Talk:Balkans

Ottoman Hungary
In your eagerness of pointing out that Hungary is not part of the Balkans (with which I completely agree), I am afraid that you may end up confusing matters for the readers of the lede. Without your addition, the lede states that the term 'Rumelia' in the 19th century (and thus the term 'Balkan Peninsula') was used about the Ottoman provinces in Europe. At that time, Hungary had not been part of the OE for more than a century, so it was most obviously not included. Stating explicitly that Ottoman Hungary was an exception, gives the (false) impression that Hungary was part of the OE at the time, but not included in the term 'Rumelia'. Regards! T*U (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, please see my most recent edit where this discrepancy has been addressed.
 * With relation to the Balkans, and it’s location is southeast Europe, people may be misled into believing that Southeast Europe, and what is considered to be the Balkans, were the only regions that were under Ottoman Rule. Factually however, the regions that were once provinces of the Ottoman Empire spill into central Europe (Slovenia and Hungary). Hungary is excluded from definitions of the Balkans, despite its history with the Ottoman Empire, and Slovenia can also at times be excluded. I believe we should be more aware of these complex nuances, so that the article remains informative, and does not have to potential to mislead. Wczeran (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more! It is also important to keep the time aspect in mind. Geographical terms (and the borders of what they covered) have fluctuated over the centuries, not least in southeastern Europe. --T*U (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2023
Where mentioned “From the dissolution of Yugoslavia six stated”, ‘Stated’ should be changed to ‘States’ 76.64.3.21 (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ CMD (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ThankAdvancedBestRegardKingAmenmecestheLordGodBuddhaMarccinrajarKoBesintURodziniKacaKappaVatsuttaspiralespeceustradiumseoulstrangKoblisbonestKhmSIWAREGIOSEOULAUSTRADAIUMRRUNGSUNGUNKOOMMAITREEYACOPESTPhraelPhraroashakingabbasaigwiglomsilaramWanghintaksinsiammetroBaronLordGodBuddadoharanABBASAIAROASHAGEOHADDTAGGEDESTAKSINTHIREGIOTHEUNITED,EU,OPINION,US,USS,UAE,U125FREDERICESTHIREGIOUSTAKSINESTRUNGSUNGUNKOOMAITRIADDYAKOBSUNEST,TSM,TVM,KLM,KHM,GRUNGWEINNANORSTRADOHALCRISTANOURTAGAJARNESTCINRAN,PLOS,GMBH,GIOUSTABILESHEDESTAKAMARCJARCOBLEXSUNDABANKALKING 2405:9800:B500:A9FD:E96A:FB3E:7979:E770 (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2023
In the Urbanization section, there are several Turkish cities where the population for the entire province is given instead of the city itself, and the source confirms this - eg Tekirdağ has a population of 204,001 and not over a million. Edirne and Kirklareli also have this issue; Istanbul does not. Exclasen (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"Paleo-Balkan" languages
The following language has been added to the article: Albanian, Greek, and other Palaeo-Balkan languages, had their formative core in the Balkans after the Indo-European migrations in the region., sourced to Friedman 2022 and Lazaridis et al. 2022. Modern Greek and Albanian are not classified as "Paleo-Balkan" (although the ancestor of Albanian is). I have full of access to both sources, and neither backs the language used. No page number is given for Friedman, who anyway makes no mention of "Paleo=Balkan" anywhere, and Lazaridis uses Greek, Palaeo-Balkan languages, and Albanian, i.e. does not include Greek and Albanian among the "Paleo-Balkan languages". Further down Lazaridis et al. state Together with the extraordinary heterogeneity in autosomal ancestry in the Balkans, a picture emerges of a fragmented genetic landscape that may well parallel the poorly understood linguistic diversity in the ancient Balkans which among IE languages includes Paleo-Balkan speakers prior to the spread of Latin and Slavic, with Albanian the only surviving representative. I realize it is extremely important to some people to prove to the world that their language is "paleo-Balkan" and I don't care about that. But, Greek is nowhere described as "Paleo-Balkan", and source falsification, especially on such a high visibility article is an absolute no-no. Khirurg (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Paleo-Balkan languages is used to refer to those languages that emerged after the Indo-European migrations in the region and were there before the Roman period. Both Albanian and Greek, which are among the major branches of the Indo-European language family, are included in that group in current linguistics. So that wording is accurate. If you want to distinguish Greek from the Paleo-Balkan grouping, then seek consensus to remove that language from the relevant article (Paleo-Balkan languages). – Βατο (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your post is original research. The sources you have added do not in any way back the wording you have used. One does not even mention Paleo-Balkan languages, the other is falsified. If the above post is your best attempt at a justification, additional community input will be sought. Khirurg (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My post is not original research, it is based on Friedman 2022:, , ; and also the source Lazaridis et al. 2022 is talking about the post-PIE Balkan languages. If you argue that the labelling 'Palaeo-Balkan languages' is not directly mentioned by those sources, you can propose another wording of the relevant languages if you find it, but the link to that article would be the same because the sources are talking about that group of IE languages. – Βατο (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Friedman refers to the Balkan sprachbund, something completely different from Paleo-Balkan languages. Lazaridis separate modern Greek and Albanian from Paleo-Balkan. The wording I had added exactly from Lazaridis. Khirurg (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Palaeo-Balkan languages = Palaeo-Balkan sprachbund. And Friedman 2022 is talking about the history of the language contact in the Balkans, from pre-Indo-European times to modern times, the section being titled "The Balkans as a Historical Linguistic Space". – Βατο (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me with this? Did you even look at Friedman or Balkan sprachbund? Balkan Sprachbund is about the modern languages, including Slavic languages, Romanian, etc. This is also what Friedman is referring to. Nothing whatsoever to do with Paleo-Balkan languages like Illyrian, Thracian and Dacian. I'm starting to wonder here. Khirurg (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I realize it is extremely important to some people to prove to the world that their language is "paleo-Balkan" and I don't care about that. Hahaha I know, there are some desperate people who spend their days trolling on various online fora (BalkanInsight, Kathimerini etc), but Bato and I are not that kind of loser. Do not assume bad faith on us. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * it seems you did not read Friedman's chapter (here are the pages I cited above, , ). He talks about all known linguistic eras of the Balkans, also about the Indo-European migrations and later. And yes, Palaeo-Balkan is at least an areal linguistic grouping, i.e. a prehistoric "sprachbund", since the genetic relationship between those languages is still a matter of research, but contacts among those neighboring languages occurred. – Βατο (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyway, both cited sources are talking about the post-Proto-Indo-European languages of the Balkans, and the Wikipedia article about them is Palaeo-Balkan languages. – Βατο (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have full access to Friedman and there is simply nothing in there to justify lumping Greek and Albanian together with Paleo-Balkan. Lazaridis et al. explicitly distinguish Greek and Albanian from Paleo-Balkan (something which you keep avoiding to address), and citing a wikipedia article is a non-starter. Khirurg (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Lazaridis et al. do not distinguish Albanian from Palaeo-Balkan: Your statement:  is wrong, Friedman describes those languages (branches) as part of the first Indo-European languages of the Balkans until the arrival of Latin, and he expressly states: "have their formative core in the Balkans". That's exactly the definition of Palaeo-Balkan languages. – Βατο (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Lazaridis absolutely distinguishes between Greek, Albanian, and Paleo Balkan languages {tq|Greek, Palaeo-Balkan languages, and Albanian}}. Being a surviving representative of the Paleo-Balkan sprachbund is not the same thing as being a Paleo-Balkan language. When discussing the ancient languages of the Balkans, Friedman mentions ancient Greek, Illyrian, Thracian and Dacian, not Albanian. But Friedman does not even use "Paleo-Balkan" anywhere, so that is moot anyway. Khirurg (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I added the names of the IE branches, used by Friedman. Now there are no more misconceptions. – Βατο (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

9625198077 106.77.180.13 (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)