Talk:Aegean dispute

Article move?

Hi, I'm thinking of doing some rewrite/expansion on this article some time in the future. Before I get seriously started, I thought I'd get some feedback for a page move I'd propose: change Aegean crisis to Aegean conflict (or Aegean dispute perhaps?) "Crisis", in the proper sense of the word, refers to a single short, dramatic event, but the Aegean problem we're dealing with here is in reality a long-standing, lingering problem more or less stable over several decades. So, "crisis" simply doesn't fit. Also, I guess this would remove the awkwardness of attributing the whole term to one side alone, as it's now stated ("a term coined by the Greek government" etc.). I'm not sure that "crisis" is really a term only the Greek side has introduced, or even that it is the preferred term used by the Greek side, but "conflict", "dispute" or "problem" is certainly neutral enough that it fits WP:NPOV without any such hedging?

What do you guys think? Lukas 18:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a move is approporate. and article needs to be expanded greatly, this should be about all issues between Turkey and Greece. How about merging it to Greco-Turkish relations? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd considered that too, but I think the complex of the Aegean issues is still so "self-contained", as it were, and at the same time so multi-faceted, that it can have an article of its own. The Greco-Turkish relations now deal with a lot of history, starting from the Ottoman era and the War of Independence, and there's still the Cyprus issue, the minorities, the EU, the PKK - lots of topics for the other article to deal with. -- You may have noticed I recently re-worked Imia/Kardak quite radically, and that alone is quite big too. In this page here, we should treat:

* Territorial waters (6 vs. 12 nm.)

* Airspace (6 vs. 10 vs. 12 nm.)

* FIR delimitation (middle or east of Aegean)

* FIR significance for military flights

* Continental shelf

* Demilitarized status of islands

* "Grey zones" (might be factored out of Imia/Kardak and moved here.

Lukas 13:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Expanding the article would be great, as the Aegean Crisis (or whatever we wish to call it) is a rather obscure fact to most media, and even to Greeks and Turkish people themselves, as the national media generally offer their own versions of the facts. E.g., being Greek, the version I hear most is that Greece is "poor and misunderstood" about the issue by everyone, including NATO itself, and that Turkey diminisces the whole matter in a condescending kind of way, more or less stating that "it exists only in our little worried Greek minds" :-). The crisis/dispute DOES exists, and it has led to contraddictions within NATO e.g. can a NATO country (Turkey) attack another NATO country (Greece) as it has often threatened to do so? Can a NATO country shoot down "enemy" planes of another NATO country for allegedly violating their own airspace, without consequences? The Aegean Crisis (or whatever...) really deserves a separate and very comprehensive article (I only created it long ago hoping it would eventually be expanded, but until now there was quite a lack of constructive feedback). Regarding who coined the name: all Turkish governments to date deny that there's any real "crisis" or "dispute", and that it's a kind of collective hysteria in Greece, so I don't know what the official Turkish or NATO name for the matter is. As a side note, "Aegean crisis" (Κρίση στο Αιγαίο) was also the name of an old Greek strategy videogame (ca. 1995-1996), regarding the issue.

Uhm...about the page move...I'd say move it only if you discover what the official NATO term for it is (assuming that NATO doesn't take the matter as lightly as it seems) , and expand it to include not only general info but specific incidents with a bi-partisan view (Greek and Turkish). EpiVictor 16:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

New page title

Okay, here we go about a new page title. I checked "Aegean conflict": 140 GHits. "Aegean dispute": 9,390 GHits. Both are used in neutral, international scholarship, and informally by both Turkish and Greek sources. Counter to what EpiVictor wrote above, Turkish government sources are quite vocal about the existence of an "Aegean dispute". On the contrary, Greek government policy has sometimes tried to disparage the use of dispute (or presumably conflict, for that matter, too), like here:

"The only legitimate dispute that needs to be settled between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean is the delimitation of the Aegean continental shelf. […] Beyond this, all other matters at times termed 'Aegean disputes' by Turkey consist exclusively of arbitrary claims against Greek sovereignty put forth by Turkey" [1]

I'm not sure we can take that into account, though, at least not in the title. How are we to write an article if the topic of the article doesn't even exist? If we were to follow the Greek government on this, it would not be just a matter of replacing one term with another, it would be a matter of denying that the topic even exists. -- Question to EpiVictor: what, according to your feeling, is the most common Greek term? "Ζητήματα του Αιγαίου"? "Προβλήματα του Αιγαίου"? "Ζητήματα" ('issues') seems quite common, including in official sources and mainstream media. Would it be exceedingly unfair to translate "ζητήματα" as "disputes" here?

As for "official" NATO terminology, I found nothing, and I doubt it exists. However, sources close to, e.g., American politics or military freely use "dispute" too.

My own view is still that "dispute" is a neutral enough term and just fits the facts. If there wasn't a dispute, i.e. a set of seriously conflicting claims held by two sides, then we wouldn't be here talking about this. (The Greek view reported above is just a rhetorical trick, trying to re-define its own claims into some kind of self-evident default position.) - That said, I'd like to point out that I'm not going to be Greek-bashing over this article all the time. I do have a POV of my own, and it's probably fair to state that at the outset - it's actually pretty much pro-Greek, on most, though not all, the Aegean issues. Lukas 17:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say to go with dispute then, seems neutral enough to me too. BTW, in Greece we don't usually refer to those facts under one name, but news generically refer to them like "Turkish activity in the Aegean" (quite mild), "Disturbances", up to "Turkish provocations in the Aegean", "Another provocative act by the Turks" etc. etc. I bet the Turkish use similar terms for us :-)

The term Aegean Crisis appears, indeed, a bit eschatological and is not used very often in mass media (well, except from that old video game title, and some military/defense magazines). Btw... "ζητήματα" sounds a bit too generic and bland, as it would imply other problems, not necessarily related to Greek-Turkish relations, while "crisis" or better "dispute" renders better both the nature and severity of the argument.

Other than that, "dispute" seems right because there are indeed disputed territories and borders involved, as well as connections with other interests and matters (e.g. during the Cyprus Reunification Referendum, at least Greek media reported an increased number of airspace violations and "provocative military manuevers" by part of the Turkish army, which render those "disputes", in fact, a subtle psychological tactic and a way to keep the opponent (us?) under alert. It's not uncommon to see in the news images of Greek fighter aircraft having missile-locked Turkish fighter aircraft during the so-called "virtual dogfights", at least on a weekly basis. EpiVictor 20:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay folks, then, let's do it. I made a start with a proposal for a new intro, and a set of section stubs for a structural outline. I also did the page move. Thanks to you both for the constructive comments, this looks as if it was going to be a good collaborative atmosphere. Lukas 20:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Source and POV flags

You may have noticed I've been putting up {{fact}} tags throughout the new sections. Please bear with me until I have an opportunity of digging out those sources, as I'm currently working partly from memory. As for CoolCat's {{POV}} tag, I'll leave it there for the moment -- CoolCat, just remove it any time when you're satisfied the article is moving in a good direction. Lukas 11:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Section on Greek settlement programmes

I'm including, for the time being, a short passage on Greek settlement programmes. This is from memory. I cannot for the life of me now find the relevant references, neither about what exactly the Greek programme was, nor about exactly what was said on the Turkish side and by whom. Unfortunately, most of the Turkish government's online publications made after the Kardak crisis have been taken offline (which is interesting in itself, actually.) - If anybody finds anything, I'd be grateful, otherwise we might have to pull that section.

Random assortment of Google references, for later use

• ^ Frank Brenchley (1990): Aegean and Cyprus: Aegean Conflict and the Laws of the Sea. Research Institute for the Study of Conflict & Terrorism. ISBN: 0948879394.
• ^ Andrew Wilson (1979): The Aegean dispute. International Institute for Strategic Studies. ISBN: 0860790304.

• ^ Tolga Bilgic, Petros Karatzas (2004): "The contraction in Greece-Turkey-EU triangle: Rapprochements at the edges." Online article
• ^ Stergios Arapoglou (2002): Dispute in the Aegean Sea: The Imia/Kardak crisis. Research thesis, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Online version
• ^ Tozun Bahcheli, Theodore A. Couloumbis, Patricia Carley (1997): "Greek-Turkish Relations and U.S. Foreign Policy: Cyprus, the Aegean, and Regional Stability." (Peaceworks 17). United States Institute of Peace. Online paper
• ^ Yücel Acer: "Recent Developments and Prospect for Settlement of the Aegean Disputes Through Dialogue". The Journal of Turkish Weekly, 2005-03-05. Online article.

The crises today

The thing has really died down. And no NATO does not interfere with the relations between Greece and Turkey although neither Turkey nor Greece gotten involved in any hot wars either that prompted NATO interference.

The dispute is basicaly Greece and Turkey making demands to each other and neither side accepting in a nutshell. This article has abit too much greek pov I think. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 00:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, about the Greek POV, could you be a bit more specific about what passages you'd like changed? - As for the conflict having "died down" and both sides just "making demands on each other", that's more or less the stuff for the last section that has yet to be filled in. In my perception, the conflict is still perceived as very much alive at least in Greek public opinion, and in Turkey there was a lot of media coverage as late as 2004 about the publication that outlined the "grey zones" claims. On the official, diplomatic level, the tactical stalemate of the 90s seems to have given way to a kind of gentlemen's agreement to not move. That was after, during the EU preparation, Turkey had come close to agreeing to Greece's old demand to go to court in The Hague, but then Greece under its new government made a last-minute U-turn and The Hague was cancelled. This was discussed in Greek media fairly extensively in 2004/05. And of course, the everyday issue of using daily statistics of Turkish flight activities as a kind of oracle to gauge the political stance of the Turkish military leadership is very much alive too. Lukas 09:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly uncited stuff pending citation should not be there, it is mostly gossip generated because of the tentions. While yes that is the popular beliefs I dont find them encyclopedic. That however is just my pov. Perhaps all should be commented out untill citation.

This would mean that Greece would gain the economic rights to almost the whole of the Aegean. uncited info does not see citation. Any map can show that greek islans spawn through out the Agean I think.

Too many blue links.

Too many red links. Some red links are about a terminology I am not familiar with. A stub for these must be created for the confused masses.

after the Turkish occupation of Cyprus and various other aggressive acts committed by Turkey, re-armament is an act of legitimate self-defence. isnt npov. Ill leave it to your capable hands.

Greek islands in grey zones should have a Turkish name.

Cited sources. They all are from sources that are supporting the greek pov. "Turkish army denial of the violations" is a pov source me thinks. We want sources that are more netural form educational sources perhaps. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Your points one by one:

(a) "uncited stuff pending citation": not gossips, that's from reliable sources I have here, in many cases the Turkish ones. As I said, I just have to dig out the exact references from my library, as I was working from memory, and I asked for a bit of patience. Only exception, as I said above, is the story about the settlement programme - and that one I put in basically in order to please the Turkish POV, because to the best of my memory Turkish sources were the only ones ever to raise that issue; a Greek POV would be that this was never an issue at all. I personally would have no problem about leaving this out.

(b) if by "uncited stuff" and "gossips" you mean the bits about Greek lake vs. Half the Aegean: just google for "Ege" and "Yunan gölü", or "το μισό Αιγαίο", and you'll see how pervasive these memes are. And yes, they are sometimes used by high-ranking politicians and government statements.

(c) "Greece would gain the economic rights": that's the crucial point within a Turkish argument. It's crucial for understanding why Turkey opposes the application of the "Law of the Sea" rules as being inequitable! Same for the info that Greek islands are scattered throughout the Aegean: the whole introductory paragraph about maritime zone divisions being inherently biased towards Greek interest is taken straight out of Turkish sources - it's crucial for their story; a Greek POV would be that this is totally irrelevant and general rules of international law just need to be applied without regard to the geographical pecularities of the area.

(d) I fail to see how the blue links would prejudice the reader towards one POV?

(e) The red links for consistent objector, res inter alios acta etc. are technical terms from international law. I'm not a studied expert in law, so I'm not in a position to write those articles, but for a few of these I actually filed a request for an article. These are crucial concepts in the legal debates here, and they get mentioned (and explained) in the relevant sources. In some instances, particularly about res inter alios acta, it's again most crucial for the Turkish argument (it explains why Turkey can rightfully say that the UN Law of the Sea Convention isn't binding to it).

(f) "after the Turkish occupation" etc.: that sentence is attributed to the Greek side as part of their argument. I can try to make the formulation clearer so as to make sure we aren't seen as endorsing it.

(g) Turkish names: okay, valid point. I have the list somewhere here. The articles of course have the Greek names as titles, as these are all undisputedly de facto Greek possessions, at least.

(h) Cited sources: the present reference section is a leftover of the old article, which was indeed biased and not very substantial. Most real references are currently listed in the Imia/Kardak article and some on this talk page here; I only didn't find the time to transfer them yet.

I hope this has made it clearer? Actually, I was under the impression I had been going out of my way to give the Turkish POV more than a fair share, as I knew I might be personally biased a bit towards the Greek one. I could understand that Greek readers might accuse me of bias now, so I'm a bit astonished at your reaction. Lukas 11:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

(a) & (b) I realise all that for living on greece (briefly) and turkey long enough. There are lots of ridiclous claims by both sides generaly spoken by politicians to win votes (how I see it) hence in the best interest of factual acuracy these need to be cited or stay commented out till citation (the cite template is ugly and makes rest of the article look ugly). I am not here to make claims either way, thats not my possition.

(c) Yea, it is a logical argument even greece partialy agrees (according to the article). I do not believe it is necesary to stress out about citation. Greece does not claim ownership of agean but reserves the right, in return Turkey retaliates by "airspace violations". Gotta love international politics :). If you however that peice of info is unacceptable, coment it out.

(d) Too many blue links. Has nothing to do with POV. It just is that same things are being linked to the point that the entier page is blue. Its just that there are too many links. I am making this as a general statement because I am not in a position to dictate which links should go. I think little comon sense can point out redundent links. (no need to link to aircraft when talking about airspace violations by aircraft its redundent thats all).

(e) I sympatise that but it is much better if you can briefly explain its meaning in one sentence by creating articles at the red links. It may not be perfect, definately better than nothing.

(f) yea endorsement is my primary concern, I bet Turs are sensative about that issue as much as Greeks.

(g) Well if a turk is reading about it they may look up for the turkish name thats why. It would be more encyclopedic that way. I do not think its worth to create articles about the majority of those islands as they are... umm too tiny to care about.

(h) Perhaps I was pointing out the obvious. It is an area we should improve on the long run.

Do not stress out for my suggestions. I am merely spitting out ideas from time to time. They all may not be good ideas but still are ideas. I have a feeling you like some of them :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Aegean dispute grey zones

An anonymous dynamic IP user has twice tried to destroy Category:Aegean dispute grey zones without peer review. This category was originally set up based on the information provided in this article. Here's my take on it. I am not disputing the de jure sovereignty of these islands—they are under the sovereignty of Greece. However, what I am disputing is the notion that there is no grey zones dispute at all, when this article (whose information I go by) clearly outlines the nature of the grey zones dispute. If Turkish academia were to completely withdraw such disputes, then maybe there would then be basis for dismantling the category as it would no longer be an active dispute. I categorize things to make them cleanly cross-referenceable for a variety of unique academic interests—this is certainly an interesting subject, isn't it? - Gilgamesh 18:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Gilgamesh, the reason i erased this category is that in fact it should not exist. Turkey and Turkish acandemia (first time i hear of that!) present a list of 5-6 Greek islands, out of the blue, and call it disputed grey zones. For the Greek government those claims are totally unacceptable. I dont think its right for an encyclopedia to "legalize" in a way such claims over sovereighty by presenting them. Imagine if, lets say Greece or any other country, suddenly presented the world with a list that stated that Hawai is a grey zone area. Would you write down as a Wikipedia editor that Hawai is a grey zone area or would you say that 'hey this guy is a total wacko'? Thanks. Regards.88.218.54.247 09:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the nature of the word "dispute." A dispute is precisely where two or more parties don't agree on an issue. The fact that the Greek government says there is no issue and Turkish academics say there is, represents a disagreement. See also Category:Disputed territories. In none of these cases does Wikipedia decide who is right—in all of these cases, it recognizes that the dispute merely exists. As for Hawaiʻi, its sovereign status is also disputed, and this dispute has even been recognized and addressed by the U.S. government when they apologized to Hawaiʻi for illegally annexing it—but it was just an apology, and nothing actually changed. - Gilgamesh 03:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Some comments about the article:

• The lead is informative, but looks to me a bit listy with all these bullets. Could we avoid them, and have 2-3 concise paragraphs summarizing the article per WP:LEAD?
• "The delimitation of exclusive economic zones". Do you know the difference between continental shelf and economic zone? The shelf has to do with the bottom of the sea. When a state has an economic zone the width of the shelf is equal to the width of the zone (200 nautical miles). But, according to the Treaty of 1982, a state can have continental shelf, even if it has no exclusive economic zone.
• "See also: Foreign relations of Turkey, Foreign relations of Greece". I think that this should go. You can easily incorporate the links somewhere in the main prose.
• In your intro in "Maritime and areal zones of influence", you could put one of these nice maps, depicting the Greek and Turkis islands in the Aegean.
• "Turkey doesn't recognize any extensions of Greek teritorial waters beyond 6 miles (11 km) on any of its coasts (Aegean, Mediterranean and Ionian)." "Ionian"?!! I don't think that Turkey has raised an issue for the extension of territorial waters in the Ionian. Actually, I think that they try to explain why the Ionian is a different thing from the Aegean. But, again, I may be wrong ...
• "The other countries have extended their territorial waters to 12 nautical miles (22 km)." Vague ... And not a nice expression. All the other countries of the world (Hungary as well?!)!
• "Greece, which is a party to this Convention, has stated that it reserves the right to apply this rule and extend its waters to 12 miles at some point in the future, although it has never actually attempted to do so." You should cite that, I think. After all, I don't think it is difficult to find on-line official statements of Greek officials about that.
• "Against this, Turkey is in the position of a consistent objector, having consistently upheld that the special geographical properties of the Aegean Sea make a strict application of the 12-mile rule in this case illicit in the interest of equity." Repetitive prose ... And the equity! This is the main argument in Turkey in both the territorial waters and the continental shelf; we should expand a bit on that.
• On 9 June 1995, the Turkish parliament officially declared that unilateral action by Greece would constitute a casus belli, i.e. reason to go to war, by Turkey. I think that casus belli is also an invariable and official position of their Council of National Security presided by the President of the Republic.
• "having been fixed in 1931". Having be fixed by a national Greek law. This should be mentioned. And this is an argument of Turkey against Greece. They say: You fixed it on yourselves! With your laws! Not in accord with international Treaties! And Greece answers: Yes, we fixed it ourselves, but you did not dispute our decision for about 40 years. So, your indifference has created international customary law in favor of us!
• "it was acknowledged by all its neighbours, including Turkey, before and after 1948, hence constituting an established right". It was not officially acknowledged I think, but it was not disputed at the same time.
• "(1) that its 10-mile claim predates the ICAO statute, having been fixed in 1931, and that it was acknowledged by all its neighbours, including Turkey, before and after 1948, hence constituting an established right;[4],(2) that its 10-mile claim can also be interpreted as just a partial, selective use of the much wider rights guaranteed by the Law of the Sea, namely the right to a 12-mile (22.2 km) zone both in the air and on the water, and (3) that Greek territorial waters are only set at the 6 mile boundary because of Turkey's casus belli (see above)." I don't like the (1)(2)(3). I would prefer prose without these numbers or even bullets. I did some fixing per my taste!
• "Turkey cites the statutes of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) of 1948,[3] as containing a binding definition that both zones must coincide." Prefer to put citations at the end of the sentence. Cite in the middle, only if it is absolutely necessary for emphasis.
• "The national airspace" is under-cited. Try to have at least one citation for each paragraph; preferably placed at the end of it (if you have just one!).
• "shot-downs of Turkish jets". Oups?! When was a Turkish jet shot down?!!!
• "These were perceived as a dangerous provocation by Greece, which led to a buildup of mutual military threats in 1976 and again in 1987." You should expand a bit on that. In 1987 the oceanographic mission came as a "reaction of fear" by Turkey, which was sucpicious that the Papandreou government intended to expand its research for petroleum in the waters around Thasos, entering what Greece regards as its own continental shelf (In fact, Papandreou was attempting to do exactly the opposite! He wanted to nationalize the oil company there, because the Canadian owners indeed intended to conduct reasearch in the continental shelf! But the Turks believed that this was a theatrinicism, and that Papandreou and the Canadian company were determined to conduct research there! There is a nice book for all that by Κ. Μαρδάς, "Προ-Ίμια Πολέμου").)
• In this section you don't mention at all "equity". You should; it is all about equity! Turkey says that the problem should be fixed with the application of "equity"; Greece says that the difference should be resolved with the strict application of international law.
• You also don't say that in 1976 Greece went to the International COurt of Hague against Turkey, asking it to rule "temporary measures against the Turkish provocations". But the Court ruled against Greece: 1) for lack of "irreperable predjudice" (ICJ Reports 1978, 3. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Interim Protection, Order of 19 December 1978), 2) for incompetence with its ruling of December 19, 1978 (ICJ Reports 1978, 3. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, 19 December 1978).
• As you are a specialist on maps (!), I think you could create a map depicting territorial waters, continental shelf, and economice zone. There is a map in the article of continental shelf, but it depicts the geological continental shelf; not the continental shelf according to international law. There is a huuuuuge difference!
• Do not wikilink single years; only full dates (e.g. June 13, 1912).
• "this to prejudice a future arrangement regarding the continental shelf issue". Avoid boldings.
• "But the issue of “grey zones” has added yet two additional problems and mutual confidence loss in Turkish-Greek relations." Avoid one-sentence stubby paragraphs like this one.
• "The decades since the 1970s have seen a repeated hightening and abating of political and military tensions over the Aegean." I think that during the 70s Karamanlis had signed a Protocoll with Demirell. But I do not remember exactly where and when. I must check Μαρδάς, which right now is in another house!
• "However, a newly elected Greek government under Kostas Karamanlis, soon after it took office in March 2004, opted out of this plan, because Ankara was insisting that all the issues, including Imia/Kardak and the "grey zones", belonged to a single negotiating item. Athens saw them as separate [8]. However, ..." Choppy!
• Get rid of the "See also" section. You can link anything you want through the main prose.
• Fix the online sources used in your citations properly and uniformally using Tepmlate:cite web and Template:cite news.--Yannismarou 17:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for this very knowledgable input, very useful points. Will work on it! Some of the inaccuracies you spotted seem to have crept in slowly in the course of the months when nobody was monitoring the article very closely. I'm not sure if I have a map that shows the precise extension of the continental shelf according to the Turkish thesis. Your stylistic monita are certainly spot on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Demilitarized status

The text says:

Several of the Greek islands in the eastern Aegean have at various times during the 20th century been placed under a status of demilitarization. This was done, after the decades-long period of wars between Greece and Turkey which culminated in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), in order to ease possible Turkish fears of Greek expansionism.

A source is missing that the demilitarization was done in order to ease possible Turkish fears. Another interpretation is that the demilitarization was insisted upon by Turkey with the aim of gaining valuable geographic "hostages" in order to improve its bargaining position vis-à-vis Greece. I think this should be elaborated.

I have a problem with the following passage:

After the Cyprus crisis of 1974, Greece proceeded to break the demilitarized status of these islands, at first secretly but later openly too, claiming an inalienable right to defend itself against Turkish aggression. Turkey, on the other hand, denounces this as an aggressive act by Greece and as a breach of international treaties.[3]

The source is a text published by the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is hardly an NPOV source. The Lausanne treaty e.g. allows military forces (as many can be locally recruited as well as a force of police and gendarmerie proportionate to the force of police and gendarmerie throughout the rest of Greece) in the case of Lesbos, Chios, Samos and Ikaria. The status of these islands is one of reduced military presence, not complete demilitarization. Greek military forces hardly constitute a "break" of the demilitarized status. I would prefer a more flexible formulation, like that after 1974 Greece proceeded to reinforce its military and internal security forces in the region.

Any comments on that?

Letus 19:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the islands you mention, but Dwdekanhsa is a different case.--Yannismarou 21:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, not even the Greek government currently denies that it has more military there than the demilitarization statutes would have allowed. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much sense in them publicly developing intricate legal argumentation about why they no longer consider those statutes binding, would there? If you insist, I'd have to search for a source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not so simple. The islands we are dealing with are covered by different militarization regimes. I think the Greeks' official position is that on Lesbos, Chios, Samos and Ikaria the demilitarization regime is respected. They do not appear to me to be "developing intricate legal argumentation about why they no longer consider those statutes binding", but to provide a legal argumentation for why the Turkish claims of a violation are unfounded. If you disagree it would be helpful to find an official Greek government source confirming your thesis. The Dodecanese is a different case. Letus 11:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We were discussing that yesterday on my talkpage. It's true that they apparently still deny violating the statutes in the case of Lesbos etc., I was wrong about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not just the "grey zones"

To the best of my knowledge, Rhodes has not yet been declared a "grey zone" by Turkey, but that didn't stop Turkish warjets flying directly over it not too long ago. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reliable info about (a) how often that happens, (b) whether the Turkish side admits it's happening, (c) why it happens? I've never yet seen reliable, official reports about such incidents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a video in youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbSXGOzNrOQ showing Turkish f-16s flying directly above Agathonisi a greek populated island. The video was shown in one of the biggest Greek networks. Soathana (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are a lot of reports on Turkish overflights going back a couple of years. For instance, a Greek aviation magazine in 2003 reported that the Flight Safety Direction at Rhodes airport reported an overflight of the airport terminal area by two Turkish jets and protested to the International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO). This does appear hardly accidental to me. The Greek government in such cases sends an official diplomatic protest note to Ankara. Turkish overflights are an established fact - the question is whether and to which extent they should be mentioned here. Letus (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Military overflights

I think it should be mentioned in this section that since Greece extended her airspace to ten nautical miles in 1931 until 1974/5 Turkish jets actually respected Greek national airspace and did only fly over Greek territory with diplomatic clearance. After 1950 they submitted flightplans to Greek air traffic control and refrained from promulgating NOTAMs conflicting with Greek ones. Only after the Cyprus crisis the Turkish airforce ceased to cooperate with Greek authorities. I tink this is important background information to the Aegean Dispute. Letus (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed vital, but wont be included sadly, someone might call it it original research or make up some other 'excuse.'If it wasmy Wiki I would include it in first lines of the article. Reaper7 (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Any source on that? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Lemnos and samothrace

Hello to all.

Nowhere in the treaty of lausanne does it say that lemnos and samothrace are demilitarized. (I just read the full text..).

however, in the article it says they are demilitarized... i am confused! ANyone help ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.165.193.73 (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What's a "havary"? Spelling mistake?

What's a "havary"? the word appears in the article but I can't find it in any dictionary. Is it an English word or a spelling mistake?

Must have been a mistranslation from German Havarie or French avarie, meaning a naval accident. Thanks for pointing it out. Funny nobody spotted it in quite a number of years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem with the Territorial waters and air space maps

The aforementioned maps are missing one important element of the Aegean dispute: the island of Kastelorizo, east of Rhodes. Kastelorizo, and the continental shelf Greece claims, change the maps fully. 212.251.108.151 (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Kastellorizo is neither in the Aegean, nor is it disputed, so it's hardly pertinent to this page. And we currently have no maps of continental shelf claims at all anyway. If you want to make larger maps that include Kastellorizo, feel free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're wrong. Kastelorizo belongs to the "South Aegean" periphery of Greece. And regarding whether it's disputed or not, recent news will perhaps enlighten you - lots of military activity around it these days. I would love to make larger maps that include it, but I don't know how. I thought someone might be able to do that... 212.251.108.151 (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The omission of Kastellorizo, is an important one. The maps need to be fully revised. How were they generated in first place?(Mavroudisv (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC))

my edit summary

I mean to say "nautical mile(s)" not "nautical mile".96.52.0.249 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Aegean dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100312043420/http://www.tsk.tr:80/HABERLER_ve_OLAYLAR/2_Hava_Ihlalleri/hava_sahasi_ihlalleri_2009.htm to http://www.tsk.tr/HABERLER_ve_OLAYLAR/2_Hava_Ihlalleri/hava_sahasi_ihlalleri_2009.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090912134741/http://www.ana-mpa.gr:80/anaweb/user/showplain?maindoc=7935093&maindocimg=6508196&service=96 to http://www.ana-mpa.gr/anaweb/user/showplain?maindoc=7935093&maindocimg=6508196&service=96

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aegean dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110708071125/http://troktiko.blogspot.com/2009/10/frontex.html to http://troktiko.blogspot.com/2009/10/frontex.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aegean dispute/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article needs better citing.--Yannismarou 13:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aegean dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060415091248/http://www.turkishembassy.org:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=225&Itemid=240 to http://www.turkishembassy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=225&Itemid=240
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070305200307/http://www.mfa.gr:80/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/South-Eastern+Europe/Turkey/Turkish+claims/ to http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/South-Eastern+Europe/Turkey/Turkish+claims/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719134348/http://uni-tuebingen.academia.edu/IbrahimCanSezgin/Papers/138642/Why_they_did_not_fight_Kardak-Imia_Crisis_1995-1996 to http://uni-tuebingen.academia.edu/IbrahimCanSezgin/Papers/138642/Why_they_did_not_fight_Kardak-Imia_Crisis_1995-1996
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929120617/http://tovima.dolnet.gr/print_article.php?e=B&f=14165&m=A24&aa=1 to http://tovima.dolnet.gr/print_article.php?e=B&f=14165&m=A24&aa=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Imbros, Tenedos

Should be included the autonomy granted to these islands according to the treaty of Lausanne 176.92.16.37 (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If you cite reliable, published sources which say that according to the Treaty of Lausanne Turkey should provide autonomy to Imbros and Tenedos, but that it has not despite the Greek protests, you can make that statement here. If you do not, you cannot. General Ization ^Talk 00:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Problem with calling "unique" the non-coinciding of water/airspace boundaries

In the article, and especially at the National airspace section, we have the following text:

The delimitation of national airspace claimed by Greece is unique, as it does not coincide with the boundary of the territorial waters. Greece claims 10 nautical miles (19 km) of airspace, as opposed to currently 6 miles of territorial waters. [...] Against this, Greece argues that: Greek territorial waters are set at the 6 mile boundary only because of Turkey's casus belli.

however, in fact, the reason the water/airspaces do not coincide, is due to Turkish threats, and is not merely an argument used by the Greek side. To call this merely a "Greek argument" is rather problematic, because in the previous section, the Territorial waters section, it is made clear why this is the case. For this reason, I made the following edit:

The delimitation of national airspace claimed by Greece is unique, as it does not coincide with the boundary of the territorial waters. Greece currently claims 10 nautical miles (19 km) of airspace, but, due to turkish threats, only 6 miles of territorial waters.

This should help avoiding possible misconceptions. However given how easily can my edits be misunderstood, I felt the necessity to clarify my edits here. Still I would appreciate if can someone offer a better wording to this. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It's actually not true that the airspace anomaly is "due to Turkish threats" (apart from the fact that, if it wasn't for Turkey, Greece would probably have expanded both the airspace and the territorial waters to 12 miles by now). But the anomaly as such is much older than any Turkish threats. The airspace was fixed at those 10 miles from the very first moment Greece began to claim a national airspace at all (sometime in the 1920s or early 1930s, if I remember correctly). Back then it was already different from the territorial waters, and that was already an exceptional situation, compared with other states world-wide. This was much earlier than any conflict with Turkey, which only began in the 1970s and 80s. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Future, don't get me wrong, I know you are experienced on the issue of the Aegean Dispute, and I do not question what you say. However I am feeling like I am missing something, because 1) you sound certain for your statements when reverting me, yet 2) I wouldn't find these RS confirming the sentences we are arguing about. They are not cited, and those which are cited have one of the links is broken as well. Am I missing something, or is there an way to validate this information? Because when I look at the current citations around these sentences, I was unable to verify the claims. I looked now online on the matter, and I have stumbled upon some useful information. The RS are from journalists and experts on the matter, such as Giannis Cartalis, and Paris Carbounopoulos, with data drawn from the Greek Foreign Ministry's Legal Office as well as the Ministry of Defence. Here is an example: [2] --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this text has been around since 2006, when most people on Wikipedia handled verification requirements a bit less strictly than today. There is plenty of literature on the topic though that can confirm the basics. Try the first two that come up in a Google book search for "Aegean airspace 10 miles": [3] (by a Turkish author); [4] (by a Greek author). What's a bit more difficult is finding good treatments from a neutral third-party perspective; most of the literature is by authors from either of the two countries, who all tend to be defensive of their national positions to some extent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Turkish armed overflights

@SilentResident: I support an addition about escalation of armed overflights, but the current subsection has some problems, the main one being about sources. All the sources seem to be about specific overflight incidents (and I am sure it is possible to find a lot more such sources, also in English and also non-Greek sources). But some important points of your addition does not seem to be sourced: escalating its provocations ... by adopting new practices and are considered to be the most extreme. If this is supported by the Greek-language sources, it should be quoted (and translated). If not, better sources are needed.

Also: Per MOS:DATED, In recent years should be changed to a more time-specific expression ("from around 201x", "from the mid-2010s" or whatever time frame is applicable).

And: The mention of overflights of armed F-16 directly above inhabited Greek islands and then in the next sentence overflights of armed military jets above inhabited islands is redundant. I have simplified. Regards! --T*U (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Plus, it's all in the wrong section (overflights of islands are already getting treated in the section below). Plus, the whole tone of the addition is uncritically taking over the political evaluation of its Greek sources and therefore comes across as heavily tendentious. Plus, the focus on islands being "inhabited" is probably OR; probably a much more pertinent criterion of what sets certain events apart from others is that some of these overflights seem to have been over islands that aren't conceivably "grey" even according to the most extreme interpretation of Turkey's own claims (e.g. Kastellorizo, but also the small uninhabited ones near it). Plus, there's bulk over-citing, with several news reports covering the same events, creating the impression of a much higher number of distinct events than warranted. The usual tendentious junk editing again, as so often before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

About "extreme": Here is source mentioning the calls of politicians for an urgent meeting of the National Foreign Policy Council to discuss this period of "extreme Turkish provocations" after an "extremely worrying incident" with an overflight above an inhabited Greek island. Copy-pasting the original paragraph here: "The meeting of the National Foreign Policy Council (ESEC) to discuss the course of Greek-Turkish relations, following yesterday's extremely worrying incident in Pharmakonisi, was demanded by the ND foreign affairs chief. Mr. George Koumoutsakos, in a letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Nikos Kotzias. Associates of Mr Koumoutsakos stressed that the ND initiative moves to support national interests, during a period of extreme Turkish provocations."): [5]

I didn't expect this to be a problem for you, thats why I didn't rush to add it immediatelly. This source is to be added one of these days, along with more information (more below).

However if you feel this isn't appropriate as Wikipedic tone, there is another source using the term "Serious" instead of "extreme" so I guess that suffices as well. From Ta Nea: "It is noted that the flight, ie the flight of Turkish armed aircraft over the inhabited Greek islands, is considered one of the most serious provocations, as it is a practical challenge to Greece's territorial sovereignty." (original: "Σημειώνεται πως η υπέρπτηση, η πτήση δηλαδή τουρκικών οπλισμένων αεροσκαφών πάνω από κατοικημένα ελληνικά νησιά θεωρείται από τις πιο σοβαρές προκλήσεις, αφού είναι έμπρακτη αμφισβήτηση της εδαφικής κυριαρχίας της Ελλάδας."). This source is already cited, while the other one will be added together with new pending information for the article. If you prefer this wording (serious) for the article, feel free to do so. IMO it doesn't change much the tone that reflects the extreme situation Greece faces in the Aegean this period, while at same time, delivers the actual image of the worrysome situation to the readers.

In recent years Yes, this is taken from here: [6] "After a long time, the Turkish Air Force returned to the practice of flying over the Greek islands, apparently in order to recall its positions and claims." (original: Μετά από αρκετό καιρό, η τουρκική Πολεμική Αεροπορία επέστρεψε στην πρακτική των υπερπτήσεων πάνω από ελληνικά νησιά, προφανώς για να υπενθυμίσει τις θέσεις και διεκδικήσεις της.) This is a practice which didn't happen all the time, but only in the recent years, after a long pause, which, from what I can see in the sources, was due to pressures from the international community, and particularly the ICG (International Crisis Group) [7] and USA's Hillary Clinton, [8] who asked Turkey to cease its overflights above inhabited Greek islands, especially Agathonisi and Farmakonisi.

escalating its provocations ... by adopting new practices Source for "Escalating its provocations" is TA NEA: [9] which speaks about escalation (κλιμακώνει) of Turkey's provocations, by doing overflights above inhabited Greek islands, by armed Turkish F-16.

The "new practices", are my choice of words to describe the new practices the one side uses to provoke the other side (and new, are in the context that these practices weren't always used and are new in relation to the other forms of tensions already covered in this article. From what I know, they begun sometime in the late 2000s for a short time before they were abandoned (I assume it was due to USA, EU and ICG pressure), but only re-adopted recently and, I can confirm, are being used frequently since then, to this very day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Future Perfect with his classic pro-Turkish POV trying to downplay the overall issue by equating the overflights above inhabited Greek islands with towns and villages which Turkey previously didn't dispute (i.e. Chios and Kastellorizo), to Turkish overflights above rocky uninhabited islands which were already disputed by Turkey. No way. The issue we are having now is an escalated form of provocations from the Turkish side, and cannot be reduced to the usual category "dispute over rocky islets". Like it or not, Turkey and Erdogan have escalated their provocations in the region, and this is not unrelated to the domestic developments (post-2013) in Turkey and I believe this should be reflected accordingly in the article. We previously never had Turkish fregates sailing few meters from Greek ports (yes, this happened, and I bet you didn't knew - what makes it more serious is that this Turkish fregate had its missiles activated and aiming towards the little Greek village and its citizens), or Turkish Airplanes flying above inhabited areas like that in the past. Nor we had previously the President Erdogan photographizing himself behind official maps of Mavi Vatan, which color the eastern half of the Aegean Sea and its roughly 1,000 Greek islands as Turkish in an official ceremony at the National Defence University, a state military university in Turkey. Provocations really escalated, and there is so much to add, and sadly, not many editors seeming willing to do so, not even Future Perf. Edit: sorry for my evident frustration in this comment, but I really feel that my efforts are unappreciated by this particular editor who prefers bossing me around, instead. Future Perfect should comment only on content, not on other editors. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding In recent years. The problem is not the sourcing of this expression, but the encyclopaedic use of time-relative expressions in general. Please see WP:DATED with the heading "Statements likely to become outdated".

Regarding everything else: I am fully aware of the Turkish escalation of provocative overflights. I have seen with my own eyes how Turkish planes now fly directly over Kastellorizo where they ten–fifteen years ago flew exactly midway between Kaş and Kastellorizo. But that is OR. I would, however, be a lot more happy if we could use neutral sources describing escalation and new practice instead of synthesising from Greek-only sources. --T*U (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I see. However here lies the problem: The West doesn't care about what is going on the Aegean. None cares how the backpetaling of Turkey from a democratic state to a hybrid-regime with strong elements of one-man rule and lack of checks and balances has also removed any last barriers that would keep the Aegean calm and peaceful. The Greeks are basically left alone to fend off for themselves against a man who has no qualms about domestic and regional instabilities that may be caused by his policies. The sources being in their vast majority Greek, simply reflects on this reality. However we shall bear in mind that Wikipedia actually permits inclusion of biased sources. Even biased sources may be cited, as long as they are attributed in a correct manner. It would be unjust for both the Wikipedia readers and for the editors if we did the opposite here. After all, I do not see how Greek reports on the matter are a problem, since the EU and other international bodies, use Greek sources in their reports against Turkey. And the thing which is overlooked here is, that even these few third-party sources who happened to come to Greece and witness what is going on in the Aegean, confirm Turkish aggression, as did neutral observers do on all fronts: Turkish meddling in Bulgaria's affairs using the Muslim party in that country, Turkey's policies against Egypt, Turkish invasion in Syria, Turkey's stance against Cyprus, Turkey's illegal bombings of Iraq which occur everyday, Turkey's closed borders with Armenia and the denial of Armenian genocide, and Turkey's attitude against its own ethnic minorities which confirm one thing: aggresion and interventionism is a core element of the Turkish foreign policy of the last decade. And mind you, not all observers cover on all aspects. Some of these issues, in fact, lack adequate widespread international or third party attention, yet it is not a problem to cite local sources. I know some local Greek sources may been problematic in the past, but this hardly is the case anymore. It is just the reality of the region. As long as we trust Greek WP:RS everything should be ok. And one of the reasons I do love Wikipedia, is because it has editors such as you: in the event I do any mistakes with the tone of my contributions, I have faith that my errors won't be left unattended and unanswered by other editors.

EDIT: If I may add: and it is not only the international organizations and EU that consider the Greek sources as reliable: it is also the United States, whose the Congress and the Senate proposed and passed laws which ask from the Department of State to report on Turkish violations in the Aegean Sea using Greek sources. the Act is called Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act and it forces the US to monitor violations of Greek and Cypriot airspace by Turkish planes as well as incursions and saber-rattling by Turkey. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Before going deeper into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTAFORUM territory, I will just ask for a balance between sources and content. There is a marked difference between "one of the most serious" and "the most serious" (not to mention between "extreme" and "the most extreme" in your original version). Also, escalating its provocations ... by adopting new practices is bordering on WP:SYNTH unless supported by sources that actually discuss the escalation and the change of practices. Finally, relevant quotes from the sources (with translation) are absolutely necessary. --T*U (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

TU-nor, if you feel there are problems in the content, you are more than welcome to be WP:BOLD or use the Talk Page to propose improvements to the content instead of focusing persistently on editors and their choices of wording, specially since these editors responded swiftlty and addressed your concerns by themselves: [10]. You don't need me to tell you that you are welcome to either fix the problematic parts yourself, either make suggestions / bring the problems to our attention so we fix them for you. You know that already. You may not realize it but your arguments on whether "my original version" had a right choice of words despite having it been already addressed, or whether the "Greekness" of sources makes them of questionable reliability, simply go against Wikipedia's rules on WP:INDCRIT and WP:PARTISAN and is counterproductive.

Regarding WP:NOTFORUM, I shall remind you we are not forumtalking, but pointing out on how outdated the article is. All the issues I have mentioned here (such as international pressure over overflights, USA's East Med Act, foreign Frigates aiming at Greek towns only few miles from the shore, Mavi Vatan map claiming 1.000 Greek islands, and Turkey's turbulent domestic issues in relation to foreign policy) are new content which should have been added to the article as they relate to the Aegean dispute but was not.

I pointed out to these issues, not to start a forum chat with you but to bring to everyone's attention the discrepancy between the article's content and the ongoing developments in the Aegean Sea. A discrepancy which is likely to grow given the way I see this talk page topic is heading. If we want to encourage more editors to come and make contributions to this article to help bring it up to date with the latest developments, we will have to WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Which, sorry to say, is not what I am seeing on in this talk page.

As for me, I wasn't too excited to make edits here on this article because, from past experience, I know the entire Greece topic area has only two articles featuring a hostile environment for editors to make contributions to it: Aegean Sea and Imia. It seems this hasn't changed in the slightest and perhaps I should abandon my efforts alltogether.

Edit: Last, regarding WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:SOAPBOX: The content already added, and the content that is about to be added, is WP:VERIFIED with WP:RS and WP:RELEVANT to the article. If you have a problem with the sources or the content's inclusion to the article, then feel free to discuss it. If the sources are your concern, there is the RSN for that. Anything else, simply falls into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory. -- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I have taken your challenge and made a bold edit, adjusting the text slightly and reorganised the sources somewhat. I have used the quote that you supplied from Ta Nea. (If there are other relevant quotes from the other news articles, please add them.) I have removed one of the sources, since it was duplicating the ToVima source, and I have added dates to the citations to ensure they all describe different events. I have added a cn tag for the "adopted new practices", since I think it must be sourced, especially with the plural "practices". (What other practice is new?) Finally, I have stricken my comment about "your original version", which was undue. --T*U (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, TU-nor. Once I find the time and have plowed through the sources, I'll move the section into the "islands" section where it belongs, tone down the POV a bit further (since, e.g., "escalated its provocations against Greece's sovereignty" is of course not encyclopedic fact, but political evaluation by the Greek side), and add some more detail. "Islands such as Chios, Kastellorizo and Agathonisi" is really not appropriate, as these are three very different categories of islands – Agathonisi is pretty officially "grey" according to the Turkish claims (however nonsensical those are), so overflights there are not particularly new and not particularly surprising. Kastellorizo is an entirely different kettle of fish, and I'd be interested to find out how regularly that occurs and how the Turks would justify it (as Turkey really has no pretext to challenge Greek sovereignty there, even according to its own argumentation). Chios is in an entirely different ballpark again, and I suspect it may well be one of those one-off "accidental" cases where overflights happen during dogfights (with Turkey arguing it's none of their own fault if their planes are forced to fly over Greek territory, once they've been forced into those dogfight maneuvres by the Greek intercepts). This needs some more research. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Regarding Kastellorizo, provocative Turkish military behaviour is nothing new. As long as I have known the island, low altitude flights by Turkish jet planes along the midline between the island and the Turkish mainland (sometimes suspiciously close to the island) has been a regular occurance, varying from perhaps twice a week to several times a day, according to the tension level. What seems to be new the last few years, is higher frequency and less predictability, with clear overflights at higher altitude, close helicopter and jet flights in darkness, etc. (also combined with increased harrassment by the Turkish coastguard against local fishermen). The locals mostly take it in the stride and ascribe much of it to internal Turkish politics, but it is seen as intimidating, and potential conflicts about possible future use of the seabed (I did not mention oil) in the area seems to loom in the air. Anyway, this is pure WP:OR and impossible to source, and Kastellorizo certainly is a special case. --T*U (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Future Perfect, your pro-Turkish POV is hard to swallow. "accidental" violations of Greek sovereignty? Really? I am kindly asking that you keep your opinions for yourself and stick to what WP:RS say on the matter. If you find RS on what Turks say or believe on the matter, you are welcome to add it.

Now, regarding the Turkish "explanations" and "pretexts" you mentioned, frankly, when I was working on the sentence, I myself looked to find Turkish WP:RS for the reasons behind the Turkish overflights over Kastellorizo so I can include them to the article, but found nothing. Absolutely nothing. You can try for yourself too, albeit you will probably find yourself empty-handed too. And I have some theories for why Turkish WP:RS difficult to find. But I prefer not analyzing my theories here as this is irrelevant to the article and its talkpage.

However I shall note that the Turkish side didn't limit itself to overflights of F-16 above Kastellorizo, but also made, in separate incidents, the same thing with helicopters flying at night above nearby island of Rho as well, with their lights turned off. [11] Perhaps it is as noteworthy too, since Rho was never disputed by Turkey previously.

All the overflights and other provocations occured within in what the Turkish President Tayip Erdogan and his Defence Minister Hulusi Akar started repeatedly calling as the "Cyan Homeland" (Mavi Vatan). Here is the RS on Mavi Vatan: [12] which I am thinking of adding to the article. It is a new theoretical invention invented recently by the Turkish leadership, to lay (legal?) claims over the eastern half of the Aegean Sea (including Kastellorizo). He presented it officially in front of the cameras, first in a ceremony at the state military university, and later, through the official website of the Turkish Presidency. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@SilentResident: No, the helicopters did not fly above Rho, they flew exactly outside Greek airspace, which was probably the point. I was actually in Kastellorizo at the time, and even if it was a big issue, no-one mistook it for anything else than meant for national-internal use.

Regarding Mavi Vatan ("Blue Homeland" is the traditional translation), it is neither "invented recently" nor has it been "presented officially". It is just another not-so-subtle way of reminding Greece and the world about the casus belli-situation regarding the Aegean, and it is mostly meant for internal national consumption. Subtlety has never been Erdogan's strongest quality... --T*U (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Any sources to support your claims? If I was you, I wouldn't believe for a moment that all this effort is just for domestic consumption. The RS do not support this argument either.

Personally, given the long, recorded history of expansive and growing Turkish claims over control of the Aegean Sea (from zero island claims in 1960s, to 2 islands in 1990s, to 4 islands claimed in 2000s, to 18 islands in early 2010s, and 152 islands in 2017, etc), there is clearly a pattern and I would rather prefer being cautious.

Edit: I appreciate your info about the Rho incident. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It's really weird to term this as 'accidental violations' it's more close to a long term agenda of violations. Material provided by SR makes this fact quite clear.Alexikoua (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@SilentResident: Regarding your question in this posting, Any sources to support your claims?, I am not quite sure what you ask me to source, but I will do my best. You must excuse me for taking long to answer this, since it has taken quite some time to access sources. My Greek is somewhat limited, to put it mildly.

The information that the helicopters circled just outside Greek airspace is supported by the source you gave: "καθώς καίτοι δεν παραβίασε τον ελληνικό εναέριο χώρο, πέταξε στα όρια αυτού με σβηστά τα φώτα" (meaning something like "even if it did not violate Greek airspace, it flew at the border with the lights off"). My comment that "no-one mistook it for anything else than meant for national-internal use" is, as should be obvious from the context, my personal impression of the reactions, but your source indicates the same: "με στόχο την πρόκληση ενός επεισοδίου για λόγους εσωτερικής πολιτικής κατανάλωσης στην Τουρκία" ("in order to provoke a situation for the sake of domestic consumption policy in Turkey").

The information that "Blue Homeland" is not invented recently is, again, based on the source you gave: "Το 2006 η πρώτη χρήση του όρου" ("The first use of the term in 2006"). As for not being presented officially, that is a bit hard to prove, since proving a negative is always difficult. However, the source says "ο συγκεκριμένος χάρτης δεν ήταν μεταξύ εκείνων που είχε παρουσιάσει η ηγεσία του τουρκικού υπουργείου Εξωτερικών τον περασμένο Μάιο σε ξένους διπλωμάτες, τότε που τους είχε καλέσει για να τους «εξηγήσει» τις τουρκικές διεκδικήσεις στην Ανατολική Μεσόγειο" ("the specific map was not presented to foreign diplomats by the Turkish Foreign Ministry last May, when calling them in to "explain" the Turkish claims in the eastern Mediterranean").

Finally, my analysis of "internal national consumption" is again, of course, my analysis. However, your comment If I was you, I wouldn't believe for a moment that all this effort is just for domestic consumption is a straw man, since I never suggested it was "just for domestic consumption". On the contrary, I said that it was a "way of reminding Greece and the world about the casus belli-situation regarding the Aegean". But since the Greeks (and the world) are fully aware of the situation, and the Turks know that the Greeks are fully aware of it, my analysis is that it was not just, but mostly meant for internal national consumption.

I feel I have used enough time now on hair-splitting about things outside the article, but I would appreciate comments to my edits to the article. --T*U (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry if I wasn't more elaborate on this: "I appreciate your info about the Rho incident" was the only one about Rho and I appreciate your response which I found satisfactory.

The rest of the reply, including "Any sources to support your claims?" is about Mavi Vatan, not Rho. The source does not support that the Mavi Vatan is about domestic consumption. Sorry if I confused you.

Your edits are fine, except you asked for citations for my own wording. Earlier in this discussion, I made it clear that The "new practices", are my choice of words to describe the fact that overflights are something new in relation to all other practices Turkey has adopted in the Aegean. Asking for citation for attribution, is really weird. Why? If anyone feels the attributed wording used isnt good, then we can just replace it with something better. No need for CN tag there. Edit: removed tag [13]. Anyone is welcome to reword it as best as they see, if my wording is poor. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 08:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem is not the wording, but the claim itself. If such overflights "are something new in relation to all other practices Turkey has adopted in the Aegean", it should be sourced. With the use of plural "new practices", it also ought to be sourced that there are more than one "new practice". I do not do edit wars, but I ask you to either reinstate the tag or give sources. If any of the sources already given is supporting the "new practice" claim, then please give the relavant quote. --T*U (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Improving upon added content is absolutely natural and not a cause for edit wars, Edit wars are made by disruptive editors. I sense there is a lack of trust of your part towards other editors and I don't know why. In case I wasn't very clear already: you are more than welcome to continue your improvements on the sentence. You and certain other editors here, have proven to be more elloquent in your use of English language and the more you improve upon my edits, the happier I am. Simple as that.

Ok I take it you have a concern over this term "new practice" chosen to describe the fact that Turkey hasn't always done overflights above inhabited islands in the Aegean. Everyone who does a Google research will easily notice how reports of such incidents begun in the mid to late 2000s, then were quickly stopped, and then were re-emerged (or returned or whatever you could call that) and were escalated in the late 2010s (around 2017-2019). Do you have any better ideas on how to attribute this collective fact (i.e. a better wording)? Perhaps "new tactic"? "new form of provocations"? Or perhaps the lack of a single source recording ALL overflights above inhabited areas stands as an argument to have this information omitted completely from the article? Either way I am fine, albeit I personally believe the more information available to the readers, the better. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

When I wrote I do not do edit wars, it was a (perhaps clumsy) way of saying that I would not reinstate the tag, even if I disagree with the removal. No lack of trust.

Comment: If everyone "does a Google research", it is WP:OR.

Comment: If the practice "begun in the mid to late 2000s", well, then it is not a new practice.

Again, it is not about wording, it is about sourcing (and about what other practice justifies the use of plural).

Anyway, I am fine with removing it, at least until the text can be expanded with sourced content about this and other new practices. --T*U (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it is not "new" now that we are entering 2020s. Replaced it with "with".

OK people, look now at all this whole chat. Just for a small paragraph! The reason I am bringing this to everyone's attention is because there is alot more content ahead to add, whose the size surpass this paragraph. To avoid slowing down the progress, I could suggest the editors here feel more WP:BOLD and less worried of being reverted. The key to us being more productive and faster with our edits, is trust and goodfaith. Otherwise, at this rate, the new content will take bureaucratically long time to be materialized into their final forms. From my side, I will try avoid mentioning the new content in the talk page, and rather be bold and add it to the article without announcing it here at all, because some visitors to this talk page may think we are just forum talking and this isn't my intention. Also with the necessary attention to sources/content. Now I guess this discussion has come to a natural end? Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@TU-nor: we had this discussion here, but it seems that the things aren't exactly how some of us expected to be.

If I may inform you on your statement: "Regarding Mavi Vatan ("Blue Homeland" is the traditional translation), it is neither "invented recently" nor has it been "presented officially". It is just another not-so-subtle way of reminding Greece and the world about the casus belli-situation regarding the Aegean, and it is mostly meant for internal national consumption." unfortunately, reality is far worse than this, and I had my suspicions (given the escalation of Turkey's aggresive behavior on other matters concerning the Aegean, i.e overflights)

I waited patiently for the rest of this November month's days to pass before I finally proceed with adding the content to the article, accompanied with indisputable proof. The tangible evidence shows that my fears were proven true: that the Mavi Vatan is not for internal consumption but a newly-adopted, and more aggressive policy of the Turkish government which appears to replace (or override) its previous policies for the control of the Aegean Sea. The Turkish President Erdogan is hungry for territorial expansion both in Asia (Syria) and Europe (Greece and Cyprus) and for that, he adopted the Mavi Vatan concept (which originally was the invention of a General who served in the Turkish Army in the 2010s). As of November 2019, it has been officialized at the highest possible diplomatic level when Turkey submitted the Mavi Vatan claims to the UN and the UN's Bullettin of the Sea, and then went ahead with signing bilateral agreements with third party countries based on this concept.

Now, regarding the article: all the content/information on Mavi Vatan and the developments around it, along with reliable sources, are added to the article today (well all except the origins of the idea). I hope this discussion is now concluded properly and without any misconceptions on what it really is about. Have a happy new month. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Blue Homeland - ongoing events in the East Med

Added an Ongoing Events tag to the Blue Homeland, as I have been doing the whole work, and the updates, all by myself alone. Hope this will draw some attention to the article so that I don't have to do it all by myself. Any help is appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

There is alot to report on the Mavi Vatan and Turkey-Libya deal but I don't know where to start. For now, most of the information added is less about the background of the deal and more about reactions and positions. Provided a map (made in PNG format as I am not too skilled with .SVG files sorry), info, sources with quotes and more. I wasn't sure if the developments justify the inclusion of a Current Event tag, but if anyone believes this tag is not necessary, then feel free to remove it. If the developments slow down in the next days, I will remove it myself. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

New sections

As was to be expected: massively bad [14]. This will take a lot of work to cut through all the dross.

Absurdly over-long, large amounts of WP:NOTNEWS ephemerals. Cite-bombing, including the usual tactics of adding multiple refs replicating the same news item, as if they were independent pieces of support for the same claim. Blatant, naively POV-pushing expressions of opinion in many places. The map is a mess, problematic in terms of copyright, and full of outright falsehoods.

Apart from these usual general symptoms of low-quality and tendentious editing, I'm not convinced the scope of the whole "Blue Homeland" section is correct. The issue of the general disagreement about delimiting EEZs (with or without taking islands into account) needs to be integrated with the preceding section about the continental shelf, because it's the same issue in principle. As for the whole Libya agreement issue, it's unclear to me how it's in the scope of this article at all, since the maritime zones at issue there aren't geographically part of the Aegean. I might be persuaded about widening the scope of this page so as to include these matters, as they are clearly related with the "Aegean" issues proper, but at the moment this seems extraneous here. I'd appreciate input from competent fellow wikipedians on whether and how to integrate it.

I'll be starting to do some cleanup soon, but I'm not sure I have the strength to deal with the inevitable disruption from the usual suspects, so maybe the article is indeed irretrievably lost and on the way down the drain now. It's a pity, really, after we managed to keep it reasonably clean from national POV-warring for well over ten years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT by the Pro-Turkish POV editor who claims Turkey to be a good country whose policies are not a violation of Greece's sovereign rights. You are welcome to contribute positively, but any attempts to remove sourced content will be reverted. You have been warned. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Your attempts to standardize Turkey's viewpoint and remove WP:RS have been reverted. [15] The rest of your edits [16] [17] seem fine, but I would very kindly ask you that any content you may disagree with, you should bring it here to the Talk page for discussion as not everyone shares your POV. Massive cleanups like that, is disruptive move, shows how much you disregard other's efforts and isn't helpful. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Also I had to revert you here: [18] sorry but your edits are not in line with the source. Doing such a drastic change of the keyword to the whole dispute, is crossing dangerously the WP:OR lines. Also, if you read the sources further down in the article, you can understand that this is an actual challenge to Greece's sovereign rights and why this dispute is so serious. (in case you weren't following the developments of the past month) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

SilentResident: This will be my last and only attempt at addressing you directly in discussing this. Four points: First, cut out your personal attacks. You have not the faintest clue what my personal opinions on these matters are, whether I'm "pro-Turkish" or pro-whatever, or what my motivations or my "POV" are. And that's as it should be, because as long as people can't tell from my writing where my own sympathies lie, I must be doing something right as a Wikipedian. Second, learn to respect BRD. You made bold additions, I reverted parts of them – and will continue reverting other parts too, not because I disagree with their POV but because they are of horrible quality. You reverted again, before discussing. I'm pretty sure I've seen you trying to hold others to the rules of BRD, so now apply them yourself. When I remove stuff you added, it's up to you to form a consensus for their re-addition, before you re-add them. Or, at least, make an honest attempt at understanding and appreciating the objections that have been raised against them, before you revert. Third, make some effort at last to learn some talk page discipline. I've told you before that I find your obsessive habit of tinkering and adding to your own postings extremely enervating. If you can't cut down on that, I will adopt a habit of simply reverting every talk page edit of yours beyond the second in a row. Fourth, cut out the false "sorry but"s and "kindly ask you"s. We are not friends. I'm not going to be friendly with you, and I have no interest in you being friendly with me. And in fact you are being neither friendly, nor polite, nor civil. You are stonewalling and edit-warring, as always, which is as impolite as it gets, and sugering it over with phrases like that doesn't make you come across as more civil, but only as more passive-aggressive. Spare us that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First of all, you have my apologies for my rather harsh tone against you. I admit, our past disagreements have given me valid reasons to believe that you aren't objective to Greece-Turkey disputes even if that is what you are trying to do. Perhaps you are trying to be too neutral, to the point that your neutrality actually favors the Turkish claims and downplays the Greek side's concerns, which is a subtle violation of WP:NPOV. In case you haven't realized what I am talking about, let me bring an example of how your efforts to be neutral, actually harms neutrality:

In the article, you have attempted, in the "Blue Homeland" section, to replace "area belonging to Turkey" with "area part Turkish Sphere of Interests", yet while in first glance it may seem neutral to you, it is being confused with the actual Turkish Sphere of Interests which exists by the name "Borders of our Heart" and covers a much larger area (incl. Balkans -primarily Albania, Bosnia, North Macedonia, etc-, Middle East (Mosul) and East Med (Greek Thrace, Cyprus and Aegean Islands, primarily Rhodes and Kos, where an unofficial Turkish minority lives). This Turkish sphere of interests, was baptised "Borders of our Heart" by the current president, Erdogan. Now, let me clarify where the problem lies: this Turkish Sphere of Interests has nothing to do with "Blue Homeland". Confusing Turkey's "Borders of Heart" with Turkey's "Blue Homeland", actually diminishes the serious nature of Blue Homeland's claims to the sovereign rights of the Greek islands to their waters and EEZ. Do you see where the whole problem is? I am pessimistic. At least, if you can't understand, let me ask you that: stick with what sources say. There is a reason why "belongs to Turkey" and "peculiar" must remain in the article, even if you wouldn't understand why it is so important. I absolutely agree on BRD. Thing is, this is whole lot of a cleanup done here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverts

1. So, about this [19] revert: "holds the peculiar definition..." is quite obviously and blatantly a statement of opinion. We don't express opinions in Wikipedia's own voice. No matter how "reliably" sourced they are and no matter how many sources we can collect that seemingly agree on them. I'm all in favour of explaining somewhere that the Turkish viewpoint is isolated, and a couple of the sources cited in that sentence are in fact suitable for that, but this needs to be somewhere else, and worded very differently. The present version is just a textbook example of clumsy, naive POV-pushing. There's also the issue of cite-bombing: the overlong list of no fewer than six refs is evidently meant to suggest a high number of independently supporting sources, but then, the second source in the group is merely quoting the first. That, too, is a textbook example of distoring, tendentious editing.

1. About this [20] revert and what that infamous map should be described as showing: The very thing that makes that map so insiduous is the fact that it is unlabelled. The map is deliberately vague about what it is meant to show. It shows a certain area, but beyond calling it "Mavi Vatan" it doesn't say anything about what it is supposed to be: territorial waters, EEZ, continental shelf, something else entirely? That it shows it as "belonging to Turkey", as the Kathimerini article put it, is not a fact, but an interpretation made by the newspaper. And "belonging" in which legal or political sense? Here and elsewhere, I would never treat any Greek newspaper as a reliable source about what a Turkish politician says or means by what he says, just as I would never treat a Turkish newspaper as a reliable source about Greece. In the absence of a genuinely reliable source explaining the actual demarcation line in that map, we should describe it simply as what it actually showed: an unlabelled area around Turkey that stretched from the Turkish coasts to the median line of the Aegean, and southwards to the median line of the Mediterranean between the Greek islands and Cyprus, enclosing (without further marking) the Greek islands situated inside this zone.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I am in favor of your "turkish viewpoint is isolated". All right. Any proposals to deal with this? I am willing to give up on "Peculiar" because you got a fair point about not expressing opinions in Wikipedia's own voice. But something HAS to be added, either there or elsewhere. Removing Peculiar without adding something to counterbalance potential issues, (such as The "isolated one" which seems a good alternative) is bound to generate problems. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit: and also about the second revert (Turkish Sphere of Interests): I explained above in the previous topic [21] the reason it is a bad idea to confuse different terms. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Map replacement

My new map is ready: [22] but I will wait before uploading it. Let me know if you find any inaccuracies, I double-checked everything just to be sure, but any feedback is welcomed.

Edit: also uploaded a clean version: [23] just in case. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

As I am traveling tomorrow, I will reply back as soon as I get my hands to a PC. I hope to have some feedback on the map before it is uploaded. Have a good night. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

That map is an improvement, insofar as it reduces the issue of the Turkey–Libya agreement to the one (tiny) detail it actually addresses, the border segment labelled "F–E" south-east of Crete. It's no longer making the blatantly false claim that the Libya agreement somehow addressed the lateral delimitation of the Turkish EEZ towards the Greek islands. But what is the relation between this "F–E" line and the brown area (supposedly the "Mavi Vatan")? In particular, what is that small extension of brown to the west of point "F", reaching south of Crete? If Turkey were to claim that as part of its EEZ, how could its boundary towards Libya possible end at point "F", as the agreement states it would – in other words, what could that western extension possible border on, if not also Libya? I think we may need to face the fact that there have been multiple different variants of "Mavi Vatan" maps, with delimitations varying wildly in their details, and choosing one of them and supraimposing it onto that (relatively well-defined) "A-through-F" line is quite problematic. Additionally, what is the source for the other EEZ boundaries drawn in blue, and how precise are they claimed to be? We need to avoid creating the impression that those lines are somehow the "true" and "correct" EEZ boundaries. The exact boundaries of EEZs don't automatically follow from UNCLOS or anything like that. In the absence of actual bilateral agreements with the relevant neighbours, any country's claimed EEZ (including Greece's) is no more and no less a legal reality than Turkey's: it's a claim, of which there may be many competing and conflicting ones. Greece may well have a much stronger legal position in claiming what it claims than Turkey does, and a stronger consensus with more of its neighbours (I honestly don't know with how many of them it's got relevant bilateral agreements concluded), but as long as it's not agreed on a delimitation with Turkey, I don't see how any one demarcation line could be presented as the true and valid one for our purposes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Greece has any ratified EEZ agreements with any of its neighbors, but I know Cyprus has ratified EEZ agreements with Israel and Egypt, and possibly Lebanon as well. Khirurg (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It's no longer making the blatantly false claim that the Libya agreement somehow addressed the lateral delimitation of the Turkish EEZ towards the Greek islands. This was what I noticed as well, hence the planned 3rd update of the other map which is now under deletion. For this I had first to gain access to the documents of the secret deal, which wasn't an easy task to do the days before the deal's documents were leaked to the public. The journalists are doing their best but this simply isn't enough sometimes.

I think we may need to face the fact that there have been multiple different variants of "Mavi Vatan" maps In this case we can use the method of approximate for defining Mavi Vatan. Another idea is to simply use the map which the President of Turkey posed himself in these photos. That would be the most accurate definition, since it is the President's doctrine, so he is the first person to know its exact boudnaries.

Additionally, what is the source for the other EEZ boundaries drawn in blue, and how precise are they claimed to be? We need to avoid creating the impression that those lines are somehow the "true" and "correct" EEZ boundaries. the map with the EEZ boundaries can be found in EEZ article here. I shall note that these EEZ boundaries are marking, not "Correct" or "True", but 1) mutually agreed EEZ boundaries between states which have made demarcations through deals and agreements, in line with the UNCLOS and the International Court of Justice (whose the rulings are based on UNCLOS), and 2): the median line, in line with the UNCLOS, in areas where there are no agreements yet. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise:, despite proving to you how much seriously I take reliability of the information I add to Wikipedia (and that is, my maps as well), you accused my previous map for "making the blatantly false claim that the Libya agreement somehow addressed the lateral delimitation of the Turkish EEZ towards the Greek islands.", and I believed the same, that this this is the case as well, that the sources I used were falsely claiming there was laternal demlimitation of the Turkish EEZ. However, seems like we both were proven wrong and my map was correct on this: President Erdogan himself confirmed, on the night of Monday 9 December, the laternal demilitation of the Turkish EEZ towards the Greek islands, through a public broadcast in the Turkish TV. Evidence:

Picture here: [24]. Reliable Source (includes link to a Youtube video of the official broadcast) here: [25].

The lateral delmilitation of the Turkish EEZ towards Greek islands is independent of the Libya deal. However, my map (which you accused for inaccuracies regarding laternal demilitation of Turkish EEZ) was based on WP:RS, and sources which are undoubtely very reliable and Erdogan's broadcasting simply confirmed their reliability. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I said your map was blatantly false in claiming that the lateral delimitation was effected through the Libya deal. Yes, that was blatantly false. Of course there is an implication that the lateral delimitation is along the outer limits of the Greek territorial waters. That's old news; Turkey has been saying that for years, and it quite directly follows from its long-standing claim that the islands shouldn't have EEZs of their own, which Turkey has clung to for as long as the dispute about continental shelfs has existed, i.e. since the 1970s. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I said your map was blatantly false in claiming that the lateral delimitation was effected through the Libya deal.. You said. However my sources said otherwise. Since you were better informed than I was on this, would it be a problem if you provide me these sources of yours? I would really like to check them. Before the map is uploaded, I want to double check on everything and make sure there will be little to no room for others to challenge it again. Just citing reliable sources isn't enough, given how different sources give different info. Something which can be overcomen by simply citing the map the President himself broadcasted. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Changing article title

In recent years, and especially 2018-2019, Turkey's agenda of territorial claims has expanded beyond the geographical limits of the Aegean dispute and now involves a much larger area, stretching to the Greek island of Gavdos (which Turkey claims as Grey Zone since 2010s, yet Gavdos is outside the geographical Aegean Sea) and the Libyan Sea in the south (since November 2019) and to an incident on a Greek island in Maritsa river to the north of the Aegean sea (as of December 2019 albeit this incident is too early to say about, not sure yet). Those who follow the political developments in the region, are already fully aware that Turkey's claims are expanding and growing over the years to the point that they are no longer confined within the Aegean Sea proper.

The new developments in the Aegean and adjacent seas and regions show that while the Aegean dispute initially begun in the Aegean, but now covers a much larger area. This makes the article's title not consistent anymore with the developments and unable to host all the information in it due to the article's title being geographically-defined instead of dispute-oriented.

Today, I have attempted to add a Greek-Turkish incident over a Greek island in Maritsa river (which empties on the northern shoreline of the Aegean Sea), but an editor reverted me [26] on the grounds that the article is about the disputes happening within the geographical Aegean Sea. I am thinking to ask for editorial input over whether we should change the article's title so that it can accomodate developments to the Aegean dispute which however occur around the Aegean and not necessarily within the geographical Aegean sea itself. I do not want to initiate a Move Request before consulting with the editors first and make sure there wont be any problems with that. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

About the Maritsa incident: (a) WP:NOTNEWS. There's no reason we should include this on the very day it supposedly occurred, when the details aren't at all clear yet. (b) We don't even know if this was done by Turkish state agents. Only one of the sources (some local network) claimed it was done by soldiers; other sources have been reporting the actors are unidentified. The photograph shown in some of the news sources seems to be showing a flag hanging loosely in a tree – hardly the way a soldier would "raise" a flag. (c) We don't even know the islet in question is actually Greek. Why would we take some local journalist's claim about that for granted? According to some of the news reports, the islet in question is actually joined to the Turkish bank at low water levels. The international border runs, by definition, in the middle of the river, along its main course. (Of course, as anybody with half an inkling about such matters knows, it's a frequent problem along river borders that rivers change their course, and an islet that once was on one side of the main channel may over time come to be on the other side; in these cases it's always an open question whether the piece of land in question should remain under the jurisdiction it was originally or whether the border should follow the changing course of the river. In the absence of reliable information about the facts on the ground, it's reasonable to assume this might be one of those problematic cases.) (d) The edit that added this [27] was again blatantly mixing factual reporting with political opinion ("Turkey escalated provocations and violated Greece's sovereinghty", in Wikipedia's own voice). I mean, seriously, how difficult can it be to understand that we just f..ing don't do that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The Evros incident is indeed beyond the scope of this article but can be added to Greece-Turkey relations when the incident is cleared up and we know more. This [28], however, is extremely rude and uncool behavior towards a non-native speaker of English, bordering on bullying. Users can "fiddle" with their own talkpage posts as much as they like, especially to correct grammatical and spelling mistakes that make them look incompetent and unprofessional. Khirurg (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's keep the threads sorted properly. If you want to discuss that person's behaviour and how to respond or not to respond to it, let's do that somewhere else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)