Talk:Geographical name changes in Greece

This article is POV
As you can see, this article is directly copied and pasted with information from the Geographical name changes in Turkey article. The user has replaced Turk with Greek and Turkification with Hellenization and expecting the sources provided here to somehow to conform to an entirely different article. Replacing words here and there as a response to another article in order to ultimately prove some sort of WP:POV is serious sign of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please....WP:Wikipedia is not about winning.

More importantly, in regards to the sourcing, none of the sources deliberately say that these name changes were due to a formal Hellenization policy. Though there may be politics involved, I still do not see as to how this would be an open Hellenization policy of the Greek government. Such controversial statements need to be quoted by a peer-reviewed journal/article or directly by the Greek government for that matter. I believe this article should be tagged as POV until sources actually confirm what I have mentioned above. As we speak, the article does not fully represent what the sources actually claim. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

More sources will be forthcoming...............It is a new article. Though there may not have been a "open policy" as you may say, the extensive replacements of toponyms in Greece was driven by something. That the bulk of those toponyms/place names had a non-greek etymology should be looked at. However unlike the Turkish study which has done extensive work into the matter, scholars examining Greece have usually focused on a locality as opposed to Greece as a whole. Its why Thrace is mentioned at the moment. Thus comments are not "controversial" as you purport and name changes did happen, especially in places that were linguistically different and not Greek speaking or in areas that people had a non-Greek conscious as in Thrace. Sources so far are already there and do suffice. I don't see how they are controversial. There is also a EU funded database regarding Greece and name changes. (Resnjari (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC))


 * I never said the name changing policy itself is controversial, I said that name changing due to Hellinization is. Therefore, it needs backing from legitimate sources that clearly make that claim. As of now, no source clearly shows this. Sources need to be added or reevaluated. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources are given, read them first.

name="Zacharia-p230-233">

DragonTiger23 (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have read them. None of them directly say that these policies were a direct result of Hellenization. If you find sources that say so, by all means use them. Otherwise, we'll have an article with misleading terminology and information. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A case of WP:JDLI? The title of the book is "Hellenism".

"their modification amounted to a sort of "Hellenization" of the country and assumed a civilizing function.... "Hellenizing" the minorities meant subjecting them to a civilizing process."

DragonTiger23 (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Youre giving me a definition of Hellinization. I am simply requesting a source that says the geographical name changes of Greece are due to a direct result of the Hellinization policies of the government of Greece. Where in the sources does it say this? Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm yes clearly a case of WP:JDLI.

"At this point the Greek government began a policy of Hellenization whose goal was to assimilate the ethnically diverse inhabitants of.." 

"Between 1913 and 1928 the Slavic names of hundreds of villages and towns were Hellenized by a Committee for the Changing of Names, which was charged by the Greek government with "the elimination of all the names which pollute and" DragonTiger23 (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a case of JDLI and I suggest you refrain from repetitively accusing me of it. I told you, there should be a source that directly states the Hellenization policy of the Greek government. As I see you've introduced a new source just now and that is fine. Im glad I brought this up because the sourcing did not match the information presented in the article. I suggest you add it as a source in the article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Dragon Tiger, also don't forget this important passage which attests to a formal governmental process while adding to the article. In 1909, the government-appointed commission on toponyms reported that one village in three in Greece (that is, 30 percent of the total) should have its name changed (of the 5,069 Greek villages, 1,500 were considered as “speaking a barbaric language”). book: Hellenisms: culture, idenitity, and ethnicity from antiquity to modernity, p.231-232. At the moment' i am busy with my history honours thesis so i don't have much time to add to the article at the moment, but also check out the chapter by Oxford archeologist John Bintliff, The ethnoarchaeology of a 'passive'ethnicity: The Arvanites of Central Greece. See page 138. [] or a PDF version put up by Leiden University []. Anyway all the best. I hope to find some time to contribute to this article soon. All the best. (Resnjari (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC))

This article is seems to be nationalist POV pushing
Name changes and ethnic homogonization in the region weren't limited to Greece. It was standard practice across the modern Balkans and modern Turkey. For instance Skopje was officially part of the Turkish Sanjuk of Uskub,[]. Istanbul was originally named Constantinople. This article notably fails to mention that names were originally Greek and that toponyms were subsequently changed to non-Greek. History does not begin in the 19th century. It also attempts to claim different "ethnicities" in the region when ALL Balkan people of that era only had a vague conceptualization of ethnicity. (primarily identified as Christians that spoke different languages) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.38.66 (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just two points. 1) It is true that the practice of renaming is not limited to Greece. On the contrary, it has been common practice in most nationbuilding processes, both in the Balkans and elsewhere, but this article is about Greece. 2) It is also true that some of the name changes vere back to originally Greek names, but a large amount of the places had never had Greek names before. That being said, this article could definitely be improved. A good starting point might be to follow the suggestion of merging it with Former toponyms in Greece. Regards! --T*U (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed this article is about Greece but there is no counterpart toponym name change articles for other nations in region much less one that mixes in all the political theory extras. Lets not forget the names were originally Greek so "changed" can equally be argued as "changed back". The article also has a conspiratorial tone that frames greeks as an "ideology" and clearly seems to be trying to portray Greeks as some sort of cult of minority oppressors rather than group fighting for ethnic survival in rough neighbourhood. If one wants to go down that "imagined community" deconstructive view of national identities then similar "ideology" terminology should be used for neighboring states as well as states everywhere in the world. (otherwise isolated language comes off as prejudicial towards Greeks). Your call which way you want to go but please just make it rationally consistent across all nationalist oriented articles before attempting to selectively inject pomo academic sourced racial theories here. 135.23.215.34 (talk)

merge discussion
This article was tagged for merging but no discussion was started. Therefore I start it with:
 * Support merge per nom.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely support, per nom Constantine  ✍  14:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support merge, hoping that the merge could be the occasion for a more neutral and encyclopaedic approach. The name changes did occur in great number, for nationalistic purposes (at that time, with a positive connotation), but implying an intention behind any specific renaming should be seriously backed by a specific source. Place Clichy (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support merge: per nom.Alexikoua (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This one's a no-brainer. Athenean (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm now going to attempt to perform the merger. Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support merge: per nominator. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support merge: per nominator. Jpbrenna (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Article name change

 * Now that the merger from Former toponyms in Greece to Geographical name changes in Greece has been completed, please express your support or opposition to changing the name of this article to Former toponyms in Greece. I'd expect those who voted above to be interested in this discussion. Pinging: Gun Powder Ma, Jpbrenna, Constantine, Kintetsubuffalo,  Athenean, Alexikoua, Place Clichy. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note — merging Geographical into Former was what I originally started to do (it made more sense to me), but then I noticed that the proposal was the other way around, so I assumed that people disagreed with me. I'll happily move them around if all of you (or enough for consensus) support the proposal.  Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, IMO from the moment the article also includes the reasoning and process for the name changes, it is of a broader scope than a simple list of former toponyms. In this context, the present name is more accurate. Constantine  ✍  21:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Constantine is right, the present title is more accurate, given the content that we have. --Jpbrenna (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As per reasons given by Constantine. Current name gives greater scope to the subject matter. Resnjari (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose too. I can't see how the proposed name is more accurate than the current one. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 17:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geographical name changes in Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303205042/http://www.unix.gr/Macedonia/Vlasidis.htm to http://www.unix.gr/Macedonia/Vlasidis.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Frankish, Italian
The recent edits to include Frankish and Italian are highly questionable. Thus, I'm going to revert the edits. -- Local hero talk 21:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Frankish: I'm not sure Proto Thema qualifies as a reliable source. See here for a discussion on it. In particular, the European Commission has found it has "populist orientation and hate speech approach mainly to migration and migrant related news and themes".
 * Italian: the first link, from what I understand, does not claim the original name was Italian. The second link, "The Red Blue Guide", hardly seems to be a sufficient source for this topic. Regardless, I don't see "Italian" mentioned at all on it. The third link is the same situation as the first. Let's pretend the sourcing was good. That's a total of three settlements. Definitely not appropriate to be discussed in the lead on equal terms with Slavic, Albanian and Turkish. The fourth link is another Proto Thema article.
 * Aromanian: a book source is referenced. The particular quote being relied upon or a link to an online version is needed to verify.


 * the specific toponyms come from Italian languages, and do not mean anything in any other language spoken in any other neighboring country to Greece.
 * Italian toponyms in Southern Greece and most of Greek islands, have historically outnumbered Turkish toponyms (as turkish populations in these areas technically did not exist, unlike in Southern balkan countries and Northern mainland Greece where Turkish populations thrived), and possibly Slavic ones, the "3 toponyms" were only posted as examples
 * Proto thema has been accused for completely different issues, in the specific case what is mentioned not only is right, but it also provides examples
 * Thus, i'm going to revert the undo, with one more source being added (the history of Greek language by M.S. Kopidakis) confirming the above Snachtbogen (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There maybe the odd few Italian and/or Frankish toponyms but their significance is nowhere near Albanian/South Slavic/Turkish, therefore I am against mentioning it in the lead.Kromid (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Kromid first of all you brought no evidence of your claim that Italian and Frankish toponyms are "odd few", or fewer than Turkish Slavic and Albanian toponyms outnumbered Frankish and Italian. Especially in the most populated parts of Greece, the Greek islands and Southern mainland regions, alongside the fact that latins thrived, Turks were never actually settled at all, other than administration, and Slavs not even recorded after 14th century (in the islands sparsely recorded at all in 7th and 8th century)


 * You can cite 100 sources if you want, but it does not belong in the lead due to Italian/Frankish toponym changes being nowhere near Albanian/Slavic/Turkish in frequency.Kromid (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel like you are against mentioning Italian and frankish contribution for your own agenda, which i guess is leaded by your personal inability to understand the historical differences between Greece and Southern Balkan countries (especially your own, which has been the most isolated country From the west, more than Turkey to be more precise). it would take you not more than a few minutes to get informed about the contributions of Franks and italians in south Greece and the islands, how these contributions were a lot more numerous and important than, especially Turkish and even more than slavic and thus, why not only they should be mentioned (which you seem to even avoid) but also in the lead

you have to bring sources that would excuse your latest reversion against evident modifications, according to which sources (i repeat, Northern Greece excluded, which is the least populated part of the country, after all) Frankish and Italian toponyms are "odd few" and should "not be mentioned" for some reason. if i dont get evidence, i will have to undo your reversion and contact admins about your actions to remove evidence based modifications Snachtbogen (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The agenda of this editor is clear, evidenced by leaving an image of a goat on my talkpage (or at least trying and failing to) and edit summaries like "vardar nationalism has no place in greek historiography". This editor is clearly trying to minimize the mass name changes of Slavic, Turkish, and Albanian toponyms in present-day Greece. -- Local hero talk 17:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Local hero with evidence, however. on the contrary, you promote your agenda to limit Greek history to contacts with Albanians, Turks and Slavs by reverting EVIDENT information Snachtbogen (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Balkan obsession?
I have noticed an obsession from Balkan side (people from Bulgaria and fyrom in particular) to revert the inclusion of Frankish and Italian toponyms in the article, even when this inclusion is supported by sources, of which (sources) neither is labeled as deprecated or generally unreliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, so that these revesions would have an excuse. And while I do understand that most of Greek regions' history, including how much more western this history was compared to history of their own countries, is something unknown to them, I don't understand how someone would be so obsessed with reverting something that, like I said, is supported by sources
 * Do not delete sourced content. The few Italian and Frankish toponyms may be added but at the bottom, because their significance is far from that of Albanian/South Slavic/Turkish end Romance toponyms. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * first, what deleted sourced content are you talking about? The edit history is there, and anyone can see that nothing was deleted, only additional content was added.
 * Second, did any of your sources (or any source you could add now) prove that Italian and Frankish toponyms were "few"? Does any of your sources mention anywhere that they were fewer than Turkish, Albanian and Slavic? Especially in Southern regions, and Greek islands, where, like it was mentioned above, Turkish people never lived, to leave any significant number of toponyms, and Slavs were quickly assimilated, and never even settled in the islands, meanwhile Fransk and Italians thrived in both cases.
 * I know that anything that has to do with the most populated parts of Greece (southern Greece and Greek islands) are tabula rasa to Balkan people, but it happens that these regions share more with Southwestern Europe than with Southeastern one
 * And even if you had any source proving that Turkish, Slavic or Albanian toponyms outnumber Frankish and Slavic, you could change the order, not completely delete them 2A02:85F:E044:7800:68FB:BF7C:BDF0:E167 (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Good-willingly moving Italian and Frankish toponyms in the end
In spite of having seen no source, which supports that Albanian, and especially Slavic and Turkish toponyms outnumbered Italian or Frankish toponyms outside Northern Mainland Greece, I moved Frankish and Italian toponyms in the end of the sentence. Their existence is supported by mentioned sources, which are not labeled as "unreliable", so I am expecting the other side to show some maturity and respect the article and its new information, even if (without evidence seen yet) Slavic, Turkish and Albanian toponyms should have some "priority"

The Albanian(!) name of a kurdish(!) village in Greece and other folk etymologies...
The article lacks scientific procedure and documented references. It seems more as POV article, written by amateurs without deep knowledge of history or linguistics, probably caused by nationalistic motive. The table with the examples given, focus on changes from Arvanitic/Albanian language to Greek, ignoring many other languages that old toponyms in Greece origin. Additionally, in many cases these examples are incorrect or controversial. Some examples:

1)	The old name of the riparian village Parapotamos of Epirus, Várfani, is likely of Slavic origin (Vrbeni/ Врбени) than of Albanian, as the article claims.

2)	The old name of the village Mesovouni, Kourtersi, is anthroponymic. Kourtesis/Kourtakis/Koutris/Kourtis are some of the many forms the name “Constantine” can get in modern Greek, for certain reasons "Kourtesi" is not an Albanian toponym and has nothing to do with the Kurds(!), the middle east nation, as the article claims!

The same as above can be remarked in the links the article provides, regarding different areas in Greece.

There are many cases, that a village was known and recorded with two different names, and just one of them, usually the Greek, was established. In other cases, the same name was known in many forms, so there was no renaming. For example, in Grevena region, Vari was also knows as Vares(i), or Var(i)tsa and the Greek name Kolokythaki (pupkin) was also known as Kolokysaki. Here, no renaming took place.

The name changes in Greece is a fact. However, the article does not describe this fact appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.97.70.122 (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Feel free to make additions/changes, backed by reliable sources. -- Local hero talk 05:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Disputed
Claiming that original names where not Greek but the ones assigned to Greek settlements after conquest. Categorizing older Greek names as "bad Greek" to enforce the point of Greeks being evil and are changing names. While these areas where all originally named in Hellenistic and not Slavic or Turkic fashion. Claims in sources are not equivalent in concept of the claims of the article.2A02:587:5801:C19B:5121:7C3A:E9AF:7FC (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop changing the article just because you don't like it. There are enough sources, and the introduction explains what it is about. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * How sure are you that NO towns were founded, and named, after the Classical period by non-Hellenes? — "bad Greek" appears to be a translation of something a Greek said, that some former names are from low-status dialects, rather than a Turcophilic slander against Greeks. —Tamfang (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Hatred against Greeks 2A02:587:5801:C19B:5121:7C3A:E9AF:7FC (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * May I suggest a compromise? You go after bias in articles about name changes in Poland, and invite some Polish person to do so here; that way both will have the benefit of cooler heads. —Tamfang (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)