From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The page is messed up[edit]

Well, I've tried to make some corrections to this abstract article. I have been reverted because I probably have not explained my edit well. It is a long cleanup, which I see as necessary and needs a long explanation. The problem is that the page contains a lot of misleading information. The "Demographics" section is made up of figures that mostly do not comply with the provided references - so what I do with my edit at that section is to correct all according the Eurostat as of 2015, and to publish data for life expectancy from CIA . The "Definitions and boundaries" section is filled with unverified information, especially the area figures and the percentages. It is messed up what areas refer to the Balkans and what areas refer to the Balkan Peninsula. This is indeed an abstract term, so I needed to explain here first all my edits. That Balkans are made of any areas, such as Greece's mainland excluding her islands, but meaningwhile including the islands of Romania and all the rest is unverified and incorrect. The Balkan Peninsula is composed only by the mainlands of the countries indeed, on the other hand the Balkans include these countries' total area, yet all the section is messed about that, so what I did is to help with some citations in this section. That Greece's mainland is 110,496 is without a citation, according to an accurate source I found the mainland is 104,470, Bulgaria's mainland is not 110,993 but 108,400 and the list of areas that needs corrections goes on. Other statements at that section are misleading, for example the stattement "The Balkans" is sometimes used to describe only the areas in the Balkan peninsula: Moesia, Macedonia, Thrace, Kosovo, Šumadija, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Thessaly, Epirus, Peloponnese" is without any citation and completely untrue. Another sentence "The term "the Balkans"" was coined by August Zeune in 1808." is correct but is a mirror copy in "The Balkans" and "Evolution of meaning" sections, so I suggest to leave it only at the more relevant section. The "Religion" section needs minor corrections. Some sentences are not according to the sources provided, the problem is that it is claimed that Britannica generally includes Greece and European Turkey in the Balkans, but the citation of Britannica clearly states that Greece and Turkey are generally excluded from the Balkans. The "Balkans" and "Balkan Peninsula" are different, such countries are part of the Peninsula. This means that on the table with cities, which contains errors, Romanian cities should be included. Furthermore, Britannica is not the only source defining the borders of the Balkans, but what is cited by that encyclopedia must comply. Indeed a very abstract definition. And one last thing, that "the Balkan Peninsula was the "Peninsula of Haemus in Antiquity" - this statement is without any citation and is certainly incorrect, this had just been the name of the Mountain until the evolution of the term applying to the region was introduced in 1808 by August Zeune, there was no such region before that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Your changes have been reverted due to containing many inaccuracies and errors, such as 1) Map inaccuracies such as Kosovo's boundaries being totally missing and Greece being colored as being full part of the Balkans even if about 20% of its territory clearly is non-Balkan territory, 2) Official sources replaced completely by sources provided by an unknown third-party site. 3) Replacement of all data censuses by national statistical agencies with the Eurostat ones instead of having them be supportive. Please next time refrain from doing such mass-scale changes to a sensitive article, without consulting with other editors in the Talk page first, because, even if our intention is to improve an article, the results of our actions may have the opposing results. Although I reverted your edits in masse, give me some time and I will try re-incorporate some of your edits/suggestions back to it, because they are good edits. Edit: I restored most of your changes about Balkan religions, since they are good edits, and I will give also a look into your other points, such as Balkans being Thrace/Bosnia/Epirus etc, which indeed, are not good as they stand now.--SilentResident (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, ignore the rest, but you got to be kidding me by returning the old figures in Urbanization and Demographics, vandalized through the time. I checked them, most of them are not according to the 2011 censuses or any source, they are in fact arbitrarily changed the way somebody liked. Let me show some of the inaccuracies as nobody checks, I can give few examples, the 2011 census population of Serbia is 7,120,666, not 7,209,764 as it's stated in the section, according to the 2011 census the population of Bulgaria is 7,364,570, not 7,814,570 as stated, the population of Greece according to 2011 census and cited Eurostat is about 10,800,000, not 11,123,034 as stated. These are only few such figures, which are just a result of simple vandalism, so I corrected them to the newest data available. And the figures of Eurostat are identical to the figures of the official statistical offices of the respective countries, proof: according to the Albanian statistical office Albania has a population of 2,893,005, Bulgaria's population is 7,202,198 according to the her statistical office, according to Eurostat, in 2015 Bulgaria's population is 7,202,198 and Albania's population is 2,893,005. The life expectancy and the populations within the Peninsula are completely unverified. I hope you won't ask me to list you all the figures that are inconsistent with the sources in Urbanization, which would be a little annoying, because they are much more there. The same kind of a source as Eurostat is, it shows the most recent population data, gathered only from national statistical agencies. I hope you lookup the cleanup I did, I had worked to check and correct all the vandalized figures, now they are being returned. You may just have been mislead if you ignored my statement that most figures are actually vandalized, please, check the population sources and compare with my revision prior to reverting or introducing them. For the incorrect figures for areas of the mainlands of the countries, I provided an exact data, you can't just ignore and revert everything.
""Besides the incorrect figures, there are few other errors. Firstly, such Peninsula of Haemus or Balkan Peninsula have not been suggested until the 19th century. Secondly, Encyclopedia Britannica's statement is misrepresented in the lead. Greece is not usually included, but generally the whole of Greece is excluded from the definition Balkans as according to Brtiannica "Generally, the Balkans are bordered on the northwest by Italy, on the north by Hungary, on the north and northeast by Moldova and Ukraine, and on the south by Greece and Turkey or the Aegean Sea (depending on how the region is defined)."Balkans, Britannica otherwise the whole of Greece is included sometimes "Portions of Greece and Turkey are also located within the geographic region generally defined as the Balkan Peninsula, and many descriptions of the Balkans include those countries too". She is included and her islands are excluded only when we are talking about the Balkan Peninsula, which is something different. As the borders of the Peninsula and the Balkans vary, any maps may be possibly excluded from the lead and moved to the sections. I still haven't understood your point why the map of the Balkan states do not include Kosovo, as the map of the Peninsula, which was returned on top, even shows Serbia and Montenegro as one state, so any of these maps are not more justified than others as there are plenty of definitions for the Balkans. Oxford University Profesor R. J. Crampton defines the Balkans as being comprised of Greece, European Turkey, Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia and Romania, but says that it is dubious that Slovenia and Transylvania of Romania are parts of the Balkans.The Balkans Since the Second World War
The templates on top says to help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources and by challenging and removing unsourced material, well, I think I did as much as for removing the template.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I checked them and the pop data conflict with the sources you have presented (and to not mention that they conflict with the population figures presented on other related articles too) In meantime, I have good news: I have updated and corrected the Balkan map you have posted on the article, by adding Kosovo's borders on it, as well as the Geographical boundaries of the Balkan Peninsula. Here we go, the updated map: [1] That should be good for posting on the article now. Note: You need to purge your web browser's Cache in order for the updated images to be displayed correctly. --SilentResident (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Done - your edits on population figures (both country and city populations) have been restored. And the Balkan map you have posted previously, also has been restored. However, I recommend against bringing back your list of countries with "exc. islands" territory such as "Macedonian Islands" or "Serbian Islands" and such, because this is not accurate at best and highly debatable. --SilentResident (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Your map combines all views and definitions, great job, it has been the best map so far! Thank you for the understanding. There aren't any important errors on the map, a perfectionist can found only some minor inaccuracies - namely most of the Danube Delta in Romania is not a part of the Peninsula.
Greece and Turkey are not Balkan countries, but have parts in the Peninsula, I agree that that's usual. Another suggestion that I have, is that also Italy can be labeled like that, but since Greece and Turkey are sometimes included, while Italy is always excluded from the Balkans, you may think of adding Italy with a lighter color than Greece and Turkey, or only to change the label for the both countries to say that they are sometimes included in the Balkans. Secondly, if Greece and Turkey are sometimes included in the Balkans, how much of their national populations and cities should we include in the table? Now the population of Greece and Greek cities are included in Demographics, but whole Turkey is excluded, just one European Turkish city is mentioned in Urbanization. According to the Britannica Greece and Turkey are rarely included in the Balkans (should fix the claim in the lead), while Crampton presents a different view, by which Greece and only the European part of Turkey are usually included in the Balkans, claiming that Turkey is not a Balkan country. In such case Roman Catholicism is not the second largest religion, as stated in the lead, but Islam is, which would the largest religion if entire Turkey is included.
I see you are an intelligent person, what do you suggest to do with the Definitons and Boundaries section? Some area figures and sentences there are incorrect. Others are misplaced, the areas of the countries within the Peninsula are stated in paragraph "Balkans", not in "Balkan Peninsula". The Serbian, Bulgarian and Romanian islands are rather part of the Danube waterfield, islands geographically can not be part of any Peninsula. The second and the third map in the section are just maps of the Ottoman Empire, that do not even mention the word "Balkan", made prior to the times when the definition "Balkan peninsula" has been suggested. They are not map of the Balkans and should be removed or transferred to the History section.
Although it is very true what you said about Italy having a piece of land in the northwestern-most part of the Balkan Peninsula, this tiny piece of Italian-held Balkan land only consists less than 1% of the total territory of the Republic of Italy. And therefore I have the impression that we can't just label a large country, such as Italy, just because less than 1% of its total territory extends within the Balkan peninsula. I have a feeling that this is not very reasonable even if it is accurate to do so. Greece and Turkey are a different case here, because more than 5% of their total national territory lies within the Balkans.
As for Greek and Turkish cities, I believe that the ones that are entirely (or at least a big part of) build on Balkan territory, should be in the list of Balkan cities. Since this article is about the Balkan Peninsula, it could make no sense to exclude cities build on the Balkan soil, just because their countries are not entirely located within the Balkan boundaries or are not Balkan countries in the political aspect. So, Athens and Istanbul should really be listed in the article, but have a (*) note for Istanbul being PARTIALLY in the Balkans. That should work for everyone.
As for the countries themselves, Greece and Turkey, I believe that even if these countries are politically not considered to be Balkan countries, they better be mentioned in the Balkan article. The reason for this is the 8+ millions (8.000.000 or more) of Turks living on Balkan soil (see: European part of Turkey) and also the 7-8 millions of Greeks living on Balkan soil (see: Mainland Greece). That makes a total of about 16 million of Greeks and Turks living on Balkan soil. Such a big population size living on the Balkan Peninsula's soil, should by no means be ignored. Edit: By the way, thank you for your kind words about me. Have you ever considered registering yourself in Wikipedia (it is absolutely free), because people such as you, are the driving force behind the improvement of the articles. You are always welcome to join. --SilentResident (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Wait, hold on with your edits. In the leading paragraph, please avoid sentences such as "Encyclopedia Britannica says" and "earlier version of Encyclopedia Britannica said" and such. Wikipedia is not a mirror of other sites, and any information should be written and cited in a manner that it is not repeated and does not sound advocatory of other websites/people/products. Also I strongly recommend you remove the "irreligion" from the Religion section because Irreligion is not formally recognized in many Balkan states, and is not taken in account in the Population censuses in various Balkan countries. Unless you have sources that prove so, please avoid adding this. --SilentResident (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
My friend, wait with your edits about Irreligion - Although I agree with them, adding irreligion is not as simple as it sounds - and especially without sources backing the edits - because in several Balkan states Irreligion is not formally taken in account (either via State authorities, nor via Population censuses). To this, unfortunately the various religious institutions in the Balkans, and especially the Orthodox Churches played a big role. For example, in Greece, although many Greeks could define themselves as "irreligious", they are typically, 99% of the Greek population, registered as members of the Greek Orthodox Church, by birth. You see, it is abit complicated and we can't just add Irreligion like that. It is very important to present some verifiable data about this neglected matter. I hope you understand me because I too am from the Balkans and in the past I was thinking to include Irreligion in the article but I didn't do so, after realizing the issues with the data. If can you help in finding sources about the irreligion in the Balkans, that could be nice, because this aspect of religion is really neglected and it should be noted. --SilentResident (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear, I added a generic note about Irreligion/Atheism in the Balkans, if that is ok, and that is the best we can do for now in the absense of any sources/citations for this. Any sources about the religions/atheism in the Balkans, will be of great help, as the article really lacks any detailed info about religions, especially when the article is about the Balkans, where the Religion played big role the Balkan politics. --SilentResident (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Since all the definitions for the Balkans in the article and the map are derived from this source, how omitting the name of Britannica would prevent Wikipedia from being a mirror site? I can't find any alternatives, but you probably can. There are probably few websites with such definitions, it would be interesting if somebody will find. Recheck. If you are going to leave only Britannica I think my edit was a clarification and included the missing statements, the newer Britannica article is considering questionable the inclusion of Greece and Turkey, while the older Britannica article, cited by Crampton, was considering the inclusion of Slovenia and Transylvania in the Balkans questionable, which includes Greece and European Turkey on an equal level with the rest.

The religious demographics which you returned are based on CIA list. note:the Hellenism I introduced was based on no source. The list with areas needs standartization, some countries are given areas inside the Peninsula, some from both outside and inside, others are just incorrect. This is a list of CIA, I'd recommend you to correct the areas by that if you object the cleanup I did. Watch out, even the articles of Wikipedia for cities and countries are misleading, Bulgaria article shows the incorrect area of 117,000 km2', while in fact it is 110,800 sq km. There are too much articles that need a lot of corrections and explanations. Does editing here require much of occupation? Thank you for being civil and kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I am sorry if I have reverted several of your edits, but this article, has a problem with reliable sources and has been tagged since Summer 2015: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2015)". So really, we better provide sources where needed, and avoid unsourced additions (such as Irreligion on the Religion section). Other than that, your edits were very constructive and thank you for that. As for which countries and regions are included in the Balkan realm, indeed this can be questionable. But could you, if can you, add them in a new section lower in the article instead of the leading paragraph, as per Wikipedia:Lead? The lead paragraph just summarizes what is written in all other sections of the article, and I don't think the lead is the best area for adding all this info from Britannica, when this info is not present anywhere else on the article. Again my apologies for having to revert your Irreligion additions, but I couldn't overlook the article's problems with lack of citations and sources. --SilentResident (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, stuff happens. I hadn't provided any sources for the religion, so you were justified to revert, although also to unsourced, but stable version. I'll try to help with the verification in this section.
What are you doing? You said that the article is messed up, and that your intention was to improve it. But seeing here [2], here [3], and here [4], I only see that you are messing up the article even further. In the latest unsourced edit of yours, ([5]) you claim that there are 5 Albanians living in Albania but in an Albanian territory that is not part of the Balkans, 1,099 Montenegrins living in Montenegro but in a Montenegrin territory that is not part of the Balkans, 172 Macedonians living in Republic of Macedonia but not in Balkans, etc? This is nonsense. --SilentResident (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the remark, I fixed the nonsense. The table was messed up, Greece and Turkey had partial populations, unlike the rest. I suggest to leave only total populations in the table and to avoid controversial selection of partial populations. If there are partial populations you want to include I suggest to place them in a different column to avoid confusion.
And where did you find 9,478,237 for Greece? Any sources?— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Please STOP STOP STOP! Enough! You have messed up and disrupted the entire article. Please stop that and use the Talk Page instead of toying with the article! Wikipedia is not a playground for everyone to change anything as he pleases! Provide us SOURCES / CITATIONS as per Wikipedia: Reliable Source here in the talk page before doing further disruptive edits to the page! Please, enough with your OR and unsourced edits. --SilentResident (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I am calculating sources or data present in other articles. For example in the case of Balkan Population figures, the population numbers are taken from: Administrative regions of Greece, not fictional and unverified numbers like you did! Please stop that. Please cite your sources! This is important! --SilentResident (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Please stop doing any edits and check Wi:Ve first! You have posted Wi:OR and didn't cite sources as per Wi:CS in most of your edits that brought changes to the article, and this is not a constructive approach for the improvement of the article's overall quality (for which you previously have stated that you were concerned about). Your actions go against Wikipedia's principles. You want to improve the article Balkans? Fine! Do it in compliance with Wikipedia's rules, not against them! --SilentResident (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I tried to provide you my help in improving the article Balkans (and even fixed the map pictures for you) but your disruptive edits leave me no other option but leave this matter at the hands of other Wikipedians, because no matter what, you insist in doing changes that do not comply with Wikipedia's principles. I don't believe that a page which lacks citations and reliable sources, can be improved by doing uncited/unsourced edits. Nor does it help when there is Original Research. I am sorry to say that, but despite your seemingly Good Faith actions, the overall quality in the article Balkans clearly has deteriorated. Have a good day. --SilentResident (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I am sure that there aren't available sources for any partial Balkan populations like these, which you have began to introduce. They are own calculation. For what I saw from you, I made calculations for all the countries - because otherwise it is inconsistent as Greece and Turkey are not the only partially situated on the Balkan Peninsula(please, check that). Check Administrative divisions of Croatia, Administrative divisions of Serbia. It would be less confusing if either all or none countries have their partial populations in the table, it would be best to left only total populations in the table to avoid errors of the self-calculations and negligible disputes. Would you recalculate your calculation, it seems that you do not exclude all the islands? My calculation for Greece equals nearly 9,160,000. As my calculations as yours are completely own work, which numbers do you mean are unverified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
As the article is about both the Balkans and the Balkan Peninsula should the table in Demographics identify total populations, peninsular populations or both? Or just stick to the citations and exclude all types of peninsular populations as they require self-calculations, because there isn't any available verification for them? The table's definition is currently unclear and messy, for some countries identifying the total population(with islands and outlands), but for others only the part in the peninsula. The figures for Greece and Turkey are imprecise calculations, they lack any confirmations by citations. After I'd calculated them they came up wrong. Replace them with Eurostat total populations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
"partial Balkan populations like these, which you have began to introduce" - In fact, I didn't begun anything. If you check the article's history, you will see that there have been two notes present in the Demographics section of the article, but were removed by you: The Greek islands are not taken into account. Both census figures of Serbia and Kosovo in the table do not include North Kosovo, therefore in the population of the Balkans, made up of sum of the populations in the table, is added separately an additional number of 70,000 to include the missing population of North Kosovo. Get your facts straight and don't accuse me for something that was already on the article and I didn't start in the first place. Second, the population calculations are the following: Crete 621.340 + Ionian Islands 206.470 + Northern Aegean 197.810 + Southern Aegean 308.610 = total of about 1.334.230 people not living in Balkan territory. If you substract that number from the total population of the entire country, you get 9.480.967 (In fact, I just realized now that the second largest island of Greece, Euboea was forgotten and not included in my calculations, with which the number totals 1.532.360 of people not living in Balkans). Third, while in my case the calculations are provided by using the data present in other Wikipedia articles, in your case I have yet to see how did you find that there were 5 Albanians living in Albania but in an Albanian territory that is not part of the Balkans, 1,099 Montenegrins living in Montenegro but in a Montenegrin territory that is not part of the Balkans, 172 Macedonians living in Republic of Macedonia but not in Balkans, etc? I don't think you found these numbers anywhere in Wikipedia, because I myself have checked the Albanian territories, etc, and I can't find anything that can support your claims. Please leave the article as is, as your changes on it have not been evaluated by other Wikipedians yet, including me, and I suggest that you don't touch it anymore, and, especially if you don't have reliable sources to back your claims, do not proceed in adding disputed numbers again to the article. Any unsourced edits will be reverted. --SilentResident (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no one definition[edit]

The terms "Balkan Peninsula", "The Balkans", "The Balkan Countries", etc. do not have a standard definition. Rather than trying to create one — which would be original research — we should stick to the sources and report the various definitions. --Macrakis (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

A lead's sentence is inconsistent with the referenced Britanncia article, which doesn't even mention the word European Turkey or that it, along with Greece are usually part of the region, but that they are both generally excluded from the Balkans and often included, depending on the definition. The map sticks with this definition, but one sentence doesn't. At the map caption the countries Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, etc. are labeled as geographically and politically in the Balkans which are not necessarily entirely situated on the Balkan Peninsula. What states European Turkey is a review of another older Britannica article by Oxford professor Crampton, according to which Greece and European Turkey are regularly part of the Balkans as any other country, but Slovenia and Transylvania are summarized as doubtfully Balkan.

Wait, what?...[edit]

This new map is obvious a part of some PoV pushing and a drop of NPOV that's going on. I saw on my watch list that many changes were being made, but didn't have the opportunity yet to take an actual proper look. That being said, regarding these changes. Only Eastern Thrace is in Europe and thus part of the Balkans. I have never heard of Anatolia/Asia Minor or even the state of Turkey being called a "Balkan state", by any reliable sourcing. It's a Middle Eastern (West Asian) state by everything so far that I have encountered, and is recognized as such. Has an actual consensus or whatsoever been reached about this new map that I don't know of? I'm seeing a pretty long discussion above but not much about the placing of such a map. Disregarding numerous reliable sources such as the CIA World Factbook and pretty obvious facts, while unilaterally replacing/disregarding them with a thing like "Britannica", which has an extremely lousy reputation, known for being unreliable, and is always replaced by other sources whenever the article is raised in quality level, is not a good thing. I have no objections against the mentioning of Turkeys "transcontinental" character, but these changes to the map really need some proper discussing, in my humble opinion. Better keep deviating material confined to the articles body, is what I'm trying to say. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the map. It does not say that Turkey's Anatolia is part of the Balkans. The map shows that only the Eastern Thrace is part of the Balkans (blue line) and Turkey is colored as such (yellow) because it holds that Balkan piece of territory. Nothing more, nothing less. Turkey is not a Balkan state in the narrow sense of the term, but has parts of the Balkan peninsula and is colored as such. I shall note that coloring only the East Thrace and leaving out the rest of Turkey uncolored, may be translated as by some users as dividing the country of Turkey into 2 different countries which clearly could be a POV case. So, one single color is used for entire Turkey to avoid such accusations or misunderstandings. --SilentResident (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
If that helps, in the map's explanation, I replaced the "Political communities, which are often included in the Balkans." with "Political communities, which are usually not included in the Balkans.", to help clarify things better. --SilentResident (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@SilentResident:, I get your point. I highly suggest, in that case, using a different colour other than blue for the line that demarcates the region, as its not immediately see-able in my opinion. Maybe something like the colour red, or something else that really catches one's eye. Thanks for your explanation. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@LouisAragon:. I fattened the line to help it be more noticeable. I hope that helps. Note: You may have to clear your web browser's Cache for the updated picture to be displayed properly for you. Have a good day. :) --SilentResident (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@SilentResident:, thanks much, that's indeed much better! :-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@SilentResident:, I have a question. Why Turkey and Greece have the same color on the map? (Turkey has only 3% in Europe or the Balkan peninsula but Greece has >80% of its territory in Europe or the Balkan peninsula but has the same color as Turkey) MyNewAccountName (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Below the map you can find explanations for what the colors represent: the yellow color means that Turkey and Greece are, usually, not considered to be a part of the Balkan politics. This has nothing to do about how much Balkan territory Greece and Turkey held. The blue line is about geography, and the yellow & orange colors are about politics. Geography and politics are two different things. --SilentResident (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I think he means that Greece, though not commonly referred to as a "Balkan state", still receives the label more often (I dont think Turkey ever receives/has received it) than Turkey, which does, to a large degree, congruent with territory/geography, and thus politics. @MyNewAccountName:, as you can see by the discussion me and SilentResident had some time ago, the reason why he coloured Turkey completely is as it would otherwise erraneously create the assumption as if Eastern Thrace is not a part of Turkey, an assumption I can completely understand from the point of view of a reader who comes here to get basic info about the Balkans. However, I have to add, at the same time, this new map can create problems as well. Both the previous map as well as the current map are not ideal. Perhaps if more complaints come about it, we could do something with another additional colour or something? - LouisAragon (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The people will NEVER be 100% satisfied with any maps, especially about a highly debated region/topic such as the Balkans. Competitions and comparisons of the style "Greece and Turkey are more or less Balkan than each other" little has to do with the article's scope, and so, I used the same color for both. Just orange color for Balkan entities and yellow color for non-Balkan entities is fairly enough, since Wikipedia is not a place for competition about who is more Balkan than others (and whatever), but let the readers know about which countries the term Balkan is more often applied on and which not. For Turkey and Greece, the description that they "are usually not included in the Balkans." is pretty fair as is, and avoids having to go into any debatable percentages and such stuff that only can draw attention away from the article's focus. That could be counterproductive. And like I have pointed out before, East Thrace can't be given a different color than the rest of Turkey as that could imply East Thrace being not part of that country. The map should be fine the way it is now. --SilentResident (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)