Talk:Thessaloniki/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Thessaloniki. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Its a well known fact that the Byzantines held onto Thessalonika after the fall of Constantinople. In fact, if you look at Fall of Constantinople article and scroll down to the map, you'll see its under Byzantine control. Hmmm. Also, when constantinople fell, a Byzantine pretender took the city until it was lost in teh later half of the 15th century. Tourskin. (Gabr-el) 21:44, 18 January 2007‎ (UTC)

This article is becoming very long. Perhaps we should move some of the content to subpages (like History of Thessaloniki), trim useless stuff, etc. See Wikipedia:Article series for more information. Khoikhoi 20:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OSMANLI The Osmanli Elayet of Selanik (Gr.: Thessalonike) was created ca 1846 out of parts of the Elayet Rumeli. It became a Vilayet in 1867.

In 1912, on the eve of the Balkan Wars, it included three Sandjaks :

- Drama (Gr. Dráma) (1) - Selanik (2) - Siroz (Gr. Sérrai)

In 1912 - 1913 the Vilayet was occupied by Bulgarian and Greek troops. After some strife most of it - except the Kaza of Dovlan (Bulg.: Devin) in the Sandjak of Dráma, which was assigned to Bulgaria - became part of Greece (Treaty of Bucharest of 1913).

(1) Included in the Sandjak of Dráma was the island of Thásos (T.: Tashuz)

   This island had become a Sandjak of the Elayet of the [[Djeza'ir-i Bahr-i
   Sefid]] in 1556, before being transferred to Selanik in 1902.

   In 1841 the island had been granted to Muhammad 'Ali Pasha, the Vali of
   Egypte and his successors as a tributary possession.
   For a time the Egyptians ruled it very independently, but in 1908 direct
   Osmanli rule was restored and in 1910 the island was made a Kaza of the
   Sandjak of Dráma, the Egyptian rulers now only receiving its revenues. 

(2) Included in the Sandjak of Selanik was the tributary and autonomous

   Monastic Republic of the Áyion Óros (Holy Mountain = Mount Athos,
   T.: Aynazoz)

No objection in principle but that is a whole Sandjak with a wide geographical reach, and this article is about Thessaloniki, it would make it spiral way out of its boundaries and its scope. It seems inevitable that people will want to add or remove, or apply similar criteria to other article of towns and cities. Politis 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Politis 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Vali

1868 - 1871 Sabri Pasha 1871 - 1872 Ismail Pasha 1872 - 1873 Ömer Fevzi Pasha 1873 - 1874 Mehmed Akif Pasha (3x) 1875 Reuf Pasha 1875 Midhat Pasha 1875 - 1876 Esref Pasha 1877 Abdi Pasha 1877 Ahmed Rasim Pasha 1878 - 1879 Halil Rifat Pasha 1879 - 1892 .... 1893 - 189. Zihni Pasha 1895 Hasan Fehmi Pasha 1896 - 1898 Hüseyin Riza Pasha 1899 - 1900 Haci Hasan Refik Pasha 1901 Tevfig Bey 1902 - 190. Hasan Fehmi Pasha (2x) 1904 - 1907 Ra'uf Pasha 1908 Danis Bey 1909 - 1911 Ibrahim Bey 1912 - 1912 Nazim Pasha

Shouldn't these be included under the sub-article, "History?" Perhaps as a forked list from there? I think all administrators should be included, Greek, Roman, Ottoman, whatever. But they may each need to be forked because of their size. Student7 11:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the photos need to be arranged in a better way throughout the article. Two photos (on the right or left side) for each section would be good, I think. I will try to apply some changes. Please, feel free to discuss or make the relevant changes you think that should be done. JFKennedy 11:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We now have two image galleries in the article. Jkelly 22:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need these lists in the article? The Consulates list would be appropriate for Wikitravel but not an encyclopedia article. The sports clubs list must be shortened (only the major teams) and have a paragraph about sports in general. If nobody objects I'll remove them tomorrow. geraki 12:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave them in there. The consulates give the city a sense of status or importance. Now for the sports teams, I don't really know what could be taken out. The teams from Thessaloniki must stay. As for the other teams, I guess there proximity to Thessaloniki should determine whether they should be in the article or not. El Greco 13:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Similar major non-capital city articles don't mention consulates at all: Lyon, Milan, Chicago, Osaka, Barcelona; New York does mention that it hosts "the world's largest international consular corps". Listing the consulates (or even saying how many they are) sounds like insecure boosterism. --Macrakis 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How come there is no architecture section. Surely, a city this great deserves one. 68.237.38.42 20:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

An IP editor added Osaka and Thessaloniki to each other's list of sister cities. Osaka's official web page for such relationships does not list this relationship. If a reliable source states that Osaka and Thessaloniki have such a relationship, the information, including the reliable source, will be a valuable addition to the articles. Fg2 11:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a few problems with this section. The Jewish population would have been some number less than 62,000 at the time of the fire. Source after source says nearly half the Jewish population was left homeless, yet this section says 50,000? I cannot find a single peer reviewed, google scholar, or any google reference whatsoever for the citation's author.

The issue of the blue law is complex. The port had been closed on Saturday. Certainly closure on Sunday out of context seems to be draconian, but such blue laws existed throughout Europe and this was a shift from Saturday, which favored one group dominant at the time, to Sunday to reflect the new majority population.

Also we have this: Many Jews emigrated to Turkey,[9] United States, Europe and Alexandria, Egypt. " Aside from the fact that the great majority stayed as the city became part of Greece, the bulk of the minority which left went to Palestine and the US. Very few went elsewhere. 72.75.2.67 21:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Could you point to some sources for the amount and destination of emigration? I, too, have heard that most Jews stayed after Greek annexation, but it would be good to have some figures. I am fascinated by the different currents in the Salonika Jewish community. For example, Emanuel Karasu was one of the founding members of the Young Turks and said he was "a Turk first and a Jew second"; he of course emigrated to Turkey. His nephew Isaac Carasso, the founder of Danone Yoghurt, emigrated to Spain. Both left just before the Greek troops took the city. Jean Ichbiah's mother emigrated to France, but I don't know when. --Macrakis 22:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I just cited the blue law claim, and added a bit about the Jewish electoral districts. Your point about the the blue law is interesting, but if you're implying that it doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the article, I disagree. The fact that, as you said, it was a shift to favor the new majority is relevant- it shows that the Jews were losing economic power and the government was acting accordingly. We have to make sure that any attempt to use that fact to paint the government or Greeks with anti-Semitism has to be scrupulously verified, but as an explanation of the city's changing economic trends, I think it fits. 24.60.166.137 03:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Another issue is the use of the word "took over" used to describe the actions of the greek army. The correct statement should have been "liberated". Inspite the historical fact this is and was at that time the general notion in both Greece and at other European countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.207.18.160 (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Salonika deserves its own entry.

I have been writing a book about the last years of Salonika, and quite frankly, we're talking about two entirely different cities, two different populations, two entirely different cultures.

The Greek population of Salonika was only about 12 percent. Yet somehow, three years after the Greek occupation, the mayor was Greek, Konstantinos Aggelakis (1916-1920). Salonika died the day Greek troops conquered it. The Jews weren't losing economic power in 1912, certainly not to the Greeks. But by 1917, they were destoryed. There may be no documentation that Venizelos burned the city, but there is no doubt where his "Liberals" stood. These days, the local university, built on land extorted from the Jewish community during the Holocaust, doesn't even offer a course in Ladino, the majority language until 1912.

After the Holocaust, just 30 Jewish families were able to reclaim their homes. If you want to get beaten up, just mention Salonika's Jews to local Greeks. Most don't know they were ever there. The rest simply get angry. Scott Adler 07:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that there should be a separate article on Salonica. There is already some mention of the Jewish population and any sourced and creditable additional information on them would be welcome. This city has gone through many cultural incarnations, but to segregate the city's history into discreet channels does more harm to truth than trying to work here to incorporate the whole sweep of the story.Argos'Dad 20:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree. You can't have separate articles for different historical periods, different population constitutions, etc. of the same (at least geographically) city. If we did that for the period when Thessaloniki was mainly Jewish, why not have a separate article for Thessaloniki during the Hellenistic Era. Also, about getting beat up by mentioning Salonika's Jews to Greeks, that's just plain stupid. Alexhard 10:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I too think its a bad idea to have separate articles, if it was so articles for many cities around the globe would have to be split into new ones each time the population percentages changed more than a certain margin. i.e Rome in the classic era was nothing similar to today's rome and so on. Thelveres 07:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

One of you must be looking at something, preferably in English (!), that differentiates between metro and prefecture statistics for population. Can't you insert that as a footnote to end this war once and for all! Thanks. Student7 11:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Urban Area of Thessaloniki, or the ' ...continuously built-up area...' of Thessaloniki, is clearly defined by greek law (1561/1985, paragraph 14.A.1.3). The population sum of the municipalities that comprise this area is 800.764 (2001 census). What is called the 'metro area' of the city, although not clearly named as metro area, can also be found at same law (Thessaloniki Master Plan) - this extended area has a population of 976.575 (2001). The prefecture of Thessaloniki includes towns located 80 km away from the urban area, far away from its commuter belt (population of the whole prefecture: 1.057.825, area: 3.683 km2). It is clear that the metro area of a city of this size and population density cannot cover an area of 3.683 km2, twice as big as Greater London. The prefecture includes mountains, two lakes etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.244.1 (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Great! Now can't you formulate that into a caret-ref-caret reference and put it by the statistic? Both to the law and the actual figure that you are using? Two references/footnotes. Thanks. Student7 11:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

But lets get one thing straight. The city is not the same as the municipality. Therefore its the city statistics and the metro statistics in the infobox, no need for urban. ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the metro is not the same as the city (did I say the same thing?). What I don't understand is why we have to insert figures that are irrelevant to Thessaloniki municipality that are already covered quite well in another article (metro). Student7 (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation for Macedonia (or Macedonia or Macedonia) should only be done in contexts where there is a possibility for them to be confused with one another. Certainly, within the context of Thessaloniki, I'm sure there's no need for any form of disambiguation which contradicts the principles of WP:NCON (common, official, self-identifying name -all three). If the reader wants to see that this is a "region of Greece" (duh, while we already state "Greece's second largest city"), he may click on the link and see it. I refuse to accept that this encyclopedia will try to devise all sorts of tricks for inserting originally-researched qualifiers next to the (Greek) Macedonia, so as to leave every other instance of un-disambiguated Macedonia for the country. NikoSilver 18:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Three points. First, I've changed the text to indicate that Thessaloniki is the capital of Central Macedonia, which, in fact, is correct. Second, I must point out that we work by consensus, not 'refuse to accept.' That sort of language is unhelpful. Third, be careful when throwing around WP:Original Research - by omitting (Greek) from the article (but not from the talk page where you are trying to make yourself clear) you force conscientious editors to find other, non-irredentist, language. Jd2718 20:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia is referred to as a "region" consisting of a bunch of sub-regions in turn consisting of 13 prefectures or so. Thessaloniki is capital of this whole regional mess, whatever that means. The vagueness of what Macedonia is needs to be explicitly included. Further, it is hard to find anything more concrete in English. If you have anything at all to support your claim, why aren't you including it as a footnote? Student7 20:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well in Greece it called Macedonia, not Greek Macedonia. _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

References for the administrative units of Greece? Click the link for Central Macedonia, or google "Greek Administrative Units." There is not an administrative unit (anymore) called Greek Macedonia, which makes this edit warring rather silly. Jd2718 20:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Student, you have introduced a travel website - I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source. Jd2718 21:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

On the Greece#Peripheries and prefectures, it calls Macedonia a "periphery" whatever the heck that is, and identifies Thessalonki as it's capital. Right? BTW, Technically, we're are not supposed to be using other articles as references directly. They could be wrong too! But based on Wikipedia, I agree that they aren't called regions anymore (assuming they are correct) BUT they are called "peripheries." (Is that an improvement?  :)

For the record, we don't care about population of the periphery or even prefecture. They have their own articles.

I do agree that travel sites are not appropriate. But (as I mentioned) it is hard to find anything in English. Student7 21:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The UN map section's map of Greece from selection list here clearly shows 13 administrative regions, of which Central Macedonia is one. Wikipedia's own articles on Regions of Greece and Prefectures of Greece make plain that the Peripheries are administrative subdivisions, but that the Regions no longer are. Jd2718 00:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(to Niko:) Don't give us red herrings here please. We don't force disambiguations on Greek Macedonia in order to leave the other Macedonia without disambiguation. The point is, we disambiguate both. And for heaven's sake, please stop thinking of disambiguation as if it was some sign of slight or disgrace. We use disambiguation because outside readers need it, it's an entirely practical matter. Overloading it with political implications like that is entirely inappropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The word "Greece" and the link constitute more than enough disambiguation. But in any case, no matter how you define Macedonia, whether in the narrow Greek or in the wider sense, Thessaloniki is its capital, so I don't understand the fuss. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, its being the principal city of the wider region is not what the sentence is meant to express. And speaking of a "capital" of such a region would be inappropriate too, because "capital" implies official political function. Just stop thinking for a moment about the sensitivities of Greek editors and approach the issue from the perspective of an outside reader. Like it or not, for the outside reader who may very well know about the existence of the independent state of Macedonia but possibly not about the existence of the Greek region of that name, the sentence "Thessaloniki is Greece's second largest city and the capital of Macedonia" is a stumbling block for understanding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

God forbid we'd actually make them think, hey? Actually, they don't even have to think, they just have to click. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the responsibility of every writer to make reading as smooth as possible, and a text should be understandable without clicking links. Wikipedia texts are supposed to be capable of being transferred into other media, don't forget that. If the disambiguation is hidden in the link, it's not effective. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

One more time for the ignorant - why can't the article say that it is the capital of a "periphery" called "Macedonia?" Is it because the word "Macedonia" has such political overtones that the word "periphery" can't be used? We have one article that already uses that term. Should that article be changed? Student7 02:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the Periphery would be "Central Macedonia", not just "Macedonia", a smaller unit. But I doubt Nikos' and Kekrops' objections are about such factual details, it's just that they want to demonstrate, for political reasons, that they can use the term Macedonia in "their" (i.e. Greek) article pretending no other Macedonia exists. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You got me wrong, really. What I was trying to demonstrate is that if we're going to use the other Macedonia un-disambiguated in its related (or non-related) articles, then we have to do the same for this one. Nothing more than that, and it has nothing to do with "turfs", nor am I a fan of ostrichism to pretend another Macedonia doesn't exist. Actually, now that you mention it, the use of the country's name un-disambiguated deserves the same response: They/we pretend no other Macedonia exists! You get me now? NikoSilver 13:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

But that's not really true. The short form, Macedonia, has been informally banned from Wikipedia. It does not appear in the entire article about the country, Macedonia. Even the awkward phrase "the Republic" is used to avoid it. Jd2718 14:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

On these grounds I'd agree Jd, and case closed. My original concern was that when the ethnic Macedonians remove "offensive" qualifiers from their names then they are "self-identifying", while when the Greek guys are doing the same for their own then they are becoming jerks. I'll hold you on your comment above, and I find the present solution in the intro satisfying. NikoSilver 14:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Niko, I agree with you. Thanks to all for talking, and esp. to FutPerf for coming up with text that reads well, reads clearly, and does not offend. Jd2718 14:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

While we are (again) arguing over where Macedonia "really" is, can we also state if Thessaloniki is the biggest city in population as opposed to area. I have a feeling that population is the issue here, besides attempting to pin down where Macedonia is. Student7 (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, the debate in the above was irrelevant to this section, but since it was mentioned, I think I should clear it out:

• Greece has 10 historic regions ("geographic departments"). Of these, one is Macedonia (Greece).
• Greece has 13 modern administrative "Peripheries". Three of those, partly comprise the historic Macedonia periphery: West, Central, and East Macedonia and Thrace. You will note that the sum of those three modern administrative peripheries equal the sum of two historic regions (i.e. those of Macedonia and Thrace).

Thessaloniki is:

• "Co-capital" of Greece ("symprotevousa"), the capital being Athens
• Capital of the historic region of Macedonia (Greece)
• Capital of the modern Central Macedonia administrative periphery

And some other honorary titles, like:

• "Capital of the Greek immigrants"
• "European Cultural capital for 1997(?)"
• "Capital of the Greek North" (Protevousa tou Ellinikou Vorra)

When I said I agree with the current intro, I meant with the inclusion of the historic region of Macedonia (Greece), since this is by far the most notable, and since the Greek Macedonians self-identify as "Macedonians" (and not as "Macedonia and Thracians" [sic], which would correspond to the administrative mess up North). Any other opinions? NikoSilver 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We musn't forget that, peripheries aside, Macedonia as a whole is still an official subdivision in its own right, as expressed by the existence of a Ministry of Macedonia and Thrace, headquartered - you guessed it - right here. So it's not just an "historic" (i.e. administratively obsolete) region. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and to give one more apparent example, notice that the Peloponnese is also messed up in terms of modern administrative "peripheries". Most of it (Central and South) is on its own, and its Northwestern part is along with the Westernmost part of Central Greece. Like Macedonia, you can't make up the Peloponnese from the new peripheries, but it certainly is separate geographically (being surrounded by Sea and the Corinth Canal), and in terms of regional self-identification (the Peloponnesians). NikoSilver 17:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that NikoSilver had furnished a reference to it being a periphery, but there was no footnote/reference to the reversion. I like the "three capitals" idea although the "historic" one looks obsolete. If it is obsolete, maybe it should be under "history." But maybe the other two can be included (with a footnote). I appreciate that it is confusing when refering to "partial Macedonia." Whatever the government has declared it to be and is really treating it that way, should be listed in the opening paragraph, I would think. Should Macedonia (Greece) and/or Greece#Peripheries and prefectures be changed? Student7 19:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

But that's the point. If you notice the names of the new administrative divisions, they refer to the names of the original ones, which are distinct geographic entities. The entity on the East is by the name "East Macedonia and Thrace", which means that it comprises of an East Macedonia (therefore there is a Macedonia) and by a Thrace (therefore there's also a Thrace). Same with the ministry. I'd agree with you if the name was irrelevant, but it is not. NikoSilver 19:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol, plus the reference I furnished calls it a "province". [1] (My aim was to help cite the word "capital", not "of what exactly") --NikoSilver 19:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not disagree with Jd's modification of capitalizing "R" in the link for "Regions of Greece", thereby hinting to the officiality of the term.[2] Given the opportunity, my thanks to Jd[3] and Fut.Perf.[4] for helping preserve the consented version. NikoSilver 12:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Usual story ;-) history section too long. Needs to be cut by half. Politis 16:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It is too long but still doesn't include enough about the Ottomans. I mean, Mustafa Kemal was born there, it was an important military base for the empire and it was of key importance during the Second Constitutional Era. I don't believe in the national history lessons that they teach to young people in Turkey and I also offer my fellow Greek Wikipedians not to believe in their own lessons of the same kind. Ottomans didn't come to the city "only" to destroy its "Hellenic heritage". It is more than that. Deliogul (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Οσον αφορα τους αθλητες μπαινουν αυτοι που ειτε ειναι διακεκριμενοι σε ατομικα αθληματα η ηταν σημαντικες προσωπικοτητες που φεραν πρωταθληματα στην πολη.Οχι ο Λουμπουτης ο Κουης και Αλεξιαδης.Ο Ζήσης ναι ο Κουδας ναι η Δανιηλίδου ναι αλλά ως εκει.Α και δεν ειναι site για να διαφημιζονται πολιτικοι που δεν τους ξερει η μανα τους εδώ.Ελεος.

Just for future references, can we get that in English next time? Not everyone on English Wikipedia can read Greek, so for those it would be very helpful if it was in English. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• First of all nice of you to shorten the page by making a separate one from the notables.Secondly i meant that we can't include any mediocre player in the list cause is about notable ones,those who have been instrumental in bringing a championship(in team sports) or are famous and successful in individual sports like Daniilidou.I said that because someone had included dome laughable names.In the end i said that this isn't a site for someone to be advertised cause they had included a totally unknown politician who had a stub in wiki which was a regime in fact and was far from being notable.Just an advertisement.Eagle of Pontus 07:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, they must be notable and people you have heard of. It obvously can't be everyone. The list kept growing and really it was better for the page the list be removed, given its own page and a wikilink be placed on the Thessaloniki page to the list. _{El Greco}^(talk) 13:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The economy section is too short. This is the second largest city in Greece, it should have something more to show. I'll try to improve it. Energon 13:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Reaper7 (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

is way too long.That's an encyclopedia it supposed to summarize things.Hellenistic - Byzantine - Ottoman and Modern era shall be one article of medium length. See how we shaped history in Greece page.The same thing can be done here. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thessaloniki was called Sulun, by the slavic speakers of the Thessaloniki Area. The accent is in the second u. I 'll add this in the name section.Hansi667 (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hansi667; can you please provide reference to a history book of some evidence where Thessaloniki has ever been called Sulun. This is the first i have ever heard of this.Hellasforever (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)hellasforeverHellasforever (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We have all said it is too long, but all we get are new sections. I will now list what i think can go.

• Under Sports, all that is needed is a short list of the teams, not essays on PAOK.
• Architecture section? For Salonika? LOL. Not exactly a hidden gem of architecture. However this should be made into its own article and removed from this article.
• Under the name section, it stupidly lists the name in many different languages, yet there is nothing on what the name means and how it was named which is famous. Why is that?
• Is there anyway to block people adding to this article until it has been condensed?
• Also there are 7 festival sub articles. Again, why not create an article on the Saloniki Festivals like was done with notable people from Saloniki?

Reaper7 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The article needs some cleaning up:

• I agree about the essays on teams in sports, and frankly just mentioning what sports take place in the city would be better than listing the histories of each team which can be articles on their own.
• Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the architecture. I concur that the majority of the post 60s buildings are bland to say the least, but there are some gems hidden throughout the city. And it boasts several neoclassical structures as well as a couple of art deco buildings. Also the old town in Ano Poli has some interesting architectural finds.
• The name section in this article is a joke. Pointing out how the name came about would be a good start.
• I would actually rename the festivals to events and yeah, every single thing doesn't need to be mentioned. Again maybe have a seperate article on it, this is the web people, hyperlink.Mapimapi (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are some wonderful examples of the beaux-art style in thessaloniki: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gichristof/sets/72157604907476328/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapimapi (talk • contribs) 13:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Architecture section isn't summarizing.It's too big.For the Jews (as far demographics of the city are concerned) we could have a summarizing article about them specifically with a connection to a more expanded full of details article about them.From 1492 till 1942.Because the whole article about the city is very very extended.

Also Music stations and stuff could be a small paragraph which would have a connection to a more specific article and etc. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In favour of Jews of Salonika in their own article and keeping a small summary here?

• Support Reaper7 (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at the bible for verification. There is no English word "Thessalonikaians" it just does not exist. Here is a link to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_the_Thessalonians 70.107.168.8 (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In late September there was edit warring over the use of "Macedonia" in the lead. A compromise was reached, in which myself, NikoSilver, and Future Perfect at Sunrise, and Student7 seemed to agree all concerns had been reasonably satisfied. See agree, thanks by NikoSilver, and agree with Niko by myself, and changed my mind by Student7.

This edit a month later broke the compromise. I didn't notice until the arbitration case, where I mentioned it, but did not revert (edit warring is bad. Edit warring during an arbitration of the issue is more bad). And I forgot about it, until today. I'm not going to boldly move this back, but I am notifying all those who had discussed the compromise in September/October that I have reopened the discussion. Jd2718 (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm proposing that we return to the compromise version, favorably referred to in the diffs, just above:

Thessaloniki or Salonica (Greek: Θεσσαλονίκη) is Greece's second-largest city and the capital of Macedonia, the largest Region of Greece.

Jd2718 (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody's monopolising the name Macedonia.....BalkanFever 00:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't what sides anyone is on, but my last take (thanks for the reminder) was that counries get to choose what they call themselves and their internal sub-regions. If the state of New York decides to rename itself "Macedonia" that is what it is. And if Athens decides to call itself "New York City," that is what it is (in articles about that city or that state). Fine for current use. Historically, there is obviously overlap. The state in the US should really admit that it was New York before it was Macedonia, I suppose. But it doesn't have to admit that the name was once "owned" by another country or region. That would be superfluous and irrelevant to the article. Student7 (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really see much of a relevant difference between Jd21718's preferred version and that installed by Kekrops? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be trying to appropriate that "Macedonia" is the nation's (possessive). BalkanFever 07:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That strikes me as a bit far fetched. "of Greece", in the other version, is also a possessive. I shudder to imagine the cold, sarcastic putdown we're going to here from Kekrops when he sees this discussion... ;-) Of course, we could debate the subtle grammatical differences between an expanding apposition and a defining disambiguation.... There's something there subtly avoiding the implication that there is more than just this one Macedonia. But it's not really worth sweating too much over in this case, in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be far-fetched, but no more so than any other Macedonia related dispute. Although it does beg the question, why did Kékrōps change it in the first place? BalkanFever 08:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean why did I change "the largest Region of Greece" to the awfully POV and sinister "the nation's largest region"? Because I'm an aesthete, perhaps? I give up, FP; I'm sick of arguing over even the most basic matters of good taste. Make it as ugly as you want. But Macedonia stays. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose "Second-Largest City", "Capital of Macedonia" and "The Largest Region of Greece". You can never have enough capitals. A few more mentions of the word "Greece" in the sentence wouldn't go astray, either; we wouldn't want anyone to confuse this Macedonia with the other, more important one. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you look at that, Future Perfect can tell the future. I never knew there was a crystal ball admin tool. BalkanFever 09:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No crystal ball required. We go way back. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What I still don't get is why we have to reiterate Greece twice in the first sentence alone? We establish it's Greece's second largest city (and a city in Greece) and we need to reestablish again that it's the capital of Greece's largest region, by using Greece again? That just seems unnecessary. Don't the readers see the nation's largest region, obviously referring back to Greece? The way it is now seems fine. _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's also the largest city, economically most important, etc etc of the geographic region of Macedonia. The ambiguity is implicit. Perhaps the opening sentence needs to be broken or reworded. Jd2718 (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps then we should revert to the prior version that defined it simply as Greece's second-largest city and the capital of Macedonia, and leave it at that? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jd, I'm sorry. I don't understand why "the largest Region of Greece" can be viewed any differently from "the nation's largest region". I _really_ cannot imagine what's wrong with it. I think I'm with Fut.Perf. in this, when he says it's "far fetched", and with Kekrops when he says it is better aesthetically. Care to explain what the (well-)concealed evil is in that sentence? (btw, I couldn't have agreed to Kekrops' proposal back then because it simply hadn't been put forth yet...) NikoSilver 23:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. this "tweak" [5]: I very much prefered the previous version. Cross-national geographical regions don't have "capitals". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. When it was just "the nation's largest region", I was, rather typically, accused by a Frankish administrator of "subtly avoiding the implication that there is more than just this one Macedonia", and by a Balkanian, even more typically, of promoting a (non-existent) Greek claim on the wider region. When I try to accommodate the wider region, I get this. Hasn't Thessaloniki been the historic capital of geographical Macedonia for centuries? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I never seriously objected against your previous version. I don't like "capital" because, to my mind, it implies formal administrative function, not just being the largest or most important place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But the city's "formal administrative function" really applies only to the obscure level of government known as the Periphery of Central Macedonia. The city's role as the capital of (multiple definitions of) Macedonia in every other sense is arguably far more important. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Then we are operating with different definitions of "capital", simply. For me (and for our wikipedia article), a capital just has to be the center of government. Interestingly, we have another article on primate city, a term I've never remember seeing in use, but which might fit what you wish to express somewhat better. Or perhaps "metropolis"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Does hauptstadt have a more restricted meaning in (the more precise) German, perhaps? Interesting that the Greek translation of "capital", πρωτεύουσα, means precisely what you suggested as an alternative, i.e. primate city. Feel free to revert me, as I'll probably be blocked until the next big Messenian earthquake if I do it, even if it is only to myself. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And of course, Thessaloniki as the capital of "every other sense" of Macedonia doesn't quite ring true. There is at least one referent of the term "Macedonia" whose capital is Skopje, like it or not... But that's really just a sidenote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Read what I wrote again; I was very careful with my wording, precisely to avoid nasty suspicions like those. But alas, I can't win, no matter how hard I try. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I did something. Happy now? NikoSilver 12:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. _{El Greco}^(talk) 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my initial concern was petty - but the result is positive. Thanks to all for entertaining the discussion, and especially to Niko and Kekrops. Their edit makes the opening sentence, the one that most people read, better than it was. Jd2718 (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate WHY you are making the changes you are making so other editors may understand the reasons. Otherwise they may assume that you are just vandalizing. Please see format for cities at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline. Each editor does not have to re-invent the wheel. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a great subsection. It needs to be integrated down into the supposed main article which is nearly incomprehensible. I tried reworking the sentences of that forked article. Anyway, the material from here could be helpful. Student7 (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

After watching many Greek vs Turk language fights, I would hate to start another one! But the name of the city in English (the language of this article!) has never been Thessaloniki. That is the Greek version. The English version has always been Thessalonica. (Tell me when you change it, so I can stop "watching" it for a few days until the dust settles!  :) Student7 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that has always been the Latin version. The English version has fluctuated over the years, from Thessalonica to Salonica or Salonika, and seems to have settled on the Greek version, hence the current article location. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My error. Student7 (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, my personal preference would be for Thessalonica in English, but that would be too katharevousa for most. And besides, nobody listens to me anyway. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I suggest for an improved layout for the article:

Intro
1. Name - add how the name came about
2. History
3. Geography and Administrative Divisions
3.1 Location - Where is it located in reference to Mount Hortiatis, Axios River, Gulf of Thermaikos, etc.
3.2 Municipalities - name the municipalities
4. Urban landscape
4.1 Architecture
4.2 Landmarks/Places of Interest
4.3 Archaeological Sites
5. Climate and Seismology - the current geography section would go here
6. Economy - needs more info, like what percent of greek gdp
7. Demographics - place the notables in this section
8. Transportation - keep subheadings
9. Education - where is this section? is there no education in thessaloniki?
10. Politics and Government or just Government - what is the political setup of the city? how do people participate in local government? this is a very important section, in my opinion
11. Life in the City
11.1 Art and Culture - museums might go here?
11.2 Media
11.3 Recreation
11.4 Sports
12. Twin Cities
13. Photo Gallery
14. References
15. See Also
16. External Links

Of course they do not necessarily need to be in this order, one could make a case for the demographics to be a bit higher, but I'm guessing this is a start in order to organize the article a bit more neatly.

Again the current subsections are fine, but I think these cities have better layouts, and we should look to them for inspiration: Tokyo, New York, San Fransisco, and Istanbul which I think does a spectacular job laying out the article. I'd be willing to go ahead and make some of these changes, but was wondering what other people thought? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapimapi (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking before reorganizing!

One guideline that Wikiproject Cities had was:

1 History 2 Geography 2.1 Climate 3 Demographics 4 Economy 5 Arts and culture 5.1 Annual cultural events 5.2 Museums and other points of interest 6 Sports 7 Parks and recreation 8 Government 9 Education 10 Media 11 Infrastructure 11.1 Transportation 11.2 Utilities 11.3 Healthcare 12 Notable natives and residents 13 Other topics 14 Sister cities 15 See also 16 References / Notes 17 Further reading 18 External links

Notables definitely should not be under demographics. At the end is fine. All forked. The idea with most of these articles is to get enough stuff in the main article, then fork them. Sports may be in this category. Stuff should be in their article, but national championships and beyond might be summarized in the main article.

Sports/Athletics should have their own subsection. Media the same. Climate goes under geography. I feel uncomfortable with "Recreation." Wikitravel maybe?  :) Transportation under a new Infrastructure. "Life in the City" becomes Arts and Culture.

Layout needs to be standardized so that readers can see that there is a pattern to reading the articles though written by many different editors. There needs to be a Wikpedia "feel" to make the reader comfortable. S/he knows where stuff is going to be. Student7 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is this a Turkey WP? Ottoman Empire I could understand, but Turkey is a modern state with no ties to Thessaloniki. Student7 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I can only imagine that Wikiproject Turkey was included because the city was the birthplace of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. That said, I do not believe the project is relevant and have removed it. Aramgar (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It should not be necessary to hype statements about sports teams. If the teams have performed well, this should show up in just plain presenting the facts along with reliable footnotes. See WP:FOOT. If the teams have not performed well at all, then I can understand why someone would try to overstate their achievements. But this will not be appreciated by readers who will simply skip the article and go on to research Thessaloniki in a reference that can be trusted. Please try to follow Wikipedia policy. Student7 (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't have a clue do you? Iraklis is the first team to win the championship in Greece (FACT) if you bothered checking the actual article about Greek basketball championship in wiki itself. And Aris and PAOK are two of the most successful teams in Greek basketball with many domestic and international titles. That's a fact also. And Thessaloniki is the heartland of basketball as YMCA was the first to introduce the sport in Greece. Iraklis volley has won 5 championships 3 cups 2 super cups and reached 2 CL finals so it's a fact that RECENTLY is one of the best performing Greek and European teams. NOT JUST IN 2007 YOU IGNORANT. Moreover the language you used to violate the article is for laughs at least. THESE PLAYERS MENTIONED AREN'T FROM THESSALONIKI EXCLUSIVELY BUT PLAYED FOR TEAMS AND ARE OF INTERNATIONAL STATURE. THESSALONIKI TEAMS HAVE WON THE FIRST CHAMPIONSHIPS IN BASKETBALL,FOOTBALL AND WATER POLO (FACT) IF AGAIN YOU BOTHERED CHECKING. The level of the article is generally very low. If people like you rush to destroy everything they don't themselves write, and act like owning it, the article's appalling format isn't that of a mystery after all. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from WP:ATTACK.

This is not a blog nor a newspaper.This is an encyclopedia. Please follow WP:POV guidelines. If you would like to put a time line to "recently" please do so. "Recently" is vague. Recent decade? Recent century? We're not trying to attract attention. We are trying to provide information for researchers. Please delete non-Thessaloniki players. They do not belong in this article.

(I could do with a little support here from other editors). Student7 (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What an ignorance!!!!!!!You can't object the truth of my arguments because any single of them is a fact.Anyway i posted every single citation needed (who is florid now, mister ?).BTW your English are laughable.At least when you vandalize an article do it properly.LOL --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I have made a couple of changes to make this closer to English it still however needs someone prepared to rewrite the horrible grammer properly.212.183.136.193 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC).

There are a lot of personal attacks going on on this talk page, and they aren't doing much to support the idea that these edits are being made in good faith. If this ends up getting escalated, name-calling won't help your case any.

On the subject of the sports teams, have a look at the page for Edmonton, a Canadian city that was home to two dynasties in different professional sports. It glosses over the teams in the area, mentions that they were very successful, and offers more information in Sport_in_Edmonton. If this example were followed here, the article would read a bit more smoothly. The style guide suggests we refer to times and dates with specific terms, avoiding the use of words like "recently". Mention that the teams have met with success, and if you need more detail you can include it in Sport_in_Thessaloniki. From an objective point of view, knowing that this team won that sporting event in such-and-such a year says less about a city than knowing about its monuments and demographics.

All Wikipedians are invited to add to this project regardless of their command of the English language; however, it is clear from some sections of this article that the author is not a native speaker. We need to work together to maintain an encyclopedic tone and use proper grammar and syntax. Flakeloaf (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's try one sentence at a time:

A current sentence reads: "Especially the city is considered the heartland of Greek basketball [20] [21] as YMCA was the first to introduce the sport in Greece, while Iraklis was the first team to win the Greek championship [22] and both Aris and PAOK, two of the most successful basketball teams in greek history."

There is a manual, The Elements of Style, for English written by Strunk and White. One of the paradigms is that sentences should be short. The above sentence is too long.

The sentence starts "Especially the city..." This does not make sense in English.

It states "is considered". The passive form should be avoided wherever possible in English. This is covered in the style manual.

The sentence does not say who considers. Perhaps the reason the sentence is worded backwards. It still requires a reference and a subject. Who considers? The statement is blatantly WP:POV and WP:OR for lack of a reference or a subject.

"Heartland" is a bit of a stretch for an encyclopedic article. Great for television and a tabloid. Not so great here. Overly and unnecessarily dramatic.

"as YMCA" is awkward phrasing. YMCA is only used by itself in a song. It is always called "The YMCA."

YMCA has a link which you keep reverting. Why?

Why I don't understand what the devil that the YMCA's introducing basketball in the early 1900s has anything to do with Thessaloniki's success in 2008, it seemed amusing enough to keep. But the phrase "as YMCA was the first to introduce the sport in Greece" doesn't make any sense in English. The first what?

"most successful" appears to need a citation.

I don't know what we would do without Greeks to provide the facts of the article, but please allow native English speakers to help with grammar! If I added facts to Greek articles and did not tolerate help, the articles would be unreadable. This paragraph isn't quite that bad, but it isn't that great either. It looks childish by Wikipedia standards. As though written by someone semi-literate in high school. People aren't going to want to read an article with puerile grammatical and stylistic errors in them.

I may make mistakes in English, my native language, but the difference is that I can learn from my mistakes. Student7 (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There are citations to every single of your objections.The fact the Thessaloniki is considered the heartland of basketball in greece is highlighted by the fact that it's teams first introduced the sport and won basketball tournaments plus Aris and PAOK dynasties and their rivalry dominated greek basketball from 1979 to 1993 provided the national team with most of it's players in the 1987 winning eurobasket and were the forces behind the basketball boom that swept through the country.

I don't know what your background is but you seem not in good terms -to say at least- with the sporting history of the city and your objections look somehow weird.In any case when you edit the article you simply cut through sentences making them unreadable.I don't object making contributions, i am not a professor after all, but -without offense- till now you simply mess the section. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that you know sports. What we can't seem to agree on is a) grammar and style and b) Wikipedia rules on WP:POV which you have not yet responded to. Student7 (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Was basketball introduced to Greece through Thessaloniki? Then say that (fact) rather than heartland (conclusion). When I talk about my favorite baseball team, the New York Yankees, I avoid superlatives (the best, the greatest, dynasty, etc) and concentrate on the number of championships, Hall of Famers, etc. If the conclusion is clear, than all readers will draw it, and if the conclusion is not so clear, than we shouldn't be claiming it. Jd2718 (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Refer to POV specifically one by one. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to do that.

While I have other problems with "especially," it does evoke an image of the city being "special." It may well be, but we need to show them with facts rather than tell them.

I have other problems with "is considered", but who considers is important. Without a subject (missing because the wording is passive rather than active), we don't know who. Therefore the sentence is WP:POV and maybe WP:OR.

I had other problems with "Heartland." But calling it that is WP:POV. As opposed to television, Wikipedia gives the facts so the user may draw their own conclusions about something. If we furnish them enough facts, they will say that Thessaloniki is the "heartland," though they may come up with something even more complimentary. The problem is, unlike the presumed television viewer, our readers are educated and inclined to be annoyed with telling them what to think instead of presenting them with information so they can make up their own mind.

I can't say that I really care about the sentence you get annoyed at my changing regarding the YMCA, nor will others likely object, but suggesting that the YMCA gave Thessaloniki a leg up on the rest of Greece by introducing basketball there a century ago, may be WP:POV and WP:OR as well. More funny than annoying I would think. To preserve it long term you should probably find a reference that documents the YMCA doing that (pretty easy). AND find a probably separate reference saying that Thessaloniki's standing in basketball can be attributed to that. That reference would be a bit harder to find, I would think.

"most successful" appears WP:POV if it doesn't have a footnote saying that.

Not all my objections are WP:POV BTW but I believe that covers those. Student7 (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Especially meant to stand for "more specifically".It was a mistake and can be easily corected.It didn't go as far to attribute the city with sth special but rather specify it's role in greek basketball particularly!

It is considered by basketball experts.Many of them wrote and tell about it (Syrigos,Rodopoulos,Skountis etc) but in wiki we search for web citations which are pretty hard to find considering the greek sport's sites began to incorporate articles in them just a couple of years ago. In any case i found an article from the biggest greek newspaper "TO Vima".

When you introduce a sport, when you were among the pioneers who won the first tournaments, when your teams dominated the sport for so long and in it's most influential period for the spreading of basketball in greece and when most of the 1987 winning national squad were recruited from the city's teams well you have your reasons why. The article is full of facts.Really what i see is not objections rather than a pretext to give special importance to details in a specific section which is one of the most citated and well written when the rest article is for laughs.

I don't spend hours and hours editing in wiki so i can't really resist the eventual return of the section to the laughable piece of bad work that it was before(grammar and syntax mistakes, without citations) but is striking how the reflexes of traditional editors wake up the moment someone "intrudes" in their own wiki world. I don't see in the discussion board any previous debate about the sporting section despite it being below standards for so long. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thessaloniki teams had a dynasty between 1979 - 1993.Go check the champions and cup winners this period.I stressed a fact. Not an opinion! It seems that you people want to limit the vocabulary to 5 words and everything besides that is labeled POV. Student 7 i posted citations.As long you don't change the meaning of a sentence you can do whatever you like. I don't give permission to anyone and don't expect to receive by anyone in order to contribute in wiki. Still my question is were is my POV? And why noone bothered with the previous format while now everyone jumps to change it? --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To the other editors - we are going to try to change the sports section. I would appreciate reversions where necessary. We may have to invoke 3RR here. With your help, we can do it. Sorry about having to read through the extra edits. I have tried to avoid this, but it's gone on long enough I think. Hopefully, we can take care of this in a few days. Student7 (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And please refrain from editing after a reversion back to the one we are trying to change! Revert first, then change. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I checked today the article again.You deleted adjectives and cut through sentences creating new ones that don't make sense.Really do you read again what you write? Do you have a basic knowledge of the syntax and grammar?I am really curious. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your relation with the topic is non-existent at best.You don't even know when or if or where any team had successes you don't even bother searching but still your need to edit is immense as i see.--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The writing needed clean-up, and there was still a sort of 'fan feel' - I've started working on both. Jd2718 (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We've been through most of this before. Even the editor doesn't refer, in his edit summary, to a volleyball team as a "volley department." Why do sentences have to be run-on? Why can't they be short? Short sentences are approved English style. Student7 (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not continue editing the section? It doesn't have to be an edit war. Sometimes things take time to work out. But I am a little surprised by the RFC, when we had potential to resolve things here. Perhaps you should consider delisting this? Jd2718 (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It takes about a month or so to get a formal RFC. I deleted the original request when there were no changes a few weeks ago. The editor is not steady and "retaliated" a few days ago. Maybe you can brush up the section. If he leaves your version alone for a week or two, I can delete the request. If you think you can handle him, be my guest. There's plenty of time! Student7 (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the shot. I've already taken out some of the laudatory prose. I apologize for not following in more detail the other objections. Can you point me to some of the criticism, or identify some of the problematic points? Jd2718 (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ioannes Tzimiskes,

Normally it is poor form to talk about another editor's grammatical and stylistic errors on a Talk page, but in this case, you are claiming to have better English style than another editor, and have yourself criticized his English. So let me point out some errors in your own writing:

"I checked today the article again."

Incorrect adverb placement. Should be "I checked the article again today."

"You ... cut through sentences"

Peculiar wording. I think you mean he "cut up" sentences.

"Really do you read again what you write?"

Incorrect adverb placement and peculiar verb tense. Should be "Do you re-read what you have written?"

"Do you have a basic knowledge of the syntax and grammar?"

Incorrect use of definite article. Should be "...basic knowledge of syntax and grammar"

Hope this helps. --macrakis (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

To both editors, take a day off from editing Thessaloniki, and come back with a clear mindset. _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of past tense is important to Wikipedia because we are reporting past events. We cannot report the present because we are not television. We have more problems over trying to say that an area "votes for X party" instead of saying that it "voted for X party in 2007." If we all use the past tense (which is accurate), there will be many fewer problems. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is no reason to have a list of basketball players in the article about the city. They belong, depending on notability, in the articles about their respective teams.
• There is no such thing in English as a "volleyball department" (unless there was a university that allowed students to study the sport as an academic discipline.) "with several domestic and international successes" is non-idiomatic. "home grounds" is non-idiomatic.
• Use of phrases such as "the most", ie, superlatives, are 1) unnecessary and 2) a bit ORish. Cite the facts, let the readers conclude.

Finally, this page is for discussion, and is open to all. Please take advantage of it. Jd2718 (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A) These players are world class (but how would you know...) and reflect the level of the basketball in the city

The names of people who played basketball in a city don't tell us about the city. They might be in articles about basketball in Greece, or about the particular clubs, instead. Jd2718 (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

B) Then replace the word department with the legitimate one. Not the whole sentence. (Even though i strongly doubt your opinion about this particular word as it is evident in many sport articles of many teams who have many sport departments)

The new version is in standard English, and sounds more neutral. Do you have a specific objection? Jd2718 (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

C) It is supported by facts. Iraklis has dominated titles in Greece the last 8 years,it's a fact. Chicago Bulls are one of the most successful NBA teams in the 90ies. Where is the difference?

D)Are these all the massive POV and grammatical mistakes accusations you could gather? Is that the reason you destroyed and reshaped the whole article according to your point of view without any consulting? That's ridiculous --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the current version? I understand you are unhappy that it is not what you wrote, but Wikipedia is written through collaborative editing. It would help if you specifically identified problems. Jd2718 (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what you should have done before editing my writings and that's what i had be asking since you first rushed to change my edits. Till now i don't see any problem you specifically addressed.

I support collaboration but you didn't collaborate you simple changed the whole article according to your standards. What exactly from my edits did you left there? Nothing. Not a single sentence. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. He supports the standards of Wikipedia which are jointly determined by those of us watching the site. Most of us (maybe all) agree with what he is doing. This is not a one person site, one person's personal "playpen" in which s/he can say anything s/he wishes without fear of contradiction. That type of a site is a blog. Wikipedia is not a blog. It is an encyclopedia. Student7 (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if editors could be very specific. In Bold, Revert, Discuss we should definitely be in that discuss phase. Let's get past issues of who wrote what, and on to the specific content. Jd2718 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Standards of wiki = Jd2718 & Student7 Lol. All of you agree???????? You two are all wiki? Exactly my point from the beginning. You think you own the article, your problem is deeper than alleged POV standards (which still you haven't addressed) and your luck of standard English language skills (which makes your self-proclamation as encyclopedian even more ridiculous).

Jd2718 tried to point his disagreements which are simply so lame that only highlight the fact that the changes in the article are totally out of proportions. The section was without citations (none of you bothered) i cited the article from top to bottom. I wrote about basic facts not fiction of the city's sports history which you don't even know, still wonna edit (the epitome of encyclopedian i guess). There is no way i will accept such attitude let alone from people who don't have a clue what they are editing.

We should have been on that discuss part from the start and not after you are forced to. You "wiki encyclopedians" should have known that first we discuss then change. In any case i don't see why your edits should be around while we discuss the changes needed. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides us two "dictators" perhaps you have forgotten the third opion editor: Flakeloaf. (Another bad guy to hate, I suppose. Someone just doing his Wikipedia job). Student7 (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the cliam that Thessaloniki is "one of the largest cities in southeastern Europe".

With a population of just over 350 000, it is only a quarter the size of cities like Belgrade and Sofia. Skopje has 500 000+ and even Plovdiv (only Bulgaria's third largest city after Varna) is about the same size. Unless someone can update the article with more recent numbers that show the city's population has grown passed 1.5 million, i'd say this claim is unsubstantiated.

Besides, Balkans and SEE are not the same thing and a link text of SEE should not point to Balkans.

78.90.187.26 (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The city isn't 350,000 big. More like close to a million 800,000+ and certainly not 1,5. I think it's in the top 5 of the biggest Balkan cities though.(Behind Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia and Zagreb) --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

what you want to change and why. Specifics A) B) C) --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments, two sections above. Jd2718 (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You changes "a lit bit more" than the words department and most! Yet again you don't have any serious argument for the wholeshake changes you made. And the three revert rule applies to you too.You are the one who changes mine edits.I simply revert them back. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me in which way i am not cooperating?

I edited a section, provided citations made the reader more familiar with the special basketball character of the city. I posted very noted players who played for our teams (i shortened to the most prominent after you 2 found it big enough as a list) i posted facts (like championships won cups european titles). I posted facts again about Iraklis VC yet again you changed them without any explanation. In total you simply rewrote the section as you pleased (every single sentence). In fact you even erased my citations from the biggest greek newspaper TO Vima about the city being the heartland of basketball. Well feel free to know that i find these edits both inaccurate and of bad taste which give the reader everything but a coherent summary of the city's sports history.

As you both aren't familiar with the sport's section (i bet you are both neither greek nor have any relation with the city) there is simply no way i can let such travesty occur. Especially when the excuses for reverting are so lame. A month of edit war because of the department word or the allegation that much is a POV word? And because of that you changed every single sentence? Who you think you are? Owners of the article? Astute encyclopedians? Every single edit must come through your hands? --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, you suggest that there are only two of us by use of the word "both". There are three. Please see second opinion above. Student7 (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

1. You have been restoring the same grammatical errors each time.
2. It makes more sense to talk about teams first, stadia next.
3. The list of players - it does not belong in a city article. Athens does not have it. Chicago does not have. Youngstown, Ohio does not have it. Strange.

Instead of explaining why, you have just said 'no.' This time, I will only make those three changes. Please discuss them here. Jd2718 (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

1. In your opinion [and we are talking about 2 errors -you changes everything]
2. That's your opinion, i disagree
3. Athens and Chicago can have whatever they want.They aren't by any mean some kind of example for this article.

What 3 changes you simply reverted the section back.

I addressed your "objections" every reversion from now on falls in the sphere of psychiatry and i am going to deal it accordingly. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Ownership: "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." You do not have a right to ignore other editors; nor do you have a right to defend your version. In addition, we write using both our skills as writers, and using good sources. Local knowledge can be valuable - but it is not a requirement for editing - this is literally an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Jd2718 (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you accepted leaving out the list of players. I in turn undid my revisions. I think we have a place to start. Thank you. Jd2718 (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well i agree with that and have in mind that this stands for everyone.I expect someone to edit my contributions but till now everything i wrote was erased and rewritten again. I erased the players and i deleted the department word. I hope we have an agreement and i hope we can leave this behind. Sorry if sometimes my style turned rude. No hard feelings from me. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And none here. I'm glad we are talking, not yelling. We'll continue to work, slowly, and keep talking when the need arises. Jd2718 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If basketball in Thessaloniki is such a major topic, why not start a separate article for it? The main article on Thessaloniki should have a good balance of information on multiple topics; it can then point to more specialized articles on sports in general, on basketball in particular etc. Cf. Category:Prefecture_of_Thessaloniki. --macrakis (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The city was surrendered on behalf of the Porter by Hassan Taksin Pasha. This detail is irrelevant to this article, however, I cannot find an article on this military figure. Could a Turkish or Greek editor provide us with one? Thanks Politis (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I know there must be political sensitivities behind this wording, from the Jews of Thessaloniki section:

The arrival of 100,000 Greek refugees settling in and around Thessaloniki after the Asia Minor catastrophe of 1923

...which I gather is a reference to the consequences of the Greco-Turkish War. It's just that in conventional English usage a phrase like "the Asia Minor catastrophe" would tend to refer to a natural disaster, rather than a political/military one. I don't edit either Greek or Turkish articles; I just dropped by wondering if there was anything in this article, or anywhere in Wikipedia, on the current rioting in Greece; but when I read that passage i was struck by its apparent euhemerization and wondered what the background to the use of that wording was; if it has even ben debated; and/or if it's a common way to refer to that war and its consequences; a non-Greek reader of t his article unfamiliar with the region's history wouldn't understand what was meant, and might think it was an earthquake that was what was being talked about; that's my main concern.Skookum1 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I noted that, too, and changed it to the Greco-Turkish War.Parkwells (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not about who is bigger than. This is about the municipality. Not about the metro area. That is another topic. Not about the province. That is another article. Not about Greece. That is another article. Not about the EU. That is another article. We would like to concern ourselves to Thessaloniki city only. If you would prefer to maintain the higher level articles on the metro area, I am sure the editors would welcome you there. We are not trying to "compete" with them nor duplicate what justly belongs in their article and justly does not belong here. Student7 (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A gratuitous entry was made (and correctly reverted IMO) about somebody who has an article. The article is basically about Thessaloniki. In this article, we are interested in the city, not in somebody's past or future career. That information properly belongs in their article. A possible exception might be made for Alexander the Great, or Churchill or Ataturk. Maybe. Thanks.Student7 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone had a throwaway line which read "The Jewish community continued to play an important part in society" (prior to WWII). This is all well and nice, but no WP:FOOT. Dave Barry (an American humor writer) once wrote an entire book which included satirizing political correctness in American History. At least once a chapter, (having warned the reading audience) he would throw in the (unlikely) phrase that "women and Indians continued to play an important role." Having demonstrated nothing of the sort! The phrase was a bit too close to the satire. As for all contributions, whether the Jewish community deserves retroactive sympathy for genocide, their contributions, as the contributions of any other group or persons, needs footnotes. The WP:BURDEN is on the contributing editor not on the rest of us. The line, in any event, is simply a throwaway line copied from some WP:PR piece and is not important to the article itself. Possibly to the article on the history of the Thessaloniki Jewish community, a separate article but that remains to be proven. Student7 (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the dablink again [6]. Dab links of that type are only for cases where the article title itself is ambiguous. But "Thessaloniki" isn't ambiguous; there's only one. If somebody sees a need for further clarification of what it's the capital of, then this needs to be treated in the text where its role as capital is mentioned.

Besides, the link target was wrong. If you say explicitly: "... Macedonia, the country, ...", and have a bluelink on "Macedonia", then of course the reader will expect it to lead to just that, the country article. Linking the word to the disambiguation page instead is deliberately misleading the reader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

WHAT you are saying is add it to the article. Fine, I'll do that as well. THERE is no deliberately misleading the reader, the Macedonia link is proof that it has happened and happens and it sends the reader to all possibilities where they can make sure they get it right. Just because you get easily confused by logic doesn't give you the right to assume everyone else will. Cite a reference for change, instead of blathering your opinion. Myself and a team of 20 people experienced having Wikipedia quoted as saying Thessaloniki is the capital of the Republic of Macedonia. - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you knew how to do this you should have just done it instead of your stupid dance around disruptive edits/reverts.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you are evidently not in the mood to engage in meaningful discussion without personal attacks, and have so far persistently failed to take the slightest note of the arguments I raised, I consider this discussion over. I will revert your changes again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit, your adding reference code around my comment to make it invisible was a joke and mocking me. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You could have and should have done this from the beginning instead of acting like an abusive asshole (not to say to are an asshole because that would be an attack). - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, sometimes the best ideas only occur to me after a minute or two, you see. Don't know if that also occurs to you; it's probably related to my being an abusive asshole. BTW, why didn't you do it, when that's what you wanted? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "September 5th" minus "August 28th" = "a minute or two." I shouldn't have been "surprised". GabrielVelasquez (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(sisten till nästa resmål är en rutten sill!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.26.246.115 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

About Elevation. It states 0 to 20 meters. I live here, close to "Ano Poli" (literally Upper City) and i can assure you that it's a lot higher than 20m to sea level. Unfortunately i am not currently in position to provide the correct number. Is anybody?

Have in mind especialy Eptapyrgion, Ano Poli, Sykies, Triandria, Agios Pavlos, Polixni, Neapoli, Meteora etc... All of them elevate more than 20m to sea level for sure. 20m is like a 5-6 floor building. I guess we won't count suburbs like Panorama, Eksoxi, Retziki, Oraiokastro etc...

Petros D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.203.70 (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The only notable thessalonikian mentioned in main article is Kemal Ataturk. Wouldn't be reasonable to add Saints Cyrilus and Methodius in the main article? Apart from religion matters, there is a whole Cyrilic character set etc. Their contribution to East-Europe linguistics is of international importance. They are too notable to be mentioned only in the list provided as a link. It is fair to say that their influence and historic significance is comparable to Ataturk's as to deserve a place in Main Article.

Petros D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.203.70 (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please add Macedonian name for the city: Solun on cyrilic: Солун.

I know that greeks want to hide its Solun's history (starting even with not accepting that it has other name on macedonian (and serbian, and bulgarian, and bosnian, and etc...), but for the sake of truth add it. I don't want to do that, because fanatic greeks will just delete, without explanation. And the fact stays - Solun is named as Solun by more people in the region, then it is named Thesalonica. Even turkish Selanik comes from older name Solun, thus it is not Theselanik, but only Selanik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.218.67 (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And "Solun" or "Selanik" do not derive from "Thessaloniki"? I agree on puting here all the names of the city but the statement that Thessaloniki is a later name is absolutelly deceiving. "Thesaloniki" was the sister of Alexander the city was named after, right from the moment it was founded. How can you state that Thessaloniki is a later name?... And leave provocative statements such as "because fanatic greeks will just delete without explanation" aside when it comes to an encyclopedia. If you had edited the article to write such a nonsence you'd deserve deleting not just from a Greek but from everybody. For God's shake, in what place on Earth somebody teaches that Solun is an older name of the city when it was named after a woman whose name was Thessaloniki. It's enough of you new-history-makers trying to pass your state's propaganda throughout the web. No fake kind-alike manners will ever trasform something fundamental wrong to right. And if you want to debate on Alexander's sister "real" name (in case it is not a Greek name...), if you could understand greek you would realise that the word actually is two greek words in a row "Thessalon-niki" that translates to "Victory against the people of Thessaly" as the babygirl was born right after a victory of Philip against the people of Thessaly. I'd understand that non-english speakers wouldn't realise that "Newjersey" actually means "New Jersey" but it is the case of yours... Solun or Selanik are just obvious derivatives of the ancient greek name. Or perhaps in your language Solun means "Victory against the people of Thessaly"...

P.S. It's a shame behalf of your's accusing people the way you did without even giving a name. Your behaviour just adds up to my assumptions of you. And your proper reaction should be making a new discussion topic under "Alternative city names" insead of "crying around" about bad greeks and spoiling the topic about notable thessalonikians. Your need to provocate was so burning-inside that you couldn't help yourself i guess. I hope it's either government's good money or a funny bet / reasearch of yours on how people respond to nonsence passing as facts, otherwise you are a deeply troubled man and obviously not just miseducated but irrational as well.

-Petros D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.87.224.255 (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I had replaced the current image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Thessaloniki_collage.jpg) with my own (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thessaloniki-landmarks.png), for reasons that (a) it was higher quality and (b) it included better views of the city, but it got reverted by Grecco22 - and without justification too! I think we should do this democratically and vote on which image to keep. Thoughts? Philly boy92 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I for one do prefer your version, Philly. It is much more symmetric and more homogenous in terms of lighting and colours. Constantine ✍ 16:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Cplakidas, with the reservation that I don't like big composite collage pictures in infoboxes in general, and would prefer a single small image in preference to either of the two above. (Rationale: an info-box only makes sense when the "info" parts are immediately visible. The current trend is that the images become so overgrown and huge that they push the actual text contents of the box down off the screen. On the other hand, image galleries only make sense if the individual images are large enough to be discernible. In collage pictures, they usually aren't. A collage picture in an infobox gives us the worst of both worlds – a poorly done substitute of an image gallery, and an infobox deprived of its primary function.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am changing the infobox image to mine, unless more opposition comes up. Philly boy92 (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I tend to agree with Fut's comment: the collage is great, but it makes the infobox huge... Perhaps we could substitute simply a photo of the White Tower, which is the city's symbol? Otherwise, I'd suggest perhaps removing the fourth row of Philly's collage in order to reduce its size a bit. Constantine ✍ 00:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC);

Yeah sure, I'll cut the fourth row and upload it. It doesnt show something in particular anyway... :P Philly boy92 (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the fourth row (see updated version of image below. Please stop replacing it with your own image LeaderGR. Taking into account that my image has received "more" positive reviews, I am placing it in the infobox, unless anyone has any better alternative?
BTW, I also made SVG versions of the Flag and CoA of the city. Philly boy92 (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• LeaderGR's collage
  LeaderGR's collage
• Philly boy's collage
  Philly boy's collage
• 
  Old (before 21 March)

Hi, the Ladadika quarter was not in the Jewish quarter. It was in part of the Francomachalas the "French" or western (European) and commercial quarter. Yangula (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The photo was labeled by its contributor as being of the former Jewish quarter. I was going by that and at first thought it likely referred to the time before the Holocaust. If it has no relation to Jewish history, there is no need for the photo in the section about the history of Jews in Thessaloniki.Parkwells (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Reading more about the Great Fire of 1917, my guess is that Ladadika was part of the Jewish quarter before the Great Fire, as they suffered the greatest loss of homes in the fire (50,000 were homeless). This was also the center of the city, extending to the water on both sides, which was redeveloped according to a European-style plan designed by Ernest Hébrard and commissioned by the government.

Οk first of all the was no Jewish quarter simply because half the city was jewish. Hebrard has nothing to do with Ladadika, it did not burn down in 1917. Most of the buildings in Ladadika were build after the fire of 1856 as warehouses and shops for the harbourmarket . Before that it was the Egyptian Market and the corn Bazaar (mısır Çarsi). And of course it borderdered with the Francomachalas but was not part of it as I mentioned above. Info from ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗΣ ΕΓΚΟΛΠΙΟΝ ISBN 960-256-301-X _ Yangula (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

So half the city was Jewish but not in this area? In your first comment, you say, "It was in part of the Francomachalas the "French" or western (European) and commercial quarter" but in your second, you say "it was bordered with the Franchmachaias but not part of it." Which is it? If you could give an author, publisher and date for the above book (and its title in English), and page number for the cite, it would be helpful. Thanks.Parkwells (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Mazower, "Salonica: City of Ghosts" See map on page 176. (it is a secondary source, Mazower, I believe, drew it). Ladakia is immediately below and to the left of the line. Above it is the Frank Quarter (Frangomahalasi). Nice thing about the Mazower map - all the houses of worship. We see one church there. And we see synagogues start across a main street (today's Venizelou?), and continue for some ways. I don't believe the physical Jewish Quarter covered 50% of the territory (or even how much of the Jewish population lived withiin the Jewish Quarter) - but however much it covered, Ladakia (here marked "Egyptian Market") was not part of it. Jd2718 (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I meant that the majority of the city did not have a special qarter because they are the majority: they have the whole city. Thessaloniki was actualy a jewish city. In fact all of todays "downtown" area was the Jewish quarter. I was wrong with Frangomachalas, I read that afterwards in the book I qote on my second post. The transliterated title is Thessalonikis Engolpion. Yangula (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that there was not a part of the city called "the Jewish Quarter" - it seems neither of us knows - we are now talking about a name, right? I sort of remember that there was such a name, but that not all Jews lived there, and that Muslims and Christians lived there as well. Be that as it may, we do agree about the topic of the discussion, with the support of two distinct sources - ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗΣ ΕΓΚΟΛΠΙΟΝ Salonica: City of Ghosts - that Ladakia was not part of the "Jewish Quarter." Jd2718 (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)