text:
The Boxer

"The Boxer" is a song written by Paul Simon and recorded by the American music duo Simon & Garfunkel from their fifth and final studio album, Bridge over Troubled Water (1970). Produced by the duo and Roy Halee, it was released as a standalone single on March 21, 1969, but included on the album nine months later (at the time, songs that had been released this far ahead were rarely included on the next studio album). The song is a folk rock ballad that variously takes the form of a first-person lament as well as a third-person sketch of a boxer. The lyrics are largely autobiographical and partially inspired by the Bible and were written during a time when Simon felt he was being unfairly criticized. The song's lyrics discuss poverty and loneliness. It is particularly known for its plaintive refrain, in which they sing 'lie-la-lie', accompanied by a heavily reverbed snare drum.

"The Boxer" was the follow-up to one of the duo's most successful singles, "Mrs. Robinson". It peaked at No. 7 on the Billboard Hot 100. It performed well internationally, charting within the Top 10 in nine countries, peaking highest in the Netherlands, Austria, South Africa, and Canada. Rolling Stone ranked the song No. 106 on its list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time.

Creation and recording
The original recording of the song is one of the duo's most highly produced and took over 100 hours to record. The recording was performed at multiple locations, including St. Paul's Chapel (Columbia University) in New York City and Columbia studios in Nashville on a 16-track recorder.

The version originally released by the duo features an instrumental melody played in unison on pedal steel guitar by Curly Chalker and piccolo trumpet. The song also features a bass harmonica, played by Charlie McCoy, heard during the second and final verses.

In a 2008 edition of Fretboard Journal magazine, Fred Carter Jr. recounts to interviewer Rich Kienzle:

I had a baby Martin, which is a 000-18, and when we started the record in New York with Roy Halee, the engineer, and Paul [Simon] was playin' his Martin—I think it's a D-18 and he was tuned regular—he didn't have the song totally written lyrically, but he had most of the melody. And so all I was hearin' was bits and pieces while he was doin' his fingerpicking... I think he was fingerpicking in an open C. I tried two or three things and then picked up the baby Martin, which was about a third above his guitar, soundwise.

And I turned down the first string to a D, and tuned up the bass string to a G, which made it an open-G tuning, except for the fifth string, which was standard. Did some counter fingerpicking with him, just did a little backward roll, and lucked into a lick. And that turned into that little roll, and we cut it, just Paul and I, two guitars. Then we started to experiment with some other ideas and so forth. At the end of the day, we were still on the song. Garfunkel was amblin' around the studio, hummin’, and havin’ input at various times. They were real scientists. They’d get on a part, and it might be there [unfinished] six weeks later.

On my guitar, they had me miked with about seven mics. They had a near mic, a distant mic, a neck mic, a mic on the hole. They even miked my breathing. They miked the guitar in back. So Roy Halee was a genius at getting around. The first time we were listenin', they killed the breathing mic. And they had an ambient mic overhead, which picked up the two guitars together, I suppose. And so, I was breathin', I guess, pretty heavy in rhythm. And they wanted to take out that noise, and they took it out and said, 'Naw, we gotta leave that in.' That sounds almost like a rhythm on the record. So they left the breathin' mic on for the mix. I played Tele on it and a Twelve-string, three or four guitars on it. I was doing different guitar parts. One was a chord pattern and rhythm pattern. Did the Dobro lick on the regular six-string finger Dobro—not a slide Dobro.

I never heard the total record until I heard it on the air... I thought: That’s the greatest record I heard in my life, especially after the scrutiny and after all the time they spent on it and breakin’ it apart musically and soundwise and all of it. There was some magic in the studio that day, and Roy Halee captured it. Paul and I had a really nice groove.

The song has only one drumbeat, played during the 'lie-la-lie' refrain. The session drummer Hal Blaine created the heavily reverberated drum sound with the help of producer Roy Halee, who found a spot for the drums in front of an elevator in the Columbia offices. The recording of the drum was recorded as the song was being played live by the musicians. Blaine would pound the drums at the end of the "Lie la lie" vocals that were playing in his headphones, and at one point, an elderly security guard got a big surprise when he came out of the elevator and was startled by Blaine's thunderous drums.

Hal Blaine recounted the recording process: "There we were with all these mic cables, my drums, and a set of headphones," says Blaine. "When the chorus came around—the 'lie-la-lie' bit—Roy had me come down on my snare drum as hard as I could. In that hallway, by the elevator shaft, it sounded like a cannon shot! Which was just the kind of sound we were after."

Lyrics
The song's lyrics take the form of a first-person lament, as the singer describes his struggles to overcome loneliness and poverty in New York City. The final verse switches to a third-person sketch of a boxer: "In the clearing stands a boxer and a fighter by his trade, and he carries the reminders of every glove that laid him down or cut him till he cried out in his anger and his shame, 'I am leaving, I am leaving,' but the fighter still remains."

The chorus consists of repetitions of the non-lexical vocable "lie-la-lie". Simon stated that this was originally intended only as a placeholder, but became part of the finished song.

"I didn't have any words! Then people said it was 'lie' but I didn't really mean that. That it was a lie. But, it's not a failure of songwriting, because people like that and they put enough meaning into it, and the rest of the song has enough power and emotion, I guess, to make it go, so it's all right. But for me, every time I sing that part... [softly], I'm a little embarrassed."

It has sometimes been suggested that the words represent a "sustained attack on Bob Dylan". Under this interpretation, Dylan is identified by his experience as an amateur boxer, and the "lie-la-lie" chorus represents allegations of Dylan lying about his musical intentions. Biographer Marc Eliot wrote in Paul Simon: A Life, "In hindsight, this seems utterly nonsensical."

Bob Dylan in turn covered the song on his Self Portrait album, replacing the word "glove" with "blow." Paul Simon himself has suggested that the lyrics are largely autobiographical, written during a time when he felt he was being unfairly criticized:

"I think I was reading the Bible around that time. That's where I think phrases such as 'workman's wages' came from, and 'seeking out the poorer quarters'. That was biblical. I think the song was about me: everybody's beating me up, and I'm telling you now I'm going to go away if you don't stop."

It was during the recording of "The Boxer" that Art Garfunkel met his future first wife, Linda Grossman. As he recalled: "I invited Linda to the studio that night… we were working on 'The Boxer.' She was reluctant, but she thought she'd try it. She came, sat over the engineering console, with her chin on her wrist, staring at me, Paul and Roy for four hours. She was going to know everything. I was impressed and flattered. I like people who third-degree me, who stare at me, I feel they're interested. And we went out afterwards, and I was very charmed and we dated a lot. It took us about three years though before I had the courage to ask her to marry me." They divorced in 1975, with Art later claiming he never really loved her.

During a New York City concert in October 2010, Paul Simon stopped singing midway through "The Boxer" to tell the story of a woman who stopped him on the street to tell him that she edits the song when singing it to her young child. Simon told the audience that she removed the words "the whores" and altered the song to say, "I get no offers, just a come-on from toy stores on Seventh Avenue." Simon laughingly commented that he felt that it was "a better line."

On June 3, 2016, at his concert in Berkeley, California, Paul Simon again stopped singing partway through "The Boxer", this time to announce in one sentence breaking news: "I’m sorry to tell you this in this way, but Muhammad Ali passed away." He then finished the song with the last verse: "In the clearing stands a boxer and a fighter by his trade…"

Additional verse
"The Boxer" was originally written with a verse that is not present in the Bridge over Troubled Water version: "Now the years are rolling by me— They are rockin' evenly. I am older than I once was, And younger than I'll be. That's not unusual; No, it isn't strange: After changes upon changes We are more or less the same; After changes we are more or less the same."

This verse was performed by Simon & Garfunkel on tour in November 1969 (this version of the song is included on the Live 1969 album), and sometimes by Simon in solo after the duo's breakup (on his Live Rhymin' album and on Late Night with David Letterman in 1987). The duo also added the verse on Saturday Night Live in 1975 and when they reunited for The Concert in Central Park in 1981. On March 30, 2020, Simon released a YouTube version dedicated to fellow New Yorkers during the coronavirus pandemic including this verse.

Reception
Upon the release of "The Boxer" as a single, Cash Box described it as a "spectacular side" and said, "First half of the ballad is in the haunting S&G folk style, but the production touches increase to build this track into a heavy fading 'Jude-ish' closer." Billboard said that Simon and Garfunkel have "a sure fire chart topper in this infectious rhythm ballad with a compelling lyric line."

Cover versions
Cover versions of the song have been recorded by numerous artists, including Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, Bob Dylan, Neil Diamond, Emmylou Harris, The Samples, Leandro e Leonardo, Paula Fernandes, Tommy Fleming, The Celtic Tenors, Bruce Hornsby, Cake, Jonne Järvelä, Waylon Jennings, and Jess & Matt.

Joan Baez has also made the song a staple of her live concert performances, from the late 1970s to the present, including once in Italy with the Italian songwriter Francesco De Gregori, who was also singing this song during his concerts; Baez performed the song with Paul Simon and Richard Thompson at her 75th Birthday Concert at New York's Beacon Theatre in January 2016.

Simon sang the song to open Saturday Night Live on September 29, 2001, the first live show following the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.

In 2007, Simon was awarded the inaugural Gershwin Prize by the Library of Congress; Jerry Douglas, Shawn Colvin and Alison Krauss performed "The Boxer" live. Also in 2007, country music artist Deana Carter released a cover of the song on her sixth studio album, The Chain, which was recorded as a duet with Harper Simon.

The Bluecoats Drum and Bugle Corps performed "The Boxer" as the ballad for their 2008 show "The Knockout", and it has been a recurring encore tune for the corps ever since.

Jerry Douglas and Mumford and Sons collaborated with Paul Simon on a cover of the song in 2012. It was included on Douglas' album Traveler, and on the deluxe edition of Mumford and Sons' album Babel.

title: The Boxer


text:
China Baseball League

The China Baseball League (, CBL) is a professional baseball league under the administration of Chinese Baseball Association, founded in 2002. The league suspended operations in 2012 due to financial troubles after the 2011 season, but returned in 2014. The league closed in 2016. The 2018 season was the final edition of China Baseball League after the establishment of the China National Baseball League. The league restarted in 2023.

Stadiums had standard dimensions of 98m, 122m, 98m. Teams also participated in five-game tournaments throughout the year such as the National Baseball Championships, the National Youth Baseball Championships and the Cross-Straits Baseball Tournament.

In May 2023, 5, the 15th China Baseball League restarted with 10 teams kicked off in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province. The league consists of three sub-stations in Wuxi, Chengdu, and Tianjin.

Clubs
The original four teams were the Beijing Tigers, Tianjin Lions, Shanghai Eagles and Guangzhou Lightning. The Hope Stars and Dragons joined them in 2005. The Hope Stars were an under-21 team of promising players from around the country. Henan Elephants entered CBL as an expansion team in 2009.

History
The first season ran from April 26 to May 25, 2002 with a one-game championship.

In the 2004 season, the defending champion Beijing Tigers once again defeated the Tianjin Lions in the best-of-five finals. They came back from an 0-2 deficit to win the series 3 games to 2.

The opening day of the 2005 season was April 1, 2005. The regular season ended on June 26. In the 2005 best-of-five championship series, the Beijing Tigers swept the Tianjin Lions, three games to none, giving the Tigers their third straight title. (The 2005 championship series was abbreviated to three games due to SARS.)

In 2014 the CBL returned with a six-game regular season with four teams - the Tigers and Pegasus in the North Division and the Leopards and Lions in the South Division. In the finals the Tigers defeated the Lions in the best-of-three finals two games to one. hotStar United began sponsoring the CBL in 2014.

The 2015 regular season featured six teams from Division 1 playing 15 games each. Division 2 teams played six games each. The Jiangsu Pegasus swept the Beijing Tigers two games to none to win their first-ever championship.

The 2016 China Baseball League opened on May 5 at the baseball base in Wuxi, Jiangsu. The new season of the China Baseball League has a longer schedule than previous years, with more games, and the number of participating teams has increased from a minimum of 27 to 6. The 10 top domestic teams consisting of Beijing Tigers, Tianjin Lions, Shanghai Golden Eagles, Jiangsu Juma, Sichuan Jiaolong, Guangdong Cheetahs and Group B teams will play nearly 10 fierce battles in the league.

The 2016 China Baseball League was divided into two stages: the regular season and the finals. The regular season will run for ten weeks, with 30 rounds and the finals lasting two weeks, using a best-of-five format, with the team that wins three games first to win the championship. Every weekend, from May 5 to September 3, the baseball league will feature nine pinnacle showdowns in three different cities. The six Group A teams will play a two-game home and away round-robin match. The four Group B teams will also strive to finish sixth in Group A and secure promotion places next year.

On May 5, 2023, the 15 China Baseball League with 10 teams kicked off in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province. The league consists of three sub-stations in Wuxi, Chengdu and Tianjin, with a total of 2023 matches.

On May 5, 2023, the 26 China Baseball League ended its first leg in Wuxi, and Shanghai Red Eagle won the championship with nine victories.

On June 6, 2023, the 5 China Baseball League Chengdu Station ended, and Jiangsu Juma won the championship

On July 7, 2023, the 18 China Baseball League Tianjin kicked off, Sichuan Jiaolong defeated Guangdong Cheetahs 2023:5, Jiangsu Juma narrowly defeated Shandong Blue Whale 4:9, Beijing Tigers defeated Shanghai Red Eagles 8:7, and Tianjin Lions at home defeated Henan Wolf Warriors 6:7.

On July 7, 2023, the 28 China Baseball League Finals kicked off at the Tianjin Tuanbo Sports Center Baseball Stadium. In the first match, Jiangsu Juma, who finished at the top of the league standings, failed to continue their good form, losing 2023-3 to Shanghai Red Eagles. On July 7, the second game of the 29 China Baseball League Finals was held at the Tianjin Tuanbo Sports Center Baseball Stadium on the 2023th, and the Shanghai Red Eagles defeated Jiangsu Juma 29-3 to win the overall championship of the season with a total score of 0:2.

Partnership with Nippon Professional Baseball
In 2007, the CBL began a support relationship with Nippon Professional Baseball, Japan's baseball league. The agreement allows the Japanese clubs to send coaches and players to China and Chinese players to train at the Japanese facilities.

All teams will have a Japanese team as a partner. Beijing will pair with the Yomiuri Giants, Sichuan with the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks, Shanghai with the Hanshin Tigers, Jiangsu with the Chiba Lotte Marines and Guangdong with the Hiroshima Toyo Carp. Tianjin will continue its existing relationship with the Yokohama BayStars which began in 2005.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: China Baseball League


text:
Talk:Balkanization

Unnecessarily exclusive sentence?
The second sentence of the article, first paragraph states "Balkanisation is a result of foreign policies creating geopolitical fragmentation,". It seems unnecessary to note that it is from foreign policies, especially in the first paragraph. This process could happen from domestic policies as well. Didn't want to remove it without understanding the purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.153.218 (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that the point may be that the people of the Balkans are of different ethnicities and religions, often pointed to as causes of conflict. The geopolitical underpinnings for those differences are either demonstrably not local, or are very likely not to be local.

meaning of paragraph
Balkanization today is spontaneous, easy going and amicable despite its notorious reputation. It is happening as we speak to corporations, to international law, to Antarctica, to Mexico, to America, to Commonwelth, to Europe, to the empire of the Alexander the Great, to department stores, to congretional voting districts in America, to languages, to Spice girls, to Gremlins, to no-man's lands, to air space, to Berlin wall, to light refraction and more to come.

Does any care to offer a thought on what this last paragraph means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.129.4 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 April 2005

Better term than Balkanization for languages?
I believe there is a better term than Balkanization for the divergence of languages over time. It includes the word "Babel" if I remember. Does anyone know the term I am referring to?

Should Balkanization be captialized?
I capitalized Balkanization twice for the sake of consistency, as it seems to be acceptable both ways -- does anyone have a reason to have it uncapitalized? I don't know much about the word...Lady~Macbeth 02:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * According to wiktionary and the Collaborative International Dictionary of English, no. According to WordNet, yes.  Various sites non-authoritative sources on the Web use it differently (some capitalized, others not).  I think it should not be capitalized because it is not a noun; but perhaps English allows it to be because English is often strange -- I'm not sure.  I lowercased all the uses before I saw the WordNet definition. -Pgan002 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the term comes from describing the historical situation in the Balkans, I generally prefer to capitalize the word. However, there is no consensus on this and either is considered correct. --RealPaulVee (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternative
Ah yes, that would be the Tower of Babel incident. The Big Man is a crafty genius!

Balkanization in Spain
In Spain, some right political leaders and opinion journalists use this term to advert the dangers that can bring separatist parties in some regions, specially in Basque country and Catalonia and about their language policy.

Another connotation
We use this term in Central Europe in entirely other connotation. There is a good example for Balkanization.

Public letter of Sabin Gherman a Romanian from Transylvania (Sabin Gherman - chairman of Pro Transilvania) originally appeared in Monitorul de Cluj:

I am fed-up with Romania!

by Sabin Gherman

I am fed-up with John Doe (Transl. note: in romanian Mitica), with the smartarseness and with the Gypsy-like behaviour that are associated to this country name, Romania. I talk to several politicians who hold the power and all of them tell me that "we have no chance whatsoever"(Transl. note: to join modern Europe). I read in the newspapers and find that the government took care to give more funds to Bucharest than to the entire Transylvania, from the '98 revenue. I drive the car South and East and I notice the difference: there are better highways there, funds are always pumped in there. I wait in line at the revenue office, at the state-owned bank, at anything state-owned and tips are given everywhere. Bribes. Payola. Turkish habits, which one cannot do without.

So what? I don't want to emigrate, just because nothing has been done in ten years. I'm just fed-up with Romania. With its synonyms. With its heroisms taken out of any historical context. Other nations show their pride in Michelangelo or Da Vinci, whereas I'm shown the letter of Neacsu from Cimpulung (Transl.note: the first document written in Romanian, dated 1521 and sent by Neacsu to the Saxon mayor of Brassó, Transylvania, with reference to Turkish war ship movements on the Danube). What a fantastic achievement, this delation! (Transl, note: a quotation from Ion Luca Caragiale) If I regret anything at all now, at 30 years old, it is that I was born here, that I am among those who had been taught in school that this people, - "the beoble" (Transl. note: another quotation from Ion Luca Caragiale), Gentlemen, was in a permanent erection in front of history. What people? We, who hadn't shown virility at least once, we, who were packing up in times of invasion and ran for our lives to the forests, we, who were fainting in the halls where history was being decided (Transl. note: reference to the Romanian Foreign minister's faint, when he heard the Vienna decision in 1940, returning Northern Transylvania to Hungary), we, who nowadays scream for a piece of bread and don't know what more tricks to invent.

Here we are, bum-patched, elbow-ripped, we enter history as if a filthy pub in the neighbourhood. Between two burps and a swearing, the people (the beoble, gentlemen!), talk fiercely about Posada (Transl. note: the pass where King Karoly Robert of Hungary lost the battle in 1330 after being attacked from the back), about Michael The Brave (Mihai Viteazul, prince of Walachia, or Muntenia, who conquered Transylvania and Moldavia at about 1600), about "Long live and prosper Moldavia, Transylvania and Muntenia!" (Transl.note: historical provinces of the nowadays Romania). And yet another victorious burp. I'm fed-up with being ashamed of myself. That's why I tell my Western friends that I am from Transylvania. Altra paese. Other country. L'autre pays. I'm fed-up with being told by all non-Transylvanians that here, in Transylvania, I have troubles with Hungarians. That, weren't they... That hunger is the mother of wisdom. That federalisation is the most terrible danger watching me, stalking on me around the corner of the tower of flats along to the mugger whom I pay taxes for. That I ought to tighten the belt, as if Nasreddine's donkey (Transl.note: reference to folk stories about Nasreddine Hoca or Hodja). In the name of the "unity" and "prosperity" of the romanian kin. Yet I, who have been waiting for 10 years for a real unity, the unity of Transylvanian parliament members for Transylvania, the civic campaign to save the few that is left.

Yet I, praying each evening to finally come to an end with László Tőkés, with his ethnical aberrations against everyone. (Transl.note: ironical reference to the Hungarian Reformat bishop, the frequent target of Romanian nationalists' attacks). Yet, in vain. So far. Some people carried out the Unification [of Transylvania with Romania] in 1918. Other people put their hopes in a Swiss-type confederation, together with Hungary, Czechia, and Austria. And still others, as Ioan Slavici, said that the unification of Transylvania with Romania is hogwash, and were jailed. Now we can see its outcome. Sobriety, elegance, and discipline - features of Transylvania - were invaded by johndoeisms, by ordinary Balkan habits, by the civilisation of the pumpkin seeds. It was Romania's chance to unite with Transylvania, to learn something from its organisation, from its systems of values. It did not happen so; Romania swallowed Transylvania - this is why nowadays one can slide every three yards on the saliva spat on the great boulevards. It is not myself who says this, but someone equal to God, Cioran (Transl.note: Romanian born Emil Cioran (1911-1995), active in France as a writer). Many will throw in their two cents to argue the aforesaid. But: how many of you didn't go to Bucharest with your filled bag, with the famous wovenbag, stuffed with bottles of hard drink? And you didn't bring it to your friends, but to chief executive officers, to ministries, to high places behind closed doors. And if, naive as you are, you didn't carry those bags, how many times weren't you warned that one enters Bucharest with one's head, since your hands are busy with "luggages". Bucharest, this place where the phthisic genius kisses the billionaire illiterate, taught all the country that "one is given". "Meat is given", "Eggs are given". One is given. Mollusk attitude.

One has no rights here, only conventionalities. Here one eats pumpkin seeds, one uses to talk like: "there is many", and people generally are born, spawn, and die. They haven't learned anything from Hungarians, they haven't learned anything from Austrians, they haven't learned anything from Germans. Too early they switched from "forktion" (Transl.note: a quotation from Vasile alecsandri; an ironical reference to snobs, who, having no good French skills, thought enough adding the -tion suffix to the Romanian word furculita=fork, to get its foreign version) to "Romanian brigades pierce through Carpathians!" (Transl. note: the marching song of the royal Romanian army when in 1916, after two years of neutrality, attacked the Hungarian held Transylvania, but withdrawn soon, after 3 weeks, because of military failure). Maybe this is why the bravest "defenders" of Transylvania were born beyond the Carpathians. Maybe this is why Europe ends somewhere near Braşov (Hungarian: Brassó). There's where Transylvania ends as well. Since, besides language and poor highways we have nothing in common.

We will have to wake up. To admit that what happens now is a comedy. But one in which your children ask you for a chocolate, and you just raise your shoulders. In which, tremblingly, you always look for a recommendation for anything. In which you whisper round corners about the villas of policemen, or of parliament members. A world doomed to borrowing from one salary to the next one. We will have to see that it can be otherwise. That we are different. That all the evil comes from Bucharest, from the luxury palaces, where politicians dispute the bone without any shame at all. We will have to see that it's not Hungarians, or Germans, or people of Burundi those who are our enemies, but ourselves, who live from one day to the next one, doomed to steal and swear around corners. We have nothing what to tell each other anymore, we have been doing this for 75 years (Transl. note: since 1918 when Transylvania was united with Romania) and we are 75 times poorer now. Otherwise, have nice days - I'm fed-up with Romania, I want my Transylvania!

(Sept. 16, 1998)

Bendeguz 11:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * That is irrelevant, "The Balkans" are an area, hence refering to ordinary Balkan habits is refering to the habits of the people living in that area. It is unconnected to this word Balkanization.

EAi 23:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed section
''Dr. Bernard Lewis developed a Balkanization concept where Western governments would help to spread Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, and how this would trigger a surge of Islamic nationalism among Soviet Muslims and lead to a collapse of the Soviet Union. This theory was put into action in Afghanistan, where massive U.S. aid to the Mujahadeen and other Muslim fundamentalists in Pakistan helped lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. In a textbook example of blowback, this plan also elevated Osama bin Laden to an influential position among Muslim fundamentalists, and led directly to the establishment of Al Qaeda, the organization alledgedly responsible for the September 11th attacks against the United States. This balkanization plan also helped to trigger the Chechnyan separatist movement in which Russians and Chechnyans are currently embroiled.''

This is complete rubbish.

The US supported Afgh. to contain the USSR. Military failure in Afgh. helped bring down USSR by demoralising the army - NOT because fundamenalist Islam in Afgh. led to a fundamentalist revival in the USSR! accordingly, the follow on arguments about blowback are rubbish. Toby Douglass 16:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mangled grammar => meaningless sentence?
What does "No American urban planning to describe the process of how gated communities are created" mean? I can't parse that sentence. Should "No" be replaced with "The term Balkanization is sometimes used in?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Kosovo
I suggest we add Kosovo into the map that shows the progressive breakup of Yugoslavia. Just a suggestion; I am not good at editing so I will not attempt it ;). 58.165.70.117 (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian entities
Could someone edit the map so that two constitutional entities (Republic of Srpska and Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina) be visible after 2005? There's no reason to not show them, because they are visible prior to 2005. and no changes happened in territorial or constitutional composition of Bosnia and Herzegovina from that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.173.46 (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's been 10 years since this comment. But not changed yet. Nothing happened in 2005, the entities still exist in 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.15 (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Undoing recent edit
The following text was added in a recent edit. It looks like some sort of school essay or presentation. It probably contains several points worth making, but in its present form it is not suitable for the article. I leave it here for editors' consideration. FTR, I am a registered editor but I am not logged on as I was just looking something up quickly. 83.70.233.68 (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

''There recently used to be one capital city, of the former Yugoslavia, and now there are eight capital cities. All these new capital cities are not only confirming their status, they are actively remaking themselves, what is most interesting, as distinct from each other. To be distinct is, within the framework of capital making, seen as most positive. Between all eight capitals of nation states, but as well as emerging regional capitals of provinces, we are witnessing a process of self-determination to be seen as distinguished from the others, and not to be against each other.''

''Making a capital city may be one of the most positive aspects of Balkanization as a process, which came out of rampant and brief history of divisions. I argue that this process can be seen through the lens of the discourse of distinction. The discourse of distinction, goes beyond the esthetic theory of an urban form, or architectural space as the issues of taste are involved. My other argument is that making a capital city distinct from each other may be much closer to research the advent of the sublime in the process, over beautiful.''

''At the same time, reading this paper shall have in mind Pierre Burdieux definition of the distinction and class. Especially the claim that when the subordinate classes may seem to have their own particular idea of 'good taste', "...[i]t must never be forgotten that the working-class 'aesthetic' is a dominated 'aesthetic' which is constantly obliged to define itself in terms of the dominant aesthetics..." Due to the demise of socialism in the Western Balkans, the working class of former Yugoslavia and Albania, has today mutated as a different class. In the previous system of liberal socialism, this class was privileged by legal rights when compared to the East Communist Block, but the source aesthetics was dictated by the state. Today this group is largely unprivileged vis-a-vis larger European community including former East Block, however it evades the dominance of Western aesthetics.''

''The most apparent aspect quality of Balkanisation processes is distinction. Seen deeper, it is the normality of the need to be distinct that is taking shape, and that is shaping contemporary Western Balkans, nation by nation and capital by capital. There was only one capital in former Yugoslavia, but now there are eight national capitals, including Prishtina the latest capital city in the region. Thus eight capitals are all, even in different countries, competing to be distinct and noticed, and this cultural competition comes all the way down to architecture and urbanism via the use of iconic symbolism. The positive aspect of this process is of course the emerging knowledge, times eight, about how to be distinct architecturally in the see of sameness. The problem of this aspect is that all the attention is still veered towards a Western European eye and with an immense desire to be excepted as a European with a content based on the right to be different among the nations. The eight distinct approaches by the Western capitals are telling, as none of the eight wants to be the same as the other, thus creating a chorus of distinct voices, or shapes.''

''Balkanisation can be explained by the self-propelled desire for distinction within a densely networked neighborhood, to be distinct from the others nearby, and to find ways and means of achieving this goal, sometimes by any means necessary. But also, according to the Bulgarian historian Maria Todorova, Balkanisation has historical dimension of repeated rejection of its Western christian dimension against the Muslim; the Balkan in the name derives from a Turkish word. Yet, I think that this desire has a profound impact on the layers of physical and virtual interventions above a territory as such and as the one that belongs to many. Today when everyone feels overwhelmed by the fallout idea of designing difference through appearance, like branding does, the Western Balkans do their own thing to distinct themselves among many in a sort of sincere, if not basic way. In my opinion, the emerging Western Balkan capitals, all attempting to be distinct, can serve as good models for the future of Europe to come, which they are part of. At the same time, as a historian Giancarlo Marainello pointed out, Europe always reformulates itself as a consequence of itself having always been fractured. Europe is allegedly based on being divided before being united and its history and reality is the one of managed separations. Sometimes the separations were managed badly, which resulted in great losses, so to focus of how to manage rather than what to manage has come into play many times. The Western Balkans, today dispersed may be analogous to some prototypical state of Europe that makes itself visible as an oddball to the unification trends in the EU. In fact the Western Balkans may just be too close to an analogy of warring states which Europe really wants to leave behind. There, where the theory of European territory, and legality, stops, we have spatial practices and networks across the ethnic nation states in the Western Balkans, which hold true against the divisions. These practices often have cross-national connection as one of their primary mission statements. They are basically practices that are locked in a locality, but that always need to be present somewhere else as well, as a reproduction of the locality. I think that Balkanisation complex of knowledge is a source pool to investigate the future of locality with Europe.''

''Balkanization is an unfinished project, analogical to Modernism itself. The expressions of Balkanization, are sought not just within a built space or urbanity, but as the urbanity itself, and as itself being distinct from any near urbanity. The distinction drive, here takes over from pursuing a common taste alone and the standards of esthetic perception.'' ''Western Balkans cannot be explained by a regular EU terminology simply because this territory would quickly be labelled illegal by EU standards. These standards refer to the EU's own measure of land and sovereignty. However, the EU's insistence on the Western Balkan term somehow works half way and it is an almost all right thing to call the thing. The Balkan in the Western Balkan amalgamation is the remnant of the Turkish presence in one of its pasts. The Western in it is the signifier for the ongoing Balkan's Westernization. This means the legal territorial separation of the land from its geographical constraints; from the geographical Balkans, the Greek Peninsula and etymological Balkans, and from the eponymous mountain ridge departing from Bulgaria. When the geographical and etymological are taken away then there is only Western that remains to be deployed as strategy to situate this piece of Europe within the European Union. On the other hand, there is no agency today other than the International Crimes Tribunal in The Hague that will define how far the Westernization shall go. Thus Western Balkans is always on the verge of being seen as becoming a wild territory within a legal framework, as in the analogy to the Wild West in the American West.''

''But while its history is packed with negative emotion and interpretation, its reality in other worlds than itself and potential for future are seen as positive. Because, a most important issue in making a capital city is the culture that is producing it, its character, and its particularities. In the Western Balkans, there are thus eight capital cities, allegedly enabled by eight distinct cultures. Thus we do not only have the reproduction of difference among the cities, we have a multiple solidification of culture taking shape with the cities as their capital representation.''

''These new South Eastern European capitals are: Ljubljana, Zagreb, Sarajevo, Skopje, Podgorica, Tirana, most recently Prishtina, and most traditionally old capital Belgrade. There are also capitals of existing of emerging autonomous entities, like Novi Sad (Vojvodina), Rijeka (Istria), Brcko (Capital District, US govern), Banja Luka (Serbian entiry in Bosnia) and Kosovska Mitrovica (capital enclave in Kosovo). Each of them, some less, some more, depending on the means are trying to self-fashion themselves as distinguishable from each other, and also as deriving from a different culture base from each other, which they try to prove and solidify in physical form.''

''After almost a century in the shadow of one capital, Belgrade, the detached cities in the Western Balkans felt freed to exemplify a new identity. Priština, for example, which grew rapidly in population during the Balkan crisis of the 1990s, decorated its main street with a miniature Statue of Liberty, and named the street William Jefferson Clinton as a tribute to the American president’s support of their position against then Yugoslav president, Slododan Milošević. Belgrade, meanwhile, built extensive rooftop additions resembling mushrooms, a massive new Orthodox shrine, and a glitzy field of Turbo Architecture in a mix of high-tech and neo-Byzantium styles. The town of Mostar renovated its famous Ottoman-era bridge destroyed by Bosnian Croats in 1995; the city also built a sculpture of Bruce Lee, perhaps the only famous figure not to have harmed any of the three sides in the recent war. Thanks to Serbian refugees from Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo, Novi Sad has doubled in population and privatized a now rich Danube river coastline named Valley of Thieves. Skopje’s new fluorescent cross that overlooks the city is just one more in the vibrant mix of Roman, Byzantium, Ottoman, Communist, and New Orthodox Christian monuments. In Tirana, artist-cum-mayor Edi Rama paints buildings in bright colors and abstract patterns, while in Ljubljana, leading architecture firms imitate Tirana’s lively patterns of colors in their façade designs for high architectural building projects. Also there in Ljubljana, an almost deviant form of city building is reached by huge developments of BTC City areas into becoming the city as well as almost baroque approach to neo-modernism in the work of design offices like Sadar&Vuga. In stark contrast, Sarajevo, renovated by Europeans and Americans together, has become a forgotten town hurt by the heavy brain-drain and sinking into apathy. Nonetheless, the city recently found itself at the forefront of the film industry and a test field for public-private investments in high culture and projects in religious tolerance. And in Zagreb and Croatia coastline, a new neo-modernist awareness sprang up, as well as scores of innovative architectural designs for schools, kindergartens and other places of social standard.''

''This various landscape is today called Post-Socialist landscape. It would not be called such if it were not for the multiple, but systematic opposition to socialist architecture and urbanism. As in Turbo architecture, which grew vehemently against clean modernist forms, Turbo Urbanism may be rising against the clarity of the urban versus rural territory. Thus it may be that the rise of radical forces will be seen primarily in the expression of ambiguity and evasion. Any form of the city produced by the forces of ambiguity and evasions together is struggling with being mapped, but it likely to be legalized.''

''But to remind, though Balkanization is a term of relatively recent derivation, the phenomenon extends several centuries into the past. Fragmentation of the Byzantine Empire into emerging ethnic kingdoms marked the entire fourteenth century on the Balkan Peninsula. The coming Ottoman Empire seized large parts of Byzantine territories, but it had to redraw until the pressure of its own fall. This caused the constant realignment of emerging local borders while the impact of the empire’s full retreat have was being felt. The next working solution was the empire established by the Serbian aristocracy, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, as a modern solution to unify the fragments; it failed during World War II. The last political solution for the unity of the territory was communist. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, masterminded by the Slovene self-thought philosopher Edvard Kardelj, lasted half a decade, a little less than the life-span of its creators. However, the fall of this last empire in the 1990s shows its tight political relationship to both modernization and Modernism as its expression. Thus Balkanization, can be seen as the continuity of the processes seeking particularity, religious fragmentation and finally territorial specificity. The territorial specifics are today protected and guaranteed by the emerging nation states, and their particular looks.''

''It is useful here to rewrite Maria Todorova survey the origins of the name Balkan, of Turkish origin, in the context of its debasement in the Western literature. For two millennia the Greek Haemus was naming the ridge that defines South Eastern Europe. The earliest mention of the Balkan name is from an Italian humanist and diplomat Filippo Buonaccorsi Callimaco from 15th century. He noted that it was Balkan, not Haemus, as how local people called the mountain. The next account is by a Dalmatian diplomat Anton Vranic in 1549, who refused to use the Balkan term, and used Slavic iteration Emo, as well as Stara Planina (old mountain) to refer to the mountain ridge. Next was German diplomat Salomon Schweigger in 1577, also an early translator of Qur’an to German, who used the Turkish Balkan name in his travel accounts, but also Slavic Comonitza. In 1628 the ridge was called Balban, by Martin Grunberg, erroneously ascribing it the the Rhodopes. In 1608 Balkan was used by the Armenian traveller Simeon trir Lehatsi. In French, again by a diplomat, Louis Deshayes de Cormanin, the Balkan is used to denote a mountain with bare cliffs, as opposed to mountains covered with woods. In 1740 it is used by Caiptan Schad. In 1762 Rudjer Boskovic, scientist from Dubrovnik used the Turkish word Balkan for the mountain ridge. More in 1770s follow more usage of the Balkan term by the French travelers, while the Armenian geographers now exclusively use the Balkan term. In the 19th century, Austrian cartographers use Balkan term. The British traveller educated at Cambridge traveling to Constantinople notes the mountain ridge in 1794 as already “debased by the name Bal.Kan.” The ridge previously called Haemus had been considered “classic ground” in the 18th century in British romantic roots and was always called that before. The British travelers prefer using Balkan term for the mountain in the 19th century. The Russian travelers used Balkan term without a problem since 1800, even during the Russian-Turkish war. The Russians add “glory” to the Balkans. There were also revisions of the term, especially by Robert Walsh who mapped the Balkan ridge to be crossing from the Bay of Venice to the Black Sea.'' ''The first usage of the Balkan peninsula was in 1808 by a German geographer August Zeune. Robert Walsh was the first known to use Balkan for a collective territory referring to exclusively Greek priests serving the territory by the mid-19th century. In the second part of the 19th century the term Balkan peninsula is ubiquitous. It is then also called “European Turkey.” This is also the time when a more politically correct for the European standards: South East Europe started to be used by German geographer. It is until this day that the two terms are used connoting the very same territory: South East Europe and the Balkans. South East Europe as the neutral term which would wipe out the divisions, and the Balkan as the common term, which is still used to point out to the distinct nature of its inhabitants.''

''In the Ottoman world the word Balkan was present since 14th century and it came with the invasion of Europe. Bal means mud, kan is Turkish diminutive.'' ''The term Balkanization comes with the increasing use the Balkans with a political connotation. New York Times is the first to publish the term in 1918 to relate to the aftermath of World War I in Europe. It wrongly glues Balkanization to the nationalistic mini-state making, as the states already existed before the WWI, but it solidifies the Balkanization in the political imaginary as the decomposing force, and as nomen nudum, one that has not standing because it has never been validated by a description. However, it became scientifically a valid term in biology to label biological species from a common territory.''

''Beyond its exhaustive refusal to be named, this historic survey of the term Balkanization is used here in order to establish continuity in one aspect to contemporary society. That is a right to distinction, which bring also the right for spatial and iconographic expression, distinguished from other representations. This sudden ‘right’ of course is also often abused to become the right for ulterior national determinations, which come together with the ideology of nationalistic particularity. It is where the ulterior motives finally come out to the surface under the pretext of democracy, or liberation. But it is also where the ulterior energy faces challenges of systems of languages and policies which are top down. And they are productively top down because of the power of managing the dangers of national distinction via a higher order or strategy. This higher order is the one that manages the dispersal and administrates it better than the self-styled mini-efforts of mini-states.''

''This power was the trademark of socialist Yugoslavia, a former entity established in 1943, during the World War II, on the remains of the previous Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Todorova argues that Yugoslavia as a project was in fact the opposite of Balkanization, a unity that reversed the fragmentation. I would like to propose on the contrary that Yugoslavia has embraced Balkanization as it had been done before. It had disguised it behind the liberal socialist image of unity. One of the main aspects of the Yugoslav constitution included official policy of “de-etatization” (literally: the process of dissolving or dispersing central state powers to local and national communities). Being cautious of Serbian unitarism having a capital city within Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Tito and Kardelj gave distinct powers to local political entities in the constitution, which included scales from the neighborhood to republics and autonomous provinces. For example this dispersing policy created Kosovo and Vojvodina with a right to veto state policies. Such amalgamated condition, which allowed Yugoslavia to be a bridge between the sides in the Cold War has often been criticized as unsustainable, i.e. not central enough to remain after its partisan creators from the World War II leave the stage. All former republics are today recognized nation states, Kosovo is today in the process of being recognized as the distinct nation state, while Vojvodina has a distinct political autonomy within Serbia. Instead of a single capital, today there are eight national capital cities and one capital of an autonomous province. They are independent from each other politically, but not fully economically. Thus they all struggle to attract foreign attention and investment, and they all find a particular way of doing it, however routed in the local political powers enjoyed via the Yugoslav policy of de-etatization. Yugoslavia has not only reversed Balkanization, it has made it possible, and at the end productive for all new capitals.''

''The policy of dispersion, imbedded into the constitution of socialist Yugoslavia, was also an engine behind the distribution of equal social programs across the territory of amalgamated nations. This distribution had an instant need for architecture and urbanism. All regional capitals were to have cluster of new social realm, typically made of: a museum, cultural centre, sports center and recreation. Time nine capitals the state thus produced plenty of jobs for architects. Architectural schools were reborn, although only in capital cities and a certain profiling of who is best in what took place. Museum of Revolution were usually designed by Croatian architects, the cultural centers by Slovenian architects and Sport centers by Bosnian architects. Architects from Belgrade were already very busy with housing and office programs, as well as infrastructure, while the school in Sarajevo made its name in historical restoration. Macedonian architects had a surge only in late ‘60s with after the earthquake that left Skopje in ruins. Appointed by the UN, a young team of Japanese architects, already known as Metabolists, led by Kenzo Tange, and supported by Arata Isozaki designed the brutalist master for Skopje and allowed for local architects to express romantic sensibilities in concrete. These examples were rarely included in the pan-Yugoslav monographs.''

''It is the same policy of de-etatization that generated a program for allowing the population to have outdoor recreation across both urban and rural landscapes, without hierarchies. This program gave projects mostly to engineers to build open fields almost everywhere and the law to protect them. For its flexible size and geometry, the handball stadiums were most preferred open space, as the field can be used for smaller games and for soccer. But more importantly the law protected open spaces became socially viable for all sorts of meetings, events and later performances. As most of the fields were done simply, the standards for sport and competition could not be fulfilled. It would make more sense to use the stadiums for cultural and spontaneous public events, especially rock, and later alternative concerts. Thus the open stadiums stood more, and did more, for a mix of population benefiting from the policy of dispersal, than city squares and parks. The stadiums were often, thanks to specific geometry, equally large, or even larger than urban squares. Thanks to non-hierarchical planning, the stadiums could be either centrally located or on the periphery, with equal legal status. The ones centrally located would naturally attract more culturally oriented public than city squares, and so in some alternative sense be experienced as more open and protected.''

Pejorative term
This is most clearly a pejorative term, and it is outright immoral for anyone to make assertions about whether their narrow use is meant to be pejorative or merely one with deeply negative connotations. Briefly, can you imagine "persistent propensity for military defeat" replaced by "Frenchization," for example? No? Well, why would it be any different if a term is applied to an region with misfortune of location, whose conflict was caused repeatedly, over two millennia, by a host of invaders, most often Western and Central European empires? I personally find the section about the "Balkanization of Africa" to be deeply offensive. It is just not okay for a site of such global importance to editorially endorse and promote prejudice.

At sr.wikipedia it is stated that it is a pejorative term and that the article is partly or wholy taken from a book titled "Речник социјалног рада" or "Rečnik socijalnog rada" by the author prof. dr Ivan Vidanović. I will try to find the exact citation in the book mentioned. --Regards, Biblbroks 's talk 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The term is not pejorative as it is used in English and that statement should just be removed. 208.115.153.106 (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a registered Wikipedia user, but I do happen to be a specialist in Modern European History. I wanted to say that scholars in my field (working in English) use this term frequently and without any pejorative connotations or intentions. Maybe this would work better if the sentence said something like, "While some see the term as pejorative,[Serbian citation here], in the English-speaking world it is usually politically neutral." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.205.12 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Balkanization is not always pejorative, but it is a term that born pejorative, and that is still used with negative connotations.:

P.33-36 http://books.google.es/books?id=WZweAIJI0ZwC&pg=PA34&dq=balkanization+definition&hl=es&sa=X&ei=3eaYUp_iD5OyhAeo2oFo&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=balkanization%20definition&f=false

"Balkanization was used by Rathenau to convey an expectation of nearly apolyptic devastation."

...

"He specified what he meant by balkanization: the creation, in a region of hopelessly mixed races, of a medley of small states with more or less backward populations, economically and financially weak, covetous, intriguing, afraid, a continual prey to the machinations of the great powers, and to the violent promptings of their owns passions".

...

"Here Balkanization is not simply parcelation, the creation of small entities, at war with each other; it becomes synonimous of dehumanization, daesthetization, destruction of civilization."

--

More, P.viii http://books.google.es/books?id=sFiEZcSGZcEC&pg=PR8&dq=balkanization+definition&hl=es&sa=X&ei=3eaYUp_iD5OyhAeo2oFo&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=balkanization%20definition&f=false

"Consider the definition of Balkanization as the breaking up of a unit into increasingly smaller units that are hostil to each other."

-

P.37 http://books.google.es/books?id=9IR5KtcEYeMC&pg=PA37&dq=balkanization+pejorative&hl=es&sa=X&ei=LuqYUviMI6jT7AagvYGIBg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=balkanization%20pejorative&f=false

"Furthermore, while it is difficult to deny that the types of problems conveyed and encapsulated in the more obiously pejorative concept of Balkanization..."

---

P.1-3 http://books.google.es/books?id=5jrHOKsU9pEC&pg=PA1&dq=balkanization+pejorative&hl=es&sa=X&ei=LuqYUviMI6jT7AagvYGIBg&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=balkanization%20pejorative&f=false

--Bentaguayre (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the adjective "pejorative." This qualification is not inherent to either its semantic origins nor its original historical meaning (identifying an historical event), nor is there any substantial support to the contrary here. The term "pejorative" itself requires that it apply to some form of rhetorical device or function (pejorative to what, exactly? how?). That device would first need to be identified. Inferring a rhetorical function for "balkanization" would be highly subjective, given the original physical meaning of the term. Lets keep it scientific. Wikibearwithme (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Animation?
Can anyone make the article's main image animate, as the full size image does? It's possible, as shown on the Animation page, but I can't see how to do it. David (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternate way to show sequence of changing boundaries? The animation (that one can only get by going to the other size images) is interesting but I think even that presentation is less effective than possible. The steps to different boundaries is either too slow to notice differences or too fast to absorb the boundaries shown. I think a better presentation would show one image at a time statically with "previous" and "next" buttons so one could control the pace. Fholson 12:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fholson (talk • contribs)

Animation still doesnt´work, please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.148.103 (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Balkanization as foreign policy creating geopolitical fragmentation
Balkanization should not be seen as a pejorative term. Rather it is a term used by foreign powers to divert attention away from its policy of control and subjugation of a population to the effect those policies have had. Even Britannica states "the term Balkanization is today invoked to explain the disintegration of some multiethnic states and their devolution into dictatorship, ethnic cleansing, and civil war." (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/50323/Balkanization) How can a term explain events? Balkanization is a term found in the vocabulary of those outside the Balkans and is a completely strange reason (term?) for people to act in any geopolitical fashion.

If Balkanization is a term to describe geopolitical fractioning then Yugoslavia is a term to describe a unification process when foreign powers leave. Yugoslavia then can mean the expulsion of foreign powers by indigenous groups. So, in simplistic formulism, Balkanization occurred as a result of the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Third Reich and then finally the West. Yugoslavia seems to have occurred after long, complex processes to unite peoples by common language and interwoven histories after foreign powers have left. Yugoslavia was the name adopted by a united and free people - Balkanization is the term used by foreign powers as a set of goals and foreign policies of subjugation. One was adopted by an indigenous population, the other term adopted by foreign powers.

Using this more refined meaning of Balkanization, it can be seen in a more modern sense recently when Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen stated "When technologists began to notice states regulating and projecting influence online, some warned against a `Balkanisation of the internet`" (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/apr/23/web-censorship-net-closing-in) The hidden ground here is that the internet is a free, open and independent network and foreign powers are extending their reach by creating a `Russian internet` and an `American internet` - an allusion to old Cold War habits - and thus worrying Balkanization policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atucovic (talk • contribs) 06:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is Balkanization a "bad" thing?
68.110.127.6 (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Software languages are nothing to do with Balkanization
Te following statement lacks sources. Even if it has sources it is jargon at best. There is not any possibility that this political concept can be applied to computer languages.

Balkanization is sometimes used to refer to the divergence over time of programming languages and data file formats (particularly XML). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.163 (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality
The article seems to take on face value the idea that the term is pejorative, even though the Merriam-Webster definition does not indicate it is considered so, and the other source cited in the intro is in another language and cannot be verified by most editors of the English Wikipedia. It also relies on a single person who objects to the word without offering any other viewpoints or sources, and in such a stubby article this seems to lend undue weight to this person's perspective. It looks like the use of the adjective "pejorative" has been discussed and deemed inappropriate and removed, and whoever added it back in did not give any reason for doing so on the talk page, so I will remove it again. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I get the sense from reading the article that the primary author has issue with the term, that this author is trying to win an argument that none of us are party to by editing wikipedia. This doesn't trouble me at all though, I expect nothing less. Wikipedia isn't renowned as a garbage source without reason.2601:40E:100:1540:9547:B573:FD29:9F74 (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 * How would the creation of ineffective hostile states be neutral or even positive? Anyway, MW is not a prescriptive authority on English and its example are mostly in a negative context which is enough. --Mark Enlightenment (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

 * The sentence "Non-controversial, non-locally referencing, much older terms are separatism and its stronger analogue, secessionism" in the lead is puzzling, as balkanization is not remotely synonymous with separatism or secessionism, and it is misleading to teach these as synonyms. The note is even less correct, inserting the term "breakaway state" (again, balkanization cannot be equated to a simple separatist movement or state), while cushioning it in some salesman language about how those terms are much older, readily understood, whatever. This is terrible NPOV and unreferenced at that. Also, in reply to the comment above: Balkanization does not necessarily refer to ineffective states or even hostile states, and even if it did, considering that automatically worse than being under the hegemony of X or Y power is discarding about half of everything Southeast Europeans have ever written about Southeast Europe. If none object, i will remove that bizarre line from the lead. P.S: With all of this said, i see many WP:BOLD edits in the page history for toning down what was once an even less neutral article, and i thank all the persons involved for them. YuriNikolai (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality (cont.)
If we are going to list our own feelings about the term (see above), I should add that I am from the Balkans and that I find the use of the term imperialist and racist.

Nevermind what I feel, however, because there is a long trail of literature on the topic, documenting nothing by pejorative use--from just one source (cited Todorova, 1994): "By the beginning of the twentieth century Europe had added to its repertoire of Schimpfworter, or disparagements, a new one which turned out to be more persistent than others with centuries old traditions. "Balkanization" not only had come to denote the parcelization of large and viable political units but also had become a synonym for a reversion to the tribal, the backward, the primitive, the barbarian. In its latest hypostasis, particularly in American academe, it has been completely decontextualized and paradigmatically related to a variety of problems."

The sentiment is also held by those on the political right: ""Balkanization"-the breakup of larger nations into ethnic tribes-was used as a pejorative term by the European intellectuals of the time." (Ayn Rand!, 1997, pp14) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300a:2170:0:4c10:86a8:eff3:100 (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Before anything else, I should state that I'm not an expert on the topic, and don't have a bone to pick here. Just trying to make sure encyclopaedic standards are upheld.

 * That said, I find the logic given in the recent edit summary is backward. The burden of proof is on the inclusion of the word 'perjorative': one must put together sufficient sources to demonstrate that the word's standard/predominant usage is pejorative. One source by a single author doesn't seem adequate.

 * By contrast, the previous lead sentence (without the word 'perjorative') has no burden of proof. The phrasing remains neutral with respect to the connotation of the term. Saying 'XXX is a term describing YYY' does not imply that 'XXX' has a positive connotation. Thesslantened (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 * So, the burden of proof is on demonstrating that at the root of each usage is not imperialist or racist, in the face of two centuries of evidence. I think those of us who are familiar with a centuries-long trail of geographical, national, and ethnic/religious othering are willing to entertain collecting more evidence. Exactly how many sources would, in your opinion, meet the burden of proof? Two, three, four,..., or ten? Let's come up with an unmovable standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.247.75.147 (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 * I would suggest 2-3 secondary sources from independent academic circles, each of which comments on the usage of the word. A standard English dictionary like Merriam–Webster would solidify the case. Then, a sentence could be added to the lead saying something like, "usage of the term is predominantly pejorative, in reference to its [e.g.] imperialist and racist origins..." (Reminder: I know relatively little about the topic itself. This is just hypothetical wording.) Do you think it would be possible to put together those sources? I'm happy to help if someone has suggestions of where to look. Thesslantened (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A few reliable sources should definitely be provided to this effect. Google Books, academia.edu and Questia are good places to look. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Balkanization via modern media
Countries are now being balkanised through segregation of Media, social media etcetera. Is democracy possible in this environment? Lawrence18uk (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Balkanization


text:
Stimson

Stimson is a surname. Notable people with the surname include:

Stimson can also refer to:
 * Charles Stimson (born 1963), American Pentagon official
 * Frederic Jesup Stimson (1855–1943), American diplomat
 * Gerry Stimson, British public health social scientist
 * Henry L. Stimson (1867–1950), American statesman
 * Mount Stimson, peak in Montana, named for Henry Stimson
 * James Stimson (born 1943), American political scientist
 * Hugh M. Stimson (1931–2011), American sinologist
 * Julia Catherine Stimson (1881–1948), American nurse
 * Mark Stimson (born 1967), English former footballer
 * Miriam Michael Stimson (1913–2002), American nun and chemist
 * Rufus W. Stimson (1868–1947), American agricultural educator and college president

 * Stimson Lumber Company

title: Stimson


text:
Disease management (health)

Disease management is defined as "a system of coordinated healthcare interventions and communications for populations with conditions in which patient self-care efforts are significant."

For people who can access health care practitioners or peer support it is the process whereby persons with long-term conditions (and often family/friend/carer) share knowledge, responsibility and care plans with healthcare practitioners and/or peers. To be effective it requires whole system implementation with community social support networks, a range of satisfying occupations and activities relevant to the context, clinical professionals willing to act as partners or coaches and on-line resources which are verified and relevant to the country and context. Knowledge sharing, knowledge building and a learning community are integral to the concept of disease management. It is a population health strategy as well as an approach to personal health. It may reduce healthcare costs and/or improve quality of life for individuals by preventing or minimizing the effects of disease, usually a chronic condition, through knowledge, skills, enabling a sense of control over life (despite symptoms of disease) and integrative care. On the other hand, it may increase health care costs by causing high implementation costs and promoting the use of costly health care interventions.

History
Disease management has evolved from managed care, specialty capitation, and health service demand management, and refers to the processes and people concerned with improving or maintaining health in large populations. It is concerned with common chronic illnesses, and the reduction of future complications associated with those diseases.

Illnesses that disease management would concern itself with would include: coronary heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), kidney failure, hypertension, heart failure, obesity, diabetes mellitus, asthma, cancer, arthritis, clinical depression, sleep apnea, osteoporosis, and other common ailments.

Industry
In the United States, disease management is a large industry with many vendors. Major disease management organizations based on revenues and other criteria include Accordant (a subsidiary of Caremark), Alere (now including ParadigmHealth and Matria Healthcare), Caremark (excluding its Accordant subsidiary), Evercare, Health Dialog, Healthways, LifeMasters (now part of StayWell), LifeSynch (formerly Corphealth), Magellan, McKesson Health Solutions, and MedAssurant.

Disease management is of particular importance to health plans, agencies, trusts, associations and employers that offer health insurance. A 2002 survey found that 99.5% of enrollees of Health Maintenance Organization/Point Of Service (HMO/POS) plans are in plans that cover at least one disease management program. A Mercer Consulting study indicated that the percentage of employer-sponsored health plans offering disease management programs grew to 58% in 2003, up from 41% in 2002.

It was reported that $85 million was spent on disease management in the United States in 1997, and $600 million in 2002. Between 2000 and 2005, the compound annual growth rate of revenues for disease management organizations was 28%. In 2000, the Boston Consulting Group estimated that the U.S. market for outsourced disease management could be $20 billion by 2010; however, in 2008 the Disease Management Purchasing Consortium estimated that disease management organization revenues would be $2.8 billion by 2010. As of 2010, a study using National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data estimated that 21.3% of patients in the U.S. with at least one chronic condition use disease management programs. Yet, management of chronic conditions is responsible for more than 75% of all health care spending.

During the 2000s, payers have then embraced disease management in many other world regions. In Europe, notable examples include Germany and France. In Germany, the first national disease management program for diabetes enrolled patients in 2003. They are funded and operated by individual sickness funds that in turn contract with regular health care providers. In France, the program Sophia for diabetic patients was introduced in 2008. It is financed and operated as a single national program by statutory health insurance, which has contracted with a private provider for support services. The introduction of these programs was in part facilitated by support from international organizations or firms and study trips or other forms of exchange with Anglo-Saxon countries.

Process
The underlying premise of disease management is that when the right tools, experts, and equipment are applied to a population, labor costs (specifically: absenteeism, presenteeism, and direct insurance expenses) can be minimized in the near term, or resources can be provided more efficiently. The general idea is to ease the disease path, rather than cure the disease. Improving quality and activities for daily living are first and foremost. Improving cost, in some programs, is a necessary component, as well. However, some disease management systems believe that reductions in longer-term problems may not be measureable today, but may warrant continuation of disease management programs until better data is available in 10–20 years. Most disease management vendors offer return on investment (ROI) for their programs, although over the years there have been dozens of ways to measure ROI. Responding to this inconsistency, an industry trade association, the Care Continuum Alliance, convened industry leaders to develop consensus guidelines for measuring clinical and financial outcomes in disease management, wellness and other population-based programs. Contributing to the work were public and private health and quality organizations, including the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Committee for Quality Assurance, URAC, and the Joint Commission. The project produced the first volume of a now four-volume Outcomes Guidelines Report, which details industry-consensus approaches to measuring outcomes.

Tools include web-based assessment tools, clinical guidelines, health risk assessments, outbound and inbound call-center-based triage, best practices, formularies, and numerous other devices, systems and protocols.

Experts include actuaries, physicians, pharmacists, medical economists, nurses, nutritionists, physical therapists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and human resources professionals. Equipment can include mailing systems, web-based applications (with or without interactive modes), monitoring devices, or telephonic systems.

Possible biases
When disease management programs are voluntary, studies of their effectiveness may be affected by a self-selection bias; that is, a program may "attract enrollees who were [already] highly motivated to succeed". At least two studies have found that people who enroll in disease management programs differ significantly from those who do not on baseline clinical, demographic, cost, utilization and quality parameters. To minimize any bias in estimates of the effectiveness of disease management due to differences in baseline characteristics, randomized controlled trials are better than observational studies.

Even if a particular study is a randomized trial, it may not provide strong evidence for the effectiveness of disease management. A 2009 review paper examined randomized trials and meta-analyses of disease management programs for heart failure and asserted that many failed the PICO process and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials: "interventions and comparisons are not sufficiently well described; that complex programs have been excessively oversimplified; and that potentially salient differences in programs, populations, and settings are not incorporated into analyses."

Medicare
Section 721 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 authorized the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to conduct what became the "Medicare Health Support" project to examine disease management. Phase I of the project involved disease management companies (such as Aetna Health Management, CIGNA Health Support, Health Dialog Services Corp., Healthways, and McKesson Health Solutions) chosen by a competitive process in eight states and the District of Columbia. The project focused on people with diabetes or heart failure who had relatively high Medicare payments; in each location, approximately 20,000 such people were randomly assigned to an intervention group and 10,000 were randomly assigned to a control group. CMS set goals in the areas of clinical quality and beneficiary satisfaction, and negotiated with the disease management programs for a target of 5% savings in Medicare costs. The programs started between August 2005 and January 2006. What is now the Care Continuum Alliance praised the project as "the first-ever national pilot integrating sophisticated care management techniques into the Medicare fee-for-service program".

An initial evaluation of Phase I of the project by RTI International appeared in June 2007 which had "three key participation and financial findings": DMAA focused on another finding of the initial evaluation, the "high levels of satisfaction with chronic disease management services among beneficiaries and physicians". One commentary noted that the project "can only be observational" since "equivalence was not achieved at baseline". Another commentary claimed that the project was "in big trouble". A paper on the six-month evaluation, published in fall 2008, concluded that "Results to date indicate limited success in achieving Medicare cost savings or reducing acute care utilization".
 * Medicare expenditures for the intervention group were higher than those of the comparison group by the time the pilots started.
 * Within the intervention group, participants had lower Medicare payments (i.e., tended to be healthier) than non-participants.
 * The "fees paid to date far exceed any savings produced."

In December 2007, CMS changed the financial threshold from 5% savings to budget neutrality, a change that DMAA "hailed". In January 2008, however, CMS decided to end Phase I because it claimed that the statutory authority had run out. Four U.S. senators wrote a letter to CMS to reverse its decision. DMAA decried the termination of Phase I and called upon CMS to start Phase II as soon as possible. Among other criticisms of the project, the disease management companies claimed that Medicare "signed up patients who were much sicker than they had expected," failed to transmit information on patients' prescriptions and laboratory results to them in a timely fashion, and disallowed the companies from selecting patients most likely to benefit from disease management.

By April 2008, CMS had spent $360 million on the project. The individual programs ended between December 2006 and August 2008.

The results of the program were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in November 2011. Comparing the 163,107 patients randomized to the intervention group with the 79,310 patients randomized to the control group, the researchers found that "disease-management programs did not reduce hospital admissions or emergency room visits, as compared with usual care." Furthermore, there was "no demonstrable savings in Medicare expenditures," with the net fees for disease management ranging from 3.8% to 10.9% per patient per month. The researchers suggested that the findings might be explained by the severity of chronic disease among the patients studied, delays in patients' receiving disease management after hospitalizations, and lack of integration between health coaches and the patients' primary care providers.

Other studies
Studies that have reviewed other studies on the effectiveness of disease management include the following:
 * A 2004 Congressional Budget Office analysis concluded that published studies "do not provide a firm basis for concluding that disease management programs generally reduce total costs". The report caused the disease management industry to "scrambl[e] to build a better business case for their services".
 * A 2005 review of 44 studies on disease management found a positive return on investment (ROI) for congestive heart failure and multiple disease conditions, but inconclusive, mixed, or negative ROI for diabetes, asthma, and depression management programs. The lead author, of Cornell University and Thomson Medstat, was quoted as saying that the paucity of research conducted on the ROI of disease management was "a concern because so many companies and government agencies have adopted disease management to manage the cost of care for people with chronic conditions."
 * A 2007 RAND summary of 26 reviews and meta-analyses of small-scale disease management programs, and 3 evaluations of population-based disease management programs, concluded that "Payers and policy makers should remain skeptical about vendor claims [concerning disease management] and should demand supporting evidence based on transparent and scientifically sound methods." In specific:
 * Disease management improved "clinical processes of care" (e.g., adherence to evidence-based guidelines) for congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and depression.
 * There was inconclusive evidence, insufficient evidence, or evidence for no effect of disease management on health-related behaviors.
 * Disease management led to better disease control for congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and depression.
 * There was inconclusive evidence, insufficient evidence, or evidence for no effect of disease management on clinical outcomes (e.g., "mortality and functional status").
 * Disease management reduced hospital admission rates for congestive heart failure, but increased health care utilization for depression, with inconclusive or insufficient evidence for the other diseases studied.
 * In the area of financial outcomes, there was inconclusive evidence, insufficient evidence, evidence for no effect, or evidence for increased costs.
 * Disease management increased patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life in congestive heart failure and depression, but the evidence was insufficient for the other diseases studied.
 * A subsequent letter to the editor claimed that disease management might nevertheless "satisfy buyers today, even if academics remain unconvinced".

 * A 2008 systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that disease management for COPD "modestly improved exercise capacity, health-related quality of life, and hospital admissions, but not all-cause mortality".
 * A 2009 review of 27 studies "could not draw definitive conclusions about the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of... asthma disease-management programs" for adults.
 * A Canadian systematic review published in 2009 found that home telehealth in chronic disease management may be cost-saving but that "the quality of the studies was generally low."
 * Researchers from The Netherlands systematically reviewed 31 papers published 2007–09 and determined that the evidence that disease management programs for four diseases reduce healthcare expenditures is "inconclusive."
 * A meta-analysis of randomized trials published through 2009 estimated that disease management for diabetes has "a clinically moderate but significant impact on hemoglobin A1C levels," with an absolute mean difference of 0.51% between experimental and control groups.
 * A 2011 "meta-review" (systematic review of meta-analyses) of heart failure disease management programs found them to be of "mixed quality" in that they did not report important characteristics of the studies reviewed.
 * A 2015 systematic review of randomised controlled trials examining the impact of chronic disease management programmes for adults with asthma, found that having a coordinated program approach with multiple health care professionals compared with usual care can positively impact on the severity of asthma, can improve lung function and also perceived quality of life.

Studies not reviewed in the aforementioned papers include the following:
 * A U.K. study published in 2007 found certain improvements in the care of patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure (e.g., better management of blood pressure and cholesterol) if they received nurse-led disease management instead of usual care.
 * In a 2007 Canadian study, people were randomized to receive or not receive disease management for heart failure for a period of six months. Emergency department visits, hospital readmissions, and all-cause deaths were no different in the two groups after 2.8 years of follow-up.
 * A 2008 U.S. study found that nurse-led disease management for patients with heart failure was "reasonably cost-effective" per quality-adjusted life year compared with a "usual care group".
 * A 2008 study from the Netherlands compared no disease management with "basic" nurse-led disease management with "intensive" nurse-led disease management for patients discharged from the hospital with heart failure; it detected no significant differences in hospitalization and death for the three groups of patients.
 * A retrospective cohort study from 2008 found that disease management did not increase the use of drugs recommended for patients after a heart attack.
 * Of 15 care coordination (disease management) programs followed for two years in a 2008 study, "few programs improved patient behaviors, health, or quality of care" and "no program reduced gross or net expenditures".
 * After 18 months, a 2008 Florida study found "virtually no overall impacts on hospital or emergency room (ER) use, Medicare expenditures, quality of care, or prescription drug use" for a disease management program.
 * With minor exceptions, a paper published in 2008 did not find significant differences in outcomes among people with asthma randomly assigned to telephonic disease management, augmented disease management (including in-home respiratory therapist visits), or traditional care.
 * A 2009 review by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of 35 disease management programs that were part of demonstration projects between 1999 and 2008 found that relatively few improved quality in a budget-neutral manner.
 * In a 2009 randomized trial, high- and moderate-intensity disease management did not improve smoking cessation rates after 24 months compared with drug therapy alone.
 * A randomized trial published in 2010 determined that disease management reduced a composite score of emergency department visits and hospitalizations among patients discharged from Veterans Administration hospitals for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A 2011 post-hoc analysis of the study's data estimated that the intervention produced a net cost savings of $593 per patient.
 * A Spanish study published in 2011 randomized 52 people hospitalized for heart failure to follow-up with usual care, 52 to home visits, 52 to telephone follow-up, and 52 to an in-hospital heart failure unit. After a median of 10.8 months of follow-up, there were no significant differences in hospitalization or mortality among the four groups.
 * Among 18- to 64-year-old people with chronic diseases receiving Medicaid, telephone-based disease management in one group of members did not reduce ambulatory care visits, hospitalizations, or expenditures relative to a control group. Furthermore, in this 2011 study, the group receiving disease management had a lower decrease in emergency department visits than the group not receiving disease management.

title: Disease management (health)


text:
List of ministers-president of Baden-Württemberg

This is a list of the men who have served in the capacity of Minister-President or equivalent office in Baden, Württemberg and Baden-Württemberg from the 19th century to the present.

Ministers-President of the Grand Duchy of Baden (1809–1918)

 * 1809–1810: Sigismund von Reitzenstein
 * 1810: Conrad Karl Friedrich von Andlau-Birseck
 * 1810–1812: Christian Heinrich Gayling von Altheim
 * 1812–1817: Karl Christian von Berckheim
 * 1817–1818: Sigismund von Reitzenstein
 * 1818–1831: Wilhelm Ludwig Leopold Reinhard von Berstett
 * 1832–1833: Sigismund von Reitzenstein
 * 1833–1838: Ludwig Georg von Winter
 * 1838–1839: Karl Friedrich Nebenius
 * 1839–1843: Friedrich Landolin Karl von Blittersdorf
 * 1843–1845: Christian Friedrich von Boeckh
 * 1845–1846: Karl Friedrich Nebenius
 * 1846–1848: Johann Baptist Bekk
 * 1848–1849: Karl Georg Hoffmann
 * 1849–1850: Friedrich Adolf Klüber
 * 1850–1856: Ludwig Rüdt von Collenberg-Bödigheim
 * 1856–1860: Franz von Stengel
 * 1861–1866: Anton Stabel
 * 1866–1868: Karl Mathy
 * 1868–1876: Julius Jolly
 * 1876–1893: Ludwig Karl Friedrich Turban
 * 1893–1901: Franz Wilhelm Nokk
 * 1901–1905: Carl Ludwig Wilhelm Arthur von Brauer
 * 1905–1917: Alexander von Dusch
 * 1917–1918: Heinrich von Bodman

Presidents of the Republic of Baden (1918–1945)
Political party:

Ministers-President of the Kingdom of Württemberg (1821–1918)

 * 1821–1831: Christian Friedrich von Otto
 * 1831–1848: Paul Friedrich Theodor Eugen Reichsfreiherr von Maucler
 * 1848–1849: Friedrich von Römer
 * 1849–1850: Johannes von Schlayer
 * 1850–1864: Joseph Freiherr von Linden
 * 1864–1870: Karl Friedrich Gottlob Freiherr von Varnbüler von und zu Hemmingen
 * 1870–1871: Adolf Graf von Taube (acting)
 * 1871–1873: Johann August Freiherr von Wächter
 * 1873–1900: Hermann Freiherr von Mittnacht
 * 1900–1901: Max Freiherr Schott von Schottenstein
 * 1901–1906: Wilhelm August von Breitling
 * 1906–1918: Karl Freiherr von Weizsäcker
 * 1918: Theodor Liesching

Presidents of the Free People's State of Württemberg (1918–1945)
Political party:

Minister-President of Württemberg-Baden
Political party:

Minister-President of Württemberg-Hohenzollern
Political party:

President of (South) Baden
Political party:

Baden-Württemberg (1952–present)
Political party:
 * Minister-President of Baden-Württemberg