Talk:Greece–Turkey relations/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

On the immigrants thrown overboard

I am rephrasing the last part to fit into the title definition of Greco-Turkish relations, whose main pertinent element here is the existence of an agreement since 2002.

I will also reduce the pornographic material on İzmir and else. Cretanforever —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the info from BBC-do not remove it again. btw, 80%-20% of Cypriot population was not necessary to be removed. and also, since the treaty of Lausanne is quoted enough and since is the treaty that established modern Turkey, and also the treaty that is still considered valid between the two countries, maybe we should have 2 seperate sections about that treaty: one concerning Turkey and another for Greece. Hectorian 14:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the percentages because they would have led to too much intricacy within this article. If you have a source (for the fifties, because that's the context of the phrase in question) on 80%-20% we can add it as a footnote. But then, nothing stops anyone on bringing forth, as a manner of speech, 1800s statistics, 1900s statistics, 1917 statistics etc. The main article is Cyprus question anyway. I hate discussing numbers since the days of the Battle of Malazgirt, although I notice that these numbers keep shifting significantly westwards:) I prefer discussing legally framed contexts. Add them if you want to, but I think, for the purposes of your argument, percentages dated 19 July 1974 would be wiser:)

For the 2001 incident, and for the mine casualties since 1996, my point was once again, contextual and legal. The article is about Greco-Turkish relations, and the subheading is on immigration issues. An agreement was signed in 2002 covering the question. Anything that occurred before the agreement happened in a context of status quo ante. If you can tie -for example- the 2001 incident to the agreement, for example point out that it had a significant effect on its signing, I can understand the point on its inclusion. Otherwise I would say that we should have an article titled, Incidents along the Greco-Turkish border. I am only making my point, but I won't be pushy about it. Regards. Cretanforever

OK about the numbers concerning Cyprus. your current rewordings is fair enough:). as for the illegal immigration cases, if we are about to add the recent incident (about which i am aware from tv, though i have not watched the videos that the turkish media claim to have), we can also add other incidents as well. maybe the agreement signed in 2002 adresses the issue in its current 'legal status', however, such incidents did not begin to happen after 2002... the issue is much much older... As for the filming, it would be better to have english sources, or at least non-turkish sources (i can also quote ERT or MEGA Channel, but this would not be NPOV, will it?). that's why i used BBC. and btw, the source by ADNKI, does not say it is a fact. it says: It showed what appeared to be Greek coast guards. so, it is rather careful in believing it. as for the turkish sources, i can't read them, so i can't say:). Regards Hectorian 15:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I added the part on the recent incident the day it happened. The only available sources were-understandably- Turkish. As it is better unfolded now, I will revise with a clear head later today and give weight to sources in English. In the meantime, I will make a move on Chios. If you disagree, please just revert. I will also edit a little (not much) later today, again on Chios. Nothing political, just a few interesting points in line with SS Kurtuluş and İbrahim Edhem Pasha.Regards. Cretanforever

I don't know exactly what you have been argueing about, but if it is greek sources on refugees/immigrants thrown overboard near Chios, maybe this athens.indymedia.org thread can provide some sources in Greek (from Eleftherotypia and the local press). I hope I helped. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, i think there is no arguing here:). everyone knows that the incident happened, so noones disputes it. some background info and some more sources in english would be important. but thanks anyway. Hectorian 22:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Map locator

Why doesn't the map locator on the top of the page work? Anyone know how to fix it? I will also need it for other foreign relations articles as well.. Baristarim 00:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We just need to create the image for it. The template assumes that there is a map at Image:Greece Turkey Locator.png. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's more like it. Politis 13:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Politis - ?? Why did you think that i was hijacking the article?? I didnt say that you couldnt put the corresponding greek template.. Why all the animosity? I mean, why do you suppose that just because I added that I was trying to hijack the article?? It wouldn't be hijacking since that article considers both turkey and greece; have a look at all other relations articles and u will see the foreign relations templates of corresponding countries.. Gees, please take a deep breath - we should be all trying to improve all the articles, not fighting over who owns what.. You were more than welcome to add the corresponding greek template, I just couldn't find a foreign relations of greece template.. Seriously, what u said in your edit summary was not cool dude.. what u did bordered on vandalism since u deleted a completely legitimate template whereas what you should have been doing was to add the corresponding greek tag.. Baristarim 15:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WWII

In 1940 Greece was not occupied by Germans.Greeks has defeated the Italians in Albbania!Greece was occupied by Germans in April 1941!So Turks had not help Greeks during the famine in Athens during German occupation!Also Turkey was neatral during WWII,how many dead Turks were during WWII.Stop propaganda inside wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlkrio (talk • contribs)

Hi Nlkrio, welcome to wikipedia. Please remember to sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Regaring the issue you address, you were right about the date thing, I corrected it. Apart from the date however you seem to be misinformed. Turkey was indeed the first to send humanitarian aid during the great famine, at the winter of 1941. See SS Kurtuluş for more. And please avoid accusing fellow wikipedians of "propaganda": there is no cabal. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nail Erdogan

Hi all. This is my first post, so I am still learning the Wiki system. Please explain any mistakes to me.

I was a little bit flabbergasted to read about "the Turkish F-16 pilot Nail Erdogan, who was shot-down by a Greek Mirage 2000". Which is the source for this claim? As far as I know this allegation is built on a single article in a Greek popular magazine. The alleged shotdown has however not been proven as far as I know. I think pure speculation is sold here as a fact.

Any opinions on that?

--Letus 13:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Good question. The only thing I can do right now is a quick web search. Apparently
  • [1] The shootdown has been claimed (but described as unintentional) by a popular Greek magazine (Krama), and confirmed by the Turkish military, but it was denied by the Greek government. In 2004, the family of the dead pilot sued the Greek government at the European Court of Human Rights, a case which the court has accepted.
Any other info?
(I had more links for parts of this information, but it got rejected by the spamfilter so I'm removing them. It's easy to google.)
Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your efforts. I am nevertheless afraid your information is not correct. I have done some research on the matter two years ago. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) back then confirmed to me that they did not receive any application of this kind by the family of the dead pilot. My findings were subsequently published in a Greek magazine as I was told last year - without my knowledge that is. I can find out the source if necessary.

Three months ago a colleague from Greece contacted me and confirmed that the court still did not receive an application. The ECHR story seems quite like propaganda to my ears. It is a fine example of disinformation I am afraid. Sadly, rather typical for most of the Greek-Turkish disputes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letus (talk • contribs)

Interesting! Now, at the moment we aren't even mentioning the ECHR case in the article, so there's nothing urgent to repair, but if you want to expand on it, it might make for another interesting note. But it would be crucial that you find that publication to quote from, since it's a Wikipedia rule that your own unpublished research results, however interesting and correct they may be, cannot be used here (WP:NOR). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. I too think it is not necessary to include this information in the article as is now. And I anyway want to find out the whereabouts of the unauthorized publication I mentioned. Letus 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Why the accent on the I?

Baristarim, why are you replacing Izmir → İzmir? Since this is an American and English language site and the spelling is with a I. Politis 16:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Compare Düsseldorf. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; seems reasonable that foreign words written with an accented Roman alphabet (jalapeños, Dvořák) or transliterated with an accented Roman alphabet (Bashō) should be represented as such, irregardles of the native language of the medium in which it is being written. There is substantial precedent for this. --Cygfrydd Llewellyn 16:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Trouble is, there's really no consensus about this either way, and the current situation seems to be split along a hierarchy of more acceptable and less acceptable diacritics. Acutes, macrons and cedilles seem to be generally accepted, tildes and umlauts little bit less so; when it comes to double acutes (like Hungarian <ő>) some people get a headache, German <ß> and Icelandic <þ> have been the object of never-ending edit wars. Turkish <İ> probably falls somewhere on the bad end of the cline too. Some remarks about this are now also on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which generally recommends the non-accented versions, to the degree that they are common in English (which would be the place here). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Probably I should post this at the relevant guideline page but regarding the Turkish <İ>, I think that it should be one of those cases that could stand in an article as it does not hinder or confuse the reader (it looks like a taller lowercase 'i'). At any rate, I'd use "Izmir" and "Istanbul" and let any concerned and willing "orthography nazi" do the tedious conversion, if he feels like it. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I must admit that not a single Enlgish language Turkish tourist brochure or CVD (at London's International Travel Market) shows Izmir with a diecritic. That was one of my points of reference. Politis 00:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions: Sorry, is there a difference in pronounciation between <İ> and <I>? Does the latter exist in Turkish? NikoSilver 00:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, they are two different letters. There are two i's, one with the dot and one without. There is a difference in pronounciation. Take a look at my name. By the way, I am not only replacing Izmir, I compiled a list of Turkish names that have Latin variants. The spell-check automatically replaces Sao Paulo to São Paulo, regardless if I have added it to the list or not. Baristarim 00:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is a letter of the latin-based new turkish alphabet. i can't see why alphabets other than the english should be inserted in the articles (apart from the cases that we note the writing of a word or name in a different alphabet for encyclopedic reasons). if the names in related articles are written in the turkish alphabet all the time, am i free to write Αθήνα in every article the name Athens appears? Hectorian 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The difference is it is Latin script variations. See Düsseldorf, São Paulo, A Coruña, Côte-d'Or, Besòs et al. There is no such thing as the Turkish alphabet, it is Latin alphabet with couple of letters derived directly from Latin letters. If you take a closer look, I ran a spellcheck that modified even Polish and Portugese names to their correct versions at times. But since there are no such words in Greece or Turkey related articles, only thing that showed up was the modifications to the Turkish names. There is no conspiracy :)) Baristarim 00:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
No conspiracy theories is what i thought about... It just seems weird to me to have articles and spellings in scripts other than the english, in the English wikipedia (without having parenthesis)... That's all. Hectorian 00:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
No worries, I was only modifying twenty words maximum, and that only because nobody had bothered to do it before :) I am only doing it if the actual article is titled as such, I haven't modified Istanbul for example, even though it also has a dotted I. It also avoids redirects.. I started by just running it for spellchecks, but then later also found out that I could include some other words that were not on the list (there has to be a request to include them in the list). My primary goal was to avoid the mess with all those redirects in Turkish city and biography articles. Baristarim 01:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As for Sèvres, it is already included in the automatic spell check. It wasn't me who modified it particularly. Even if somebody else had run spellcheck, it would have still modified it. Baristarim 01:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries, but, really, what is the pronounciation difference if possible? (just curious) NikoSilver 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we'll never know Niko, having in mind that η, ι, υ, υι, οι, ει, are theoriginate same for us:). maybe someone should use IPA to make us understand... Hectorian 01:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I always thought that the different 'i's in Greek are not the same phonologically, same thing with the 'o's. It must come from my paying a bit too much attention to those Ancient Greek courses at school. Take for example transliterating Bordeaux as Μπορντό and Μπορντώ. I feel that the 'ω' describes the 'eaux' sound more accurately than 'o'. Ω is longer, Ο is too flat. Anyway, maybe I am just being synesthetic here, I don't know. Baristarim, how do you pronounce <İ>? Does it sound anything like a sound I might know from English, French or German? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The Turkish "İ" is pronounced like the English "i" in "sit" (Close front unrounded vowel). The I-with-no-dot is a close back unrounded vowel. Khoikhoi 01:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not very good with IPA, but English "i" would be the Turkish equivalent of the I with the dot (both small and caps) (like the "i" in "in". The one without the dot is a more coarse sound, that comes from the throat (the last sound in the, "d" + the last sound). I hope that I was able to answer :) I will try to ask around to add IPAs for all Turkish articles that use such diacretics as well. Baristarim 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Michalis, are right about the slight differences of "i's" and "o's" in Greek, and we all (Greek-speakers) pronounce each of them differently; but in our written language, some Greeks are easily confused (i'll never forget some orthographic mistakes (the link is the word we use for them) that i have seen:).
I think that we should not confuse the average reader that much... And what i am saying, is not only about the turkish spelling, but for the others as well. it is of no importance in english if 'ü' is pronounced differently than 'u' in Düsseldorf. it is the english wikipedia, and the english spelling shall be used. other spellings shall be in parenthesis with a note in which language they are. God, i read wikipedia articles for years and i just learnt the difference between the dotted and not dotted 'i'... imagine those who just search for some info in the only language they know. Hectorian 02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Forget all that. I'm genuinely interested. (Khoi's) Sit amd (Baris') in and d still sound all the same to me! Am I doing something wrong? Could someone try to explain in my talk please? NikoSilver 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't the "d", it is the sound after the "d".. when you say "the", first the "d" comes out, then another sound. So out of the two sounds that make up the word "the", it is the last one. Say "the"... :) Baristarim 02:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Nah, Niko, u are not doing anything wrong:)... we just can't get the pronounciation right... it is normal, i guess. try to explain to a non-Greek, non-French the pronounciation of 'γ'... it will turn out to be a disaster! LOL Hectorian 02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Not a conspiracy but a little daft with potential for controversy. Will we eventually move to using stess accents: Lóndon, Ánkara (in English), Ankará (in French), América...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Politis (talk • contribs) 03:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

There's an interesting discussion about this at Talk:Istanbul/Archive 1#Whence came the "İ?". Someone thought that Turks write in Arabic. :-) Khoikhoi 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi's links (Close front unrounded vowel and close back unrounded vowel) were an enlightenment! Thanks mate, there are ogg files that describe the sounds and make things clear. So i without the dot sounds more like u in Dusseldorf, only shorter and more acute, kind of like a funny inbetween of υ and ου in Greek. So that's why Turkish sounds like that at Yabancı Damat. I always thought "Nazlı" was pronounced a bit strange! --Michalis Famelis (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, what's the name of the darn letter in Turkish? I'm tired of calling it "i without the dot"! :)) --Michalis Famelis (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :-) I also just remembered that there's an article about it: Turkish dotted and dotless I. Khoikhoi 10:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Greeks and Turks

I am Turkish and I love my brothers out of Greece :D Our cultures grew toghether in the ottoman era time and thus we have alot of simularities. Also we as neighbouring countries should help each other more. Cause we all know that if a war would break out Greece and Turkey would back each other up no matter what. Thus we hate each other, but we love each other :D

Greece and Turkey RULE! :D (Barakus 09:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC))


Hello to Greeks from Constantinople! Turks love their country because they actually are the descendants of the Eastern Roman Empire. You guys should respect that. Lets be friends and we can settle disputes such as Cyprus and the aegean islands very easily. Don't believe greek media lies. There is no threat to you from this side of the sea. Remember that Venizelos and Ataturk almost managed to unite both countries. Remember that Turkey sent humanitarian aid during WW2 for greek resistance against the germans. Love and Greets.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Barisbarisbaris (talk • contribs)

Beware the troll :))) Baristarim 22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice people but these wishes are noting to solve problems, of course people will love each, as proved during ww2 and earthquake diplomacy, but political problems need mutual understanding(which love lacks), sharing a common culture, unfortunately, does not help it(similar to Yugoslavia). we must discuss what can be done and what must be prevented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doganaktas (talk • contribs) Doganaktas (UTC)

Abdullah Öcalan Case

Isn't it an important event to mention in Greco-Turkish Relations at least at the "Timeline" part as his relations in Greece [2]are concerned and the role of Greek embassy in Nairobi international airport Kenya, when he captured in an operation by MIT, 1999? (SEY01 15:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

Yes, I think that's worth mentioning as a historical note, because it did cause some tensions in relations for a period of time. --Delirium 07:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A thought.

I just had a glance at the article again and I found it striking that it only refers to official state-to-state/government-to-government relations. Is there any chance that we could incorporate any people-to-people relations, cultural bonds etc? I am referring to stuff like greco-turkish movies (I can tell of A Touch of Spice, Loafing and Camouflage: Sirens in the Aegean from the Greek side, I've heard of similar common productions from the Turkish side), TV shows (Yabancı Damat, Survivor), the cross-popularity of writers and poets (Nazim Hikmet was popular in Greece during the 70ies through Manos Loïzos, and so is Orhan Pamuk now, I don't know if any Greeks -apart from the classics- are read at the other coast but I could guess Nikos Kazantzakis might be), pop singers like Anna Vissi being popular in Turkey and Sertab Erener in Greece and so on and so forth. Would any of that make any sense in this article, or is it only about diplomacy? Thoughts? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think somebody else once suggested something similar. Why not? Just be bold and have a stab at it, I'd say... :-)
I just saw "Loufa kai paralagi" the other day, but my Greek is no good for following movie dialogue... Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I mean, Nikos Kazantzakis' Zorba is popular. Theo Angelopoulos is popular among film buffs, especially in the Tarkovsky watching circles. Of the top of my head, Maria Callas was considered a big international diva. I don't know who else, though. I just want to say that I have just used examples from "high culture": opera singers, auteurs, writers, etc. On top of these, a lot of Greek popular artists are famous in Turkey, though I don't really listen to pop too much, so I wouldn't know any by name. Speaking of Callas (and I know this is off-topic but I have always been curious), I have a question actually to the Greek populace of Wikipedia a question. Do they consider Callas Greek? She was American born, and spent a lot of her childhood in the States. So is calling Callas Greek, tantamount to calling DeNiro Italian (I hear that Italians have a problem with DeNiro's portrayals, et al) or do the Greeks embrace her?
Despite the place of her birth, Callas was the daughter of Greeks, a native greek speaker, with greek culture, who always considered herself Greek. Callas was as Greek as the rest of the Greeks. as far as i know, for the Greeks the place of birth is not vitally linked to ethnicity. what matters are the origins of the person. similarly, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I was born in modern day Turkey, but there is no greek in the world to call him non-Greek (non-Greek citizen, yes, but non-greek in origins and ethnicity is out of question). in the same way (somehow) the Greeks in the United States and Australia are as Greeks as we are here in Greece (if not more, since they stick more in their Greek origins and Greek traditions). Hectorian 21:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In my understanding, the article is about official diplomatic relations. Anyway, if we are going to create a section about greco-turkish friendship (I mean friendship between the two peopes, not the government, as michalis noticed), we must also add information about opposition to greco-turkish friendship, the Grey Wolves from the turkish side, various nationalist organisation (such as Hrisi Avgi) from the greek side. Mitsos 10:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the term relations - when applied to two countries - usually indicates political, diplomatic and commercial relations. So when we say, 'relations between India and Pakistan have deteriorated', we do not mean that the latest hit by some Bombay cinema diva was poory received in Karachi... However, in the case of G and T, we have cultural diplomacy at official level and it seems natural to include it in this article. Politis 11:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to mention the existence of this article as well: Greek-Turkish earthquake diplomacy. It could be useful to the current discussion here.--Yannismarou 13:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
OK! I see it is taken into consideration, but there is no link to it! Now, my opinion to the general subject of discussion here is that "unofficial relations" often "feed" diplomatic developments. So, they should be somehow incorporated here, but I'm not sure I agree with the inclusion of all these elements of Greco-Turkish cultural exchange Michalis mentions. I don't know ... There is a thin line here ... Maybe a limited section here linking to a main article Greco-Turkish cultural bonds or something similar would help.--Yannismarou 13:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that someone coming to wikipedia looking for Greco-Turkish Relations will most likely be looking for "official diplomatic relations", as Mitsos put it. There is indeed a thin line but I'm not sure a Greco-Turkish cultural bonds article would be a great idea as it would be too prone to WP:OR. I'd picture the whole thing as a minor paragraph in this article, in the sense that these cultural bonds (although I'd be reluctant to call what Vissi/Sertab do "culture" :-) ) are indicative of the levels of tension or relaxation in bilateral relations. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
They do "culture"! The evaluation-assessment-quality of this culture is another thing! To the point: then, these bonds should be somehow linked to the official diplomatic relations, and there should be an emphasis on the interactions (if there are any) between these "cultural" bonds and the diplomatic relations. Personally, I do not oppose to the kind of paragraph you propose.--Yannismarou 14:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How about a (more or less) copy of Michalis' first post in this section, under the section title of Yanni's proposed article for a start? NikoSilver 16:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. But please, no Greco-Turkish article with the term 'Bond' - be it James, cultural or otherwise :-) Politis 18:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Ha! Ha! This would be a nice idea for Greco-Turkish spy games! I do know some "spicy" stories, but I do not think that they are suitable for an encyclopedic article!--Yannismarou 17:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Does Secret Agent 000 (opperational name Thou Vou) having anything to do with them?. Politis 18:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't reveal our secret agents!--Yannismarou 19:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"although I'd be reluctant to call what Vissi/Sertab do "culture" :-) )" That's right! Sostos! Mitsos 14:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anna Vissi and Sertab Erener definately do culture! unless we consider that no modern pop singer in the world does, and find it easy to call 'culture' what in greek we call 'pseudo-culture' (ψευτοκουλτουριάρηδες):). I think, as some users noted above, that we do not have to incorporate cultural material between Greeks and Turks in this article; we could create a separate one, with a small paragraph and a link here, as Yannismarou proposed above. I suppose that such an article could be linked both in the 'foreign relations' articles and in the 'culture of...' articles of the two countries. Maybe a title like 'Greco-Turkish cultural relations' would be ok. Hectorian 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe an article mentioned in the discussion here could be helpful.--Yannismarou 13:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Istanbul Pogrom 1955

Should that be mentioned in the 'between conflicts' section? Reaper7 02:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Cyprus crisis section DenizTC 15:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be mentioned on its own. Not only cause of the event's historic significance, but also cause it has created obstacles for the two states' cooperation. Maybe mentioning the pogrom in the The Closure of the Halki Theological School section would be better. Plus, it should be expanded and corrected. It was not that much the Cyprus issue that provoked the Istanbul pogrom, but the false news that Kemal Ataturk's house (and Turkish consulate) in Thessaloniki was bombed (there were even newspaper frontpages published in Turkey saying that it was destroyed!). Moreover, the Istanbul pogrom did not make Greece to withdrew from all co-operation with Turkey and the Balkan Pact collapsed; the Balkan Pact had already been collapsed in 1940. According to the TIME magazine, [the Balkan Pact] pledges all signatories to defend the frontiers of each. After Italy invaded Greece in late 1940 and Germany invaded both Greece and Yugoslavia in early 1941, Turkey felt that she was not "obliged" to do anything. Thus, the Balkan Pact had collapsed long before 1955. As for the other Balkan Pact of 1954 (which wrongly is linked to that of 1934 in the Between conflicts section, it was the Cyprus issue that made it collapse, as well as the then communist Yugoslavia's different views. The Yugoslavs were they who declared it as invalid in 1955, although formally, them, Greece and Turkey considered it valid until August 1974. Hectorian 12:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Closure of Halki school is not related to Pogrom. The Balkan Pact was (according to the Wiki article) about the territorial claims against each other. Also I hope you are not forgetting that there was a World War II in 1940, and Romania (on the sides in the Balkan PAct) was on the Axis side. As far as I know, Turkey did help Greece, though unofficially, as at that moment Turkey did not want to take part in such a thing called the World War. I don't see why your text is all about Balkan Pact(s). DenizTC 14:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The closure of the Halki school is indirectly related to the pogrom (the reduce of 99% of the Greek minority population between 1955-1971, played a role in this). The Wiki article about the Balkan Pact is about the pact of 1934; here, if i am not wrong, the Pact referred to is the Balkan Pact of 1954 (for which no wiki article exists at the moment-its main purpose was to reduce/stop soviet influence in the Balkans). Romania was in the Axis side, but did not attack Yugoslavia, nor did she occupy any part of this country. But even before that, Italy had invaded Greece, and according to the Pact, Romania, Yugoslavia and Turkey should help Greece (help was not needed, though, at that point:), but was needed when Germany and Bulgaria-a non signatory of the pact-invaded greece). As far as I know, the only help from Turkey were the 4 voyages of SS Kurtuluş (more of a symbolic act, than actual help, having in mind that the Famine of 1941-42 costed the lives of half a million Greeks); and this was pure humanitarian aid, unrelated to any official agreement. At the same time, Turkey was also unofficially and officially helping Nazi Germany; through trade and cooperation agreements and by supplying the German war-machine with vital chromite. not to mention the proposal to Hitler to cede the north aegean islands to Turkey, as counterbalance for free passage of german troops towards Iraq (to help the local revolution against the British); the crush of that rebellion by the UK earlier, canceled any possible agreement. in any case, highlighting Kurtuluş's and "hiding" the rest is simply "undue weight". Hectorian 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this discussion leads nowhere. As for my part, I too think the anti-Greek events of 1955 belong to "Between Conflicts" section. The Cyprus conflict section should concentrate on events in Cyprus and politics directly related to the island. It should also be mentioned that the events were obviously orchestrated by the Turkish government. On the other hand it is necessary to make clear that the deportations of 1955 were a reaction to the deterioration of inter-community relations on Cyprus. The Greek minority in Istanbul was clearly treated as hostages. Letus 12:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

SOME IMPROVEMENT

Added the important 1952 riots in Istanbul and moved the lines that refer to Cyprus under the right heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.39 (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Can Greek-Cypriot vessels enter the Black Sea?

"Turkey still denies access to Cypriot vessels to its territory" So does that mean that Turkey does not allow Greek-Cypriot ships to pass through the straits in the Dardanelles and Bosporus into the Black Sea?--Waterfall999 12:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is about the economical embargo inflicted on Turkish Cypriots by UN and Ankara announced to lift it as soon as Turkish Cypriots have their economical rights, which seems impossible before a general solution on the island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doganaktas (talk • contribs) 08:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Megali Idea

The current version says:

Greek politicians of the 19th century were determined to include all these territories within a greatly enlarged Greek state, based on the Byzantine model and with Constantinople as its capital. This policy was called the Great Idea (Megali Idea).

I am not sure whether this is correct. As far as I know the "Megali Idea", which formed the basis for Greek expansionism, was not to include former Byzantine territories but Greek speaking populations in the border of a Greater Greece. Any ideas anyone? Letus 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Greek populations in Turkey at the time corresponded with the former territories Byzantine Empire--Waterfall999 12:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really; the Byzantine Empire has at various points included all of modern-day Turkey (and most of the neighboring countries as well), while the Megali Idea focused on the big Greek population centers, like Smyrna, Constantinople, etc. Only a handful of fringe elements were arguing for the reincorporation of former Byzantine territories that no longer had substantial Greek populations, like Antioch or Belgrade. --Delirium 07:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The Megali idea wanted to include Cyprus, Imbros and Tenedos, and Western Anatolia (including Pontos, Caesarea/Kayseri and Antioch), which basically corresponds with the former Eastern frontiers of the Byzantine Empire (and Greeks still lived in those places at the time), as well as most of Albania, Bulgaria, FYROM, coastal Romania and Crimea. Of course the Megali Idea had no intention of incorporating the former Byzantine territories of modern Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, etc. Some Greek intellectuals at the time even suggested taking the Ottoman Empire from within and installing a Greek ruler, as it would've contained formerly Hellenic areas, however they opted for military action instead during 1912-1922. That is why it would be easy to use a modified map of the Byzantine Empire for this article.--Waterfall999 11:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Megali idea was founded on the basis of Hellenic majority, which in fact was not all true for land demands( Constantinople, Smyrna had Turkish majority Pontos had Muslim majority), And considering the 1910 Balkan situation( most of the territory gained by Greece had Muslim majority even in Thessaloniki greeks were third ethnic group after Turks and Jews(first is doubtful because Donmeh were included in Turks)), The claims of ethnic Megali Idea doesnt correspond with the expansionist behaviour of it, due to the fact that being 3rd ethnic group was enough to claim the land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doganaktas (talk • contribs) 08:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia

Why is there nothing on the neglect of the Hagia Sofia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.162.158 (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WHat negations, explanation is needed?

I'm not aware of this being a significant issue in bilateral relations, so not sure it really belongs here. Maybe something could go in Hagia Sophia, though, which currently mentions no controversy. A quick Google search turns up this article and some similar ones, but the criticisms in that article are actually from Turkish academics who object to the government's handling of the preservation and restoration, not from Greeks, so it doesn't look like a Greece vs. Turkey issue. --Delirium (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this have a section on the current economic crisis?

My understanding is that the Greeks generally blame the Ottoman Turks for wrecking Greece and leaving them with no functional civil society, which is one of the reasons why the modern Greek state is so dysfunctional. That is, as Michael Lewis has pointed out, no one in Greece trusts each other, so everyone steals from each other like crazy and no one pays taxes. Isn't that a major part of contemporary Greek-Turkish relations that should be mentioned here? --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Human trafficking into Greece at the Aegean Sea

  • 1.I've removed this: "Once in July 2004 and a second time in May 2006, Hellenic Coast Guard ships were caught on film cruising as near as a few hundred meters off the Turkish coast and abandoning clandestines to the sea.[citation needed] This practice resulted in the drowning of six people between Chios and Karaburun on 26 September 2006 while three others disappeared and 31 were saved by Turkish gendarmes and fishermen." It has been unsourced despite a February 2012 citation needed tag. Feel free to add it back provided that this time sources are added...
  • 2.I've added the opposite claim (i.e. of Turkey at minimum tolerating trafficking into Greece) with sources (Greek and non Greek).

Thanatos|talk 03:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Should this article be re-titled Greece-Turkey relations?

Article and its content include a lot of historical content, referring them as "Greek-Turkish" seems a lot more appropriate per this RFC. SamuelDay1 (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article be re-titled "Greece-Turkey relations"? Per the title of the other articles such as Germany-Turkey relations, Spain-Turkey relations? Using Greek-Turkish relations in the opening or intro sentence seems okay to me, but using it as a title does not seem appropriate while all other articles use the countries proper names as opposed to adjectival.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Seems the standard approach to these bilateral relation articles would support Greece-Turkey relations. It is a tad awkward, in my opinion, but having a consistent approach is beneficial.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, as on multiple earlier occasions. The naming pattern "Greece–Turkey relations" is not merely "a tad awkward", it is not English. Nobody outside Wikipedia ever uses it. In mainstream native varieties of English it is so rare as to be effectively ungrammatical. It has been imposed on Wikipedia by force, at first through the unthinking insistence of people who were mechanically mass-creating near-vacuous stub articles, and then by the equally unthinking insistence of others who moved all the existing properly named articles in line with those, merely going by weight of numbers. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 3#Evidence for usage data. Even if this article is now only an isolated beacon of proper usage among all the messed-up ones, it should stay, if only as a signal of how things ought to be. There is nothing "beneficial" in uniformity, if the uniformity is wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes they do use that naming pattern all over wikipedia and off. Greek-Turkish relations is what is awkward. The names of the two countries are not "Greek" and "Turkish".--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You are evidently not a native speaker of English. Please let yourself be taught by people who know English better than you do. Or, if you won't believe what others tell you, just check the Google links at the location I showed you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to be disrespectful, but that does not indicate title of countries. For example if Kurds ran the foreign ministry of Turkey, would the article be re-titled -Greek-Kurdish relations? No. This is about the countries, not the adjectives of them.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop making up rules of grammar as you imagine they ought to be, and start observing what the patterns of English actually are. The fact that English uses adjectival forms of country names in certain contexts has nothing whatsoever to do with the difference between a country and an ethnicity. This is simply the way English works. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with English grammar. Relations between two companies or organizations for example wouldn't use their adjectives (if they even have any) would they? I'll wait for more comments from the RFC.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

We are not dealing with companies or organizations, but with countries, and yes, the fact that country names behave syntactically differently from company names in English is a fact of English grammar. Learn English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose, Grammatically correct version should remain. The term Turkish is not just an indicative of an ethnicity, it also includes anyone who is a citizen of Turkey, and it is the same for the term Greek. The ethnicity is irrelevant here, just as anyone from England with African heritage is called British, anyone from Turkey is called Turkish and so on. BurzumDraud (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, for what it's worth, I agree with Fut Perf, but it seems like maybe this discussion should take place at a WikiProject so that project-wide consensus can be found. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Greek–Turkish relations. 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:

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) 22:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greek–Turkish relations. 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:

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) 09:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia section

There was a deletion of the Hagia Sophia section. I believe it would be a good idea to communicate and talk about such a big deletion in the article before it happens. We can talk here about what we will do with this section and the have decision. I restored the deleted section until we decide what we should do.

My opinion is that it should be kept since it affects a lot the relation between the two countries and lately Turkey has change her behavior and have let Muslim prays inside the building which was forbidden at the past and clearly show how the relation between the countries get worse (the first prays started in 2016). Even the Turkish President, in March 2018, recited verses of the Quran inside the building and dedicated them to the Mehmed II, who was the Ottoman Sultan who conquered the city and converted the building as a mosque, something that have never done before. Gre regiment (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 August 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus, after extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 18:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Greek–Turkish relations → Greece–Turkey relations – All subcategories and all pages in Category:Bilateral relations of Greece and Category:Bilateral relations of Turkey. Sawol (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. bd2412 T 02:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Sam Sailor 08:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Given the subject matter and the previous RFC, a discussion here is warranted. Sam Sailor 08:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Not again. Sigh. How often has this been discussed and rejected before? Please read the archives. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – I find it a bit weird that this is the one of the very few articles (if not the only one) to deviate from standard practice for other Wikipedia articles on bilateral relations (1 2 3 4... and so on). The category on the bilateral relations between Greece and Turkey is also named as Greece–Turkey relations. While there is no preferred form as per WP:WPFR, the use of nouns is so overwhelming that unless there is a good reasoning for this article to be a single exception, I think WP:CONSISTENCY would apply. Impru20talk 11:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Of course there is a proper reason: use common English, and correct English. Please see the data at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 3#Evidence. The naming of the other articles is simply wrong, this one is among the few that has resisted the destructive trend imposed by unthinking uniformity and retained the correct form. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
      • This is not a reason that explains why this must be the only exception. There is no "correct form" as per WP:WPFR: Following community discussion neither the noun (e.g. Germany–Italy relations) or the adjective form (e.g. German–Italian relations) is preferred. This means that the current name would also be okay. However, as has been said, most other articles use nouns (and have done so since 2009... quite a lot of time to have tried to amend the issue if it was so "destructive". Yet it has not been done) and this one seems to be the only exception, so WP:CONSISTENCY would prevail. It seems much easier to change the title for one article that doing so for dozens of them. Impru20talk 21:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support per above. This page, for no reason, is the ONLY EXCEPTION to the rule, so WP:CONSISTENCY should apply. If you'd want to have all the rest moved to their adjectival forms, then make an RfC. But, for now, this should DEFINITELY be consistent with the rest. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:SLOP. Using adjectives (when available) to modify nouns is more idiomatic in English. I'm off to have my Greece yoghurt and Turkey delight. —  AjaxSmack  01:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
You have your focus set wrongly. Supporters here don't care whether the noun form or the adjective form is preferred. Reach a new consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations. Sawol (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:CONSISTENCY is only one of several WP:CRITERIA for article titles. Consistency is counterproductive if it undermines WP:NATURALNESS or WP:UE. The current title is already sanctioned by WP:WPFR§BR so there is no need for further discussion there. —  AjaxSmack  21:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per other oppose arguments. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination, Impru20 and Paintspot Infez. The adjective form is, indeed, more natural but, having stated that, a brief glance at the two categories indicated in the nomination — Category:Bilateral relations of Greece, with its 75 subcategories and Category:Bilateral relations of Turkey, with its 81 subcategories — finds the noun form so overwhelmingly manifested in virtually all subcategory main headers that, unless we act upon AjaxSmack's suggestion, "Then move the others per WP:UE", there is no other alternative. Otherwise we would be casting consistency aside for this single main header.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to Greco–Turkish relations. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Question @Future Perfect at Sunrise, AjaxSmack, Dreamy Jazz, and Rreagan007: All participants use MOS:ENDASH. Why not Greek-Turkish relations and Greco-Turkish relations? Does not en dash goes against your opinions? Rreagan007, MOS:ENDASH says that Greco- is correct. Sawol (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I do not care about dashes. I would personally find a simple hyphen more natural, but some people were obsessing about en-dashes some years ago, so they pushed them through. "Greco-Turkish" is fine with me too (but with a hyphen; that kind of compound should definitely not have an en-dash); I think the page was originally at that location. I really don't care, as long as it's proper English ~ which only "Greece-Turkey relations" is not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Unlike most of the entries of the form Foo–Bar relations, there's a massive history between these two nations, and reliable sources generally refer to them as Greek–Turkish. The argument about common English wording and WP:NATURALNESS as stated above is also a factor for me.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, for consistency with the two categories
Also per google ngram. An extreme case of books using "Greek-Turkish relations", and no books using "Greece-Turkey relations".
Discount COMMONNAME arguments above because in my search of the leading references currently listed, "Greece-Turkey relations" is not being used Introductorily, and is not even used at all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Uhm, sorry, that vote seems a bit self-contradictory. If you found that "Greece-Turkey relations" is not being used, shouldn't you be opposing a move to that title? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Uhm, I got mixed up mid analysis. "Greek-Turkish relations" is the *only* phrase out of the two that is returned from the google ngram. Sorry. So CONSISTENCY is in direct conflict with what's used. My third point, criticizing COMMONNAME arguments remains on the basis that most sources are not using either phrase. On my first pass I was undecided, my second pass I made a mistake, so on this third pass I am retracting to "no opinion". More thought is needed, and I should read the archives again more slowly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support yes we probably should move all of them, but right now it's better to move this to the most common form if other articles are not moved. And I don't think it's likely the other articles will easily be moved en masse. feminist (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Border?

An anon editor updated Open border#Examples of closed borders with this:

The border between Turkey and Greece is almost closed due to the hostilities the two countries. However, only one sole (controlled) border exists at Kipoi, Evros.

So I came here expecting to find a section on the Greco-Turkish border that would confirm or deny. But the border controls aren't even mentioned at all? Could someone rectify,please? Meanwhile, can the statement be cited? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Along the land border in Thrace, there is at least one more road border station besides Kipoi, at Kastanies (near Edirne). That's not an awful lot, but then again, that land border is only some 100 km long. There are also a number of boat connections between the Greek islands and the Turkish mainland. Control and conditions for travelling are not much different from other EU borders, as far as I'm aware (EU citizens, including Greeks, can travel visa-free for up to 3 months, while Turkish citizens need a visa.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
In addition to the road border crossings at Kipoi and Kastanies, there is also a railroad border crossing at Pythio. --T*U (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Add a new sentence

@Dr.K.: I'd like to add a sentence to Migrants section, but I'd like to get a consensus because of the reverts. Ahmetlii (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You mean you don't even know that you have been edit-warring this POV against three editors and you are pinging only me? Also pings are annoying. Don't ping me. Dr. K. 14:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Is this POV? That's not POV, with reliable sources. Also, I pinged other users in the past, so the last revert made by Dr.K., past revisions said. @SilentResident and Khirurg:.Ahmetlii (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Note: I opened a thread on DRN for solve the dispute.Ahmetlii (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
You opened a thread at DRN to restore POV which is also a copyvio? Not interested. Btw, I have warned you on your talkpage about that and I suggest you stop it. Dr. K. 12:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This is not a neutrally worded, concise, RfC, and I suggest that the filer remove the RfC header. Or amend the question to something like "Should your text here be included in the migrants section"? But since the issue has not even been discussed here, I think a RfC greatly premature. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Can I add this sentence,

In 2020, Greece reverted some migrants to Turkey, and accused with human rights violations by some sources.[1][2]

  1. ^ Kingsley, Patrick; Shoumali, Karam (2020-08-14). "Taking Hard Line, Greece Turns Back Migrants by Abandoning Them at Sea". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-08-16.
  2. ^ Rothwell, James; Crisp, James; Papadimitriou, Yannis-Orestis (2020-03-06). "Greek police accused of stripping and brutally beating migrants near Turkish border". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2020-08-16.
That's more acceptable according to POV.Ahmetlii (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
This article is about Greek-Turkish relations not border incidents with immigrants on the Greek border with Turkey. This is unrelated to the subject of this article. --Dr. K. 22:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for information. If Wikipedia has another article about it, I guess that I can add it there.Ahmetlii (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Problematic additions

A number of recent (and not so recent) additions to this article are questionable:

  • The relevance of the "cross operation" passage (about the Bulgarian communists' plans) is not clear, as there is no indication these plans were ever put into practice, or if they were, whether they actually affected the Greek-Turkish relations as intended.
  • The section about the alleged "Turkish invasion plan" is highly misleading, as the leaked documents do not in fact contain any details about such a plan. The only piece of evidence contained in the quoted article is the mere name of a plan (mentioned in some other document), together with the information that it has something to do with Greece. It may well be true that the name seems to suggest something directed against the Greek islands, but the claim that it is an "invasion plan" is still nothing but the interpretation of the publishing website, "Nordic Monitor". This raises the question to what extent that website is even a reliable source. In all likelihood it isn't. It's a self-published website run by a group of three exiled Turkish journalists associated with the former Gülen-aligned Zaman newspaper, now focussed entirely on publishing criticism of Turkey and the Erdoģan government.
  • The same reliability issue also affects other items sourced to Nordic Monitor, such as the alleged Suga plan.
  • As for the Suga plan, it is misleading to add it as an extra section in addition to the so-called "Sledgehammer" case, because (according to the very source we're using for it) the Suga issue was in fact part of what the Sledgehammer cases were about.
  • The relevance of the "Hagia Sophia" section is unclear. Seriously, what does the Hagia Sophia have to do with Greece? (It's a building that was never in Greece and that was built at a time when Greece didn't exist). Of course, turning the Hagia Sophia back into a mosque has been widely criticized, but what is the specific bilateral significance of that? Now, I know some Greek media and politicians have spoken about the issue in tones as if it was indeed a political affront specifically against Greece, but why would that be? Do Greeks actually believe Turkey's Byzantine heritage somehow belongs to them or is theirs to guard and defend? If that feeling actually exists in Greece and causes an effect on Greek-Turkish relations, then this needs to be explained to the reader. But for that, we don't have sources. International news sources have of course widely discussed (and criticized) Turkey's decision, but I'm not seeing any that have discussed or explained the specifically bilateral, Greece-related significance of it; and Greek news sources don't explain it either but seem to be just taking the Greek offendedness for granted.

Apart from these issues, there's of course also the general old problem of the absolutely chaotic, jumbled structure of the whole article. Seriously, we need to decide once and for all if we want a time-line structure or a structuring by topics, and then stick with that, rather than adding one timeline here and another timeline there at random. Of course, the present chaos is caused by the old tendency of filling up the article with coverage of current news (contrary to WP:NOTNEWS) and generally treating it as a laundry list of whatever Greek complaints about Turkey are uppermost in the Greek news at any given time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I will comment only in relation to what does Hagia Sophia has to do with Greece; Well, Hagia Sophia may technically not been part of modern Greece, but this little matters here. This is usually the argument the Turkish government is using to brush off the criticism for the conversion of the monument, which is regarded by the Greeks and some other Orthodox Christians as the most sacred and significant for their faith. Of course, this is not only that, but also the architectural value of the monument, which along with Athen's Parthenon, were build solely by the Greeks themselves and were architectural feats of their times. Hagia Sophia also is important for historical and ecclesiastical reasons as well, since it served as the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarch who was always a Greek in origin (or at least Greek-speaking in some rare cases where he wasn't). It is not false to say that Hagia Sophia's significance is for the Greeks what St. Peter's Basilica and other shrines of Vatican are for the Catholic Christians. The offendedness is indeed taken for granted but that doesn't surprise me. The same would been the case, had Al Aqsa and Mecca, some of the holiest sites for the Muslims, been converted in a similar fashion, into something else, different than the purpose they were build for. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 07:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, if it should be true that the Greek nation state actually considers itself the owner and guardian of Greek cultural and religious traditions in territories that are none of its business, then it should be easy enough to find reliable outside sources in the academic secondary literature describing this relationship. Not random news snippets. Have fun finding them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The issue isnt about property ownership. To treat a holy site such as Hagia Sophia as a mere property of Turkey that is "none of Greece's business" is just plainly wrong and shows ignorance about religion and history in the region. Hagia Sophia isnt a mere building for the Greeks. It doesnt matter where a holy site is for the people to regard it as such. A big percent of the wold's religious sites are in foreign lands anyways. Borders may change by force, but the holy sites do not. Edit: I havent checked the sources yet, I was just replying what significance the monument bears due to its past, but I believe that per WP:RELEVANT, Greek reactions for Hagia Sophia do not have a place here on the article which is about diplomatic relations between the two countries. Unless the sources are stating specifically that the conversion has affected the diplomatic relations between the two countries. Good day. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello Fut.Perf., regarding your comments:
* About the "Cross operation", it display the hostility between the two countries and how it was/is used by others in order to raise tension between the two countries. But I don't have a strong opinion on this, we can delete it if we believe that it doesn't fit here.
* About the "Turkish invasion plan" I don't have an opinion since I don't know Turkish and I can't read the published documents. If the documents are real and they write what the site is claiming then we should keep it, else we should delete it.
* Same applies for the "Suga plan".
* About the "Hagia Sophia", it clearly affect the relation between Greece and Turkey since both countries have published official statements responding to each other. I believe we should keep it. And I think that you are right, we should explain why the religious sites like Hagia Sophia affect the two nations. Gre regiment (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Quote from Time.com:

    Relations further soured in July over the re-conversion of Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia into a mosque. That revived a centuries-long dispute over one of the world’s most contested religious buildings and irked Russia and Greece, the centers of Orthodox Christianity

    link. Dr. K. 17:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

About my editing on this page

Responding to Khirurg: my deletion about it is WP:NPOV as I said before; reliability of the sources are questionable due to their reliability is doubtful and not supported by a third-party source although this event happened months ago according to that sources. (Also, I can mention that the sources are repeating theirselves, by just saying the claim. I suspect that's falling to WP:FRINGE.) --Ahmetlii (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Kathimerini is one of the top Greek newspapers, with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It fully meets WP:RS. I also get the impression you do not understand the concept of third party sources. Just because a source is Greek, doesn't mean it's not "third party". Khirurg (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@Khirurg: Yes, I agree about that doesn't mean that a source is unreliable if it's Greek, but also it may mean that it might be possibly biased. (A good example about it is Fox or state-run sources, which is unbiased on a lot of topic, but they may have conflict of interest on certain subjects.) Anyway, I will open a case about that on reliable sources noticeboard, then I will get an RfC for it for ensuring that it's totally unbiased.--Ahmetlii (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Kathimerini is a top notch source. I have no patience for this "bias" nonsense. You are in WP:IDHT territory. If you continue to edit-war there will be consequences. Khirurg (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greece–Turkey_relations/Archive_4&oldid=1151018728"