Talk:Balkans/Archive 5

RfC about what parts of Europe shall be mentioned in the lede

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How shall the position of the Balkans in Europe be described?


 * 1) "a geographic area in southeastern Europe with various and disputed borders"
 * 2) "a geographic area in Southeastern Europe with various and disputed borders"
 * 3) "a geographic area in southeastern Eastern and Southeastern Europe with various and disputed borders"
 * 4) "a geographic area in Southeastern Europe, as well as parts of Eastern and Central Europe, with various and disputed borders" --T*U (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Background
For many years the article described Balkan as a region in southeastern Europe, since around 2012 with a link to Southeast Europe. In March 2017 the description was changed to "Eastern and Southeastern Europe" with links to both Eastern Europe and Southeast Europe. The rationale was "Bulgaria and Romania are in Eastern Europe, Serbia, Albania, etc. Southeast." In the beginning of December, also Central Europe was added to the description with rationale "Slovenia is by every definition Central Europe, and the coastline is by every definition Balkan". This was heavily challenged in something that starts to look like an edit war. Now it is time to discuss and reach a consensus. --T*U (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Option 1 is my favourite, since it does not really connect to any of the different (and disputed) sub-areas of Europe, thus avoiding the eternal discussion about "country x is not in y-ern Europe, but in z-ern Europe. If there is a consensus to use linking, I would prefer option 4 as the most accurate. Option 3 is the least acceptable version. --T*U (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Option 1 is by far the best. As the articles say, both the "Balkans" and "Southeastern Europe" are imprecisely defined, and trying to define all the variant combinations is a fool's errand. --Macrakis (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Option 1 I think the clearest and simplest, considering it's indefinable area currently. scope_creep (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Option 1 as clear and simple. Doremo (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Option 2 only because it provides a link to a 'clarifying' article. All -ern description of parts of Europe are imprecise and disputable but this is clear and largely accepted and the main purpose of this text is to indicate where the region is. Or Option 1Pincrete (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Option 1 The description is the most prominent among the reliable academic sources. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Option 1 seems like the simplest way to go about things. Option 2 is also decent, although 1 is better. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Option 1 Agreed that this appears reasonable, since it avoids explicitly linking to disputed terminology. Ultimately, of course, it's the sources that should tell Wikipedia what to say. I have not done research, but if sources say "southeastern" and "eastern," that's what we should say, and if sources don't say "central," neither should we. A thought for consideration: the titles removed/unlinked by Option 1 might be added as links in See Also. DonFB (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 4 strongly. It is without dispute that Slovenia lies 100% in Central Europe, while Central Europe's own definitions have fluctuated through time and by individual far more than the Balkans. For instance, Croatian sources place their entire land in Central Europe, not just the continental section. Despite these differing opinions, there is no definition of Slovenia which places it anywhere other than Central Europe in its entirety. This RfC is not about whether we include Slovenian lands on the article, and as we are doing so there is no valid argument to not mention Central Europe anywhere. The desperate "no sources" argument is invalid once we have established that there is an overlap, and is false because there are indeed sources that define Central Europe as occupying Balkan territory (e.g. here). You don't always have to start from "Balkans" as first principle when associating two regions, you could instead begin with the other constituent. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 1 as a way to sidestep thorny issues about "Central"/"Eastern" debates which have political and occasionally nationalist (i.e. Croatia-Serbia) connotations. --Calthinus (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * I agree with you on one score: If Eastern Europe is going to be mentioned (as in the current version), then so must Central Europe. Your statement there is no definition of Slovenia which places it anywhere other than Central Europe in its entirety is, however, not correct. In this very article there are sources that put it in Southeast Europe and even in Southern Europe and Eastern Europe (the last one is a remnant of Cold War thinking and hardly relevant). In this book it is stated that "Many textbooks have placed [Slovenia] within the frame of Central Europe, but some have preserved the formerly more common definition and have positioned the country in South-Eastern Europe." One example of the last is this. The definitions of the different "x-ern Europe" are just not generally accepted, which is why I prefer no linking at all. But if there is a consensus for linking, I agree with you that option 4 is best (while option 3 is completely unacceptable). --T*U (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks TU-nor. Yes I see your point entirely. You've helped me realise that I worded myself incorrectly. Naturally Slovenia is categorised by other compass points and I hadn't forgotten this: the term "Eastern Europe" is frequently mentioned for ex-socialism Europe, and sometimes causes unsuspecting tourists to provoke blow-back in those countries if they mention it to the wrong people (e.g. anybody disillusioned with the modern state of affairs or people that were happier with the old order and are not anti-Russian don't mind Eastern Europe / authority figures including police, elitists and general apologists for the new regimes reject the term Eastern Europe). Here I speak confidently for my own region (former Yugoslavia) and ex-Czechoslovak lands and Poland. Anyhow, what I actually wanted to say is that where the option of Central Europe is presented, then Slovenia fits into all models - as do Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia and Poland. In some respects, the Balkans epitomises "southeastern Europe". But I see no problem mentioning somewhere on the lede (even next line) that the Balkan at its greatst extent occupies a small part of Central Europe. The reason it is difficult is because Wikipedia practice and policies (such as now) invite a form of WP:SYNTH. Although consensus is a good thing, you cannot harmonise a "majority view" with WP:OR or SYNTH! The big problem we have is that everything concerning "Europe" and its subdivisions is totally arbitrary and I mean this on the part of the sources. Hence the disagreements! --Juicy Oranges (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, not only are the "x-ern", "y-ern" and "z-ern Europe" ill-defined, they have also connotations that rouse a lot of feelings, as you describe. That is, of course, the reason for the many examples of POV edits to put their own country into the preferred category, often resulting in edit wars. Adding to this that the Balkans itself is similarly ill-defined, I think the formula "with various and disputed borders" is a fair summary of the section "Definitions and boundaries". I might support an addition of some more detail in the lede, but I am afraid if will be difficult to formulate. --T*U (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * by many definitions Slovenia is not part of the Balkans. I.e. Misha Glenny's history book The Balkans explicitly excludes Slovenia and says it's not part of the Balkans. I can only speak for myself but I've never heard Slovenia called "Balkan" except in a Yugoslav context or by some people from former Yugoslavia, who seem to use "Balkan" as some sort of codeword for "Yugoslav". --Calthinus (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @Calthius. I know this. We've already stated that the term Balkan is - not so much disputed but - has multiple definitions. Slovenia sits at the frontier. When a writer applies the term to entire countries, Slovenia is left out, but when applied to a region, it is accepted that part of Slovenia lies within. At the far end of the extreme, Italy is included. Italians don't like it, but then the Slovenes and Serbs of Trieste never invited their rule!!! As a matter of fact, if the Italian Risorgimento had achieved greater success it would have engulfed vast areas of ex-Yugoslav territory and by that I mean on the undisputed Balkan. That's going off-topic though. The term "Balkan" in the region in question generally refers to an undefined wider area and specifically to the new struggles we all face since the changes from 1991. What's good is good and what's bad is bad but broadly speaking, we're all affected the same way (whether sitting four hours in a border queue which didn't exist before 1991, mucking about changing currency every ten minutes, or working in unregulated sweat shops for German or Greek tycoons). It's likely the term includes Bulgaria, Albania, and maybe Romania but never Greece.


 * @TU-Nor. How would you feel about a late Option 5? Leave out compass points at the beginning, and just say this is a peninsula in Europe stretching from Slovenia to European Turkey (rough description). Then say that the term is largely synonymous with "southeastern Europe". That should pretty much do it. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No way! Mentioning names of specific states is even worse, especially when the mentioned states are among the reasons for the phrase "with various and disputed borders". Our text states about an earlier version of Encyclopædia Britannica that "it notes Turkey as a non-Balkan state and the inclusion of Slovenia and the Transylvanian part of Romania in the region as dubious". --T*U (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there any source that gives this definition? My point is that the article must rely on what sources actually say, even though they are not unanimous. The article should not create an original definition in an attempt to reconcile sourced but conflicting definitions. DonFB (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We may just be banging our heads against the wall. Europe itself is a continent based on exceptionalism as there is no water divide of any nature with Asia, and everyone has his own definition of Europe. The Balkan ditto. It is a peninsula on the basis of having sea on three sides but there is no isthmus which means it is rigidly welded to the wider landmass. Nobody can satisfy everybody with where the peninsula begins but nobody can dispute that mainland Greece is off this peninsula. Its usage has overt political connotations (entirely negative) but can sometimes be used to refer to a common culture (less abrasive but somewhat false since the culture in the Balkan itself has a continuum which blends with external areas meaning no exclusive properties). Even "Central Europe" is a politicised concept that places at its hub Germany rather than the region containing all nominated midpoints (from Hungary to Lithuania - entirely east of Germany). The difference here is that mainstream coverage on Central Europe is 100% positive. Now when you consider these arbitrary feats, it is not hard to work out why there is grave objection to the Balkan and Central Europe sharing a single hector of farmland in any country, and likewise why so often the "pro-European" apologists from this region spew forth that they are not part of the Balkan as they belong in Central Europe. This article can only analyse what is meant by the usage "Balkan" as there is simply no way to explain it geographically. With this, if we cannot be precise and explain what it means at its most extreme then I'm afraid I have no further suggestions or ideas on the matter. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * These things you mention should be, and to some degree is discussed in the article. For the lede, I am quite happy with presenting the uncertainty as the main summary of the article. --T*U (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The phrase "various and disputed borders" can easily be interpreted to mean: national borders within the region are disputed; or, the definition of the extent of the region is disputed. I believe the lede refers to the disputed nature of the extent of the region, not that some national borders within it are disputed. To remove the ambiguity, I suggest: "...with various and disputed definitions." If, however, the lede means both, then it could say: "...with various and disputed definitions and national borders." DonFB (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. I am sure it is the extent of the region that is meant. --T*U (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a comment here. The article Rumelia is about a one-time major territory on the European side of the border which was controlled by Ottoman Turkey. That article states that the subject region is what is now the "Balkan". Likewise the Central Europe article acknowledges that territory stretching to the Balkan. Whatever the editors decide to do, it should be reflected on all three articles so they don't contradict one another. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Rumelia article was obviously too specific about what today constitutes the Balkans, so I changed the lede there a bit. The Central Europe article is fine, since it discusses different definitions of CE, whether they include parts of the Balkans or not. --T*U (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Rumelia may need a tweak. Since this too refers to all European territory once ruled over by Ottoman Turkey, it stretches well beyond every stretch of the term Balkan. The map itself shows Transylvania, Moldova and the Ukrainian coastal strip near Moldova as forming part of Rumelia, whilst Turkish rule also spread to Crimea. Explaining this is the same mouthful as the problems we are having at Balkans. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How's this? (needed two attempts) --Edin Balgarin (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did an edit to Rumelia before I saw your latest comment here. I hope it is a further improvement. --T*U (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * PS. A point worth mentioning to everyone interested: Music of the Balkans redirects to Music of Southeastern Europe. Not sure how this will fit into everybody's varying viewpoints. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One would think that the opposite redirect would be better, as the introductory text indicates that "Balkan music" is the describing term. But that may need a discussion in that talk page. In any case, the Music of Southeastern Europe article will need some work... I will have a stab at the lede sentence. --T*U (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - Since your response was directly to mine, I am fine with the way you worded the article (or as you now may know, with the way it stands since the tweak). I can't immediately detect the difference in the latest edit but it's not important. This article is where we need to have a consensus so we know how to fix the others. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - I don't even know if "Music of the Balkans" and "Music of Southeastern Europe" even warrant an article. It would be one thing if it were all the same or had similarity, but in reality it differs across regions and blends with its surroundings as part of the same cultural continuum. All that article is - is the outlining of an arbitrary territory (arbitrary with regards human activity) and an account of the musical activity within. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obsolete coloured map on infobox
The colour coding is obsolete. Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria are all members of NATO with the latter two having been so since 2004. Being former Communist countries does not warrant a separate colour from NATO members because there is a clear overlap. Keeping the map I doubt we can even change the wording to represent what each colour means in any apposite sense. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree that the Communist/NATO text was useless. It was introduced by an IP editor back in June. I have put back the text as it was before that change. Still needs discussion, though. There is hardly any possibility of finding sources that can support the distinction between "usually included" and "often included". --T*U (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What I suggest is that we display a map of the Balkan territory, with modern country boundaries. But we should color Balkan VS non-Balkan territories instead of coloring the countries purely in terms of Cold War or political situations. The ideal could be to use 3 colors: territories of countries that lie within the Balkan boundaries, in color A. Territories of countries extending beyond Balkan boundaries in a fainter color B, and non-Balkan countries in color C. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 12:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I support this good idea by
 * Additionally I suggest using the classification done by Misha Glenny in The Balkans, which itself was based on how the area was handled in both Western and Balkan national literatures. He divides "Balkanness" into three categories:
 * . Territories always considered Balkan -- Bulgaria, Macedonia, Kosovo, Serbia except for Vojvodina, Bosnia-Herz., Montenegro, and Albania.
 * . Usually considered Balkan but with some dissent (typically from the national literatures of the country itself): Croatia, Vojvodina, Northern Greece (he doesn't explicitly define this if I recall correctly-- but coloring Epirus-Makedonia-West Thrace-Acarnania-Thessaly seems sensible -- maybe not Corfu but I'd like to see a cite on Corfu, in the real world obviously Corfu due to its Venetian rather than Ottoman heritage is indeed considered "less Balkan" culturally than the rest of Greece), Romania and Turkey's European part.
 * . Not typically considered Balkan but may be included for historical, cultural or political connections: Slovenia, Hungary (widely considered Balkan before WWII apparently), Moldova, the rest of Greece, Anatolian Turkey, Cyprus.
 * Thoughts?--Calthinus (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * FYI neither Hungary nor Croatia were ever considered Balkan by pre-WW1 cartographers, virtually every single contemporary map depicting the NW Balkans prior to WW1 ends with Bosnia and southern Serbia. English map | German map | French Map. CausticGimp (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Before WWI the concept had not formed in its modern incarnation -- then it meant "European Turkey" (and "former European Turkey"). Since that time it got infused with various geographical, cultural and linguistic meanings. Of course we can resurrect maps from before 1900 that show "the Balkans" for their original meaning -- an individual mountain range in Bulgaria and nothing more. --Calthinus (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * All these things need to be expounded and better explained. The modern incarnation is essentially the old incarnation i.e. post-Ottoman Europe minus (sometimes) Greece + post-Habsburg Slovenia and Croatia after they merged into the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.. Hungary was never seriously considered to my knowledge and was never listed on any map as a Balkan state. It would seem that it shouldn't be too difficult to construct a coherent gradient of "Balkanness" since the starting point is so clearly defined yet things still remain rather fuzzy and vague, rendering every classification questionable. First gotta establish the basics and then work from there. CausticGimp (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source defining which regions are part of the Balkans that could be used as an alternative to Glenny's The Balkans? Cuz that's just what I'm drawing from here. --Calthinus (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, the dearth of expounded sources is exactly the issue here, isn't it? Different sources will tell you different, often contradictory things without ever clearly quantifying why X is or isn't Balkan, the only reasonably ironclad sources we can rely on are a slew of contemporary maps that clearly establish the consensus on the canonical Balkans up until around 1918, which is where things start getting murky. Consider Greece, which was a member of the Balkan League, took part in both Balkan Wars and was listed as a Balkan state on all maps up until at least the end of WW2 yet is now frequently excluded from the region, one reason apparently being because it was conveniently considered Western Europe during the Cold War and thus became politically disassociated from the Balkans, which at that time were otherwise entirely within the Eastern Bloc. The Cold War ended nearly 30 years ago and Greece has since been reassigned to Southern Europe but it wasn't however "returned" back to the Balkans, at least in a geopolitical sense.


 * Now, I haven't yet read Glenny's book but you mention his lack of specificity when it comes to Greece and the issue of Corfu's Venetian heritage, namely the crucial roles of culture and obviously history as qualifying criteria. Since we have a clearly defined set of canonical (post-Ottoman) Balkan states we can easily establish the fundamental characteristics common to more-or-less all of them: a preponderance of Eastern Orthodoxy or Sunni Islam, traditional use of Cyrillic alphabet, Greco-Bzyantine architecture, aesthetics and iconography and obviously centuries of Ottoman occupation and administration. Thus, a good case can be made for Corfu not being traditionally Balkan or at least it being a lot less Balkan than the rest of Greece given that it wasn't under sustained Greco-Ottoman influence for centuries and was instead infused with Western/Southern European infrastructure, design and culture and the many fruits of the Renaissance for 400 years. But again, has any valid source ever actually properly articulated this?


 * And then there's Slovenia and Croatia (don't think we need to discuss Hungary anymore). Prior to 1918 neither of them even appear on any contemporary maps specifically depicting "the Balkans", when featured they're instead clearly depicted as part of the Central European Habsburg realm e.g. HRE/Austrian Empire/Austro-Hungary. It is only when they merge into the Kingdom of Yugoslavia with Bosnia, Montenegro and an enlarged Kingdom of Serbia in 1918 that cartographers start including them as part of the "Balkan lands", they're essentially re-branded overnight and are in reality "Balkan by association only" given their otherwise distinctly Western cultural and historical characteristics: predominantly Roman Catholic, Latin alphabet, Gothic/Baroque architecture, aesthetics and iconography, a shared experience of the Renaissance, (Counter)Reformation & Enlightenment and obviously centuries of German/Habsburg administration and influence.


 * This association of the two with the Balkans persists throughout both Yugoslavias (Kingdom & Socialist Republic) and as we know when the breakup begins in the early 1990's Slovenia escapes the conflict virtually unscathed while Croatia, due to is proximity to the rest of the country, gets bogged down in a bloody and protracted war for a good part of the 90's. This is where things start to get quirky: with its painless exit from Yugoslavia and its economy and infrastructure intact, Slovenia quickly begins to (re)integrate into Europe and in doing so seems to successfully discard the Balkan label and re-brand itself back to what it had originally been: a post-Habsburg Central European state. However, Croatia is not so fortunate: it must fight for survival and quickly becomes tagged as a part of what conventionally starts being called the "Wars in the Balkans" or "Balkan Wars", not an otherwise inaccurate moniker since the conflicts eventually come to involve Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo as well. This, coupled with Croatia's post-war political issues and economic struggle to rebuild seems to reinforce its existing association with the Balkans in the minds of many (although not all, the EU now places it in Central Europe) even though it clearly shares essentially the same religious + cultural heritage and historical narratives as ostensibly non-Balkan Slovenia and neighboring Central Europeans. Well, actually, this is more true of northern Croatia (more Germanic) than southern Croatia, which has more of an Italo-Venetian legacy and a distinctly Southern European, Mediterranean flavor.


 * Sorry for the essay, didn't mean to write so much, the point is that, again, there are a lot of differing/superficial assessments and there seems to be a persistent lack of clarification about what specifically constitutes "Balkanness" in the literature and wider media, at least when it comes to non-geographic criteria, and this makes any attempt at coherent classification rather frustrating.


 * Anyway, in service of the proposed gradient I would humbly suggest something like the following, pending further sources:


 * 1. Balkan by purely geographic criteria: this would contain all the countries that are entirely or partially within Zeune's original delineation of the Balkan Peninsula - Slovenia <--> all of Greece. I know that technically Italy should be listed as well but with such a tiny amount of it involved I don't think skipping it would be unrepresentative.


 * 2. Balkan by cultural & historical criteria: this would obviously contain the canonical post-Ottoman Balkan region for which there is no ambiguity regarding inclusion - Albania, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Kosovo, FYROM, Montenegro, Romania minus Transylvania, Serbia minus Vojvodina, Greece minus Corfu


 * 3. Balkan by association: this would contain the territories that politically merged with the Balkans at a later date and that otherwise have a cultural heritage and historical narratives more consistent with that of Southern or Central Europe - Slovenia, Croatia, Vojvodina, Transylvania, Corfu.


 * Now this clearly isn't perfect but I think it more neatly accounts for every Balkan iteration without creating too many contradictions with regards to cultural and historical considerations.


 * Thoughts, opinions, criticisms welcomed. :) CausticGimp (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think people are complicating too much unecessarily. Balkans are geographically everything South of Sava and Danube rivers. This means entire Bulgaria, Rep. of Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina, all of European Turkey, then, large portions of Serbia and Croatia, all continental Greece, roughly half of Slovenia, and Dobruja portion of Romania. By association, the Nothern parts of Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia, rest of Romania, and Greek islands. In the most extreme case, Moldova can be included (because of its historical connection to Romanian Moldova or Romania as a hole), Cyprus, rest of Turkey, and Hungary, because politically it had irredentist pretentions to some territories within what is considered Balkans. The last mention goes to the North-Eastern extreme of Italy, notably, Trieste and its surroundings, which geographically are South of Sava river and definitelly in the part forming the Balkan peninsula. FkpCascais (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In practice this would mean something quite similar to CausticGimp proposal. My would go as this:
 * RED: All continent South of Sava and Danube rivers, from Trieste to Dobruja (both icluded) to Istambul and Peloponesus.
 * ORANGE: Parts of Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and Romania Nothers of Sava and Danube rivers, plus Greek islands.
 * YELLOW: Moldova, Cyprus, Asian side of Turkey, and Hungary.
 * I am thinking also about Italy and its historical possession of teritories within the Balkan peninsula. But that is too much I think. So forget Italy (except Triste part). FkpCascais (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)i
 * Imo we should just pick a source and rely on it. We can't run around with our personal opinions here. I can sort of see how "Northern Croatia" is "more Germanic" but really this is just an opinion and not encyclopedic. The cultural boundaries in the Balkans have also not been static -- in 1300 Albania and Bosnia both mostly Catholic, and Albania was deeply integrated into the Western European political system, with a Western-style feudal political culture, and even with some rulers of French origins. Meanwhile at the height of the Ottoman Empire, Slavonia and Lika were 33% Muslim. Also CausticGimp, Glenny's stance on Corfu is actually clear -- he doesn't consider any "Greek islands" to be Balkan (but the Greek mainland, yes). --Calthinus (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * although the "cultural criteria" you set forth and the overall narrative is actually very well reasoned, let me point out how futile this is -- this logic taken to its natural conclusion would also conclude that regions of Northwestern Albania like Puka or Mirdita or Malesia are "non-Balkan" islands., nope there are large swathes of Albania that are 100% Catholic. also never been used in mountainous parts of Northern Albania,  once again nope,  Mirdita was never actually administered by Ottomans (though they claimed to). So I guess Mirdita is also a Central European island, or maybe an "Italianate" island in the middle of the Balkans?--Calthinus (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I dont understand why any of you is mixing politics and religion here? This is just geography. FkpCascais (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If it was geography, we would talk about the Balkans where they actually are-- only Bulgaria.--Calthinus (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey cousin. I think you may be confusing Balkan Mountains - which is predominantly Bulgaria - with the Balkan Peninsula which goes well beyond Bulgaria. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Arms of Albania.svg

Poorly written article
The current article (February 13, 2019) contains several grammatical errors following a consistent pattern of irregular English verb forms. I don't know anything about who wrote this text, but the pattern suggests someone not highly familiar with English verb usage wrote the passage. These are not simply minor errors. They contribute to confusion and ambiguity. I'm also concerned that much of the debate in the earlier talk on this page centered in rival nationalistic narratives, far removed from NPOV required for Wikipedia posts. As a historian, I know that terms like "Balkans," "Southeastern Europe," "Eastern Europe" and "Central Europe" are overlapping and imprecise at best, with attempts at forcing a more rigid definition running into nationalistic biases. I am not a specialist on this region, but in light of the discussion here, I hope someone who does have greater academic expertise on this issue will review and revise the article, both correcting the grammatical issues and watching out for segues into debates that don't belong here. Ftjrwrites (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Arms of Montenegro.svg

Romania included?? yes say the Reliable secondary sources in many fields
Yes Romania is included in the Balkans say the reliable sources. 1) The Balkans: A History of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Rumania, Turkey https://books.google.com/books?id=yXwJAQAAIAAJ Nevill Forbes - 1915; 2) Barbara Jelavich - 1983: "History of the Balkans" includes Romania- Page 27 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0521274591  PAGE 27 "Romanian dissatisfaction with the Berlin settlement extended to other points. One of the chief effects of the Balkan crisis of 1875-1878 was the subsequent Romanian estrangement from Russia." 3) book title= Challenges of Tobacco Control in the Balkans: The Case of Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece. by Patricia R Loubeau 2012; 4) map of region = Italy & Balkan Peninsula including Greece.Bulgaria.Yugoslavia.Albania.Romania  1990; 5) military history = Balkan Battles: Turkey, Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Romania by Ronald L. Tarnstrom 1999; 6) Red Storm over the Balkans: The Failed Soviet Invasion of Romania, Spring 1944 by David M. Glantz 2006; 7) music: Manele in Romania: Cultural Expression and Social Meaning in Balkan Popular Music by Margaret Beissinger, Speranta Radulescu, et al. 2016; 8) current events =  Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria;: New era in the Balkans by Lila Perl  1970. 9) political science book = Gallagher, Tom. "The Balkans: Bulgaria, Romania, Albania and the Former Yugoslavia." Developments in Central and East European Politics (Palgrave, London, 1998). 43-58. 10) economics = Sjöberg, Örjan, and Michael Louis Wyzan, eds. Economic Change in the Balkan States: Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia (1991). 11) political science journal = Johnson, Carter. "Democratic transition in the Balkans: Romania's Hungarian and Bulgaria's Turkish minority (1989–99)." Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 8.1 (2002): 1-28. 12) sociology book = Gilberg, Trond. "Ethnic conflict in the Balkans: comparing ex-Yugoslavia, Romania and Albania." Ethnic Conflict, Tribal Politics: A Global Perspective(1998): 61-85. Rjensen (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for showing that – personal attacks aside – is wrong when they claim that "Nobody ... consider [Romania] to be in the Balkans". I could add from my own library: 13) "Balkans: Nationalism, War and the Great Powers, 1804-1999" by Misha Glenny (1999); 14) "The Balkans - from the End of Byzantium to the Present Day" by Mark Mazower (2002); 15) "The Palgrave Concise Historical Atlas of the Balkans" (2001). There are more, but I'll stop there. It is clearly shown that at least part of and often the whole of Romania is treated as part of the Balkans by numerous reliable sources, so it should be quite safe to remove the qualification "According to Encyclopedia Britannica, ..." and state plainly that The Balkans are usually said to comprise.... I will rearrange the current sources somewhat, if necessary adding more.
 * Regarding the passage beginning with "The term Southeastern Europe is also used for the region,...", the sentence about Romania "not part of the Balkans" must be removed per the above. Actually, since none of the "X-ern Europe" regions are well-defined, there are good reasons to avoid mentioning any specific country at all (with the exception of transcontinental Turkey). By linking to the different "X-ern Europe" articles, the interested reader may learn that Romania can be described as Southeastern, Eastern or Central European (or part of each) by different RS's, Croatia can be described as Central or Southeastern European (or part of each), Albania as Southern or Southeastern (or sometimes still Eastern), Greece as Southeastern, Southern, Western(!) (but never Eastern) etc. etc. By simplifying this section, we avoid making statements that are impossible to source. --T*U (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2020
Unclear and expired sources, no definitive proof of etymological origin. Change this:

Etymology
The word Balkan comes from Ottoman Turkish balkan 'chain of wooded mountains'; related words are also found in other Turkic languages. The origin of the Turkic word is obscure; it may be related to Persian bālk 'mud', and the Turkish suffix an 'swampy forest' or Persian balā-khāna 'big high house'.

To this:

Etymology
The origin of the word Balkan is obscure; it may be related to Persian bālk 'mud', and the Turkish suffix an 'swampy forest' or Persian balā-khāna 'big high house'. Related words are also found in other Turkic languages.

Thanks. Aretecte (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe this link will clarify the situation: . I have revert myself, but I think we can made a compromise with this sub-section. Jingiby (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

REPLY-MAR-11
Already done Your request have been answered, but most likely unaware of the procedures of protected edit request. To reply, copy and paste this:     (Talk)       01:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

COA & Serbia's territory
1) Why is a random unofficial, incorrect COA presented for Serbia and some other countries as well, like Montenegro? 2) Serbia's territory should be presented in 2 ways: 1) including KOS 2) not including KOS That would be per Neutral point of view.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  02:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020
Greece in 1821, Serbia, Montenegro in 1878, Romania in 1881, Bulgaria in 1908 and Albania in 1912.

Please add an "and" between Serbia, Montenegro. 64.203.187.120 (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done  Seagull123  Φ  15:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

specific Character?
what specific Character properties are Key characteristics of Balkan peoples? Wikistallion (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2020
Main map of the article is indeed not from the British Encyclopedia, please look at the image sources and edit the caption or remove the map completely. 31.217.13.26 (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I removed the mention of Encyclopedia Britannica because there's no evidence they use that map/those borders in their definition.  Seagull123  Φ  15:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020
Change Sarajevo urban population from 275,000ish (that is just the urban core including only four municipalities, not the whole city) to 404,000 (eight municipalities that include urban Sarajevo built-up area that covers the whole city - more than 130,000 inhabitants live outside of those four municipalities previously mentioned so it is only fair to correct the data, as the current one gives false impression that Sarajevo is a small city of 275,000 inhabitants which is not real (Back in 1991, there were more than 525,000 inhabitants, has it ever been recorded, even in post-conflict zones that a capital city loses 50% of its population? I think no, especially not in today's Sarajevo that is fully renovated, attracts people from other parts of the country, students, more than 700,000 tourists thanks to its uniqueness, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Socialist and modern architecture, history etc... There is no urban discontinuity between those municipalities, on the contrary, it's a fully built-up area connected with trams, buses, trolleybuses, neighbourhoods etc.

Change Sarajevo metro population from 400,000ish, that's actually the urban area to 555,210 (Municipalities of Novi Grad, Novo Sarajevo, Ilidža, Vogošća, Centar, Istočno Novo Sarajevo, Istočni Novi Grad, Pale, Ilijaš, Visoko, Breza, Kiseljak, Kreševo, Hadžići - all 15-20km away from the built-up area of the city of Sarajevo) as the current one is completely wrong and doesn't include many neighbourhoods that are 15-20 kilometres from Sarajevo which is actually a definition of a metro zone. For ex. your current data for Belgrade includes places and population as far as 45km (Mladenovac) and 47km (Lazarevac) from Belgrade, it's the same for Skopje, your data includes villages 15-20km away from the city itself that even borders other countries (Kosovo), Novi Sad (villages 17km away from the city) etc yet for Sarajevo the current data doesn't even include the whole city, yet alone it's whole urban core or metro zone.

There is even no reference for current claims as you can see when it comes to Sarajevo, only Sarajevo data is without any, but I will provide a reference to my claims so that you can allow me to correct the data. http://fzs.ba/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/KS_2020.pdf http://fzs.ba/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ZDK_2020.pdf http://fzs.ba/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/SBK_2020.pdf

https://www.rzs.rs.ba/static/uploads/bilteni/stanovnistvo/BiltenDemografskaStatistika_2019_WEB.pdf

Thank you very much. 77.77.216.230 (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done The table of largest cities (which I can only presume this relates to) already lists both the urban core and urban area population. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Map
Hello, you mentioned that this map was added by a consensus but I don't see any talk about the map. May I ask why you think cultural influence is important on a map about a geographic region? — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib)  15:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, you don't see because it has been already archived.I think it's important, given the usage of the term, as the northern border is anyway variously defined.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC))
 * Ah, I found the discussion. Maybe I can remake my map and include the cultural areas as well, what do you say? — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 15:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, go on, but please before adding it to the article present it here for confirmation. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC))
 * I will, don't worry :D — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 15:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Good day, I've updated the map to include cultural areas as well, as you requested. See if you like it. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 07:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The new map looks really good, just one remark: why isn't Turkey fully colored? N.Hoxha (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't fully color Turkey because the previous map also only had the coasts colored. I imagine it's because the coastal areas were Greek-majority. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 08:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, I would have personally fully colored Turkey since it has culturally influenced the whole peninsula and is part of it. N.Hoxha (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is odd that Turkey is the only country not fully coloured. The original map also leaves Transylvania less shaded. I'm not sure how useful the two greens are. CMD (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you zoom out in the map and color Turkey completely, then I think that the map will be ok to use in the lead. N.Hoxha (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * CMD has right. The Hungarian-inhabited areas roughly should be faded to white the same way as in the map in the article. The rest I have no problem. If you updated, present it again, Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC))
 * CMD has right. The Hungarian-inhabited areas roughly should be faded to white the same way as in the map in the article. The rest I have no problem. If you updated, present it again, Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC))

A question: What are the sources for deciding which areas are "culturally influenced" by the Balkans (whatever that is supposed to mean)? --T*U (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I think look on the archived discussion referred in the beginning.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC))


 * I've updated map again and made Transylvania and Central Anatolia less dark: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Geographic_region_of_Balkans.png — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 19:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC))


 * So, should I add it? — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 06:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In case anybody participating in this discussion do not oppose, yes. You may wait a bit to be sure.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC))
 * In case anybody participating in this discussion do not oppose, yes. You may wait a bit to be sure.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC))


 * If this map is going to be used, the colours (including the two different greens) will need to be explained, and sources must be given per WP:V. Do any of you have a suggestion for the caption? --T*U (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The dark green is the countries or regions that are included in the Balkans, while lighter green is countries or regions that are *often* included in the Balkans. While yellow is the cultural reach of the Balkans. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 14:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources for the "cultural reach" in two different degrees (yellow/pale yellow)? --T*U (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I used the currently used map as a base map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karte_Suedosteuropa_03_01.png — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 17:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Problem is that the base map has been repeatedly changed without any real discussions and that the "cultural reach" is just as unsourced on that map as on this. As it now stands, both maps seem to be just WP:OR, trying to show simultanously the "Balkan peninsula", the "Balkan countries" and the more diffuse "cultural Balkans", without being much concerned about sourcing. Imho the best thing would be to remove the current map and then start a broader discussion about what such a map should show. Swopping one OR map with another OR map is not going to improve the article. --T*U (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In the caption of the map in the infobox, it states that the map is drawn "according to Encyclopaedia Brittania" but it doesn't even refer to any article. Maybe if we find this so-called article we can work based on that. I agree that a discussion should be held about the cultural extent of the Balkans, but we can already draw a map based on the geographical definition. I would suggest to just use two colors for now: dark green for the regions that are completely located in the Balkan peninsula and a shade of lighter green for the other territories of the countries that aren't completely included in the Balkans' geographical definition (such as the Asian part of Turkey, the Greek islands, Vojvodina, etc). And then in the future use a third color (even lighter green for example) for the cultural extent of the Balkans, based on the discussion that will be held. What do you people think about this proposition? Also, could you zoom out of your map to completely include Turkey and not just Anatolia, just as the current map is doing?  N.Hoxha (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I'll remake the whole map when everyone comes to conclusion as to what should and should not be included in the map :) — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 14:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am rather busy in real life this week, so I will not be able to participate in this discussion for some days. I will, however, give a few preliminary comments.
 * As for the geographical delimitation of the Balkan peninsula, the Danube–Sava–Kupa line is sourced in the article (Jelavich). The alternative Danube–Sava–Krka line, which includes the Trieste area in the Balkans, is used both in the intro map and in the map further down in the article, but does not seem to be sourced.
 * Regarding Balkan states, the sources in the section "Definitions and boundaries" give some various definitions, but I do not see any sources that justify the use of captions saying "always included", "often (or sometimes) included" or similar.
 * One point about Turkey: Even the sources that only mention states (and not parts of states) seem always to specify "European Turkey", so I do not see any indication that Anatolia should be included among "Balkan states". --T*U (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that Anatolian Turkey should not be included. Does anyone else have any other opinion? — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 11:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't think Anatolia should even be included here, since it is in Asia. Danloud (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. So, I'll take out Anatolia. Is it fine after that? — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 18:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Danloud @<b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> If we remove Anatolia on the basis of it being in Asia, then Cyprus should be removed too. It is rather speculative but I can assure you that specially Western Anatolia is more Balkan than Cyprus (and probably more than Slovenia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megalomanda (talk • contribs) 09:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Danloud @<b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> Just to add one more point on the subject... I am obviously not trying to bring any politics in the matter, so please read what I am about to write in this perspective. With the Ottoman expulsion from the Balkans, Balkan Wars and then in the communist era of the some of Balkan states (so a period of 100 years) Turkey received millions of Balkan refugees and/or immigrants (see: Muhacir and Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction - the last one is not very objective, yet it gives you some idea). This definitely had a huge impact on the culture of Turkey and its social fabric. So, if something as "cultural Balkans" to be accepted, Turkey without question is part of it since a significant portion of its population is from Balkans. Therefore, IMO, removing Anatolia will give a missing picture of the concept of Balkans.    Megalomanda (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Megalomanda

I'm honestly in favour of only including the geographic region of Balkans rather than a "cultural area" thing too. But I don't have much knowledge of Balkans, so I'm waiting for anyone here to say anything. — <b style="color:#c29d25">Curious</b><b style="color:#c29d25">Golden</b> (T·C) </b> 14:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What is Asia, cannot be included in the geographical Balkan, which is in Europe.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC))
 * Then for the sake of coherence Cyprus should be removed as well since it is geographically in Asia.Megalomanda (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020
Religion statistics for Bulgaria and Greece are not correct. The source (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/fields/401.html) gives other percentages: For Bulgaria: Eastern Orthodox 59.4%, Muslim 7.8%, other (including Catholic, Protestant, Armenian Apostolic Orthodox, and Jewish) 1.7%, none 3.7%, unspecified 27.4% (2011 est.) For Greece: Greek Orthodox (official) 81-90%, Muslim 2%, other 3%, none 4-15%, unspecified 1% (2015 est.) A correction for these respective countries is requeired. 83.99.66.75 (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Corrected the statistics according to the said source. Megalomanda (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020 (2)
Link for the reference 97 has been changed from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2098.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/402.html. Should be corrected.

Language statistics for the following countries are wrong and should be corrected according the above mentioned source: For Bulgaria: Bulgarian (official) 76.8%, Turkish 8.2%, Romani 3.8%, other 0.7%, unspecified 10.5% (2011 est.) For Romania: Romanian (official) 85.4%, Hungarian 6.3%, Romani 1.2%, other 1%, unspecified 6.1% (2011 est.) For Turkey: No percentages are mentioned in the source. The percentages given on the page reflect an estimation of the whole Turkey and not the Thrace part of Turkey. Therefore it creates a confusion. Clarification is required and it should be mentioned.

Language statistics for Greece is also an interesting case. The source is correctly mentioned in the page. However these statistics for Greece are inconsistent with the relavent wikipedia page. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Greece. "Ambigious" might be added for Greece's statistics. 83.99.66.75 (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Corrected the deadlink and statistics according to the source. However, no action was taken concerning Greece's statistics, since it is in line with the source.Megalomanda (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Prime ministers under Statistics are out-of-date
The current prime minister of Birth Macedonia is Zoran Zaev. Kalinko (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Probably you mistyped North, but ✅.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Karte Suedosteuropa 03 01.png

City of Tekirdag
City of Tekirdag population is slightly over 200,000, but province itself is above 1 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:5da4:b600:71ba:facf:7552:3428 (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Independence may not be the most accurate -- formation/independence may be better
Using both words 'formation' and 'independence' may be more accurate and wider reaching definitions, especially for the stats table.

Paethos (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021
Change 5 October 1908 to 22 September 1908 - this is the real Bulgarian independence day. Vodorasli (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2021
Hi, im sure it was an honest mistake but a mistake at that, the mistake im refuring to is that there are NOT 12 countries in the balkans there are 11, always have and always will be 11 the countires are Serbia, Montenegro, albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Bosia and Hertzegovenia, Greece and last but not least Slovenia. I think the mistake you made was BY ACCIDENT putting serbia twice :) you are offending quit a few people by this mistake and defonetly the whole 8+ million serbs so change it, and do better! 212.200.247.79 (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  ◢ <i style="background-color:#F7E3F7; color:#960596"> Ganbaruby! </i>  (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

demonym: Balkanian

 * demonym: Balkanian
 * internet slang/pejorative: Balk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8847:7000:6101:B186:A9D8:DB53 (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Why did you forget Bulgaria
Add Bulgarian on the map 31.13.253.146 (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro Independence date
Both Serbia and Montenegro gained independence and international recognition at the Congress of Berlin so the date of independence in the table for both countries should be 13 July 1878. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.158.67 (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

"Balkan mountains"
There is no such thing as "Balkan mountains". The name refers to one single mountain - just ask any Bulgarian, called "Stara Planina", which was called "balkan" mounain because it was covered with dense and ancient forest. "balkan" is a turkish word refering to wood/ trees.

There was never such a region anywhere in European history, and we should stop calling it "Balkans", or - even worse - "Balkan Peninsula". Even sparrows on the roof know that for a piece of land to be considered a peninsula, that piece of land must be surrounded on its three sides with the same body of water and connected to the mainland with an isthmus. Neither is the case in the region of SOUTHEASTER Europe.

If there are no objections supported by ancient historical records proving that the native populations were using turkish word long before the turks, and/or that the turks themselves had used such construct/phrase themselves - I could find none - I will change the "Balkans" and "Balkan Peninsula" into the correct name of "Southeaster Europe" because that is what it really is. I shall wait 24 hours to see any evidence anyone may present, and then make the change irrespectively because no evidence of a region called "Balkan" can be found anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.158.191.145 (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022
change 77% to 86% Wxjq8579 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

In section "Languages", table column "Most spoken language". There is a mathematical mistake in row 3-th. Wrong summation -> 8% Turkish + 4% Romani + 1% other + 1% unspecified = 86% but NOT 77%.
 * ✅. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 31 March 2022
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED - a WP:SNOW close User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 19:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Balkans → Balkan Peninsula – This is the most accurate name even if Balkans is the most common name since it is a peninsula. I think this is correct but feel free to disagree. It looks like this page is protected from moves though. Jishiboka1 (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC) <div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME  Pepper Beast    (talk)  02:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME - ngrams tells us that Balkans is far more common. BilledMammal (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME—blindlynx 14:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME -  Bes-ART Talk  14:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:UCRN. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:UCRN. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17th April 2022
The statement "ca. 60 million (45 million only the peninsula's part)" in the info box is ungrammatical. Suggest change to "ca. 60 million (45 million on the peninsula itself)" 90.241.42.98 (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2023
The section on the Politics and Economy should be updated to reflect that Croatia joined the Schengen and the Eurozone as of 2023: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64144309

Suggested changes:

On border control and trade criteria the divisions are as follows: Territories in the Schengen Area: Greece, Slovenia Territories that are legally bound to join the Schengen Area: Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania Territories in a customs union with the EU: Turkey Territories members of the Central European Free Trade Agreement: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia.

Change to:

On border control and trade criteria the divisions are as follows: Territories in the Schengen Area: Croatia, Greece, Slovenia Territories that are legally bound to join the Schengen Area: Bulgaria, Romania Territories in a customs union with the EU: Turkey Territories members of the Central European Free Trade Agreement: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia.

- Second suggested change:

On currency criteria, the divisions are as follows: Territories members of the Eurozone: Greece, Slovenia Territories using the Euro without authorization by the EU: Kosovo, Montenegro Territories using national currencies and are candidates for the Eurozone: Bulgaria (lev), Croatia (kuna), Romania (leu) Territories using national currencies: Albania (lek), Bosnia and Herzegovina (convertible mark), North Macedonia (denar), Serbia (dinar), Turkey (lira).

--- Change to:

On currency criteria, the divisions are as follows: Territories members of the Eurozone: Croatia, Greece, Slovenia Territories using the Euro without authorization by the EU: Kosovo, Montenegro Territories using national currencies and are candidates for the Eurozone: Bulgaria (lev), Romania (leu) Territories using national currencies: Albania (lek), Bosnia and Herzegovina (convertible mark), North Macedonia (denar), Serbia (dinar), Turkey (lira). 47.17.185.203 (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ small jars 08:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Balkan
Romania its not Balkan country. It's Carpathians country. It's wrong information like Romania its Balkan country. 62.198.142.37 (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * No, its not a "Carpathian country"
 * thats not even a region 142.54.9.83 (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2023
in the Statistics table for Slovenia the president is outdated as it is no longer Borut Pahor, but it is the newly elected Nataša Pirc Musar UfiKing (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  15:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"Adria region"
I've reverted an edit that added "This region is sometimes referred to as the 'Adria region', which includes all countries of the former Yugoslavia plus Albania, or otherwise excludes Slovenia as well, and is usually utilised in the bussiness and commercial spheres", which cited a sprinkling of primary sources using that term. What such a claim would require is good secondary sources, which establish that this term is sometimes used and in which contexts. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Cordless Larry: we are having a debate about this term here. Feel free to chime in. —  GeographieMan [ ~MSG~ ] 08:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Jews of Bulgaria
Article notes that Boris III "saved" the Jews. According to the wikipedia article on Boris III, it's a bit more complicated than that. Jews were denied citizenship in Bulgaria and the nation joined the Axis powers (the original text in this article said Boris III "resisted Hitler" but when you decide to join the Axis powers...) Jews in occupied lands were sent to the Nazi camps while the Bulgarian Jews proper were sent to forced labor camps. I edited the article to just state what happened, without using words to define the morality of the action. Ehgarrick (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)