Talk:Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The article is provocative. There is no Northern Cyprus. It’s Cyprus and Turkey. Cyprus is temporarily occupied by Turkey.

File:F-493 TCG Gelibolu.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:F-493 TCG Gelibolu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is
    non-free
    then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no
    fair use rationale
    then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --

talk) 12:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Must be changed totally

The Mediterranean Oil Dispute is a current political incident and standoff between the Republic of Cyprus and Turkey, and potentially affecting other neighbouring states in the Eastern Mediterranean, such as Israel, Lebanon, and Egypt. The illegal breakaway territory of Northern Cyprus also advocates its interests as part of the dispute.

Absolutely no. One cannot restrict the dispute in eastern mediterranean to cyprus island. There is a dispute between Israel and Lebanon as well totally independent of Cyprus island! Your deletion of "Israel and Lebanon EEZ dispute in eastertern mediterranean and trying to restrict all the dispute to the projection where almost only Cyprus island matters is clear violation of Wikipedia neutrality and objectivity principles."

The dispute is primarily focussed on Turkish and Turkish Cypriot objections to the drilling of potentially substantial oil and gas reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean, specifically in waters that Cyprus has legally asserted a claim to under international maritime law. Turkey is currently the only member of the United Nations to refuse to recognise the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus.

You cannot use "legally" here. Because, UNCLOS pre-1982 states otherwise. ICJ decisions states otherwise as well. Hence, there is a dispute. When there is a dispute, one cannot use ""legally" asserted" for the claims of one of the sides. only "asserted" must be putAlexyflemming (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why are you constantly deleting "The EEZ Border Agreement Between Turkey and Northern Cyprus" (21.09.2011), Turkey and Northern Cyprus signed the EEZ border agreement in New York. Since the title of the article includes "...Dispute", the claims and actions of the all the included parties must be placed. Alexyflemming (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why are you constantly deleting the 13-licensing blocks Cyprus in its south part of EEZ? This part of EEZ is overlapping with the claimed EEZs of Turkey and Northern Cyprus. I will add a picture from an EPRIC article that shows the overlapping very beautifully.Alexyflemming (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone even ever described it as the 'Mediterranean Oil Dispute' or is the title OR? What is the relationship btn Israel and Lebanon's dispute with that of Cyprus and Turkey and the 'Mediterranean Oil Dispute'? —

Lfdder (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The page seems to be started by Copperhead331 : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mediterranean_Oil_Dispute&diff=594406280&oldid=447693804

The relationship btw. "Israel and Lebanon's dispute" with that of "Cyprus and Turkey" and the "Mediterranean Oil Dispute": Israel and Lebanon also disagree on the borders of EEZs between them: http://www.yalibnan.com/2012/03/01/lebanon-speaker-on-eez-our-problem-is-with-israel-not-cyprus/ (see especially the 2nd map where disputed EEZ area (disputed oil area by the way :) is shown) . They also think there may be oil in that disputed area since that area is close to Levanthan oil area of Israel.
Since this EEZ dispute is completely independent of the Cyprus island (and its EEZ borders), it is biased if you continue the Mediterranean Oil Dispute to project Cyprus/Turkey/Northern Cyprus sphere only. Alexyflemming (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC) ...................................................................................................................[reply]

Requested move: Cyprus EEZ dispute (12.02.2014)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute. Xoloz (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Cyprus oil dispute → Cyprus EEZ dispute
–

Rationale for the proposed page name change:
1. Titles must not be misleading in itself:
What is disputed is EEZs of the countries in the relevant region, not the oil. Oil is just in the "effect" part of the cause-effect relationship. "Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)" is in the "cause" part of the cause-effect relationship. Entitling as "Cyprus oil dispute" cannot provide the article to go robustly on its own. Oil is not disputed. (The existence of) Oil is already there: Levantan, Afrodite gas regions etc.

2. Robust Titling:
Somebody seems to start the article page without enough background on the topic covered. As a result, a little later, the page renamed from "Mediterranean oil dispute" to "Cyprus oil dispute". The new name ("Cyprus oil dispute") again is troublesome as explained above. Hence, once and for all to put the things robust, I suggest the above name change.
Relisted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexyflemming (talk • contribs) 12:05, 12 February 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Clarification. Support Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute per discussion below. Beagel (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Agree that the current title has problems. But the proposed new title is even worse. We could relist to explore alternatives, but my suggestion would be to have some brainstorming of article title possibilities on this talk page first, and then raise a new RM. Andrewa (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three questions about the current title:
  • what is the topic of this article? Is it oil as says the current title, exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as proposed by the current RM or something else. It seems that all editors who commented agree that this is not about oil. At the same time also EEZ seems to be incorrect as the dispute involves also borders of the continental shelf. The legal term, which covers all different kind of zones starting with the territorial waters and ending with the continental shelf is "maritime zones". It seems also appropriate in this case.
  • who is the subject of the article? The current lead of the article says that is "is a current political incident and standoff between the Republic of Cyprus and Turkey". It it is between two countries, it would be incorrect to name it only by one country. That means that the title should include names of both countries, e.g. "Cyprus–Turkey". At the same time the lead also says that it is "potentially affecting other neighbouring states in the Eastern Mediterranean", so the alternative could be using "Eastern Mediterranean" in the title. In this case it should include also other disputes such as disputes between Turkey and Greece, Lebanon and Israel etc.
  • is it dispute (singular), disputes (plural) or something else? It depends what is the answer to the second question. If we will use "Cyprus–Turkey", it should be singular (dispute). If we will use "Eastern Mediterranean", it should be plural (disputes). If Cyprus stays, we cant use dispute, as dispute is always between parties and we should leave it just "Cyprus maritime zones". In this case it should cover also Cyprus' EEZ agreements with Lebanon, Israel and Egypt.
Based on the answers to these questions, my suggestions are in the order of preferences:
  1. Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute
  2. Eastern Mediterranean maritime zones disputes
  3. Cyprus maritime zones

Beagel (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

Related International Court Decisions (Cherry Picking Accusation)

Lfdder accused me cherry-picking and reverted the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyprus_oil_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=595446105
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.

The term is based on the perceived process of harvesting fruit, such as cherries. The picker would be expected to only select the ripest and healthiest fruits. An observer who only sees the selected fruit may thus wrongly conclude that most, or even all, of the fruit is in such good condition. A less common type of cherry picking is to gather only fruit that is easy to harvest ignoring quality fruit higher up the tree. This can also give observers a false impression about the quality of fruit on the tree.

Here is what I wrote:
The decisions of International Court of Justice (ICJ) and Court of Arbitration on EEZs concerning with islands showed marked tendency towards compromise solutions obtained via restricting islands’ maritime zones, including disregarding islands or giving partial effect to them:
1969, ICJ: the North Sea Continental Shelf cases (Denmark–Federal Republic of Germany and The Netherlands–Federal Republic of Germany)
1977, Court of Arbitration: the case between the UK and France
1982, ICJ: the case between Tunisia and Libya
1985, ICJ: the case between Libya and Malta
1999, Court of Arbitration: the case between Eritrea and Yemen (Hanish Islands conflict)
2009, ICJ: the case between Romania and Ukraine (Snake island issue).
Here is the source: PRIO Cyprus Center PCC REPORT 1/2013 Ayla Gürel, Fiona Mullen, Harry Tzimitras: "The Cyprus Hydrocarbons Issue: Context, Positions and Future Scenarios", p.23 http://file.prio.no/publication_files/Cyprus/Report%202013-1%20Hydrocarbons.pdf

Here is what the source write:
While UNCLOS provisions appear to be more on the side of Greece’s rather than Turkey’s claims, a look at international jurisprudence relating to maritime delimitation in situations involving islands reveals a different picture. In a number of court decisions over the last four decades there has been a marked tendency towards compromise solutions achieved through restricting islands’ maritime zones, including disregarding islands or giving partial effect to them.90 90: Commonly cited examples of such cases concerning delimitation of continental shelf include: the North Sea Continental Shelf cases (Denmark–Federal Republic of Germany and The Netherlands–Federal Republic of Germany) (ICJ 1969); the case between the UK and France (Court of Arbitration 1977); the case between Tunisia and Libya (ICJ 1982); the case between Libya and Malta (ICJ 1985); the case between Eritrea and Yemen (Court of Arbitration 1999); and the case between Romania and Ukraine (ICJ 2009). For a detailed critical analysis of these and other relevant cases, see Lymperas (2011). The ‘distributive’ approach employed by the courts at the expense of islands’ entitlement to conti nental shelf have been criticized by some scholars as problematic and controversial. See, for example, Tzimitras (2012).

Now, Lfdder, as you see I have taken all the 6 cited ICJ and Court of Arbitration decisions to the Wikipedia; I did not select the cherries. When accusing "cherry-picking", you are indirectly saying there are other cases; you are implying there are non-cherries that I have not collected. Please specify what are those? By the way, you are free to give your non-cherry examples (if there is such) in the "Related International Court Decisions" as well.

Notice the heading is "Related International Court Decisions". I am expecting you to give an example of an international court decision in which there is a non-cherry there.Alexyflemming (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much talk, little substance. Funny, I don't see a UNCLOS heading. Either both sides get equal air time, or none of them do. —
Lfdder (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Did you ever read the heading of the section? "Related International Court Decisions". There is an article
UNCLOS and Sources of international_law in Wikipedia. ICJ and Court of Arbitration have taken into account the relevant international law (1982UNCLOS etc.) in 1985, 1999, 2009 court decisions besides other laws. UNCLOS is not a court decision, it is a law. If you need to open a section, "Related international law", you can add relevant UNCLOS articles there.Alexyflemming (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
There's an entire chapter in the report discussing the legal facet of the dispute. The ICJ decisions occupy one short paragraph and a footnote. What is your reason for omitting everything but and elevating it to its own very special heading? —
Lfdder (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Would you suggest me to take the entire chapter in the report and put mutatis mutandis to Wikipedia?! You say "The ICJ decisions occupy one short paragraph and a footnote". That is true. But, you may be sure that the same ICJ take into account chapters and chapters from various books, reports etc before deciding something in a case. In wikipedia, we cannot take every chapter of the reports and books. Each Wikipedia article is not Master thesis on its own. The heading "Related International Court Decisions" is meaningful since it gives brightful ideas as the consequence of all these chapters in books, articles, reports etc. "What is all in all" is understood via court decisions. People looks primarily to the court decisions. Books, articles, reports take them into account. You can be sure that when ICJ or Court of Arbitration gives a decision that is in favor of islands, I will put it here before you. Be sure that I am neutral, and have a fair approach.Alexyflemming (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the court decision is not about Cyprus EEZ, it is irrelevant here. Providing examples about unrelated cases and implying that the same may apply to Cyprus without adding source which explicitly says that, accounts as
    WP:OR. However, if there is reliable source which says that this may be the case of Cyprus, it is worth to be added, but only in the case if attributed which the name who says that. Beagel (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"unrelated case": The cases are all relevant. All of the cases were taken from "The Cyprus Hydrocarbons Issue: Context, Positions and Future Scenarios" (co-written by Ayla Gürel (Turk), Fiona Mullen (German), Harry Tzimitras (Greek)) while discussing "international court decisions" that can affect the delimitation of the EEZ of Cyprus. Read above once again what the source wrote: "...For a detailed critical analysis of these and other relevant cases..."!
"implying that the same may apply to Cyprus without adding source": The heading ""Related" Int'l Court Decisions" only say "the things are related", do not say "the same will apply to Cyprus". Nobody can say this before the courts judged. Besides this, the source in PRIO definitely (2.5.3 international jurisprudence on islands; page 23) lists the cases that may apply to islands (Cyprus is island; that's why there is such a heading in the report)! The cases in page 23 footnote are not arbitrary cases of ICJ, but the cases that the situation of island is handled in court discussions.
"if there is reliable source which says that this may be the case of Cyprus": The cited PRIO article ("The Cyprus Hydrocarbons Issue:Context, Positions and Future Scenarios" co-written by Ayla Gürel, Fiona Mullen, Harry Tzimitras, PCC REPORT 1/2013, PRIO Cyprus Center) is reliable. It is co-written by Greek, Turk, German academicians.
Thanks Beagel for your sensitivity. I think the above may remove your fears.Alexyflemming (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cherrypicking what facts to present from the reference also poses additional NPOV-related problems. So please wait for consensus before you try to add this flawed piece into the article instead of edit-warring. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
(
WP:CRYSTAL
: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation.): The related court decisions are not speculation, but a fact. All the cited cases of ICJ and Court of Arbitration includes "EEZ troubles of islands".
"predict this case": There is no prediction. There is no sentence on what could happen on delimitation of Cyprus island.
"a big section in the middle of this small article, not related to the actual case but to cases which are similar to it": All the cited cases includes either includes island(s) as part of the discussion or the island(s) are just the discussion at all. The three professors of the article give the cited cases "in relation with" the case of Cyprus. Read above once again what the source wrote: "...For a detailed critical analysis of these and other relevant cases..."!
Cherrypicking
what facts to present from the reference also poses additional NPOV-related problems: The cited reference includes no case decision of ICJ or Court of Arbitration that is in favor of islands. If that was so and I had missed them, all are welcome to include them as well. The section heading is "Related International Court Decision", not "Related International Court Decision that are against islands". The int'l court decisions in favor of islands can also be put here. Hence, there is no "cherrypicking" as claimed.
"a big section in the middle of this small article: Before: 599 words; after edit: 712 words. This big edit is only the 18% of small article. Do I not know the meaning of small-big...
"this flawed piece": This is not flawed piece. This is ICJ and Court of Arbitration decisions. Very short. The article (The Cyprus Hydrocarbons Issue:Context, Positions and Future Scenarios) in (PRIO Cyprus Report, PCC REPORT 1/2013) was written by "Ayla Gürel, Fiona Mullen, Harry Tzimitras" who are/were professors in universities and are experts in international law. Alexyflemming (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see what
WP:OR is. If these cases are not about Cyprus and there is no sentence on what could happen on delimitation of Cyprus island, as you said, this does not belong here. Adding similar cases without anybody notable saying that this could be the case of Cyprus is not acceptable as this implies that although nobody says this, this is (or should be) the case for Cyprus EEZ. And this is a classical original research. As was already said, this is not an article about comparative analysis of international maritime law. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:OR
: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. The article (The Cyprus Hydrocarbons Issue:Context, Positions and Future Scenarios) in (PRIO Cyprus Report, PCC REPORT 1/2013) was written by "Ayla Gürel, Fiona Mullen, Harry Tzimitras" who are/were professors in universities and are experts in international law. The article is a reliable source. Hence, the WP:OR fear is baseless.
Adding similar cases without anybody notable saying that this could be the case of Cyprus:The three international law professors are searching the possibilities in Cyprus EEZ case (The Cyprus Hydrocarbons Issue:Context, Positions and Future Scenarios). Chapter 2: the Legal Context; page 9; 2.5.3 international jurisprudence on islands; page 23.Alexyflemming (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 02:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Mavi Vatan

I do not know why Mavi Vatan doctrine redirects to this article. Mavi Vatan is also about Aegean and Black Sea. Maybe we should create a new article? Please ping when reply. Cinadon36 11:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Blue Homeland should be a separate article. Beshogur (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
Demetrios1993 (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Map change

The article is provocative. There is no Northern Cyprus. It’s Cyprus and Turkey. Cyprus is temporarily occupied by Turkey. Vagr7 (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyprus–Turkey_maritime_zones_dispute&oldid=1206224098"