Talk:Thessaloniki/Archive 1

The Great Fire

Reports say that the fire was an accident. Not only Jewish neighbourhoods were destroyed and none of the Jews left the town. Greek exiles came to town after the Lausanne Treaty in 1922, so there is no connection of it with the fire.

Graphics

The pictures in the article are great, but can they be moved in a way so that when the article is printed they can be preserved in the text without losing it?

Slavs

• The recent edit by 'Crculver' mentions Old Church Slavonic speakers in Thessaloniki, prior to the missionary expedition of Ciryl and Methodius. The Old Church Slavonic, as its name implies, is a standarised from of Slavonic promoted by the Byzantine leaders to aid the christianization of the Slavs living in the north. Despite Thessaloniki's multicultural past and present, mainly because of its significant status as an international port and geographical crossroad, an established Slav or Slavonic-speaking community was never documented to exist in the city.

• "Old Church Slavonic" is a PC term for Old Bulgarian. Let's not pretend there were never any Bulgarians in and around Solun! I have seen a lot of mentions about Bulgarian communities there even in Greek sources. Vladko

• • Vladko, calling them "Bulgarians" isn't appropriate. They were Slavs outside of the Kingdom of Bulgaria, and thus they did not get the influx of Bulghar Turks which was the biggest contribution to a distinctive Bulgarian people. It would be most accurate to call them "Macedonian Slavs", since they were Slavs who, well, lived in (Greek) Macedonia. However, that would create confusion with the inhabitants of the FYRO Macedonia far to the North. Oh, OCS isn't a "PC term" for Old Bulgarian. It is instead an attempt to encapsulate the entire range of old, church writings in the language of Cyril and Methodius. While 99% of writings could fairly be called Old Bulgarian (or, as some like, Old Macedonian), the highly important Kyiv Folia was produced purely within the Moravian tradition and its bears no link to the Kingdom of Bulgaria. So instead of writing the mouthful "Old Bulgarian and Moravian writings", scholars can just say OCS. Much more simple. Crculver 17:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The order of Byzantine Emperor Michael III clearly states that the Thessalonikan spoke Slavic quite well. I realise that this must be carefully phrased to avoid causing any fight due to the Macedonia polemic, but the historical record clearly states there were *some* Slavs there, probably due to mercantile activity. Crculver 01:52, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Well, due to the port and the commercial bonds of Thessaloniki with the rest of the Balkans, there have been always a small number of Slavs here conducting commercial business (notably in the past, people from Dubrovnik, Croatia - famous Ragusei merchants). Even today, part of the city's port is leased by the Greek State to Serbia and Montenegro, being part of the latter's access to the sea. People in the naval business and international commerce, Greeks and non-Greeks, have always spoken many languages. I still don't understand why the Slavs deserve any special mention in this article.

• Because *every* ethnic group that has played a part in Thessaloniki's history need to be mentioned. People would be interested to know that it was exactly out of Thessaloniki that the Slavs were brought to Christianity. Surely the city would want to have some sort of pride in that. Again, I don't want to create any controversy due to the whole Macedonia thing, but there shouldn't be a problem with a tiny mention of the city's relationship to the Slavs, which is of great historical import. Oh, and please sign in and sign your comments. I see that your IP address traces to Greece, if you don't sign in and identify yourself, people will accuse you of trying to hide who you are for nefarious purposes. That's what always happened when I edited disputed articles before getting an account. Crculver 02:47, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I followed your advice and created a user account immediately. In this whole process of disaggreeing, I have always assumed good faith in you and never judged your intentions. I wish this dispute to be resolved for the sake of historical accuracy. Thessaloniki has always been in the middle of a chain of cultural interactions, with significant contributions from Turkish, Armenian, Jewish and other people. Even today, a lot of emigrants from various places of the world contribute to the city's multicultural profile. These contributions need to be recongized and mentioned in a future edit of this article, where everyone gets the credit he deserves. For now, I'd wish you pay more attention to my arguments and not my IP address. Being Greek (Thessalonikan, as a matter of fact) does not necessarily mean that my opinion is biased. In fact, most disputes arise from political differences, and of course not all Greeks think the same. I don't consider the Macedonian dispute to be an issue here Etz Haim 06:34, 23 Aug 2004 (GMT+2)

More details on the disputed section

• Michael III had stated that the Thessalonikans spoke Slavic, but it is highly unlikely that the language he meant by that was the Old Church Slavonic. While another Slavic language (or languages) would be a possible scenario, or even a pan-Macedonian lingua franca with Greek and Slavic elements (a theory advocated by many), the Old Church Slavonic was a standardized liturgical language, a form of Slavonic promoted by the Byzantine authorities to aid the work of Cyril and Methodius. It is a mistake to refer to its existence prior to the mission of Cyril and Methodius, which is the key historical landmark here.
• The Thessalonikans have been always into the commercial and naval business. The city's port has always had great geopolitical import and has been the link between the Thessalonikans and the people they had commercial relationships with. Michael III's statement by all does not imply that the people that spoke Slavic also used Slavic as their mother tongue. The city's commercial bonds with the north of the Byzantine empire can explain the situation clear.

From the discussion above, we seem to agree that during the course of time, many people apart from the Greeks have contributed to Thessaloniki's history. These contributions ought to be recognized. However, your contribution to this article neglects important parts of the story. Focusing entirely on the Slavs, you fail to mention that the people who spoke 'Old Church Slavonic' (according to you) were in the commercial business (you do so in the talk page, however). Instead, you jump into the conclusion that Michael III had mentioned a Slavic-speaking population in Thessaloniki.

You have displayed some good will in your rephrase of your contributed paragraph, perhaps fearing that it may give rise to a sequel of the Macedonian name dispute, which is however not an issue here. Whether there have been a small or a large number of Slavic-speaking people in the city is not a major concern. It is important to make a distinction between people who just spoke Slavic and people who used Slavic as their mother tongue. And it is crucial to tell whether these Slavic-speaking people were emigrants, were part of an organized community, or were just merchants on a business trip.

For the sake of the above, I'd like you to be more specific on you what you contribute, and perhaps consider another 'rephrase'.

Etz Haim 19:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm waiting for some experts on Slavonic to get back to me on the issue, and will rephrase when I have more info. Incidentally, the in question language can fairly decently be called Old Church Slavonic. While there is some codification and mixing evident, OCS is a clearly a South Slavic language and nearly identical with Proto-South-Slavic, therefore it is quite likely that it can be identified with the native language of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. Crculver 22:08, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since you have mentioned Proto-South-Slavic, and you are doing some research on your own, it would be interesting to know some particular information about this language. Was it like the Old Church Slavonic without the standards and the centralized imperial regulation? Or even a pool of mutually intelligible dialects, much like the contemporary "Occitan" in France? I think that it would be much more appropriate to say that the language Michael III mentioned in his statement was some form of Proto-South-Slavic. This would reflect one of the possible scenarios.

I also wonder, since Cyril and Methodius are considered saints, whether it was the religious zealotry of either the Slavic Churches or the people that made them believe that their saints' language was the Church's liturgical language, the one the were familiar with from the Mass.

Etz Haim 00:09, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

With all this talk about Slavic influence in Thessaloniki and especially after preoccupying the readers with all the non-Greek forms of its name in the first paragraph, I'd like to see some solid proof, like a monument, a scripture, or something like that. I've been living in Thessaloniki all my life and although the classic Greek, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Modern Greek, Turkish and Jewish influence is obvious, I still haven't seen any real, solid evidence of a significant Slavic influence (for the period in question) except for non-mainstream history and speculation. Please tell me in what museum or archaeological site I have to go to convince myself. Or at least link me to an original text. If there is any real evidence, I have to see it. The references on this are insufficient. Ulixes 02:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Ulixes, as mentioned, you only need to read Byzantine history. I have already provided the statement by the emperor Micheal III. The mother of Cyril and Methodius was Slavic, and the Slavs had already besieged a great deal of Greece by that time, making significant inroads. Any textbook on Old Church Slavonic (such as those of Lunt, Schmalstieg, or Nandris) will discuss this. Books about the genesis of the Slavic people, such as the recent The Making of the Slavs by Florin Curta , will provide resources as well. No one is saying that the Slavs made a lasting impact--the community there seems to have wilted quickly--but they did happen to be a major force at the moment when Cyril and Methodius were sent north. Crculver 03:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here are some references from very respectable works. Maria Gimbutas in The Slavs (New York: Praeger, 1971) writes: "In Book II of Miracula S. Demetrii there is a description of how Thessaloniki was sacked [by the Slavs]" (p. 103). In Handbook of Old Church Slavonic, Part II (London: University of London Athlone Press, 1960), R. Auty writes: "It is now certain that the Old Church Slavonic language in its original form was based on a Macedonian dialect spoken in the Slavonic hinterland of Salonika. This was finally established by V. Jagic in the second edition of his book Entstehungsgeschichte der kirchenslavischen Sprache (Berlin, 1913)." (p. 9). The Age of Migrations brought all sorts of people to Greece, and the Slavs were among them. I find it incredible that this is even in doubt by some here, since mention of the Slavic occupation of Greek Macedonia is so frequent in the literature. Crculver 22:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. The doubt is not if there have ever been Slavs in Thessaloniki, as it is certain that they have been at any place all over the Balkans at some time. It just looks as if the whole article is overloaded with this and it is not your fault. For example the name of the city is written in its slavic form (two forms actually) while this is not done for most city names which appear in the Wikipedia. By the way, I think someone should write something about the Armenians in Thessaloniki whose presence has been influential but they are not mentioned at all. Ulixes 00:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

To-do list

To-do

Changing the birth date of Nazım Hikmet. It must be 1901. Because: "Nazım Hikmet was born on 21 November 1901 in Salonica, but his birth was certified as 15 January 1902 in order to prevent his age appearing older by a year older on account of 40 days." ([[1]]) Say something about the fact Thessaloniki was the first European city visited by St Paul? <-- irrelevant and not right!!!!! (Kavala (ancient Neapolis) was the first European city visited by St.Paul, then Phillipoi and later Thessaloniki)!!!!!!! <-- There should be a mention of the letters to the Thessalonians in the new Testament Turn the list in the "Museums" section into prose, possibly merging it with the "Landmarks" section More on the modern life of the city Sister cities (so far Leipzig and Köln) A location map of the city itself, not the prefecture Possibly more photos A separate article on the port of Thessaloniki (technical characteristics, freight movement, economical significance etc) Further collaborate on the economy of the city Other civic buildings of significance e.g. Court Houses, Opera Houses, etc History of Eptapyrgio Something in which I fully disagree is the expression : greek region of Macedonia??? so...is there a non greek region?? or Macedonia is not Greek but rather a case similar to i.e. Ireland (british north, irish the rest) ?????? Maybe mention that the Romans called it Thessalonica, since this spelling is common in older books written in English.

Feel free to either expand this list, or reduce it by doing some of the work. Etz Haim

I removed the editprotected template. Please wait until the page is unprotected, then make these changes. Thank you for your appreciation! NCurse _work 17:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Great fire of old Salonika

The great fire of 1917, begun from a French army camp that was fighting against the Axis powers in the Balkan front at that time and destroyed the most of the city. Although the new design for the city was a modern one, it did not go as planned, mostly because the arrival of the 1922 catastrophe from Turkey changed the priorities of the Greek state from creating a modern city, to accomodating a large number of people within it. Eventually, the arrival of those mostly Greek people along with the expulsion of the Muslim Turks to Turkey and the retreat of the Jews to their homeland and their extinction by the Nazis resulted to the homogenization of Thessalonika.

You are mostly right... more or less. At the moment I am translating a good article from the greek Wikipedia on this fire into English. It should be ready soon. --Iago4096 06:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The external links

Id like to propose removing the following links as they are just travel sites using wikipedia for advertising. 'Thessaloniki Guide' 'Contemporary Thessaloniki' and 'Thessaloniki photos - an unforgettable impact'. I also think 'Thessaloniki Photo gallery' should be removed on quality grounds. Perhaps this could be included though it has add's http://www.greecetravel.com/thessaloniki/ --Ian 11:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Slavic Macedonians

The Slavs arrived in Macedonia around the 6th century B.C. as subjects of stronger tribes like the Avars, Bulgarians and others. The original Macedonians were a Greek speaking people, who were displaced from the most of the northern parts of Macedonia and fled to Thrace. The Slavs took their place and managed to Slavicize their former Avar and Bulgarian rulers quite soon, due to their numerical supremacy. The Avar state was dissolved, but the Slavic Bulgarians have a successful presence in the Balkans ever since. Despite their numerous efforts they did never managed to conquer Thessalonika - The Slavs did so for a few years under Serbian King and later Emperor Dusan - and thus the city remained Greek until the Ottoman conquest, when the Greek element was forced to abandon the city for the hinterlands or even further away, while Suleiman the Magnificent transferred the persecuted Jews from the hands of the Spanish to the city of Thessalonika, where they flourished until the WWII. The Slavs did never manage to dominate the city from where the two apostles of Christianity, and the ablest Byzantine diplomats ever, begun their journey to Christianize the Slavs, and also created their early Glagolitic alphabet.

The Balkan wars and the WWI had a devastating effect upon the civilians of all Macedonia, but those who suffered the most were the non-Greek element which was practically forced either to learn to live like Greek people, or forced to move out of Greece. At the same time, the ethnic Greeks living in Bulgarian, "Yugoslavian", Albanian or Ottoman/Turkish lands were facing the same terms in their respective countries. The citizens of Thessalonika did not suffer that much because the large Jewish community was not considered an enemy of the Greek state, while the significant Muslim Turkish population was later exchanged due to the Lausanne treaty (see bellow) and the small Slavic community in Thessalonika fled to Bulgarian Black sea coastline, in the lands that once belonged to Greeks who took the opposite route. Many of those fleeing from all sides left for the new world instead.

At 1922, the defeat of the Greek army by the Turks resulted to the expulsion of nearly all of the Christian inhabitants of Turkey (or Asia Minor). Finally, the newfound Turkish state and the Greek state agreed upon the peace terms of the Lausanne treaty. This treaty imposed the exchange of populations by "voluntary"immigration, but the most of the Muslims living in Greek territories and Christians living in Turkish territories were forced to immigrate because of it. Thessaloniki that had a large Jewish population did not witness that much of a transformation as did the rest of Macedonia. Nevertheless, the citys' borders were expanded very fast in order to accomodate the refugees, and soon enough, the Jews begun immigrating to their fatherland, a process that was accelerated during WWII when the Jewish population of the city was nearly extinguished by the Nazis.

Miscellaneous

• Could someone please help turn the list in the "Museums" section into prose, possibly merging it with the "Landmarks" section above? I doubt that there are going to be any separate articles for the items in this list any soon, unless of course User:Jengod who has contributed it has something in his mind. -- Etz Haim 14:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why were my pictures removed?????

Half of the links of the Thessaloniki page are to cheap commercial sites that do the city no justice. I cannot beleive that they were recommended by anyone?

If you feel that some of the external links currently listed at the Thessaloniki article are inappropriate, you are welcome to delete them and state your reason for doing so on the Talk page. Please read WP:NOT and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies before doing so, however. CRCulver 16:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Etz why did you remove the pictures gallery from the page, they are maybe personal page but they don't have any advertising on it and it does imporve the article by bringing a gallery of pictures from the place. Chmouel 17:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See the page history? I wasn't the one who removed the link to User:Acarvin's photo gallery, but the one who restored it, to be removed again later by someone else... I actually used to like the gallery link here, but it seems other people don't think the same.-- Etz Haim 20:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh sorry about that Haim, i got confuse in the history. But the question remain to User:Acarvin. Chmouel 11:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, Acarvin was the original contributor and the one who took the pictuers with his camera... Take another look at the history. :) Cheers -- Etz Haim 14:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Damn you right, sorry about the confusion... Chmouel 21:59, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Links to galleries of unfreely-licensed images are not very helpful to us. Jkelly 16:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How can I submit some new pics for the page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by MWD (talk • contribs)

If they are photographs that you have taken yourself, you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons. See commons:First steps/Upload form for help on how to do that. Jkelly 16:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see the upload form but I cant find how to put images in the Commons.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MWD (talk • contribs)

That's okay. I, or someone else, will move them over there eventually. Your rotunda image is quite a nice shot. I think that I prefer the closeup of the White Tower, however. Jkelly 19:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do a few of you run this page? Do you live here?—Preceding unsigned comment added by MWD (talk • contribs)

They let me out once a month. Actually, nobody really "runs" the article; it is an entirely collaborative effort by volunteers. Jkelly 20:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant do u live in Thessaloniki!--Ian 20:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

population of Thessaloniki

Just curious: what was the population of Thessaloniki in the 18th century (around 1760)? I couldn't find it on google. Bogdan | Talk 21:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is actually sure because the Ottomans didn't take accurate census. The first accurate one was taken in 1830, when the population was around 30,000. --Ian 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Symbols

I believe, like many people in Thessaloniki, that the old turkish jail (White Tower) should not be the symbol of a beautiful city like this. The same for Galerius Ark. What symbolizes a former turkish jail except pain and misery of Thessaloniki people during othomanic rule? What symbolizes the ark except "the glory of Galerius who beat Persia". It is a shame for the citizens of Thessaloniki to have this two buildings as symbols. Even Thermaikos Gulf cannot be a symbol because is one of the dirtiest gulfs around the globe. What about neoclassical houses? Few remained after 1917 fire and even fewer were fixed (usually with owners money and not municipalitys care). So neither these can be symbols. So I start this conversation as a little "crusade" to find a good symbol for Thessaloniki to replace this "White Tower" which I must remind was called "Tower of Blood" once upon a time. I want a symbol that expresses city history, its people fights, freedom and democracy. (Yes, I am fully aware of mr. Skambardonis opinions in "Panselinos" about the White Tower -- για ελληνόφωνους: "Τούρκικη Μπουγάτσα" and "Τούρκικη Παπαριά") User:Quantis | Talk

Well, regardless of what one might desire, the White Tower is considered a symbol of Thessaloniki, not least by the residents of said city themselves. The Arch of Galerius, to my understanding, is less known or cared about by the inhabitants. Other symbols that come to mind include the Rotunda, although it's often oddly overlooked despite its impressive size, and several of the old churches, such as Thessaloniki's version of the Hagia Sophia. --Delirium June 28, 2005 21:27 (UTC)

The White Tower in Salonica was designed and constructed in the 16th century by the most famous of all Ottoman architects, Sinan. It was not orignally built as a prison but as a guard tower to monitor boats coming into the port, etc. It was only changed into a prison in the 19th century. - mike

While the White Tower was certainly used by the Turks, I vaguely remember tour guides saying it was built by the Venetians during their brief spell of rule in Thessaloniki in 1423–1430, just before the second Ottoman Conquest. Imladjov 15:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a different tower in the same spot before Sinan built the current tower. It was, I also believe, built by either the Venetians or another Italian people. The current tower was definitely the work of Sinan -mike

note on Byzantine era

During the Byzantine era Thessaloniki was considered to be the second city (Συμβασιλεύουσα) of the empire (after Constantinople). After Constantinople, Thessaloniki was one of the major mints which produced coins for the empire. And the city was always called Thessaloniki by the inhabitants. +MATIA ☎ 22:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

The name does appear to be from Ancient Macedonian language, but are there any theories regarding its meaning ? bogdan | ^Talk 14:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thessaloniki#Ancient_times +MATIA ☎ 15:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Mazower gives "triumph over Thessaly" (Thessalo - nike). Looks pretty straightforward. --Jd2718 18:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The name does mean "victory over Thessaly" and is derived from the name of King Philip II's daughter, Thessalonike (a half-sister of Alexander the Great). When Thessalonike married Cassander (Kassandros) of Macedon, he renamed the old city of Therme in his wife's honor. Imladjov 15:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove exchange pictures from article

The pictures in this article should be removed, the whole history of Solun/Thessaloniki is not being talked about, i ahve proofs of macedonians living there for thousands of years, greeks kicked out all macedonians from solun and turkish christians came from turkey there now, proofs Desecration of Macedonian graves at St. George's church = http://www.mhrmi.org/images/gorno_pozharsko2.jpg Another picture of the grave desecration = http://www.mhrmi.org/images/gorno_pozharsko4.jpg

The following four pictures are from Sveti Atanas Church in Zhelevo, Aegean Macedonia. The original Macedonian inscriptions were wiped out and replaced with Greek writing. Entrance to church = http://www.mhrmi.org/images/svatanas1.jpg Close up of first picture where the Macedonian writing is still visible = http://www.mhrmi.org/images/svatanas2.jpg Another example of Macedonian writing that was wiped out = http://www.mhrmi.org/images/svatanas3.jpg Inside the church - icons were erased = http://www.mhrmi.org/images/svatanas4.jpg These pictures need to be added now, I have plenty more for anyone needs user:Intranetman

I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what it is that you're trying to express in some of the above. I think that you are saying that Thessaloniki was Slavic, and that those images would contribute to the article by demonstrating that. Please see Wikipedia's rules about No Original Research. If it were true that you have discovered previously unknown evidence, you would have to get it published in a respected historical journal, and then we could cite it here. I'd suggest that you avoid using the term "Aegean Macedonia", however, as it is likely to make people suspicious of your motivations. Jkelly 16:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

listen Jkelly i respect your opinion about this things, but however i think i know more from this subject than you only because my family is come from solun and i know all of the history from this city ok,the city was mostly macedonian throughout last 1000 years,even more, here is some thing big about this= From the close of the 6th century the territory of Macedonia, like the other Byzantine dominions in the Balkans, was exposed to continual settlement by the trans-Danubian Slav tribes. From that time onwards the city of Salonica became an object of Slavonic and combined Slavonic and Avar sieges and attacks. As a result of large-scale and intensive Slav colonization, in the 30's of the 7th century the whole territory of Macedonia, with the exception of Salonica, was settled by Slavs (1). Influenced by its Slavonic surroundings even Salonica underwent considerable Slavonic influence so that in the 9th century, in the Life of St. Methodius. it is written that "all the citizens of Salonica speak a pure Slavonic"

more proofs:http://www.mymacedonia.net/aegean/aegean.htm,this wikipedia page needs to have all opinions not just greeks ok NPOV remember, somebody please edit the page properly, have a nice life user:Intranetman

NPOV yes, pro-RoM no. +MATIA ☎ 12:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My frend if Thessaloniki was slavic and if the slavs are macedonians what is the meening of the name Alexandros in your language ? what is the meening of Makedonia ? i just visit one of the pages you give above and thay say that Queen Cleopatra VII she is slav as well is this mad or what ? the web sites you ask the users to visit are pure propaganda, thay are funy have a nice day :) Alexandros.c Thessaloniki 06/1/2006

bravo alexandre....pida tous..

Sold To Venice?

In 1423 the despot of Thessaloniki, Andronicus, offered the city to the Venetians because the Byzzantines/Romans could not defend it, and it was surrounded by Ottoman forces. The Venetians accepted it, perhaps because they hoped to make a profit from trading from it, and perhaps because it might have been used as a point from which an anti-Ottoman force could be taken to the east, if the Christian powers agreed to contribute men and money. This was a big mistake. They held the city until 1430, when it was captured after a short siege by Murad II, and remained in Ottoman hands until 1912.

The contemporary Venetian records (which are well preserved) show that no payment was made to Andronicus (this is significant, because any such payment would have had to be approved by the Venetian Senate). It was suggested that he might receive a relatively small pension for his maintenance, but there is no evidence that even this was paid. Andronicus died a few years later (he was not a healthy young man).

The story that he sold the city to the Venetians is found in the work of later Byzantine writers. It is most unlikely that there was any truth in it, although modern writers who haven't gone back to the primary sources sometimes recycle it.

Where is the history of Thessaloniki during the Ottoman period???

I did not see any information about the Ottoman times of the city...Somebody is trying to ignore that period on purpose?? I do not see any good in hiding truth from the whole world... Selanik was an Ottoman city by 1912...please hear my voice and change this article with the correct one... unsigned by Calledman at 11:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If you read the talk page, you'll understand that this is not the only historical era that is missing. +MATIA ☎ 12:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right Matia...When I went to Athens,I could not see any Ottoman buildings....Can someone explain to me why people destroy historical places and buildings on purpose???

It's called nationalism and an extreme dislike for 4 centuries of occupation that threw Greece into the Dark Ages, happy now?If you want further explanation to this, go to Nicaea (Iznik in Turkey) and ask to see the medieval church of the Virgin Mary. Oh wait, you can't see it anymore because the "humanist" Turks blew it up in 1922. Does that explain anything to you? Not to mention all the churches and other medieval buildings torn down in Constantinople to make way for roads, train stations, and cheap housing. Oh, and there are many Ottoman buildings surviving in Thessaloniki (The offices of the Prefecture and the HQ of the 3rd Army Corps comes to mind), so nice try to pass your propaganda there. What is Selanik anyway??

Hm. If you mean that Ottoman buildings were destroyed on purpose to "hide" the history then you have misunderstood something. Thessaloniki has a lot of Ottoman monuments (and Byzantine, and Roman, etc) but Thessaloniki has suffered to great disasters: the fire of 1917 and the earthquake of 1978. Many monuments, including the church of Saint Demetrius, was totaly (or almost totaly) destroyed by the fire, because woods were a large proportion of the construction material. Athens is a different case. From 1870 to 1930, a lot buildings and monuments were destroyed in the process of building a new and big capital city. I don't know about Ottoman buildings, but I can verify that many Byzantine churches were ruinated, often in order to make way for a broad road. One example is the Kapnikarea church at Ermou street - for about 10 years (around 1875 if I remember correctly) there was an order to take the church down, however the very strong protests of the locals saved that church. ps you can sign your comments with ~~~~ at the end of your comment. +MATIA ☎ 09:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

They have destroyed the Ottoman "buildings" just because Ottomans was fascists and foreign rullers. And moreover, what buildings do the Ottomans have to present in Greece? Barbarians do not produce civilization or even...historical buildings..—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.248.162 (talk • contribs)

There are a few Ottoman buildings in Athens, such as one disused Mosque in Monastiraki. But by and large there are very few as the Ottomans did not build terribly much in Athens. Kwstis

The most important thing that is missing about the Ottoman period is that Thessaloniki uniquely in Europe and the World was a city that for over 600 years had reletively equal populations of Christians, Jews and Muslims who all called themselves Thessalonians rather than Greeks, Bulgars, Slavs, Turks or Jews. This is what Mark Mazower's extroardinary book Salonica: City of Ghosts is all about. It is sad that Greeks don't celebrate the multicultural history of the city and teach it to their children, I am a teacher here in Thessaloniki and none of my students even knew any of this - they didn't even know who Kemal Ataturk was and that he'd been born here. Thessaloniki's multicultural history is something Greeks should be proud of and celebrate in this age of intolerance. Its true that in Athens the Ottoman buildings were deliberately demolished by the new Greek Governent in what was called the process of 'Hellenisation', however they were replaced with very beautiful Neo Classical buildings. The real shame is that almost every single Neo Classical building in Athens was demolished to make way for Apartment blocks after WW2, it still amazes me that people allowed this to happen as Athens was very beautiful before they did this. If you want to see remains of Greeks Ottoman past go to Macedonia and Thrace where there are many pretty old Ottoman houses remaining. They were not deliberately destroyed in Thessaloniki but, because they were made of wood, most burnt down in the 1917 fire, there are however still a good few in the Upper Town.--Ian 21:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Population

Hi Matia, you changed the population figure. I got mine (363,987) from the 2001 census. That's the population of the city and municipality of Thessaloniki. I don't know where you got yours (809,457) from, but I think it's for the whole urban area, including several suburbs. The best solution IMO is to put the lower figure in the infobox, and put the higher figure somewhere in the text (in fact it's already there, with the reference to metropolitan area). Markussep 22:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User:195.66.108.65 changed the population of the metropolitan area from 800,000 to 1,500,000. Is that true? The population of the whole prefecture, that probably contains the metropolitan area of Thessaloniki and more, is only 1,099,598. The world gazetteer gives 946,638 for the metropolitan area in 2005. What is right, could someone comment? Markussep 10:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the 1.500.000 is true because the population of Attica region in this site is 5.000.000 even if the real population is 3.700.000! And It hasn't been noticed by anyone. So please if you want to correct Thessaloniki's population you have to correct Attica's population first.

If you don't know about Thessaloniki, then don't speak! The official population of the municipality is around 300,000. But we don't speak about the municipality but the whole city. In the 2001 census there was a big number of people who are Thessaloniki's inhabitants but they moved to their villages and towns for this occassion in order to increase their population. The full population of the city of Thessaloniki, with all the 13 municipalities included and obviously the foreigners, immigrants etc is about 1,500,000. It is not a secretf for us who live in this city..

Could you please give some sources for those figures? My source, the 2001 official census, says: 363,987 for the municipality, and 1,057,825 for the prefecture. I can imagine there are a lot of students who are still registered in their home towns, and probably a significant number of foreigners and illegals, but that's not half the population, is it? If what you claim is true, please feel free to write about it in the article. The infobox BTW should be about the municipality alone, the other 13 municipalities (which exactly?) that are part of the agglomeration of Thessaloniki have or will have their own articles. Markussep 19:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Some information: Urban area: 809.457(2001)

Metropolitan area: 1.046.851(2001) 1,099,598(2005): [email protected] 10th May 2006

What is the point of putting the Municipal Population in? - its very misleading as its just a small part of the city in reality. I live here and the real population is about 1.5 Million and growing fast.--Ian 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The population of the municipality refers only to the center of the city. The population of the city as a whole (with all adjustent municipalities) is about 800,000-900,000. The true population may surpass 1,000,000, but certainly does not reach 1,500,000. Check www.statistics.gr, which has the official census.

Well Done.

A much much better article since the last time I visited it. There is a lot of work to be done though. Well done again; Salonica deserves a very good article. Astavrou 07:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I checked out the article on Athens recently - it reads more like a tourist brochure than an Encyclopedia entry - there is a lot of 'how great Athens is'? and very little about what its really like. The Thessaloniki page is much more informative and academic, well done all.--Ian 08:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop editing, writing or deleting if you don't know about the city

let us, the inhabitants and natives of the city to have the control of this article, please.

Sounds like WP:OWN to me... :) Rich Farmbrough 10:26 13 March 2006 (UTC).

Festivals

I've reorganised it, but may need some checking by people who know about these. See also Thessaloniki Video Dance Festival and Thessaloniki International Film Festival (those two events are documented enough, and are reputable enough to have a seperate article). talk to +MATIA 15:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. Jkelly 16:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman History

Like the anonymous editor said, there's a lot of Ottoman history missing that should be incorporated. Even more recently, why isn't the population exchange between Turkey and Greece that occurred before WWII mentioned? I'll try to ameliorate this problem some, but it may take me a few days to have enough time. Yom 22:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Hello! Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

End of the First Balkan War

This whole thing is pretty strange. During the First Balkan War, terrible things were done to Turkish military and civilians by the Balkan Allies (and vice-versa). But it is extremely strange to attempt to work that into the article on Thessaloniki and accuse the Greeks of a massacre there. This does not at all match my memory of mainstream accounts of what is a very well-documented event. If we think that the article needs a paragraph on the days during the end of the First Balkan War, I'll dig out a couple of books and write it. Jkelly 01:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was about to say. The Balkan War was after all a war, and in wars civilians caught in the gunfire is not unusual, especially during the capture of a city. I've got access to contemporary sources which give detailed and even gore accounts on the massacres committed by the Ottoman armies in the Bulgarian and Thracian countryside during the same war, yet I have never tried to make provoking edits in Turkish articles. Thus I regard the editing behaviour of some Turkish editors rather rude and ignorant when the try to pass such POVs. Secondly, the Balkan allies were tiny compared to the Ottoman empire and their expansionist policy was motivated by the liberation of their people. It would be absurd to accuse the Americans and the British for killing Germans during the recapture of Paris in WW2. Last but not least, the new additions are not just simple POV-pushing or provokation, they're a plain distortion of history. First it adds the term Turkish Jews, which is completely irrational, and then it goes on to say the following:
"During the First Balkan War the Ottoman army left the city to Greece without war but with a condition which was only if the Turkish population of the city whose lives were in danger were protected. The Ottoman forces in the city also left their guns without fighting but the Greek gangs massacred a great number of Turks and Ottoman soldiers in the city on the night that they took over the city."
This entire edit contradicts all historical information we have on the war, i.e. Greeks pushing north in Macedonia, Serbians pushing southwards, and Bulgarians pushing Eastwards and nearly reaching Constantinople. Now we have an editor which supports that Ottomans "did not fight". Such a claim goes beyond POV-pushing, it is a straight-forward lie. Miskin 17:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

City Universities

There must also be a mention about the city's Universities and colleges.

Layout

RADIO AND TELEVISION SHOULD BE LAST, NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE—Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaper7 (talk • contribs)

Please don't use all caps. Jkelly 16:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this and 'Landmarks' and the Jewish history should go to the top rather than being hidden at the bottom.--Ian 08:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mayor of Th.

I need someone to confirm whether Vassilios Papageorgopoulos, the mayor of Thessaloniki, is the same person as Vassilios Papageorgopoulos the former sprinter. Thanks, Punkmorten 21:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you confirm this? Jkelly 04:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad I dropped by... Yes he is. See his biography in the official municipality site. The Greek text reads (among others): "He matched the Pan-European record for 100 meters and won three medals in the Pan-European games. He participated in the Olympic games of Munich and Montreal, where he held the flag of the Greek team." •NikoSilver• 16:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew?

I'm not going to revert the removal of the Hebrew, but I'm a little unhappy about the reason for its removal. It is true that Hebrew is not currently a major language in Thessaloniki, but Ladino was for centuries. Jkelly 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to have the Ladino name instead of the Hebrew one. Although i am not sure about it... to make a comparison, in Kayseri there is the name in Greek, not in Cappadokian Greek. athough the difference may had not been important enough, i think that the major language of the ethnic group should be used, and since the Shephardim are a Jewish ethnic group, and since Hebrew is the language of the Jews, i think it is OK for it to stay in the article. --Hectorian 19:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I removed it is because the Jews of Thessaloniki used Hebrew to read the Torah, they didn't use it as a vernacular. Hebrew as an everyday language is a modern invention, which is due largely to the work of a man known as Eliezer Ben-Yehuda. This is why it is the official language of Israel today, rather than Yiddish or Russian. —Khoikhoi 19:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between the two became a political issue when Ladino was not included in the list of languages used for the holocaust memorial. The argument was that the two languages aren't mutually intelligible which isolated Greek Jews in the concentration camps. I need to find some reliable sourcing for this, actually, and add it to History of the Jews in Greece. Jkelly 19:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Since our fellow wikipedian added the name in Ladino, i will not insist in the inclusion of the Hebrew. seems better this way. --Hectorian 19:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hectorian. :) (to Jkelly) However, I'm a bit confused here: the Holocaust memorial was only in Greek? Did it include Hebrew as well? —Khoikhoi 19:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew, Yiddish, and a number of other languages but no Ladino (and probably no Greek). At least that's what I recall. I really do need to look this up... Jkelly 19:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

University

The article indicates the city has both private and state universities. Greece has no private universities. If this indicates branches of foreign universities, then it must be highlighted. Personally, I would stick with the state university because reference to a tiny private university might pass for advertising. Politis 17:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo Gallery (NEW)

I just added a photo gallery to the article. PLEASE, dont remove it or vandalize it. If you want to add a photo, please feel free to do it so. The (Twinnings) as well as the (Modern Era) needs to be edited a bit. Thanks. Salonica84 11:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think its a good idea to add new photos but Im concerned about the quality and representation of some of your images. Im a working photographer of the city, some of my work can be seen at www.myspace.com/thessalonikicity .The photos that were there before you added yours are mostly mine. Im particularly confused about the value of your 'nightview of Thessaloniki' at the top and your picture of the army parade???? Wikipedia normally uses photos by people who are professional photographers. However I wont change or replace anything unless others agree with me.Ian 13:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nightview and parade should both vanish. Συγγνώμη φίλε Salonica84... •NikoSilver• 16:42, [6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, now this is getting out of control, someone added two pictures of roads in the travel section. In what way are pictures of roads and Thessaloniki's less than interesting airport necessary for this encyclopedia?? Ian 07:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

1st: I'm not a professional photographer, just amateur. 2nd: I think that the "nightview of Thessaloniki" simply gives an image of the city at night. Maybe the specific photos arent good enough. However, Thessaloniki is a city with a vibrant nightlife and great night skyline and not only a city of Byzantine or Ottoman monuments. 3rd: I dont understand why the photo of the Army parade should be vanished..Every October 28th, with the President of the Hellenic Republic to be among the officials, in Thessaloniki takes place the so-called big parade for the Ohi Day. On October 27th the city celebrates it's liberation from the Ottoman rule. So, without doubt the military parade of October 28th is a significant annual event for Thessaloniki. 4th: The roads may simply give an idea of the basic road entrances to the city. One in the West and the other from the Airport, in the East side. If you want to replace a photo, do it; but please, do not vandalize or make any mass removals. Thanks. Salonica84 23:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You keep ordering people not to remove photos as if you have the right to make all the decisions around here. You don't own this article, and other users are free to remove content they believe is inappropriate, provided others here agree, even if you demand such material remain. CRCulver

I don't keep ordering. Everybody is free to remove or add material. However, before removal, there should be a little discussion, otherwise there could be edit-conflict, as you know. But you don't own this article as well and moreover you are not from the city to which the article refers. Be serious. Salonica84 23:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia guidelines, namely the "Owning" warning, users are prohibited from insinuating that someone is a lesser editor simply because they are not from the place the article describes. Whether someone is from Thessaloniki makes no difference here. In any event, your tone here on the Talk page is aggressive, and you do seem to this editor at least to seek to monopolise the section. CRCulver 23:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My tone on the Talk page is not aggressive at all; on the contrary you misunderstood my good will for co-operation in this article. However, if you want to believe the above you wrote, it's ok with me. No problem. Salonica84 23:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Salonica 84, I assume it is you who keeps changing the photos and their placement. Can you at least suggest your changes here before you do them so they can be discussed. Ian 11:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ive replaced some of the photos in the gallery Salonica84, the places Ive included, the Eptapyrgio, the walls, Agios Pavlos and the old town are all important for the encyclopedia. However if anyone has a good reason to replace them thats fine with me.Ian 23:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ian, the vast majority of your photos refer to the old town, ano poli, Eptapyrgio etc...You give so much importance to this specific area of Thessaloniki as if it is the most significant. You include at least 3 photos showing the "Kastra". We should add at least two photos showing the modern and real image of Thessaloniki. 10:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Salonica84 people want to see the modern face of Thessaloniki. Putting too much photos from kastra is wrong. 12:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of pictures of the modern city but how interesting are concrete apartment blocks to an encyclopedia? In my experience most people who use this use it for historical purposes and every historian outside of Greece considers the Ano Poli with its 600 years of history to be the most important part of the city as it is all that remains of what the city was actually like for most of its history. Feel free to change what you wish, Im just trying to present the multicultural diversity of Thessaloniki's past rather than just the modern Greek vision of the city. In my experience locals (I live in Thessaloniki) never want to publicise the Ano Poli, Ive never understood why? Every other major city focuses on, and is proud of, its historical parts rather than its apartment blocks. Is this because of its Ottoman heritage????? Ian 13:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ian, you have done a good job indeed. Your photos are quite good, however you should not be focused so much on "Ano Poli". I just added some more photos in the Photo Gallery and one in the modern era. I also changed the pic of Olympion Cinema. If you find/have any good photo of the Modiano-Kapani old market, please add a photo as this market is quite known in the center of the city. Thanks. Salonica84 20:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The name of Thessaloniki

Despina Skenderis

It is NOT Saloniki or Salonika.It's THESSALONIKI, period!

The city was built in 316 BC by Kassandros, son of Antipatros who was Alexander the Great's general. He had married Thessaloniki, half sister of Alexander the Great, and named the city after her.

It was the Jewish wonderer, Benjamin Toudela who during the 12th century AD, "mentions" the city as "Salouski". Then the Arab geographer Entrize mentions it as "Saloniki". Later the Bulgarians call it "Saloun" or "Seloun", the Vlachs call it "Siruna", and the Turks as "Selanik". The name was changed by the peoples above according to their linguistic form. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.134 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 16 September 2006.

Are you talking about the English or Greek name? It is still widely called Salonica in English. —Khoikhoi 20:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's commonly called Σαλονίκη in Greek as well, and Σαλλλονίκη by the locals.;)--ΚέκρωΨ 10:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. It is. Also, the Greek WP, mentions Σαλονίκη (=Saloniki) in the relative article as an informal appellation. •NikoSilver• 11:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Jews section and radio stations

I agree with you JKelly but I hope you will also agree that it is way overlong and it could have an article of its own. Also agree on the radio stations, they need to be edited out and, if necessary, placed in a new article, Thessaloniki (radio stations), or whatever. Politis 16:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Once things settle down a little at this article, we should take a look at the article guidelines for cities and ruthlessly move some of this stuff to more appropriate places. That said, Thessaloniki was unique in having a majority Jewish population, and was centre of Judaism in Europe for centuries. I'd really hate for that to be played down while we endlessly argue about where in the article the Slavic name for the city should go... Jkelly 16:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, all things in good measure. I thought that the wiki-style for cities was their current situation, economy, cultural scene, climate, sites, transportation, etc. and just a hint of history to give it some background - with relevant links. After all, for related issues, we can have articles such as 'CITY (history)'. I stick to my initial reasons for my editing and I hoping this particular issue will take reasonable proportions (and no special headline, even though I agree that some info should be included). Politis 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Name of Thessaloniki in Turkish

The name, in Turkish, is Selanik. This link: Turkish Railroad European Schedule is to a current TCDD (Turkish National Railroad) timetable. This link Selanik is to the Turkish Wikipedia article on Thessaloniki. Both use Selanik. If someone has evidence that current usage in Turkish is something else, please provide evidence. Jd2718 01:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

İndeed correct. Selanik is still, not formerly or previously, its Turkish name. Bertilvidet 07:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I cannot understand this edit. In Turkish, it is still Selanik; there is no point in running round for global cross-referencing for this simple little fact. Politis 09:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There are two ip-named users who are multiple-reverting. That is why I added the note and found the links for this 'simple little fact' which was apparently in dispute. That being said, and, I hope, agreed to, the opening is lousy. Readers need to know that Thessaloniki used to be known as Salonica/Salonika, the rest should be separated and dropped down. I will prepare a proposed edit and place it here, on the talk page, for comment. (unless someone beats me to it). (And let's keep discussing, not multiple-reverting) Jd2718 11:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the rest shouldn't be dropped down. That "Solun" is one of the names for Thessaloniki is very important for Slavic history and Slavonic comparative linguistics, and by extension to all the Slavic peoples. I assume a similar situation exists for the Turks. CRCulver 15:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem in mentioning the turkish name in the lead and without the words formerly known by, but the same format should be used in Istanbul article as well, which currently is formerly known by its Greek name Constantinople. If the Turks still call Thessaloniki as 'Selanik' and if this city is of great importance for them, then what could someone say for the Greeks and Istanbul? The name 'Constantinoupolis' is the one and only used by the Greeks and the city is of enormous importance to them... Also, the greek spelling was "miraculously" removed from that article. I have spend much time in the past re-adding the greek name there, after it was removed by anons (and rarely registered users), whereas, only a couple of times a turkish user was willing to revert such anon edits... The same lead will be inserted in this article as well, if the article on Istanbul will not be in the state it was according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places). this is not a threat, but the obvious step expected to be made on a case like this. Regards Hectorian 16:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As hectorian stated in the Istanbul article the Greek name has changed and is now written: formerly known in Greek as Constantinople'. I believe in all fairness the same should apply for Thessaloniki. That is why i m reverting. Either change the Istanbul article back to its original form or leave Thessaloniki with the 'formerly' word. Thanx! Mywayy88.218.50.249 22:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Point noted. No need to point. •NikoSilver• 22:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing here; these are valuable points. The difference between Constantinople and Selanik is important: the former is the anglicized form of the Greek name, and formerly was the principal name of the city in English; the latter never had currency in English. Both Konstantinopolous and Selanik (apologies for butchering the spellings) are not former, but current names in use by Greeks and Turks respectively. The "former" in the Istanbul article refers to third parties. ("formerly known by its Greek name Constantinople" not "formerly known in Greek as Constantinople")

The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places) article is a valuable guide. I do not think the letter of the article is as important as the spirit, which I try to preserve in the proposed edit below. The name Thessaloniki is important. It is the (modern) name of the city. The name Salonika or Salonica is also important. It is the name that the city was known by internationally for much of its history; it is still widely used, including by natives. The other names in the article are historically important, as they are the names used by people who used to live in Salonika in large numbers. The distinction, though, seems significant. I am proposing moving that group of names down several sentences, but keeping them in the opening paragraph. Please note that I am not proposing changes to other articles on cities in Greece and Turkey; this is what makes sense for the Thessaloniki article.

Thessaloniki, (Greek: Θεσσαλονίκη) is Greece's second-largest city and the capital of the Greek region of Macedonia. The alternate name Salonica, formerly the common name used in most western European languages, is derived from a variant form Σαλονίκη (Saloniki) in popular Greek speech. Thessaloniki was home to large numbers of other peoples in the 15th - 20th centuries; their names for the city include Turkish: Selânik, Slavic: Solun (Солун), Aromanian: Săruna, Ladino: Selanik, and Albanian: Selanik. Thessaloniki is commonly called the 'symprotevousa' (lit. co-capital) of Greece due to both its long history and its strategic geographic and economic importance. More formally it is called as the "Capital of Cultural Affairs".

The Thessaloniki urban area curves round the Thermaic Gulf for approximately 17 km; it comprises 13 municipalities and according to the 2001 census it has a population of 809,457. The Thessaloniki prefecture has a population of 1,099,598 (2005).

Certainly moving "Salonica" up makes sense. What do you think about the rest?Jd2718 03:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, i want to add my opinion about the proposed changes, and then i will strongly complain for the driving of the discussion away from what i had posted before (to which i got no reply...)

Moving the name "Salonica" up does make sense, having in mind this name was used for a long period of time, is still in use today, and comes from the original name "Thessaloniki". However, i would like to attract some attention in the sentense Thessaloniki was home to large numbers of other peoples in the 15th - 20th centuries ; their names for the city include Turkish: Selânik, Slavic: Solun (Солун), Aromanian: Săruna, Ladino: Selanik, and Albanian: Selanik: the turkish and albanian names are identical, and, in addition, i have never come across an ottoman census or traveller's book saying that 'large numbers of albanians ever lived in the city'. the slavic name should be presented before the turkish, because: it was in use earlier, slavic-speaking inhabitants were forming larger numbers and small number of them still are there. Furthermore i am pretty much aware that the aromanian speakers (who are all natively bilingual) do not call the city 'Saruna'. however, i do not mind having this term here. not to mention that aromanians are not 'peoples other than the greeks' and still are present in thessaloniki in large numbers... The Ladino name shall, of course stay, since the Sephardim Jews made up a large percentange of the population (until WWII) (in some periods as much as 50%) and Thessaloniki was a Metropolis for them.

The problem in the Istanbul article is, as stated above, that The "former" in the Istanbul article refers to third parties. ("formerly known by its Greek name Constantinople" not "formerly known in Greek as Constantinople"). were is the modern greek name of the city? the Greeks still refer to it as 'Constantinoupolis', in the same way the Turks refer to Thessaloniki as 'Selanik'. I do not care if the Turkish users want the turkish name in the lead of this article, just because Kemal Ataturk was born in the city... The Greek name has thousands of additional reasons to be in the lead of 'Istanbul' (i know it is tiring reading them again and again, but i will list them once more: founded by Greeks, served are capital of the Greek Empire for more than a millenium, it is the See of the Ecumenical Patriarch for almost 2 millenia, the majority of its population was greek/greek-speaking for a little less than 3 millenia; currently, and de jure (for wellknown reasons it has a "protected" greek minority; in addition the current official name (according at least to the most and respected historians and linguists) is a corruption of the greek name, the city has a prominent role in the greek literature, history (Greek war of independence, Byzantine empire, Ionian Revolt, etc), folk culture, architecture (Hagia Sophia), etc etc etc. Does anyone think that these are not enough reasons? do compare this to the importance of Thessaloniki to the respective issues for the Turks. Lastly, i could easily say that 'Selanik' is just a corruption of the greek name 'Thessaloniki' (not vice versa, as in the case of Istanbul) and as such, unimportant from a linguistic and historic point of view. In conclusion, i am getting really sad (and angry) watching the greek name being removed from there by the turkish users... there is no chance to rub away history... I have not seen any Egyptian user removing the greek name from Alexandria, nor an Italian user deleting the greek name from Naples, nor a Syrian user doing the same in Latakia. i consider this attitude sick, POVish and nationalistic, and if the 'Istanbul' article won't have the same format, i will remove the turkish name from here (not to mention that here it is in the turkish writing system, whereas the greek spelling in istanbul was removed under the pretext that readers of wikipedia are not supposed to know other writing systems...! - come on people! check the scientific, historical, mythological, and other articles to see the use of the greek alphabet...). Regards Hectorian 06:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's do what is right for this article. The proposed lead sentence you seemed ok with. Would we be better with an "Other names" link for the other languages? Or perhaps an "Other names" section late in the article? Or is it ok, perhaps slightly reworded, where it stands in the proposal? As for the order, I would prefer not a strict chronological order but one of historical significance: Ladino and Turkish first (could be reversed), followed by Slavic (there is a Wikipedia policy against using "Macedonian" for the name of this language?), Aromanian, and Albanian (yes, there was a significantly sized group of Albanians. They were deported as "Muslims" at the time of the population exchange. I will hunt down some links if you would like.)

The name Solun is not Macedonian-specific, but has the same form in most Slavonic languages, being borrowed from Old Church Slavonic (which was based on the Slavonic vernacular of Thessaloniki). CRCulver 10:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The names are all adaptations (not corruptions, please! NPOV) of the name Saloniki. This could be noted. Jd2718 10:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The name 'Solun' is common in Serbian, Bulgarian and Slavomacedonian, that's why in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places), there was a discussion about this with User:FrancisTyers. so, under 'South Slavic' is the best way to place it. i would propose a lead like: Greek name (meaning in the Greek alphabet), South Slavic, Turkish or Ladino, Aromanian (IMHO this is the historic significance). I did not mean anything POV by saying 'corruptions of the name Thessaloniki' (more or less i meant 'adaptations' or 'borrowings'). I will insist on what i said in the early beginning of this discussion: if the Greek name will not be presented in the same format in 'Istanbul', the turkish name will be removed from here. If anyone cares about NPOV, should think of what i just said. Wikipedia articles do not develop independently from each other... otherwise, we would not create internal links and 'see also' sections... I do not want to cause revert-edit wars, but i am willing to get dragged in such a behavour, if double-standards will be applied in editting placenames in greco-turkish related articles. Regards Hectorian 10:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

About the Albanian name, i am still not sure if it should be added... Today in thessaloniki there are some thousands of Russian-speaking and Romanian-speaking immigrants (i bet more than the albanian residents ever were), but we cannot begin adding names under this pretext... Historic significance, present population, past large population, former official name should be among the criteria, at least that's what i think... Hectorian 10:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No one has created a good argument for keeping the non-Greek, non-English names in the lead. I will suggest more simply that they be moved down to the Ottoman Era section, which is when those names were used by natives of the City. Selanik is already identified there.

Albanians were present in Salonika in significant numbers under Ottoman rule. They would have been counted by religion, Muslim, and not by ethnicity or language (as Slavs or Vlachs may have been counted as Christian.)

There is no reason to threaten to launch a multi-article revert war. We discuss and search for a reasonable solution that meets wiki guidelines.Jd2718 22:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The name "Solun" was used long before the Ottomans. See the Vita, where Byzantine emperor Michael III uses the name. This was in the mid-9th century. It does not belong in the Ottoman Era section. CRCulver 23:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. "Thessaloniki," Greek: Θεσσαλονίκη), and "Salonica" belong in the first sentence. The rest belong somewhere else. Can you suggest where? The Turkish appears in Ottoman section; the Ladino could be introduced there, in Jewish history, or both. The other three languages, though? Jd2718 21:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. First off, it's common practice in Wikipedia to have relevant historical names at the top of articles. Why should we hide the Turkish name somehwere in the history section? It's much easier to have all these names in the same place. —Khoikhoi 22:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The most important stuff should come in the lead and the details later. Perhaps my suggestion to put the other names used by former residents of the city (ladino, turkish, albanian, romanian, slav of whatever flavor wiki choses to call them) late was wrong; simply moving them to a different sentence in the same paragraph (my initial suggestion) might do. The Guide does not deal specifically with native language names of ethnic groups/nationalities no longer resident. Do you find the 10th paragraph in this talk section acceptable? Basis for further discussion? Jd2718 22:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Aromanian name

The correct Aromanian name (as you can see on [2] is Sãrunã. Because I cannot change this, I'd like to ask somebody to do it for me. Thank you. Eeamoscopolecrushuva 11:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Hectorian 14:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)