Revision as of 23:29, 2 January 2013

Greece B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article may be within the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks.

It is requested that a photograph of Imia/Kardak be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in the following regions may be able to help: Greece Turkey The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Comments

Rewrite, December 2005

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

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

Why redirect from Imia islands?

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

The reasons I prefer the redirect are:

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

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

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

"adjacent" vs. "dependent"

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

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

Coordinates

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

37°03'03N / 27°09'04E (eastern islet); 37°02'55N / 27°08'47E (western islet). According to Turkish government publication. Lukas 23:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

HMS Childers Cartographic Survey 1947

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

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

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

Letus 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Category wars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think "Imia/Kardak" is OK, as it is a short title and reflects the dispute. We are lucky that these islands are not claimed by half a dozen of countries like the Spratly islands. May I propose (if they would listen) to the two governments to name the isles "Imiadak" or "Kardimia" until they resolve the dispute? Kentavros (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Several questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Castellorizo Missing From Maps

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

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

Date needs to be corrected.

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

POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factual Sovereignity

thumb|right|281px|Turkish warship peacefully warns the Greek fishermen to leave the Kardak islands in 12.12.2008.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greek

The islands are part of the EU and Greece. They were also used as grazing land for Greek owned goats. The recent Turkish challege has not been resolved. If everything challenged by Turkey in the Aegean is to loose its 'Greek' tag, then please be my guest.Also, upon request I had posted an extract from the Turkish Ministry of Defence that showed the islands as Greek, but that map was buried by (interested and biased?) parties. Politis (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of the existence of this article is that there is a dispute. We are going to describe the dispute neutrally. There is no way on earth we can do so if we are going to announce in the very first sentence that the one side is right and the other side is wrong.

Personally, I am just as convinced as you that the Turkish claim is patently untenable (though not primarily because of the goats, neither because of this or that map), but since there is no demonstrable consensus to that effect expressed in reliable independent neutral sources, we are not going to say that. Simple.

By the way, if you want to really add something interesting, you could do some research for the following. I remember I once read in the Turkish press (but can't remember where and when exactly) that the Turkish government took some legal advice on this and related issues from independent law experts, and was politely and silently told that its position on this particular matter was exceptionally weak. Now, if we had a reliably sourced report of this, that would indeed be interesting.

By the way, re. your edit: the islets are still and have always been uninhabited. This is a very pertinent fact for the intro, I don't understand why you removed that, of all things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

On another note, does this article really need such an ugly and cumbersome title? The most common name in English seems to be Imia, rightly or wrongly. That is also where the corresponding German and Norwegian articles are located. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, is it really? The "most common name", I mean. My impression is still what I said some time last year (see section "Several questions" above), that double naming seems to be the most common. But I'm open to being proved wrong. I'd just like to see it documented somewhere. And in a case like this, I'd ask for illustration only in politically neutral independent sources, ignoring the obvious preferences of Greek and Turkish authors when writing English. If "Imia" alone is indeed significantly more common in neutral usage, then no problem, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I didn't bother to cite the Greek or Turkish wikis. The problem with Google searches is that Kardak appears to be a personal name in Turkish as well. But compare, say, "Imia islets" to "Kardak islets", or "Imia crisis" to "Kardak crisis". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Kardak is not a personal name in Turkish. If Google comes up with more Kardak results than Imia results its because either there are more Turkish coverage on the issue or it's the name that has been accepted more widely. It has nothing to do with "being a Turkish personal name".--Diren Yardimli (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity of the name Imia

One IP has been blocked for edit warring today for accidentally but repeatedly asserting that the name Imia is just as Turkish as the name Kardak. After trying to make this IP understand that the ethnicity of one of the names has nothing to do with ownership of the islands themselves, administrators had no choice but to block this person. If the lead paragraph can be edited to prevent further incidents of this nature, such a change would be welcome. -- Blanchardb -- timed 14:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not much we can do against editors who simply don't understand English, is there? Thanks for handling the reverts, but I don't think we can or should do anything in terms of changing the article; the intro seems crystal clear to me. I've tried to explain to the IP in Turkish; let's see if my Turkish is more intelligible than their English... Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute therefore the reasons for naming the rocks Imia before Kardak should be well explained. Saying that this has nothing to do with ownership is false, it has everything to do with ownership.Hittit (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical protocol

What is the purpose for the map of the technical protocol? It is clear that if this was to be seen as valid there would not have been a dispute. Since placing this map is in favoure of the Greek side and contradicts objectivity then there should not be any problem if a map is placed to portary the Turkish view excluding this protocol. Countries make protocols per se these are not valid until ratified this goes for any drawn up agreement.Hittit (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You'd be quite welcome to provide another map showing the Turkish position about where the border is. The only problem is: the map will show nothing, because there is no such Turkish position. The Turkish government has never published any official definition of what its claims are, with respect to the "grey zones". We can only presume that Imia is part of the package, but how far does it go? The official Turkish position isn't that the border is somewhere else; the claim is that the border is undefined. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes we can use the maps e.g., from Hakan Cem Isiklar, an extensive study of disputed areas in the Aegean and the grey zones. There are maps that is not an issue, we can flud the article if this is what it is required. I however suggest removal of the technical protocol map so there will be no need to provide additional maps supporting Turkish views. Hittit (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can show a map that represents an official view of the Turkish government re Imia and the other "grey zones", I'd be curious to see it indeed. – No, we will definitely not remove the map illustrating the 1932 protocol. The protocol is the central document for any discussion of the legal status of the island; illustrating it is obviously pertinent to the article and informative. The controversy over its actual validity is of course already described fairly and accurately in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any issue with the official Turkish stance on Kardak or the other islands which we today refer as “grey zones”. If one bothers to visit the Turkish MFA web page it is all there:

“There are numerous small islets and rocks in the Aegean ownership of which is not determined by international treaties. Most of those features can not sustain human habitation and have no economic life of their own. Greece has attempted to change their status by opening some of those geographical features to artificial settlement. To this end, Greece has enacted laws and regulations that have no bearing from the point of international law. Turkey regards this new Greek policy as another attempt to establish "fait accomplis" with a view to close-off the Aegean Sea as a Greek lake.”

“The Greek side tries to base her sovereignty over the Kardak rocks and over some other similar islets and rocks on

4 January 1932 and 28 December 1932 Turkish-Italian documents Her succession of the Italian titles in the Aegean through the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty. It is interesting to note that there is no mention of any "Imia Islet" in these documents. The 4 January 1932 Agreement does not concern the Kardak Rocks. A reference was made to the Kardak Rocks in the 28 December 1932 Document. However, legal procedures with regard to the latter were not completed. Neither was it registered with the League of Nations.

Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations reads as follows; "Every Treaty or International Engagement entered into hereinafter by any Member of the League shall be forthwith registered with the Secretariat and shall as soon as possible be published by it. No such Treaty or International Engagement shall be binding until so registered." Therefore, no legally binding document exists in this respect.

That Italy has approached the Turkish Government in 1937 raising the issue of ratification of the 28 December 1932 document is an additional indication against its validity. This Italian demarche was never responded to and no such action was ever taken.

The Greek proposal submitted during the negotiations of the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty to make a reference to the 1932 two documents was not accepted, and no such reference was included in the text of the Treaty. The fact that Greece has approached the Turkish Government in 1950 and yet again in 1953 proposing talks with a view to exchanging letters between the two Governments ascertaining the validity of the above-mentioned two documents between Turkey and Greece shows that Greece also had doubts as to their validity.

The only document that may be referred to regarding the sovereignty of Dodecanese islands, as already been pointed out, is the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty. This Treaty in its Article 14 enumerates those islands to be transfered to Greek sovereignty one by one. Kardak, is not mentioned among these.”

“"1-Italy hereby cedes to Greece in full sovereignty the Dodacanese Islands indicated hereafter, namley Stampalia (Astropalia), Rhodes (Rhodos), Calki (Kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso), Piscopis (Tilos), Misiros (Niyros), Calimnos (Kalymnos), Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), Simi (Symi), Cos (Kos) and Castellorizo, as well as the adjacent islets.

2-These islands shall be and shall remain demilitarized."”

Since the protocol refered is merely Greek POV (need to clarify this in the article) then a map of the Dodacanese Islands indicated hereafter, namley Stampalia (Astropalia), Rhodes (Rhodos), Calki (Kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso), Piscopis (Tilos), Misiros (Niyros), Calimnos (Kalymnos), Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), Simi (Symi), Cos (Kos) and Castellorizo, as well as the adjacent islets is the official Turkish view of what belongs to Greece. I think this view is clear and official enough. Hittit (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

... and your point is, what, exactly? Those arguments above are already covered in the article. Read it. All this doesn't change the fact that you have nothing to draw a map from. That page by the Turkish government doesn't state exactly which islets it considers "grey areas". No Turkish government publication does. The Turkish government has for years systematically dodged the question of what its actual claims are. It hasn't even clarified whether it claims Kardak to be just "grey" (of undefined sovereignty) like the other islets further afield, or to be actually Turkish (and, if the latter, why Kardak would differ from the other "grey" ones). – The issue is of course how to delineate what are "adjacent" islets and which ones aren't. For instance, if you look at the map by that Turkish author you mentioned, , you will notice that he assumes the group of five little islets in between Kos and Nisiros to be "grey", i.e. undefined. Why? They sure look "adjacent" to Kos and Nisiros to me. On the other hand, he grants to Greece the little islands in between Rhodes and Chalki, apparently accepting that they indeed are "adjacent". Why? At the same time, he is showing Kardak as being unambiguously Turkish, rather than "grey"/undefined. Why? Isn't its status just the same as that of the others? – What I'm asking is, have you got official Turkish government documentation of what they consider to fall under that "adjacent" clause? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So you think it is unclear what the Turkish government views as Greek sovereignty? Not all is mentioned in the article for example the below important points seem not described well enough (these are just brushed off as mere diplomatic exchanges, with that view the protocol in question was also then a mere exchange of notes, but the difference is that the protocol has been awarded a map and portrayed as something legal), any reason for that?

• That Italy has approached the Turkish Government in 1937 raising the issue of ratification of the 28 December 1932 document is an additional indication against its validity. This Italian demarche was never responded to and no such action was ever taken.

• The Greek proposal submitted during the negotiations of the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty to make a reference to the 1932 two documents was not accepted, and no such reference was included in the text of the Treaty.

• The fact that Greece has approached the Turkish Government in 1950 and yet again in 1953 proposing talks with a view to exchanging letters between the two Governments ascertaining the validity of the above-mentioned two documents between Turkey and Greece shows that Greece also had doubts as to their validity. Hittit (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A very simple reason indeed: the protocol is publicly known, and having a visual illustration of its contents helps to understand it. The later exchanges are, for the most part, not publicly known, so what could we say about them, other than that the governments in the 1990s made conflicting claims about them? About the 1947 negotiations, I could tell you a lot about why the Turkish story doesn't add up (I've actually researched that a bit), but that would be WP:OR, so it's beside the point. But you're still dodging the issue: you said you wanted to include maps of the Turkish position; I asked you if you have information concrete enough to actually draw a map from. Obviously you haven't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously you have your already well define views on the matter. The way I see it we can continue this endless discussion but I doubt any conclusion would be reached. I will not bother providing maps representing Turkish views and listing the islands by name of what has been transferred to Greece only for it to be then removed as POV. That would be waist of my time. What this article clearly lacks is any type a dispute type of discussion, as it is I see it as nothing else than a extension of the Greek point of view. As you your self said what is "adjacent", how can an uninhabited rock or chain of rocks with no potential to sustain human habitat be dependable on a Greek island? Or to go round the issue artificially place habitat or irrelevant structures just to show "adjacent". The term "adjacent" needs to be viewed as it was during 1947 to avoid later manipulations of the status. My five cents on the topic. BTW a very nice illustration indeed, I take it illustrations with contrary views would not assist Misplaced Pages readers understand the issue better so why needlessly stir the water.Hittit (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Name of the Islets

We see at the chapter Legal status of the islets that they were given to Italy with Peace Treaty of Lausanne and from Italy to Greece with the Treaty of Paris. So they belong legally to Greece. So why the name "Kardak" next to the Greek name "Imia"? Then if we wanted to be fair, we should also write the name in English, Chinese, Arabic etc etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by K4t3r1n490 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well in all honesty we do not see anywhere Kardak rocks being given to Greece, so we are legally debating and back in 1996 the guns were out on the topic, hardly concerning the Chinese or Arabs it is a Turco-Greek issue of Aegean delimatations concerning more than just two rocks Hittit (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Separate article for the islands and dispute

Why not have a separate article about the island and a separate article about the dispute?  Nipsonanomhmata  16:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess because apart from the dispute there really is nothing much to say about them. I doubt there is even a single reliable source that talks about these islands independently of the dispute. What would such an article contain, apart from the bare geographical facts about their size and situation? And since those geographical facts will in any case have to be repeated in the dispute article again, the one article will always be a redundant subset of the other. – Among possible parallels, Hans Island has a single article; Isla Perejil has two, but with a different division than what you seem to envisage (main article includes geography and disputed legal situation, sub-article includes only the events of a specific brief crisis). The latter model would certainly be possible here too, but I really don't see what its advantages would be. Liancourt Rocks has two articles, but there is also substantially more material about the non-dispute aspects to be covered. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous articles about islands that have fewer basic facts than these and the article could link to the dispute. The reason I mentioned it is that the template for the Aegean islands links to "Imia/Kardak". When I clicked on the link I was expecting to get some details about the islands. I wasn't expecting to get a full-on dispute.  Nipsonanomhmata  16:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, isn't it nice when you get more than you expected :-) ? And I'd expect that apart from people who systematically click through the islands template out of idle curiosity, or because they like to edit such articles, almost every potential reader who comes to the page does so because they want to read about the dispute. Seriously, why would anybody else ever do so? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

When I click a link for an island I expect to see details about the history, geography, maybe something about the wildlife or the climate. If there is a major ongoing dispute it should be mentioned and linked to and a separate article can contain the dispute. It doesn't seem fair to dump such a massive dispute on such a small island. Besides this article is 99% about the dispute and not about the islands. I think it is justified to create an article called the "Imia dispute" or "Imia/Kardak dispute" and give some breathing space to what one normally expects to see on an article that is supposed to be about the islands. What I'm saying is that this article is not about the islands, it is about the dispute, and that the title should reflect that.  Nipsonanomhmata  16:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is nothing about climate and wildlife and history. There is no climate data for these islands (certainly nothing different from the surrounding ones); there is no wildlife worth mentioning except for a few tsipoures in the sea around them (and even they are notable only through the dispute), and there is no history (again, apart from what is known because of the dispute). So, what breathing space, for what information? – It's funny the way you say this, it's indeed not "fair to dump such a massive dispute" on those poor little rocks, but then, that big unfair ugly dispute is indeed the only reason people ever talk about them. Seriously, again, what would the article contain that wouldn't be identical to what is now the lead sentences? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In simple terms it is possible to put the first two paragraphs of this article in to a new article about the islands and allow any further information about the islands to be added to that (excluding the dispute). Those two paragraphs are longer than most articles about islands. Then this article could renamed to something like "Imia-Kardak dispute". It would shorten this article by two paragraphs and this article would link to the article about the islands. It isn't hard to expand the article about the islands with information on how to get there (without starting a war). Another paragraph that summarises the history without going in to all the detail of the dispute. Anybody else out there with an opinion on this?  Nipsonanomhmata  17:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Anything about "how to get there" would be WP:OR, because nobody has ever written about that; it's also trivial (you just hire a kaiki and off you go). About history, again, there is none. Nobody ever gave these islands any notice, nobody ever lived there, nobody ever described them, nobody ever cared about them. And your spun-out two paragraphs would not shorten the dispute article, because we'd have to repeat them there anyway. If you envisage a reader who really just wants to read about the geography and not about the dispute, they can simply read the lead paragraph of the present article, and then stop reading. What's so difficult about that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Names of Greek ships present at Imia

My entry was deleted on the basis of not providing sources and evidence. The information I got is from Lieutenant Commander of the Hellenic Navy, Konstantinos Kousataroglou, who was present at the event, and he was the second in command onboard KYKNOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmanoussos (talk • contribs) 23:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but word-of-mouth testimonials are not acceptable and they do not constitute reliable sources. Δρ.Κ.  00:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Distances

The Imia/Kardak islands are 3.8 nautical miles off the Turkish coast. Lausanne Treaty states that all the islands in the area that were 3.0 miles off the Turkish coast are ceded to Italy. All islands that are less than 3 nautical miles (2.9 miles or less) from the Turkish coast, are under Turkish sovereignty. Aren't the Kardak/Imia 3.8 nautical miles from the nearest Turkish coast? Unless someone can prove the opposite (prove, not claim), weren't the Imia/Kardak ceded to Italy? Or am I missing something? I find it strange that the Misplaced Pages accepts as NEUTRAL a claim from one side (Turkish), I also find strange that the Misplaced Pages ignores that the Imia/Kardak's distance from nearest Turkish Coast (3.8) falls under the treaty's condition of 3.0 miles. And I find it very weird that the Misplaced Pages, due to the above 2 disputed reasons, changed the island's status from Greek Island to 'DISPUTED Island', despite that the Treaty's conditions are clear about nautical miles. The Imia/Kardak aren't even 3.0 or 2.9 Nautical miles near the Turkish coast for the claim to have a valid ground. I believe this article is a POV--SilentResident (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, Misplaced Pages didn't change their status; the history of 1996 did. It is a simple fact that they are disputed now. That's not to say that the two sides' claims are necessarily of equal validity – I, personally, find the Turkish claim just as absurd as you do. But we can't go by our own reasoning here; we must go by what reliable sources say. If there were a clear consensus among independent political and legal observers expressed in reliable sources that the Turkish claim is untenable, then we could adapt the article accordingly. Unfortunately, most sources don't make such bold judgments; they only report what the arguments of the two sides are. And so that's what we will do too. If we were to go with your edit , we would essentially be putting forward our own judgment that the Greek side is right; that's something we can't do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, there is a serious POV in this article, FutPerf, we need your help and the help of the community. I am gonna report this article to the moderators, we find the Imia article very biased in favor of one side (Turkey over Greece) rather than neutral. I don't understand why the Turkish claim over the island is adopted as a consensus here while in all other articles in the entire Encyclopedia are not accepting the disputer's/offender's claims over a dispute, but rather, a neutral stance. Let me list some examples of consensus in the articles of Misplaced Pages in various other disputes across the region and the world: In the Cyprus Dispute, the offender, Turkey, disputes the term "Invasion of Cyprus", to describe the 1974 events of the island. And so, Turkey calls it "Cyprus Peace Operation". The rest of the world does not backs Turkey's view over how the event could be called, and so, the Misplaced Pages rightfully calls it a Turkish invasion of Cyprus, which is the valid term given the violation of international laws by Turkey. In the Macedonia Naming Dispute, the offender, Greece, disputes the Republic of Macedonia's right over the name Macedonia, and again, here the Misplaced Pages didn't take the side of the disputer, allowing the republic to be called after its constitutional name (Republic of Macedonia) in the Misplaced Pages, which is logic, no matter if Greece's positions are right or not. All the articles I have visited in the Misplaced Pages - from Falklands to the Middle East, the Misplaced Pages adopts a neutral view on the disputes. But in the Imia article, where we have 2 sides (Greece and Turkey), a clear pre-1996 status (the Imia islets are under the administration of the Dodecanese Regional municipality, Periphery of South Aegean Sea, Greece) for almost 90 years to a century now, and yet, just because Turkey decides to militarily dispute the sovereignty of Greece over them sometime in 1996, the Misplaced Pages immediately accepted the Turkish claims as valid and not Greece's proven sovereignty over them, and despite that Italy, and the European Union, voiced their support to Greece on the matter. Why I am saying that the Misplaced Pages isn't neutral and accepted the Turkish Claims? Because: The Greek stance on the dispute, backed by other countries is clear: the islands belonged first to Italy and then are ceded to Greece. Turkish claims which are not backed even by Turkey's closest allies, is that the island do not belong to Greece nor Turkey, and the Turkish Government classifies them as Gray Zones, while Greece considers those claims as invalid. Now, considering all those facts, who couldn't call this article in Misplaced Pages, where Turkish side (Gray Zones - Disputed Island) is the mandatory, is a consensus, despite all the facts and the Laussane Treaty itself(!)?, as POV? If this can be called neutrality, then why not expand this type of neutrality to all other articles that have similar disputes? Really, I am reading again and again the Imia's article which yet didn't explained clearly why one side's opinion on something, does has the power to change the consensus over the islets. If this is not a POV, then what is it? --SilentResident (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Added the missing Administration info panel

I noticed the Administration info of the Islets in the article were never added to the Info Panel. No idea why. Perhaps because the islands are pretty small and people often miss to add such info. I added the data to the Panel (the pro-1996 data could be considered as valid, if I am not mistaken). The Islets were (or are, depending the matter) within the regional unit of Dodecanese, which is part of South Aegean Periphery. Seat of Administration: City of Rhodes. Note: this does has nothing to do with the dispute of the Islet's status by Turkey and could not be considered as such. I am posting here my changes as I have a fear that someone may undo the changes or remove the info. Just in case, and to be sure that I didn't violate any POVs for the edits, I checked the Senkaku Islands article and some other articles first, about disputed island's administrations, and checked how the Info panel about the island's administration is listed in the Info Panel (despite the islet's disputed status, the Senkaku were administered by Ishigaki, Okinawa, much like the Imia were by Rhodes, Southern Aegean), and then made the edits here. --SilentResident (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Pointless section, this is a dispute between countries and not local municipalities, what additional purpose would an administrative info box serve? Dispute parties Turkey and Greece are already listed, as this is a uninhabited rock formation hardly any administrative power has been ever exercised. Hittit (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to having the administrative divisions in the infobox, although I don't really care much either way. For geographic features such as islands, administrative info of this kind is usually useful enough and it makes sense to have it in the box. In the case of a disputed feature, like here, the administrative info goes inside the "disputing parties" section, not because the municipalities or provinces in question are themselves parties to the dispute (they normally have no role in international matters), but simply because the two nations involved typically have a different administrative structure each, and ascribing a feature to such an administrative division only makes sense within the context of the overall claim of sovereignty by each nation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Resident, I already replied to your claims in my TP, but as you have opened a discussion here let me add a few words. You want to add administration info, you should do it for both parties. The administrative status of Kardak is in the List of Turkish islands. As I understand you speak Turkish, you could also read the administrative status of Kardak within the Bodrum district of the Muğla province. This way you can make objective editing...--E4024 (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

E4024, I only had info about the one party's administrative info. Unfortunately I failed to find the Turkish side's info about it. Kardak aren't even listed in the official pages of the local municipalities. Or am I missing something. But this isn't a valid reason to revert my edits... If you have the info, you are more than welcome to add them yourself! That is why, the Misplaced Pages, the more people it has, the more its pages can be enriched! :) --85.75.155.72 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nowadays is it difficult to find sources in Athens? --E4024 (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• B-Class Greek articles
• High-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• B-Class Turkey articles
• High-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Greece
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Turkey