User talk:Ahiskali-turk

Aegean dispute[edit]

Hello. First of all, welcome to Wikipedia! I appreciate your good faith edits on Aegean dispute, however the changes have been reverted because they wouldn't be verified and appear to be non-neutral due to promoting a certain narrative which contradicts what the vast majority of the sources do say on the matter, and by citing sources whose reliability is questionable. It is important to keep in mind that while everybody is welcome to edit and contribute to the project, the editors have to refrain from making original edits. If you are not certain about the changes you seek to make, feel free to seek help or ask questions at the article's relevant talk page. Good day. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 08:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, welcome to you too. Actually, all changes were verified and provided with the references same as provided by you. And it gives an objective view from both sides, not just a sub-objective narrative of Greece's side. I'll revert it back to keep both sides' opinions as well as I've corrected some not-true or partially true arguments related to Court decisions (as proof against the "unique" argument from the Greece side), Greece - Egypt, and Greece - Italy agreements. You can find all references in each change.

E.g, Greece - Egypt agreement does not include Kastelorizo as well as Rhodes, that part of the debate. I'm wondering why did you post like it includes those two islands. Same for other topics. It is very important to provide readers with mutual, complete, and objective information as well as both sides' views. It is not correct and not objective to provide reference only from the Greece media as you did. Please keep both opinions as it is. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask me.

Have a nice day. Ahiskali-turk (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.

(edit conflict)

First of all, Turkey does *not* recognize the International Court of Justice's jurisdiction on EEZ and sea-related disputes, while Greece does. There was once a time at which both countries were close to the point of agreeing to take the matter to the ICoJ. (For more info, see: Aegean dispute#Strategies of conflict resolution). The ICoJ abides by the UNCLOS on EEZ, which is signed by Greece but not by Turkey. (a fact also confirmed by the sources). Last, the numerous resolutions of the International Court of Justice are not applicable to all cases without taking in consideration the different backgrounds of each case. Each resolution is different and even if Turkey recognizes the ICoJ and takes the dispute with Greece to it, it is not guaranteed that the ICoJ would take the decision Turkey sees as more favorable for its side than for the opposite side. For these 3 reasons (and many other reasons), this is why the Aegean Dispute avoids mentioning cases of the ICoJ because they are hypothetical theories that do not strengthen Turkey's or Greece case in any way. Also, in your edit, you went on with replacing Turkey's "unique view" (which is indeed unique) with "not-so unique" by pointing to court cases which however, are not in line with Turkey's reasoning against UNCLOS, since the ICoJ is founded by the United Nations, and the UNCLOS is a law of the UN. Do you understand what problem of neutrality you are causing to the article by mentioning selective court cases whose ruling's application on Aegean dispute is hypothetical only, and the way these court decisions (for cases other than the Aegean dispute), are added in the paragraph about Turkey's views on Aegean dispute, are misleading to the purpose of the article which is to inform of both side's views compared to the views of the rest of the world regarding the rights of islands to their EEZ, by giving the one side more "credibility" than there really is? The paragraph about views should be left as is, instead of cramming it with different subjects such as court rulings. Court rulings, if there are any for the Aegean dispute, ought to go on a separate section as is the standard practice in Wikipedia which avoids mixing country views with outcomes of ICoJ cases.
In addition to the first above, the information you tried to add about the court cases, is a dubious website: [1] which appears to be a pro-Turkish government one, and does not meet Wikipedia's WP:RS. There were discussions at the Wikipedia's Reliable Sources noticeboard and in several talk pages, where people agreed that any use of sources from media outlets and websites of Turkey that are under political influence, should be used with caution or be replaced with neutral ones, if possible. You will need update yourself with WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:RELIABLESOURCES and understand that Wikipedia doesn't rely on such sites for information on sensitive articles such as the Aegean dispute.
Secondly, regarding Turkey's name as Turkiye: your edits are going against the WP:CONSENSUS which is that Wikipedia will be using the WP:COMMONNAME for the country, which is Turkey and not Turkiye. Please see Talk:Turkey for more info.
Thirdly, you have made a Source Falsification of the source from Financial Mirror. The source states about Kastellorizo: "A major drawback of the present agreement, though, is the fact that half of Rhodes and the the entire island group of Kastelorizo are completely left out of the delineation boundaries.". However you wrote about Kastellorizo: "and kept outside the Kastelorizo Island and didn't recognize its so-called continental shelf as well as for Rhodes Island. As an outcome, Egypt recognized a delimitation line that did not conflict with Turkish interests.. This is not supported by the source however. Source Falsification is not tolerated in Wikipedia. Editors are urged to only use verifiable information, not WP:OR.
Last, you have reverted twice the following edit of mine: [2], backed by 2 reputable and reliable sites which meet the Wikipedia's WP:RS criteria. I tried to understand the reason of this edit of yours, but you didn't provide any explanation, nor here nor in the edit summaries of yours.

Please understand that you do not have a WP:CONSENSUS for your problematic edits to stay, yet. Per WIkipedia's guidelines, editors should refrain from WP:EDITWAR and resorting to edit reverts, and instead, seek WP:CONSENSUS at the article's talk page. (In Aegean Dispute's case, the proper talk page for discussion your additions, isnt your own talk page, but this: [3]). Please make a self-revert, and come to the talk page where you can present us the changes you seek to make, and discuss them, because Wikipedia works not based on personal views, but on reliable sources and Consensus is required, and when there is disagreement on content, editors are called to discuss it and seek a compromise instead of brute-forcing their preferred edits to an article. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all sources in this article is one side view with political influence of the Greece side with 80% sources from the Greece Press.

My additions adds view from other side with the relevant sources with the same content and quality as done in the article by the Greece Press. Moreover, some sources are coming from Think tanks and neutral articles.

The Source around Kastellorizo island: https://slpress.gr/english-edition/greece-ceded-sovereign-rights-to-egypt-on-the-altar-of-the-turkish-libyan-memorandum The author either forget to provide full insight on the agreement between Egypt and Greece or aimed to make a non-neutral political influence by hiding important details of this agreement that contradicts with his view.

Readers have fundamental rights to get 360-degree view about cases in this area from both sides. Consensus can be reached within this objective principle.

It does not matter what Turkiye recognizes, matters only the fact that similar cases were solved by the Court of Justice completely, which disrupt the Greece view around uniqueness of the Turkiye view. Personal opinion of the author cannot be shown as single source of truth. Either that paragraph should be completely removed or both views should be provided. Ahiskali-turk (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any question to discuss each paragraph I happy to do that. The problems of the Eastern Mediterranean are legal, political and multilateral agreements that cannot be dealt with unilaterally. And they should be covered objectively, giving the reader a neutral facts, both sides opinions and scientific view without personal conclusions from each of the parties to these cases. Showing the picture in 360 degrees.

Each paragraph should be an all-sided review without being biased to one of the sides, as is now the case with the filing of the political influence of the Greek side and sources. Ahiskali-turk (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a friendly advice! If you really seek to reach WP:CONSENSUS, then throwing such problematic nationalist arguments of the kind "Almost all sources in this article is one side view with political influence of the Greece side with 80% sources from the Greece Press.", isn't helpful... It just kills any prospects of reaching compromises with the other editors. And mind you, what you say wouldn't be further from truth: the article is carefully citing sources from all around the globe: European, even Greek and Turkish, Arab, African, American, and even Asian sources. The sources you are arguing that they are "politically influenced by Greece", are Reuters, The Associated Press, CNN, Huffington Post, The Times, Washington Post, Al Jazeera, Balkan Insight, and the dozens of academic and expert sources.

And sorry to say that, but you aren't exactly convincing with these arguments of yours, because they are contradicted by your actions: when I tried today to replace a Greek language source (To Vima) with an English (Reuters) and an Arab one (The Middle East Eye), you reverted me [4] immediately without providing any explanation in the edit summary or in the talk page! Your actions suggest that your problem here isn't whether a source is "influenced by Greece", is that you WP:DONTLIKEIT when they don't agree with your POV. You should bear in mind that a source's reliability is not determined on whether it is biased to you. In fact, per WP:BIASED, a source doesn't have to be neutral to you for it to be considered reliable and used in Wikipedia.

Problematic arguments like the ones you are using now, stink of Turkish nationalism and have no place here in Wikipedia. Do not expect any positive outcomes in any discussions by making such silly arguments; let alone brute-forcing your POV like how you did today, which is exactly the reason got you blocked now! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident

Let's have a look on the reverted and corrected by me paragraphs. The sources you are arguing that they are "politically influenced by Greece" are not Reuters they are declarations done by diplomatic sources of Greece, by the Greece press and media, and if you looked at the other sources they are using references from the Greece Press as well. So it is completely propaganda from Greece and Greece nationalism, as well as falsification as you did with Greece - Egypt and Greece - Italy agreements.

Topic: Turkey's view

Topic has in total 21 references. 13 of them Greece press and media with pro-government pro Greece view on the topic. This is a complete imbalance in the supply of sources and vision.

2 from New Europe in their article rely on AGAIN Greece Press and view on the point about uniqueness. See below example from: http://www.ibdmar.org/2021/06/the-turkish-greek-deadlock-in-the-aegean-sea/#_ftn2 that for "unique interpretation" has reference to below article and not surprised greek author with pro-government view, that again point to other article, where his author with sources on Greece press and Greece authorities.

GEROPOULOS, Kostis. Turkey, Libya delimitation deal raises geopolitical tensions. New Europe. Brussels, 29, Nov. 2019. Available at: https://www.neweurope.eu/article/turkey-libya-delimitation-deal-raises-geopolitical-tensions/

As well as majority of sources in that article also from Greece Press. So, scientifically speaking you have loop in sources that refer to each other and all of them provide Greece nationalist view on the one event. It is neither objective and neutral nor academic approach on description of the issue.

Let's have a look in detail there. Neither the United Nations' Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) treaty nor the majority of the historical agreements such as Greece and Italy, nor jurisprudential taken by the Court of Justice says about Turkiye's unique interpretation. Sources from there did not support your personal view. That is the manipulation of the sources in place. The reality is the opposite: UNCLOS defines the maximum rights but does not regulate how two neighbor states will agree on the demarcation of the sea shelf or EEZ. And MAJORITY of the cases such as agreements between two states, Court of Justice decisions in fact demonstrate (as well as academic researches) that principle of equality and median line (that Turkish authorities use) are taken as baseline independent on how close islands are being to the other coast. Greece and Italy EEZ agreement is one of these examples as well. And the marginal or minor view to say that median line is a unique interpretation of the maritime demarcation. Even this is supported in other topics in this article.

Either you have to re-phrase that paragraph by saying e.g. According to the Greece view that is unique interpretation and provide Turkish view on that as well. So, readers will get both views and understanding of all aspects. Or you have to remove such claim and manipulation on the facts by Greece view.

As well as same inputs should be provided on the Greece - Italy EEZ agreement topic, having there "According to Dendias..." statements with Greece authorities opinion in order to balance it within neutral and objective approach Turkish view and authorities opinion should be added as well.

Now, let's have a look on the Greece - Egypt agreement.

Statement below is a manipulation of the facts and falsification of the conditions in this agreement.

"Several days later, on 6 August, the foreign ministers of Egypt and Greece, Sameh Shoukry and Nikos Dendias respectively, signed a maritime agreement partially demarcating the EEZs between the two countries, in line with the UNCLOS which recognizes the right of the islands to their continental shelf and EEZ"

In fact, Kastellorizo's EEZ and partially Rhodes's and even Crete's EEZ were not included in this agreement. See, source: https://slpress.gr/english-edition/greece-ceded-sovereign-rights-to-egypt-on-the-altar-of-the-turkish-libyan-memorandum and by the way this is a Greece press criticizing the government around these facts and losses they agreed to.

As result, additions I've made is actually giving full 360 degree view on the events that were manipulated by you.

Next one: National airspace

the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) of 1948, as containing a binding definition that both zones must coincide. So it precise all earlier fixes such as agreement in 1938.

And the Greece claims around 10 miles beyond their actual borders are completely illegal and UNIQUE with no any other similar case currently applied worldwide.

Again in here we see a bit of manipulation when only Greece view is provided and real unique case that have never been supported by any country and court decision not shown as unique case. Why are you using uniqueness interpretation. As Greece's extended airspace claim not in line with international law, US State Dept says:

“Under international law, a country’s airspace coincides with its territorial sea. The U.S. thus recognizes an airspace up to 6 nautical miles consistent with territorial sea. Greece and the U.S. do not share a view on the extent of Greece’s airspace,” the report said. You may find the report by yourself.

https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/diplomacy/greeces-extended-airspace-claim-not-in-line-with-international-law-us-state-dept-says

This recent update should be included in this topic as well.

Next one: Territorial waters

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 is defines maximum rights on the territorial waters, so it sets the maximum possible boundaries but does not set up the actual and bilateral or multilateral agreed ones. So on top of the UNCLOS there are bilateral and multilateral international agreements that narrow the boundaries to what was agreed between the states, UNCLOS cannot cancel existing agreements, until all sides will cancel it.

The Lausanne and Paris agreements actually precises and binds all sides in this area to the 3 miles of territorial waters and extend of this can be done only in agreement with other sides within the same agreements. This paragraph is also biased towards the opinion of one side (Greece), although, the Lausanne agreement (as well as Paris agreement too) actually ban and limits Greece and Turkiye to extend territorial waters breaking conditions of these agreements. As an exception in case when both sides will agree to not apply one of condition of those agreements, such extension can be done. As well as bans Greece from militarization of aegean islands.

If one side violates the terms of the agreement such as Greece currently does with the Lausanne and Paris agreements, it may be punished and receive appropriate sanctions, both at the diplomatic level, and on the legal and battlefield. Also, by violating the terms of a bilateral agreement (and multilateral as well), the state turns out to be an aggressor in fact, which goes against international law and agreements. Thus, by withdrawing from the agreement, the state loses the rights to what they have acquired through this agreement.

By saying, This declaration has been condemned by Greece as a violation of the Charter of the United Nations, which forbids "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". it is completely oneside opinion and manipulation as it does not contain other side view on the same event and does not refer to the international agreements. Ahiskali-turk (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My block will expire very soon, but the team of the specialists and legal affairs of this topic will contribute and update the article to make it neutral and objective by providing whole picture on the same events. Ahiskali-turk (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident the other way around you may leave it as it is, but renaming it saying Aegean Dispute (Greece View), that would be correct and represent the current content. If you're aiming to have neutral and objective view, you have to put both sides views under each topic as it is two states issues there and reference/sources should balanced basing on principal of equality. ;) Ahiskali-turk (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I won't discuss in more depth about an article on a user talk page where probably none else may be able to notice the discussion and wish to contribute to it. If you want my input, then take it to THIS talk page here which is the right place for such discussions and seek WP:CONSENSUS before reinstating any of your desired changes. No matter how "right" you may think (you are not, and at Aegean dispute talk page I will explain to you why you are not). If you really are here to improve Wikipedia, then you should learn to cooperate with editors instead of showing arrogance of the style "My block will expire very soon, but the team of the specialists and legal affairs of this topic will contribute and update the article to make it neutral and objective by providing whole picture on the same events." because this won't end well for you. Threatening with more edit warring (this, while your current block didn't even expire yet!) just to get your preferred version of the article, shows a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works and why you got blocked. This dims my hopes that you will act differently in the future. My advice to you: you should listen what others told you and try consider more appropriate solutions than the disruptive tactics you have used so far. You can't just re-write and rename/move a high-profile article such as the Aegean dispute without consulting the others. Do not mention the article reflects on the majority views of the international community about the matter, while also covering Turkey's and Greece's positions without giving them more prominence than needed or diving into hypothetical scenarios of court decisions. Otherwise the editors and admins will see this as a WP:POVPUSHING and won't appreciate your contributions as positive and neutral to the topic and definitely won't sympathize with your POV concerns.

Your block is indeed expiring soon. Why don't use this waiting time more productively, by familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's WP:FIVEPILLARS in meantime? Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022[edit]

Your recent editing history at Aegean dispute shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Favonian (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are not working to build consensus at Talk: Aegean dispute. You are not utilizing any form of dispute resolution. Instead, you are edit warring, and that behavior is not allowed. Cullen328 (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]