Mir Harven

What is the right term then? Andres 20:41, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Just because it's annoying that doesn't make it go away. There's nothing wrong in explaining it. --Shallot 21:01, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's a common and useful geographic term - I know that there is a movement in the Balkans, particularly in Croatia, to try to have it renamed 'South Eastern Europe' or somesuch, but that's more to do with their own political ambitions than geography.

It's not too useful per se, and just because there's vague geographic support for the grouping that doesn't change the fact it's really a historical and political name. Cynics will note it's particularly useful when one wishes to lump everything together in one big amorphous mass. The content of the page already pretty clearly shows how there's much more to it. --Shallot 13:11, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Politically correct censorship, eh ? Pathetic.

M H

[Below text by Mir Harven was removed by Dori around this point.]

1. The right term is "SE Europe".

2. Niggers, Chinamen, Greazers,..were annoying and had to go away. Btw- no one, when referring o the "Balkans", considers that, geographically, "Balkanians" had been Euripides, Plato, Aristotle, Alexande the Great, Sophocles,...Evidently, the "Balkans" is a "state of mind". Caveman's, that is.

M H

It's not censorship. It's available in the history for anyone interested in it. I don't see it adding to the discussion in any way. It looked more like vandalism to me, which is why I removed it. --Dori 23:58, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism, it was just his somewhat extreme point of view. He thinks Balkan is as offensive as Nigger etc -- this may seem unreasonable to you, but it is true that Balkan usually has a derogatory meaning these days, and it's also true that those called that way get to have an opinion on how they're called. His mentioning of the not so lousy stuff that came out of the otherwise dreaded Balkans also seems to be a valid point. I don't see why it should have been removed. --Shallot 11:22, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough, restored the glorious comments. Wish M H would practice what he preaches though. --Dori 13:00, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sure, but you know what they say, two wrongs don't make a right :) Thanks. --Shallot 13:11, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Bitte ? I dont "preach" anything except the freedom of speech. But, if you refer to the "Balkans" and similar nonsense- this is a dated concept (and, more-it's not even a peninsula. Obsolete designation, not dissimilar to "Little Russians" (Ukrainians) or junk science a la psycholinguistics or memetics). As dated as Ptolemy or Freud.

M H

Romania

Is Romania in the Balkans, or what region?

Classical Antiquity

"In classical antiquity, this region was the most developed part of Europe as the center of the Greek-speaking world. " The northernmost edges of the Hellenic world in Antiquity lay in Epirus (Hellenized in the 3rd century BCE) and in Greek Macedonia (Hellenized in the 4th cenury BCE). The center of the Greek-speaking world in Antiquity would include the Aegean, the coast of Turkey Southern Italy and Sicily. "Most-developed" is hard to place, but the arc of coastal from Naples across France and down Spain to Gades, would be a candidate... Wetman 05:24, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't particularly convinced at that statement's applicability either, I merely elaborated the one reason that crossed my mind. The states of Greece and Macedon were certainly notable in the scope of the whole world at the time, so it makes some sense. --Shallot 19:55, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Romania and Slovenia

Romania and Slovenia are not in the Balkans. Balkan is a peninsula, not a region. It's boundary is river Sava with Dunav. If you look in to the map you will see that Romania and Slovenia are not south but north from this line. Also Vojvodina, a province of Serbia is not on the Balkans, but Ser&Mon is.

The Balkans is not a peninsula in the classic geographical sense - there's no clearly defined isthmus so the boundary is as much political and cultural as geographical. On this basis, Slovenia's cultural, historical and ethnic links with the south Slav nations of the Balkans means that it is often also classified as a Balkan country (though I know many Slovenes don't like that description). Similarly, Romania's shared history with the other Balkan states (especially its status as part of the Ottoman Empire) mean that it's also commonly regarded as a Balkan state.

What shared history? You comparing Slovenia's 73 years as part of Yugoslavia to over 1000 years of completely shared history with Austria? In contrast, for the majority of this time, Croatia and other former Yugoslav republics were under the influence of Hungary and/or the Ottoman empire.

Are you comparing Slovenia's 1000 years as a part of Austria to thousands of years of completely shared history in the Proto-Slavic community? Or even to milions of years of shared history with amphibians?

Comparing just the number of years doesn't really work. The order of events is very important. Yugoslavia was an important phase in recent Slovenian history and there is a substantial mutual intelligibality with other Southern Slavic languages, not to mention a sizable proportion of Slovenian population with relatives in other former Yugoslav republics. You are much more likely to hear the same music as in Ljubljana's clubs in Zagreb or Belgrade than in Vienna (apart from MTV hits). And most importantly, the aversion to the Balkans and popularity of Austria and other Middle European countries is far from universal in Slovenia and many Slovenians consider Slovenia to be a part of the Balkans, whatever their concept of the term is. Zocky 04:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slovenia's cultural and historical links with Central Europe are much stronger than its links with the Balkans. The northern boundary of the Balkan peninsula is clearly defined. This boundary is arbitrary but long tradition makes it valid. Boraczek 08:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Err, there isn't much tradition to the northern boundary, whichever one you take... --Joy [shallot] 20:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to make that distinction, then also consider that Croatia was under the influence of Hungary and Austria for about the same time, and *not* the Ottoman Empire. It's really a moot point. --Joy [shallot] 20:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Quote: "The boundaries of the region are somewhat elastic," - what tha fuck is this supposed to mean? -- Milant 05:05, 31 Oct 2004

We're disagreeing about where the boundaries should be drawn - different sources say different things. See what I mean? -- ChrisO 09:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please read the history of the article before interfering further. Heck, reading the article's "Definitions and boundaries" section would be sufficient. We can have this discussion N times but that's not going to change the simple fact that there are indeed many different definitions. --Joy [shallot] 22:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Every detailed description of the northern boundary of the Balkans in geographical (not political) sense I know says that the Kupa, Sava and Danube rivers form the boundary. Boraczek 08:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, and encyclopedias describe the real world, not some science-based utopia. Deal with it... --Joy [shallot] 11:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we were deciding how to divide Europe into regions with real geographical borders and differences in topography, IMO the Balkans would end on the Danube, Sava, then Savinja or even Sotla/Sutla and Mura, the Alps and the edge of the Karst plateau, including all the mountanious parts of Europe to the southeast of the Alps and excluding the Panonian plain. The Balkans would thus include most of Slovenia and Croatia, but not most of Romania.

But since the Balkans is also a politically defined region with touchy sensibilities involved, all we can do is explain the varios definitions. Zocky 14:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and the Western use of the words "Balkans", "Balkanization" etc.

I am seriously concerned with this paragraph:

The distinct identity of the Balkans owes as much to its fragmented and often violent common history as to its mountainous geography. The region was perennially on the edge of great empires, its history dominated by wars, rebellions, invasions and clashes between empires, from the times of the Roman Empire to the latter-day Yugoslav wars. Its fractiousness and tendency to splinter into rival political entities led to the coining of the term Balkanization (or balkanizing). The term Balkan commonly connotes a connection with violence, religious strife, ethnic clannishness and a sense of hinterland.

I don't think it represents any kind of neutrality. It is one of the many ways the West looks at the Balkans, and one of the more harmful ones at that. Do you think anybody in the Balkans talks about "Balkanization"? Obviously not. In addition, it is trying to excuse the extensive harm done by the continuous involvement of the "Great Powers" in the Balkans through some kind of inherent "instability" in the region. In fact, the Balkan Peninsula is one of the most ethnically diverse regions in Europe and as such has managed to keep together pretty well over the millenia, when its inhabitants were managing their own affairs. Unless I hear a good justification for this opinion I will delete it or rework it as it is very biased and potentially insulting. I like the mountainous geography part. Mitkouwcad

That would be censorship, don't do it. It is indeed the most common view of the Balkans in the west, and that's pretty evident throughout the 20th century. It most certainly doesn't excuse the involvement of the great powers in any way, it merely explicates what the result of their involvement was. I agree, however, that the current verbiage is a bit too graphic. It should be rephrased back to how it was before, and extended to include the overview of international power involvement (it hints at it saying that it was "on the edge of great empires"). --Joy [shallot] 11:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that this is the most common view of the Balkans. Maybe in some countries in the West it is, and those also happen to be the ones mostly involved with questionable benefits in the Balkans. And why should the West (which is only a fraction of the world) get such a prominent and biased view on this page? And isn't this an encyclopedia? This is clearly an opinion, not fact. It might be good for the BBC, with the language softened.

In addition, a lot of it is plain wrong, let me elaborate on this (I'll concentrate on the important parts):

• fragmented and often violent common history — besides being an oxymoron, this statement is also an obvious case of weakly based generalization. Even as an opinion, it stands a lot of argument. The history of the Balkans has been more the one of fusion than the one of fragmentation. The two classical "fragmentation" events - The Balkan Wars and the recent Yugoslav Wars can at least partially be traced back to indiscriminate involvement of the Great Powers in the border-drawing process in the Balkans (The Treaty of Berlin, the Aftermath of World War I and so forth). In addition, the last two big wars in Europe were not brought on by Balkan nations, but by their much more "civilized" western neighbours.
• perennially on the edge of great empires — This is some meaning of "great empires" and "perennially" I am not familiar with. Maybe if you mean the British Empire. The Ottoman, Byzantine, Bulgarian (not really an empire, but still), Roman and Macedonian (as in Alexander the Great and his dad) Empires all had a lot of their heart in the Balkans. Plus, why should history be about Great Empires, after all? Isn't it about the people?
• violence, religious strife, ethnic clannishness and a sense of hinterland — This is the most spiteful and ethnically biased part, and I don't even feel a need to argue with it. It argues itself. Obviously whoever wrote it thinks there is such a thing as "better people" and "worse people" in this world and that he/she is from the better part. Consult The Ugly Duckling if you didn't read it when you were little (the part about the cat and the hen). In addition, it shows a lot of ignorance about the Balkans. There actually are many parts of the Balkans where ethnicities have lived together for centuries and such statements and the associated stereotypes can only do harm to such communities (and we've had enough harm, thank you!).

I don't want to censor anything, but I really like the Wikipedia project and this paragraph does it no credit. mitkouwcad

On another note, I went through the history of this paragraph and I think I am starting to understand where you are coming from. (Between "'Balkan' being a pejorative term acording to some" and the whole "Croatia and Greece don't necessarily feel themselves part of it".) I appreciate your point, but I still don't think it's exactly neutral the way it's presented. Maybe a change of wording? Or addition of something to the effect that some people do not feel Balkan is a pejorative term? I don't know, having been subjected to the whole "PC revolution" thing, I find myself thinking that it's not the actual terms that are harmful but the opinions of the people who use them. So whether you call someone "Nigger", "Negro", "Black" or "African American" it really doesn't matter, if you are inherently racist, but don't want to admit it and deal with it. mitkouwcad 01:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

origin of name "Balkan"

• The region takes its name from the Balkan mountains which run through the centre of Bulgaria into eastern Serbia, and the term 'Balkan' itself is derived from the Turkish word for mountain.

i'm very curious about this turkish word for mountain from which Balkan is derived. I know there is a region Balkh/Bokhara in Asia, where the ancient MassaGetae used to roam, the Massagetae arriving in Europe in present day Bulgaria as Alans (Ammianus Marcelinus called the Alans as "the former Massagetae") ... while the turkish word for mountain is "dag" Criztu 01:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I read somewhere about the idea that Balkan could be derived from Blakh, with metathesis on the a/l and Romanian suffix "-an" (but of course, this is a bit silly :) Bogdan | Talk 14:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • One source I quickly found by googling says, "Balkan: From Turkish, balkh, 'high ridge,' 'high town.'" --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

this online dictionary http://www.seslisozluk.com/ says:

• ridge

1. sırt. yükselti. tepe. dağ sırası. dağ silsilesi. çıkıntı. çapalanmış düz sıra. kabarık çizgi (toprak. deniz). 2. sırt. bayır. dağ sırası. 3. sırt. bayır. dağ sırası. çatı sırtı. kabartma çizgi. kabarık çizgiler oluşturmak. sırtlar meydana getirmek. yaka

• mountain

1. i. dağ; yığın, dağ kadar büyük şey; azman. mountain ash üvez, bot. Sorbus americana. mountain chain dağ silsilesi. mountain lion puma, zool. Felis concolor. mountain range dağ silsilesi. mountain sheep Kanada koyunu, zool. Ovis canadensis. mount. 2. dağ. 3. dağ. yığın. aşırı miktardaki tarım ürünü.

• town

1. i. kasaba; şehir; şehir halkı; şehrin iş merkezi. town and gown tüccarlar ile üniversite. town clerk kasaba sicil memuru. town council belediye meclisi. town crier şehir tellâlı. town hall belediye binası. town house şehirdeki ev; İng. belediye. 2. şehir. kent. kasaba. şehrin iş/alışveriş merkezi. çarşı. şehir halkı. 3. kasaba. şehir. şehrin iş merkezi.

I couldn't find a turkish word balkh or balq or anything close Criztu 14:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• high

1. (i). barometrenin yüksek olduğu bölge; argo esrar tesiri altında olma. on high gökte, semada.,yüksek,tam/bayat/yüksek,yükseğe/yüksekte. 2. yüksek. yüce. ulu. hayranlık uyandırıcı. (zaman) tam. (yiyecek) bayat. sarhoş. uyuşturucu etkisi altında. uçmuş. uçuşta. yükseğe. yüksekte. yüksek nokta. yüksek derece. doruk. büyük heyecan. coşku. mutluluk. yüksek yer. 3. yüksek. âli. mağrur. kibirli. kendini beğenmiş. azametli. yüce. muhteşem. görkemli. âlâ. tiz. yüksek perdeden. (et) kokmuş. kutuplara yakın. çok eski. baş. ağır. coşkun. (neşeli) taşkın. pahalı. şiddetli. sert. (deniz) azgın. asil. soylu. esrarın tesiri a.

aham... perhaps bölge is at the origin of Balkans Criztu 14:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, but in Bulgarian балкан does mean "mountain", although it could be that this is a consequence of the fact that the Balkan mountains are the most prominent mountain in Bulgaria. The etymology of the word in Bulgarian is not very clear, though. The confusion might also come from the fact that the Ottomans are far from the only Turkic tribe to have left their mark on the Balkans. To the Googler I want to say that anything found in this way has the factual power of a rumor, if that. mitkouwcad 23:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• That makes little sense, but what the heck. If using a search engine somehow invalidates the information gleaned through it, I guess the net is per se worthless. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, I didn't mean to be so rough. I didn't want to say it invalidates it, one just has to be careful. Like in the case one hears a rumor. mitkouwcad 02:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Indeed. There's a lot of garbage information on the net (not excluding Wikipedia.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the usual bulgarian word for 'mountain' is "planina", while "balkan" too is listed as bulgarian for 'mountain', but seems to be in relation with the Balkans Criztu 10:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can tell you that it is still currently used to mean "any mountain", although it has a quaint feeling to it. It would be interesting to see at what time the specific usage of "Balkan" for the Стара Планина mountain began. That might throw some light on the question. mitkouwcad 22:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An anonymous has now changed this to

balkan or balkanlık, for "mountainous terrain with thick forests"

Google confirms the existence of this word, but I can't read Turkish... --Joy [shallot] 21:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Demarcation of the Balkans

People can argue back and forth about the limits of the Balkans all day. Because the 'region' basically exists only in the human mind, its relation to actual geography is hazy. 'Europe' itself is another creation, and geologically speaking, Europe is not a continent: though it is a continent because I say so. Decius 02:43, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Greece

I have done some online research on the ethnic composition of Greece mainly due to the claims of an editor of this article. I would appreciate any input on the following analysis, facts & figures, providing as many academic, scientific or governmental resources and citations as possible.

CIA world fact book 2005 [1], claims the official statistics to be:

• Greek 98%
• Other 2%

The Eurominority group (which does not have or proclaim any European Union affiliation) speculates that INTEREG 1994 program (within EU) may provide some different estimates. Unfortunately, they provide no reference what-so-ever as to how those estimates where calculated and into what degree (if any) INTEREG'94 program provided statistical data of such nature.

They claim: 60,000 to 100,000 (0.6% to 0.9% of the total population) Arvanites [2] 90,000 Turks (0.8% of the total population) [3], 40,000 to 100,000 (0.4 to 0.9%) Macedonian Slavs [4], 56,000 (0.5%) Pomaks [5] 40,000 (0.4% of the total population) Aromanians [6]. No data for Roma [7].

Using the highest end of any estimate:

• (Not including the Roma but considering any of the above groups as non-Greek)
• Greek 97.5%
• Other 3.5%

GREEK HELSINKI MONITOR (GHM) & MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP – GREECE (MRG-G), Report about Compliance with the Principles of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (along guidelines for state reports according to Article 25.1 of the Convention), 18-09-1999 [8]

further speculates: 200,000 to 300,000 (1.8% to 2.7% of the total population) Roma (Gypsies), 50,000 (0.5%) Turks (less than the Greek government estimate), 30,000 (0.3%) Pomak, 7,000 to 10,000 (0.06 to 0.9%) Slav Macedonian (according to recent election results) and 5,000 (0.04 %) Jews.

and identifies as a linguistic, not an ethnic or national, group the 200,000 (1.8%) population with Arvanite origin, 200,000 (1.8%) population with Vlach origin.

Using the highest end of any estimate

• (Considering Arvanites & Vlachs as non-Greek and assuming that all the rest have also a non-Greek ethnical identity):
• Greek 92%
• Other 8%

However, the report concludes that "the combined figures for those with a non-Greek national identity indicate that they do not exceed 1% of the 11 million population. Besides the numerous groups of Roma, Arvanites/Arberor, Vlachs/Aromanians, a few Meglenopromanians, and a small number of Jews, no one among them proclaims nowadays a non-Greek national identity: whereas a few among them have what can be described as a corresponding ethnic identity, along the national one..." [9] Thus giving:

• Greek 99%
• Other 1%

Further for the illegal economic migrants they claim: "The most numerous group though is that of the usually recently arrived (during the 1990s), mostly illegal immigrants, estimated even by state authorities to around 700,000 people (6% of the total population), of which some 220,000 (2% of the total population) were in 1999 in the process of being legalized. So, among the residents of Greece, 7% have a non-Greek national identity and another 7% have a Greek national identity but also an ethnolinguistic and/or religious specificity." [10] Thus giving:

• Greek 86%
• Greek (with an ethnolinguistic and/or religious specificity) 7%
• Illegal immigrants (All) 6%
• Other 1%

Or:

• Greek (All) 93%
• Other (All) 7%

ENCARTA 2005 [11] claims:

• (Not including the illegal immigrants)
• Greek more than 95%
• Other less than 5%

and estimates the illegal immigrants of the 1990s from 500,000 to 800,000 (4.5% to 7%)

Richard Clogg, M.A. Fellow, St. Antony’s College, Oxford University. Article: "Greece," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2005

It seems to me that, whichever source anyone choose to follow, Greece is a highly ethnically homogeneous country, and is considered (by non-Greek sources) as such. --Ninio 01:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No mention of Albanians? There are between 500,000-1,000,000 of them living in Greece. Dori | Talk 03:38, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)