Talk:White Tower of Thessaloniki

Tower picture

Is there a picture on Wikipedia somewhere of the white tower taken facing westward from the waterfront park, showing the tower side-by-side with the modern apartment buildings? I could've sworn I saw such a picture here, but can't find it. --Delirium 07:13, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's the only one I have. I have a general view of the waterfront facing west, and I have photos of the giant Alexander statue, if they are of interest to anyone I can post them. Adam 07:26, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Macedonia name

The country's name in its constitution is the Republic of Macedonia. Countries have the right to name themselves as they see fit. "FYROM" is a term of convenience, not a legal name. Adam 04:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Their "constitutional" name is for internal consumption and is not binding in international affairs. The United Nations recognise them as F.Y.R.O.M.

A country's name is the name it gives itself in its constitution. Adam 03:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nice one-liner Adam Carr, care to back it up? Do you accuse the UN of being POV?

The FYROM name was invented by the EU, not the UN, as a solution to the dilemma caused by Greece's refusal to allow EU recognition of Macedonia. What the EU and the UN call the country doesn't alter the fact that the legal name of the country is the name stated in its constitution. Adam 13:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary and the unsubstantiated accusations of nationalism and anonymity (I always edit from the same IP so I am no more anonymous than any nickname) let me ask you directly: If your position regarding the name by which that country should be refered to is so NPOV, then how is there such a diplomatic confrontation over it for almost 15 years and why is there still the necessity for a permanent agreement? I only advocate the use of what FYROM is an abbreviation of until such an agreement (still sought by both parties through negotiations) is reached. If by replying to this you identify with one of the two sides is that not the definition of POV? Do you think that there can not be a NPOV way of stating what is to be stated? If yes you contradict one of the principles that the Wikipedia project was founded on. Since you are the one who changed the "status quo", I am afraid I still have to rectify your edits. Don't take this personally and don't let this ruin your day when you wake up in Australia. I "challenge" you (in a frienly way, to the extent possible) to take into account these concerns when you next edit this. I am sure you are capable of edits much more NPOV. Have a nice day.

PS. This whole last paragraph about the bankonotes etc is not useful anyway in my opinion (and serves more as an apology of Slav nationalisms, whether this was intended or not) but I didn't remove it giving the benefit of the doubt to the intentions of the author.

None of which is relevant to the point, which is that the legal name of any country is the name in its constitution. Adam 01:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

• The anonymous Greek nationalist editor insists on saying that the Greek army "liberated" Thessaloniki in 1912 rather than "captured" it. Of course Greeks saw it that way, but the large non-Greek populations in Macedonia at that time did not, and the term "liberated" is inherently POV.
• The legal name of the Republic of Macedonia should be used in this article as it is in other articles.

Adam 09:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A lecture concerning the terms "liberate" and "capture" from a person originating from a country that has exterminated its natives to make room for the white folks is very amusing. Considering that Thessaloniki was always a part of Greece (as its ancient name and all the historical records prove) and considering that at the time (1912) it was under foreign occupation, i think that everyone will agree that the term "liberated" is the correct one, since the city returned to its citizens. A city being "captured" means that it was taken away from its people. If you don't believe me Adam, try the Oxford English Dictionary to look up the two words. Being a native speaker, even if you are Australian, it shouldn't be that difficult to comprehend the difference between the two words. Looking forward to your next bitter remark. Tata!

---

• I am not nationalist, quite the contrary. On the other hand you are the one serving nationalist and expansionist interests

(deliberately).

• Feel free to substitute "liberated" with the more technical "seized control of". "Captured" is highly POV, it is the verb used in hostage situations. The non-greek populations you refer to were non native to Macedonia (Slavs, Turks etc).
• The laws of FYROM hold inside its borders only (and often not even there, if you read the news). You should instead abide to international law, safeguerded by the United Nations. Of course I advocate use of FYROM to refer to that entity in all articles

until an agreement on the name is achived (whether that will contain the M word or not one can only speculate).

Something else: By choosing to "strongarm" yourself out of the situation, perhaps you are bringing on the opppsite of what you are trying to achieve.

---

Whatever it's called...Republic of Macedonia or FYROM....it did not exist as a sovereign state in 1912, therefore Rep. of Macedonia or FYROM (whichever name you prefer) has nothing to do with this article. Thessaloniki was reverted from the Ottoman Empire to the Greek State. It was not stolen from a state that didn't yet exist; there was no Republic of Macedonia (or FYROM, or whatever it's called). NOR did the Slavic group now known as ethnic Macedonians make up the majority of the population in the city (nor the region of Aegean Macedonia) at that time. A country can call itself whatever it wishes (Republic of Macedonia), but has no right to distort its neighbor's history to its own benefit. Thessaloniki is diverse, and the majority of the city's population were actually Sephardic Jews. Please let's not allow nationalism to blind us from real history. Skyduster (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Slavic names

As far as I am aware, it is practice in the English Wikipedia to give a name of a location in the language of its residents, but not to include other, unrelated languages. Including the Slavic name in this article does not do a service to the reader (give it in Turkish, if we've suddenly gone to listing two additional languages) and is likely to further provoke the endless edit-wars over everything within a thousand miles of Skopje. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 23:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would add the Turkish name if I knew it, since the Ottomans built the Tower in the first place. Until 1911 Thessaloniki was a multi-ethnic and multilingual city, including Slav Macedonians. Given that the Tower has become a symbol of Macedonian identity (both Greek and Slav), I don't think it is unreasonable to include the Macedonian name. This will only become a dispute if you make it one. Adam 07:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I thought about adding the Turkish name as I read the article. I am happy to find your post here in the talkpage and hereby propose to add Beyaz Kule to the other Greek and (if you will) Macedonian name of the tower. I am not, however sure about the way it should be written. As this would obviously have to refer to Ottoman Turkish (written in an arabic script, which, I am afraid, I do not perfectly master) we could do either that, or write it in modern Turkish as i did above. A third possibility is one spelling ai found in a historic map from 1910 in Mark Mazower's Book Salonica - City of Ghosts. The french translitteration of the turkish name in the book is Béaz Kulé. Personally I would prefer the first spelling, but I am waiting to hear your opinions.--Iago4096 05:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added the Turkish name. Adam 07:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian language

It is Wikipedia's position that there is a Macedonian language. Edits to this article suggesting otherwise will be reverted. Adam 00:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was a congenial and collaborative note. If it happens to be the case that all South Slavic languages share the same name for something, I take it that it is your position that the word should be attributed solely to theMacedonian language in articles about Greek landmarks. It is important to make this distinction about whose position is whose, because a great deal of angst is generated over the idea that Wikipedia has a "position" on controversial subjects. We should be making no primary source claims whatsoever. Jkelly 00:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am well beyond being "congenial" or "collaborative" on this topic, sorry. I can just barely manage "civil." I looked for Macedonian language and that's what I found. If it was the view of the majority of informed Wikipedia editors that there was no such thing as a Macedonian language, merely a dialect of Bulgarian or whatever, then that article wouldn't exist. Adam 01:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your response doesn't clarify things for me. The translation of "White Tower of Thessaloniki" is the same in Bulgarian language, Macedonian language and Serbian language -- the South Slavic languages. Your change removed the information that Bulgarian and Serbian also use the same words. As I commented above a while ago, I don't understand why any Slavic is in this article. But if we are going to have the Slavic translation of landmarks in Greece, why remove Serbian and Bulgarian? Jkelly 01:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not an article about comparative linguistics. Thessaloniki has never been part of either Bulgaria or Serbia, and as far as I know has never had significant Bulgarian or Serbian populations. It is part of geographical Macedonia, and has had in the past (and may still have for all I know) a significant Slav Macedonian population. The Macedonian name is also relevant because the Greeks accuse Macedonia (not Bulgaria or Serbia) of plotting to annex Greek Macedonia including Thessaloniki. Adam 03:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

While I remain in disagreement, I note that this issue is actually listed at WP:LAME, which means that there is some history to this that I am unaware of and am uninterested in exploring. Jkelly 19:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

How about we put the original Genoese Italian name for the tower in Constantinople? Oh wait, we dont.

Sinan

This page should be linked to that of its architect, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinan.

I'm surprised its not mentioned on the page at all

---

Anonymous comments seldom get responses. Adam 06:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Kukles sun

Before Greece captured Aegean Macedonia in 1912 war ,name of Vergina was Kukles.So It should be Kukles sun.Mo1981 (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You got a source for that? _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And what is your source for Vergina sun? I mean independent source ,not Greek propaganda.In 1912 war Greece captured 50 % from Macedonia.You guys are brainwashed,im sorry for you...89.205.35.11 (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And what about "macedonian slav" ? why bulgarian is not bulgarian slav , serbian is not serbian slav etc.Macedonian slav is offensive .Macedonian is Ok.

1.Vergina was a mythical Macedonian queen / Kuklesh and other names are Ottoman 2.Makedonski is perfectMacedonianX (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing MKD story

I've removed the section about the incident with the draft Macedonian Denar bill showing the tower [1]. We know virtually nothing about this story reliably, and it seems to exist hardly anywhere else on the web independently of Wikipedia. All there is is a single sentence in that old NYT article ([2]), and a mentioning on one of those notorious nationalist junk websites, www.greece.org ([3]) (which seems to be the only source of the actual image).

Who designed that draft? How and how widely was it published, in what form? If it was never actually used, how were such "bills circulated" as our various articles have been claiming? (Newsflash: governments don't "circulate" non-valid currency.) The NYT only says that "copies appeared of what looked like Yugoslav Macedonia's future currency". So, who made them? Did they ever come even close to being adopted as official? Where they even made by the government? Was the government in any way responsible for that draft? For all we know, this could be an amateurishly designed piece of playing paper money.

Incidentally, this also means we don't know anything about the copyright status of the image, so I guess I'll go and get it deleted from Commons as being non-free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, thanks to the exertions of the epsilon team, we now have this. I need somebody who reads Croatian to translate it for us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[Cough]-[cough]... NikoSilver 12:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks to Duja, we've got parts of the article translated. It names the creators of that draft banknote, a company called IMPRES from Skopje, gives a date (15.Jan 1992), and also mentions slightly earlier similar drafts. The article also draws attention to the fact that this was from a time when not even the future name of the currency had been decided upon; the banknote is actually for a fantasy currency unit called "1 Makedonka". It also bears a disclaimer "This is a souvenir banknote and not for official use". The article discusses this and other similar products under the heading of "fantasy currency". It doesn't confirm that these drafts where ever intended for official adoption, not even by their creators, let alone that they were considered as such by the authorities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they were perhaps never intended for official adoption doesn't mean they're not a useful example of the activities of United Macedonia enthusiasts. I think the relevant section should be reinserted into that article. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't know of any source that suggests that the bills were given any degree of official endorsement. However, I note that Victor Roudometof says in Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict p. 64 (Praeger/Greenwood, 2002; ISBN 0275976483) that the opposition VMRO-DPMNU party unsuccessfully suggested the printing of the bills, quotes the VMRO-DPMNU leader Ante Popovski arguing that "two thirds of Macedonia is under foreign occupation and still to be liberated" and states that the Macedonian nationalist slogan "Solun [Salonika] is ours" proliferated in the early 1990s. Eugene M. Borza states in The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, p. 256 (ed. Frances B. Titchener; University of California Press, 1999; ISBN 0520210298) that this story was picked up in Greece and turned into a rumour that the currency (which of course few Greeks had actually seen) did in fact feature the White Tower. Michael P. Marks says in Tamed Power: Germany in Europe p. 149 (ed. Peter J. Katzenstein; Cornell University Press, 1997; ISBN 0801484499) that "Much was made of the proposed design for certain denominations of Yugoslav Macedonian commemorative currency, which featured the White Tower ... Although these banknotes, which were to be issued by a private institution with government approval to commemorate Macedonian independence, were never printed or placed in circulation, the ill will caused by this incident aggravated tensions in the Balkans." Anastasia Karakasidou says in The State, Identity and Violence p. 202 (ed. R Brian Ferguson; Routledge, 2003; ISBN 0415274125) that it was merely "novelty currency sold in shops" and Donald Sassoon says in Looking Left: European Socialism After the Cold War p. 77 (I.B. Tauris, 1997; ISBN 1860641806) that the printing was sponsored by "extreme nationalist organizations".

So I think the scenario runs like this: Macedonian nationalists come up with the White Tower design; VMRO-DPMNU proposes its adoption on the new official banknotes, but this is rejected by the government; nationalists sponsor the printing of souvenir notes showing the White Tower, but without any official backing or status; Greeks misinterpret the souvenir notes as genuine legal tender and go apeshit over the perceived territorial claim. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I note that VMRO did not hold power until 1998; things might have been very different if they were in government at the time. The lack of official endorsement is surely a function of this more than anything else. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Chris for getting all these references. Great job. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Question on Translating

Would the other Greek word for white, "ospros" be acceptable/interchangeable with "lefkos" in Lefkos Pyrgos? Kostantino888Z (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The other Greek word (άσπρος ['asprɔs]) would seem very strange to a native speaker. "Λευκός Πύργος" is a compound and known as the name of this specific tower so well, that the addition of "...of Thessaloniki" is normally not necessary in Greek. Iago2¹² 23:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Bank notes controversy - off topic

I think that whole section should go to either United Macedonia, Macedonia naming dispute#territorial concerns, but not here. It gives undue weight to a forgotten controversy, against the history of the building. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC) If some guys print something similar again, should we again import another section here? i mean the encyclopedic topic of the article is entirely different. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Bank notes section will be removed:

1. [4] states "Original source unknown. Sellers reportedly would not say who printed it"... therefore not only was the source of the banknotes unknown, but stating VMRO-DPMNE proposed the bank notes is a deliberate lie with no source
2. The currency known as "Makedonka" has never existed in the Macedonian currency, further proof of its falsehood.

Whether or not hooligans wrote the "banknote" is irrelevant, the article lies (which no sources) that a political party in Macedonia did it, and like previous statements is off topic, therefore it will be deleted. Mactruth (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Symbol of Greek sovereignty over Macedonia"?

The above attribute in the very first paragraph of the article is totally unsourced; never heard of by a native Greek; and unreasonable, given the ottoman past of the monument. I therefore erase it until someone backs it up with a source. Desiderius82 (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on White Tower of Thessaloniki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622081348/http://www.mbp.gr/html/en/pirgos.htm to http://www.mbp.gr/html/en/pirgos.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120730082334/http://www.lpth.gr/en/ to http://www.lpth.gr/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Controversy section

Hello Uness232. Feel free to elaborate what makes you think a nationalist controversy is relevant to the history of the tower. Most of the time, it's not really due to segregate content on an article like this. "Controversy" or "criticism" sections should be only present when there is a good reason to have them. This type of information is more suitable for another article, as others have already pointed out. What I know though is that the section definitely doesn't belong to the article. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@StephenMacky1 It’s a recent controversy about the tower, and the tower is a central part of all the nationalist narratives that surround Thessaloniki. I find the information relevant enough (though admittedly not crucial). Perhaps it could be better integrated into the text (maybe in the history section)? Uness232 (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, that gave me an idea. The section could be re-named to "Depiction", which will contain information about all of the depictions of the tower, including by nationalists in this instance. The section could use a rewrite too in a way that is due. The controversy was a minor episode in the naming dispute. I'd also suggest removing the map, since it's not really relevant here. The history section mostly concerns itself with the origins, use and modifications of the tower. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair, I'd be okay with all of those changes. Uness232 (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)