Talk:Imia: Difference between revisions

This article is biased

This article is completely biased with the Greek side. You can even see the number of Greek users on the talk page. Wikipedia should be unbiased with any political issue.

Cartographic evidence should be completely removed. Who says cartographic maps is the new style on deciding what belongs to who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.208.243 (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, only the sword of Padishah can decide what belongs to who, command us efenti... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.45.106 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Trivial truism?

I have reverted the reversion of my edit by Future because I don't think that the explicit affirmation of the Greek borders as EU borders by the European Parliament is trivial. I also think that if the author of the paper also chose to mention the statement of the European Parliament, about Greek borders being EU borders, then the matter is not trivial at all. The diff contains my edit-summary in reply to Future's edit-summary. I almost never disagree with Future and in fact I sent him thanks when he at first restored the same sentence. But then when he chose to delete it for whatever reason, I chose to re-add it in a less contentious phrase, thinking that he would not object to it. His reason, the second time he deleted the phrase, was that it is a "trivial truism" which does not enhance the presentation of the article. I have stated above why I disagree with this assesssment. Dr. K. 22:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You did well. I am afraid, from the moment a party's unilateral territorial claims against an EU member state are affecting the EU itself, the EU's position on this matter should be mentioned. Furthermore, I have restored the deleted sentence about the position of these international organizations on the lead, which should be mentioned due to the dispute having its effects reaching beyond the bilateral affairs and thus affect EU-Turkey relations as well, with the EU urging Turkey to respect Greek sovereignty in its annual reports for the candidate country. -- SILENTRESIDENT 22:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Dammit, I didn't do all the work of cleaning up those refs [1][2] just so that you could then revert the same broken garbage back in. Don't you even look at the state you leave articles in [3] after you've ploughed through them? Seriously, competence is required on Wikipedia; dealing with this kind of childish editing is aggravating. (Which is why I couldn't find the strength for dealing with this earlier.)

So, now you have reinserted that bit in the lead, with four footnotes, all of which are bad, and none of which support what you're saying.

1. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2015/20151110_report_turkey.pdf A primary source provided as a naked URL (At least take the trouble to cite your sources properly next time!) This is last year's EU Commission report on Turkey's EU accession. It does not address the Imia issue at all. The verbiage about Turkey having to respect principles of "peaceful settlement of disputes" is in response to the issue of the casus belli regarding the extent of territorial waters. The document also mentions the continental shelf issue and complaints about air space violations. Not a word about territorial disputes like the Imia one or the other "grey zones".
2. "Turkey's Accession to the European Union: An Unusual Candidacy - Google Books". Books.google.gr. 2008-12-28. Retrieved 2015-08-25. – reference sloppily mis-cited as being "published by Google" and without proper author attribution, also breaking the reflist display because it's now duplicating the same freaking footnote that I actually fixed for you. For crying out loud. Yes, this ref legitimately mentions the EU Parliament resolution, plus another one by the EU Council of Ministers from July 1996 (not anything by the "European Commission" as your edit claimed; did you mix up those two institutions?) It does not appear from this ref whether the C.o.M. actually took Greece's side regarding the merits of the case (committing itself to the view that Greece's claim to Imia was actually justified, as the Parliament did); the only thing it is reported as saying is that the dispute should be settled via the International Court of Justice. Those are two very different positions to take.
3. "United States of America Congressional Record Proceedings and Debates of the ... - Google Books". Books.google.gr. 1995-12-25. Retrieved 2015-08-25. Another sloppy weblink misattributed to "Google" as a publisher and without proper description. This is a quotation from some US congressman speaking in Congress, who happened to be mentioning the same EU Parliament resolution. Why on earth would we want to use that as a source? Nothing in this ref about any of the other EU institutions, be it the Commission or the Council or whatever else.
4. "Europarliament Support Greek Positions On Aegean". Kastellorizo.org. 1995-03-06. Retrieved 2015-08-25. A news report mirrored on an unreliable garbage website ("castellorizo.org", seriously?) including the text of that EU Parliament resolution. Yet another broken ref you inserted obliterating one that I had actually fixed, and which would have gone to the actual official text on a reputable mirror.

Referencing technicalities apart, saying simply that the "EU" as a whole "supported the Greek position" is, at best, a serious oversimplification. I can distinctly remember that the prevailing feeling in Greece at the time was one of disappointment at a marked lack of support from Europe. Sure, the EU Parliament unequivocally took Greece's side, but it was an institution of even less actual power back in the 1990s than it is now, and its resolution was of largely symbolic value. The institutions that represented actual EU power (Commission, Council, and Council of Ministers) were much more reluctant to take sides, and I don't remember having read about any resolution from any of them that unequivocally supported the Greek territorial position (rather than just calling on Turkey – or indeed both sides – to refrain from the use of force). All of this is far too complex to cram into the lead, if we were to cover it properly. But then, what you really want here is not really a fair treatment of what the EU actually did and said; what you want is an opportunity for filling the lead up with nice juicy sentences suggesting that "Greece was right". That's why I fully expect you will continue edit-warring that stuff back in there. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

So, let me understand: You are dismissing sources just because -in your opinion- the "EU Parliament was an institution of even less actual power back in the 1990s" and "Commission, Council, and Council of Ministers were much more reluctant to take sides"? -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

If you are not capable of reading what I wrote, I can't help you. Try reading it again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise and Dr.K.:, Guys, you might want to give this a look. [4] The European Commission, on 2 December 2016 (today) reacts to Turkish claims on Imia islets and urges from Turkey in a very clear manner to to respect Greek sovereignty and find a peaceful solution to the dispute. This time, is not a mere document, is an official statement. This statement comes only 24 hours after Turkey's reinstated claims on Imia isles. [5]. Again, this is reflected on the content that Future Perfect has removed from the lead, in part because "EU Parliament was an institution of even less actual power back in the 1990s" and "Commission, Council, and Council of Ministers were much more reluctant to take sides". What do you say, now we have a clear statement by the Comission as well. Isn't this Comission statement sufficing either? Just a question, because we have both official documents and official statements from EU's institutions regarding the EU's position about Turkey's disputes with Greece. Or is this still a "serious oversimplification"? -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That statement doesn't appear to be referring to the Imia issue though, does it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It is. Turkey disputes 2 islands within 24 hours and EU Comission reacts to this. What else could have been? EU asks Turkey to respect Greek sovereignty and urges Turkey to solve any disputes with Greece through peaceful means. It does not name the islands one by one, but you know very well to what the EU refers to. This time there is no room for assumptions, I am afraid. -- SILENTRESIDENT 22:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The commission didn't "react". The commission was asked for a comment, by journalists, and responded to that with a carefully worded diplomatic statement reiterating what they've been saying for decades: that Turkey needs to refrain from provocations, that it needs to respect sovereignty rights, etc. What the statement craftily avoids talking about is what those sovereignty rights actually are and how far they reach. What it does not say is: hands off Imia; Imia is Greek soil. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I am baffled. I remember you calling me for bias, but now it is clear that I am not the one who refuses to see events unfolding the last hours and their relation. The Comission calls for the respect of the Greek sovereignty because Turkey has disputed it in the past 24 hours... These are not unrelated and mere coincidences. What else should the EU say to Turkey to make it clear to you that the one is related to the other? To hear the EU specifically naming the one island after the other as if they are items in a... shopping list? Perhaps something like: Turkey must respect Greek sovereignty on Imia, also on Kassos, also on A, also on B, also on X and also on Y islands (and the list goes...)"? You know, these are international relations, this is diplomacy, the diplomatic messages can be quite as clear as a crystal, without having to go into many details. After all, listing the islands in question is impossible, given how Turkey's position lack credibility (the number of Greek islands it disputes, differs from time to time. It is no longer just one or two as it was in 1996, but more. And this number seems to grow without any end. If my memory does not fail me, Turkey started out with just 2 islands in 1996, but this quickly became over 6 islands in 2000, 16 islands in 2014 and 18 islands in 2016. Only recently, a Turkish parliamentarian from the MHP Parti, has raised this number to a whopping amount of 200 islands! I don't think you really need to actually refer to the (growing) list of islands just to see the relation between Comission's strong message to Turkey and Turkey's never-ending claims and disputes. If what you say does not apply for Imia, then, I guess, the EU statement does not apply to the rest of the islands either. Right? (This is a rhetorical question, I do not expect an answer). This logic lacks sense and is disappointing to hear from an admin.

Here some more sources from various newspapers and portals, to cast aside any doubts that this is about Imia islands: [6] and [7].

Dear Future Perfect, I can supply even more sources on the EU's position regarding Imia islands, but I don't think sources can make a difference here, where the problem is the refusal of certain editors to admit the obvious. Statements like "the Comission being reluctant to take sides on the Imia dispute" are contradicted by the reality. Because the EU has supported Greece in more than one occasion. For example in the 2015 Imia Incident (which occured almost 2 years ago), the European Comission, in its official statement, not only referred to the islets by their Greek name (and excluding the Turkish one) but clearly declared that it supports the Greek side on the dispute and has asked Turkey to avoid tensions with Greece and promote good neighborly relations instead. It specifically said: "The Commission put its wholehearted support behind Greece" (on Imia), and that "it felt that the tension in the area should be reduced on a lasting basis and that good neighborly relations should be re-established between Greece and Turkey". Here is the Comission's official statement for everyone to read: [8].

Like how I have said: there is no room for speculations and assumptions about the opposite: it is crystal clear that Greece got EU's support on Imia and none can question it. Whoever does not accept the facts, and turns a blind eye to the sources, then, I can't help but wonder if they are following any notorious personal agendas here. The content which Future Perfect has removed from the Lead, should be restored back, given the reliable and strong sources backing it. And to avoid any future misunderstandings and removals of the said content, we should cite it with all the new aforementioned sources from above. And if those aren't enough yet, I can provide even more of them, from portals and newspapers which were reporting on the Imia incidents, and which noted the EU's support to Greece on Imia dispute, like: [9]. The source here writes: "The European Parliament and the European Commission has continually supported Greece on the issue of Imia, and has warned Turkey on more than one occasion to refrain from using any sort of military operations against Greek sovereignty.".

Thing is, the sources are here. It is clear what FuturePerfect has to do here. He should revert his own revert and allow for the content to be returned to the page, as no one can question the EU's support to its member states anymore.

EDIT: to clarify about the latest source, it also refers to Wikipedia as one of its source, -not only Hurriyet Daily news and archives- which means that it either refers to content before it was removed by Future Perfect, either to the archived documents and statements of the EU which I have provided both in the article and here in the talk. In either case, they are more than enough already and I hope this helps. Everyone here has my thanks for their patience to read this, and I wish everyone have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

New sources from the Talk have been added, the removed sentence has been restored, and the citation and coding errors in other sources have been addressed. If there is anything else, let me know. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

More precise about Italian position on the Imia dispute

I have restored the previous sentence [10] as it is better to just quote the italian position, to minimize any possible room for misconceptions about the Italian government's position. Italy did not state that the protocol is just "valid" but "valid and continuous to be valid", meaning that it was not only valid at that moment, but continuously valid. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no advantage in doing so. "Being valid" and "continuing to be valid" mean exactly the same thing. The repetition is merely a means of rhetorical emphasis on the part of the Italian politician – which is fine in the context of political language, but devoid of any additional information value for an encyclopedia. The only effect of repeating this rhetorical figure here in our own language would be to give the statement extra loudness – which may seem attractive to you, because you evidently like to trumpet things out to the reader at maximum volume if they are sympathetic to your POV, but that's not the way serious encyclopedia authors write. Literal quotations have a place in good encyclopedic writing only where the details of somebody's wording are of genuine interest and a paraphrase can't render the nature of the utterance adequately. This is clearly not the case here: the Italians said that in their opinion the agreement was valid; there's nothing open to "misconceptions" about this very simple proposition.

The second disadvantage of using the literal quotation in this instance is that cumbersome orthographical error and the "sic". The problem is that so far we can only quote the thing second-hand, from two sources that were both written by non-native speakers of English and which may well have copied from each other, so we simply don't know whether the Italian minister produced that orthographical/grammatical error himself or whether it slipped in through the reporting by these intermediate sources. By reproducing the error and marking it with "sic", we are effectively claiming the minister produced it, which may very well be a false claim. This is clearly not a satisfactory situation, but it is extremely easy to avoid, by simply doing what responsible encyclopedic writing would prefer to do anyway: paraphrase. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope they do not mean the same thing, I am afraid. Why do you think Italy ever felt the necessity to mention the same word twice in the same phrase if it really means the same thing? You have removed the addition on the ground that it is "crumbersome" and yet without providing a valid explanation on why information from sources, although can be summarized in our own words, should that be done at the expense of original word choices and in an way that differs from the meaning of the original statement (i.e. continuous validity)? Please see WP:INTEXT. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Like I said before: misunderstanding of italy's statement is very likely here, like you have done for yourself where you have misunderstood that in diplomacy the words "valid" and "continuously valid" as meaning absolutely one and the same thing. I am not an expert in diplomacy, but in diplomacy, words carry weight. Even words that may seem repetitive to one's eyes, may actually mean something. Hence why I recommend that instead of replacing this with our own words/impressions of what the statement said, this is left on the readers to decide by themselves. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

To soothe your concerns that the paragraph is "cumbersome", I have removed the second sentence from the phrase, although it escapes me why you find this paragraph too crumbersome for your tastes in the first place, since it hardly exceeds two lines. I hope this helps. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This is getting too idiotic to respond to. No, I'm reverting again, and I will continue to do so until you go away and stop butchering this article with your incompetence. I have no hope to reason with you, so I won't further try. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

When you said "Damn it" and "Fuck it" to me, I decided to ignore it and pretend it never happened. And I have advised you to be civil when talking to others. Nothing justifies such impoliteness and abusive behavior towards other editors, no matter the disagreements you may be having with them. I am asking very kindly as per Wikipedia:Civility that you strike or remove your latest uncivil response to me. Once this is done, we can sit down and work to see where the problem is exactly for you and find a compromise. -- SILENTRESIDENT 09:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Maps?

Why is there only map of Greece in the infobox? If the island disputed between two countries, Turkish map must be there. Otherwise, its may not seem very objective. Thanks. 88.246.28.4 (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all which country is shown in that map. It's a locator map; what matters is that the reader is given an idea where this place is geographically. For this reason, the best thing is to have a map that shows it in relation to the sea it is part of, the Aegean. It just so happens that a map of the Aegean will naturally show the shape of Greece or almost all of it, since the country is just so closely intertwined with the sea. Turkey is simply too large; if you had a map with the whole of Turkey, the necessary details in the Aegean would become far too small. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)