Talk:Former toponyms in Greece

Why this article reapeared?????

Wasn’t this article deleted???? At list it reappeared with a shorter list of names and better written but again with a highly controversial source!!! Again the same problems. “Some of the forms are indefinably of Greek origin, others of Slavic, yet others of Turkish or more obscure origins”, (then please explain me why they are labeled as “Slavic”????). (Again we have a city like Veroia “that its older name was Ber”.!!!! {Ber was never a contemporary name, but it was a Slavic alternative and not of course the original. Same applies to Asamati/Asomata, Boshtani/Rizomata, (actually Boshtani a Turkish word which in use in the Greek language.), Varvara/Agia Varvara, (since when Varvara is Slavic? )? Kapsochora/Kapsochorion (is this Slavic also???) The same applies to the following : Klidi/Kleidi, Kolura/ Kouloura, Kostochor/Koutoschori/Kostochori, Kumanich/Komnenion, formerly Kumanitsion, Ljanover/Leianovergi, and the list goes on and on!!!! Actually it is interesting to see that most of those “Slavic names” are actually Greek! {Besides the above examples just look at theses also: Malo Alabor/ Mikron Alamporon, Melik /Meliki, Mesi/ Mesi(! where is the Slavic name here???) , Neochori/Neochorion ( is this Slavic also???), Nisi/ Nissi (Jessus!where is the Slavic here???) Nichor/ Nichorabali/Neochoropoulon, Nov Prodrom/ Neos Prodromos, Novo Skilich/ Neo Skillitsio/ Kalochorion, Palatich/Palatitsia, Paleochor/Palaiochora, Paleochori/Palaichorion, Sveti Ilija/Profetes Elias , Rapsomanik/Rapsomanikion(Yet again an other “Slavic”!!!!), Rachova/ Rachi, Skilich/ Skillitsi, Taramon/Tagarochorion (actually I know this village and it was called Taramochori!!!!). And my personal favorite which is Turkochor/Patris (Is Turkoxori a Slavic name also????). Not to mention the Greek/Turkish name of Chinar Phurnos modern Platanos ( Chinar Phurnos “Ο φούρνος του Chinar” is a Turkish/Greek name!!).

The same problems appeared in the previous article and that’s why it was deleted. We can’t have Greek and Turkish toponymes to be presented as “Slavic”. (Actually the most precise word would have been “Bulgarian” since most of the Slavs of Ottoman and Greek Macedonia were identified themselves as Bulgarians and they were exchange as Bulgarians).It have been sugested to create a new article with the deifferent names used in the Balkan languages but not again the same!!! The second reason for deleting this article was the fact that no reliable sources were used. In this there is only one source which is a book from the extreme Slavic-Macedonian Historiography!!! (Todor Hristov Simovski). I can’t not accept it as neutral! (and it is obvious by the fact that numerous Greek names were presented as “Slavic”) In my opinion the reasons for deletion are still valid Seleukosa (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see nothing wrong with this article. The AfD explicitly allowed recreation when sourced. That's what's being done now. As for the perceived contradictions: "Slavic toponym", in the context of this list, evidently doesn't mean "toponym of ultimately Slavic origin", it means "toponym as used in the local Slavic languages". I have no reasons to believe the information as presented now is unreliable. Why should we doubt the source?

Perhaps it might be good if there was another column that pointed out the etymology of the "Slavic" names, including those cases where they were ultimately Greek, as far as such information is documented. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying FutPerf. How is it possible to have an article labeled as “Slavic toponymes” when it is actually “Slavic alternatives” (of Greek/Turkish placenames .) You said that : { "Slavic toponym", in the context of this list, evidently doesn't mean "toponym of ultimately Slavic origin", it means "toponym as used in the local Slavic languages". } That statement actually change the title to “ toponymes in the Ottoman period that were used by the Slavic population!” We know it but the article doesn’t present it the same way. The problem with the source is typical for every extreme Slav-Macedonian source. Slavic-alternatives names are used to prove a Slavic majority. A lot of Greek villages (during the Ottoman period) of the region are presented as Slavic simply by using a Slavic alternative. For example Beroia had a Greek Majority (during ottoman period) and it was a center of the Greek Macedonians of the region. By claiming it as actually “Ber” it implies that somehow it was forced to become “Beroia”!! As for “Todor Hristov Simovski,” we can see 2things. a)He is part of the extreme Slavic historiography (actually a relic from the “socialist republic of Macedonia”) have a look at a passage of his work and notice the language used!!!! http://www.gate.net/~mango/Summary.htm "A great injustice was done to the Macedonian people, by partition of Macedonia among the three neighboring states, who, henceforth was fighting for its national freedom. The only one alternative for itself remained further struggle which, in spite of the new circumstances. This time becomes more complex and harder. Besides that, of this partition, taking into consideration all the repercussions, the Macedonians from the three parts of Macedonia were subjected to assimilation torture, and forced migration, with an intention to change the ethnic structure of Macedonia. Such attempts practically contributed to consequences, which, before all, were expressed and have been expressing in the change of national structure of Macedonia, to the disadvantage of the Macedonians."..“In such a politics of the bourgeois governments of neighboring Greece” and “Carrying out faithfully their imperialistic plans in Macedonia, the Greek and Bulgarian occupying authorities started torturing the Christian population, which according to their calculations and opinions was not feeling as theirs. The Second Balkan War which showed itself as much more violent and which began on June 29, 1913, the Macedonian people suffered 100 much. In this war especially by the Greek forces were killed thousands of innocent Macedonians of whom the bigger part of women and children, especially in the Kukush and Demir Hisar regions, where the military operations have been carried out.” b)He is cited almost exclusively in extreme Slav-Macedonian sites : such as (google Todor Simovski) www.macedoniadirect.com, www.historyofmacedonia.org www.makedonika.org.

By the way my the same article appears as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_toponyms_for_Greek_places And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_toponyms_of_places_in_Imathia_Prefecture

??????? Seleukosa (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I still can't see anything wrong with the definition of the topic as such. A toponym used in the Slavic language is, by definition, a Slavic toponym. And by the way, can you fix your computer keyboard? I think it has one key that easily gets stuck. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Future but I disagree. Let me explain why!! So the name "Atene" is actually an other Slavic toponym of Greece?? So in fact there are thousands of Slavic toponymes all over Greece since for every Greek name there are Slavic alternatives. Allow me to rephrase what you said!! ("A toponym used in the Slavic language is, by definition, a Slavic toponym.") I can say then : A toponym used in the English language is by definition an English toponym, so "Athens" is an English toponym of Greece. (And just like the article said: " are identifiably of Greek origin, others of English, yet others of Turkish or more obscure origins"!!!! The same can apply for French, German, Hungarian, Chinese, Indonesian, Turkmen and so on! (“Ateny” is also a Polish toponym of Greece!!! And ”Paryz” is also a Polish toponyme of France!!!!) What you are describing are called “exonymes” and actually we have articles in wikipedia which are addressing correctly the subject!! Such as [Greek exonyms]. A title called “Slavic toponymes” can only refer to original Slavic toponymes!! {Only to vilages that were founded byt the Slavic population (mainly the older Bulgarian vilages). Slavic alternatives or exonymes can not be used!! (or at list it should be noted)} At list this article should be renamed as “Slavic exonymes of Greece”

My second question was if it is proper to have the same article under 2 tittles??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_toponyms_for_Greek_places

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_toponyms_of_places_in_Imathia_Prefecture

And third, the source of the article is highly controversial and extreme!!! I can use the same source and add the following passage: “Carrying out faithfully their imperialistic plans in Macedonia, the Greek and Bulgarian occupying authorities started torturing the Christian population, which according to their calculations and opinions was not feeling as theirs. The Second Balkan War which showed itself as much more violent and which began on June 29, 1913, the Macedonian people suffered 100 much. In this war especially by the Greek forces were killed thousands of innocent Macedonians of whom the bigger part of women and children, especially in the Kukush and Demir Hisar regions, where the military operations have been carried out.” Is this neutral and not biased?? I highly doubt!!!

Dear Future my keyboard is ok!! I put multiple (!!!!) or (?????) as an emphasis!! (it is not done by accident!!) I put many (!!!!!!) In order to show what impresses me a lot ! And question marks (?????) were I feel the question is stronger! I hope you don’t receive it as an insult??? It is only the way I speak!! (is there any wikipedia rule against it? If so then forgive me!) Seleukosa (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, first of all, I'd recommend you cut down on interpunctuation (it comes across as shouting), and instead invest more in briefness and paragraph structure. (Heh, why do I keep having to counsel people about style these days? Yesterday I was teaching "Dodona" how to use full stops... :-)

As for the placenames, I still don't see the problem:

• First, an exonym is, by definition, also a toponym, so your opposition isn't one. Yes, "Paryz" is a Polish toponym of France; that statement is precisely correct.
• But you are mixing up different dimensions in distinguishing types of toponyms. "Exonyms" versus "endonyms" is one thing. Etymology is another. And, of course, historical national claims to a territory (the ideological issue you seem ultimately concerned about) are yet something else. Entirely unrelated to either of the former.
• A toponym is a "Slavic toponym" if it is used in a Slavic language. The etymological provenance is irrelevant for that.
• A toponym is an "endonym", as opposed to an "exonym", if it is used, or was used, by a population group local to the area where it is situated. Etymology, political status of that population group, etc., are all irrelevant for that.

Now, I guess nobody doubts that Imathia, as a whole, falls within the area that has, or had until recently, a sizable Slavic-speaking population component. That makes these placenames linguistically interesting. It doesn't necessarily mean that every single one of these villages must have had a Slavic population.

Of course it would be interesting if we could enrich the list with more information about, for instance, which of these cases were the object of actual politically motivated renamings on the Greek side, or in which of them the Slavic and the Greek names are simply variants of each other adapted to their respective language systems. It would also be interesting to note the etymology for each. But that's something that can be worked on.

About the reliability of the source, yes, it is certainly biased politically. It is about the same kind of bias you might find in a popular treatment by a Greek author of Greek placenames in Asia Minor. That doesn't mean it needs to be unreliable linguistically. Are there reasons to think he is reporting Slavic names wrongly? The political stance doesn't affect us here, since we aren't using that part of it.

About the double existence of the article, apparently the creator made a specific article Slavic toponyms of places in Imathia Prefecture, and then transcluded that into the Slavic toponyms for Greek places page. Perhaps he had in mind to create a whole series of detail pages for different prefectures and then also pull them together into a single page. It's rather unconventional and I'm not sure it's a good idea. Did you ask him why he did it? Of course, he has no reason to volunteer an explanation to an editor who accompanies each of his sentences with ten exclamation marks. You might want to ask him in a quieter tone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have never thought that inter punctuation comes across as shouting!!! I always used it in a way to emphasize a statement! But I do get the point! (After reviewing my previus posts I can see that it looks quite loud!) Still though I oppose the source. (Only the official historiography of the Greek right wing state of 50-60 was biased. Modern Greek historians (of the last 30 years) had done excellent works.) Seleukosa (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have any sourced corrections to what you label a biased source bring them forward. The book cites the various Greek laws that implemented these changes as well, which no doubt can be retrieved from some archive or another. It wasn't done secretly and there is no implication here of any political issue - just facts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is the case please provide the passage that suggests that the Greek state renamed Ber to Beroia? Or Varvara to Varvara, Klidi to kleidi, Kapsochora to Kapsochorion (which is demotic Greek to kathareuousa Greek), Kolura to Kouloura, Neochori to Neochorion (again demotic Greek to kathareuousa Greek), Nisi/ Nissi? All the above example are renamed demotic Greek names to Kathareuousa Greek names, a practice that was common. How this were presented as Slavic that were renamed to Greek? Is also the bellow passage an unbiazed fact from the book? “Carrying out faithfully their imperialistic plans in Macedonia, the Greek and Bulgarian occupying authorities started torturing the Christian population, which according to their calculations and opinions was not feeling as theirs. The Second Balkan War which showed itself as much more violent and which began on June 29, 1913, the Macedonian people suffered 100 much. In this war especially by the Greek forces were killed thousands of innocent Macedonians of whom the bigger part of women and children, especially in the Kukush and Demir Hisar regions, where the military operations have been carried out.” Is this neutral and not biased?? I highly doubt. Seleukosa (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I for one fail to see how this article is significantly different or improved from the previous version that was deleted. It seems the main novelty is the addition of geographical coordinates. So what? How is this information useful to anyone? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of towns and villages. Therefore, all the previous arguments in favor of deleting the article still stand. --Tsourkpk (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Without prejudice

I repeat what I wrote a while ago. The title is totally misleading. This article includes place names whose origin is Slavic, Albanian, Greek, Ottoman Turkish and probably a few Roman/Vlach names for good measure. Also, some of the 'Slavic' places are actually adaptations of the Greek. Deleting it seems like a reasonable proposition. Politis (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've said it further above: A "Slavic toponym" is a toponym used in a Slavic language. Not more and not less. Etymology doesn't come into it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

nasionalist view

Not only this article continues to be based in a biased and highly nationalist source but also it used the term "Aegean Macedonia". The specific term is used ONLY by SlavMacedonian extreme nationalists. It is used in the concept of the “occupied by Greece areas”. I am immediately changing the term to the original Greek. Nationalistic craps have no place to wikipedia. The term “so called” does not change the meaning at all! Furthermore I place a tag so to make clear what this article is about. Naturally the reasons for deletion still stand. Seleukosa (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarians and Serbs use it too. It has also been used in mainstream scholarship. BalkanFever 10:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Greeks use different names for all locations of the slavic countries above.You want to make several articles "Greek toponyms for Balkan countries"? And Greeks use the actual names of these places not "renamings".Megistias (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

NONE is using the term "Agean macedonia". It was used only in the consept of "Macedonism". And ofcourse no real scholar, historian, etc, has ever used it. Seleukosa (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The problems with this article remains.

• Only one and highly biased source.
• Perfectly real Greek names are presented as Slavic that were "renamed". ( I cant actually belive that someone consideres as "Slavic" names that were renamed the following : Varvara to Varvara, Klidi to kleidi, Kapsochora to Kapsochorion (which is demotic Greek to kathareuousa Greek) and more
• The name of the article is misleading.

Seleukosa (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC) All the reasons are explained above.

Of course nobody uses the term "Agean macedonia". However, Serbs, Bulgarians, non-Macedonist ethnic Macedonians and some mainstream scholars use/have used the term "Aegean Macedonia". BalkanFever 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources

If somebody wants to cross-check sources, I recommend looking up the US GeoNames Server. Not all of these places are in it, and not all of them have their Slavic forms listed, but some have. For instance, I just randomly looked up Skydra (Pella Pref.), and it has "Vertekóp" listed as a variant. Don't know what the underlying policy and database is for that source, but it might come in useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is another list that includes the dates of place renamings all over Greece.

http://www.freewebs.com/onoma/met.htm http://www.freewebs.com/onoma/ipir.htm http://www.freewebs.com/onoma/ster.htm This list was compiled by Dimitris Lithoxoou, independently of the other (unsourced) lists circulating in the Internet. In an e-mail to me, he assured me that he has the sources from Government Gazette (Efimerida tis Kyberniseos). Furthermore he writes:

<quote>Ο Simovski είναι καλή πηγή, κυρίως για την περιοχή Φλώρινας – Καστοριάς, όπου έχει χρησιμοποιήσει πρωτογενές υλικό από μακεδόνες πολιτικούς πρόσφυγες. Θέλει ωστόσο ιδιαίτερη προσοχή, γιατί αρκετές φορές παραποιεί τις πληροφορίες που αντλεί από τις πηγές. Στηρίζεται δε κυρίως στον K’nčon το έργο του οποίου είναι σημαντικό, αλλά όχι αλάνθαστο.</quote>

Of course, Lithoxoou is not neutral either, and his research has not been published. But cross-checking his list with Simovski's could be worth while. ANd giving the year of official name change increases credibility.  Andreas  ^(T) 15:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lithoxoou is anything but neutral.Megistias (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lithoksoou is definitely not neutral. He is a member of Slav-Macedonian group of Greece.(Rainbow party). His list has the same problems. At list we can very easily see that Turkish, Bulgarian and demotic Greek names were renamed with official kathareuousa Greek. (notice the perfectly good demotic Greek names that were renamed to Kathareusousa Greek. Such as Αρδέα renamed to Αριδαία, Κάτω Λουτράκι renamed to Λουτράκιον, Ξυφώνια renamed to Ξιφιανή, Νιστίμι renamed to Κουφοξυλιά, Καλύβια Αλαμπόρου renamed to Αλαμποριανά Καλύβια (What a renaming!!), Παλιότρος renamed to Άγιος Δημήτριος, Αϊλιάς renamed to Άγιος Ηλίας, Ανάργυροι renamed to Απιδέα, Παλαιό renamed to Αξός , Παλαιό Παλαιόν renamed to Ποντοχώρι, Παλαιόκαστρον renamed to Κύρρος, Πυλωρίκι renamed to Πηλωρύγι, Αράπης renamed to Δήμητρα (quite logical), Γουρουνάκι renamed to Νεοχώριον (quite logical, who would have wanted his village called Gourounaki(little pig)??) Γριά renamed to Άνοιξις, Καταφύγιο renamed to Καλλιθέα, Κατωχώριον renamed to Εράτυρα, Κολοκυθάκι renamed to Πευκάκιον and the list goes on! And this is not a list of “Slavic placenames” but a general list of places names. But what is most important is this: Because of the biased views of Lithoksoou the passage that Andreas provided is quite interesting. It is a statement(from Lithoksoou) that the source for this article (Simovski) needs to be taken with extreme care because sometimes he (Simovski) counterfeits the sources. (!!!!)"Θέλει ωστόσο ιδιαίτερη προσοχή, γιατί αρκετές φορές παραποιεί τις πληροφορίες που αντλεί από τις πηγές." This is probably a great blow for the credibility of Simovski. I don’t think that anyone will continues to accept Simovski as a source for any article! Seleukosa (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article isn't so much a list of "Slavic toponyms" as list of toponyms in various languages (actually, they are Greek toponyms as all the places are located in Greece). So at the very least, I propose it be renamed to something like "Macedonian Greek toponyms in various languages" or "Names of places in Northern Greece in various languages" or something like that. I also fail to see how such an article is useful to an encyclopaedia. It is just a directory of placenames, and most of the criticisms that applied to the deleted version also apply to this one as well. I think it is a waste of server space and propose to nominate it for deletion again. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How about having an article that is not so much a list, but a more general, systematic discussion of when and why places were renamed? That could still be complemented with a list of representative examples. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lithoksoou is referring to the demographic data in his book. I quote from his latest email to me:

Η δική μου λίστα αναφέρει τα ονόματα, όπως αυτά γράφονται στις υπουργικές αποφάσεις των μετονομασιών. O Simovski, γράφει τόσο την υπουργική απόφαση, όσο και το ΦΕΚ που δημοσιεύεται. Δίνει όμως στα ελληνικά, το όνομα του οικισμού με την τελευταία - σύγχρονη (μετ)ονομασία του. Αυτή μπορεί να είναι διάφορη της πρώτης μετονομασίας, τόσο στην κατάληξη, όσο και στην ορθογραφία. Ο Simovski, μια και με ρωτάς, χρησιμοποίησε κατά τη γνώμη μου, με επιπόλαιο τρόπο της πηγές. Δεν ξέρω αν έχεις τα βιβλία του. Επειδή έχω ασχοληθεί με όλα τα χωριά της Μακεδονίας, ένα-ένα χωριστά – και για πολλά χρόνια – έχω άποψη για το μακαρίτη. Έχω και τις δύο εκδόσεις του έργου του, καθώς επίσης τα δακτυλόγραφα που πήγαν στο τυπογραφείο, με χειρόγραφες διορθώσεις του ίδιου. Ο άνθρωπος έκανε βέβαια τιτάνιο έργο, αλλά έχει και προβλήματα. Ένα σημαντικό είναι ότι, για την περιοχή εκτός των νομών Καστοριάς, Φλώρινας και Πέλλας, στηρίζεται κυρίως - και πολλές φορές αποκλειστικά - στον K’nčov. Αυτό το βλέπεις σε κάθε χωριό, όταν αναφέρεται σε πηγές. Σε κάποιες περιπτώσεις, άλλα γράφει η πηγή (για τη γλώσσα και τη θρησκεία των κατοίκων) και άλλα αναφέρει πως γράφει ο Simovski. Ωστόσο, παρ’ όλα αυτά, πρόκειται για ένα εξαιρετικό βοήθημα, το οποίο κατά 90% αποδίδει σωστά τις δημογραφικές εξελίξεις.

To dispute the renaming themselves based on the non-neutrality of Simovski's or Lithoksoou is laughable, anybody can look them up by FEK number in the Efimerida tis Kyberniseos based on Simovski's book. To be precise, why not put the FEK Numbers into the list? Whoever has accesss to the book can do this easily. This would eliminate the notion that there is only one (biased) source.

I myself am not a Slavic-Macedonian activist, and ulike Lithoksoou I am not a member of any political party. My only aim is to stick to the historical facts, and, yes, any other renaming campains in Asia Minor, South Tyrol, Silesia etc. should be documented in the same way. Andreas  ^(T) 15:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

List of renamed cities in Greece

Remove such nonsense as Solun or Ber, but include other name changes such as Menidi -> Acharnes. Add the year of the official renaming, as done in the (unsourced) List of renamed cities in Armenia etc (see other such lists mentioned in List of city name changes. This would illustrate much better the tendency of Greek society (and the policy of the Greek government) to hellenize toponyms and reinstate names from Antiquity independent of the ethnicity of its inhabitants. Some of these changes such as Varkiza -> Alianthos were never accepted by the population.

Instead of bickering about the neutrality of the sources, why does not somebody go to the library and look up the name changes in the Efimerida tis Kyberniseos? (impossible for me to do this from Canada).  Andreas  ^(T) 20:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Andreas this is a gigantic search!!. Still today a lot of toponymes are changed. Don’t forget that there are names that were never changed! (Such as Araxova. Still in use.) Like the previous article the problem is not the existence of Slavic (or Turkish toponymes). The problem is that the article is misleading. Greek toponymes are presented as Slavic, Turkish toponymes are presented as Slavic and of course the source can’t be considered neutral. (it is not “blickering” but reality) Future Perfect has a point though and I agree with him. It is proper to mention that most of those toponymes were used in the multinational environment of the Ottoman Empire. It should be mentioned that those areas became ethnic after the wars and the exchange of populations.

I did change the article and add more historical elements. I wrote it fast and there are no citations. (only known facts). If anyone disagrees please advice and participate. I think it is neutral and gives some clue about historical facts. The title should be renamed (just like the settlements of Northern Greece :))) ok that was a bad joke) to something like “Non Greek place names of Greece” and add links and citations. If the fellow editors completely disagree with my edit you can always undo it. Seleukosa (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename the article as List of renamed cities in Greece, and put only the cities, not villages, including re-renamings sauch as Lamia → Zitouni → Lamia. The names of the villages can be discussed in a "Name" section for each village with date of renaming and possibly FEK citation that can be safely taken from Simitis. See Ptolemaida as an example. The previous names can also be entered into the List of municipalities and communities of Greece by prefecture in an extra colum "alternative or former names" with year of change.

The words "Slavic" and "Macedonian" should not appear in the tilte because the renaming of place names in Greece was systematic troughout and not conmfined to Slavic names in Macedonia. True, renaming was most frequent in Macedonia and should be seen in a political context, but this could be mentioned in the text and explained in context at some other article like History of modern Macedonia.

Regarding names that are still used by the local population, there is hardly a way to document this in Wikipedia because there are no sources (asking the local population would constitute Wikipedia:original research, except if someone could find a reliable source on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreasJS (talk • contribs) 14:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The source has the dates of renamings and cites to the Greek laws that mandated them, it is quite more detail than is usual given already secondary sources for the material including one found above and even the good-ole US government's name server showing earlier forms for some places. The trivial detail asked seems more inspired by a desire to play WP:IDONTLIKEIT games than anything else. By the way, I assume from the ardent heat by which all the opponents of Slavic names on Greek geographical articles that these same editors are working with equal diligence removing the Greek names from Turkish geographical articles - unless of course they have a strong POV perhaps? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Carlossuarz but you completely misunderstand the entire discussion above. What I and other editors have suggested are the logical arguments that come to everybody minds simply by reading the article and the sources. Let’s repeat the arguments.

• The sources that exist are biased and not at all neutral. (It has nothing to do with “like it or not” or “blabbering”.). Already the passages from Lithoksoou discredited Simovski and are quite clear: the source for this article (Simovski) needs to be taken with extreme care because sometimes he (Simovski) counterfeits the sources. (!!!!)"Θέλει ωστόσο ιδιαίτερη προσοχή, γιατί αρκετές φορές παραποιεί τις πληροφορίες που αντλεί από τις πηγές."
• A lot of Greek (and non Greek) names are presented as “Slavic”. This is so obvious for anyone who can read Greek.

If we accept Lithoksoou word that in his list he uses the original names as they appeared in the Goverenmwent Gassete we can immediately see mistakes!! For example in Simovski list we have names such as (Slavic toponyms of places in Grevena Prefecture) Abdela/Avdela, Agalush/Agalea, Agii Teodori/Agii Theodoro, (Άγιοι Θεόδωρο!!!!!)(sic) Agija Trijas/ Agia Trias, Agios Georgios/Agios Georgios, Ano Eklisija/Ano Ecclesia,--Tsourkpk (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Asprokamb/Asprokampos. In Lithoksou list NONE of those names appear. Either Simovski tried to present Greek names as Slavic (quite logical) or Lithoksou didn’t copy Government Cassette correctly.

• The article title is completely misleading mainly because the presentation of Greek/Muslim names as Slavic.

I do agree with FuturePerfect, Andreas and other editors suggestions (read above for details) and those should be the solution. Either the article is renamed {something like “Non-Greek toponymes of Greece” or “List of renamed settlements in Greece”} which can include wider historical information. p.s : (on personal matter), I do not consider irony and sarcasm as a positive way to contribute in this discussion. I personally don’t remove or add Greek names in any article. Historical names are perfectly good material to appear in articles. Or should we delete Constantinople, or Ephesus, or Miletus? Is it POV? Or nationalism? Imaginary “Slavic” names is a different thing though. Only the use of Agii Teodori/Agii Theodoro, (Άγιοι Θεόδωρο!!!!!)(sic) is enough to support my arguments. Seleukosa (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Branjate/Nea Nikomidia, Boshtani/Rizomata, Vosovo/Sfikia, Kaljani/Aloros, Kukova/Polydendro, Pozhari/Kefalohori, Sadena/Karavi etc.......? BalkanFever 11:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We dont have a disagreement there. The presence of the Bulgarians is wel documented. None has disagreed with that. (Nea Nikomidia is a new vilage)And the exchange of populations is well documented also. Seleukosa (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think something along the lines of what is proposed by Andreas would work. List of renamed cities, including re-renamings, and cities only, with nonsene such as "Ber" and "Solun" removed. The current article, which lists every single village reads like a directory and is completely useless. How is this information useful to anyone (except perhaps Slavomacedonian nationalists with terrirotial claims)? And definitely, we need to use sources other than Simovski. Seleukosa's argument about Agii Teodori is a case in point. I wonder, is there a single village/place in Greek Macedonia for which he doesn't give a Slavic name? --Tsourkpk (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already agreed with Andrea's and Future's sugestions. List of renamed settlemens sounds good Seleukosa (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

this article is becoming POV

This article (and all the sub articles) have the same problems as I and other users have sugested above.

• One and hilgly contrioversial source.(Simovski)
• A second source (Lithiksoou list) completely condraticts Simovski (that should have been enough).
• The title and the presentation of supposed “Slavic names” is misleading since most of the names are Turkish or Demotic Greek. (it has been sugested that these were “exonyms” which is in fact a different articleby itslef.)
• The names that appeared in Simovski book have started to be added as alternatives of the Greek original in every settlemt that appears in Simovski book. That is POV pushing.

I have tried to correct this strange inserting of supposed “Slavic names” and you can have an idea in the talk pages of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nea_Peramos_%28Kavala%29%2C_Greece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Slavic_toponyms_of_places_in_Drama_Prefecture Not to mention the fact that “slavic toponymes” have apeared in Bold letters(!!)

• As a result of the above I am requesting the imidiete corection of the above article
• Ether put up for deletion again (which I think is the better solution)

Or

• Rename it. ( and I think that almost everyone above has sugested so!)

And since the supposed “Slavic names” are based on controversial source we need to remove them from the articles about the settlements especially in the way they are presented. Check the articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralia%2C_Pieria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katerini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastania_%28Pieria%29%2C_Greece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippoi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandreia just for example. I have to request to Carlossuarez46 no to be caried away. You cant fight nationalism using the opposit nationalism. There are better ways. Not me and not any other users has suggested that Bulgarians didnt live in Macedonia. But is POV to suggest that every settlemet was actually Bulgarian/Slavic and the Greeks renamed everything. Carlossuarez46 as an administrator should have acted in a better judgment. Especially when he has admited that a lot of those names are actually "exonyms" (exonyms are not to be put as alternmatives in the article about places) Further more I dont acept acusations about POV pushing! Seleukosa (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Todor Hristov Simovski is a 100 % questionable source.All and any material ,references and articles based on him must be removed.He is POV and his books are unverifiable."Aegean Macedonia"? The book is nationalistic [1] to say the least and nothing more the Irredentism.How did this get through in wiki.Everything must be removed and appropriate measures be taken.His book is irredendist.summary of the book.Immediate purge is needed.The material has been scanned by someone heresimovski,obviously some irredendist from fyrom.See Simovski's bio and material from the Book.Clearly material that is trash.Even if this gets closed i have saved the related material.The articles should be deleted and any and all refs with this "simovski".Megistias (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Simovski and Lithoxoou are no more than secondary sources. Irrespective of their political views, their data regarding renamings are based on an official source, the Govenrment Gazette. Do you, Megistias, imply that these authors deliberately report name changes that did not take place? Or do you deny that many settlements in Greece were renamed? I am convinced that the FEK citations given by these authors are reliable.

The problem here is a different one: Simovski lists all the settlements in the area of interest, irrespecively of if they had a Greek, Slavic or Turkish name. The lists as they are now are unacceptabe not because of the source, but because they include places that never had more than one name. This is why I proposed to add former ar alternative names into the general lists of greek municipalities, but only if well documcented by a FEK citation or other source.

Our aim is here to represent historical facts objectively. For example, the Slavic name of Florina is Lerin, and is derived from the older Greek name Χλέρινα - Khlerina (compare Serbian hleb - bread, Slavic Macedonian leb). It is the name used by the local Slavic-speaking population and therefore not an exonym. On the other hand, Ptolemaida was formerly known by the name of Kailar, even among the Greeks. The name Ptolemaida (or Ptolemais) is a modern name that was chosen by the Greek administration to honour the first Macedonian-descent Egyptian Pharao and ancestor of Cleopatra [2]. This name does not originate in the historical tradition of the town; it was chosen to reflect the fact that after the population exchange, the town was now basically Greek. I would not have known this were it not for Wikipedia. The fact that recent renamings of place names in Greece are much more frequent in Macedonia than in other regions can tell us something about the history of this region.  Andreas  ^(T) 15:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources that are not politically biased (not greek or from fyrom or derivative from them) would be much nicer and accepted.Also names for the whole balkan region were sometimes simultaneously turkish/greek/slav/albanian/aromanian and god knows what else.You want to mention all the variants ?.Most are corruptions from Greek or another language and not "slavic" or something else. Megistias (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Andreas I have already agreed with you before. The problem is that CarloSouarez has been using the same source (Simovski) for numerus articles wich is unaceptable. I have agreed with you before and I second it now. By the way Lithoksou is far more better source than Simovski Seleukosa (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Simovksi claims that the greeks were only 10%first proper paragraph on the left which is circus material.....He is not a source.

• The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World,by Loring M. Danforth,Page 41,"When Greek Macedonia was liberated in 1913 43% of the population was Greek,40 percent Moslem and 10% Bulgarian"Megistias (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

From the same book, p. 29: "In this chapter, I present brief accounts of the Greek and the Macedonian positions on the Macedonian Question. Both of these accounts are written in the voices and from the perspectives of Greek and Macedonian nationalists themselves. Neither represents my own anthropological point of view." The sentence you quote is from that context. You managed to misrepresent a source, again. The claim is quite obviously false too. (Possibly the underlying claim refers to the religious division, Greeks=Patriarchists, Bulgarians=Exarchists; it certainly doesn't represent a realistic view of the language situation.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not misreading anything.He claims that greeks were only 10%.Megistias (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Its exactly what he says.Megistias (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't get my point. Read the context. The whole passage (from Danforth) is not written in his own voice but is supposed to render the argumentation of a nationalist Greek. He doesn't himself say it's true. I said nothing about the quote from Simovski (whose 10% figure may be totally correct, for all I know.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove him from wikipedia.This is ridiculous.Megistias (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He supports it again MAcedonia population prevailed.4th paragraph from the left.Megistias (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about simovksi on the scanned pages.Danforth quotes him in page 53,"When Aegean Macedonia was occupied by Greece in 1913 the "national structure" of its population was as follows: 28 percent Macedonian, 25 percent Turkish,21% Greek,(Simovksi 1978,475)"

• You just admited that simovksi is a nationalistMegistias (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think that (10% greeks....)what more can i say.Even the nationalist Simovksi wrote that "Macedonian" was 25% which refers to Bulgarians or a religious affiliation obviously.Megistias (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you could believe in simovski a "nutjob" from communist and propaganda infested and isolated eastern block what can i say.I want another admin from japan this time.Megistias (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop complaining about admins. I'm not performing admin functions in this issue. And you are still avoiding the point, that I caught you red-handed misreading the Danforth quote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And i caught you red handed saying that simovksi is a nationalist.Megistias (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I said no such thing. Of course, he may well be, so what? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Issue nor resolved, articles to be deleted

There have been new articles generated out of this one regarding 'Slavic toponyms'. Since the titles are in doubt and the issue is pending, the other article should be deleted. Politis (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost everyone that has participated has agreed that the article has serious problems. All the reasons are in the discussion above. Unfortunately the same unreliable source was used to create more articles and also as a source to add supposed "Slavic" names in every settlement in Macedonia.(Even in known Macedonian Greek settlements and even in new settlements founded by refuges of Asia Minor) As everyone above has suggested, this article should de deleted or renamed. All the other articles (generated from this) should be deleted and the supposed "Slavic names" should be verified before added in the articles of every settlement. We can not possible base those articles in pro Slav-nationalist sources. This is the definition of POV pushing. Seleukosa (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's get to the point

I'm just going to ask straight up: Is Simovski a reliable source from which to extract information about Slavic toponyms of Greek places? Please, nobody repeat the crap found in the above sections, or on user talk pages, just answer the question. BalkanFever 11:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No ,find the sources he quotes and others quote and take the data from there.Even if he is right in some of the names he is controversial in many aspects.Megistias (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you consider crap from above but almost everyone has agreed that Simovski is not a reliable source. I consider it highly controversial. (not necessary wrong in everything but definitely biased). Seleukosa (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Simovski is not consistently reliable. He was from Greek Macedonia (called Simos) and emotionally attached to his ideology (Communism). He designed the final 'ethnic map' of Macedonia for the newspaper Nova Makedonija that was circulated after 1991. He belonged to the generation that was 'over-enthusiastic' in establishing the Slavonic names in northern Greece and, in the process, occasionally went over the top. But the problem lies with the title of the article and the offspring of articles it has generated by one editor. Politis (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is saying that Simovski is unreliable? Has anyone cited anything showing that he is wrong by a reliable source? Should we consider Greek sources unreliable as well as they have consistently tried to deny or minimize the glaring fact that the population of Greek Macedonia was not wholly Greek prior to the 1920s. If, as you say, the problem is the title, what title do you propose so that we remove all the garbage that is being added and keep the cited content being removed by a small POV-pushing group? I find it bizarre that this POV-pushing group fails to understand the mixed ethnic picture of pre-1920s Macedonia and wants to suppress information about it. The Ancient Greeks are credited with inventing history (although Herodotus is a biased source as well), it is a shame that some modern-day Greeks who claim descent from them are so pre-occupied with burying history rather than respecting and embracing it. Perhaps that's another reason that the Elgin marbles will not be going to Athens anytime soon. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Elgin marbles to Athens? No way. Of course place names change and it is useful to track those changes. Likewise, we cannot deny the existence of 'Slav Macedonians' in Greek Macedonia; Herodotus would turn in his grave. If we want to keep the title, then one could remove all 'Slavic' names that are, in fact, Ottoman, Greek, Vlach, Albanian, Ilirian, etc. But then the question is, do we keep the names that have been Slavicised? A new title would be too long, 'Slavic, Ottoman, Vlach and Albanian toponyms for Greek places'; I can already see some administrators having heart attacks over that one :-) Politis (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not being able to apply CPR over the net, we wouldn't want that. :-) How about Former toponyms of Greek places or something along those lines - and at some point with reliable sources as to their derivations - the "other" column can include things such as the years of usage (or disusage) and whether the names are Greek, Slavic, Ottoman, Vlach, Albanian, or even Italian - think some of the islands that were under Venitian or Italian rule - etc.? By the way, Simovski's book does not address whether the toponyms used by Slavs were actually Slavic in origin - some as noted in the article are obviously Turkish, some obviously Greek, some even obviously Slav - and then you have places in one language specifying the presence of another people - like most places with "Arnaut" are typically settlements named by others but inhabited by Albanians - and some places had two parallel villages - a Christian one and a Muslim one with some naming difference to distinguish them - like much of Eastern Europe had Jewish & Christian villages adjacent to one another with often different names - even such as the Upper/Lower used in many of the toponyms in Macedonia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Let’s see a source that gives information about Simovski credibility (from Dimitris Lithoksoou. as posted from Andreas above)
quote>Ο Simovski είναι καλή πηγή, κυρίως για την περιοχή Φλώρινας – Καστοριάς, όπου έχει χρησιμοποιήσει πρωτογενές υλικό από μακεδόνες πολιτικούς πρόσφυγες. Θέλει ωστόσο ιδιαίτερη προσοχή, γιατί αρκετές φορές παραποιεί τις πληροφορίες που αντλεί από τις πηγές. Στηρίζεται δε κυρίως στον K’nčon το έργο του οποίου είναι σημαντικό, αλλά όχι αλάνθαστο.</quote>
Let me translate the part "it needs to be taken with extreme care because he (Simovski) sometimes falsifies the information he uses from the sources"
And that is from Dimitris Lithoksou a member of the Slav-Macedonian party of Greece. Is that enough for CarloSouarez? Why he is keeping ignoring it? Note also that Carlso unfairly accused everybody who has expressed concern about the source and the article as a “small POV-pushing group”:
"I find it bizarre that this POV-pushing group fails to understand the mixed ethnic picture of pre-1920s Macedonia and wants to suppress information about it. The Ancient Greeks are credited with inventing history (although Herodotus is a biased source as well), it is a shame that some modern-day Greeks who claim descent from them are so pre-occupied with burying history rather than respecting and embracing it. Perhaps that's another reason that the Elgin marbles will not be going to Athens anytime soon."
{Beside the fact that we learn that Herodotus is a biased source (He was pushing Greek propaganda obviously!) we also learn why the Parthenon marbles are held in England! Because Greeks are pre-occupied to bury history! Is that a way an administrator should express himself?}
In reality none of the editors that have express their concerns have ever denied the existence of the Bulgarian/Slav/Muslim population in Macedonia prior of 1919. The objections are clear and are about the source! Not reliable sources. The sources that exist contradict each other. (Lithoksou vs Simovski) (Note that Lithoksou and Simovski are part of the same Macedonian –Slav extreme historiography. None in here has used any Greek source. Greek historians have done excellent work in the recent 40 years and there are a lot and not at all biased publications. The accusation of Carlosouares about Greek sources is completely unfair.) Almost all editors have suggested above the change of the title and the article.
Future perfect suggested "How about having an article that is not so much a list, but a more general, systematic discussion of when and why places were renamed? That could still be complemented with a list of representative examples. "
Andreas suggested: "Remove such nonsense as Solun or Ber, but include other name changes such as Menidi -> Acharnes. Add the year of the official renaming, as done in the (unsourced) List of renamed cities in Armenia etc (see other such lists mentioned in List of city name changes. This would illustrate much better the tendency of Greek society (and the policy of the Greek government) to Hellenize toponyms and reinstate names from Antiquity independent of the ethnicity of its inhabitants. Some of these changes such as Varkiza -> Alianthos were never accepted by the population. "
I have suggested: "The title should be renamed (just like the settlements of Northern Greece :))) ok that was a bad joke) to something like “Non Greek place names of Greece” and add links and citations. If the fellow editors completely disagree with my edit you can always undo it. "
Andreas resugested : "Rename the article as List of renamed cities in Greece, and put only the cities, not villages, including re-renamings sauch as Lamia → Zitouni → Lamia. The names of the villages can be discussed in a "Name" section for each village with date of renaming and possibly FEK citation that can be safely taken from Simitis. See Ptolemaida as an example. The previous names can also be entered into the List of municipalities and communities of Greece by prefecture in an extra colum "alternative or former names" with year of change. "
Tsourkpk sugested : " “I think something along the lines of what is proposed by Andreas would work. List of renamed cities, including re-renamings, and cities only, with nonsene such as "Ber" and "Solun" removed. The current article, which lists every single village reads like a directory and is completely useless. How is this information useful to anyone (except perhaps Slavomacedonian nationalists with terrirotial claims)? And definitely, we need to use sources other than Simovski. Seleukosa's argument about Agii Teodori is a case in point. I wonder, is there a single village/place in Greek Macedonia for which he doesn't give a Slavic name?” "
Are the above sugestions enough???? (the question marks are for emphasis.) Has anyone asked from the editors to hide the Slavic/Bulgarian/Muslim presence in Macedonia?
Further more the fellow administrators have forgotten one important rule of Wikipedia

• Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.
  
• Why since this article was heavily under dispute Carlos continued to expand it? (creating more and more articles based on the same disputed source??)
• Why the same questionable source was used for every settlement in Macedonia?
• Shouldn’t we all have waited for a solution?

The solution is simple

• Follow one of the above suggestions and rename the article.
• Delete all the separate articles for every region. The materials should be incorporated in one article. (Not to hide known facts of course but not to use fake names)
• Use a Slavic name in the articles of each settlements only if it is serve historical and encyclopedical reasons. And only if we know for sure. (Regardless source we know that Edessa was also called Voden and Vodena. We don’t need a source for that.)

But Nea Peramos?? (a village founded after 1924 how it got its Slavic exonym in a full Greek region even before 1919). I tried desperately to be polite and not to get carried away! I don’t always manage it! I apologize if anyone felt insulted. But I also feel insulted from the ironic and sarcastic comments. I hope they were written under frustration. Seleukosa (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nea Peramos is a good example. When Greek refugees came during the population exchange having a choice to settle in the townsite abandoned by non-Greek refugees or in bare ground, they chose the former. Is that so bizarre. It happened in the population exchanges in India-Pakistan, in Israel-Palestine, in Germany-Poland-USSR, in former Yugoslavia. There was a discontinuity of occupation, but the townsite was re-occupied. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Carlos we finaly agree! I wrote the above before reading your previus sugestion. Please proceed with your sugestion.If you like keep the text that explains the hiostorical facts. BUT the refuges of Asia Minor did not resettled always in abandond settlements. There were quite alot that were build from the ground! Nea Peramos is one of them. They were simply too many! Can we please agree to use the Slavic name only were we are sure it existed? Not in every settlement. I will be the first to add it if we have a verified source. Seleukosa (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me add my comment (which I might have added elsewhere). I do not object at all to a list of Slavic toponyms for Greek places as a separate article. What I do object to is giving equal weight to the Greek toponyms and the Slavic toponyms in the very articles about the Greek places, without any justification that the Slavic name has been historically significant. This is what Simovski agenda is, to convey the impression that all these places had a Slavic, and specifically a Macedonian Slavic majority, that they were primarily Macedonian Slavic settlements that the Greek state hellenised. This needs much more sourcing and this is my issue with CarlosSuarez46.--Avg (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Toponyms outside Macedonia

This article only talks about toponym changes in Greek Macedonia. But toponyms were changed all over Greece. We'll need to find some good sources for this.... --Macrakis (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

revert to a previous more neutral description

I revert with changes to the to the previous version which is more historically correct and lesser a sociological analysis. The facts are quite clearer since Treaty of Neuilly and the Treaty of Lausanne refers specifically to “Greek orthodox”, “Bulgarians” and “Muslims”. (and not to “followers of the Bulgarian Exarchate”. Especially referring to treaties we should stay close to the prototype.)
The population according to the source (Kontogiorgi) after the exchange became almost entirely Greek and not “more homogenous”. (Is it extreme to refer to Greek population? Or should we say unknown population?). No matter how the population exchange happened the result was a mono-ethnic state and that is important to mention. It is clearly backed up by the sources.
I also added the article of Vlasidis - Karakostanoglou which is important to contradict Simovski book. It is an important source for the population of Macedonia.
Macrakis has a point though and I moved it in a better position. The quotes should be very carefully mentioned as the meaning of the quote can very easily be misunderstood. The fact remains that the process of change the toponymes started only after the state became mono-ethnic. (or homogenous ).
And the fact remain that the population was almost entirely Greek. And Anastasia Karakasidou is a perfect source for that.
Anastasia Karakasidou's paper on "Politicizing Culture: Negating Ethnic Identity in Greek Macedonia", Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 11 (1993), 22-23 notes 2-3. "the bulk of the population in Greek Macedonia is nothing less than Greek"
Seleukosa (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Seleukosa, I don't agree at all with your reversion. Not only is it historically unsound, it is full of bad English.

Rather than being specific about when there were different forms, the opening now vaguely says that places "had Greek and non-Greek forms". What is the objection to being specific about when and how this region was joined to the Greek state?

Why did you remove the wikilinks to the Turkish, Aromanian, and Albanian languages?

You removed the fact -- mentioned in the Kontogiorgi article which you apparently approve of -- that it was specifically the pro-Bulgarian Slavic speakers who left for Bulgaria. The treaty said "Bulgarians", but what did this mean in practice? There were not labels on people's foreheads saying "Greek", "Bulgarian", etc. To be or become Greek or Bulgarian was a choice. After all, this is why Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania sent propagandists into the region during the "Macedonian struggle".

Why "Greek and non-Greek" when the third sentence gives a nice list? Why "forms" rather than "names"?

"Since the Greek state became ethnic" is not English. What is it supposed to mean? And I thought we were talking about Macedonia (a region), not Greece (a state).

What is the meaning of "The villages of the exchanged populations (Bulgarians and Muslims) in Greece were resettled with Greeks from Asia Minor, the Balkans and local Macedonian Greeks."? This seems to claim that villages were exclusively Bulgarian or Muslim, when in fact most were mixed. And the sources I've read don't show much movement of "local Macedonian Greeks" to other villages.

The expression "a lot" is not formal English. "[names] were introduced in the region mainly by resettled refugees" is unidiomatic English. I understand that you are not a native English speaker, and I respect your right to contribute, but replacing good English by bad is not productive.

You modify the meaning of the Kontogiorgi statement about establishing collective ethnic consciousness and a sense of national identity by saying "although the bulk of the population was Greek", as though Greekness was a natural condition. If you'd read Kontogiorgi more carefully, you'll see that she talks about the issues of integrating Asia Minor refugees into the Greek state. After all, though they were "Greek" in the sense of being Orthodox, many were actually Turkish-speaking.

In all, I think your edits are highly POV and unsupported by the sources. --Macrakis (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree, Macrakis. The English of this article is quite good and not at all bad. Some of its paragraph were already there and it is actually a result of a compromise and a hard debate.

The problem with your change was that the article starting to became a sociological analysis about national consciousness.

As for the source please add if you like the “pro-Bulgarian Macedonian Slavs” but not the “followers of the Bulgarian exarchate”

Add the links of the languages, they were removed by mistake.

There were mixed villages, but also several not mixed villages (Especially in the Halkidiki peninsula).

The fortunes that were left behind were claimed also by the local Macedonian Greeks and that caused a lot of tension with the refuges.

Majority of those fortunes were of course given to the refuges but as you said “some movement” (of local Macedonians Greeks) did happen. But if you insist and at till we find a source that can undoubtedly verified it I am removing it.

As for ethnic state. From 1913 till 1925 Greece was a multi ethnic state. Within its borders there were Muslim, Turks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Kurds and other populations (especially in the Asia Minor provinces). After 1925 the state became ethnic. I will rephrase it to “Greece became ethnic state”. Is that acceptable?

We also do not question here the national consciousness of the Greeks.

You probably don’t believe that there were any Greeks but we are not discussing it or solving it here. A very detailed conversation was done in the article about Greeks and as I can remember the outcome was different.

Check the article about the name of the Greeks and the article about the Greeks. You will find a lot of information about the Greek ethnic identity and its history in time.

As for the Greeks of Asia Minor as I can remember they were considered by everybody as Greeks. Not only they were considered Greeks but they probably had the strongest Greek identity. Especially the Pontian Greeks.

And that is already a known fact and it is also in the book of Elisabeth Kontogiorgi, Population Exchange in Greek Macedonia: The Forced Settlement of Refugees, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 5

“The abrupt disruption of life and activity of the Greek communities in the Ottoman provinces where Hellenism had existed over a period of three millennia, despite the turbulent history of the era..”

Is the above enough for the “Greekness” of Asia Minor Greeks?

And of course the Turkish speakers were a small minority within the refuges.

The biggest community was the Karamanlides who were in fact a small isolated community of Greeks (Karamanlides are referred as Greeks by every source). Their population was about 10-15 thousands which means that they were the 0.6% of the population of the Asia Minor Greeks (in 1.5 millions of refuges).

(As I can remember there were few Turkish speaking villages in the Pontus but I assume their number was far lesser than the previous.)

All the sources support the way the article is written. And of course the expression “Although the bulk of the population was Greek” stays and it is suported by the sources.

Seleukosa (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As for native speaker of English (!!) I do my find myself in the difficult position to defend myself.

I was born and raised in South Africa within an English speaking community. And although I live in Greece for many years English was the first language I learned.

I also lived for nearly a year in Wales in UK and I did speak and wrote in English (not in Wales language unfortunately). Am I qualified enough to contribute?

To sum up : I believe that the article is now a product of compromise and should stay like that. All the quotes that Macrakis added are there and they were not removed.

Corrections are welcomed but let’s keep it more historical and not sociological.

Seleukosa (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is, alas, full of poor English, and it will not improve if you insist on reverting to bad English. Please recall that constructive editing does not consist of mass reversions, but of thoughtful improvements. Instead, you have reverted large chunks.

The current (reverted) text has a bunch of mealy-mouthed passages which as far as I can tell are that way specifically avoid saying things that some people don't like. Why else, for example, does the opening sentence say "Greek and non-Greek forms"? This is problematic in two ways. First of all, the different names weren't necessarily "forms" of the same thing, but sometimes distinct names (though other times, of course, just phonetic variants). This is presumably to minimize the differences between the old "forms" and the new "forms". Secondly, why are languages divided into "Greek and non-Greek" rather than simply listing the languages? Along the same lines, later, we have the off-handedly offensive sentence "Some of the forms were identifiably of Greek origin, others of Slavic, yet others of Turkish or more obscure origins." This implies that Turkish is an "obscure origin"(!), and that other origins (e.g. Aromanian, Albanian, etc.) are "obscure" in themselves. Is this simply poor writing, or POV? Hard to tell, though the poor writing seems to systematically lean in one direction.

Continuing with the analysis of the first paragraph, why does it vaguely say that many settlements "had" a variety of "forms"? Are we talking about the 7th century? About 1821? About 1998? Why not be concrete?

I don't understand why you insist that "Greek became ethnic state" is good English. Someone has corrected this to "a mono-ethnic state", which is at least English. But the monoethnicity of Greek Macedonia in 1925 was a matter of ideology, not of facts on the ground. Besides the Slav-speakers who seem to make everyone's blood pressure rise, there were Albanian-speakers, Gypsies, Aromanians, ... and let's not forget the Jews of Thessaloniki. There is nothing wrong with this. Why does it seem to be such a source of embarrassment? What's more, one of Kontogiorgi's points is that even among the Greeks there were divisions (whether you want to call them "ethnic" or not is another matter) among the locals, the Pontians, the Cappadocians, the Karamanlides, etc. That was one of the motivations for emphasizing Greekness by changing toponyms.

But perhaps I should relegate this article to my list of "lost causes", where rampant nationalist editing makes it impossible to reflect the current scholarly view of matters. --Macrakis (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Macrakis, you shouldn't. I completely agree with you. Seleukosa either knows what he is doing, or he is confusing neutrality with vagueness. BalkanFever 00:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Seleukosa, you say you "also added the article of Vlasidis - Karakostanoglou which is important to contradict Simovski book. It is an important source for the population of Macedonia." But the only thing I see in the Vlasidis-Karakostanoglou article about toponyms is the statement "Non-Greek toponyms, however, names in Greek Macedonia were changed in the 1920s, following certain State guidelines, which were normally followed in such cases by nation-states." It is not an article about toponyms, and doesn't contradict the premise that many "non-Greek" toponyms were changed. (By the way, the article should be properly cited to its original publication in the journal Balkan Studies of the Institute for Balkan Studies, Thessaloniki, not to a random web site). --Macrakis (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Let’s repeat of what I have previously written,

This article and the way it is written is a product of compromise and a result of a long debate.

Parts that you consider “bad English” were not written by me. Especially the “non Greek or Greek forms” was introduced from the editor/administrator who created this article.

Nevertheless is correct.

Also the "Some of the forms were identifiably of Greek origin, others of Slavic, yet others of Turkish or more obscure origins." Was also written by the editor administrator who created this article. I can’t understand why you failed to notice that it was corrected?

The article gives an excellent description of the historical facts.

All those forms were in use during the multinational environment of the Ottoman Empire. (Weren’t they??)

They started to change only after Greece became a mono-ethnic state. (By the way please check who has made all the corrections you mentioned! I am surprised you failed to notice it!).

The term “multiethnic state” and “ethnic state” are in use in English language. I am surprised you considered this as bad English.

All the ethnicities and all the languages of Macedonia are mentioned. (Again you failed to notice that it was corrected and who corrected it!).

I have added perfectly correct sources which are by the way almost the same as yours.

We can not deny the fact that Greeks were the majority of the population and that the exchange of populations was the main tool for the creation of the ethnic state.

It is clearly mentioned. Why shouldn’t be mentioned?

{As for the Greeks of Asia Minor as I can remember they were considered by everybody as Greeks. Not only they were considered Greeks but they probably had the strongest Greek identity. Especially the Pontian Greeks.

And that is already a known fact and it is also in the book of Elisabeth Kontogiorgi, Population Exchange in Greek Macedonia: The Forced Settlement of Refugees, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 5 “The abrupt disruption of life and activity of the Greek communities in the Ottoman provinces where Hellenism had existed over a period of three millennia, despite the turbulent history of the era..” Is the above enough for the “Greekness” of Asia Minor Greeks? (do I have to repeat it?)}

To summarize: the article is a product of compromise and it should remain as such.

It has very good and neutral description of historical facts and all the quotes that Macrakis added are there! None was removed. All lot of the corrections that were asked has been corrected. What else should be added?

Question about ethnic consciences and national identities is a matter of sociology and it is already discussed in the articles about the Greeks and especially about Macedonia (terminology).
:Seleukosa (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Greece did not become and "ethnic state" as you say - that was merely the ideology of the government at the time. BalkanFever 00:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean that the exchange of populations had as a result a multi-ethnic state??? The fact that more than 500 thousand non Greeks left and were replaced with more than 1.5 million Greeks is a small detaile? If you do have objection about the ethnic identity of the Greek population please contribute in the articles about the Greeks and the demography of Greece. From what I remember those article are full of details.

Seleukosa (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There were still Slavs and Vlachs and Arvanites and others that stayed in Greece. BalkanFever 00:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand why we desagree here.

The entire population of Vlachs of Greece (to be more precise “of Vlach descent” or “Greek Vlachs”) is estimated in about 40,000 (1994 est According to INTEREG - quoted by Eurominority: Aromanians in Greece.) (the census of 1951 gave a number of 39,855). Most of them being in Macedonia and Thessaly.

Arvanite (the Greek Arvanite) are estimated from 30,000 to 140,000. (Census from 1928 gave a number of 18,773 Arvanitic-speaking and 1951 census: 22,736) I will keep a number in the middle which is near 60,000. Most of them in Attika/Voiotia and very few in Macedonia. Origin of those populations is still debated but they hold a strong ethnic Greek identity. They participated in the war of independence fighting as Greeks.

Beside the fact that their origin is not clear even if we claim that they are not Greeks (but were Hellenized) their number will be (all together) less than 100,000. Even if we exceed their number in 150 thousand they will be in the region of 1.3% of the entire Greek population. Even if we assume that they are more than 500 thousands(!!!)(Slavophones included) still they will be less than 5% of the entire population. Hardly a number to characterize Greece as multi-ethnic state.

All of the above groups had and have a very strong Greek ethnic identity.

Either way (Greeks or not Greeks) the composition of the Greek population is very well described in various articles (Greek nation, minorities of Greece etc).

This article is not a place to discuss it. There are very detailed articles about the Greek Vlachs and the Arvanites. Believe it or not there is also a very good article about the Slavophones of Greece. {either of Bulgarian , Greek or Slav-Macedonian origin. Even the one person party of the Bulgarian minority is mentioned (!)}.

Here we only mention the exchange of populations. And the article has all the quotes there and a neutral historical description.

Seleukosa (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is so confusing, not because of the arguement, but because nobody besides BalkanFever feels like indenting their reply and thus you lose track of whose talking. So has this been solved or is it still on going? _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Personaly I have signed all my comments/arguments. And macraksi has done so. If you see anything unsinged is beucase it is part of Macrakis arguments. His signature is at the end. The article, as it is now, seems quite clear and neutral. Seleukosa (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

He said indenting, not "signing". That means putting : before your comments so people know you are replying to a specific comment. BalkanFever 10:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it better now? I really dont know what else to do in the texts. Feel free to form it be more clear. I dont actually use ":" and I am not familiar of how it works. Seleukosa (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

All it does is make a space before your comment. The more you put, the larger the space. It just makes it easier for people to know if you are replying to their comments or someone else's. And yes it is better. I would recommend you use it from now on. By the way, you don't have to put your signature on a new line; you can put it straight after your comment. BalkanFever 11:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I know. It looks better like that. :)

Seleukosa (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)

Seleukosa: "The article, as it is now, seems quite clear and neutral." I disagree. It remains poorly written and biased. But I simply don't have the time to work on it now. --Macrakis (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Macrakis: All the quotes you added are there. Not at all biased and well written.Seleukosa (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Arvanitika

In my understanding, "Arvanitika" is a distinct variant of Albanian spoken mainly in Attika and the surrounding islands. The albanian-speakers of Western Macedonia presumably spoke a variety of Albanian close to that spoken in the adjacent Albanian region around Lake Prespa. Denoting every Albanian-speaker in Greece as Arvanitis is linguistically not justified. See also Cham Albanians. In this context, it would important to know how these speakers called their language themselves and how ther language was called by their neighbours.  Andreas  ^(T) 13:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right Andreas but I think by a Macedonian Greek the language would have been called Arvanitika. You are correct though about Lake Prespa. I think it is proper to use the term Albanian. Although I have the impression that there were some Greek Arvanites in Macedonia but I can't verify it yet. Lets use temporally the term Albanian and lets check if there were Arvanite also. Seleukosa (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what is the discussion over here... Slavs came to the Balkan peninsula during the 6th century a.D... And during the othoman occupation the Turks used the Eastern Roman tactic of trasplanting populations from one region to an other. Slavs and Turks can claim names of villages, Greeks can claim names such as Europe, Mesopotamia, Makedonia, names of regions, cities, villages ecc ecc.. It doesnt mean much. This article only promotes nationallistic blindness in a harsh time for Balkan people.. Let's all keep the things we have and leave the the things of other to them. Leave in peace and open some serious history books..

P.s. Seleukosa your article is quite good. Dont get offended by mine. My gran-grandmother spoke both greek and arvanitika. Arvanitika is not albanian. Is a greek-illirian dialect, mainly spoken in Pelloponese (and not in Attica and islands), that has indeed some parenthood with albanian. Again i say that theese things mean little. Example: Latin is like a copy of Greek. This doesnt mean that Latin is Greek..

Cyrillic characters?

The local slavic language has no writing form. Therefore since this is an article in english i suggest the cyrilic form is invalid. I suggest the English pronounciation rules are better used. Any objections in removing the cyrillic? Jarlaxl (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle. Cyrillic characters should only be used here when it can be shown that they were actually used locally, for example before incorporation into the Greek state. During the Bulgarian occupation of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, Cyrillic characters were used by the occupying administration, but I do not think that this counts. Similarly in Western Macedonia during the Civil War. Another problem is spelling: there are contiuning arguments whether to use Maceonian or Bulgarian spelling, or maybe both. Also, to use Cyrillic for toponyms that are not Slavic, but Turkish or even Greek. seems odd.  Andreas  ^(T) 14:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)