Talk:Balkans/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Comment from Hahahihihoho

Can that Ante Pantelic or what he name is, stop writing croatian propaganda! I am tired of him! He write that Croatia dont belong to Balkans but they have belonged to the Balkans for more than 2000 years!'Italic text I will not accept that he write things that is completely false! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hahahihihoho (talk • contribs).

Hahahihihoho, please try not to delete other people's comments, like you did a few already. If you want to say something, just add it at the bottom.

Also, I didn't add anything. I merely reverted your unexplained edits. You should spend some time reading some wikipedia rules. Start here: WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. --Ante Perkovic 15:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ante, lets make a deal:

If you will keep writing that Croatia isnt Balkan and so on, then I will write that Bosnia and Hercegovina also isnt Balkan. If we can make that deal then it is OK, and then we can stop fighting about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahihihoho (talk • contribs)

Please, explain what is wrong with each of the sections you deleted. If not, please revert your changes.

• Over the last decade, in the wake of the former Yugoslav split, Croatians and especially Slovenians have rejected their former label as 'Balkan nations'. This is in part due to the pejorative connotation of the term 'Balkans' in the 1990s, and continuation of this meaning until now. Today, the term 'Southeast Europe' is preferred or, in the case of Slovenia and sometimes Croatia, 'Central Europe'.
• Other factors such as prior history and culture also bind Croatia to Central Europe and the Mediterranean region more than they bind it to the Balkans. Nevertheless, its peculiar geographic shape (as well as its recent history with Yugoslavia) inherently associates it with the region Bosnia and Herzegovina is part of.

--Ante Perkovic 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Croatia IS NOT and WILL NEVER BE CENTRAL EUROPE. Croatia has allways been Balkan, you speek same language as bosnians and serbs, you ARE NOT CENTRAL EUROPE. Look at a map of Europe and you will see. And Btw, if Croatia is Central Europe, then Bosnia is it too.

I cant stand anymore of that. YOU ARE NOT CENTRAL EUROPE AND I WONT GIVE UP THIS FIGHT. You are Balkan, you belong to Balkan and you are croats, which mean that you are bosniaks, serbs just with another religon.

I, Hahahihihoho, now demand Ante Perkovic to change that because that is not true!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahihihoho (talk • contribs)

Do you speak english?

If you do, please read my question.

Try to stay on topic instead ranting about totally unrelated things. Just read the part you deleted and answer the question. If you are blocked, you can answer the question on your talk page.

Ante Perkovic 16:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The fight aint over Ante, my fight for justice will continue. I tried to talk to you to change your text but failed cause you obvious cant have a discussion. I tried but it didnt work. Derfor I will change in your article and write down that whick is the right thing. And not the lies that you wrote.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahihihoho (talk • contribs)

Ok, just go on with your jihhad. I just want to note that you deleted the sam etext like last time regardless of the fact that you agreed with some of my notes in the meantime. --Ante Perkovic 12:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: I will only change 3 times in 12 hours.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahihihoho (talk • contribs)

Note: Learn to sign your post, unless you are trying to prove that you have 2-digit IQ. --Ante Perkovic 12:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, Ante, Ante, Ante,Ante, Ante!!!

Pa ti si stvarno pokazo da si ti jedan hrvat. Tako glup, tako tvrdoglav, stvarno, kad se vidi tebe, neko bi mislio da su svaki hrvati kao sto si ti. Ti si sramota za Hrvatsku. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahihihoho (talk • contribs)

Croatia is a balkan country. There is no need to deny this. --Ćele Kula 20:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahahihihoho, don't waste your time fighting with those few cro-nationalists of the type of Ante, Kubura, and 2-3 others. They're isolated in their propaganda statements on croatian wikipedia, and everybody knows that croatian wikipedia is having its 'dark age', written by those few individuals. Many people feel sorry for them. They live in theirown imaginary world where they have created their unreal and virtually 'ideal Croatia'. Unfortinatelly for them, the reality is much different, and every normal person sees how limited are their ideas and their propaganda. Hopefully, the dark age for croatian wikipedia will be over soon, and new croatian editors will come into the scene, someone who lives in the real world and someone who sees Croatia as it really is, exactly like you, me and everybody normal sees it. Cheers.24.86.110.10 01:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

CROATIA IS NOT A BALKAN COUNTRY. That is completly out of the question. I reject such false allegations and would like to be presented with some evidence. Just because Croatia has endured a horrific centaury thanks to being in a union with Serbia and Bosnia it does not give anyone the wright to deny its Central European history and orientation. And btw Croatia did not exist 2000 years ago. You are reffering to the Roman Empire. I guess Octavian August was probably Serbian and Attila the Hun was born near Brcko distrikt :)Kontrolleur Cro 02.11, February 7, 2008

You know very little about this topic and you'd better not spread your senseless propaganda about 'Croatia being something much different than Bosnia and Serbia'. Sorry, but you cannot fool anybody anymore with it! Your propaganda is powerless as all the world now knows that Serbs, Croats and Bosnians speak same language, have same mentality, are genetically totally identical and by many scientists are considered to be a SAME nation. That's the truth, and if it's killing you-it's your problem. Whatever you've learned in your school by your HDZ brainwashed teacher from last century is not true. It's just that well known temporar croatian nationalistic propaganda, which nobody in the world takes seriously. Besides its small northern Central European part, CROATIA IS A BALKAN COUNTRY, as well as BOSNIA, MONTENEGRO and SERBIA. Montenegrin coast and Northern Serbia are as much 'central european looking' as croatian coast or Zagreb. Still all those regions, either in Serbia or Croatia are considered Balkan for the rest of the world. Not any lies that you write on this discussion page can change that fact and all other facts you're trying to misinterprete. And, if you want to be better and well informed, go and read about The Balkans on ENGLISH or german wikipedia. English wikipedia is one of most reliable wikipedias, and it presents the facts in a best way, totally truthfully and completelly. Cheers.24.86.110.10 (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename article to Southeastern Europe?

Don't you think this would be a good idea, it seems like most of the people are hanged up on the pejorative meaning of "Balkans" or "Balkanic". As for "Balkans" we can present the etymology of the word and have a short explanation that it refers to countries in Southeastern Europe but it is sometimes considered pejorative by some people. I think it's against Wikipedia's policy to have pejorative terms as a main page when there is a perfect term that's not considered offensive by anybody (as far as I know). -- AdrianTM 03:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That might be a good idea to rename the article to SE Europe. Cheers.24.86.127.209 (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Boarder as far away as Hungary?

Acording to national geographic they have there own little version of the Balkans.

http://www.ngmapstore.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=160&itemType=PRODUCT&iMainCat=6&iSubCat=45&iProductID=160

Please give me some feedback to that map id appreciate it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsombor Toth (talk • contribs) 04:27, 19 November 2006(UTC)

Who is Zeune?

The article mentions someone named Zeune. It doesn't explain who Zeune is, nor does it provide any reference. This is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.200.178 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I added some information about Zeune and a reference.Neven Karlovac 02:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thrace

In the article it is stated that only the European part of Turkey (called Thrace) belongs to the Balkans. I'm a fraid that we have to edit it a bit cause Thrace was a province now split in Northern Thrace (which now belongs to Bulgaria), Western Thrace (which belongs to Greece) and Eastern Thrace (which belongs to Turkey). I checked "Thrace" on wiki and it mentions the same. So i'm gonna edit text here to match the things mentioned in "Thrace: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sairin Lote (talk • contribs) 22:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To Ivan!!!

In Republika Srpska according to government information it lives around 1,4 millions. Of them around 89 % is serbs and that is documented. This means that there are around 1,3 million serbs in Bosnia. And in the federation it lives 2 350 000 and of them 17 % is croats. In RS 1 % of the population is croats which clearly shows that it lives around 400 000 croats in Bosnia.

As for bosniaks, since it lives 80 % in the Federation, this mean that only in the Federation it lives 1 880 000 bosniaks and add 150 000 bosniaks in Republika Srpska, you will get around 2 million bosniaks in Bosnia.

And what is 2 million divided with 3820 000 which is the current population of Bosnia? That is 52 % which makes Islam the principal religion in Bosnia. You WILL say this is only speculation and this isnt official but please, Ivan, tell me:

Is your estimates official? No, they arent! And since we already know the current population of RS (1 479 000) and FBIH (2,350 000) then we also can assume which people are in majority in Bosnia since bosniaks make up 80 % of the FBIH and arond 10 % of RS.

I hope you give me a good answer because if you revert again without refering to sources or give me a fully explanation without only writing "that is only speculations" since your estimates is as much speculations as my is, then I am going to see this as clearly vandalism.

Pozdrav // Alkalada 12:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing [re Croatia]

To all the users trying to imply that Croatia is not a Balkan country as if that were something bad (!) cite your sources. We have sources defining Croatia as a Balkan country [1][2][3]. Are there any sources contradicting?--Domitius 12:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that some international sources claim that Croatia is a part of Central Europe, some say it belongs to the Balkans. So, these sources don’t proof anything really since they all place Croatia in different regions. Most international historians and academics claim that Croatia belongs to Central Europe and the western Catholic sphere. Historically Croatia has been considered to be a part of Central Europe – and most important of all – Croats identify themselves as a part of Central Europe and at the same time recognising the Mediterranean influence in their culture. Croatia and Croats have more in common with the CE than with the Balkans and I really don’t understand why this is even being an issue for some people. --84.217.47.194 (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Croatia

LETS GO ONE BY ONE - Mediterranean -> http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/Thesaurus/00002903.htm UN classifies Croatia into the group of Mediterranean nations. Croatian coastline being more than 5300 km long, confirms this. - Central Europe - through 900 years of Austro-Hungary during which 99% of its present territory was under that republic which was classified as Central European. Proofs:

• http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3166.htm - US officially classifies croatia as in between central and eastern europe, which means it may be in this Central classification since countries that go more East are included (ie Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary)
• The area that is considered more South (south of Sava being the maximum territory of south known as widest value of area of Balkans) makes less than 50% of the territory, and the North which is geographically 100% in Central Europe has more than half of Croatia's territory (50%+X). Not withstanding that area below Sava is still considered Central European too without disagreements up to a point. This is mentioned to pullin for the fact that north and northe west Germany technically are hard to prove central European Geographically, same goes for eastern Poland, eastern Slovakia. (this argument is finalised in the conclusion)

- Balkans - Both Croatia and Slovenia became more Balkanly noted since 1914 due to KSRS and Yugoslavia I and II being formed. Confusion arrises today with the notion of Western Balkans. To see that it is not a firm thing one can go to Lonely Planet http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/destinations/europe/croatia/see and then on the side see a link to Western Balkans book which is basically almost all of old Yugoslavia, Croatia and Slovenia inclusive. So yes, due to the two being both in central and south and eastern europe in some part - it all depends which aspect one allows to predominate. - Eastern Europe - I believe one needs not to prove this.

Conclusion Because, Croatia is not a mere dreamer to be Central European oriented country but has much facts that can support its belonging to CE, and because there are nations recognising its Central European identity this group must allow it to be part of it. Many countries in Europe have more than one "region" For example, Austria is both central and western, it does not mean Slovakia is western nor does it deny it to be central. Logically, there must be like I said some common background tolerating it to be in Central European website, and I believe there is annough. User:aradic-en

Sorry, but nowadays YOU CANNOT PUT SLOVENIA AND CROATIA IN THE SAME BASKET. Slovenia was a Central EUROPE even in the time of former Yugoslavia. It has a distinct culture, with itsown distinct language, different from Serbocroatian. On the contrary, Croatia has always belonged more to the Balkans and Mediteranean with its folklor, language and culture, almost identical to Serbian. Those are the facts of the truth. Cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.110.10 (talk) 22:32, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

This is funny! Croatia and Slovenia have shared the same history since the Slavic tribes arrived to the area and until 1991 when these two states became independent. One can not claim that Slovenia belongs to CE and Croatia to the Balkans. Slovenia and Croatia has more in common historically, culturally, geographically and economically than with the Balkans. The only thing that is different is that Slovenia today is a part of the EU (Croatia will soon become a member too) and that the Croatian language is more similar to Serbian than Slovenian is to Serbian. (However, there are big similarities between Slovenian and Croatian). Croats and Slovenians share the same values as the people in CE – these values are based on the Central European Catholic culture that is dominant in these two countries – while the Islam and the Orthodox culture are dominant in the Balkans. --84.217.47.194 (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you wrote above is an absolute lie! It all sounds like it’s coming from someone who got frozen in time 150 years ago. The things have totally changed since the time when Slovenia and Croatia were both parts of Austro-Hungarian Empire. You need to wake up and face the reality, which is: Slovenia is EU, but Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia are still BALKAN. There is an enormous and natural closeness between Serbs/Croats/Bosnians in their mentality, national instruments, songs, dances, so that many scientists consider them ONE NATION, regardless of their division by the religion (Croats=Catholics, Serbs=Orthodox, Bosnians=Muslim). On the other hand, Slovenians are something totally different than them. In fact, if you really wake up and see the newspapers and Medias around you, you’ll see what Slovenians think of Croatians: - they consider Croats as still not worthy being in EU (see the latest Zmago Jelacic, Slovenian politician’s interview for HTV, see Slovenian prime minister Jansa’s talks in the EU Parliament, where he puts Serbia before Croatia to join EU which is also supported by many other EU countries, see ‘you tube’ on this problem, etc.) No matter how you look upon it, Slovenians and EU nations consider the ‘problematic’ Balkan nations-Serbs, Croats and Bosnians as a same type of people, who fought between themselves for years, and whose national ‘heroes’ from the latest war are filling up The Haag Tribunal of Justice. They are all WEST BALKANS in the eyes of Europeans. Not ANY propaganda of yours can change that fact! Consequently to this, for your big disappointment, -Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia (and probably the rest of the West Balkan) will join EU in an approximate similar time, as they deserve. Regardless of how the things are presented in Croatia, there’s NO Croatian language as a separate or independant language, but only a Croatian standard of the same South Slavic Central System, or formerly known as Serbo-Croatian language, to which also belong Bosnian, Montenegrin, Serbian and Bunjevac standards. That’s a fact. Slovenian language is a totally different language than Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian. This is the fact that EU and all the world serious scientific factors recognize. As for the minor ‘differences’ between these standards, refer to the great article here, at english wikipedia, under ‘The differences between B.C.S. standards of Serbo-Croatian language’. Those ‘differences’ are NOTHING compared to the real differences between Sicilian language and Venetian language in Italy, which are presented both under one ‘Italian language’ in EU. This only shows how pointless your nationalistic propaganda can be and how FAR it is from the European standards for these and similar matters. It doesn’t matter that Croatia has catholic heritage, it’s still dominantly a Balkan and Mediterranean country, (with an area north of Zagreb, which can be considered as a Central European). Similarly, northern Albania has also a catholic heritage, and it’s not Central Europe, but a Balkan and Mediterranean country. And another news that came these days: -the following link confirms that because of stubbornness and not following what EU orders, Croatia is not likely to join EU in 2011, but the latest in 2013. That's how the thing are, and eventually soon all West Balkans will be part of EU! Regarding all this and on the contrary, Serbia is going to become a candidate country for EU very soon, and eventually join EU in the next 5-6 years, or in the almost same time with Croatia, maybe a little after it. The rest of the West Balkan as well. Here’s the link to the exciting news:

     http://see.oneworldsee.org/article/view/150489/1/

    So, best wishes to all enjoy the news and CHEERS!

Sweet dreams,buddy! --Anto (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

you Janezi , simply can not stop! Yes, Croatia is not (still) in EU. Neither you have been alwys! How pathetic! --Anto (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we 'Janezi' (or Slovenians) cannot and won't stop fighting for the truth, and we have all EU on our side. You can only DREAM of joining EU if you hide all the facts with all your BALKAN stubborness. Unless you change your attitude, for Slovenians and all other Europeans you will always be WEST BALKANS. Cheers24.86.110.10 (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC) You'd better see the WONDERFUL MAP OF THE WEST BALKANS, there's a link at the end of the page leading to your beautiful homeland-THE WESTERN BALKAN STATE OF CROATIA! Enjoy.

So pathetic !

That's called sindrome of Liliput:dwarves who pretend to be impotant while they are doing triffles ... And entire EU will certainly not support your fantasies!

You forgot one thing , Janez: You can easily get out of Balkan, but Balkan can't get easily out of you!

Not forget Slovenia diplomatic blamage : (here here )

Croatia will enter the EU one day. You won't be decding about that for sure.

Certainly not some far-right scum Vojvoda Zmago Jelinčič and his fans.

What do you consider about us that's not of our concern. --Anto (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You live in your own imaginary limited world, being against EU and it's views. Croatia is Balkan, (besides being also Central European in some extent) and will always be Balkan, NO MATER IF SOMEONE OF YOU CHANGES THE CONTENT IN THE ARTICLE AND PUTS CROATIAN FLAG OUT OF THE LIST OF BALKAN COUNTRIES. It won't change the fact that CROATIA IS also BALKAN, as well as SERBIA and BOSNIA. You can become a part the EU, only with the other parts of West Balkan region. IT KILLS YOU, BUT SLOVENIANS AND OTHER EUROPEANS WOULD LOVE TO SEE CROATIA AND SERBIA ENTERING TOGETHER IN EU. So, stop dreaming and try to accept the reality. Cheers.24.86.127.209 (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What you and your "Vojvoda" think about Croatia is important for NO ONE! Neither what you think about yourselves. In the July you wil realize that.

Just some things

• SLOVENIA: GERMANY OF THE BALKANS
• Croatian -Kajkavian and Slovene are mutually inteligible. more than 80% .So much about distinguish Sloven language.
• Your way of writing here (insults , giving etiquettes etc. ) speak enough about you and you "culture" which so "different" from the Balkanic
  • • Some examples : "cro-nazi pathetic stuborness" , "YOU-MENTALLY UNSTABLE LIERS"

Ha, ha, just keep dreaming. You are what the world sees you and that's what EU and all the world thinks about you. As for Kajkavian dialect, it's just a minor dialect in NW Croatia, which historically belongs to Slovenian language. It has NOTHING to do with your SERBOCROATIAN language, which is based on SHTOKAVIAN dialect. Nobody in Dalmatia, Slavonia, Istria understands kajkavian. Kajkavian is a FOREIGN language for 85% of the Croatians, Capische? You have same language with other Shtokavians on the Balkans, just the religion between you is different. You know these facts very well, and inspite all your failing efforts to hide them, it's good that all the world recognizes them. When you accept the truth and say it loudly, the world will have more respect for you. Until then-you are staying on the Balkans, existing in your isolated world of your own truth. Cheers. 24.86.127.209 (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody block this troll in his personal attacks?? IP 24.86.110.10 ;24.86.127.209 ,

[4] [5]

Lep pozdrav vsem skupaj v zahodsko deželo!

))

--Anto (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you continue changing maps, replacing flags and spreading lies on Wikipedia, -YOU will be the one who will be blocked very soon. As for YOUR OFFENSIVE WORDS-"Lep pozdrav v ZAHODSKO dezelo", it just shows you balkan mentality and primitivism, and that should be a reason more why you should be banned from Wikipedia. Cheers.24.86.127.209 (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Tell me ,Boris... is the weather in Vancouver so very bad??

Vancouver's weather is not of your bussiness, and all of you efforts to remove the croatian flag from the list of the Balkan states-will will not change the BALKAN character of Croatians. Chirs; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.127.209 (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Pozdrav domovini! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.2.199 (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha, you've vandalized the flags of the Balkan countries again! That's so pathetic and I'm sure many people start to feel sorry for you guys. By the way, we'll see who will be laughing last, and it certainly won't be you; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.127.209 (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors might be interested to see the proposal accepted at Talk:Central_Europe#Proposal_II, which has Croatia as sometimes considered part of Central Europe. I take that to mean that it's generally considered part of the Balkans. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No that takes to say that Croatia is sometimes Balkans. Croatia is a floating bridge, considered South, Mediterranean, Central, and Southeastern Europe. The shape of the country is responsible for this odd feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokin (talk • contribs) 07:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Serbian troll from Canada

A certain guy(Serb living in Canada) using the addresses 24.86.110.10 24.86.127.209 and similar ones is proveoking on couple articles related to Croatia.

At some articles he pretends to be "Dalmatian" and on some other articles "Slovene". See this contributions , rhetorics and so on:

[6] [7] --Anto (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

To the cro-nationalists at wikipedia:

There's not any 'provoking' by releasing the truth and exposing the facts in wikipedia. Wikipedia is a neutral and reliable source of truth and not any senseless croatian nationalistic propaganda will change that. You can write whatever you want in your isolated chapter of 'croatian' wikipedia, nobody reads it anyway. But you cannot spread your lies to other wikipedias; Nobody normal will tolerate a wikipedia, which is blown up with your ignorance of the facts and your presenting lies on it. Wikipedia is the last place on the world any nationalists should write. And sorry, but the only 'trolls' here on wikipedia are you:-a few frustrated and isolated croatian nationalists, who get always into a conflict with the rest of the world. Cheers.24.86.127.209 (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro isn't a country anymore

So, in History and geopolitical significance section, Serbia and Montenegro should be corrected, and some new facts added (recent continuation of EU talks). I myself can't do it as I don't have wiki account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.129.120 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Montenegro

This map still shows Montenegro as a part of Serbia. It is now an independent country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.61.98.24 (talk) 17:34:21, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

The name

Umm, today I heard an interesting info about the name Balkan. I was told that it means honey and blood in Turkish, which would be a very interesting fact to unclude (it's also a very suitable name lolol). The info is totally unsourced, but if anyone's interested, you could do a little search about it... Who knows, maybe it really means honey and blood (I don't know about the mountain). --INkubusse 18:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

When travelling through the region, I read the same thing at the Ron Habib exhibition in dubrovnik. Checking the translations at http://www.seslisozluk.com/ In Turkish Bal does indeed mean honey, and Kan does mean blood. Given the natural beauty of the region, its abundance of natural resources, and its tumultuous bloody history, there may well be something in that. (84.9.159.156 (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

Media mention

This article quoted from and discussed today by local Denver talk show host Mike Rosen on KOA radio. I see it is already sprotected but wanted to give a heads up for possible disruption anyway.--Ginkgo100^talk 16:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Principal religion

So what does means "principal religion" statistically? If you say that principal religion of Bosnia and Herzegovina is Islam what does this means? I am 100% sure that there is more christian people than Muslim, I am 100% sure that there is no religion that has more than 50% of BH population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.96.195 (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

WEST BALKAN countries news page.

All the West Balkan countries: Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania have a fast growing common West Balkan 'Agenda', including premier summits (the newest one was in Dubrovnik, Croatia, in November, 2007), regional sport events and manylateral colaboration summits in many areas of the region. Also there are many news web pages presenting news from all the parts of The West Balkans. One of the most popular West Balkan news web pages is: http://see.oneworld.net/article/frontpage/148/2582

Regards, and Cheers. 24.86.110.10 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

24.86.110.10 you have forgotten to include Slovenia into the West Balkans! After all Slovenia has always been considered as part of thee Balkans.Cheers

Kontrolleur Cro 02:18, 7 February 2008

No, you are wrong, Slovenia has NEVER been a Balkan country, and will never be. Slovenia is CENTRAL EUROPE. The borders of the same Balkan environment and same Balkan people's attitude,(or the borders of The Balkans) begin when you cross the border between EU and Croatia. Typical Balkan countries are all the countries of The West Balkans: Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Macedonia. Sometimes as a Balkan country is presented Hungary and Moldova. Like it or not, those are the FACTS. Cheers.24.86.110.10 (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

CROATIA is BALKAN, that's why it is a part of WEST BALKANS, together with Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania. Read a little and get informed. The truth is everywhere. Greetings; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.170.129 (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Too many pictures

This article contains too many pictures of the Balkans. It is clutering the page with useless information such as regioinal organizations. --Damir H. (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Balkans history

In the slideshow showing the history of Balkans,the Kingdom of Yugoslavia is shown with Istria and the Slocenian coast,however,they were Italian territories 1918-1943. 78.3.23.38 (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.23.38 (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Serbia an Montenegro???

These two countries separated 2 years ago, the map is old and quite provocative... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.144.39 (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a map showing the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It is important because it was called "Yugoslavia". The country then renamed itself to Serbia and Montenegro. Someone does need to change the year though - it was called "Yugoslavia" until 2003, not 2006. BalkanFever 10:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicities

There are ethnicity maps from the late 1800's and early 1900's but could someone find a current map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.209.139 (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A beautiful map of The West Balkans

This map of the West Balkans was published in 'Jutarnji List', a Croatian newspaper these days. You can see all the countries belonging to West Balkans, and their progress on their way to EU. The text is in SerboCroatian. Enjoy: http://www.jutarnji.hr/EPHResources/Images/2008/03/04/kartavelika.jpg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

True, the map is rather refined. --George D. Božović (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110555/Balkans

Balkan Peninsula easternmost of Europe's three great southern peninsulas, comprising Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, and Moldova.

The Balkans are bordered by Italy on the northwest, Austria and Hungary on the north, Ukraine on the north and northeast, and Greece and Turkey on the south. The region is washed by… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.2.146.32 (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Map: undue weight

I wonder why does the map at the top of the page use the Soča-Krka-Sava boundary if that is not aligned with the most common definition of the Balkan Peninsula? This seems biased to me. According to the section 'Ambiguities and controversies' the most commonly used border is a line formed by the rivers Danube, Sava and Kupa. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I've switched the position of images. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for current common definition section

How about we change this section from being a list to a paragraph? That would remove the strict distinction between countries considered to be in the Balkans and those sometimes considered to be, and might perhaps stop the edit warring. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just passing by, but it seems that this article is plagued by vandalism. There was a link to a 'catfight' site that has been removed now, where there should be the 'Political history of the Balkans'. I tried to find the original in the history, but couldn't find it. It seems it was previously 'Animated history of the Balkans from 1800 to the 2006'. Does anyone know where to find this? Amrad (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that Image:Balkans Animation 1800-2006.gif? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of Albanians

I changed number of Albanians in Balkans from 8.0m to 6.4m. I got new number by adding numbers for Balkan countries in page about Albanians. I guess this is ok now. Numbers for other ethnicities may be wrong too, but not too much. Strahinja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.8.10 (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Somebody changed it back, but left no coment. I am sure that 8m is wrong. At Albanians total number is 8m, which includes Albanians out of Balkans. Strahinja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.8.10 (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Need help on this. Somebody changed it back again. It is obvious that I am right here. Strahinja. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.8.10 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually you were correct to assume the 8million mark.

ALBANIAN 4.3 MILLION

KOSOVO 3.0 MILLION (THIS NUMBER INCLUDES REGIONS ON KOSOVO'S BORDERS : PRESHEVO, BUJANOVC, MEDVEGJA)

MACEDONIA 0.78 MILLION

MONTENEGRO 0.038 MILLION

ALBANIAN POPULATION IS FROM 8.1-8.3 MILLION

AND NO OFFENSE BUT THE ARTICLE DOES COME ACROSS AS BIASED, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF WIKIPEDIA TO EDUCATE NOT TO MISINFORM

EITHER INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY.... IT'S INCORRECT TO HAVE KOSOVO INDENTED UNDER SERBIA; BELGRADE HAS NOT HAD ANY ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION IN OVER 8 YEARS, AND IN ADDITION THE TERRITORY SECEDED FROM SERBIA... REGARDLESS OF WHO RECOGNIZES IT AS A COUNTRY IT IS NO LONGER APART OF SERBIA... THEREFORE IT IS MORE FAIR TO PLACE IT SEPARATE WITH YOUR REMARKS IN PARANTHESIS SIGNIFYING THAT IT ISN'T A UN MEMBER IN SUMMARY THAT'S FINE, WRITE YOUR COMMENT IN PARANTHESIS WHICH I AGREE IS FAIR BUT DON'T INCLUDE IT UNDER SERBIA INDENTED.

I DONT WANT TO SEE INFORMATION THAT'S INCORRECT REGARDLESS OF THE NATIONALITY IN QUESTION.

BE FAIR!

THANKS.

--APNYC5 (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

YOUR SURE THAT IT IS WRONG? WHAT KIND OF JUSTIFICATION DO YOU HAVE??? "YOU JUST KNOW ITS WRONG??" YOUR A COMPLETE IDIOT CHANGE IT TO 8.1-.8.4 MILLION THAT IS THE RANGE OF THE POPULATION... STOP POSTING THE SAME COMEBACK.... PROVE ME WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT IT ISN'T 8.1-8.3 GET YOUR FACTSSS.... GO READ A BOOK JACKASS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.252.217.99 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that shows the 8M Albanians in the Balkans? Adding up the numbers of all the Balkan countries (including the numbers of the countries of the regions you mentioned) adds up to ~6.3M. Provide a source or it will be deleted. --Buffer v2 (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

On your talk page you claimed that Kosovo + the regions of Presevo, Bujanovc, and Medvegja make up 3M... this can't be true because those three regions of Serbia only have a population of 100,000. Kosovo - 1.8M Albanians (2.1M total population). Without any sources, you don't have an argument. Sorry --Buffer v2 (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

...

THIS ARTICLE IS CLEARLY BIASED, KOSOVO WAS DECLARED INDEPENDENT ON 2/17/08, IT IS NO LONGER PART OF SERBIA. SLAVS FROM THE BALKANS ORIGINATED FROM BELARUS AND UKRAINE, THEY ARE NOT INDEGINEOUS TO THE REGION... WHY DONT YOU CORRECT THISPAGE AND STOP INJECTING INFORMATION THAT CLEARLY SWAYS ON SERBIA'S SIDE.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by APNYC5 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved your comments to the bottom of the page. Just because Kosovo declared independence, doesn't mean that that it is recognized by the international community - after all, there are a number of self-declared republics in the world, many of which have received very little or no recognition. Should we call the breakaway regions of countries like Georgia and Moldova countries as well? No. Until the international community comes to a decision, its status is desputable. As of now, only 40 countries have recognized Kosovo and Kosovo is not a UN member, which is why it is bulleted under Serbia, and tagged with a "sovereignty disputed" line, which is sufficient and speaks the truth as of now. No one is "siding" with Serbia, and listing it as a country with no side notes would be in violation of NPOV. --Buffer v2 (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction regarding Slovenia

Per the most common definition of Balkans as outlined in the section 'Ambiguities and controversies' Slovenia lies almost entirely outside Balkans. In the section 'Current common definition' it is listed among the countries commonly included in the Balkans. Therefore, either the former or the latter section must be wrong. Slovenia cannot lie outside the Balkans and be included in the Balkans at the same time. The section listing the countries commonly included in the Balkans is quite unreliable imo. It relies on a single and tertiary source.

I also want to point out that some information discussing Slovenia was recently removed[8] due to its vagueness and being unsourced. That does not necessarily mean it was wrong. I don't urge for it to be reintroduced without proper sourcing but I find it important that people discussing this article keep it in their mind in regard to the first paragraph. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest the content of that section changes about twice a day anyway so wait a while and it'll no longer be there! The main problem is usually with Croatia though. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Slovenia and Croatia problematic is explained by both being in Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary, and considered (fully and sometimes respectfully) Central European under definition on Central Europe website. These arguments are old and have been repeated and forced on so many times on this page that if those consider themselves less Balkan and geography may tolerate that since neither geographically 50%+ on the Balkan peninsula, why is there a problem with them being listed as sometimes. For God sake, France is classified as alpine nation yet touches just a part of it, yet people reaffirm that and so they are not simply sometimes but simply are Alpine country. Similarily, it seems that From Bosnia and Herzegovina to Greece there is much less debate on them being Balkan or virtually none. People confirmed the geographical possibility. In Slovenia, Croatia, and Romania whereas in Austria, Hungary and Moldova, people dislike, rarely or not at all feel attached to the Balkan notion. Everything else is being a force. As far as politics, the old argument goes: Austria-Hungary, then Yugoslavia, then Slovenia's entrance in EU changed the "border of fully" Balkan...what will happen once Croatia joins, and then Bosnia and so on? Point of this mumbling is to follow the Central Europe discussion suit. Those countries that were considered Balkan for longest time, have stronger affection to the notion, and most often considered the Balkan be the first group. The second should be the one that in someway or another was considered or is considered Balkans but not always, where people are not selfidentifying as Balkan, where historically they might have even been off the Balkan map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.240.171 (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There's not any problem. By any means Croatia is a Balkan country, and Slovenia is not a Balkan country. That's so simple. The borderline between Balkan and Cenral Europe is actually -the border between Croatia(Balkan) and Slovenia(EU). Cheers24.86.127.209 (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In most circles, Slovenia is considered Balkan... having been part of Yugoslavia... I don't really understand your comparison: the EU drawing a line where the Balkans are. The EU is an organization, the Balkans, a geographical region. One has nothing to do with the other. The south-eastern borders of the EU do not draw the line of the Balkans. You're comparing apples and oranges. --Buffer v2 (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I am comparing 'apples to apples', I just didn't clarify the meaning of 'EU'. 'EU' in this case is used as a short for 'Europe' or rather 'Central Europe' and its cultural presence. Not everything that states 'EU' means necesserily 'European Union'. The flexibility of the writing in this language allows us to use a variety of 'shorts' and slogans. So, after this my clarification of the things, everything should be clear. Chiirs.24.86.127.209 (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

SLOVENIA WHERE, IS AND WILL BE BALKAN!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.192.63.188 (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha, you can keep on dreaming. Slovenia is part of EU since 2004. Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia are WEST BALKANS and will be it for a while. That's the FACT, it kills you, but it's a FACT, and no clueless comments from frustrated individuals can change that fact. Cheers.24.86.127.209 (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Geographically, Slovenia is not in the Balkan peninsula, not one square meter of it. It's a part of the Central Europe. Zenanarh (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

While I personally don't find any problems with how Slovenia is handled in this article, as it's not mentioned as a part of the Balkans, but it IS mentioned as a country that is often included in the definition. That definition is by pretty much all accounts wrong, as a few decades in a mostly-Balkan country don't really stand above the centuries of being an integral part of Europe, regardign culture, laws, reformation and counter-reformation, the enlightenment, literature, etc. And yes, while geographically, a part (roughly 1/3) IS situated in the Balkans, as a whole, there's really no valid reason to view it as a Balkan country.Wikingus (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradictions regarding Croatia

Here one may provide evidence and reasons to move Croatia from generally to sometimes considered Balkan. The reason this section is seperate from any previous ones is because it tries to organise the problem and clarify statements.

Terms All messages that do not refer to an evidence presented will be removed. All messages that promote hatred, discrimination, ultranationalism, disrespect of others, and insults will be removed. All statements must refer to a source someone or one has put forward, stating how it contributes to the issue (eg. Croatia is identified as a Balkan state. Croatia is not identified as part of the Balkans. etc) You may propose new spheres of evidence.

I believe we can keep this organised and civilized, yet I ask the administrators to help in case violators are erasing statements of other users that did not violate the terms stated above. Also, until more is written here to allow a note next to Croatia saying somethhing in the lines of "debatable" as a form of arbitrary position.

Please lets keep this organised so write under the subject, or add your own subject.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokin (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

History, and Culture articles (not including maps)

Stating Croatia is a Balkan country

• Britannica Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Encarta Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Columbia ("most of Croatia") Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Stating Croatia is not a Balkan country

• (write here)

Geographical maps

Stating Croatia is a Balkan country

• (write here)

Stating Croatia is not a Balkan country

• (write here)

1991-Today articles

Stating Croatia is a Balkan country

• Economist Cordless Larry (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Washington Post Cordless Larry (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• New York Times Cordless Larry (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Stating Croatia is not a Balkan country

• (write here)

Official Government websites (of other countries)

Stating Croatia is a Balkan country

• (write here)

Stating Croatia is a not Balkan country

• Government of Canada ("central European and Mediterranean country") Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• US State Department ("situated between central and eastern Europe"; doesn't seem to describe any country as "Balkan" though) Cordless Larry (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

International Organisations

Stating Croatia is a Balkan country

• UNHCR Cordless Larry (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Stating Croatia is not a Balkan country

• (write here)

Question: what if they don't state whether Croatia is Balkan or Central European (or whatever else) at all? Surely they can't be used as an argument. BalkanFever 14:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Presumably we're only including articles that specify Croatia's location. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, we could add a reliable source on infrared spectroscopy because it doesn't state Croatia is a Balkan country. Changed the list to "stating Croatia is not a Balkan country" —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalkanFever (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I always learned that geographically, the Balkans ends with the city of Rijeka, and not Trieste. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

One question: is there any definition of the Balkan Peninsula who doesn't mention Croatia? All the definitions I read until now don't miss to include Croatia though. --Olahus (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The describing of Croatia as a "Mediterranean country" doesn't negate the fact that this country is located (completely or partially) in the Balkan Peninsula. Montenegro, Albania and Greece are Mediterranean countries too. --Olahus (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, being Mediterranean doesn't exclude the possibility of a country being in the Balkans, just as it doesn't exclude Spain from being on the Iberian Peninsula, or Israel in the Middle East, or Tunisia being in North Africa. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. --Olahus (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Croatian people do not find it offensive when you tell them their country is on the Balkans, but find it amusing when someone says the word without checking various sources. Unfortunately, there's hardly anything to do about that, since propaganda does it's work. More then once, I've seen and read about foreign individuals, sociologists, journalists, psychologists, travellers, philanthropes, stating how wrong it is to culturally mix Croatia with it's eastern neighboring coutries. It's akin to saying Basques are Spanish just because they share the country. Croatian people want to be distinguished from the balkan countries more to the east, because it creates erroneous judgments and prejudice. It's not in the least fault of Croats that the term "Balkans" has a pejorative meaning in political sense. It's different, becaause the word "Iberian" has no political meaning attached to it. Since Croatia truly is on the crossroads between mediterranean, central europe and the balkans, it's peculiar geographic position requires Croatia to be more precisely classified.

Citing sources which do or do not classify Croatia as a balkan country will get us nowhere. Croatian people do not divide other as whether they live north or south of Sava river. If you come to areas of Croatia that are not classified as part of the balkans, yet call it "balkans", you're making a cultural and geographic mistake. Croatia is not fully on the balkan peninsula. Therefore, it cannot be valid to fully classify it as such. If a large chunk of a country is located in some other region, than it requires more proper classification. I repeat, there are some various sources that deny Croatia it's balkanic position, these are not fully valid, because they deny the existence of Croatian territories south of Sava river. More important, however are various sources which do not deny Croatia any of it's proper classification markings, yet make it clear that the country itself must be in one way or another distinguished from it's neighbours to the east.

Such as this one written by completely unbiased journalists:

"Serbia looks and feels Western to an extent if you don't scratch the surface. And either way it is, of course, European.

Still, Serbia is non-Western even on the surface in ways that are hard to articulate. Perhaps I could figure out why if I spent more time there.

It was startling to go from Serbia to Croatia. Croatia is much more Western, and I was surprised by how in-my-face that abrupt change hit me upon arrival in Dubrovnik. It's hard to articulate why because I spent less than a day in Croatia, but the West is home for me, and I know home when I see it."

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/06/a-dark-corner-o.php

There are many sources and examples which make similar conclusions observing the Croatian cultural marks. The sound of Croatian folklore music, the difference between urban and rural areas, typically less pronounced in Croatia (a typicaly non-balkan cultural mark), but strongly accentuated when moving eastwards and southwards (a strong indicative on being located in Eastern Europe, including the balkans), the genetical studies which reveal a strikingly different distribution of haplogroups in Croatian people, pointing to different origins of present day Croats, the centuries of being politically tied to countries not considered a part of the balkans (such as present day Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Italy) etc., all support this.

Making people race around with contradictory sources will not solve this dispute and will, either way, lead into more controversy and creation of politically incorrect articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.45.47 (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I repeat the question I altready put above: is there any definition of the Balkan Peninsula who doesn't mention Croatia? All the definitions I read until now don't miss to include Croatia though. --Olahus (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Those sources are listed on this very page. But pinballing around with yes, no, yes, no sources will get this discussion nowhere. The very Wikipedia articles define Croatia as part of the western world, in various maps taken from various sources. Geographically, a part of Croatia is on the balkan peninsula and part is not. But Croats hardly ever a make distinction among each other between "balkanic" and "non-balkanic" people, with regard to proper geographical position (namely the Sava river, which partly flows through Croatia and splits it between two wider regions geographically). Croatia is often disputed because of it's historical political ties to non-balkan countries and it's close spiritual ties to vatican as well as massive adherring to Roman Catholic Church. The fact that various sources erroneously define Croatia as a country of the balkans, without mentioning more precise geographical location is a bad argument. When making proper, precise denomination as to where the country itself is located, it's only politically correct to add that a part of the country is on the balkan peninsula proper geographically, which is undisputable, is most always listed as part of the "western world", again, hardly a disputable fact, had a history of being politically tied to other countries, both non-balkan and balkan ones and for these reasons it is not and cannot be properly classified, without some further, however small explanation of it's distinctivenenss. Ommiting such explanations will only cause Croatia to be wrongly classified, because the ambiguities about the geographical, political, religious, cultural, traditional, modern etc. inclusions of the balkan regions do exist. The criticisms of this side to the article do not argue with the inclusion itself, rather the fact that, in it's present state, article leaves some unnecessary ambiguities. They will not be solved by listing various sources, quite probably written by people who have never had a chance for meeting the very culture of nations mentioned in the article, by either being in those countries or at least making various reading from less famous, but more precise sources. Therefore the article in it's present state, is, at the very least, overly generalistic and requires further clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.24.141 (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Are those issues not already covered in the ambiguities and controversies section? That said, I'm increasingly of the view that the current common definition should perhaps be removed altogether since there clearly isn't a common definition. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"That said, I'm increasingly of the view that the current common definition should perhaps be removed altogether since there clearly isn't a common definition."

YES! I do see that much of it is covered in ambiguities and controversies which is a pretty fair and politically correct thing to include, as it does make an allowance for differentiating the purely geographical criteria (by which countries like Slovenia, or Romania cannot be included), from cultural (in which there are lots of contradictions such as Slovenia being mentioned due to it's associations with ex-Yugoslavia, Romania because of it's southeastern European location and adherrings to the Orthodox Church, Croatia being only partly included geographically, associated with former Yugoslavia, but adherring to the Roman Catholic Church, making them usually clasified as part of "Western World" and having no strong political connection to it's neighboring countries to the east prior to 20th century due to the Austria-hungary vs. Ottoman Empire division, Croatian not being a part of Balkan Linguistic union, Bosnia having a history of Islamic Religion, and being a part of both Ottoman Empire and Austria-hungary at various points in history, etc.). Moreover because balkans is hardly a homogenous cultural area, having in it's area many completely unrelated languages such as Slavic, Albanian, Greek etc., and various official and minority religions. As clearly shown, it causes a lot of controversy and a lot of fights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.24.141 (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: show me please a definition of the Balkan Peninsula who exclude Croatia. Besides, the parting line between the western world and the eastern world is not located somewhere on the west of the Balkan Peninsula, but directly through this peninsula (e.g. the partition of the Roman Empire and the Great Schism). The term "Balkan" doesn't denote just the Eastern culture and the belonging to the Balkan Peninsula is not a criteria to exclude a country from the culturally Western World. --Olahus (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"I repeat: show me please a definition of the Balkan Peninsula who exclude Croatia" These are already listed on this page. One is sufficient to destroy the pressumption that Croatia is "always" considered a part of it, and there is more than one. It's most certainly not considered a part of it always and by all criteria.

It's already on this page. The objection is towards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.49.10 (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, there are too many pro's and some contra's for Croatia being a Balkan country. The truth is somewhere in the middle. The truth is that Croatia is not as 'balkanic' as Serbia, and that Croatians are more western oriented than Serbians. So I appologize if I offended some Croatians writing here with my 'pushing' Croatia to the Balkans. The only reason for doing it is the same based language of Serbs, Bosnains and Croats, which tells that they have originated from a same stock. But still, during the history many cultural differences have developed between them, so they are quite different today. I respect and love Croatia and Croatians, as a south slavic nation, but I am still against any propaganda of the croatian nationalists and all nationalistic inclinned articles on croatian wikipedia. For the sake of my croatian friends and my clear mind, I apologize for all the bad words I have used defending some facts about Croatia, Dalmatia, Yugoslavia, B/C/S language in some of the discussion pages on wikipedia, etc. It was in most cases a reaction to the sarcastic remarks and the obvious ignoring the factual state from the other side. I am really sorry for my 'fights' with some nationalistic inclinned croatian members on wikipedia, for fights and mutual offences won't dissolve anything. Finding a compromise about the different opinions is what should be done. I will try to erase all my offensive words on the pages pointed as 'hot discussions', and I won't expect from the other side to do the same. By the way, who cares if Croatia is Balkan or Central Europe, maybe it's best to be considered as 50:50. However, the fact is that Croatia will be soon a part of European Union, as a forerunner of the other south slavic countries in the region, which are 75% , 80% or 100% on the Balkans, such as Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia, etc. Regards.24.86.127.209 (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Geographically, a half of Croatia is in the Balkan peninsula, the other half is Central Europe. Croatia is usually classified in both regions. Culturally, Croatia or its parts through history, was usually distinguished between 2 identities: Central European and Mediterranean; Byzantine Empire never really influenced Croatian lands, although there were some connections in Medieval: weak vassalage of Dalmatian cities, very loosen connection since it only enabled developement of political autonomy of these cities. It didn't affect culture. On the other side Serbian lands before Ottoman expansion were strongly tied to Byzant, which is obvious in the church arts, traditions etc... Opinion often heard among modern Croats that the Balkans is somewhere to the east is nothing but continuation of the same historical feeling that Byzant is somewhere to the east.

the same based language of Serbs, Bosnains and Croats - in 19th century there was pan-Slavistic movement, at first coming from Croatia but soonly spread on other countries. One of its results was developement of hybrid language "Serbo-Croatian", as it was called during Yugoslavia ages. This hybrid was based on dialects from the mixed zone of 2 languages: Stokavian Ijekavians populating Montenegro, Herzegovina, Bosnia,... More far to the past, there was Old Church Slavonic language (modern name) in the Medieval ("standardizied" by Byzantine scholars Cyrril and Method) recorded mostly in the Ortodox Christian church literacy, mainly in the Eastern Cyrrilic Medieval scripts. Traces of that language can still be heard in old Serbian Ortodox singings and psalms. Historical Croatian dialects Chakavian and Ikavian were recorded in the Glagolithic and Western Cyrrilic scripts and based on Old Croatian language, not Old Church Slavonic. Different word pools of these 2 archaic idioms led to modern differentiation of 2 modern languages: Croatian and Serbian. Word pool of Old Croatian was shared among Ikavians, Chakavians and Kaikavians, even Slovenian language developed from the same branch that was also parental to the Old Bulgarian, more than to Medieval Serbian (Serbs were one of the Stokavian Slavic tribes). Because of pan-Slavism in the 19th century, standardization of Croatian language based on Stokavian speech (Croatian Stokavian forms like in Dubrovnik) was managed by replacing the original Old Croatian words with other, like Turkish exonyms (Turcisms) borrowed from the hybrid idioms spoken in the mixed zone. That's how Croatian and Serbian became closer in last 200 years more than ever before.

Differencies should be respected. It joins people together. Insisting on artificial equalty split them apart. Respect for different culture, different (but parrental) language, different roots is the only way to realize how similar we are, all the people on the Earth. Zenanarh (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well written Zenenarh; I would just add that alhough our nations became different in some extent during the history, they still have the common south slavic roots, a fact which was used as a basis to create a common (for some people a 'hybrid') state in the past. Anyhow, both attempts to save that common state (Yugoslavia) failed, mainly because of the cultural differences (western-catholic vs. eastern-othodox). Still, the stanard languages of our nations nowadays, which are based on the same- Shtokavian dialect (croatian, bosnian and serbian)-are very close and completely mutually intelligible. We (Serbians, Croatians, Bosnians, Montenegrians, Dalmatians and Bunjevacs) can understand eachother without any problem, we can watch eachother's TV programs and listen to eachother's folk and pop music-like they're our own, and it can surely be a tie that, besides all recent 'misunderstandings' from the last century but also with a full respect to the cultural differences between us, will slowly re-connect all our nations closer and closer when they all join EU in the near future. Cheers and Regards. 24.86.127.209 (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Albanian Religion

ALBANIA IS NOT MUSLIM AND SHOULD NOT BE THOUGHT OF THAT WAY. IF YOU GO THERE YOU'LL REALISE THAT THEY DO NOT PRACTICE ANY RELIGION. IT PISSES MOST ALBANIANS OFF WHEN THEY ARE CALLED SOMETHING THAT MOST OF THEM ARE NOT. ALBANIA WAS THE FIRST EVER ATHIEST STATE IN THE WORLD, CHECK YOUR RESOURCES. [User: Americanidol111] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanidol111 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether the state itself is "Muslim" or "atheist" is not the point - the list is about the dominant religion. The CIA World Factbook states that 70 per cent of Albanians are Muslims, so it is the dominant religion and I've reverted your removal of Albania from the list. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

False accusations of "removing content"

There is no such country as "Kosovo" but rather only a province of Serbia called Kosovo and Metohija. Any mention of so-called "Kosovo" is a blatant provocation and violation of Serbia's territorial integrity !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.86.19 (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Uzes

Who are the Uzes, mentioned as an ethnic group that lived in the area? The link Uzes redirects to a town in France. I'm assuming that it's not related. 69.95.235.226 (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea about the ethnic group, but it can't have anything to do with the French bit; the list doesn't need to be exhaustive, so I've removed the item from the page. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5