Talk:Hellenization

Comments

Hellenization and Hellenistic Culture are very different ideas and should be discussed in different articles.

Merge with Wiktionary?

As of right now, this page is nothing more than a definition, and it should be merged with Wiktionary. Does anyone have any objections? xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 17:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Definately not, there is plenty of information on Hellenization out there. - FrancisTyers 18:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Re-Hellenization"

The origins of the Vlachs and Arvanites are irrelevant in here. The thing is that those peoples had distinct languages and cultures and they adopted/are adopting the Greek language and culture. bogdan 14:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

First, their culture is not distinct from the greek (in general) in an ethnic base, but in a regional one. Secondly, when they started adapting the Greek language? go as further back in history as u wish, but i assure u that u will always see them as bilingual. only assumptions can be made for the time that they supposendly started using greek along with aromanian and arvanitic. maybe a new article Re-Hellenization would be necessary. --Hectorian 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Aromanians are a distinct culture, although there were cultural exchanges with the Greeks due to their location as enclaves within areas with Greek populations. But let me remind you that the Aromanians (with the same culture and speaking the same language) live in non-Greek areas, including Albania, Rep. of Macedonia, Bulgaria and a few other countries in the region. bogdan 19:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't u just say it?: they also live in Romania and have a culture distinct from the Romanians. What u forgot to mention is that noone knows for sure if they are natives in those countries (they aren't in Romania, since they immigrated in the '20s), if they immigrated from the south or north, east or west (depending on the country mentioned. Apropos, why the Aromanians in Albania also claim to be Greek (they are also considered greeks by the greeks and since they are orthodox, they have a greek as their spiritual leader... hmmm... quite of a surprise!). they aromanian culture is not distinct from the greek, but part of the greek (one example of this is the dances in a cyrcle... typical greek from antiquity....) --Hectorian 20:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they live in Romania, too and they do have a culture distinct from the Romanians.

They do have a language, which is closer to Romanian than Modern Greek is to Ancient Greek.

• Aromanian: Tată a nostru care eşti în tseru
• Romanian: Tatăl nostru care eşti în ceruri
• Greek, ancient: Pater hemon ho en tois ouranois
• Greek, dimotiki: Patera mas, pou eisai stous ouranous

Within this language, they have their own folklore: songs, poetry, stories and legends, which is an Aromanian culture. By Hellenization (and losing their language), all their Aromanian-language culture will be lost. bogdan 20:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the modern one would be more accurate as: Patera mas, autos stous ouranous (which could also correspond to the ancient: Pater hemon, outos en tois ouranois). Your ancient one literally translated means our father, the one in heaven, whereas your modern one translates our father, who art in heaven. You can't compare clauses meaning different things. --Tēlex 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Uiti, bogdan, ca nu vorbeste limba sa :) - FrancisTyers · 20:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Bogdan, the example u used is a wrong one. The pray is only in ancient greek, and this is what we exclusively use until today. there was never a 'translation' in demotiki. Quite surprising (once more...) the Greek Aromanians (i am one, so i know better) have always used the pray in ancient greek... It is oxymoron that in order to defend their 'nativeness' in Transylvania towards the Magyars, the Romanians claim that they have not immigratted from the south, cause the do not have greek liturgical terms, and so, they inhabited Transylvania much earlier than the Hungarians... But it seems that it is a 'skeleton in their closet' the fact that the aromanians in greece have always used greek liturgical terms, cause it means that they are natives in the region:) Regards --Hectorian 20:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and so the question of 'Re-Hellinization' returns... --Hectorian 20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see your point. The core vocabulary (about 50 words, including church, baptism, priest, grave, Easter, angel, pagan, sin, devil, altary, etc.) relating to Christianity and/or religion in both Romanian and Aromanian has Latin origins and it had undergone the full phonetic changes as the other words, so these words entered the language during the Romanization. Even the words which have an ultimately Greek origin are borrowed via Latin (for example Aromanian bisearică < Latin basilica < Greek basiliké stoà). If those proto-Romanians had contact directly with Greek, they would have had (at least some) Greek terms instead of the Latin ones. bogdan 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have 2 questions: Is there a term "rehellenisation" used by the greek gouvernment ? are there sources attesting the modern use of the term "rehelenization" by the greek gvrnmnt ? Are there gvrnmnt institutions dealing with such a "rehellenisation" ? Criztu 15:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The issue is rarely addressed - the origin of the Vlachs is only an issue in propagandistic and academic areas. As far as I can tell, it's a minor theory that the Aromanians came from north of the Danube, with most scholars agreeing that they are Latinized indigenous populations, and it's also a minor theory that those Latinized populations were initially Greek. Most Vlachs in Greece today will tell you though that they are Latinized Greeks. --Tēlex 15:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as i know, the greek government is not using the term 're-hellenization' officially (for reasons that u can understand well). the term 'de-hellenization', however, is used, in order to describe past and present policies by other states/cultures/people, e.g. [1]. Regarding the origin of the Aromanians, there are 4 'parties' involved: 1. the Romanian government (which says that they are Dacians (which means 'Romanians' for them), 2. the Greek government (which says that they are latinised Greeks-so, linguistically de-hellenized, and now re-hellenized linguistically), 3. the academians worldwide (who have a variety of theories, the prevailing being the 'latinized indigenous', id est 'Greeks' for the aromanians in Greece), 4. the Aromanians themselves (who say that they are latinized Greeks). Concerning your second question, no, there are no such institutes (and there couldn't be), since they would be seen as 'propagandistic vessels' abroad. --Hectorian 15:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"In modern times, it is used in connection with governmental policies. so if the greek gov doesnt use the term rehellenisation, what sources use the term rehelenisation then ? is this term used by massmedia, minority rights NGOs, experts in cultural studies, etc? how is used and who uses the term rehelenisation ? i will try to find more info on this matter, however if anybody can offer info, i appreciate it Criztu 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Macedonians -- the exact quote from the reference

More important, although Macedonian kings encouraged the Hellenization of the Macedonian nobility, Macedonian and Greek culture had little in common.

Stanley M Burstein, Walter Donlan, Jennifer Tolbert Roberts, Sarah B Pomeroy, "A Brief History of Ancient Greece: Politics, Society, and Culture", Oxford University Press, p. 255

bogdan 21:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Έστιν ουν Ελλάς και η Μακεδονία (Macedonia is also Greece) Strabo

Hmmm... who can be considered reliable? A well known ancient writer, almost contemporary of the ancient Macedonians, or some not known (to me totally unknown) historians (?) of the 20-21st (?) century?. Not only Strabo, but also Herodotus, Titus Livius, etc. A reader can draw his/her conclussions... about who the ancient Macedonians were and about the reason of this edit of yours... --Hectorian 22:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Herodotus says at many places that the royal house of Macedon was from Argos, so Hellenes. He never says that the Macedonians were Hellenes. Sorry. What is known that the Macedonian language had to be translated in Greek to be understood, and inverse. It is not known whether it was the same “family of languages but they did not understand each other. The language of trade and culture (and of the royal house) in Macedonia was Greek. Hellenes were incorporated into Macedonia for many centuries, and not inverse. Macedonia (one its geographical part) has been a part of Greece since 1914. It is hard to decide who belongs where.Draganparis (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Your question is answered by following the link above, "Oxford University Press (OUP) is a highly-respected publishing house and a department of the University of Oxford in England." - FrancisTyers · 22:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Strabo was writing three centuries after Alexander, long after any putative Hellenization would have taken place, so naturally Macedonia would be Greek to him. On the other hand, "Oxford University Press" facing the title page isn't a magical stamp of inarguable truth, either.

The simple fact is that there is plenty of evidence for a Macedonian ethnic Greek heritage going back to Mycenaean times and earlier, but also for the idea that "Greek culture" as practiced in the southern city-states was something a bit different that the Macedonian kings could choose to imitate. It doesn't help clarify matters to confuse these issues and keep talking past one another.--Frippo (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry: I read in Hurtley (Prehistoric Macedonia, 1939) and in Wardle, Mycenaean Trade and Influence in northern Greece, a chapter in: Zerner and Winder; or in Cambitoglou and Papadopoulos (hmm, some are Greeks?); both in: Wace and Blegen, Pottery as Evidence for trade in the Aegean Bronze Age, Amsterdam 1993. There is NO Mycenian evidence at all - until now. Please do not invent evidence.Draganparis (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)t

No Mycenean evidence at all? Some of the sources you cited state the exact opposite... Have we been reading the same papers?

At any rate you can always try the excavation reports on Aiane, Angelohori, Toumba in Thessaloniki... They all speak unequivocally about the presence of mycenean pottery and influences. The new evidence from Aiane is even more compelling. Two international symposia have already been organised on the subject and the proceedings have been published. Every decent "hellenist" with no axe to grind is well aware of all that... but then again there have been so many species of self styled "hellenists" going around lately...--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing i never get my people claiming or trying to prove that the Macedonians were not Greek (although had the same language and believed in the same gods) is this: Have you ever seen in history a super power (which Macedonians were at the time compared to other city states and kingdoms) adopting the culture, language etc of its inferiors or its subjects?

Yes. Bulgarians accepted Slave. Number of Balkan tribes accepted at least Greek writings for trade and communication, since they did not have any other. Russian’ court spoke French in 19th century. We speak now English. Who are we?Draganparis (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[user: nefeligeretis] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefeligeretis (talk • contribs) 02:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A response to Georgios Tzimas, above (12 June):

I am sorry. As far as I know, no one of newer archeological investigations shows a "not-imported" "Macedonian" (Mycenean) pottery. It is possible that I am missing something, so please give me a precise citation and I would be greatfull to you. I could have missed some very recent findings and conferrences. So please, give me these references. This is what concerns the new evidence (which I would wellcome). But please no "GoogWik science" (Google-Wikipedia "research"); normal science, please.

As to the old references that I cited. After I gave references which confirm that there is no proof that Macedonians could be linked to the Greek culture in the Mycenaean times, you stated: "No Mycenean evidence at all? Some of the sources you cited state the exact opposite... Have we been reading the same papers?" My answer: Apparently not. You obviously just repeated the very well known phrase: are we reading the same book? So you suppose that the opponent gave reference without even reading the book, so he will give up (a routine that is very much used between Macedonian and Greek propaganda). No friend. Give, please, a sentence where it is stated that there is evidence of the Greekness of the Macedonians in Mycenaean time. Not Heurtley, it is an old book you would not find it. You can easily find Zelners and Winder, 1993. Or - you claimed to have them? OK, 24 hours is enough time to look up (I gave you the pages even.). Please. I am waiting. Thanks.Draganparis (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about an alleged greeknes or non greekness of the Macedonians during Mycenean times. Actually I couldn't care less about their ethnicity. What I commented upon was this pontifical aphorism of yours "no mycenean evidence-until now" [I imagine you meant to say "so far" but that's a different story]. And sorry for breaking the news to you once more, but the sources you provided state the exact opposite. Evidence of Mycenean presence in Macedonia (or rather Northern Greece, since there is no attestation of a geographical entity called Macedonia at so early a period) abounds. The nature of this presence is still debated and the whole question about ethnicity is actually moot. As a side note let me inform you that no serious "hellenist" would ever write anything about "Macedonians" as such in Mycenean times either defending or negating their Greekness. Their name (or of the Greeks for that matter)is not even attested that early for Christ's sake! Projecting modern concepts about ethnicity to the past, although it's rather in vogue lately, does not sound so scientific either. Of course I can very well understand why you seem to be so preoccupied with this whole "Macedonians weren't Greeks" thing so spare me the propaganda drama and start reading more carefully before answering next time.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha. My dar Giorgos! I manage to get you all on the hook with my pseudonym eventually! A friend of mine uses a Greek pseudonym and got hooked number of Macedonians also (you love calling them FYROM). So all who spoiled their names with my pseudonym, please abandon either your nationalism or abandon Wikipedia. Please. You are all just the same, blind nationalists.

We agree now of course that the Greekness of the Macedonians can NOT be demonstrated on the account of the archaeological findings. Not you but Frippo (22nd January) claimed that the Greekness of the Macedonians is certain. I said NO and cited the sources (which you normally, and obviously, do not know; why should you when this is very boring and specialised literature?). But you interfered (well, there is some false indent there so I assumed that you wrote this, or not? But this really does change our argument) and sad “Some of the sources you cited state the exact opposite... Have we been reading the same papers?" Without proving that you even new these references! But you demonstrated your “Googwik” capacities, since you really cited some reports on the excavations - on the Google!?. That is all.

I suggest now reading of some Aristotle, who, you Greeks, what a shame, seldom ever read. Without knowing some Aristotle it is just impossible to ridicule the other people! And if you are a nationalist (what is just fine) get off the site please, or keep it secret. I personally believe that the Macedonians must have been quite close to the Greeks, at least of Greek linguistic steam. Unfortunately there is just no evidence for this. So we both have to wait for more evidence. And I suggest that you may be should continue visiting your English teacher before boosting of your King’s English... or to say Quin’s English would be, no doubt, more prudent.Draganparis (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't such a show of derision unworthy of a PhD Hellenist, Draganparis? Instead of enlightening us, mere mortals, on Classical culture and civilisation, you resort to ridiculing our use of the Queen's English - a language that is transformed into Finnegans Wake Pt. 2 (take that as you will...) by your nimble fingers, a fact readily evident by even the most fleeting glance at your posts (Greek linguistic steam! boosting of!). Please, feel free to share your knowledge by constructively contributing here. Surely, the lowly medium of Wiki (non'G(o)og' strictly, we swear!) is not above your Highness? I hope you won't perceive this post as "anti-elitist" -no offence was intended towards your authority- but simply a call to action rather than countless rambling and random appeals to your aforementioned authority. Thanks for your time and happy editing. 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I do urge our dear "PhD Hellenist" to carry on in the same vain. It is indeed quite illustrative... --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, friends. When we now all know how the others are ill-bred and of delicate and fragile mind, we can turn to the Wiki pages. I wish you all the best. I learned that I should always give a quote and full reference including pages and not just say “Dreyer thinks this and this” because if I do not give full reference I may be inventing the evidence and this is wicked. And do not forget: “I am a GoogWick scientist” is our motto. Cheers.Draganparis (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Referencing Cumans and Tatars

István Vásáry's book is an excellent work, but it talks about the political and military development of the Cuman and/or Tatar tribes and their conflicts in the Balkans. It does not touch at all the subject of Greek/Slavic ethnology, so, I can't see how it is relevant in here. (It talks about some ethnological issues between the Romanians and Bulgarians, but that's because it's closely related to the subject) So, I'd like to know what chapter of it discusses about this Greek/Slavic issue. bogdan 19:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

CUMANS AND TATARS,Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185–1365.ISTVÁN VÁSÁRY,Loránd Eötvös University, Budapest

Contents

2 Ethnic names and ethnic realities in the sources of the Second Bulgarian Empire, p.22

4 Nogay’s marriage to a Byzantine princess, 1272, p.79

7 Cumans in Byzantine service after the Tatar conquest, 1242–1333, p.114

8 The Tatars fade away from Bulgaria and Byzantium, 1320–1354, p.122/The Tatars in the Bulgarian and Byzantine events of 1328–1333, p.128

--Hectorian 20:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting from the Table of Contents, but it seems you don't know what they're talking about in there. For example, the Chapter 2, "Ethnic names and ethnic realities" talks only about "Bulgars, Vlakhs and Cumans" (that's the title of a subchapter).

It discusses only about those three ethnicities. BTW, here's what it says on the Vlachs:

The Vlakhs, as is well known, were Romanised shepherds of the Balkans who lived scattered throughout the Balkan Peninsula; they were to be found in Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly and Moesia. The basic ethnic substratum of this Vlakh population of the Balkans was undoubtedly Thracian.

bogdan 20:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of what it discusses. the main theme is not the Byzantine Empire, neither the Greeks, nor the Slavs, but it talks about all these when dealing with several issues. here is what it says in the Preface:

'Though the process of rehellenisation of the southern Slavic population began and Bulgaria lost both its political and administrative-ecclesiastical independence, Byzantium could not eliminate the nomadic question from its northern frontiers. Moreover, the annihilation of Byzantium’s northern rival brought about a power gap in this region and Byzantium was again in direct confrontation with the renewed and vigorous attacks of the nomads. --Hectorian 20:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Do go on, what else does it say about "Re-Hellenisation"? Or are you quoting the preface of a book that deals with a completely different subject? - FrancisTyers · 20:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It deals with a different topic, as seen in its title. it is briefly talking about the greeks and slavs in the region, on some of its contents (as i mentioned above), but don't expect to use the term 're-hellenization' all the time... As said, its topic is different (but this does not make it less reliable). --Hectorian 21:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this anwer Hectorian: it was the only site where you had found the word "rehellenisation". Isn`t that so????? So, please provide referecens for the existance of the program/phenomenon/process/term "rehellenisation'??? See WP:DICDEF and WP:OR 11:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've provided references for the existence of the term. --Tēlex 11:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Where? 11:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Greece in the Twentieth Century, Theodore A. Couloumbis, Frank Cass Publishers (15 Sep 2003). ISBN 071468340X
2. Macedonia and Greece: The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation, John Shea, McFarland & Company (23 May 1996). ISBN 0786402288

They use the word re-hellenization in reference to the lands and population (some of who may not speak Greek) in the territories the Greek state annexed (Macedonia, Epirus etc). --Tēlex 11:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Something

In case anyone's interested, I found a Greek book on the Vlachs [2]. They have put a few quotes on the website. Here are their translations:

• The present-day Vlach speakers are Latinized Greeks, as they were exposed to the influence of the Latin language, because there had to live with Roman conquerors for approximately eight centuries.
• The usage of the Greek language by the Vlachs is the effect of a deep Greek national consciousness.
• Vlach literature in Aromanian with the Latin script does not exist. The Vlachs do however have remarkable poetry in the Greek language.
• The Vlachs were shocked by the sacrifice of the last Byzantine Emperor and convert their pain into song, in the usual Greek language the life of the klephts, the armatoloi, the pre-revolutionary movements and the bloody consequences, the great revolution of 1821 and the subsequent uprisings for the national fulfilment of Crete and the Greek peninsula of 1854, 1878, the Struggle for Macedonia until the Catastrophe of the 40s are done with Vlach songs in the Greek language.
• When the feelings, sentiments, thoughts, desires, suffering, sadness, all the bodily and spiritual world of the Vlachs is expressed in Greek, nothing can revoke their Greek character.

I know that this is probably an unreliable source, but for general interest on how Greeks (and maybe Vlachs also if the author is a Vlach) view the Vlachs. --Tēlex 21:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Note the translations may not be that great. Greek cannot always be translated word-to-word to English. --Tēlex 21:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

While searching to find wether the author is vlach or not, i came across this page [3], from the Council of Greeks Abroad... it is really interesting, but in greek... --Hectorian 21:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw, he is a Balkaniologist. --Hectorian 21:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Any book which claims that the Vlachs are "Latinized Greeks" is nothing more than pseudoscience masquerading as science.

I think it's just like Intelligent Design: all rethorics and no evidence:

• No linguistic evidence. There is not even *one* word which entered from Greek to Aromanian/Romanian in ancient times. All of them are after the 10th century. On the other hand, there are hundreds of words inherited from an ancient dialect related to proto-Albanian (but distinct from it), these words having cognates in modern Albanian.
• No archeological evidence.
• No historiographic evidence. The Vlachs were not mentioned in Greek sources until the 11th century (possibly early reference in the 10th century)

bogdan 22:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the Greek Helsinki Monitor in their report on the Vlachs of Greece, the prevalent view is that the Aromanians are Latinized non-Greek indigenous populations. They claim that theories that they migrated from north of the Danube or are Latinized Greeks are minority views. --Tēlex 22:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Popularity does not change the reality. Believing in Epsilon Team does not make it real.

That's no more than a myth, which seems to be encouraged by both the Greek Aromanians and the Greeks themselves. But the consensus within the international scientific community is what Vasary said. bogdan 22:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What did he say? --Tēlex 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"The basic ethnic substratum of this Vlakh population of the Balkans was undoubtedly Thracian." bogdan 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That? Possible. I rad somewhere though that the Megleno-Romanians were of Pecheneg origin. Does this theory showup in mainstream scholarship (I genuinely haven't got a clue)? --Tēlex 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That we are descendants of Thracians, right! (still can't see why bogdan talks about the Dacians as our ancestors...). cause he wants to link the aromanians with the romanians... the theory that even Romanians are descented from them is also widely disputed...:p --Hectorian 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that has anything to do with it. Many people in Greece claim the Arvanites are not hellenisized Albanians (and they even do on Wikipedia, check Talk:Arvanites). In the case of the Arvanites though, it's pretty much straightforward. All impartial literature ascribes them Albanian origin and their language as an Albanian dialect. As far as I'm concerned, this is what Wikipedia should write - some people however are trying to be politically correct. Most Arvanites would be horrified on reading such things (and they would, believe me - my grandfather once told me a tale of when he visited the port of Durrës in the 60s, and couldn't understand the people there - this emphatically meant that they were not dialects of the same language). --Tēlex 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Bogdan, you forget, all the pre-10th century sources were destroyed sometime last century as part of the international anti-Hellenic conspiracy, along with all the conclusive archeological evidence. Luckily, we have some noble Greeks who know the full story and don't need to mess around with "evidence" and "proof". - FrancisTyers · 22:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Greek theory is based on speculation. They claim that there is no historical evidence of a migration of Latin speaking populations from north of the Danube to Macedonia and Epirus, the Vlachs in Greece espouse a Greek national identity, and there are Vlachs in Albania also claiming a Greek national identity. Also Francis, I find your comments rather distasteful. Of course this is part of a long line of anti-hellenic sentiments you have expressed over the last few months (I'm beginning to feel like Bonaparte with the anti-X discrimination ;p)--Tēlex 22:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, warning, next you'll be revert warring on Greece with ever increasing numbers for GDP. ;) - FrancisTyers ·

To Bogdan: LOL! i respect your POV, but, honestly, were u present the first time a greek word was adapted in vlach? and since the language has no written form, how do u know when it was adapted? don't push-POV, pls. btw, in case u do not know, 40% of aromanian is greek words. but what's the point? u will say that they are borrowings latin had...

You can find the age of a word by the phonetic changes it went through. The older the word is, the more changes it suffered.

For example, in Old Romanian, vowels preceding "n" turned into "â". This happened to older words, like român < romanus (Roman/Romanian), but not to newer borrowings, like buzunar < buzunari = pocket; bogdan 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

U are wrong. u can only assume when it may have happened. and also take into consideration various other factors. btw, the word 'ydar' in aromanian means 'water'... in greek, the word 'ydor' (meaning 'water') was replaced by the word 'nero' in Hellenistic times. wow! it is an 11th century greek borrowing! --Hectorian 22:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I never heard of that word, do you have a reference? I know that the common word for water is "apă", just like in Romanian. BTW, what phoneme is that "y" supposed to be? bogdan 23:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

IPA [i]. It's the letter Υ υ. --Tēlex 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

We use "apa+e"(don't know how to write a+e as one phoneme) mostly (u used it a lot as a child when i was thirsty:)...). but also 'ydar'. the "y" i used above is for the greek "υ", which, according to Erasmus had the pronouncation of 'u' or 'ou' in ancient greek. and this is true, cause the word "ύδωρ" that i used above as "ydor", is found as "ουθάρ" "uthar" as well in ancient texts. --Hectorian 23:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So how do you pronounce 'ydar'? Like IPA [ydar] or IPA [idar]? --Tēlex 23:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, as far as I know, in ancient Greek, Υ υ was pronounced IPA [y] (like the French u, the German and Turkish ü and the Albanian y), not IPA [u] (like the French ou, the German, Turkish and Albanian u). --Tēlex 23:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I think in Romanian, the a+e ( [ə] ) you are speaking of is written ă, and according to this fellow [4], in Aromanian it is written ã and à. --Tēlex 23:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is 'ydar(e)' or 'udar(e)' with the 'e' pronounced or not, depending on the word that follows (i had in mind a word starting with a vowel, so i did not write it before). we say 'ουδάρ(ε)', like [u], (the French ou, as u said). --Hectorian 23:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm... But "udare" (short infinitive "a uda") is a word in Romanian, too, meaning "wet", and allegedly it's from Latin. IIRC, the Albanians have a word (ujë or something) derived from the same PIE root as these, but it's a bit late in the night now to connect them all! :-) bogdan 23:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The latin word for 'water' is 'aqua' (same IE root, but not the same word). maybe the romanian word comes from greek, through vlach migrations to the north:p. i agree, it is too late at night now...:) --Hectorian 00:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

To Francis: i guess u have lots of pre-10th century sources and archaeological evidence, and that u know the 'full' story to claim the opposite, right? --Hectorian 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I already told you, it was destroyed. I'm not the one drawing conclusions from no evidence, you are :)) - FrancisTyers · 22:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is an equivalent of the romanian propagandistic theory about the aromanians (and the 'evidence' of dacian connections (maybe the dacians were not the ancestors of Romanians, but who cares?!): a-historic means not-historic (the a as a prefix means not). so, a-romanian means not-romanian... folk etymology is really superb sometimes:p --Hectorian 22:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe... Yeah, right. :-) Actually, it's a Prosthesis, like in Spanish (Spaña -> España) and it happens in many words, for example:

amare (Romanain mare) = big; arău (Romanian rău) = bad, evil; alume (Romanian lume) = world

bogdan 22:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting!:). some of these cases may also be Aphesis. An ancient greek evil goddess was named Αρά (Ara), which is a word used in the past and still nowadays with the meaning of 'curse', 'bad', 'evil'... --Hectorian 22:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But can you explain how /ara/ turned into /arəu/... :-) Actually, Romanian rău/rea (the Aromanians have versions with "a" in front) are from Latin reus/rea "guilty", as in actus reus and mens rea. bogdan 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, seemed similar, so i remembered the deity. That's all:). i do not claim it comes from the greek deity... It could be, but since u explain that it doesn't (and seems reasonable to me) i do not have any reason not to believe u. --Hectorian 23:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

maybe the romanian word comes from greek, through vlach migrations to the north loooooooooooool!!!!!!!! Such fantasiez... loooooool.... Of course "apa" (water) is of Romanian/Thracian origin, as it proven by the Baltic cognates apa (water) and the Sarmatian Goddess of Water Api, the Avestani ap (water), the Sanskrit apa (water), cognate with all Satem languages... Same for 'ydar': confer Romanian "udare" (wet), slavic woda (water), etc 11:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)~~

About "apă", there's an endless debate whether it's Latin or Thracian: both Latin "Aqua" and Thracian "Apa" (which is attested in placenames and has cognates in many satem languages) would give Romanian "apă". Latin "qua" -> "pa" is a known phonetic change, found in words like Lat. vulg. quattro -> patru. (compare Italian quattro) However, the Latin version is usually given because it's more likely, as more words are from Latin than from Thracian. But we're already off-topic. :-) bogdan 12:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

All these are just speculations (irrelevant to the topic). all the things u mentioned are used by the supporters of one theory. i mean: the origins of the Romanians as descendants of the Dacians are disputed (scholars, mostly Magyars, say that they came from the southern Balkans), the thracian as close relative of the dacian is also disputed, its classification as a satem language 'by birth' or 'by adoption' is also disputed. it is just your POV, which i respect, but with which i disagree:) --Hectorian 16:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but here's what we do know:

1. the substrate of Romanian is of satem origin and related to proto-Albanian.
2. there are no proofs of Roman presence south of the Jirecek Line.

bogdan 16:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No exactly...:

1. proto-Albanian: do u mean Illyrian? Albanian descending from Illyrian is disputed, as u probably know. Also, Illyrian was most likely a centum language [5].

   No, I just said "proto-Albanian", the ancestor of Albanian. Most likely, it was Dacian or Thracian. bogdan 17:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

2. i was not talking about Roman presence, but about Romanised people's presence. but even in this case, Romans settled in Greece (do not forget the roman stationed legions and the resettlement of Corinth, for example...). --Hectorian 17:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely POV article

This article is by its nature an article about cultural assimilation (making something non-Greek to become Greek). It is presented as something very nice and smooth and noble: spreading the Greek culture among uneducated barbarians. Compare it with the similar articles Bulgarisation and Serbianization and you will see the difference. I have many sources, including neutral international ones (e.g. Carnegie commission) which show that Hellenization in most cases was forced and whole villages were killed by 'andanti'.

However, when I post this content on the page it is immediately deleted with personal threats to my talk page. Go easy, will you? I know that those facts are not pleasant for many Greek editors here and you try to hide them as well as you can but this is not Wikipedia policy. All views have to be presented. For persons who consistently delete such material, this is a most obvious disruptive editing WP:Vandalism. Lantonov 09:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The following talks were made in User:Lantonov talk page:

Hello, I have noticed a picture you have added in Hellenization article and I can not understand what it has to do with this article. It belongs to a series of propaganda posters published during the Balkan Wars by the Hellenic Army to annimate the soldiers, why put it here and not there? Should we add similar Serbian and Bulgarian posters? Kapnisma ? 07:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can add similar posters in the articles Bulgarisation and Serbianization if you have such posters. It is not put in the Balkan Wars because it does not apply to military action during the wars but it applies with full force in the occupied territory AFTER the wars. The Hellenic Army uses such posters to animate the sodiers for cruelty? Tell more about this. Lantonov 07:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What more do you want? Yes the Hellenic Army DID use such posters for cruelty as the Bulgarian also did. Can't you see the Greek is wearing a military uniform? And so does the Bulgarian? And that this is supposed to be a battle? What this has to do with Hellenization? Just because the article from which you took the picture claims that this is supposed to be AFTER the Balkan Wars does not mean it is right Kapnisma ? 07:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So, in fact you say that the Carnegie Commission lied in its report? I am putting the picture again in its right place where it was. If you do not agree discuss this in the talk page and do not remove a SOURCED content from a neutral, reliable, and verified source. Lantonov 08:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your neutral, reliable, and verified source is a Bulgarian site... And yes I DO doupt that Carnegie Commission used this poster to prove forced Hellenization these and similar posters were published during the Balkan Wars for propaganda reasons. Kapnisma ? 08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What the Carnegie commission says is that the posters were given to Greek sodiers when they RETURNED from the Second Balkan War. The commission saw them on the streets of Tessaloniki and Pyraea AFTER the war. This is a published (in the Bulgarian national library) official book of the Carnegie report and not only on the site. If you doubt it, then check the original and PROVE that it is not reliable. Your actions now are disruptive editing with which you try to push your POV by deleting sourced content and breaking several Wiki policies. Lantonov 08:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What I see according to what you have written above is that instead of accusing me of disruptive editing the one who is trying to push his POV is you by altering the meaning and the contex of international reports. The one who has to prove his claims (that this poster is a proof of Hellenization provided by this commission) is you, not me. It's a sad thing when someone is doing what you do, breaking several Wiki policies, in order to establish your Bulgarian POV. And as long as you do not present us international sources for your claims this picture can not be placed there. And I will report it if you revert it. Kapnisma ? 08:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Cite the policies that I break, and I will cite the policies that you break. This source is as international as it can be. Lantonov 09:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(То Lantonov) По мое мнение определено си струва да се заяжда човек за това. Гърците винаги се опитват да очернят всички, а самите те да се представят за жертви; а в действителност са извършили същински геноцид спрямо българското население, имало нещастието да остане на гръцка територия. Това, разбира се, се прикрива и от тях, и от запада и ще продължи да се крие, но ние сме длъжни да отстояваме позицията си, която е очевидно правилна. Как може да има славяногласни гърци, както казват те??? Това е абсурд, тези хора са българи, но никой няма да го признае. Все едно да има гръкогласни българи, които някога са обитавали Несебър или Созопол... малко се отклонявам вече... --Gligan 09:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear greek, what would you say for that sentence from the artlicle Bulgariasation: "a reign of violence and terror was imposed in an effort to provoke a mass exodus of the inhabitants, those of refugee origin in particular"; is it not a Greek POV???

Or perhaps the Bulgarians were evil killing and descriminating the Greeks, while the Greek were always victims including during the mass massacres, persecution and helenization of Bulgarians following the Second Balkan War and WW1 on Greek territory in Macedonia and Thrace. Or the Greeks never persecuted Bulgarians??????? --Gligan 09:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As everyboby can see this particular user is trying to manipulate sources in order to confirm his claims (that this particular war poster was considered by Carnegie commission as a proof of Hellenization against Slavophone Greeks). When I asked him to provide a source in English, instead of Bulgarian, so that we can all verify his claims, he refused to do so and now he accuses me of vandalism and of personal threats against him.

Although calumniation is a pathetic way to act it is exactly what this user is doing here because he has no other way to verify his claims.

Kapnisma ? 11:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In order to prove how far away are you from the mark here are the full details of the source that I used, including the ISBN number:

Carnegie Endowment for International peace (1993). Other Balkan Wars: A 1913 Carnegie Endowment in Retrospect. 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NY-Washington DC 20036-2103, Phone:202.483.7600/Fax:202.483.1840, e-mail: [email protected]: Wasinhgton DC, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. pp. 413 pages. ISBN 0-87003-032-9. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) And a citation from the above book in which the picture is mentioned:

"Documents for Greek Macedonia that the Endowmen has, are not so detailed as those for Serbian Macedonia. But the data that we have, are enough to confirm the conclusion that in this case, too, even to the minute detail, is repeated everything that occurs in the assimilation of the Bulgarian population in South Macedonia (Voden, Kostur, Lerin). The procedure is very analogous to that applied to the assimilation of the population to the south. The only difference is in this that the two methods of assimilation and extermination in Greek Macedonia are applied more systemically and less humanely. "Are they a "human" race those "dirty" Slavs? They are not "anthropi" (humans). They are "arkoudi" (bears)." Such words are often found in the evidence given to us. They are connected in cruelty with the word that corresponds exactly to the term "Bulgarophagos" (Bulgarian-eater) - an emotion that is deliberately cultivated in the army and among the Greek population through patriotic verses and popular pictures (see Illustration). Some of those verses and pictures are found in the Appendix., etc"

Go on and find the book by the ISBN number, it is working.

And do not vandalize this page any more by deleting SOURCED, VERIFIABLE, and RELIABLE content. Lantonov 12:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of providing this information from the beginning of our conversation you have choosen to do iy only after accusing me of being a vandal and of making personal attacks against you just because I wanted an English source...,

But still you and the above citation (IF it is exactly as you have presented it) fail to make to connection between a war poster and the Hellenization. My guess is that you are just trying to traffic on a source in order to present a good Bulgarian-bad Greek picture. Anyway I now have no objection in using this poster here until I found a source that proves what I say: not that Greeks did not tried to lingusticly assimilate Slavophone Greeks but that propaganda and war posters during the Balkan Wars have nothing to do with this article. Just a few weeks ago there was a greek newspaper article called Psycological and propaganda efforts during the Balkan Wars were it presented similar Greek, Bulgarian and Ottoman posters of that period. I will try to see if it includes this particular poster. Kapnisma ? 12:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And please, stop that intimidatory altitude of yours this is your third warning, etc Kapnisma ? 12:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, good luck in searching, but if you cite only Greek newspapers you are liable to attack for using non-reliable sources. You were the first to intimidate me in my talk page. This time be more cautious when accusing and threatening others who present views different from yours. Lantonov 12:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Again the same altitude... I do not have different views from you, man! My objection is the poster you have uploaded. It is a war poster not an example of Hellenization, you are only trying to create a good Bulgarian-bad Greek picture by trafficing on a source. Kapnisma ? 12:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly by "trafficking on" a source? I give verbatim citation with picture that speaks about "assimilation" of Bulgarian by Greeks which is exactly what Hellenization is. Don't use such weasel words as "trafficing on a source" because they bely your extreme POV attitude. Lantonov 12:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean that you are using a citation from a book in order to present Greeks of trying to eat bulgarians, or kill them, or whatever else. This is not a Greek-Bulgarian freud it's the way you present history. You can very well understand that it is a war poster showing a Greek soldier attacking a bulgarian one in the heat of the battle, what on earth has this to do with an article about Hellenization? The use of this poster by you here was made only because you want to push your extreme bulgarian POV: look how the bad Greeks were treating us! We were the victims, etc, etc. It is a typical exaple of how nationalism works in the Balkans. Greeks, Bulgariars, Turks, Serbians, Albanians when they speak about themselves they are always the victims and the others are the bad people. This is what you are doing here.

Kapnisma ? 13:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What I present is the facts, the facts are written in books, and they present the truth as far as it is known. Everything else is hiding the truth and misrepresenting it. I challenge you once again to compare articles on similar topics: Bulgarisation and Hellenization and try to see how a reader who knows nothing about Balkan history gets from them the situation on the Balkans: Greeks are surrounded by barbarians who all the time kill them while Greeks try to spread their higher culture through Hellenization. This is simply a very biased and false view. Get facts. BTW, I see many citations in this article which are not verifiable and reliable. I will mark them so. Lantonov 13:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. After all this conversation, at last, we managed to understand what your real problem is: the article on Bulgarization. According to you is bad written, so because you don't feel very well about it and instead of making it better, you have desided to manipulate sources so that the Greeks also might be seen as commiting crimes against other people. Very nice, very mature handling of the subject, we should all be very proud about you.

I am not interested in nationalistic edit wars, so I am not going to deal with you any more. Hopefully, when someone else will read all these can easily inference what are your motives. Kapnisma ? 16:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Manipulate sources"? Weasel words again. First I "traffick" them, and now I "manipulate" them. How did I manipulate them? I painted the poster with Photoshop, and I composed the Carnegie report? How many words can you think about the act of citing sourced, verifiable, and reliable material? Instead of personal attacks, it is better to concentrate on the facts. The real problem is: Bulgarisation is very bad thing according to the article on it while Hellenization is a very good thing according to the article on it. I have stated this clearly in many places long before this discussion. Until this issue is solved, I, and everyone who likes the truth, feel uneasy. I am convinced that in this case, as in all others, it is best to follow the neutral point of view, stating the facts from reliable and neutral sources (not Greek, not Bulgarian) with a minimal comment or no comment at all (as I have done here).

Something else about this discussion strikes me as odd. Kapnisma (talk · contribs) alleges above that those posters are issued by the "Hellenic Army". If this is so, since the army is under direct orders of the Greek government, it comes out that the Greek government at the time (1913) is responsible for instigating a genocide. Because in the Carnegie report there is nothing about who issued those posters, I prefer to disagree with the opinion that the Greek government is directly responsible for them and I suppose that they are ordered and published by some group or party in Greece with nationalistic agenda who may or may not be connected to the Greek government. Lantonov 05:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of POV sections

There is absolutely no international consensus on a definition of hellenisation in the modern era, partly because the issue is so charged with competing and partial views from various countries in the region ( and a single web source for the first). The same applies to the equally poorly evidenced concepts of 'de-hellenisation' and 're-hellenisation', and this subsection is clearly being used to promote various POVs.

Rd76767r 12:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the only solution to this POV-pushing is the removal of the hellenisation, bulgarisation and albanisation pages.

Rd76767r 22:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your motives and my opinion is that all (nation)ization pages be removed as they are a gate for POV pushing. However, I disapprove of your means (blanking pages) because this destroys efforts of other editors. Removing a page is done by an administrator, after reaching a consensus for doing so. Lantonov 06:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems the article is really kind of a hodge-podge of things better covered elsewhere, so might be better turned into a very short page that gives an overview of the various uses, with the specific content merged into existing articles or new ones. For example, Hellenization in the sense of spreading Greek language/culture via the Macedonian Empire is already much better covered in Hellenistic civilization, Hellenistic period, and related articles. The Roman-Catholic theological usage should be a different article; there's a long debate within the Western Christian churches about the proper influence of classical Greek philosophy in the church, but it's really its own topic. And the issue of modern Greece's minorities and their self identification and cultural shifts is already better covered in Minorities in Greece. So basically duplicating material isn't a great idea, especially when it's duplicated in a worse way. --Delirium 09:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

expert tag added

I added the expert tag -- please discuss at Talk:Hellenism#reorganization and foreign-language articles. Joriki (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hellenisation during the Ottoman rule

This is a very interesting topic and must be treated accordingly, but copying verbatim, sentences and a whole paragraph from the sources is not the way to do it. Please rewrite. Additional references would be more than welcome. Have a look for instance at Victor Roudometof, "From Rum Millet to Greek Nation: Enlightenment, Secularization, and National Identity in Ottoman Balkan Society, 1453–1821" or even Shashko, Philip "Greece and the Intellectual Bases of the Bulgarian Renaissance" -if you are looking for supporting literature- and Zakythinos, Dionysios A. "The Making of Modern Greece From Byzantium to Independence" for a different view. For the role of the church you can try Runciman, Steven The Great Church in Captivity amongst others.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Modern Usage

""Hellenistic" is also, of course, still used to refer to the religion of the people who follow this religion today."

What religion this refers to is unclear: Greek Orthodox? Neo-Pagan reconstructions of Ancient Greek religion?

In addition, what this religion followed today has to do with hellenization is equally unclear. The line seems to have just been stuck in for no particular reason.

Winter Maiden (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 7 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. As Cuchullain points out, WP:RETAIN is the relevant guideline and, for better or worse, it uses the first non-stub version as the marker. The analysis that the article has been at the "z" ever since the first non-stub version has not been refuted, hence there is a consensus in favour of the present title. Jenks24 (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Hellenization → Hellenisation – -izes and -ises both abound in this article. The article was first created at Hellenisation with this page as a redirect,[6][7] and one day later this page was created as a copy-paste content-fork of the other page but with the -ise spelling still prioritized in-line, and the original article made to redirect here.[8][9] This means that an argument could be made that WP:PRESERVE is on the side of the non-Oxford British spelling, and the page should be moved with all American spellings changed for internal consistency. However, an argument could also be made that since, for virtually all of this page's history, the -ize spelling has had pride of place as the title of the article (even if it has always been used sparingly within the article text) and so that we should give it priority. I'm neutral on whether the page actually should be moved (I generally prefer -ize spellings, but the mess that happened here makes me slightly inclined to favour moving the page back to its original title). Neither of the original two editors responsible for the mess is still active 11 years later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Neutral per above. But if the page is moved, the current title should remain as a redirect. Conversely, if there is no clear consensus to move, then per WP:ARTCON the -ise spellings should be removed from the rest of the article. I'm partial to Oxford spelling, and this would apparently allow the majority of other points (such as date format) to remain unchanged. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC) (Amended 06:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC) )
• Support The page should never have been moved from the original title, especially not in a cut-and-paste move. What is used in the text is also compelling. AusLondonder (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Slightly Leaning Support: instinctively I like the idea of following the intent of the original author, when it comes to British/American spelling. But this page has used -ize almost since the beginning, and the reason given for moving it was that most links to it used that spelling. I had a peek, and there are nearly six hundred pages pointing to it now, although a large chunk of them are user pages and other non-article pages. Will moving the article involve changing the spelling preference for all of the articles, or just what they link to? I can just see the original author of some of the pages I've worked on and maintained over the years coming back and insisting that "BC" and "AD" should be reverted to "BCE" and "CE" because they were created that way back in 2006, and I don't relish that debate. P Aculeius (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The compelling guideline is actually WP:RETAIN, and this is clear we should keep the present spelling: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change." Specifically, RETAIN advises that we "...use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." This article has used the "Z" spelling since the second day it existed as an article, and this was well in place by the time it was de-stubbed here. There's also the fact that this isn't inherently an WP:ENGVAR issue at all, as "-zation" is British English using Oxford spelling.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Keep in original variant of English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cúchullain's detailed examination of the issue. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose agreed with Cúchullain. This has been the spelling since the article's second day of existence. A move now would serve no real purpose. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• @P Aculeius: You should remember to sign your posts. Also, I think you didn't notice where I pointed out that this article actually hasn't used -ize almost since the beginning; the article that used -ise was copy-pasted in here with -ise still prioritized, and apparently the text of the page has preferred -ise ever since. It's only the title that prioritizes -ize. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to tell me to sign my posts, I've been doing this for nearly eight years. And I AM capable of noticing things like the spelling used on the page. I wasn't talking about that. The page has been at this title since 2006, even if it might have been moved using the wrong method back then. You'll get better results if you don't reply to people's opinions by telling them that they need to learn basic Wikipedia procedure and can't comprehend your argument. P Aculeius (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to get your knickers in a twist. I said you should remember to sign your posts because I was assuming you knew how, and had just forgotten. It happens to all of us from time to time. And I didn't say you couldn't comprehend my "argument". You said that you were ambivalent because this page has used -ize almost since the beginning, which appeared to be referring to the text of the article rather than just the title, but the text of the article has used both spellings interchangeably since almost the beginning, which means we need to choose one either way. The rest of your comment looked like you didn't understand ENGVAR and were assuming that the redirects will be deleted, but I decided not to point that out. Anyway, let's just drop it. We're both neutral, slightly leaning support. 'Nuff said. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Cuchullain: I appreciate that WP:RETAIN is against changing from one regional spelling to another, but either way we have to change a bunch of spellings within the article text. The reason for the RM is to decide which regional variety to use throughout the article. Normally this would not be necessary, as articles whose titles are by necessity regional variant spellings should throughout their text use the spelling that they use in the title, but this page was originally written at -ise and unilaterally moved in violation of WP:RETAIN; the user responsible for the move didn't change the spelling used in the article text, so there has been inconsistency from Day 1 (well, technically Day 2). We need to decide which regional variant to use throughout the article.

I am also, of course, sympathetic to your Oxford spelling argument (see my edits to WT:ENGVAR), and if you are saying that WP:COMMONALITY would encourage the Oxford spelling I frankly agree with you, but the article currently contains numerous instances of the non-Oxford British spelling (-ise), so per WP:ARTCON we need to decide on one spelling to use anyway.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Spelling of "Hellenization" should match the article title as of the first non-stub version/long-standing stable title, meaning the "z" version. Fixing other spelling discrepancies, if there are any, is more a matter for cleanup than RM, but should also follow the first non-stub version if possible. I don't see any obvious examples in the text that need fixing. Choosing words that are common to all varieties would be a wise way of going about it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That's cool. I'm still neutral. I just wanted clarification of what you meant. Your "earliest non-stub version" point is interesting, but I'm not sure if I agree in this case since the only reason it applies is that it was moved to its current title in violation of PRESERVE. Note that if the RM gets closed as "No consensus" I'd happily take that as an indication that the article should stay at its current title and use Oxford spelling throughout. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The statement "There exist Aromanians in Greece who claim that they have an Aromanian national identity rather than a Hellenic national identity and also claim that the Metaxas regime violently forced them to speak the Hellenic language and abandon their Aromanian language." is highly ambiguous, poor written and biased. Firstly, the phrase "There exist" could be interpreted in many ways: how many are these group of people that espouse this idea in Greece, are they a considerable portion of the Greek Aromanian group or a non-significant one but present? The phrase "forced them to speak the hellenic language" is historically non-based, the Aromanians were bilingual and they used the greek language in their ecclesiastic liturgy, trade and literature, the Aromanian language was mostly used in home and among kinsmen. The metaxas government simply forbade the use of Aromanian entirely in all aspects of life, this should be noted since it implies that the Aromanians were not a group that greatly distanced themselves from their neighbors during the ottoman era. Plus the syntax is wrong making the statement seem angrily promoting a singular view. As for the source it is based on, this site "newsbomb" which is in greek is not trustworthy, the article does not mention the author or the person or group that gave this interview as such it could be easily have been fabricated. I hope that the phrase been re-written as such: "While Greek Aromanians as a group have endorsed the Greek national identity contributing at the Greek War of Independence and providing to the Greek cause notable figures such as Ioannis Kolletis (Prime Minister Of Greece, founder of the concept of "The Great Idea"),Georgios Averoff and Evangelos Zappas (both of whom were national benefactors of early Greek Kingdom) there historically existed Aromanians of Greece who promoted a distict Aromanian identity fueled also by the enforcement of the Hellenic language in all aspects of life by the Metaxa Regime. Though there presence today is not high or influential to the whole group". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiogenesLaertios (talk • contribs) 13:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Seuthopolis inscription BG.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)