Talk:Ro, Greece

August 2009 incident

According to Paris Agreement, this island is "no man's land". It is not part of Greece! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.206.8 (talk • contribs)

According to the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947 [1], Italy ceded "to Greece in full sovereignty the Dodecanese Islands indicated hereafter, namely [...] and Castellorizo, a well as the adjacent islets." Since Ro is evidently an islet and adjacent to Castellorizo, there can be no doubt it is included in that scope, even under the nitpickiest of nitpicky interpretations. To the best of my knowledge, Turkey has never claimed otherwise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For sake of precision, please read this article. According to international law, the case of Rho is clear. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the 1932 agreement is very clear. What the IP was claiming at one point was that the island became "no man's land" again in 1947, apparently because Italy had lawfully acquired it from Turkey in 1932, but then somehow "forgot" to pass it on to Greece in 1947. That's why I quoted the 1947 treaty, which, in fact, excludes that possibility too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The real problem here is that each time that the tension between these two countries increases (as this is the case now), suddenly contributors (most IPs) appear on both sides which start to claim back, islands, cities, etc. that during a more or less recent past had belonged to their country. I hope that sooner or later Turkey will also join EU, so we will stop wasting our time reverting articles to the original state. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice there was that incident yesterday [2], which evidently triggered this bout of revert-warring. Oh well. Damned, why do I never get to take boat tours around little islands in the Aegean? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually taking these tours could become a dangerous sport nowadays, specially in a place like Kastellorizon, where one can swim easily to Anatolia and back in twenty minutes...Anyway the real problem lies not there, but in the Aegean, because of the oil drills. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The case of Rho is not that clear and sections of the article that are explicitly clear are being violated at the moment. Before you oppose me you should know that I'm not just a blind nationalist whining about this situation. At first I thought that the treaty explicitly stated the situation of the island. Looking at the link that Fut.Perf. I realized a completely different situation. Castellorizo is an island as well as Rho. Rho is hardly an islet. If you look at the map of the region from either Google Earth or some other place you'll realize the islets to the East of Castellorizo but Rho is too big to be an islet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDarkLordSeth (talk • contribs) 23:54, 5 August 2009

Well, this would mean that the island/islet it still Italian. Good to know, the next time that I go to Kas I will join the Turkish journalists and I will bring an Italian flag with me.... :-) Joking aside, with the treaty of Paris Greece succeeded to Italy in all rights and obligations concerning the Dodecanese, and among them there is the Convention of 1932. This puts an end to the story about Rho, Strongyli, and so on (at least if we adhere to International law). Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Article 14 does not say all Dodecanese Islands. It says "the Dodecanese Islands indicated hereafter, namely..." So the Article covers the islands that are mentioned in this sentence which do not include the island of Rho. None of the treaties that you mentioned leaves the island to Greece. It's status yet to be determined. Legally, Greece do not own the island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.74.48 (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What's causing the real problem here is the second section of Article 14. It says: "These islands shall be and shall remain demilitarized." which just recently the island was turned out to be occupied by Greek soldiers. Even the Wiki article states that though when it comes to things like this Wiki is the last place to go which is kinda why we're trying to improve it here. Whatever you choose from the first part Greece is still violating this agreement with those soldiers. It doesn't really matter what their mission there is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDarkLordSeth (talk • contribs) 23:54, 5 August 2009

This is another story. A territory which has been demilitarized according to a treaty should remain demilitarized. However, this has nothing to do with the Sovereignty over that territory. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the debate over demilitarization is nothing new and nothing specific to this one place. We are covering it over at Aegean dispute, including both the Turkish objections and the Greek arguments about why they no longer feel bound by those terms. That doesn't mean we should rehash the issue in every single article on every single Aegean islet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. please stop deleting the editing that I've done to the page. The violation of the law can be mentioned and I'm simply stating the facts. I'm writing it here as I couldn't find a way to message you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDarkLordSeth (talk • contribs) 11:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this is quite the correct place for discussion, thanks for making the effort. I am removing your addition because it goes against two of our basic content policies: neutrality and "no original research". We are here to report only on facts as they have been previously expressed publicly by others in reliable, reputable sources. The idea that the military presence on the island is "illegal" is not a "fact" but an interpretation and evaluation of the facts. As such, we cannot just propose such an idea on our own; we can only report it if and when it gets proposed by others. And if and when that happens, we will still need to not just state it as a fact, but to attribute it to somebody as being their opinion, like in: "XYZ has criticized the military presence as a violation of the demilitarisation statute", etc.

BTW, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages; use "~~~~" after each talk post. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What I added was and is completely neutral. I'd like to see how it is not neutral. I even quoted the article the second time. The article clearly suggests no military on the island in plain and simple words. It is not open to debate as it is exact. There is no problem with neutrality here and there is no further research needs to be done as the text of the document is already credited. I'd like you to include the violation of the treaty please. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please make yourself familiar with the difference between primary and secondary sources. You are interpreting the import of a 1932 primary source for a present-day political situation. That's what WP:NOR prohibits. What you would need is reputable secondary sources discussing this issue. In the absence of such, including the issue would also mean giving undue weight to a fringe issue, as long as no political issue over this particular islet has come to the fore through official sources. As I said above, the general issue of demilitarisation is something that affects the whole situation of the Aegean, and we are appropriately covering it in the Aegean dispute article. Nobody out in the real world (except perhaps for a few sensationalist media and nationalist web forums) has raised the issue with respect to this particular island. Just because you, personally, believe it is an important issue, doesn't make it one in Wikipedia's eyes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What you said is another fancy way of bullshitting. Thanks for the effort. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Shrug. Up to now I've been making an effort to assume good faith on your part and try to treat you as a legitimate contributor. After this response, I guess this no longer applies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking the same for you but constant re-editing without saying anything for no real reason changed that. You're applying your own thoughts to alter the article while extrapolating wiki rules to justify it. Sorry but that's bullshitting. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Imbros, where this ingenious editor is actually arguing that a name unknown to several anglophone editors is compelled by recognizability, and that we should not consider the usage of English literature. Is this one an asset to Wikipedia? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ro, Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071127053236/http://www.megisti.gr/ to http://www.megisti.gr/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071127053236/http://www.megisti.gr/ to http://www.megisti.gr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)