Talk:Imia

Split out "crisis" article?

About the recent move to split out a separate Imia/Kardak crisis article: I'm not convinced that's a good idea. It's not that we couldn't have such an article – but where would that leave this one? The present article is not a stand-alone "geography" article that could simply describe the islands as such, independently of the conflict. There simply isn't enough to say about them. Their geographical description doesn't take more than two sentences. The main weight of the present article is about the politics and legal situation. Without the politics, you cannot properly understand the military crisis, and without the military crisis, you cannot understand the politics. Plus, you cannot understand the military crisis without the basic geography either.

In other words: pretty much everything that's in the one article would have to be repeated in the other to make that article understood, and the same goes other way round. Or: no reader would ever want to read the one article without also reading the other.

In such a situation, having two separate articles simply makes no sense. I get the feeling the main impetus behind wanting the new "crisis" article was to have a hook to hang a "military conflict infobox" on, at the top of the page. Creating an article just to be able to have a box is a serious case of the tail wagging the dog. And the infobox as such is not very useful anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Hi! This may be a bit old, but I just learned about it and read the article. It seems we could edit this one to summarize the events of 1996 and 2016, but create a new article about it, split from this one, since it can help other articles to link to this crisis instead of this article about Imia. Let me know what you think. Tetizeraz - (talk page) 14:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I remain opposed to that, for the same reasons as stated earlier. And why wouldn't we want to direct people here when we want to tell them about the crisis? The situation would still be the same: there would be nothing in the one article that couldn't also be in the other, and no reader would ever want to read the one article without reading the other. "Summary" articles only make sense when a single "summary" branches out into multiple sub-articles. A single pair of articles where the one is simply a longer version of the other makes no sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There is adequate information and sources to have a separate article. That is the basic principle. Saying the island article will have restated information is not an important enough point. Many articles in Wikipedia have a few sentence summary then "See: <name of other article>". Actually, a crisis article could cover far, far more information than is currently presented. Charliestalnaker (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2021

The Turkish name of the rocks is Kardak and it should also be added there. Thanks 78.135.31.190 (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Reference 2 cites a dead link.

Reference 2 is not active, and leads to a commercial page. AshleyTheBat (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Disputed status, once more

User:ShovelandSpade has repeatedly tried to insert an explicit characterization of Imia as a "Greek island", "disputed by Turkey", in the lead sentence ([1], [2], [3]), with two alleged sources. Now, of course, whether it's a "Greek island" or a "Turkish island" is exactly the issue of international dispute here, and calling it "Greek" in Wikipedia's own voice in the very lead sentence is tantamount to Wikipedia's explicitly taking sides and declaring the Greek position to be correct and the Turkish position to be wrong. It should be clear to everybody here that we can't do that under WP:NPOV. The sources don't change anything about that. The first one, Schofield (Pratt, Martin; Schofield, Clive (1996). "The Imia/Kardak Rocks Dispute in the Aegean Sea" (PDF). durham.ac.com.) supports nothing of the kind anyway – Schofield is very careful in remaining agnostic about the merits of the competing legal claims (quote: The key question in a historical analysis of the status of Imia/Kardak Rocks is whether they form part of the Dodecanese group. If so, the Greek claim appears to be virtually irresistible; if not, then the situation is much less clear cut. Perhaps inevitably, this question is not as easy to answer as it might first appear.) The second source, "Imia 101: Why is the rocky Aegean islet back in the headlines?". Medium. 2017-02-14. Retrieved 2024-06-01., does of course make the explicit judgment, but then this is a source published by a Greek think-tank and as such obviously non-neutral (and of doubtful WP:RS status to boot). It's no surprise that Greek sources will overwhelmingly assert the validity of the Greek claim, just as Turkish sources will equally overwhelmingly assert the Turkish claim. Citing either the one or the other type of source for this is of no value whatsoever, because these are statements of opinion, not of fact, and on Wikipedia, even if an opinion is reliably sourced, we don't simply make it our own but only report it as an opinion (if anything). The only situation where we could be justified in making such a definite call on the issue and simply endorsing one country's claim as the correct one would be if we could show that this opinion is the overwhelmingly predominant consensus opinion in outside, third-party scholarship, to an extent where we could treat the opposite claim as a "fringe" position. But that is clearly not the case here, and even if it were, we'd need radically more and different sourcing for it.

These edits will be reverted again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Addition: ShovelandSpade has now also added a literal quotation to the Schofield reference [4], allegedly in support of their edit, but that quotation is completely off-topic. It's some argument about the effects of a hypothetical widening of the territorial waters across the Aegean, which has absolutely nothing to do with Imia as such. They have also added yet another source, from the Kathimerini newspaper, but the same holds for that as for the "Hellenic Leaders" one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This dispute happened as a result of a military crisis caused by a private Turkish ship in 1996, Imia had belonged to the Greek government in 1947 (49 years) if im not mistaken, so the argument that it is an "international dispute" is moot, it is disputed by the Turkish government only, hence why ive added that it is disputed by Turkey. With this same logic, Northern Cyprus then becomes a recognised country because the Turkish government acnowledges it.

If there is anything that supports the claim that it was given to Turkey in the Treaty of Paris then by all means present it. ShovelandSpade (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

You are showing no signs of having read, let alone understood, the arguments above, so there's nothing more to talk about here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2049/v49.pdf

Thats the treaty of Paris, since you want to be passive agressive, ill help you out as you cant seem to take your own advice:

"SECTION V-GREECE (Special Clause) Article 14 1. Italy hereby cedes to Greece in full sovereignty the Dodecanese Islands indicated hereafter, namely Stampalia (Astropalia), Rhodes (Rhodos), Calki (Kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso), Piscopis (Tilos), Misiros (Nisyros), Calimnos (Kalymnos), Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), .imi (Sym), Cos (Kos) and Castellorizo, as well as the adjacent islets. 2. These islands shall be and shall remain demilitarised."

Imia, as I have stated and proven in the main page, is part of the Kalymnos municipality and if my eyes dont deceive me, I think there is somewhere in the Treaty that says Kalymnos cedes control to Greece? I could be wrong though so by all means double check and get back to me. ShovelandSpade (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If you'd read and actually understood the Schofield article that you so eagerly (mis-)cited, you would know that the crucial issue here is whether or not the qualifier "adjacent" covers Imia – Schofield is unconvinced that it does. The arguments for why and how Imia could have remained with Turkey in 1923/1932 (not "given to Turkey in the Treaty of Paris") are all out there in the various papers by Turkish scholars that we're quoting (Inan/Baseren and others). Now, in my own personal but well-considered opinion, those Turkish arguments are a lot of baloney (I actually happen to be personally quite convinced the Greek position is correct, and unlike some others here I even have the basic understanding of the legal and historical situation to back that up), but that's of course just my personal opinion – the fact is still, we have no consensus of outside, reliable scholarship that endorses or rejects either the Greek or the Turkish argumentation, and as long as that is so, it doesn't matter how many restatements of these claims from Greek or Turkish authors we may collect and cite. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Im going to say it one more time, the Schofield article I added for the TURKISH claim not the Greek, have you actually read what I cited because youre arguing with me whislt agreeing that about the same thing (That Turkey disputes this). Additionally, as I have previously said it is Turkey in 1996 that disputed the islets, nobody else, and as such I have properly said that it is disputed by Turkey, it is not disputed by any other international organisation (Officially at least). You cant just come 49 years later and dispute an island and magically it loses its sovereignty which is what you are trying to indirectly do here. At least, can you provide me with another organisation (UN preferably) that supports the Turkish claim prior to 1996? If this is of any use, even a CIA document on the Aegean dispute (Dated 1984) clearly states that up until that point, the Aegean isles were not up for dispute. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP87T00217R000700070005-0.pdf

What im trying to get at here is, are we just pretending its disputed because the Turkish government said so in 1996 and took another NATO ally to the brink of war just for that or is there any actual legal legitimacy to the claim? And if the the first way is how were doing this, if Turkey turned around tomorrow and disputed the sovereignty of other Greek islands like Kastelorizo, would that magically become a grey zone too? ShovelandSpade (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if you must hear it in these terms, we absolutely do assume there is a dispute because the Turkish government said so. That's how WP:NPOV works on this project. There is a set of Turkish arguments for why the Turks think the rocks are Turkish, and nobody else out there in the literature has ever bothered to either endorse or reject these arguments outright. There is a set of Greek arguments for why the Greeks think the rocks are Greek, and nobody else in the literature has ever bothered to either endorse or reject those either. Does that mean there is "any actual legal legitimacy" to either set of claims? No, of course it doesn't (your personal opinion or my own notwithstanding), but in the absence of a clearly expressed legal consensus in outside sources, that's what we're left with. Now, if somebody were to raise new claims to Kastelorizo or whatever else, the difference is this: in cases like Kastelorizo, the basic facts on the ground – about factual exercise of sovereignty in the past, acceptance of that exercise by the other side, the wording of historical treaties and so on – are so blindingly obvious everybody could see immediately which side is in the right, and so we would no doubt very quickly have a citeable consensus to that effect in the literature, which we could base our articles on. For Imia, such a consensus does not exist, because – as Schofield quite nicely demonstrates – the facts just aren't as obvious and clear-cut as some people want to think. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Treaty of Paris clearly says Kalymmnos though? And Imia has belonged to the Kalymnos municipality even prior to 1996 so it has nothing to do with the crisis.

So no, its not clear cut because Imia is clear cut and here we are having this conversation, the only reason Kastelorizo wouldn't be the same is quite simple and we can both beat around the bush but the fact is, Kastelorizo has and had Greek military units already and thus when the Turkish government threatened to take it in 2020, there was already units on the island and the Greek Navy had encircled the Turkish Navy, otherwise im certain willing to bet proverbial money that we would be having the same conversation about Kastelorizo at this point.

So far I have given you an international treaty, an intelligence document prior to the crisis both at the very least pointing to Greek sovereignty and all youre giving me is that the Turkish government disagrees and sources AFTER the crisis neither confirm nor deny. Well since thats the case the most logical thing to do is look at the status quo PRIOR to the crisis all of which show Greek sovereignty. ShovelandSpade (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, your Kalymnos argument is begging the question: It should be self-evident that Imia can only belong administratively to Kalymnos if it belongs to Greece in the first place, so arguing that it must belong to Greece because it belongs to Kalymnos is circular logic. As I told you earlier, and as you could have read in Schofield, the question is if Imia was comprised among the "adjacent" or "dependent" islets – in 1923, not in 1947 (it's the Lausanne treaty that's at issue here, not the Paris one). And as for "looking at the status quo PRIOR", yes, that would be nice to do; the issue is just that there is no such status quo to check out: Imia is so tiny and insignificant that neither of the two states ever actively did anything to assert sovereignty over it in a clearly visible way – if either Greece or Turkey did in fact believe the rocks were theirs prior to 1996, they never bothered to document this position in any testable way that would stand up to scrutiny. Of course it's true what your CIA document says, that islands in general weren't being disputed prior to 1996 – but then the CIA document obviously doesn't talk about Imia specifically, or indeed any of the other tiny formations along the demarcation line. It wasn't that there was no dispute, it was more that nobody was aware there was anything to have a dispute about, with respect to those insignificant specks of rock. But all this is still moot arguing – it is entirely immaterial whether you or I can be convinced that this or that argument in favor or against the Greek or Turkish position is sound. As long as you don't understand this very basic fact about how Wikipedia editing works, there's no point having further discussion. What you need is reliable, independent sourcing for the notion that a wide consensus of independent reliable observers considers the Greek claim to be obviously correct and the Turkish claim obviously wrong. You don't have that sourcing. End of story. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

A) The first source was showing why its disputed by Turkey if you cared to actually look at what I quoted

B) The Greek think tank is using a legally binding document and a map to make its point so it being Greek is irrelevant but I have since removed it

C) Please take your own advice before acusing others of not reading their sources, since however I cant trust that youll do that, in my first reference, the first couple words are literally "From a Turkish perspective"

Please take the time to read and if you fail to understand clarify what other people are claiming/ writing before trying to assert other points. ShovelandSpade (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Given this state of discussion here, I'm going to revert the page back to its stable consensus form once again. You will not push through your change through brute force of edit-warring. If you want to pursue these additions further, don't bother debating here more – you have no hope of convincing me, and I have no ambition to convince you. Without consensus, your change stays out. If you want to achieve consensus for it (which you won't), please try something such as gaining a Third opinion or whatever other avenue of dispute resolution you fancy. If you keep reverting your changes back in without first having a clear consensus for them, you will go straight to WP:AE for sanctioning. I've noticed you've been disruptive on other pages too, so a topic ban is likely to wait for you when admins have a closer look at your behavior. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Ive made my points clear and concise, threatening me after running out of talking points is also not in good faith. You cant just remove cited material because you dislike it, I will ask again, if we are going by post 1996 standards, what happened in the 49 years prior? Who was it part of? Imia was always part of the Kalymnos municipality, the same Kalymnos referenced in the 1947 Paris treaty, do you have any relevant material to prove otherwise? ShovelandSpade (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

And if this is the case, then there are a lot of islands Turkey disputes but theyre not added as "Disputed islands", so, why then is it being done with Imia? Isnt it more logical to add the islets legal country and then simply add theyre disputed by Turkey, since they are the only ones disputing their sovereignty?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/8/turkey-opens-new-dispute-over-sovereignty-of-east-aegean-islands

https://foreignpolicycouncil.com/2023/01/16/disputed-islands-in-the-aegean-sea-the-ongoing-conflict-between-greece-and-turkey/ ShovelandSpade (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)