Talk:White Tower of Thessaloniki

message: 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)
thread_title: Tower picture

message: 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)
thread_title: Macedonia name

message: 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)
thread_title:  Slavic names 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sinan 

message: 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)
replies: text: You got a source for that? El Greco(talk) 15:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Kukles sun

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Bank notes section will be removed:
#  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
# 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)
thread_title:  Bank notes controversy - off topic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Symbol of Greek sovereignty over Macedonia"? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fair, I'd be okay with all of those changes. Uness232 (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section