Talk:History of the Balkans

Cleanup

I was about to cleanup the article, but was stopped. There are clear problem tags at the top. This article is not suited for intricate detail — summarization of content is needed. @Jeppiz: any comment?--Zoupan 15:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea but given that it's a sensitive area, I'd recommend outlining what you plan to do and check that people agree. Jeppiz (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup. Summarize. Clear overview sections. Add actual sources and references. There are countless links in See also for those wanting detail [not suitable here].--Zoupan 15:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, the grammar needs a lot of attention.104.169.29.171 (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of the Balkans

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of the Balkans's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "EarlyMedievalBalkans":

• From First Bulgarian Empire: Fine, John. Early medieval Balkans. ISBN 0-472-08149-7.
• From Simeon I of Bulgaria: Fine, John (1991). Early medieval Balkans. ISBN 0-472-08149-7.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2023

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: not moved. Consensus that the term "Southeastern Europe" is not widely used for the region discussed in the article; it was also observed that even when "Southeastern Europe" is used, it tends to have a different geographic scope than "the Balkans". (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

---

History of the Balkans → History of Southeastern Europe – I do not see the clear scope of the article, and being titled as "History of the Balkans" neither the poor definition in the very short lead as "The Balkans and parts of this area are alternatively situated in Southeastern, Southern, Eastern Europe and Central Europe. The distinct identity and fragmentation of the Balkans owes much to its common and often turbulent history regarding centuries of Ottoman conquest and to its very mountainous geography.[1][2]". As first, the term "Balkans" is ill-defined and controversial confusing term which is steadily being replaced by more accurate and acceptable term Southeast Europe/Southeastern Europe hence on Wikipedia we should not promote the term Balkans more than needed. As second, there's no distinct identity, fragmentation is part of a much wider political and sociological context studied by Balkan studies/Balkanology (which is mostly popular in Eastern Balkans and also called as South-East European Studies). As third, current article is heavily overlapping with Prehistory of Southeastern Europe hence with additional medieval and modern history this article is literally "History of Southeastern Europe". Perhaps in the current article something about the idea of the Balkans etc. can be added in the modern history sections (and lead as "The history of Southeastern Europe, or the Balkans, ...", but the whole scope and title should not mention the Balkans per se. As fourth, there is no article History of West Europe, History of Central Europe (just a redirect to Central Europe), History of East Europe, History of South Europe etc., so it is confusing there's one for Southeastern Europe and even more named as the "Balkans". Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Not really an improvement. "Balkans" is sufficiently recognizable, even if imprecise. "Southeastern Europe" is less common and has a different range, e.g. is Ukraine part of "Southeastern Europe"? I haven't really seen the term used outside of prehistoric studies (where it has a different geographic meaning, e.g. it definitely spills over into Ukraine, which is part of Cucuteni-Tripolye, but also normally excludes Illyria, which follows the Cardial pottery route rather than the Linear pottery route). I would prefer trimming some of the prehistoric content of this article down a bit, but keeping the current title of the article as is. Walrasiad (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine has nothing to do with the Balkans and Southeastern Europe and there's no point of using as an example prehistoric cultures which aren't following modern divisions of Europe. The Balkans could be sufficiently recognizable but not its meaning because there is no one definition of the Balkans.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You're the one who brought prehistoric history up. That's the only place I've seen the term "Southeastern Europe" used with any frequency. I agree it doesn't coincide with the Balkans. That's why this page (which is not merely about prehistoric Balkans) needs to remain at the current title. Walrasiad (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

No, the article Prehistory of Southeastern Europe was brought because of the title (the content is secondary). And no, Southeastern Europe is often used in scientific literature regarding ancient, medieval and other periods (e.g. Florin Curta's book Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages which is widely quoted here on Wikipedia). I don't understand your reasoning, that's the issue with the term Balkans - it is a seriously ill-defined term, made up to include basically everything needed from an ideological and political viewpoint, usually based on 19th century. It does NOT coincide with geographic criteria for a peninsula neither has only geographic meaning such as Southeastern Europe.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that 'Southeastern Europe' in a purely geographical sense does not line up with 'Balkans'—blindlynx 14:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

No. Balkans are integral-central-big subset of Southeastern Europe - it IS the same - yet it doesn't include parts of Southeastern Europe important to the understanding of history from prehistoric to modern times and politics of the whole region including the Balkans (like Hungary). Balkans don't line up geographically with anything, it is ill-defined, limited, outdated anthropological-cultural-political misconception about the "Balkan" people/countries from the 19th century, influenced by various viewpoints on Ottoman held territories and (Greater) Serbian academia. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose When people hear "The Balkans" they know where that is on a map. I've never heard anyone refer to that region as Southeastern Europe or remember reading it in a book or peer reviewed paper. I think the problem is in part that there's more then just geography at play. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

They don't, Balkans is ill-defined term. It is unbelievable that someone didn't hear or read the term Sourtheastern Europe by 2024. Wikipedia has articles titled Southeast Europe and starting with Southeastern European. Romanian historian Florin Curta's Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250 is widely cited on English Wikipedia, as are other books using such terminology in the title and text. Google Books search (Southeastern Europe has 42.800.000; Southeast Europe 7.850.000; Balkans only 5.340.000 results). Scientific peer-review journal ([1]) published by Brill among others, and much more can be found through most simple and fast Google search.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• oppose Without evidence that 'Southeast Europe' is more recognizable or commonly used than 'Balkans' this is not an improvement—blindlynx 02:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It isn't only about the recognizability or common use - it is about quality, style and language. With the Wikipedia promoting such a term like the Balkans there's won't be much improvement as well.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

You haven't presented evidence for that either, Either way it is WP:RGW unless 'south east europe' is recognizable or commonly used—blindlynx 13:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

See comment above for more details and evidence/claim can be found in the article of the Balkans and Southeast Europe themselves. Considering all the opposing comments by now, which are showing a significant lack of knowledge and understanding of the topic as if didn't even read the related articles the Balkans and Southeast Europe, am coming to the conclusion that editors without proper knowledge and understanding of the topic shouldn't even give a vote. Otherwise this request move is becoming meaningless.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither of the two sources used for this claim in either article support this claim in full.

Bideleux and Jeffries say:

Some writers on the Balkan Peninsula claim that ‘the “politically correct” term Southeastern Europe has more or less replaced the Balkans, because it has become impossible to define a country as “Balkan” without having to explain oneself (Goldsworthy 2002: 34). Other specialists on the region argue that the overarching transformation in the region since the end of Ottoman rule has been the (re)conversion of ‘the Balkans’ into ‘South-eastern Europe’ (Todorova 1997; Lampe 2006). The major problem with such views is that the expression ‘South-eastern Europe’ refers to a much larger area which nearly always also includes Turkey, Cyprus and Moldova and perhaps ought also to include Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan, which also have strong (albeit variously contested) claims to be considered part of Europe. If (as we believe) these countries can be included in a ‘Greater Europe’ defined in functional and empirical terms, rather than on the basis of outmoded cultural, religious or racial prejudices and preconceptions, then they are manifestly located in the south-eastern part of it! We therefore continue to refer to the Balkan Peninsula as ‘the Balkans’ because that remains the name which most immediately and precisely indicates to most people the region under discussion.

and Altic ultimately concludes that both are problematic and begrudgingly settles on Croatia being in the 'western Balkans' —blindlynx 14:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It is kind-off explained alright. Anyway, thanks for trying to understand & citation. People still have significant misunderstanding of these two terms. I guess it is needed much longer discussion between editors who are more informed about the topic or willing like you to understand it.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah i think the first step is expanding Southeast_Europe#Definition and Balkans#Southeast_Europe to better reflect the sources particularly Altić (i was struggling a bit with the Croatian so i'm not comfortable citing it but it has a detailed account of the challenges and benefits of both terms)—blindlynx 19:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/103699 sorry forgot to share this —blindlynx 19:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Also read "https://journals.openedition.org/balkanologie/741" and "https://journals.openedition.org/balkanologie/745" (1999), and "https://www.berghahnbooks.com/downloads/OpenAccess/MishkovaEuropean/MishkovaEuropean_07.pdf" (2017) for beginning, and then other literature and so on showing the popularization of the term (of course checking Google Books). Southeastern Europe is a better term geographically/conceptually, while the Balkans for some specific cultural aspects/studies or as narrow subset term for Western and Eastern Balkans division. With the term Southeastern Europe is more emphasized heterogenous culture, languages and else of people/countries. Meanwhile with the Balkans a more homogenous/common culture, languages and else of people/countries, but the issue is that is based on outdated 19th century perspectives and narratives because of which the objective value of "Balkanocentrism" and "Balkanism" is highly disputable.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Also check things like this "Mapping Balkan – Southeast European studies", while for Western Balkans check in English "The meaning of the Western Balkans concept for the EU: genuine inclusion or polite exclusion?".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The Routledge Handbook of Balkan and Southeast European History (2021) - a region that was previously known as the Balkans but is now better known as Southeastern Europe.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

i'll take a look, thank you—blindlynx 21:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the scope of the article is clearly defined. Again I see no evidence of "Balkans" being replaced by "Southeastern Europe" or of the term being controverisal or ill-defined. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't because the Balkans are not clearly defined, and conceptually Southeastern Europe has a better/wider meaning, with the Balkans being only a subset or subsets (depending on the definition) of the Southeastern Europe. This information can be literally found in the article Balkans and Southeast Europe. It is common knowledge. It is utterly pointless getting opinions without prior making a minimal effort to read and understand the topic in question.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

You're the only here expressing opinions. I still see no evidence from English-language academic literature of the points you argue. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Omg... I give up. Commentary by editors as if are "living under a rock", without basic common knowledge and info available in the related articles as well as three clicks away (including your Romanian Florin Curta; and "Definitional Dilemmas: Southeastern Europe as 'Culture Area'?" among many other acaddemic liteature, EU and other organizations using, discussing, replacing it), this became utterly pointless. It is so stupid it cannot be more stupid. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

References

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.