Talk:Thessaloniki/Archive 2

Municipality of Thessaloniki vs. Thessaloniki Urban Area

I notice that this article focuses on the Thessaloniki urban area, that is the municipality of Thess and the thirteen other municipalities. I think that maybe there should be two separate articles, like municipality of Thessaloniki and Thessaloniki urban area. And then we can decide what Thessaloniki points to. As it is, there is a Thessaloniki Metropolitan Area, which includes the Urban Area and other municipalities under the influence of the core, so that is good. But I really do think that a disambiguation should be made between the two. If you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_angeles#Cityscape you'll see what I mean. I don't know, what do you guys think?

Book Fair

There is a list on fairs and I'd think this one should be added too. http://www.thessalonikibookfair.com/2007TBF/eng/excib.asp There is also another one on the waterfront that lasts longer than a week during the summer months.Diamantidis 19:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Name of Thessaloniki in Ladino

Miskin has deleted the Ladino name from the lead, writing " "Selanik" is _not_ the name in Ladino language for crying out loud" I'm finding "Selanik" in Ladino documents on the web. Perhaps this is a common mistake? For now, I am reverting. I would invite other users to correct, rather than delete, the name in Ladino, if possible. Jd2718 00:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternative names

I'll try a compromise proposal, the principle is the same as with the foreign placnames (as noted by Fut.Perf. at Macedonian Slavic): Any alternative names that require extra explanations, disclaimers, historical discussion etc., should not be in the lead sentence. Instead, they should be mentioned towards the end of the lead paragraph, with a pointer to the more detailed discussion further down in the text.

I'll move all those names below in the intro, and that 'further down the text' is substituted by the linked article for placenames. Do not revert this without serious rationale. •NikoSilver• 14:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems a good idea to me.--Aldux 14:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Niko: Bear in mind that I will apply the above "axiom" of yours to all articles of European cities/towns/villages. . . places I'll come across (WP). Sshadow 14:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering the historical importance of Thessaloniki for all Slavic peoples, since they were evangelized and got their writing from there, not just Slavonic speakers in Greece, wouldn't it be better to put the late Common Slavonic name of the city Солѹнъ here instead? After all, that's the version that appears in the manuscripts. CRCulver 14:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sshadow (edit conflict): It actually depends on the case. Thessaloniki's great cultural heritage encompasses rightful interest for all those different languages. It used to be Turkish (and is Kemal's home-town), the Greek monks Saints Cyril and Methodius started from there for all Slavs, Jews were a significant part of the population, and Aromanians were and are a significant assimilated minority in Greece (even Papoulias!). As a Greek, I am proud of this heritage. So should be you. And, yes, apply that wherever applicable (i.e. where there are cultural ties). •NikoSilver• 14:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. Maybe we should also include the (code)names used by nazis, muslim lumpens, and other nationalistic subcultures for the places they looted or lived therein as parasites and malicious minorities, contributing to Thessaloniki a huge NOTHING. Sshadow 14:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

WP doesn't look kindly to ethnic slurs made on Talk pages. Please remember to edit dispassionately. CRCulver 14:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am really sorry you feel this way Sshadow. Please see WP:TALK and WP:NPA#Examples of personal attacks. •NikoSilver• 14:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If that's too much for your sensitive nature, you know VERY WELL what to do. Don't you? And *OFF-TOPIC* you should also consider using those court/jailhouse tricks of yours to people you're supposed to work together (hey isn't that WP is all about?!). I'm sure they're going to be effective. Sshadow 14:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I had stopped being bothered by this naming issue until I realised that no real consensus was ever reached and the "rule" varried from article to article depending on its "supervisors". Aldux would remove the historical names of Bitola and Khoikhoi would respond to my querries with plain sarcasm. In my opinion the Greco-Turkish name of Bitola (Monastiri/Monastir) is of extremely significant importance, let alone still in wide use by historians. Secondly, the "rule" is being abused in several occasions:

• German name of Crete; ironically enough the only connection I see is the nazi occupation of the island.
• Aromanian name of Thessaloniki; I've never read anything about a significant Aromanian population in the city.
• Ladino name of Thessaloniki... What the hell? How can a language originating in Spain be using the Turkish name for that city? I'd rather see the Hebrew name in its stead, it's definitely more relevant today.
• Slavic name of Thessaloniki... According to every source I've read, the Slavs were never a significant minority in the city, in fact few Bulgarians settled for the first time in a suburb of the city in the 19th century.
• And the list goes on, no point to mention everything.

I don't have any agenda against the historical ethnic minorities of the city (in fact I couldn't care less), I just can't stand the fact that some editors are turning the articles into a "human-rights watch" organisation, and are unable to see that many of their entries are irrelevant or plainly erroneous. Furthermore this practice is pretty much like the "related ethnic groups" fields in the national infoboxes. There are no fixed criteria on what can be regarded as "important enough" to be mentioned in the head of article. For example CRCulver's opinion on the "importance" of the Slavic name are simply not convincing to me. Someone who does not share his opinion would be justified to remove it (and add something else maybe). My point is that when an entry depends by definition on personal interpretations, it always remains the subject of disputes and edit-wars. In my opinion a foreign name is worth being mentioned only in two cases:

1. it has been in official use for a significant amount of time and/or it's still in use in historical context
2. the curent name originates from and/or is a corrupted version of a foreign one.

Miskin 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

1.Personally i do not mind the German name in Crete... The Germans had occupied the island recently (60 years ago). The turkish occupation ended a century ago... Every summer, 10s (if not 100s) of thousands of German tourists, who speak german, visit the island... The turks, not only do not visit the island, but even the Cretan Turks (Muslims, we should say with modern terminology) spoke greek. 2.There are many aromanians in Thessaloniki, but none of them calls the city like that... As i've said before, the aromanian is an idiom that lacks much of what it would make it a language (apropos, 40% of its vocabulary if greek-more than any other language's words... The grammar and syntax are those that have latin elements). I would like to know what is the romanian name of the city... maybe it is the same, and for well-known reasons it has been added as 'aromanian'... 3. the Ladino name could be relevant, if it was different. but now, it is the same as turkish, so, i can't see why to include it... btw, the 300,000 greeks in Chicago call that city... 'chicago'! may i add it there? (in any case, they are nore than the Sephardic Jews of Thessaloniki ever were! but, in order to be honest, and knowing the fact that the city was of major importance to the Jews, i have to say that the Hebrew name would indeed have place here (the descendants of the Seph. J. of Thessaloniki in Israel speak Hebrew now. the descendants of the muslim cretans in turkey speak turkish now... do i see ironic double standards in these cases, or it's just my illusination? 4. Bulgarians actually lived in the environs of the city. and the city is of major cultural importance to them. the name 'Solun' should be added, but as 'Bulgarian', since this is what everyone considered it to be till... always... Hectorian 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Aromanian "isn't a language" because 40% of its vocabulary is non-Romance? What rot. The English lexicon is something like 70% non-Germanic after the influence of Norman French and the coining of scholarly terms from Greek and Latin, would you argue that English "isn't a language"? You won't find any support in international Romance studies for the notion that Aromanian is inherently less worthy of study than any of the other Romance languages; the only reason for its neglect is that lack of literary production makes it hard for scholars at e.g. Cambridge to study it from afar.

As for the Slavonic name of the city, it is not considered Bulgarian by all. The authors of the major English-language handbooks of Old Church Slavonic, namely Lunt, Schmalstieg, and Nandris, do not ascribe any Bulgarian-ness to the speech the language of the manuscripts is based on, but rather call it "Old Macedonian" or similar (though this language of medieval northern Greece is emphatically is not to be identified with RoM modern Macedonian). Since the name is present in a common form in the manuscripts and in early attestations of the modern Slavonic languages, the name should be marked as [late] Common Slavonic. CRCulver 00:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not just list Old Church Slavonic; the modern names in the reformed communist spelling are irrelevant). The only relevant Slavic names are Селунь and Солунь. No irredentist Солун stuff. It would be different if there were still a minority community here using that spelling, but there isn't (as per the Treaty of Neuilly).--Tekleni 00:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OCS would be fine, but would sort of suggest that the city was of importance only to the South Slavs, while the late Common Slavonic form would show relevance for all Slavs. Either way, I see that there are differences in the final vowel of the name, with some sources attesting the front yer and others the back... CRCulver 00:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

For the name 'Solun', u are right in one thing. but wrong in the other. it was not called always 'Bulgarian', but it was not called 'Old Macedonian' either... It was Old Church Slavonic, a previous stage of the evolution of the Bulgarian language. Now, maybe i should draw some attention on when a term 'Macedonian language' (talking about 'Slavic') was introduced. and this happened very recently (in historic terms), for some western Bulgarian dialects. u wanna call this a 'language'? fine by me! but this language was never in use in Thessaliniki or the Greek region of Macedonia. the Slavic language in use here was 'Bulgarian' or, if u prefer, 'Dopia'. i will not allowed the introduction in this here of a name in a language (whose very existence status is disputed), which was invented some decades ago, just to make an irrendistic favour to some northern nationalists... As i've said, i have no problem with the inclusion of 'Solun' under the name 'Bulgarian'. and u know why? cause i do not want to falsify history for no reason! and cause i have seen that the Bulgarians also do not have such an intention (see Plovdiv, as a small example, and compare it with the history of Bitola article).

The aromanian is an idiom that has never been written and whose speakers have always been bilingual (till the moment they appear in history). Attempts to write the language in Romanian scriupt and to introduce thousands of Romanian words in order to replace the Greek words have been rejected by the Aromanians themselves a billion times... I did not say that it does not belong in the Romance family, but i did say that 40% of its words are Greek (the word for 'Thessaloniki' included). Hectorian 00:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

How can a language spoken outside the Kingdom of Bulgaria be called specifically Bulgarian? Proto-South-Slavonic != Bulgarian, anymore than Proto-NW-Germanic == English. The use of "Old Macedonian" to describe the language of those Thessalonians, Sts Cyril and Methodius, has been used in English-language scholarship before contemporary polemics over the language spoken in the Republic of Macedonia. I have no role in the dispute between Greeks, Bulgarians, and Republic-of-Macedonians on the current language, but I do know what the vernacular of Sts Cyril and Methodius is called in OCS scholarship in English. I should mention that, as I have clearly stated I have no part in a nationalistic dispute but rather am a historical linguist in a far-away country, any accusations that I'm an "irrendentist" or a "nationalist" will be interpreted as personal attacks. CRCulver 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I was not talking about u when talking about "irrentism" and "nationalism";-). I had checked your userpage before replying and saw where u are from. i was talking about some specific circles of FYROM. i apologise if u misunderstoond... Sts Cyril and Methodius used Greek, according to most scholars, not Slavonic. they lernt and used that language in order to christianize the Slavs. in any case, 'Old Church Slavonic' is much more widely used for the Slavic language of the region. in addition, historical maps of the region of macedonia describe the slavic inhabitants as bulgarians (and they continued to be called as such until the end of WWII). so, any mentioning of 'Macedonian' language is unhistorical, and even if it's not, it has nothing to do with the modern language of RoM, which means that it cannot be used here by making a link to that language. Hectorian 01:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, reading all this above, I realize I acted too fast in trying to find a compromise solution. I propose we split the discussion on a per-language basis. I am setting the headers below. I am not removing languages just yet, but I am definitely going to do that unless notability/relevance is proven by some sort of citation/rationale. •NikoSilver• 01:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Ladino was the majority language of Salonika for centuries. There is, on the other hand, no reason to consider Hebrew. Also, I suggest Albanian should be included. Jd2718 02:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I suggest to include also the Venetian (Venice controlled the city twice and the city's symbol, the White Tower, was built by them-so they have cultural significance more than others...), the Latin (cause of the Roman Empire), the Italian and German names (cause of the WWII), the Arabic name (the Saracens conquered the city some gazillion years ago...), in Armenian (many Armenians lived and some still live in the city), and also the name in Russian, Chinese, Urdu, Kurdish, Ukrainian, Romanian, Nigerian, etc, cause the city has now many immigrants from many countries... Then, after the destruction of this article is completed by the addition of any name in any language of any person who ever came/passed by/controlled/conquered/ruled or lived in the city, allow me to move on by adding French-Italian-Greek-Polish-Russian-Korean-Japanese-Bantu-Hindi-Arabic-Turkish-Slovenian-bla bla bla names in London, Paris and New York. Regards Hectorian 02:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Albanians lived in Salonica for several centuries, before being largely removed during the population exchange (as those in the city were Muslim). There is extensive discussion in Mazower {citation} of repatriation to Albania vs Turkey. (I am not offering this on the basis of the Albanians who currently work in Thessaloniki. I don't think the size or duration of this community is that large. Though there are newspapers and notices in Albanian, among other languages, near Demokratia Pl (sp?)) Jd2718 12:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment on the following quote by an individual named "Hector": "u wanna call this a 'language'? fine by me! but this language was never in use in Thessaliniki or the Greek region of Macedonia. the Slavic language in use here was 'Bulgarian' or, if u prefer, 'Dopia'. i will not allowed the introduction in this here of a name in a language (whose very existence status is disputed)."

I would like to address the Macedonian language first. It is not that "you" or "CR" choose to call this language Macedonian. The fact of the matter is that the Macedonian language exists not only in the Republic of Macedonia, but in "Greece," "Bulgaria," the United States, Canada, and elsewhere, and it is recognized as such NOT because somebody simply "feels" like calling it that but because intellectual scholarship has dictated it. The Macedonian language is taught in some of the best universities in the world - including Arizona State University, Cornell, and others - as a LCTL. The Macedonian language is considered as such NOT because "you" or "I" feel like calling it that, but because the study of Southern Slavonic linguistics indicates that what is spoken in the Republic of Macedonia is a language - independent of all others in the region. So, Hector, you can call the Macedonian language what you like - you can call it "Bulgarian," "Jew," "English," "Dopia," "Idiom," or even German but that will not change the fact that it is the Macedonian language and that its roots are in Salonika. This information should be added and cited and I would be glad to make it happen.Red White and Blue 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, what is 'CR'? The language that was in use by some people in the middle ages, and after the slavic migrations in the region was 'Old Church Slavonic'. and the language that was spoken by the slavophones during the late byzantine and ottoman times, it was 'Bulgarian'. the travellers say this, the censuses confirm this, the Bulgarian literature confirms this as well. until the early 20th century, everyone knew that the language spoken was Bulgarian. at the moment, the slavophone Greeks call their language 'Dopia' or just 'Slavic'. "Macedonian language" is something invented later as a distinctive name for the western bulgarian dialects, mainly during the Cold War era, by Tito's regime. so, not only it is unhistorical to call the slavic idiom as "Macedonian", but lacks scientific evidence. apropos, what u call "Macedonian language", is still in debate among linguists, many of whom call it just 'Western Bulgarian". in addition, it is intilligible with bulgarian, with the only difference being 2 letters in the alphabet, letters adopted some years ago... LOL! this is not how languages evolve, u know... Someone wise once said: a language is a dialect with an army and a navy (in the case of FYROM, navy can be excluded). Hectorian 13:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ladino/Hebrew

Miskin said:

Ladino name of Thessaloniki... What the hell? How can a language originating in Spain be using the Turkish name for that city? I'd rather see the Hebrew name in its stead, it's definitely more relevant today.

I would like to point him to a Ladino song (note the usage of "Selanik"):

Por una Ninya (A song from Sofia, Bulgaria)	For a Girl (translation)
Por una ninya tan fermoza l'alma yo la vo a dar un kuchilyo de dos kortes en el korason entro.	For such a beautiful girl I will give my soul a double-edged knife pierced my heart.
No me mires ke'stó kantando es lyorar ke kero yo los mis males son muy grandes no los puedo somportar.	Don't look at me; I am singing, it is crying that I want, my sorrows are so great I can't bear them.
No te lo kontengas tu, fijika, ke sos blanka komo'l simit, ay morenas en el mundo ke kemaron Selanik.	Don't hold your sorrows, young girl, for you are white like bread, there are brunette girls in the world who set fire to Thessaloniki.

That's my evidence. I disagree that we should use the Hebrew name, because the Jews of Thessaloniki only used it to read the Torah, they didn't use it in everyday use. Also keep in mind that the use of Hebrew as a vernacular is a relatively new invention (by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda). Khoikhoi 05:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Khoikhoi. One concern might be that the spelling may not be unique. However, we clearly have one good spelling in Ladino, we should keep that unless/until there is contrary evidence. Jd2718 12:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thank you very much Khoikhoi for pointing out the obvious. Blatantly the Jews of Thessaloniki used "Selanik", but that's precisely because they had the Turkish word replace the Ladino word for the city. So unless you support that Ladino was a language born and exclusively confined in Thessaloniki, there would have to be an original Ladino word for that city. Because last time I checked the article said "Ladino: Selanik", and not "Thessalonian Ladino: Selanik" (assuming such term exists). Thus spoke Miskin.

You're very welcome, my friend. :-) It was a pleasure. If you can find sources that contradict mine, you can include it in the article. Until then, search away! Khoikhoi 18:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not any representation on Macedonians?

Why isn't there anything on Macedonians? As in those who live in the Republic? Because my family originates from Salonika (Solun) and I would like to see some more representation please, I live in Melbourne and know other people from Solun who are Macedonian, just like those in the Republic and we understand each other. Please consider. [ANONYMOUS CONTRIBUTOR]

Macedonians? Of course, the inhabitants, as Greeks of Thessaloniki, are Macedonians. It would be like writing about the city of Patras and insistinig on mentioning the Peloponnesians, or writing an article on Geneva and insisting on mentioning the Suisse Romands... I live in London and know loads of Macedonians from Thessaloniki and other parts of the Greek province of Macedonia. So what, do we have to include them in an article on London? Politis 16:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but i think you have misunderstood me. My family originates from Salonika but had to leave during WWII because the Greeks forced them out of their home and I see nothing about the Macedonian people who once also lived in Salonika, there are quite a few of us in Melbourne here. And here I am talking about the same Macedonian people as in those of the Republic of Macedonia, Skopje, Bitola, Ohrid and those cities...and no you do not have to include Macedonians in a London article because that is different. At least some representation or acknowledgment that these people also lived in the city, I don't see why that is so wrong, there is nothing to be ashamed of that there were other nationalities other than Greek in the city. [ANONYMOUS CONTRIBUTOR]

Pardon my ignorance, but ask your family again, I think that the Greeks were in no position to expell anyone during WWII; especially since they, themselves, were being massacred. As for 'Macedonians', you mean the Slavophone Macedonians. But do you have any historical references mentioning Slav Macedonians in Thessaloniki, or are you relying on what you are being told in Melbourne? In my historical references, all those who identified as 'Macedonian' in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century were Greeks. Eventually we have some Bulgarians identifying as Macedonian and Bulgarians who later identify as 'ethnic Macedonian'. But in Thessaloniki there were no people saying we are '(Slav) Macedonians', or only a handfull in the 20th century. What did your family tell you? I am genuinely interested.

I think you are probably aware that 'Macedonian' in Greek Macedonia meant and means ethnic 'Greek'. Otherwise, I fully respect the people of Rom/Fyrom who call themselves 'Macedonian'. The name issue, as you know, remains unresolved. Politis 11:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's messier than that. Under the Ottomans people were counted by religion; the Slavs really were Greek (Orthodox), as you found in your research. Mazower documents whole Macedonian villages during the beginning of the last century choosing (under threat by guerillas or bandits) which language to use; those in Thessaloniki who Hellenized, remained. Jd2718 12:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Good afternoon - how is everyone today? I hope well. I find Politis' ignorance interesting, but who am I to judge. I'm trying to understand a few things so someone please help me out if you can. Firstly, I'm trying to understand the relationship between "'Greek' people being killed" during WWII and their inability to kill, or commit other acts, as a result? It is my understanding that during times of war, people from every side commit murder and other acts of disgrace. Is it your position, Politis, that because "Greeks" were being murdered they could not do the same (or, commit other acts like expulsion)? Humm., very interesting indeed. I'm also having a hard time understanding the following quote: "But in Thessaloniki there were no people saying we are '(Slav) Macedonians'." That is also interesting because Macedonians do not need to identify themselves as such. They identify as Macedonians - why would they change that? Finally, this quote: "In my historical references, all those who identified as 'Macedonian' in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century were Greeks." Could you provide this information please? I would like to see what documents you have to support that in the 16th century there were Macedonians calling themselves "Greek." Or, that in 16th century the Macedonians that called themselves Macedonians really meant "Greek?" Thank you Red White and Blue 20:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify something. as a Greek, living in Thessaloniki, i think i have uderstood what Politis meant for one thing. "But in Thessaloniki there were no people saying we are '(Slav) Macedonians'." : When people in Thessaloniki, in Macedonia (Greece), in Greece in general and in the Greek diaspora say 'Macedonians' they mean the Greeks of and from the region of Macedonia, spanning from ancient, continuing in medieval, and up to modern times, to the very day that i am posting this comment. On the contrary, we call the people of FYROM by the name 'Skopjians' (in everyday life, in casual talks between friends, in the media, in public life, everywhere), and their country ΠΓΔΜ (FYROM) or 'Republic of Skopjie'. Very rarely, we call them 'Slavomacedonians' or 'Macedonian Slavs', only when talking about a possible future consensus over that county's name. so, don't jump into conclusions of how the Greeks use this name... Why are perfectly aware of its meaning, and we certainly make a clear difference between us, and the people of FYROM. Hectorian 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Red White and Blue. I think your miscontextualisation of my text originates from a simple fact: I was answering to specific statements made by a person who did not sign their statement (I just added anonymous after their text for clarification). Please read their text and mine and then continue your useful observations. And for crying out loud man, of course Greeks were (are) no angels; the Greek civil war revealed a most savage aspect of the Greek character. As for the references, you are absolutely justifyied in asking for evidence, for technical reasons, I will see if I can oblige. Politis 14:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian and Politis - good morning. Thank you for understanding that I am simply trying to understand your positions. Excuse me if I seem "forward" in some contexts. Thessalonika is a beautiful city - I'm glad you get to enjoy it Hector. I should be in Thessalonika this summer if all goes well. Anyway, so what you are saying, Hectorian, is that what was meant by Politis was actually this: "But in Thessaloniki, there were no Indo-European Southern Slavonic speaking peoples claiming Macedonian decent or, more simply put, self-identifying as Macedonian." Would this be a fair interpretation of his comments? I think this would be a fair interpretation. Since that would be a fair interpretation, I think this comment is one that you might have a very hard time confirming. I am well aware of Southern Slavonic Indo-European speakers in Thessalonika, and other areas of Greek Macedonia, so I simply wanted to express the unrealistic nature of the comment and I think I have been successful in doing so.

Furthermore, Hectorian, I clearly understand the nature of how Macedonia is defined by the modern Hellenic population. Even though I may be new on this forum, I surely am not new to the Macedonian issue. I think that the way the hellenic population refers to the people of the Republic of Macedonia, and the Republic itself, is pathetic, inhumane, and simply childish. There is no such thing as the "Republic of Skopje" and there is no such people as "Skopjan" (unless you are refering to a member of the city of Skopje). Public perception in the Hellenic Republic or Hellenic community goes beyond my ability to comment, but the reality outside of the Hellenic Republic is quite different. The people are considered Macedonian, the republic is considered the Republic of Macedonia, and the language is considered Macedonian. It is quite simple.

Finally, Politis, yes, I will read through more of your comments so that I can gain a better understanding of your perception of reality and your stance on this highly intellectual matter. I do look forward to civilly discussing issues with you gentlemen (and/or ladies) and surely would expect respect in return. I am not here to disgrace the Macedonians nor am I here to disgrace the Greeks. In my very first comment here, I stated that I am here to learn and contribute to the best of my ability. The references I requested are important because to date I am not aware of any ethnic Greek claiming to be Macedonian pre-1920 and as a matter of fact I am not aware of any ethnic Greek claiming to be Macedonian pre-1950 and possibly later. I do not think that any ethnic Greek from Macedonia had a Macedonian consciousness in the recent past. If you can provide otherwise, I would gladly like to see it. Thank you gentlemen and I look forward to applying my knowledge to Wikipedia. Red White and Blue 16:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you really are unaware of "any ethnic Greek claiming to be Macedonian" then you have some serious reading to catch up on. Perhaps you are confusing the Greeks with the Slavs, who only began to call themselves "Macedonians" (rather than Bulgarians or Serbs) in the twentieth century. That answers your initial question as to why there is no mention of ethnic "Macedonians" in the article: because, quite simply, there were none when Macedonia was incorporated into Greece. There were, of course, Slav-speakers, more so in the rural hinterland than in the cities like Thessaloniki, but by all accounts they identified as Greeks or Bulgarians, depending on whether they belonged to the Greek Patriarchate or the Bulgarian Exarchate. Projecting a "Macedonian" ethnicity onto them was a later Yugoslav innovation, an historical anachronism if you will. Lying outside the borders of Yugoslavia, they were not subjected to the process of "Macedonian" nation-building that began there several decades later, and therefore cannot be meaningfully included in the "Macedonian" nation as you understand it today. On the other hand, you may be pleasantly surprised to learn that the Greeks of Macedonia have been identifying as Macedonians for thousands of years.--Kékrōps 17:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Kekrops, good afternoon. Thank you for joining us. I would request, however, that you re-read my post before you jump to conclusions. I did not say that I am unaware of "any ethnic Greek claiming to be Macedonian" but rather that "I am not aware of any ethnic Greek claiming to be Macedonian pre-1920 and as a matter of fact I am not aware of any ethnic Greek claiming to be Macedonian pre-1950 and possibly later." Then I said, "I do not think that any ethnic Greek from Macedonia had a Macedonian consciousness in the recent past." Now, do you see the difference between the quote you posted and my real quote? It is quite clear - if you are still having difficulty understanding when you read this, please let me know and I will do my best to explain the difference to you. But, I'm sure you are a smart guy and can handle simple reading.

With regard to my statement, I think I was very clear with regard to the ethnic group I was discussing. The Southern Slavonic speakers of Greek Macedonia and the Republic of Macedonia have never refered to themselves as Serbian or Bulgarian - as I understand it. As a matter of fact, the language they speak does not belong to the same branch of Slavonic - Serbian being Western Slavonic and Macedonian being Southern Slavonic (however sharing with the Bulgarians the Southern Slavonic branch). It is possible that you are confusing and misidentifying the Slavonic speakers of the whole of Macedonia as a result of your lack of knowledge of the Southern Slavonic branch of Indo-European? I don't know - I cannot speak on your behalf. What may shock you, however, is that I do have access to New York Times archives (1903 and later) and Ellis Island reports (late 1800s early 1900s) each clearly indicating a Macedonian ethnic identity among the Southern Slavonic, Macedonian speaking population of Macedonia. What I do not have access to, however, is documents showing an ethnic Greek-Macedonian consciousness during the times I mentioned and before. I am waiting for Politis to provide me with those documents. Remember, I have researched this subject well but there are things that I still do not understand. Things could be made clear for me if I had hard evidence of a ethnic Greek-Macedonian identity during the times I mentioned. Hear-say is not fact in the judicial system and it is not fact in my book either.Red White and Blue 18:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're not making much sense. First you claim no knowledge of any Greek identifying as Macedonian before 1920/1950, implying that Greeks have only done so since then, and then you claim that you know of no Greek identifying as Macedonian in the recent past. Which is it? In any case, it is not the Greeks who have to prove that they have identified as Macedonians for thousands of years - the evidence for that is ample and diachronic. The onus is on you to prove that there was a widespread and separate "Macedonian" identity among the Slav-speakers of the region before the "Macedonian" national(ist) project was initiated by Yugoslavia in the 1940s. Your assertion that the "Southern Slavonic speakers of Greek Macedonia and the Republic of Macedonia have never refered [sic] to themselves as Serbian or Bulgarian" is patently wrong and misleading; in fact, with the exception of the Greek-identifying Patriarchists, there is scarcely any evidence that they called themselves anything but. --Kékrōps 19:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Kekrops. The issue here could be that your interpretation of the "recent past" is different from my interpretation of the "recent past." Please let me explain to you my interpretation of the "recent past." To me, the "recent past" would be a frame of time somewhere between the mid-1920s and the mid-1970s. However, because there is no "set" meaning of the terms "recent past," it could really mean anything you want it to. For example, if your frame of reference is the age of the Earth, as we understand it today, the "recent past" could be the past 5000, 10,000, or even 100,000 years. In this case, however, my frame of reference is the 1900s. It would not hurt if you could provide documents from the 1800s or even the 1700s but that might be a little harder (even though Politis claims he can do it). With regard to whom the "onus" is on to "prove" something, I think we may have a different opinion. I have no need or reason to prove to you one side or the other. My opinion on the matter will not solve years of issues between the Macedonian and Greek community. However, with that said, I have, not once, seen a document mentioning an ethnic Greek from Macedonian calling himself Macedonian or even anything close to an ethnic Greek-Macedonian for that matter. I have, however, gone into the New York Times archives and Ellis Island reports and have located documents mentioning the Slavonic population of Macedonia as Macedonian, through labeling of others AND through self-identification. This means that there was an ethnic Macedonian consciousness among the Southern Slavonic speaking population of Macedonia. I simply want to see similar documents outlining a Greek-Macedonian ethnic identity, which you and others claim has existed since the 16th century. If the evidence is as "overwhelming" as you claim, it should be easy for you to pull up a document from the 1800s or early 1900s stating such. Red White and Blue 20:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How about one from well before 1920, 1950, and your definition of the recent past? In truth I would not tell it to you if I did not care so much for all Hellas; I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery... I who speak am Alexander the Macedonian. (Herodotus, Histories, 9.45)--Kékrōps 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Kekrops, thank you for providing me with this quote from Herodotus. I’ve been reading his work for some time now and I respect Herodotus for his contributions to history and, as a result, society. However, I do not respect him for the majority of the content in his works. Simply put, the content of his work is questionable at best and most historians agree on the matter. Because of this, as I’m sure you are aware, Herodotus has been considered a fake. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus - for more information. It should go unmentioned that some of what he writes may have truth. My intention is not to discount all of his work. However, for the most part he cannot be taken seriously. Let’s take a look at an example, for the sake of discussion, and for the sake of analyzing what may or may not have been reality. In order to make the example effective, let’s take a look at your quote from Herodotus, in whole instead of in part, translated by George Rawlinson:

“After Mardonius had put his question about the prophecies, and spoken the above words of encouragement, night drew on apace, and on both sides the watches were set. As soon then as there was silence throughout the camp,- the night being now well advanced, and the men seeming to be in their deepest sleep,- Alexander, the son of Amyntas, king and leader of the Macedonians, rode up on horseback to the Athenian outposts, and desired to speak with the generals. Hereupon, while the greater part continued on guard, some of the watch ran to the chiefs, and told them, "There had come a horseman from the Median camp who would not say a word, except that he wished to speak with the generals, of whom he mentioned the names.”

So, first what is explained to us is that Alexander, the son of Amyntas, was King and leader of the Macedonians. Alexander (this is Alexander I and not Alexander the Great for those of you reading this that may be confusing the two), the King of the Macedonians, rides on horseback to Athenian outposts, in the middle of the night, to speak with Athenian generals. Let’s move on:

“They at once, hearing this, made haste to the outpost, where they found Alexander, who addressed them as follows:

"Men of Athens, that which I am about to say I trust to your honour; and I charge you to keep it secret from all excepting Pausanias, if you would not bring me to destruction. Had I not greatly at heart the common welfare of Greece, I should not have come to tell you; but I am myself a Greek by descent, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery. Know then that Mardonius and his army cannot obtain favourable omens; had it not been for this, they would have fought with you long ago. Now, however, they have determined to let the victims pass unheeded, and, as soon as day dawns, to engage in battle. Mardonius, I imagine, is afraid that, if he delays, you will increase in number. Make ready then to receive him. Should he however still defer the combat, do you abide where you are; for his provisions will not hold out many more days. If ye prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the Greek cause, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am Alexander of Macedon."

“As soon as he had said this, Alexander rode back to the camp, and returned to the station assigned him.”

Firstly, according to George Rawlinson’s translation of Herodotus, Alexander I was not a Macedonian by decent, but rather was of Hellenic decent. It is important to note that it is not required that you be a descendant of the people you lead/rule/king – (even though you could be the American equivalent of “naturalized” or “Americanized,” or the Greek equivalent of “Hellenistic.” This was the case in the Ancient Macedonian Kingdom of Alexander the Great, whom was Macedonian and lead/ruled/was king over the Persians, Egyptians, and many other non-Macedonian peoples, and it is even the case in modern worlds like the United States (from a leadership standpoint). So, Alexander I may have been of Hellenic decent, and thus that is why he shows some interest in helping the people he descended from, but that by no means suggests anything about the Macedonian population itself or the Macedonian identity. This is especially true since he says “I am myself a Hellene by descent.”

What is also interesting about this quote is the last sentence: “As soon as he said this, Alexander rode back to camp and returned to the station assigned him.” Now, are you telling me that Alexander, the “son of Amyntas” and the “King and Leader of the Macedonians,” was assigned a station? Since when are Kings assigned a station? By whom? This is one of those cases where Herodotus is clearly telling a tale. It is highly unlikely that this “Alexander” incident even occurred. Now, when you and your buddies are prepared to begin to seriously discuss the Greek-Macedonian identity, please let me know. I am still waiting to see the documentation that could, in your peers' own words, easily be provided, which show an ethnic Greek claiming to be Macedonian or the ethnic Greek-Macedonian identity during the time periods we discussed? Even a time period before - which you unsuccessfully attempted to indicate. It is slowly becoming more clear to me that this Greek-Macedonian identity is nothing more than a very modern, post 1920s, post 1940s, and/or even post 1970s creation. Red White and Blue 14:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You can try to spin Herodotus all you like, but the fact remains that there is no evidence that the ancient Macedonians viewed themselves as anything but Hellenes. The scholarly debate on their origins stems largely from the anti-Macedonian discourse of disgruntled southerners who resented Macedonian expansionism. What I find interesting is your reluctance even to consider what the Greeks have to say about Macedonia today, given your unbridled enthusiasm for Demosthenes. Again, the onus is not on the Macedonians to prove to you their long-standing tradition of identifying as Macedonians, but rather the other way around.--Kékrōps 15:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Kekrops, thank you for your comment. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that I am trying to "spin" the words of Herodotus. His words are his words - the only thing I am trying to do is understand them. I wasn't the one who brought Herodotus into the discussion. It would be unrealistic to believe that one should not analyze the words of another when trying to determine what is meant by them. Without an analysis of words and the overall idea, one cannot solidly interpret what was meant by the paragraph. It's kind of like the term "oversight." Oversight is a word that means two completely oppisite ideas: one relating to "being careful" and one relating to "not exercising care." Without analysis, words are meaningless.

In the same manner, I'm having a hard time understanding why I am considered to be "reluctant" to undersatnd the Greek position. It is the entire reason why I am here for god sake? That is why I am asking these questions? I have discussed these issues with the Slavonic Macedonians and feel comfortable with their position on the matter. When I asked them to tell me if they had documents showing that they called themselves Macedonians, they provided it. I'm not saying that I totally agree with the Macedonian position yet because I'm trying to understand the Greek one too. How can I soldily come to a conclusion by only analyzing one side? It's unrealistic. I was provided a very important quote from Herodotus and I explained to you how I understand the quote. I'm not saying my interpretation is correct, but it is a solid interpretation. As I understand it, I think I have understood its meaning. Hence, I cannot solidly conclude from the quote, anything about the Macedonian population. I do see, however, how the Greeks have logically tried to made sense out of it. So, with this, I AM learning the Greek position about Macedonia. Red White and Blue 16:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you disputing? The historical presence of Greeks in Macedonia? Because if you accept that there were Greeks in Macedonia before the arbitrary dates you mention, then by simple logic it follows that they were Macedonians merely by being there. Apart from its ancient tribal connotations, obsolete since the end of the Hellenistic era, the name Macedonian in Greek is a purely regional denomination. There is no separate or hybrid "ethnic Greek-Macedonian identity" that needs to be "proved" as you seem to be suggesting. The Macedonians are simply the Greeks of Macedonia, just as the Peloponnesians are the Greeks of the Peloponnese, the Thessalians are the Greeks of Thessaly, the Cretans are the Greeks of Crete, etc. Do you need evidence that the Greeks of Athens have historically identified as Athenians too?--Kékrōps 18:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Kekrops, it is not my purpose to dispute the presence or non-presence of a certain peoples in the Macedonian state. Following the basic characteristics and patterns of human flight, travel, and expansion, it would be unrealistic to say that any state, modern or ancient, is or was ethnically homogenous.

Let’s discuss the following statement for one moment: “Because if you accept that there were Greeks in Macedonia before the arbitrary dates you mention, then by simple logic it follows that they were Macedonians merely by being there.” Hence, following this logic, according to you, the following must be true: “Because if you accept that there were Slavonic speaking people in Macedonia before the arbitrary dates you mention (which were 1920s, 40s etc.), then by SIMPLE logic it follows that they were Macedonians merely by being there.” Everyone knows that the Slavonic speakers have been in Macedonia for AT LEAST 1200-1500 years? And I stress AT LEAST? So, tell me why the slavonic speakers are not Macedonian?

Furthermore, what doesn’t make sense to me in your analysis is that you define what it means to be “Macedonian” in two very different ways. You cannot say on one hand that a Macedonian is someone who by “merely being there” is Macedonian and then say on the other hand that “Macedonians are simply the Greeks of Macedonia.” One defines it as a diverse group of peoples and the other specifically defines it as one ethnic group. The latter denies the former and thus both cannot be true. So, are the Greeks of Macedonia, by simple logic, simply by being there, Macedonian (thus strengthening your concept of a “regional denomination”) or are Macedonians simply the Greeks of Macedonia (which would define Macedonian as a single ethnic group)? Red White and Blue 13:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In a Greek context, Macedonian will always refer to the Greeks of Macedonia first and foremost, and that long-standing tradition is unlikely to change. But in a general context, it is obvious that the Slavs of Macedonia are also Macedonian in a strictly geographical sense. Greeks would have no problem with this if the "Macedonians" didn't use the term to refer to ethnicity or nationality, the effect of which is to imply that the non-ethnic "Macedonians" are an alien element, despite having lived there longer in the case of the Greeks. If a term other than Macedonian was used to refer to your nationality, as is the case with every other ethnic group inhabiting the region, there would be no naming dispute to speak of. The chief grievance of the Greeks, and a rather legitimate one in my view, has to do with the attempt to monopolise a name which they see as belonging to their cultural heritage. It is, after all, a name invented and first used by Greeks. As things stand now, "Macedonians" won't even accept the name Slavomacedonian or any disambiguating term whatsoever. And that is simply unfair to the Macedonians who don't share your ethnonational identity but are still very proud of their Macedonian heritage.·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So, Kekrops, what you are saying is that "Macedonian" is NOT an ethnic group, but a group of different peoples located within the region of Macedonia. If this is the case, don't you think that it is a little bit unreasonable to say, then, that "Macedonians are simply the Greeks of Macedonia?" Because, from your own words, the situation is more complex than that. If the Slavonic speakers of Macedonia are Macedonians in a strictly "geographical sense" (regional) and the Greek speakers of Macedonia are also Macedonian strictly in a "geographical sense" (regional), then it is unreasonable to say that "Macedonian" belongs to any one specific groups' cultural heritage? Isn't it also unreasonable to force one group to change their name and cultural heritage because the other wants to be diffrentiated from it. Hence, what I am saying is that if the Greek speakers of Macedonia would like to diffrentiate themselves from the Slavonic speaking people of Macedonia, shouldn't they be the ones to change their name? Logically, if both you and I identify ourselves in a certain manner, and if I, for whatever reason, do not want people to identify me with you, would I force you to change your name (or add an idenifier) or would it be more logical for me to change my own?

I'm pretty clear with where I stand on the issue of Macedonian nationality, however. For me, as a man of history, I cannot respect any person that would want to wipe a Macedonian state off the map. Macedonia is one of the oldest surviving states and names in Europe and to take away the Macedonian state would be to take away European history and the heart of the Balkans. I am completely for an independant Macedonian state for those reasons. I think this is the clear difference betweeen the Greek speaking population of Macedonia and the Slavonic speaking people of Macedonia and that is why I tend to lean more toward the Macedonians. They want the Macedonian state and name to survive for the whole of history while the Greek speakers of Macedonia try to eliminate it. Who is really Macedonian now? The people trying to eliminate the name and the heritage that goes with it or the people that want it to live? Red White and Blue 15:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I guess this is what User:Miskin meant by your "ranting". You have made your position very clear, and I disagree with it for the reasons outlined above. We are simply going in circles, so I think it would be better to end the discussion here.…·ΚέκρωΨ·… 15:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kekrops, it is totally up to you if you would like to discontinue our conversation. That is fine with me. However, simply because my position may be different from yours, with regard to Macedonian nationality, doesn't mean we cannot continue to discuss Macedonian matters and agree on other Macedonian issues. Nationality is only one aspect of Macedonian history. But, as you wish Kekrops... Red White and Blue 16:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The thread of the conversation is beyond the scope of this page anyway.…·ΚέκρωΨ·… 16:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Serbian is emphatically not West Slavonic. It is a South Slavonic language according to all mainstream classification. However, the Southern Slavonic branch is in turn divided into Western South Slavonic (Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnia, Montenegrin) and Eastern South Slavonic (RoM Macedonian, Greek Macedonian Slavic, Bulgarian). Perhaps that is what you meant to write? If not, then please look at some basic reference like Routledge's The Slavonic Languages ed. Comrie. CRCulver 19:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I would add that the northern dialects of "Macedonian" are transitional towards Serbian, and that both are part of a dialect continuum stretching from Bulgarian all the way to Slovenian. User:Red White and Blue's suggestion that "Macedonian" is somehow detached from Serbian is misleading; see Torlakian for an analysis of a transitional Slavic dialect that is variously described as Serbian, "Macedonian" or Bulgarian.--Kékrōps 19:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello CR and Kekrops. CR, yes, you are correct. Please excuse my ambiguity. Serbian IS a Southern Slavonic language, however it is in the western branch. Thank you for making that clear to the reader. Kekrops, it is also my opinion that the northern Macedonian dialects are transitional towards Serbian. However, we can find the same type of relationship in Arabic languages as well as Asian languages (and many others too). The study of linguistics clearly indicates that the Macedonian language is a language and NOT a dialect of another. The "transitional" nature of the northern Macedonian dialects can and should be expected. This is normal with languages that share a linguistic group. Red White and Blue 20:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

By reading your comments, Red White and Blue, i have the feeling that u confuse: 1. region with ethnic group, 2. dialect with language. everyone in Bulgaria and FYROM will say that he/she can easily communicate with people from the respective countries. IMHO (and according to most linguists) "Macedonian" is much closer to Bulgarian than Cypriot Greek is to standard Greek or than Tuscanian to standard Italian. so, naming the western bulgarian dialects as a seperate language is just for state-nationalistic purposes (reminds me of a Bushism: the Mexicans speak Mexican!-as if they are not spanish speakers:)...). also have in mind that minor changes in the alphabet are not enough to create another language (if u know, in ancient Greece each city had its own alphabet, and were also seperate states, however, noone said back then, or dared to say today, that there were 100 greek languages simply cause of these reasons...). it takes more to create a language. as for the NY Times and Ellis Islands accounts, they are talking about regions, not ethnic groups... I've searched the archives (for different than yours reasons) and i found out that when my grandfather migratted to the United States, several decades ago, he was listed as: name, surname, village, Thessalian, Greece.... According to your logic in interpreting Ellis Island's archives, there is also a Thessalian nation...! Lets be reasonable, please... Hectorian 00:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Red White and Blue, I haven't been following your ranting closely, but can you come up with a credible source which proves the historical existence of a significant Macedonian Slavic minority in the city of Thessaloniki? My sources say that the only Slavs in the city were a short-lived, Bulgarian minority that appeared in suburbs only in the 19th century. No mentions of any ethnic Macedonian Slavs, and no mentions of a historical Slavic presence. Can you convince me that there's an alternative point of view? I hope you realise that the claims on the origin of your friends and family have absolutely no value here. Miskin 01:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good morning Miskin. Firstly, I do not repsect the way you address me. I haven't done anything to disrespect you, as I don't even know who the hell you are. I would suggest that you read some of my posts before you label them as "ranting." Secondly, who are "my friends and family" and what do they have to do with this discussion of Macedonia? Thirdly, what do you define as a "credible" source? And, finally, can you be "convinced" of anything on the matter of Macedonia? It is my understanding, from only your first post, that if I were able to even rise the dead of Thessaloniki for them to personally tell you who and what they are, you would still sit here and talk non-sense. Do not address me if you are not able to intellectually discuss issues. Please raise your level to that of at least Hectorian and Kekrops. You could learn a lesson or two from them. Red White and Blue 13:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone it is me again. I'm surprised by this type of discussion...if anyone would like evidence, then here it is, it's Macedonians (Makedontsi) like myself from Aegean Macedonia who have a lot of stories to tell from their family. Why are so many people ignorant? I am telling you all who i am and where i come from, i am a Macedonian, my parents are, my grandparents and their grandparents and so forth. I am assuring you all that that is what everyone in my family viewed themselves as but of course never publicly because life was more important. Nobody understands our plight, how my family had to travel the entire world to finally settle somewhere, and the same with so many other Macedonians from northern Greece. It is not like i am revealing some secret about the universe and it's bound to destroy society, but most people, essentially Greeks, view it as such which is very narrow minded. That is the reality and truth, no one can tell me what i am or who my family was, i and my family know that ourselves; i understand this might be difficult to swallow for some Greeks because they have always been lead to believe that Thessaloniki has always been purly Greek and nothing else, but there is always another side to the story. This is my input and if no one still wants to acknowledge this then that is your problem because this will be my last attempt! I still have relatives throughout northern Greece that i have never seen, but i hope to go and visit them next year, in Florina and Edessa (i have the courtesy of using the Greek names because i am polite). [THIS CONTRIBUTOR IS ANONYMOUS]

Claims of a "Macedonian" minority are nothing new; we aren't as shocked as you suggest. There are a handful of people who do ascribe to that identity, judging by the 3,000 votes received in Macedonia by the Rainbow Party at the last election in which it took part, but they are a tiny minority within the wider Slavic-speaking community, which in turn is only a small minority of the Macedonian population overall. Some "Macedonian" nationalists even go so far as to claim there are a million "Macedonians" in Greece. The idea that only some inhabitants of Macedonia are "Macedonians" while the rest are "Greeks" is absurd. My response is that there are 2.5 million Macedonians in Greece. And they are Greeks.--Kékrōps 07:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just as I thought, no sources, just boring lifestories and cheap melodrama. No point in wasting my time here. Miskin 10:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. But the behaviour of many "Macedonians" borders on victimology. What about the right to self-determination of the Macedonians, who have suffered most from the appropriation of their heritage?·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

To claim that there are 1 million Macedonians in Greek-Macedonia would be a clear fallacy. Everyone knows this Kekrops (or at least I do). Nationalistis will always magnify things. Red White and Blue 13:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the one million Macedonians in Greek Macedonia refer to the Macedonian Greeks, and there are more than one million. But who is that anonymous Austrialian person who never signs his/her name? He/she does not know his family history. No way could have his grandparents' parents or grandparents have called themselves Macedonian in the sense of Slavomacedonians. Sure, dear Anonymous Australian, go to Macedonian in northern Greece (and dont be stingy, it needs foreign currency) and your 'relative' will either send you off because they will believe you are after their property or make you discover echos of your Greek Macedonian identity. Send me a picture (I am not being funny) Politis 13:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There are nearly 3 million Greeks in the Greek Macedonia. I think that's clear. 21:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WPTR tag

I'm glad a wikiproject finally expressed concern about this article. I wish we had more wikiprojects dealing with Thessaloniki (well, not that many)... NikoSilver 21:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol! :-) Khoikhoi 22:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

well, we don't need turkish help for our history. Removed this useless tag--KaragouniS 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know ethnic groups could own history... Khoikhoi 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you know we own our long Greek history and we don't need turkish propaganda to improve it--KaragouniS 12:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And we do own Thessaloniki as well, but this is besides the point. Turks may be interested in the article (not necessarily in ...reconquerring the city) because it is the birthplace of Kemal and because it used to be part of the Ottoman Empire until 1912. Again, Karagouni, nobody sees this tag, apart from the editors of the page! Also, WPTR has non-Turkish members (like WPHoG has non-Greek). I would definitely support exclusion if the tag was visible inside the article, but this is not the case! Let's show some good will, shall we? Please. NikoSilver 12:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that. I'm actually rather surprised it's not also part of a Jewish-related WikiProject, considering the city's historical importance to the Sephardim. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly 22:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be guidelines Volume I or Volume II? :-) Seriously, people, as I said in Wikipedia talk:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board#WPHoG and WPTR templates:

Is this discussion still on? Who TF cares what's going on in the talk-page header? If a WikiProject is dumb enough to implicate itself in WP:POINT practices by slapping around tags and not doing zilt in articles, then so be it! I myself, as a Greek, am genuinely interested in, say, Istanbul. I acknowledge every right to every other WikiProject to consider itself interested in, say, Thessaloniki. As a matter of fact, the more WikiProjects are interested in an article, the more chances it gets becoming better. I think this is obvious, and I wouldn't mind being written down as consensus or not. Hell, let's direct opposers to this thread if they persist! NikoSilver 14:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't argue anymore about things not visible to readers (of all things!) NikoSilver 22:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Macedonian Slavic"?

I don't get what the point of this is. Does anyone deny that Macedonian is a Slavic language? Khoikhoi 20:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it. However, I expect there may be objections. It is a strange crowd that insists that the Slavic language of the Greek province of Macedonia be at all times and in all places distinguished as a separate language from the majority languages of Skopje and Sofia. Jd2718 21:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You deleted another Slavic language. I re-added it. For the one you wanted to delete, please check Talk:Gdansk/Vote to understand. There is a consensus in Macedonia related articles to use the disambiguators of the country to which the article refers (like with Gdansk/Danzig). Also, I suggest you read FA Macedonia (terminology) to understand why this is a hot issue. NikoSilver 21:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Macedonian Slavic" is unecessary. It's like saying "Turkish Turkic". I've never heard of anyone denying that Macedonian is a Slavic language, and therefore I don't see why we have to clarify. Also, the article is titled Macedonian language, not Macedonian (Slavic) language. Khoikhoi 21:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, there is a non-Slavic Macedonian language which is spoken exactly in Thessaloniki, so we definitely have to dab. Also, Macedonian Slavic is definitely an alternative name. Is there something wrong with you suddently? You seem to forget a lot... NikoSilver 21:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The non-Slavic Macedonian wouldn't be written in Cyrillic, hence making it obvious that it's about the modern Macedonian language. "Macedonian Slavic" is an alternative name, but the most common name for the language is "Macedonian". Khoikhoi 21:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Gdansk/Danzig - offensive for Greeks. Other language (despite your alphabet trick which very few know). Alternative name. NikoSilver 21:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, do you seriously argue that the average reader (apart from knowing the Cyrillic/Greek alphabet things) has the ability to distinguish between ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΚΑ and МАКЕДОНСКИ? Or ΣΟΛΟΥΝ and СОЛУН for that matter? :-) NikoSilver 22:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Niko, I followed the links you provided. There is nothing I can find at Talk:Gdansk/Vote that mentions Thessaloniki. Also, Macedonian language speaks of a Macedonian dialect of Modern Greek, but not of a non-Slavic Macedonian language. Perhaps you would like to supply other links instead?

In the meantime, I note that the CIA Factbook (see the bottom of the page) refers to Greek objections to Slavs using the name Macedonia. Also, a Greek-American organization makes propaganda against the Republic of Macedonia being allowed to use its chosen name. The relevant Wikipedia articles appear to be better balanced and do a reasonable job of presenting a WP:NPOV. We should maintain this stance. Jd2718 22:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Jd welcome to Macedonia. I suppose you haven't heard of all the bitching here? Just check the archives at Talk:FYROM (and elsewhere of course). Fortunately or unfortunately there is an agreement to use Greek dabs in Greek related articles. Exactly like Gdansk/Danzig (of course it doesn't mention Thessaloniki, but it's a similar case). Please! All issues had calmed for months after this compromise, let's not start an edit war again (it was really ugly).

As a side (irrelevant) note (but since you mentioned it): Please read Macedonia (terminology), a featured article, of which I'm the main contributor. You'll see that there is much more to it. The same way these people want to keep the name they chose for themselves, their southern neighbors feel like you would feel if I signed using Jd2718. But I won't, of course. :-) NikoSilver 22:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

*one of the main contributors :P - Francis Tyers · 00:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Niko, you wrote "Fortunately or unfortunately there is an agreement to use Greek dabs in Greek related articles." Where is that, please? Jd2718 22:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to respond to this part of your comment above:

Also, Macedonian language speaks of a Macedonian dialect of Modern Greek, but not of a non-Slavic Macedonian language.

There is no clear distinction between Language/Dialect. (Check here). As for the other part, Greek language has definitely nothing to do with Slavic languages. They are both completely separate branches of Indo-European language.

Re the agreement, there is no actual poll or something. It is in various discussions in many different issues, including edit summaries. I remember User:Francis Tyers (previously User:FrancisTyers) had created a draft, but can't locate it now... In any case, I strongly advise we don't start that shit-storm again (as I said, it was really ugly). NikoSilver 23:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-identification is a tricky double-edged bitch around here. NikoSilver 23:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between language and dialect may be subtle and tricky and sometimes hard to identify, but the claim that "There is no distinction between Language/Dialect" is not supported by the links you supplied.

As far as your argument for disambiguation, it is hard to respect an agreement that does not seem to exist. Jd2718 23:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

For the first, I added the word "clear" before "distinction". Do you suggest that there is no need for disambiguation of the two languages in the Thessaloniki article ?(of all articles!)

For the proposal of Francis, check Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)#Proposal A. For the agreement, I said that the Gdansk/Danzig issue was used as a precedent. Check how wide its usage as a precedent is in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Names_issues and its discussion. Check also this paragraph in WP:NAME. Your change is strongly discouraged according to it (because we had a stable previous status quo here)... NikoSilver 00:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is crazy, the Macedonian language and Bulgarian language shouldn't be mentioned at all. It should instead read: "in the Slavic languages of the region". - Francis Tyers · 00:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've implemented a reasonable compromise. Just because something is in Macedonia, does not make it Macedonian. - Francis Tyers · 00:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Francis. A bit unwieldy, but I think it does the trick. And Niko, there is a great distance between a proposal and an agreement. And for the future, I prefer discussion to warnings. Jd2718 00:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Np :) Macedonia is always unwieldy, but we have to try and wield it the best we can :) - Francis Tyers · 00:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, Jd, I think I've discussed stating briefly all the argumentation that is piled in gigabytes of rants in all related pages. There's a difference between a warning and a threat. Indeed, you must be aware of how messy the situation is around here before attempting a change that will destroy a very delicately reached balance. There are hundreds of articles involved (all countries, their histories, all languages, all cities, all perfectures, all notable people, all demographics, all economies, all...) and if changing a tiny word in this article can bring a shitstorm from both ends, then I strongly warn you to avoid it (per WP:NAME#Controversial names). Clear? NikoSilver 01:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Niko, I think your current revert is unwieldly, but ultimately a necessary evil.

As far as the 'delicate balance,' if it's not in writing, than I don't see how you can expect anyone to respect them. First you sent me to pages that did not codify any agreement, then you warned me in a tone that, whatever your intentions, almost sounded uncivil. (I don't mean to accuse you, I don't think that was your intent, but you might ask a third party to look at the language) I strongly urge you to get whatever agreements you have in writing on a project page or talk page or wherever those things belong. Otherwise you have to expect this sharp back and forth to repeat itself many, many times. Jd2718 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a friendly briefing Jd. If it could be taken the wrong way, I apologize. I noticed you've only a couple of months of serious activity in WP. Most editors here remember the fierce edit wars, the RfC's, the polls, the provocative userpage deletions, etc that took place earlier, and respect this unofficial agreement. It is applied in all relevant articles, and the issue hadn't emerged for months. Also, please note that precedents are very well respected in dispute resolution in WP in general. Naturally, a "written deal" is better than an unwritten one, but keeping in mind the sensitivity of the issue, I doubt that any of the "sides" will want to put its seal on a compromise agreement that sacrifices something which is "rightfully theirs". BTW, did you read Macedonia (terminology)? I would appreciate your comments, and we can also exchange views in my talk if you wish. NikoSilver 19:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia (terminology) is a very good piece. I keep returning to it. In fact, believe me, your tone really was worse than you realized, but by reading Macedonia (terminology) it became clear to me that your intent must be positive. I can't find a WP:Precedent. Have I typed something wrong? I do find, for instance, the Gdansk/Danzig interesting and valuable, but it would be nice if some of the ideas were explicitly adapted, in writing, to Macedonia. Jd2718 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry and Merry Christmas. More tomorrow... :-) NikoSilver 20:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Do you think that the current infobox needs to be updated, with the same one currently used on the Athens page? I think the infobox on the Athens pages work better than the previous one, and could work better with Thessaloniki as well. Your thoughts? -- El Greco 01:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely not in bad faith...

It may be that the term Solun is only used in the former Yugoslavia and Bulgaria but we need it verified (a wikipedia reference is not valid). This makes it, at the very least, a term used in the 'southern slavic languages'. In the previous entry: Slavic languages of the region, the editor has, intentionally or by accident, misdirected the link. User:Politis

Yes, it is actually the name used by many Slavs, including, but not limited to ethnic Macedonians, Bulgarians, Slovenians, Croatians, Serbs, Czechs and Slovaks. It is not the name used by all Slavs though, for example the Poles, Ukrainians and Russians have different names for it. Thus, we can't say "in Slavic languages", we could say "in many Slavic languages", but really only Macedonian, Bulgarian and Slavic (Greece) are relevant, thus was the page made, for better or for worse. If you can come up with a better compromise I'd be interested in checking it out. - Francis Tyers · 17:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

SolunU, where U represents the back yer, was the name in Old Church Slavonic. As OCS is a written form of Late Common Slavonic, it is reasonably to attribute the name to the Slavonic language family in general. CRCulver 20:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "Slavonic Language Family" is that it is not particularly useful to most of our readers. Jd2718 21:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave it as it is then. Whenever there's a way to avoid trouble, just follow it... NikoSilver 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

'Thus was the page made'? What in heavens does Francis Tyers mean?? Better lay off the issue. Thanks CRCulver for that usefull source in Old Slavonic. Reluctantly agree with Niko for the moment. Politis 01:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Politis, if you agreed with Niko, why did you delete the link? I'll revert, but please, if you know there is an active discussion, please propose changes in that discussion. Jd2718 02:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Jd, I created this topic, 'Surely not in bad faith...'; surely you know that friend and you must have read my earlier comments on that very link further up - no? but probably forgot: I probably do it myself, too. You are absolutely right, I agree with Nico et al on the reference to Slavic languages of the region, ergo Bulgarian Slav Macedonian, Serbian, Croatian and a few others. But someone made a 'mistake', the link actually sends us to 'Slavic languages on northern Greece'; that is what was erased to respect its meaning and avoid a seemingly devious link to a separate issue. Politis 09:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Niko says "let's leave it as it is" and the few voices here went silent in agreement, except you "Reluctantly agree with Niko for the moment." Saying one thing, and then turning around and doing another is not nice. Croatian certainly does not belong in the link (remember, the article is about Thessaloniki). Francis wrote "If you can come up with a better compromise I'd be interested in checking it out." That still makes sense. But unilaterally deleting the link is not ok. Jd2718 14:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I will say it slowly. The link which Jd created (was there any discussion?) is this: 'Slavic languages of northern Greece|Slavic languages of the region'. Now Jd, since you have just arrived in the region I have to point out that: the region means the Balkans, to which Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina are all members (as well as Romania, Bulgaria, RoM/Fyrom, Albania and Turkey in Europe). But the link you 'hid' is not about the region, but about Slavic languages of northern Greece'. Are you with me? I hope so. That is why dear friend I (reluctantly) kept 'Slavic languages of the region', but removed the misleading link which you inserted. And again, in all humilty I bow before your knowlege and thank you once more for pointing out the russian etc, versions which I immediately took on board. But the link, as agreed, must be removed. I hope you can fogive my seeming impertinence and agree to it. Politis 16:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The needed langauges are Macedonian and Bulgarian, plus the dialect spoken in northern Greece which some insist is a different language. There was fierce resistance to having this link Macedonian language. We spoke of creating "Slavic languages of Macedonia" but because of potential ambiguity Francis created "Slavic languages of northern Greece" instead. No one has proposed expanding this to all Slavic languages, or all South Slavic languages, save you.

Perhaps we should go back to:

::::* 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. In written form, it sometimes takes the abbreviated form of Thes/niki. The city is also known as Selânik in Turkish, Солун (Solun) in Slavic, Sãrunã in Aromanian, and Selanik in Ladino (see other names). (struck through as I grabbed the wrong version. See correct version, 2 comments down) Jd2718 17:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bingo! I agree with you. I am not sure about the abreviated form, but no problem. Good work all around. Politis 17:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not so easy. I grabbed the wrong version

• "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. In written form, it sometimes takes the abbreviated form of Thes/niki. The city is also known as Selânik in Turkish, Солун (Solun) in Bulgarian or Macedonian, Sãrunã in Aromanian, and Selanik in Ladino (see other names)."

Jd2718 17:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to say dear friend? I ask again, what does 'thus was the page made' mean? The article Thessaloniki was made for this link? I will keep the text we all agreed and remove the link (Jd, see same question in your talk page). Politis 23:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal:

1. Quit discussing that in a fragment of the debated area (Thessaloniki) and direct all relevant comments to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). Add your proposals and discuss in its talk-page.
2. Leave the darn article as it is, in the previous unofficial consensus, meaning:
   1. Either mentioning all languages with their non-offensive names for the article's subject per Talk:Gdansk/Vote and Proposal A.
   2. Or excessively, but as a necessary evil, link to Slavic languages of Macedonia (Greece) where the three languages are mentioned with their alternative names.

Finally, I am letting you all know that I am adding the following:

..., Thessalloniki (with a rough "L") in Macedonian, ....

---

...which I find rather relative and informative given the article subject. NikoSilver 18:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Politis, what was the problem with Niko's version? The quote you are asking about, "thus was the page made," was written by someone else. I cannot pretend to understand what it meant. Jd2718 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest: 'Slavic languages of the Balkan region' or 'Slavic languages of south-eastern Europe', it seems to cover all versions; or Niko's... Politis 10:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A link

Since the article is locked, I'd like to ask anyone having access to the editing this article to include the following link in the "External Links":

Thessaloniki - Photo Archive Documents 1900-1980

The existing photos suck BTW. Makes sense: the editors spend their time arguing on how many language versions of the city name will be included. DOH. ~Rita~

Just how do the existing photos suck? El Greco 16:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

capital of cultural affairs???

what do you mean by that? unless you are making fun of thessaloniki, i cant see the point of this characterization :P.

Macedonian removed?

The Macedonian pronunciation of the city's name in Greek is one of its inhabitants' most distinctive features and far more relevant to the city's current identity than the Turkish, Slavic, Aromanian or Ladino names which are rarely if ever used by those who actually live there. In other words, claiming that the Macedonian version of the name does not "belong" here while the others do is simply ridiculous. If not in the article on Macedonia's own capital city, where? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 07:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That would belong in an article on modern Greek or on its dialects. Did you really mean your purpose is to bury the Turkish and Aromanian? Jd2718 12:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, and I demand an immediate retraction. I never suggested that any language should be excluded, merely that you cannot exclude the Macedonian if you include the others, which are much lesser used. The desire to "bury" a language appears to be your illustrious domain. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you misunderstood the comment. In the context of writing, 'bury' means to push down to a lower spot and make less prominent. Sometimes English is quite idiomatic. You may have gotten very angry if you thought I had meant "bury" as one buries a coffin. In the context of an article, this would have been a misunderstanding. If you were unsure, it would have been far better to ask. This [1] is not civil. Striking out comments you do not like is not civil. Jd2718 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not take English lessons from a "math" teacher, much less one from "New Yawk". English happens to be my native language. The strike-through and request for a full retraction remain. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I totalllly agree with you :-) --xvvx 08:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that 1.5 million inhabitants only there have expressed their distinct regional identity in the strongest way possible! NikoSilllver 11:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And yet, we have an editor who somehow thinks you disagree with me. You get all sorts here, really. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I said that i totally agree with you, how come and he thinks the opposite? --xvvx 12:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No idea. You might want to check out the latest version; a clear case of vandalism of sourced information. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes i saw it! Revert it and let's hope they will stop the vandalism! --xvvx 12:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reached my revert limit for today. Σειρά σου τώρα. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to the deletion of sourced, accurate, and most importantly, helpful information to the reader on the grounds that it "belongs" in the language article. With that reasoning all other names in other languages must be removed and placed in the respective language articles! You can't expect, of course, Ladino language article to have a special mentioning to each and every city it has been spoken, so you can't expect either that the Macedonian article will have a list of all Macedonian toponyms. I have reverted, but I would have appreciated the decency of self-reversion in light of the baseless (self-judging?) accusation that other languages should be "burried". NikoSilver 13:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. The only ones seeking to "bury" are those who wish to purge Macedonian from a Macedonian-related article. Truly absurd. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the differences between the Greek dialects do not seem that important to some users, but the name of the Macedonian capital in the Macedonian dialect is more than relevant in this article! Instead of trying to delete this, maybe we should start talking again about the relevancy of other names in this article and their spelling, id est: Selânik in Turkish is not the name in the Ottoman times (the alphabet used back then by the Turkish speakers was the Arabic), Солун (Solun) in the Slavic languages of the region places the main of these languages in parenthesis, although the alphabet used by the Slavic speakers in Greece was the Latin (not to mention that, IMO, it should be under Bulgarian, since this is the language in which all these dialects were classified for centuries, in fact for over a millenium; but, in order to "please" some, a broader term was used), Sãrunã in Aromanian, a name that i doubt was ever really used, and surely is not used by the Aromanians now, Selanik in Ladino, we know that the Jews usually adopted the local language in the places they lived in (or at least a mixture of it with Hebrew-see Yiddish), and is not used at the present, not even by the Jews of Thessaloniki, but only in religious rites. Thus, excluding the name of the city in the local Greek variant is absolutely POVish, removal of sourced info, undue weight and adoption of a double standards policy. Hectorian 15:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I will return to other items, but Salonika's Jews spoke Ladino, not an admixture of Greek and Hebrew. It would be better not to guess. Jd2718 02:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not guessing! I am perfectly aware of what i am talking about... According to the pages of the Jewish communities in Greece, and in Thessaloniki in particular [2], [3], [4], [5], the first Jews of the city , the Romaniotes, were Greek speaking. since the 15th century, most of the community was made up by Sephardims, but, large numbers of Jews from South Italy, Sicily, North Africa, Hungary and the rest of Central Europe, came here as well. If u think that all of them were Ladino-speaking, u are surely mistaken... At present, the community is Greek-speaking and also has a school were the Hebrew language and history is taught (so, where is the Ladino?). Sorry for the links... I know they are in Greek, cause this is the language they speak now... Hectorian 02:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

When Jews were the majority of Salonika, they were, in the main part, Ladino-speaking. As we already state, deep in this article "As a result of the Jewish influence on the city, many non-Jewish inhabitants of Thessaloniki also spoke Ladino, the Hispanic language of the Sephardic Jews, and the city virtually shut down on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath."

You've attempted to minimize the importance of Ladino in Salonika's history, you expressed doubt that Jews in Salonika spoke Ladino, and now you've sourced pre-1492 and post-Holocaust, but not the time in between, when Jews were more numerous than Greeks. It is hard to understand how you are making these mistakes. Jd2718 03:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Jews from all the places i mentioned above came between 1492-1940. I am excluding nothing, nor am i saying that the majority of them was not speaking Ladino... U tend to forget that they were not all Sephardims... The Spanish-Jews were indeed the most numerous, yet they were not the first Jews to come here, nor those who survived the Holocaust are speaking Ladino now. Look, I do not want the removal of the Ladino name, cause it is an important part of the city's history, but do not give the wrong impression that all of them were speaking this language... At present, they speak Greek and they teach their children Hebrew (since 1979 when the school opened-i am sure u could not read this in the links:)...). Hectorian 03:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I cannot read the links. With poor machine translation I can get the outline, but not fine detail of the Greek (the first link has code that my computer does not read) from the two Jewish Museum of Thessaloniki links and the final link. But the vast majority, when Jews were the majority, were Ladino speakers. Mazower claims that the Romaniotes were largely assimilated (to the Spaniards). But as long as we are retaining the name, and not claiming that it should be removed, or replaced with Hebrew, this is academic.

As to the guide to the local pronunciation of the city name, I am not equipped to know whether or not it is encyclopedic. Editors with more knowledge can discuss that. But the guide to pronunciation is obscuring the names of the city used by its historic (not current) residents, and this should not be. You certainly recall that we dropped Turkish, Ladino, etc, out of the first sentence into a later paragraph this past fall? Within that paragraph, they should not be buried. Perhaps you can rearrange things? Jd2718 04:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about the first link (I could not open it with Mozilla either, so I tried with Int. Explorer and chose code Greek-try this if u are interested, but i have no idea about the quality of the machine translations). We do not disagree about the Ladino-speakers; they indeed form the majority among the Jewish population! what i am saying is that not all the Jews spoke that language, and that it is kinda weird to try to present them all as Sephardims. An attempt to replace it with Hebrew was made in the past, if u recall, but, of course failed. The name in the Macedonian dialect, IMO, shall remain. This is how the city's more than 1 million inhabitants call it. And the Macedonians are very proud of their dialect (not been a Macedonian myself, but living in the city, trust me, i know better...). The alternative names are now in the second paragraph cause they are many... Had it been only one, then it should be in the first line. Apart from the Ladino name, I also said some things above about the other names, and since we are talking about historic names, we should also address the issues related to them (alphabets used, broader terms used, despite historic records, in an attempt to "satisfy" disputed and, IMO, unhistorical claims, etc). Also, I strongly believe that the city name in Latin should also be placed in the article; we cannot just erase 5 centuries of Roman rule (having also in mind that Thessaloniki was the 2nd largest city of the Empire...). I am not sure how and if I can rearrange things... but I'll try. Hectorian 09:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Roman rule was primarily with Greek language, no? Anyhow, if the dialect is important, of course it should be mentioned, but the compromise paragraph was about "Salonica," and in that way it made sense to drop out of the lead sentence. Perhaps you could pick a better spot for the dialect and local pronunciation, one that doesn't obscure (bury) the Ladino, et al.? Jd2718 12:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What better spot could exist than the name section itself? And why does the most prominent local appellation "obscure (bury)" the rest five or six and not the other way round? NikoSilver 12:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we even have a source to support the claim that the Ladino name is actually Selanik? It seems too far removed from the Spanish Salónica to be authentic, and sounds rather incompatible with Castilian phonology, at least to this hispanohablante. Or did the Spanish Jews simply co-opt the Turkish name? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)