Jump to content

Talk:Balkans/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

List of countries of Western Balkans

A list of West. Balkans countries is incorrect. To avoid further unnecessary discussions, I will post here sources that clearly describe and say which countries belong to area of W. Balkans. European Investment Bank, European Commission,Official document of European Commission, European Commission - Western Balkans, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Institute for Security Studies of EU, WB Investment Fund, Western balkans environment, Westminster Foundation for Democracy, WFD 2013, RRPP-westernbalkans, National Geographic, Parliaments of WB, Jacques Delors Institute, EU Commission 2012, Foreign Affairs - COWEB, EU Commission 2013, Foreign Affairs - COWEB, Conflict Prevention Partnership (EU). Summarizing all facts from these sources, the list can be done. Western Balkans countries are: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro, Kosovo and Serbia. Regards, Billiboom (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that political designation of "Western Balkans" is given undue weight and should be presented within one sentence instead of the whole section with map and bulleted list with flag icons. The existing text could confuse and mislead readers. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinion, but I disagree. I think that map and bulleted list with flag icons is useful and will help readers to understand materia. Also, there is enough sources to confirm sentences. I think it is ok now. Regards, Billiboom (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
It is not ok as long as my valid concerns about "Western Balkans political designation" issues of this article are not addressed. Maybe I was not clear enough. Let me try to clarify my position.
  • Western Balkans political designation is given undue weight because it is "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic" - WP:BALASPS
  • Western Balkans political designation can (should) be explained in one sentence
  • List of countries included in Western Balkans political designation is third list in a row which all present almost the same countries and the same flag icons - this makes text confusing and more difficult for reading
  • Map of countries included in Western Balkans political designation and its misleading caption can mislead readers to believe that other countries which geographically belong to Western Balkans are not part of the Western Balkans. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, you were not clear enough. It is edited now per WP:BALASPS. Billiboom (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Resolving only one (list of countries) out of four presented points does not resolve WP:BALASPS issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Billiboom you should really not change that article anymore before this discussion is not finished.
I reverted your changes because you again acted against Wikipedia:No original research and ignore all my given officiall EU sources and did a wrong interpretation of EU sources and gave inferioir to EU sources non EU sources into the article.
It is interesting to watch how you ignore and delete all my above and in the article shown officiall EU sources which claim that croatia was at least part of western balkans till 2012 with using every (also non officiall EU institution) sources you can find which claims that it was not part of western balkan at that time. You still fail in showing us one source which claims and proofs your initial argumentation that croatia is not part of western balkans anymore because it joined the EU.
Now to your sources. None of them is claiming that croatia left the western balkans at the moment it joined the EU. Some allow the interpretation but most of your sources just say that croatia was not part of western balkans even before 2013. But also most of these shown sources are not officiall sources from EU-institutions and some of the few EU-sources even proof my point here that it at least was till it joined the EU:
  • The ICG source is a source from 2005 and does not proof your argumentation with the political change. It only says that croatia was not part of western balkan at that time already. The problem here is: The Internationan Crisis Group is not an officiall EU institution. Its an NGO which has at best an consulting function for the western and EU states.
  • This Homepage made from the state of ireland is speaking here of " the EU’s relations with the Western Balkans region" and then the countries with which the EU has relations are being counted. The thing here is: Because croatia is already part of the EU it does not need to be counted because this would mean EU has relations to itself. But still this source does not proof your argumentation with the political change of croatia joining the EU changed its belonging to the geographical region of western balkan.
  • This Homepage made from the state of Denmark for their EU presidency is also like the irish one not counting croatia into western balkans.
  • Your third source Think Global - Act European is published by Notre Europe a non government independent thinktank from france. It is not an officiall EU source from any EU institutions and as far I see its from 2011 a time when croatia still was not part of the EU. But I have shown enough officiall EU instituion sources also from that time which claim that croatia is/was part of western balkans.
  • Your Network of Parliamentry Comitees for Economy and Finance of Western Balkan Countries source is not an EU institution source either and if u look at the "Member List" u show as source for your point can also find the "National Assembly of the Republic of Srpska" which is not even a state. Because of that the reliability of this source in this question is very doubtfull to me.
  • About your Nathional Geographic wource I dont need to say anything I guess.
  • Your RRPP is an swizz programme by the University of Fribourg. So a non officiall EU instution or any EU member state source either.
  • Your Westminster Foundation for Democracy source is linking with their Western Balkan member list to the previously discussed source of "Network of Parliamentry Comitees for Economy and Finance of Western Balkan Countries" which reliability in this question seems doubtfull because they list even non states like Republika Srpska.
  • Western Balkans Environmental Programme is also not an source from any EU institution or any EU member state.
  • It is funny that u use now this WBIF EU source after u used in an earlier discussion about croatia and western balkan THIS WBIF SOURCE for your argumentation. I then showed you that WBIF actually proofes my point:At this source you have to read at "About WBIF" :"The Western Balkans Investment Framework (WBIF) supports socio-economic development and EU accession across the Western Balkans through the provision of finance and technical assistance for strategic investments, particularly in infrastructure, energy efficiency and private sector development." Croatia as an EU member state does not need any support in EU accession and therefore also no investments from WBIF and is of course not listed in the table. But at the same source I found THIS here: WBIF - WBIF Workshop on PPP Institutional Structures:"The aim of the Workshop is to present the Project and to give a brief overview of the EPEC work on the PPP Institutional Structures across the EPEC Membership. It is expected that all Western Balkan countries present a status of the PPP related institutions and problems they are facing in institutional and legal PPP framework. Participants of the Workshop will be representatives of the relevant Public Sector Authorities from 7 countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, FYRoM, Kosovo*, Montenegro and Serbia).". In this source please also have a look at this: WBIF Stakeholders where croatia is listed with all the other western balkan states. Also you have missed this in the WBIF as source:"...Croatia has five WBIF-IPF Techncial Assistance project. ... Croatia became a European Union Member State on 1st July 2013. Since this date Croatia is no longer eligible for WBIF support. However, Croatia will see though exisitng WBIF projects and follow closely WBIF's activites. " So this officiall EU source (WBIF) actually proves my point that croatia is/was part of western balkans and not yours that it is not.
  • For your European Union Institute for Security Studies I already told you: Yes it is written:"The countries of the Western Balkans are geographically surrounded by EU member states,..". But you have to finish reading the source. Croatia is mentioned often enough in this source in the context of western balkan states ("In 2000, the Feira European Council acknowledged that the Western Balkan countries were ‘potential candidates’ for EU membership. In June 2003, the EU-Western Balkans summit resulted in the Thessaloniki Declaration, in which the EU declared unequivocally that the ‘future of the Balkans is within the European Union’. On 1 July 2013, Croatia became the 28th member state of the European Union, and the prospect of EU membership remains open to the official candidate countries..." and other places it is mentioned in that source which make it clear that its part of western balkans and that it is the first country of western balkan which joined the EU). In this source is not written what you want to read out of it. Where in this source is written that croatia is now not a part of western balkans anymore because it joined the EU? Please show me the information in the source. Thats your personal interpretation and thinking and against wikipedia rules Wikipedia:No original research.
  • Why you give this OECD source I dont really understand because it actually speaks of croatia in the context of western balkan states. If you want to say "look at page number 2 where the western balkan countries are listed" then there is written: ...It covers seven economies – Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo under UNSCR 1244/99.... This is no proof for your point because it is talking about seven economies but counts only six. If you keep reading that document you will see that the seventh economy is croatia. Also this OECD document proofs my point that OECD is viewinf croatia as part of western balkans.
  • Your European Commission says: "The EU is the Western Balkans' largest trading partner, accounting for about two thirds of the region's total trade. As a whole the region's share of overall EU trade was 1,4% in 2012, however individual countries' shares were very low - Croatia 0,5%, Serbia 0,4%, FYR Macedonia 0,2%, Bosnia and Herzegovina 0,2%, Albania 0,1%, Montenegro 0,0% and Kosovo 0,0%." So also after this officiall EU source croatia is/was at least till 2012 part of western balkans and it does not say anything about any political change which lead to croatia not being part of western balkans anymore.
  • This officiall EU Commission source actualla does not proof your point at all but mine. Croatia is mentioned in the context of western balkan states and "the first country to complete the Stabilisation and Association Process.".
  • Your third EU Commission] source I am not sure what u want here to proof. The title of the document is "EU enlargement: priorities for 2014". Croatia already joined the EU 2013 so of course you are not going to find croatia in this document. Please what kind of wierd argumentation.
  • This is actually the only officiall source you gave yet which claims the western balkan states as "candidate countries" for the EU. But still only one EU source against several others I gave yet.
Ok if we start now to show sources which proofs that croatia was at least till it joined the EU part of western balkan and which dont show that something has changed because it joined the EU or speak of croatia in the context of western balkans:
Officiall sources from EU-Institutions or Member states:
European Economic and Social Commitee, European Union Institute for Security Studies, European Union External Action, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research - Western Balkans, Austrian Foreign Ministry - Western Balkans, Western Balkans Investment Framework (WBIF), European Commission - Trade - Western Balkans, European Commission - Press Release
Literature sources:
  • (German); Tado Juric; Westbalkan-Erweiterung der EU - Europäisierungsprozess in Bosnien und Herzegowina, Serbien und Kroatien – ein Vergleich, Schriften zur Europapolitik, Band 21, Hamburg 2013, ISBN 978-3-8300-7377-2 (Translation of Title: Western Balkan enlargement of the EU - Europeanisation process in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Croatia - a comparison)
  • (German):Editors:Prof.Dr.Gudrun Peschutter, Prof.Dr. Hans-Eggert Reimers, Prof.Dr.Michael Schleicher; Leopold Maurer, Osterweiterung der Europäischen Union; Stuttgart 2004; ISBN 3-8282-0279-9 ; page 135
  • (German): Van Meurs, Wim: Den Balkan integrieren. Die europäische Perspektive der Region nach 2004. In: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, Frankfurt 2003, page 37
  • Sanjay Kathuria;Western Balkan Integration and the EU: An Agenda for Trade and Growth; The World Bank, Washington 2008, ISBN: 978-0-8213-7472-6
  • Florian Trauner; The Europeanisation of the Western Balkans - EU justice and home affairs in Croatia and Macedonia; Manchester University Press; 2011; ISBN: 978-0-7190-8345-7
  • Editor: Vera Stojarová,Peter Emerson ; Jakub Sedo , Party Politics in the Western Balkans; New York; 2010; ISBN13 978-0-415-55099 ; page 73
  • SME Policy Index: Western Balkans and Turkey 2012: Progress in the implementation of the small business act for europe; OECD & European Union; 2012; ISBN 978-92-79-26076-6
  • Energy in the Western Balkans: the path to reform and reconstruction; International Energy Agency, United Nations Development Programme; 2008
  • Robert Hayden , From Yugoslavia to the Western Balkans: Studies of a European Disunion, 1991 - 2011; BRILL, Balkan Studies Library; ISBN 978-90-04-24190-9
Others:
It is clear that croatia was part of the western balkans at least till it joined the EU. For the claim that it is not part of the western balkans anymore because croatia joined the EU we till now dont have been showed a source. The aboved shown sources (many not even from officiall EU-Institutions) by Billiboom dont proof that. In fact many of his sources are before croatia joined the EU and claim that it was not part of western balkan even before that happening. I habe shown a enough sources from officiall EU-Institutions or EU-Member states, from literature and other sources like World Bank, United Nations, several think tanks and others which proof that it was at least till 2013. As long as there is not a reliable source shown which clearly proofs Billibooms argumentation that because of the change in political situation (croatia joined EU) croatia is no part of western balkans anymore this change in the article is against WP:no original research and POV. Regards Seader (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I generally agree with Seader, there is a vast number of sources attesting to the fact that Croatia is considered part of the Balkans and the Western Balkans [1] [2]. I suspect opposition to this comes from the perception that the Balkans are "bad" and "backwards" and "un-western", but of course that is not a valid reason. Athenean (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it comes from the fact that Croatia was and always has been a melting pot of cultures with the Central European and the Mediterranean one standing out. Yes, in certain parts, one could and can talk about Balkans culture, but, it's just partially such, a part that was until very recently generally irrelevant and didn't do much (or at all) to shape the general culture of the country - which only changed through immigration in the last decades, and if you wish hold onto that as a standard, you might as well call French culture Islamic. To say that the culture of, say, a Croatian islander is "Balkans" is just plain wrong and yes, insisting that it's so can be taken as an insult. Despite recent brainwashing, they ARE very different, and generally don't share most pretty obvious common traits of the common Balkans culture, be they positive or negative, while they share other traits with the Mediterranean one, both positive and negative. Historically, again, in the last millennium, the answer is far more no than yes. Geographically, again partially. If a country is to be considered to be a part of the Balkans just because some people find it easier not to tax their brains with cultural, historical and geographical knowledge and just lump all the ex-Yu countries there, on an official level or not, knock yourselves out, but don't consider yourselves informed about the subject, don't be surprised if someone finds your opinion aggressively wrong, and don't expect not to find resistance to that. Zlopseto (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Main map outdated

Does anyone have access to a properly licensed and current map of the Balkans? The main one for the article is outdated vis-à-vis the nations thereon... --Spacepotatoes (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Balkan = Bal + Khan = The Great Khan = The Bulgarian Khan?

About the origin of the term.

Is this speculation on your part, or is there some source indicating this to be the case? --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
It's unlikely. bobrayner (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

weird definition

European Union institutions and member states defined the "Western Balkans" as the Southeast European area that includes countries that are not members of the European Union (Croatia, which is a member,[21] Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo, Macedonia and Albania

makes no sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.43.202 (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo note

This article was listed at Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting, and there was a big red error message showing instead of the {{Kosovo-note}}. I have repaired it by following the instructions at Template:Kosovo-note/doc. Now, though, the Kosovo note has no fewer than 13 backlinks labelled "a" to "m". Perhaps there is no need to link to the Kosovo note from so many places within the article? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes; we should simplify. bobrayner (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
No, we should not simplify, kosovo note is there for reason. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Is that reason "to add weasel wording about Kosovo at every possible opportunity"? There is no other reason why a competent editor would use it thirteen times in one article. bobrayner (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Somewhat amusingly, it's been shoved in 13 times, yet not in the actual list of countries. It should be removed from all current locations, and put in the "Definitions and boundaries" section near the beginning of the article. CMD (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
This is very large article. In my browser it has 18 pages. Similar to WP:REPEATLINK, I think it would be helpful for readers to repeat the Kosovo note in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, ....--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Repeating the same note over an over again won't help the reader. If anything it'll turn them off whatever point is being made, much like wp:citation overkill will. It's poor writing. In the meantime actually useful information, such as whether the Serbia statistics include Kosovo or not, are hidden in normal numbered references, if present at all. CMD (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Its not about making a point. Its about presenting useful information in this kind of large articles similar to WP:REPEATLINK. Whether the Serbia statistics include Kosovo or not is not directly relevant for this discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Telling someone the same thing again and again is about making a point. The only other reason to keep saying the exact same thing to a person over and over again is to annoy them. The readers should be told about this at the relevant point, which is the list of countries, rather than having it hammered into them at irrelevant locations. (Hell, if they clicked on either the Serbia or Kosovo blue links at any point they'd already know about the situation from those leads.) Whether or not Serbia statistics include Kosovo is very, very relevant for anyone worried about "presenting useful information", as it would, unlike saying the same thing over and over again, give new information at each point of use (unless perhaps if there was some overall statement that stats do or do not include Kosovo, but that may be impractical given the wide range of possible statistics to report). CMD (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that our discussion begin to look like "telling someon the same thing again and again", which is indeed "making a point". I carefully read what you wrote and did not find your argument convincing. Taking in consideration huge size of this article I don't agree that having less than one Kosovo note per one screen page would be annoying to anybody. This discussion is about using more than one Kosovo note, not about statistics. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Once per section would be bearable, but this is just trivially inconsistent. The section that mentions it first has it six times. That's just plain bad style, per WP:OVERLINK - after we mention Kosovo half a dozen times already, linking or annotating any further references to it is meaningless. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Country names in the infobox should better be in alphabetical order and all of them should be visible. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Population discrepancy

The text of the article lists the population as 59,297,000. The infobox lists it as 60+ million 76.10.139.96 (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Greece is no more a Balkan country than Italy is?

That's the crazy assertion being made by an editor who seems to be saying that because there are some small Aegean islands in Greece that are close to the Turkish coastline (which the editor equates as being islands in "Anatolia") Greece is only partially within the Balkan peninsula, with the implication that Greece should not to be included amongst "countries whose territories lie completely within the Balkan peninsula" but should actually be amongst "countries that lie partially within the Balkan peninsula", i.e. Greece is no more a Balkan country than Italy is: [3], [4]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the exclusion of Greece from the "real" Balkan countries would be wierd. Problem is this: There is no doubt that Greece (all of Greece) is included in the term The Balkans, which is a geopolitical concept. Inclusion in the strictly geographical definition of the Balkan Peninsula is, however, another matter. Even if we stretch the peninsula to include all the Aegean islands, there is still the island of Kastellorizo, which cannot, by any definition, be seen as part of the peninsula. So there is 0,0083% of Greece that is definitely not part of the Balkan peninsula, hence Greece is only "partially within" (99,9917%). Stretching this point further, one could say that none of the countries that have islands can be "completely within" the peninsula, since, by definition, an island cannot be part of a peninsula. Then the whole issue becomes ridiculous.
In my opinion, the problem lies in the use of the formula "lie completely within the Balkan peninsula". The idea was, of course, to distinguish between the countries that lie entirely south of the Balkan border from those who straddle that border. Moving Greece to the second category will make the distinction blurry and the article confusing and unhelpful for the normal user of Wikipedia.
I will suggest three different approaches to solving this.
  1. Instead of the current formula, one could describe the first group as "countries that have land borders completely within...". This has been suggested before, but disappeared at some stage.
  2. One could qualify the Greece entries with a parenthesis like "(mainland)" or "(excluding islands)" or similar, possibly also for other countries with island.
  3. Or one could simply combine the two categories into one group, explained with with whatever parenthetical comments that are useful.
My personal favorite is #1, but I could support any of the three, depending on which one gains most support. Regards! --T*U (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

For kids

For kids that play with Wikipedia, a reference to learn what Balkans is. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Tanper (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC) Your immature lash out aside, you think citing some shady Turskih what-not makes it believeable. For example, EBRD is something that qualifies[1]. Croatia, Slovenia and Italy are somewhat on Balkans strictly geographicaly speaking (as is noted in the article). However, they are excluded in every other way. What you are doing is spreading misinformations. Not to mention often (rightful) challenging of the idea that the Balkan Peninsula actually exists. With that in mind, what you are doing makes even less sense when we remove geography out of the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanper (talk • contribs) 22:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Serbia

In the infobox, serbia is missing. Is it not a balkan? Ornithoptera (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't completely Balkan. That said, while Italy, Slovenia, Turkey, and Romania are also not included, Croatia is. Either Croatia should go or all the others should be added. CMD (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins must love the way you people think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.253.154.126 (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Populations, and Serbian regions

Hi,
Which regions of Serbia are in the Balkans, according to whatever definition of "Balkan" we're using today? The demographics table currently says that Serbia has a population of 3,564,656 in the Balkans. It cites a 2011 census summary, broken down by region. A recent edit seems to suggest that it's the sum of the "Sumadija and Western Serbia" and "Southern and Eastern Serbia" regions, but their populations total 38,838,657 maybe according to that census. This definition presumably excludes Belgrade, most of whose population is south of the Danube... bobrayner (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Anyone? I feel uncomfortable with the article having wrong numbers. bobrayner (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Greece

In the section The Balkans, it says that Greece is 131,990 km2, but in the article Greece it says that Greece is 131,957 km2. 71.180.155.181 (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Croatia not in the Balkans

Apparently some Croatians don't like to be a considered a Balkan country. There are quite a few sources testifying to this dislike, such as this book. Maybe we can add a sentence on this fact. We can also use the words Croats think of themselves as more closely linked with Austria than with the other territories and cultures of the former Yugoslavia. They do not refer to themselves as a Balkan country but as a European one which I took from an internet site. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Croatia is included within Southeast Europe and therefore also belongs to the Balkans, especially Western Balkans.

1. One more reliable source from UN agency: [5] "Croatia: 2014 UNHCR regional operations profile - South-Eastern Europe." 2. Plus my previous reliable source from CIA: "Location: Southeastern Europe, bordering the Adriatic Sea, between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Slovenia." Croatia 3. Plus European Commission source: "European Commission - Development programmes - Operational Programme South East Europe (SEE)."[2] And many more as follows: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Noseamuseos (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Balkans =/= South East Europe, this much you should know. Also, Noseamuseos, most of your sources are unrealiable and in no way contrinute to this article, I removed those. Tanper (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/research/REP/rep-2014.pdf
  2. ^ European Commission - Development programmes - Operational Programme 'South East Europe (SEE)'
  3. ^ "Borders in Central Europe: From Conflict to Cooperation". Geopolitics of European Union Enlargement: The Fortress Empire. Routledge. 2007. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-134-30132-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  4. ^ Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia
  5. ^ Federal Agency for Civic Education Germany (german)
  6. ^ UNHCR - Croatia
  7. ^ Florida State University - Croatian Program - Security & Cooperation in South Eastern Europe
  8. ^ Andrew Geddes,Charles Lees,Andrew Taylor : "The European Union and South East Europe: The Dynamics of Europeanization and multilevel goverance", 2013, Routledge
  9. ^ Klaus Liebscher, Josef Christl, Peter Mooslechner, Doris Ritzberger-Grünwald : "European Economic Integration and South-East Europe: Challenges and Prospects", 2005, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited

Many Croatians are culturally brainwashed that Croatia is somehow "not" Balkans, which is a term they use with disdain, and which they perceive to be somehow more applicable to their eastern brethren (Serbs and Bosniaks, as if there is any difference between the three other than a religious one). It's similar to how Poles get butthurt when Poland is referred to as Eastern Europe (nooo it's Central Europe!!). Croatia is pure Balkans - culturally, linguistically, historically, politically, religiously.... Tribal social structure and mentality, incompetent politicians, masses still living 75 years in the past, demographic catastrophe (10% less Croats in ten years, and that was before joining the EU which fostered another wave of emigration) and massive brain drain.. And so on. The reasons for this dislike are entirely psychological. Speaking of which - this article lacks the cultural coverage of Balkans. It's no coincidence that the term is in its figurative meanings synonymous for wars, corruption, nationalistic extremism and civilizational backwardness in general. It's a tiny Middle East with a European flavor. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia talk page and not a forum (most particularly not one in which to express your disdain for an ethnic group). Please keep the discussion relevant to the content, and the tone WP:CIVIL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The article has now been semi-protected, as a result of regular IP removal of Croatia from the definition of the Western Balkans, contrary to the sources used in the article. If anyone wants to remove Croatia from this designation, I suggest that they propose this here, and cite their sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Croatia and western Balkans

Since it seems that this is a topic again I just want to refer to an archieved discussion about this. [6] kind regards Seader (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

See also the discussion above. The page was recently semi-protected at my request, but that has now expired. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Demographics

Article currently reads:

The Balkans have a population of 60–71 million and a population density of 80-91/km2, depending on whether the Turkish and Italian parts are counted within the peninsula. Without those, the peninsula has a population of about 48 million and a density of 99/km2.

And the following table summarizes:

Balkans ** Total population = 132,473,148 In the peninsula = 40,850,676

There are several problems here:

  • It's clear that the "Turkish parts" refers to Turkey in Europe. But what are the "Italian parts"? Are we counting Trieste as Balkan? Or excluding Pula (formerly Italian) from the Balkans?
  • What is the meaning of first listing the population as 60-71 million, then later as 48 million? The 60-71 million range supposedly already "depends on whether the Turkish and Italian parts are included".
  • Why does the text give a lower bound of 48, while the table comes up with 40.8?
  • Why isn't Croatia listed among the "depending" countries?
  • It is silly to include the population of all of Turkey. No one claims that Asian Turkey is part of the Balkans.
  • Where did the number for the Balkan part of Romania come from?

This is especially embarrassing because Google is using this table in its answer for [what is the population of the balkans]. --Macrakis (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same myself. Figures seem to be completely arbitrary. I'd remove "Total population" column entirely. ProKro (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, thanks. Do you think we should add Croatia back in? The consensus in previous discussions seems to be that Croatia is part of the Balkans, even if some Croatians vocally object to that. Many Greeks consider that the Balkans don't include Greece. For that matter, an article by the Honorary Consul of Romania in Boston claims that the only Balkan state is Bulgaria!... --Macrakis (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I would say, yes on Croatia. Pretty much everyone in the region objects to being called "a Balkan state", as far as I understand, mainly due to its negative connotations as a war-torn, impoverished region; which clearly isn't the case, if it ever were. Every country whose territories are even remotely within the peninsula should be included, in my opinion; Kosovo as a independent state, regardless of its current relation with Serbia. Both of those claims are simply ridiculous and clearly stem from the feeling that being identified with the region carries said negative connotations. As to where to draw the line the line for Croatia, I wouldn't know. The same goes for Romania and Serbia. That's primarily why I split all countries into two groups; those fully within the region and those just partially (under "Definitions and boundaries"). Since the same can't be done in this case; going by this image seems to be the best potion, as I doubt there'd be any verifiable sources that pinpoint exactly what fits into the definition. ProKro (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Good call above. I think we should at least define an outer perimeter (referenced through EB) and a more restrained definition (excluding Slovenia with its part of the Alps and Romania lying north of the Danube). I think we should concentrate ourself on the geographical aspect. Then there should be a large and well-sourced section about historical/cultural definitions on its delimitation. --Paracel63 (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Balkan peninsula doesn't exist

To be considered as a peninsula, a piece of land MUST be almost surrounded by water. That is what the latin words "paene" and "insula" mean "almost island". One quick look at the southern end of Europe and it is clear that there is no such thing where people say that a "Balkan peninsula" stands. The word was used in a pejorative term for the region since Kanzelar Bach of Habsburg empire, and it is still today a pejorative term. This article should reflect that, not peddle some false "geographic" region, for no such "region" exists. Not even the mountain with such name exists. The real name of the mountain Turks called "Balkan" (for that is simply the word's meaning in Turkish - "mountain") is "Stara Planina", "Old Mountain". It would be useful to start using the correct and real geographic toponims and stop promoting pejoratives about the people. If this was somewhere in Israel, this sort of behaviour would have been long declared "andi-semitic" and forbidden by whatever the laws in 100+ countries of the world.

Can we please start some civility and use the proper names instead of hundreds of years old "nicknames" and pejoratives??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.134.107 (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There are three large peninsulas jutting out southwards from the main part of the European section of Eurasia. All are surrounded by bodies of seawater. Which part of this article do you have trouble with?--Paracel63 (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no one definition

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.

The page is messed up

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 130.204.85.96 (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 population.de, 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 130.204.95.27 (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: [7] 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 130.204.95.27, 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 130.204.95.27 (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 [8], here [9], and here [10], I only see that you are messing up the article even further. In the latest unsourced edit of yours, ([11]) 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 130.204.95.27 (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 130.204.95.27 (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 130.204.95.27 (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)

Wait, what?...

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)

Turkey and Southeastern Europe -> no reference

I removed the alternate "Southeastern Europe" label from Turkey (excuse me for having made the edit without logging in, my phone accidentally logged me out [12]) again for two reasons;

1) the removal of it in the first place wasn't "unexplained", which this edit summary of 21 Feb 2016 claims. I removed it with a clear explanation I believe quite some time ago. The CIA World Factbook reference that was added puts it in the Middle East/Western Asia, not Southeastern Europe.
2) it was re-added again without any reference or whatsoever.[13]

Feel free to re-add it with a source that passes WP:RS.

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Nickname

the ballgown of Europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4108:9300:E48F:BB3A:DD69:1A9A (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Area

What about the area of the peninsula? This article uses the number 666,700 km2, while most sources I use point to a different one - 505 578 km2. The first one gives it a second place in Europe - behind Scandinavian (750-800 000 km2) and ahead of Iberian (582,000 km2), while the second ones places it third. -Bobbylon (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Balkans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Religion

The table that presents the dominating religions in the different countries of Balkan has been thoroughly changed. I am sure that the edits are made in good faith, and that the numbers given are well founded. There are, however, some problems regarding the presentation as it now stands.

Comparing the numbers to what is presented in the articles about the different countries, I find that the numbers are consistent with what is given there, so there is nothing wrong with the numbers per se. But no sources are given for the new numbers. As the table stands, it is presented with the CIA World factbook as a common source for all the entries. With new numbers, that is not valid. All "new" numbers need to be sourced.

Even if all the "new" numbers are correctly sourced, it is still not obvious that they shall replace the CIA numbers. The "new" numbers are taken from very different sources (estimates, census results, even Joshua project) with varying methodology and varying reliability. That means that they are not really commmensurable. For use in a table like this, where it is natural to make comparisons, it is preferable to have numbers that are taken from one source.

I have reverted all changes for now. I have, however, no objections to ionclusion of the "new" numbers in addition to the CIA numbers, provided: 1) all numbers are correctly sourced, and 2) the presentation states explicitly what type of source is used for each country. The "old" table could then be preceded by a text stating that these are CIA World factbook numbers, and the "new" presentation could be introduced by a text about "other estimates" or similar.

Suggestions for these additions would best be presented here in the talk page before added to the article. --T*U (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Croatia

is not on balkan peninsula, and such peninsula does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.248.96 (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Balkans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Greece not part of the Balkans?

I suggest replacing the map used in the infobox (a normal satellite imagery should suffice) of the article along with the legend that goes with it. First there is still missing citation on the orange and yellow colour and second - it creates a contradiction with the article on Greece, which clearly states that it is situated on the southern tip of the peninsula. If the Aegean Islands and Crete are the reason for not qualifying it as a Balkan country, I would rethink such a statement because with the same logic we can say that the UK doesn't belong to a single continent because of all the remote territories it consists of.--Rbaleksandar (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Central Europe

Whether Italy is always included seems to depend on geographer and where he places the border. But Slovenia's coastline is always included as Balkan while Slovenia is generally classified Central Europe. So the Balkan does cover Central European territory if this means anything. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Balkans/Archive_4&oldid=1142381935"