Talk:Imia

Comments

Rewrite, December 2005

This article needs a major overhaul, on criteria of: NPOV, factual correctness, scope, and technicalities (links, redirects, naming etc.) I've put up an Underconstruction sign and started doing a few things. Lukas 09:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've now finished a first stab that will need to be fleshed out with a few references. BTW, I Letus 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)noticed that some folks in the past have been changing the names in the text from "Kardak" to "Imia" to "Imia/Kardak" and back again. Please, folks, don't edit-war about this. I have now changed consistently to "Imia/Kardak", and, given the undoubtedly contentious signal that either name implies, I would very strongly recommend to leave it like that, as it seems the only thing consistent with WP:NPOV. Please. :-) Lukas 01:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Why redirect from Imia islands?

Sorry I (re-)instated that redirect before I noticed that it had been questioned and unmade before. I should have opened a discussion here before I did that.

The reasons I prefer the redirect are:

1. The Imia islands article essentially just duplicated information that was also contained here.
2. Having one article using only the Greek name, and other independent articles using both names side by side is misleading.
3. As long as the international dispute continues to be unsolved, use of the double name seems preferable from a NPOV perspective.

We can still talk about whether it's preferable to have two separate articles, one just for the geographical information, and another for the political dispute. But both Imia-Kardak crisis and Imia islands previously were trying to do both things at once. (E.g., the story about the American map was used in both, etc.) Lukas 14:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That new Imia/Kardak article is satisfying. Astavrou 15:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"adjacent" vs. "dependent"

I looked up http://www.hri.org/mod/Imia/imia.htm where the Lausanne treaty is cited. There it says that the wording of article 14 of the Paris treaty is: "Italy hereby cedes to Greece in full sovereignty the Dodecanese Islands indicated hereafter, namely Stampalia (Astropalia), Rhodes (Rhodos), ... , and Castellorizo, as well as the adjacent islets." (my bold print). "Adjacent" is not necessarily the same as "dependent on", and as the whole conflict is more or less about the interpretation of treaties, protocols, and their wording, one should be as precise as possible when quoting. So could one check the quotes which one is accurate? In the result the difference may not be that big but the meaning of "adjacent" clearly differs from the meaning of "dependent on". --Proofreader 17:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Lausanne 1923 (Turkey to Italy) says "dependent", Paris 1947 (Italy to Greece) says "adjacent", in what is otherwise almost identically worded. We can safely assume that the authors in 1947 intended both to mean the same - it was certainly not their intention that some "dependent-but-not-adjacent" spot should remain as an exclave with Italy, or that Italy should be entitled to some "adjacent-but-not-dependent" spot that hadn't previously been transferred from Turkey to Italy in the first place. The territories intended to be transferred in both cases were obviously identical. Lukas ^(T.|@) 19:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

what is its coordinates ? (for google earth) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.87.168.17 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

37°03'03N / 27°09'04E (eastern islet); 37°02'55N / 27°08'47E (western islet). According to Turkish government publication. Lukas ^(T.|@) 23:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

can anybody actually see them on Google Earth? I can't. Deniz^T_C 18:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo maps has them. Boy, they are small... Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

HMS Childers Cartographic Survey 1947

I remember that in 2003 I read a very interesting letter to the editor of an American-Greek newspaper about a 1947 British Cartographic Survey in the region. [2]

According to the account of this British officer it is possible that the islets in question were wrongfully charted as belonging to Turkey by his predecessor. That would explain some inconsistencies, especially in several British Hydrographic Office maps. I could well be the Turks came to believe the islet to be theirs because of the described events during WW2. That would explain a lot of things.

As far as I know this information has not yet reached the public domain. Any opinions on that?

Letus 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, wow, another highly interesting tidbit! I think since it has been published in a reputable newspaper, and be it only as a "letter to the editor", it would qualify as "verifiable". We could quote it, of course only as a suggestion made by one observer etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Future. Yes, thanks. The funny thing about the story is that it is never mentioned. I definitely think we should quote it. I think it could maybe fit into the section Cartographic Evidence, but I am not sure. What is your opinion? That would be my first ever contribution to an article. I am so excited... Letus 23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Be bold and go ahead! :-) That section could do with a bit of an overhaul anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay <:-) I boldly quoted the account and made some minor changes to the last sentence of the section. If somebody has more information or other ideas I would like to discuss them. Letus 13:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Category wars

Guys, this article is now almost almost exactly a year old and is a rare example of a political dispute article that has so far lived without revert wars. Let's keep it like that. For your reference: Wikipedia:Categories states: "be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." - I would have personally preferred a more relaxed approach (in dubio pro cat), though. - Work it out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The recent state of the article is fine. There are appropriate links in the article in any case.. Baristarim 10:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "Category:Aegean dispute grey zones" category accordingly. As stated clearly in the second paragraph: "These islands, some of them inhabited, are regarded as indisputably Greek by Greece but as grey zones of undetermined sovereignty by Turkey." Removing Category:The Dodecanese while allowing the Turkish POV is simply unacceptable. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, will I really have to ask for page protection here? How pathetic. Use some restraint, folks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when I made Category:Aegean dispute grey zones, I was not espousing any pro-Turkish POV. (In fact, personally, I think most of the Greek-Turkish relations issues are pretty stupid.) However, we do have a category, Category:Disputed territories, that includes Category:Aegean dispute grey zones. By the category's nature, all territories therein are disputed by sovereign entities, and are included in the category and its subcategory precisely because their sovereign status is disputed. Therefore, if no items should be put into categories because they are disputed, then not only should Category:Aegean dispute grey zones be removed, but also Category:Disputed territories. But as Category:Disputed territories is healthy and well-maintained, it seems to have survived long-term tests of encyclopedicity. I'm going to restore Category:Aegean dispute grey zones barring a formal vote for categories for deletion, on matter of editing principle. However, were it to be put to a formal vote, I would probably abstrain, and would almost certainly go with whatever decision the vote arrives at. Categories like these are fascinating as a matter of international political study, like learning about the history of conflicts. - Gilgamesh 18:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with you in general, if it wasn't for two things: first, (as I also mentioned on Kekrops' page this morning): The set of "grey" islets in the Aegean is ill-defined, because Turkey has never stated exactly which items it claims. There are only vague allegations that it might claim some. With the sole exception of Imia/Kardak, there is really no specific island that is officially disputed. Second, the title "grey zones" embodies a claim that is really more specific than, and different from, simply "disputed". "Disputed" simply means there are conflicting claims about sovereignty status, of whatever kind. "Grey zone" refers specifically to the claim that the sovereignty over some areas was left objectively undecided in 1923 / 1932 / 1947. And that indeed is not a neutral statement of the existence of a dispute, it is exclusively the Turkish claim. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a point there. I had had the impression that they were clearly defined enough at least on an academic level. If that's not the case, then I suppose it would make sense to eliminate the category. It really was a fascinating subject though... I mean, aside from the yelling and near-declarations of war and unpleasantness and stuff, all the underlying politics involved seemed deep and full of considerations that made for interesting reading. I wanted to organize this interesting topic in a categorical fashion so that the objects of dispute in question could be easily referenced. - Gilgamesh 20:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Title

What is the reasoning behind this article's title and why isn't the same logic applied elsewhere? Why isn't Falkland Islands moved to Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas for example? Would anyone object to a rename and why? //Dirak 19:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

See top of this page. I'd prefer leaving it where it is. I believe the neutrality of the name choice in this case is important part of the neutrality of the article. The Falklands case is really different: There's a clear preponderance of the one name in English usage, and there's a very obvious sense in which the Falklands are factually part of Britain and not Argentina: factual exercise of sovereignty. Neither of these two criteria holds with any degree of clarity in this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Let's just leave it as is. Not just the title, but the rest of the article as well. As FPAS had said before, this article has been out of the controversy area for a long time. These "islands" (not even real ones) are famous because of the whole, well, you know what :) If it were up to me, I would actually sink the "island" and get it over with it once and for all! Baristarim 09:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, that wouldn't be a bad idea. But I guess we would continue to argue as to who would have the right to use the reef for scuba diving... (actually I know of an underwater reef exactly in the middle between the Turkish/Greek coasts north of Lesbos that is split between the fishermen of the two countries. Turks fish on the north side, and Greeks on the south...) NikoSilver 13:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. If Imia was to vanish from the map, then the boundary of the territorial waters would presumably be the median line defined by the Greek islet of Kalolimnos on the one side, and the Turkish islets of Çavuş and Çopan on the other, right? That line actually leaves one of the two Imia rocks on the Turkish side, and goes exactly through the middle of the other, if this map is right [3]. Happy diving! :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Shall I call my other friends for carrying out this task? :-) NikoSilver 12:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Several questions

Hello. I'm supposing that there have been intense discussions previously that eventually led to the current title Imia/Kardak. So... what was the title of this article before & where would I find those discussions?

Additionally, which country has administrative rights over the islands? Thanks. (Wikimachine 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

There wasn't an awful lot of discussion back then (Dec.2005), it seems. There was a merger from two older, much less developed articles, Imia islands and Imia-Kardak crisis, followed by an extensive rewrite by a then new editor, which didn't attract a lot of controversy. -- As for administrative "rights", it's difficult to say because the islands are so insignificant neither country ever did much in the way of administration on them. (except that a Greek municipality leased the grounds to a shepherd to feed two goats on.) It seems that when the crisis erupted, neither side knew very well whether they had any rights over them or not. There's virtually nothing on those islands, no installations, no lighthouse, no nothing. Ever since the crisis it's been factually treated as no-man's land, as far as I know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should google the names (and add perhaps the word "Aegean" in the search to make sure we stay on topic and in the correct language) and move it to the most common one.--Ploutarchos 21:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We might do that; however, my feeling is that we wouldn't be finding an awful lot of independent English sources out there. Most of the times when people write either "Kardak" or "Imia" in English, it's actually Turks or Greeks presenting their own national viewpoints, and of course carrying their national naming preferences over into English. Third-party sources quite often say things like "... two tiny islands, called Imia in Greece and Kardak in Turkish ..." etc. Here's a few examples of double naming:

1. "Falling Toward War in the Aegean: A Case Study of the Imia/Kardak Affair" ([4])
2. "Dispute in the Aegean Sea the Imia/Kardak Crisis" ([5])
3. "The recent crisis over Imia/Kardak" ([6])
4. "that both states could agree on to possibly help them with the Imia-Kardak dispute" ([7])

My impression is (but you can prove me wrong) that the double name actually is the most common naming convention in independent English-language sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What would you say to the WP naming convention that only one single name is recommended & Google test should be used despite its flaws? And that if there is no established name, a compromising title would be best? (Wikimachine 16:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

Sounds reasonable, but I wouldn't be happy with the statement that the use of the Google test should be mandated by a WP naming convention. It isn't according to current policy, is it? Much more relevant would be a qualitative analysis of usage in known reliable media outlets and encyclopedias, in my opinion. Apart from that, what would "a compromising title" be in such a case, other than a double name? I understand you've been involved in a similar case in East Asia, right? I would Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Castellorizo Missing From Maps

Your maps are vague, especially with regards to Castellorizo, a part of the Dodecanese, and a mentioned island in the Treaty of Lausanne. I don't know if the Border Protocol of 1932 marks Castellorizo, but as it was under Italian and Ottoman control, I'd say it did.

The maps aren´t vague, they are restricted in scope. They show only that part of the border zone that is immediately relevant to Imia. If we were to show the whole border, Imia would hardly be visible. As for the texts, Castellorizo is dealt with not by the protocol, but by the original Convention between Italy and Turkey, 1932, to which the protocol was the follow-up. HTH, Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Date needs to be corrected.

It stated that "the Greek Navy changed the flag (on 30 January), " It was 27th of January, so the next day the escalation happened, as mentioned below". kind regards, Andreas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.229.17.103 (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

POV

The article is POV. Turkish policy is disputing. Nothing is disputing according to international laws--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you mean that it would be "NPOV" for the article to take sides and favour the Greek claim over the Turkish claim, and that it is "POV" for the article to present both claims on a par, then no, you are turning the concept of NPOV into its precise opposite. The Turkish claim exists. It is notable. You may think it is complete bogus. Incidentally, I think the same. Still, it will be presented here and Wikipedia will not make a decision that either side is right and the other side is wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could say something along the lines of "internationally recognised as part of Greece, but disputed by Turkey". ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

But is it? I don't think there is a whole lot of governments that have commented explicitly in such a way, since the crisis erupted. And since there is virtually no actual practice of exercise of sovereignty that foreign nations could demonstrate their recognition or non-recognition over, what is there to tell? I would certainly welcome if anyone found a few good references if anybody independent of the Greek or Turkish side had ever publicly taken sides, we could quote those somewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall Italy, as the prior owner, backing up the Greek claim. But you're right, we need more sources. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, the Italian stance would be interesting. There was an interesting article one day in the Turkish paper Radikal ([8]), by liberal columnist Ismet Berkan. He claims that during the days of the crisis, the Italian government sent the Turks a confidential report outlining what they knew about the legal situation, apparently supportive of the Greek view, but that report was (deliberately?) mislaid somewhere inside the Turkish bureaucracy and never forwarded to the then prime minister (Ciller) and Foreign Minister (Baykal). Berkan is blaming diplomat Onur Öymen for hiding the report. – Of course, that's pretty speculative, as it's just a claim in the press without any official confirmation (and such confirmation would probably be all but impossible to get.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you read Turkish? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, enough to manage an average newspaper report. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Its not wikipedias' business to deal with international treaties etc. They exist or not. In a year they may change and declare Imia/Kardak turkish area. Still we have to mention the new international treaty. At the moment there is not such a treaty. That is my point and not POV alone. It is a matter of historical accuracy. Thanks a lot for your answers and for your attention. Pls be free to remove POV if community decides otherwise--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Factual Sovereignity

File:Turk warship warns.jpg

Turkish warship peacefully warns the Greek fishermen to leave the Kardak islands in 12.12.2008.

Turk SAT commandos operated to the west Kardak island in 1996 without being awared and then Greek commandos learnt by American CIA (after 4 hours later from the operation ended) that Turkish SAT commandos are in the Kardak islands. Then, Greek commandos left the islands in 08:00 whereas Turkish commandos (after the Greek side agreed that the islands are Turkish territory) left the island in 08:30. Currently, Turkish warships "peacefully" warn Greek fishermen if they approach the islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alehandraxxx (talk • contribs)

Not sure what you're trying to say, your English is rather broken. Sorry, but your account that Greek commandos left "after they agreed that the island is Turkish" seems a bit confused; that's certainly not what the historical sources say. The photograph is interesting, of course, but did you really take it yourself? Where were you when you took it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a photo from one of the prototype of laser guided missiles loaded Turkish Unmanned Aerial Vehicle TIHA developed by the Turkish Aerospace Industries for the Turkish Armed Forces. I have 10 more pictures from this UAV. If you write your gmail here, I can send you them as well. Lokman346 (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't own the copyright to it though, do you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind, this user is a sockpuppet and has been blocked. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol, Turkish Army regularly distributes newly photographed Kardak images to the media almost in daily basis for public domain use ( For Example, Hurriyet Newspaper Kardak new in December 2008: http://arama.hurriyet.com.tr/arsivnews.aspx?id=10567721 ). Hence, no copyright over these photos.ElizaPalace102 (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Kardak exerts an irresistible erotic attraction to gilt-headed breams [1].

LOL, there's a "tsipoura crisis" ongoing, and I'm not getting any? I haven't heard any of that in the Greek media, nor from our Greek friends, they seem all to be too busy covering the riots in Athens.

I can see the Hurriyet photo is obviously from the same source and same incident as yours here (just taken a few seconds later, same ship), but unfortunately that still tells us little about the copyright status. Are you sure they are intended as public domain, technically? Any chance we could find them on an original government website perhaps?

BTW, are you the same contributor as "Lokman" above? Better not to switch account names arbitrarily, the idea is that everybody should stick with one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL, Turks are very upset about riots in Greece. Turkish Number #1 Newspaper Zaman attaches importance to the Greek society and employs Greek author (Herkül Milas) to write in Zaman to understand Greece deeply. Here, the Herkül Milas's writing in Zaman Newspaper: [[9]]. ElizaPalace102 (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)