Talk:Greece–Turkey relations

To-do list

@Eliasbizannes: in response to your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/June_2022, I won't be re-reviewing this article. This is because in my GAN reviews, i review every single source for verification. In this case, I do not have access to every single source. However, I am willing to check over your progress of the GAN issues I brought up and leave the following to-do list of remaining issues that need working on. For now, I'll focus on the parts that you've worked through already with the strikeouts first at Talk:Greece–Turkey relations/GA2.

Sentence citations needed

*Greece and Ottoman Empire: "Having created a separate government in Ankara" Response: Deleted the sentence, not needed. Elias (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

*Post World War II relations: "In 1950 both fought alongside each other at the Korean War" Response: Rewrote the sentence and added a citation. Elias (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources

*In regards to Indymedia, "6–7 Eylül Olayları" is the ref I'm referring to that's a self published source. Response: Couldn't help myself, and jumped ahead. Removed the source in question and added a few new more credible ones that strengthen the entire paragraph, slightly rewriting it.Elias (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention that the Ekathimerini source in the Migrants section has a [better source needed] tag next to it. However, I notice that's the only one of the 11 ekathimerini citations with this tag. I'm not certain if Ekathimerini in the Migrants section needs to be replaced only, or all Ekathimerini citations. There has been some discussion of whether this is a reliable source or not.

Ekathimerini is one of the main newspapers in Greece and the lead conservative voice. I believe I added that citation tag and forgot to go back to it because I though a secondary source would do a better job. Elias (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If it's easier, feel free to strike out the Contemporary history and issues, Timeline, and neturality issues first in the GA2 review when you're ready. Then, if there's any other issues, I'll update this to-do list here. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That is great, thank you. I'll continue knocking out the original issues you identified and then move onto this list after. This article this year has seen a radical transformation first by moving content around (a collection of news items mostly), and then rewriting it into an analytical narrative that follows many secondary sources I read. I found a lot of citations from JSTOR but almost all of the news reports were from before so happy to remove them. I've validated 90% of the sources so can share access if you change your mind... Elias (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That works for me. I'm happy that you've chose to work through this list. This is the first time someone has worked through an article after I quickfailed at GAN. As for sources, I'd prefer to have someone else fully check. However, you can always send them the sources they're missing too (especially the books) if they require it :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333 I've now addressed all the issues you've raised. Thank you for your time on this review, it needed someone to do this. Please let me know what else stands out as a problem or if we can get this article regraded. I know it could do with more work -- I'd love to remove all the news sources with secondary sources and ensure all citations match a specific page reference -- but as a baseline I believe it's a strong article now. Elias (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

To-do list Part 2

@Eliasbizannes: Here's the leftover parts.

Small uncited parts

*Positive relations: end of Paragraph 1 starting at "whose replacement was with a cheer squad" Response: citation added and adjectives downplayed Elias (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC) *Energy pipelines: end of Paragraph 1 starting at "Turkey would work from 2018" Response: I added some citations and edited the text. Elias (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Some more uncited parts at "In 1999, violent earthquakes" at Positive relations and "This instability over the status" at Energy pipelines. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, missed this. Earthquake relations section now improved; energy pipeline was reworded in a different edit and on longer an issue. Elias (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources

*Per above in To-do list Part 1, there is a [better source needed] tag with the Kathimerini source in the Migrants section. If you believe only this source needs to be replaced here, then it should be swapped out. This statement I created, like with others on the article, to aggregate several news items that were on the page before. I have removed the [better source needed] tag because I did a look on JSTOR for sources and could not find better. Elias (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality

• I suggest that this article is read from all sections (Lead to Timeline) before renomination and fixed for neturality issues. Non-netural wording include "More significantly, Greece lifted its opposition" and "Yet despite the change in relations" in Positive relations that need fixing per MOS:EDITORIAL. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  Per MOS:EDITORIAL, the following words were checked and rewritten if they appeared in a sentence:

  • notably, it should be noted, arguably, interestingly, essentially, utterly, actually, clearly, absolutely, of course, without a doubt, indeed, happily, sadly, tragically, aptly, fortunately, unfortunately, untimely
  • but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while

  I agree someone should read this entire article from start to finish. Every time I look at it I find something new but given how much of this article has now been rewritten by me, it would be good to get fresh eyes. Personally, I feel the above is over 95% of any neutrality issue -- I made a big effort to balance all perspectives, so this colourful language stands out (and has now been corrected) but is not reflective of the overall neutrality.

  Elias (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  I've done a complete read of the article and made changes. As no one else is contributing, want to call this work done. Ready for renomination. @GhostRiver can you re-grade the page now? @MrLinkinPark333 are you ok if I renominate? Elias (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  I suggest citing the two leftover parts I mentioned in Small uncited parts first so they are already covered. I'm glad you went through the article and made additional neutrality fixes :) . MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done. Next? :-) Elias (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think you're all set to go. Nice work! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Abdullah Ocalan’s picture

Is it necessary to keep Abdullah Ocalan’s picture on the “Positive relations” section? I suggest removing his picture. He is the head of an illegal and banned terrorist organization after all. It does not add any value to the section but seems like a mockery of the issue. 176.55.17.225 (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we can remove it. Can you suggest several images instead to take its place? Elias (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

How about pictures to do with the 1999 Izmit and Athens earthquakes? It is a good example of humanitarian cooperation. 46.31.112.214 (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I like the direction But I would like to see a picture that can add more meaning to the article. As this is an article about Greece-Turkey relations, a picture of Israel helping Greece and that also appears on the twice-linked earthquake diplomacy page is not as useful as others. I picked the Ocalan picture because (a) it was a major event that affected relations (b) there's a lot more to learn about the issue for the reader if they are interested why it matters . A generic picture of rubble that could look like any earthquake does not add anything to the readers knowledge. Elias (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Good call. Agreed. 46.31.112.214 (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Ruins of the İzmit and Athens earthquakes.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Greece–Turkey relations/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 01:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I will take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic! It has already gone through one extensive review with @MrLinkinPark333. He declined to approve it further because he did not want to go through all the sources. (Which admittedly, are quite a lot -- I had to split the page because the content is so overwhelming.) I will say I not only went through nearly every source earlier this year, but I added a lot of new ones so feel confident that 98% are in good shape. Elias (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

A good start would be fixing the CS1 and CS1 maintenance errors. These are on citations 8, 28, 124, 151, 166, 170, 219, 225, 228, and 231, in addition to the first and fourth books in the further reading section. When this is done, I will review the sources via a spot-check of randomly chosen citations.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   There are numerous missed punctuation marks (full stops are particularly prominent), while the prose is exceedingly informal and essay-like.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Specifically, it does not comply with the guidelines of lead sections and words to watch.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   See previous Good Article review for details.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I cannot say that the issues raised at the previous nomination have been adequately considered. When the previous reviewer brought up the question of neutrality, especially in the contemporary history section, the nominator explained that the section was based on a writing project, but thought the problem fixed after correcting three (3!) sentences. The entire section needs a complete rewrite, especially as it often misses basic punctuation such as full stops or apostrophes, or basic grammar. There are in addition multiple occasions where sentences are overly cited, large numbers of WP:WTW, and issues with WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. I cannot do anything but quick-fail this article, on the basis that it fails criteria 3 and 5 of the Good Article quickfail criteria. I would suggest a visit to the Guild of Copy Editors, if you find yourself unable to improve the article satisfactorily.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"People moving across the border of both nations are a common sight and frequent cause of incidents"

I would suggest a different wording than of current version[1]. The people moving across are not the cause of incidents. Cinadon36 13:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. That is an example of me trying to consolidate multiple news reports on the page into one sentence. Ideally, a secondary source is used. As for how this is written, what do you suggest? Elias (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure, I cant tell. It is not easy. Cinadon36 04:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Heavy reliance on primary sources and newspaper articles.

There is a heavy reliance on primary sources in current version. [2]. Greek Ministry of FA and Turkish consulate general, are primary sources. Also, despite significant literature at peer reviewed journals, many newspaper articles are in use. Cinadon36 13:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

That's correct. Prior to this year, the article was mostly a list of news items. When I rewrote the article this year, I preserved all content as best I could and would remove news articles if I found better sources only (or if they were just inappropriate).

I used the Greek Ministry and Turkish ministry to confirm what they call issues in their relations, which is relevant given this is a page of government relations. It helps more with narrative than evidence. For the consulates, I also used goverment website which I believe is most appropriate. Elias (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

My advice would be to drop all primary sources. You might use few of them just as an adjunct to secondary sources. It is crucial not to rely on primary sources, especially on this kind of subjects. They are full of fallacious reasoning and serving propaganda purposes. Cinadon36 04:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I get that, but when these two competing countries say the same thing about issues, there's truth there. When it comes to consulates, there is nothing dangerous about referring to a government website? I appreciate you are advocating for what is a standard Wikipedia position but inn this use case I do not think it applies. Elias (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

To do list

The following are a list of issues that have been identified that need to be corrected as discussed on User_talk:AirshipJungleman29

The article consistently presents opinions from sources as fact. The article does not follow the recommendations outlined at WP:NPOV, specifically WP:IMPARTIAL. Examples

• "There was a lot of progress but ultimately not on the issues that mattered."
• "Greece's fear, often explicitly communicated by Turkey's politicians in the media, is that Turkey wants to renegotiate borders otherwise determined by international law." This one is sourced entirely by too many communications by Turkey's politicians, when in reality the source should talk about Greece's fear. Total WP:OR.
• "In both cases, and in the words of former Greek prime minister George Papandreou, the respective nations would benefit if they treated the minorities as citizens not foreigners."
• " Greece's hesitance could be solved if the Mufti's were stripped of authority of jurisdiction. Turkey's precondition to open the Halki Seminary is considered unnecessary: it's purely a political decision."

The lead is a problem

• The first paragraph should "clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail that follows. "Greece and Turkey have a competitive relationship with a long history and complex issues", reads like the opening sentence of a history writing project
• The sentence "Greece and Turkey since their formation have used real and imagined trauma of each other to justify their nationalism" introduces three topics (their formation, real and imagined trauma, and nationalism) which are never talked about elswhere in the lead. This is a contravention of MOS:INTRO — there should be no hinting at concepts discussed later in the article. The lead should also cover the article's most important points, yet there is no summarisation of the Background and History sections except for the two words "long history". This is not sufficient.

Words to watch

• Refer to MOS:EDITORIAL and MOS:REALTIME.
• Spelling and grammar issues

Elias (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)