Jump to content

Talk:Imia

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SilentResident (talk | contribs) at 03:16, 31 October 2021 (→Requested move 17 October 2021: edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

False distances cited?

I think there may be some intentionally false distances cited in the article. I'm not Greek/Turkish, just wandered to the topic by chance, read the article, did some measuring on Google Maps. By my measurements from closest shore point to closest shore point , the West Isle of Imia/Kardak is about 3.48 km/1.88 nmi) from the closest Greek island of Kalylimnos, and the East Isle of Imia/Kardak is about 4.19 km/2.26 nmi) from Cavus Adasi, the closest Turkish island. This sides pretty solidly with the Greek view/general rule on territories that the one with the closest other territorial shore is the one who should have sovereignty, i.e. the West Isle is closer to Greece and by extension as the East Isle is closer to the West Isle than Turkey, it's also Greek (the Treaty of Lausanne argument is separate from this general rule regarding sovereign territory everywhere in the world). And actually, the distance from the closest point on Kalylimnos to the furthest point on Imia/Kardak is still also only 3.98 km/2.15 nmi, but that's besides the point.

I noted a section of the article which cited a new piece from Turkey saying they're building a watch tower on Cavus Adasi, claiming it was "only one mile" away from Imia/Kardak, which is patently false as per the above measurements, and is potentionally intentional misinformation by those with a pro-Turk stance on the issue. I changed that to "slightly over 2 nautical miles", which quickly received a citation needed tag, which I agree with. I realize that Google Maps isn't a great source to cite, and was considering where to find e.g. a nautical chart or some other such source to cite. However, the CN tag was removed, as was the entire mention of the distance in that sentence, with the comment "no need to sweat over whether it's more like one mile or two miles". While I think it's better not to mention the exact distance than keep a false distance in the article, I would argue that the distance is very relevant here, especially if it is/was being intentionally under- or overreported. If we can't keep simple geographic facts straight, that's a huge issue IMO.

Now, that part of the article may be ok, but the very first paragraph is still problematic:
Imia (Greek: Ίμια) or Kardak is a pair of small uninhabited islets in the Aegean Sea, situated between the Greek island chain of the Dodecanese and the southwestern mainland coast of Turkey. They lie 5.5 nautical miles (10.2 km; 6.3 mi) east of the Greek island, Kalymnos, 2.5 nmi (4.6 km; 2.9 mi) southeast of the Greek islet, Kalolimnos, and 3.8 nmi (7.0 km; 4.4 mi) west of the coast of the Turkish peninsula of Bodrum. Their total surface area is 10 acres (4.0 ha).

As I noted above, I believe the distance from Kalolimnos is actually under 1.9 nmi, i.e. it is underreported in the introductory paragraph. The distance from Turkey, however, is also underreported, as their closest islet is about 2,25 nmi away. It seems like an attempt to undermine the Greek claim by saying that the closest unquestionably Greek "island" is further away than the Turkish mainland, and being dismissive towards Kalolimnos as a mere "islet" despite Kalolimnos also being inhabited (by two people, but still) and having an old lighthouse and permanent garrison. Meanwhile, the closest Turkish island/islet of Cavus Adasi does not seem to have been inhabited (I was unable to find concrete information) prior to the construction of the watchtower. Basically, I think someone trying to back the Turkish claim has edited the intro to say "The Turkish mainland is closer to these islets than any "proper" Greek island, that small island you have significantly closer than the Turkish mainland doesn't count, and Turkey also has a smaller island closer to Imia/Kardak than our mainland, but I'm not going to mention it because it's slightly farther from Imia/Kardak than Kalolimnos is... and maybe I'll also write that Kalolimnos is further away from then than it really is, just in case."

Jesihvone (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I decided to add citation needed tags to all the distances and the area of the islets (pending finding a proper map for a citable source, rather than just Google Maps), while also fixing the distance to Kalolimnos from 2.5 nmi to a more proper 1.9 nmi, and also adding the distance to Cavus Adasi. I also think the distances to Kalymnos and the Turkish mainland are slight overestimates, 5.5 nmi and 3.8 nmi vs. my measured figures of 5.3 nmi and 3.6-3.7 nmi, but since they were both overestimates and by so little, I didn't change them yet. Forgot to include that Imia/Kardak are west of Cavus Tadasi (the direction is mentioned for the other points of reference), but that can wait until a later edit. I considered a POV tag, but I think the rest of the article is reasonably neutral, although possibly not perfect.

Jesihvone (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't quite remember where those measurements originally came from, but I think I still have some official Turkish pamphlet from the time of the crisis that gives measurements like these. I'd consider them pretty uncontroversial. I'll have to correct you on one count: there isn't really any such rule "that the one with the closest other territorial shore is the one who should have sovereignty", and to the best of my knowledge neither side has proposed any official argument on such a basis, so there isn't really that much of a potential POV baggage to the precise measurements as you suspected. The only legal argument that depends on exact measurement is the Greek position that three miles from the Turkish mainland constitutes a cut-off point under the Lausanne treaty, and nobody has denied the fact that they are outside of that line. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you go have a look on Google Maps yourself, there's an built-in measuring feature that's easy to use. The 2.5 nmi for the distance from Kalolimnos is clearly past Imia/Kardak, and the "only one mile" bit from Imia/Kardak to Cavus Tadasi was even more blatantly false. A Turkish government pamphlet from the time of the crisis is precisely the kind of source one might expect to have some "fudging" of the numbers, in the case, exaggerating the distance to the Kalolimnos, which works in favour of their own claim. I agree that the distances are besides the point for the Treaty of Lausanne, as I mentioned in my initial comment. I may also have mixed up the rules for determining territorial waters (if an area would fall within the area of 2 or more countries due to their shores being close enough together, the border is considered to be midway between their closes shore points), and the rules might indeed be different for islands. Jesihvone (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, the booklet I mentioned gives the distances as follows: 3.6 nm to Turkish mainland (from eastern islet), 2.2 nm to Çavus, 5.4 to Kalimnos (from western islet); no measurement given for Kalolimnos. The figures match your measurements fairly well. The absence of a figure for Kalolimnos, undoubtedly the nearest other object, does of course speak to some bias, though it's somewhat logical, as the official Turkish position expressed in the booklet obviously considers Kalolimnos itself as equally "gray" as Imia, thus not a relevant point of reference. The figures we were quoting are within one decimal fraction of these, so possibly just a matter of different rounding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: the unsourced and slightly exaggerated measurement for Kalolimnos was introduced in [1] back in 2006 and has been sitting in the article ever since. Incidentally this was done by a contributor with a clearly pro-Greek POV, so it's unlikely it was exaggerated on purpose. That edit dit skew the article a bit in favour of emphasizing closeness to Greece though, because while introducing the nearest Greek point, it omitted the nearest Turkish one (Cavus). Before that, we only had the two nearest major/inhabited reference objects, i.e. Kalimnos and the Turkish mainland. I guess we should either give both Kalolimnos and Cavus, or neither. Finally, the "1 mile" measurement for Cavus (further down in the text) was introduced quite recently [2] and was taken straight out of an erroneous statement in the source, a news article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split out "crisis" article?

About the recent move to split out a separate Imia/Kardak crisis article: I'm not convinced that's a good idea. It's not that we couldn't have such an article – but where would that leave this one? The present article is not a stand-alone "geography" article that could simply describe the islands as such, independently of the conflict. There simply isn't enough to say about them. Their geographical description doesn't take more than two sentences. The main weight of the present article is about the politics and legal situation. Without the politics, you cannot properly understand the military crisis, and without the military crisis, you cannot understand the politics. Plus, you cannot understand the military crisis without the basic geography either.

In other words: pretty much everything that's in the one article would have to be repeated in the other to make that article understood, and the same goes other way round. Or: no reader would ever want to read the one article without also reading the other.

In such a situation, having two separate articles simply makes no sense. I get the feeling the main impetus behind wanting the new "crisis" article was to have a hook to hang a "military conflict infobox" on, at the top of the page. Creating an article just to be able to have a box is a serious case of the tail wagging the dog. And the infobox as such is not very useful anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 October 2021

Imia/Kardak → Imia – The article currently is using a double name formula, Imia/Kardak, by pairing the more WP:COMMONNAME Greek name "Imia" which used by the majority of the WP:RS (5.000 results in Google Books: [3]), along with the less used alternative Turkish name "Kardak" (900 results [4]). The pairing of the two names together (Imia/Kardak) provides 3.200 results [5]. The majority of the historical/geographical maps (even Turkish ones) that were published prior to the crisis, used the name "Imia" (see: Cartographic evidence for more info). And the International community uses the name Imia or has lend their support to Greece which calls them "Imia", while Turkey's position with the name "Kardak" didn't ever gain any notable support (see: International positions). I am completely aware that the article's topic is politically sensitive, however, that doesn't mean the project's naming rules shouldn't apply: per WP:ARTICLENAME, the title should be a single name, which is the common practice across the English Wikipedia. Usually, the WP:COMMONNAME which reflects on the majority of the WP:RS and the views of the majority. Per WP:POVNAMING policy, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy even if some may regard it to be biased. According to the same rule, double name formulas like [Name1]/[Name2] should not be used, and the alternative name should be given WP:DUE prominence within the article instead of WP:UNDUE on the title, with redirects created where appropriate. WP:POVNAMING is part of Wikipedia's core policy, the WP:NPOV. I am initiating this move request to bring the article in line with the WP:NEUTRAL rules and make it WP:CONSISTENT with how all the 200+ articles both in the Disputed Islands topic area and the Territorial Disputes topic area, are given single names. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SR, please make the following correction to your post: the 2800 hits (actually 3070) are to "imia/kardak", not "kardak". This strengthens the case for moving the article from "Imia/Kardak" to "Imia". Khirurg (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize this sooner. Thank you soo much. Kardak is only 900 results, down from 2.800. But I am sorry, Imia/Kardak (or Imia-Kardak) is even less. Only 500 results. Thanks for spotting the mistake, however. This has been fixed now. The reason Imia/Kardak was showing 2.800 results instead of 500, is because the search (a habit of mine) often includes the words loose as well. Which now has been eliminated so that the editors can have the actual results. Enjoy.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your most recent variant of the search terms, "imia/kardak" islands -wikipedia -imia -kardak, is nonsensical, because it's self-contradictory. This search in fact has zero search results, because you obviously can't find a text that contains "Imia/Kardak" but doesn't also contain "Imia". The correct search is for simply "imia kardak" -wikipedia (no need for the extra "islands" qualifier either, as any text that contains both "imia" and "kardak" can't possibly be about anything other than this.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added as well. Enjoy. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FuturePerfect is right that the keyword Island is unecessary here. So I did some search based on FPAS's suggestions, and the results are vastly different when the keyword "island" is removed from them: Imia: 98.900 results [6], Kardak: 6.100 results [7] and Imia/Kardak: 3.200 results: [8]. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. "Imia" alone of course does need a context specifier, as there are far too many false matches (the first page of search results is filled with references to the medical organization IMIA). It also needs the quote marks around "Imia", or you get loads and loads of unrelated partial matches. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right. That's embarassing. However we can't tell for sure how many exactly the results for Imia are, but they certainly might be more than the ones posted on the Move Request. Even if they are more, I will just leave it like that. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Support as per nom. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC) blocked sock of User:Mercurius1[reply]

  • Oppose. I'd be happy if there was a clear "common name" argument to be made for a single name, but I'm not seeing it. Of the arguments stated above, next to nothing is true (as usual). From what I can see, nothing relevant has changed out there in the world since the last times we went through this. Google counts are tainted by the fact that these islands are virtually never mentioned anywhere in sources except in the context of the political dispute, with the large majority of authors participating in the debate being partisan of either side. As expected, Greek authors use "Imia", Turkish authors use "Kardak", and the weighting in the Google counts simply reflects which side is more active in the debate. Among the relatively few third-party/non-partisan authors, the predominant convention is still to use double-naming patterns similar to ours (using paraphrases such as "... the islands called Imia in Greek and Kardak in Turkish..." and the like), so in this – rather exceptional – case, the double naming is in fact the best candidate for a "common name". As for international recognition, that's a red herring too. It's still as true in 2021 as it was in 2006 and in 1996: few, if any, outside political powers have taken an unequivocal stance in endorsing either the one or the other side's legal claims, and international academic observers in reliable sources typically don't do it either. And, of course, the pre-1996 cartographic evidence is randomly mixed – the claim that "Imia" was predominant in those maps is simply false. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, mainly per WP:SLASH and on the nearly 2-1 margin of the Google Books results in favor of "Imia" over "Imia/Kardak". The double name is not only unsightly, it is the only one of its kind in wikipedia and has got to go. Of the two single names, "Imia" vs. "Kardak", "Imia" is clearly the more common. The claim by Future Perfect that Among the relatively few third-party/non-partisan authors, the predominant convention is still to use double-naming patterns similar to ours (using paraphrases such as "... the islands called Imia in Greek and Kardak in Turkish..." and the like) is not only evidence-free (a bare assertion if ever there was one), but had he bothered to even look at just the first page of the google books results [9], he would have seen third paty/non-partisan authors such as 1) The Library of Congress, b) James Pettifer, c) Charles Stewart, d) Igor V. Karaman and even e) Deniz Bölükbaşı using plain "Imia" without mentioning "Kardak" or the double naming (because the search was conducted with the parameters "-kardak" and "-imia/kardak", specifically excluding sources that use the double naming or anything similar). The fact remains that nearly twice as many sources use "Imia" over "Imia/Kardak". Khirurg (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you had bothered to even look at the books you mention, you would have noticed that Bölükbaşı is using "Imia" only in the context of a passage where he presents the Greek claims as such – it's in fact an extended literal quotation from a Greek government source, though not properly marked as such. Elsewhere, in his own text, he is of course using "Kardak" throughout, as one would expect. Pettifer is a book written entirely from a Greek-centered perspective. Karaman mentiones Imia only once in a single sentence (and once in the title of a Greek work listed in his bibliography). As for Stewart, I can't see any such title among the top search results; the only one that comes up in a separate search is this – was that what you meant? It doesn't actually seem to contain the word Imia anywhere, or if it does, it's not in the Google search index. Nothing of this changes the fact that among reliable third-party authors, calling the islands by both their names combined is a far more frequent pattern, as you can easily see in the other search results list you linked to. BTW, the Bölükbaşı example also demonstrates that the attempt at excluding "Kardak" from the search isn't working properly, so the claim that that search count only includes titles that use "Imia" alone is false. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Google Books search do contain errors, but these are systemic and affect all searches equally (I estimate a false positive rate of 10-20%?). For example, there are false positives for the "Imia/Kardak" search as well [10]. There is absolutely no reason to assume that search engine errors would affect one term more than the other. If anything, since "Imia" is ambiguous (which is why I also added "island" to make it more stringent), it's possible there are more false negatives for "Imia" than for "Imia/Kardak". Google Books searches are flawed, but they're the best we've got, otherwise we enter WP:CHERRY. You assertion regarding Pettifer is an opinion and it is not appropriate to second-guess authors' motivation, otherwise I can do that as well. And so what if Karaman mentions it only once? If it's WP:RS, it counts, period. Then we also have the two Library of Congress sources and this US Embassy publication, all of which use plain "Imia" [11] (thus showing the naming used by the US government - it doesn't settle the issue, but it's important). On top of that we have Wikipedia guidelines that discourage double namings, so there's that as well. Khirurg (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is not clear whether there is a single common name. Many GoogleBooks results for both "Imia" and "Kardak" are taken out of context. For instance, a good number of the sources say things like "The island, called Imia in Greece,..." and "The Turkish side considers the islet, known by them as Kardak,...". Some sources might use only one name just because they are elaborating on the claims of only one side of the dispute. A good number of sources, on the other hand, use "Imia/Kardak" or explain what name is used by each party. As a typical silly element of Turkish-Greek nationalist battleground conflicts, this needs strong evidence to be moved to a single name, be it Imia or Kardak. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: It is weird to hear two editors who in the past have never challenged Google results regarding WP:COMMONNAME (Krimi never challenged Google results before in the Albania topic area in disputes related to Serbia and FuturePerfect never did so in the North Macedonia topic area in disputes related to names), especially at a time when these Google results were having an even smaller margin than here where "Imia" comes with 5.000 uses vs "Imia/Kardak" (500 uses) or "Kardak" (900 uses), a difference which is too high and indisputable for Wikipedia to ignore. A difference that cannot even be sufficiently explained by these editors who are generalizing their claims of the kind "just because they are elaborating on the claims of only one side of the dispute" or "Google counts are tainted". Even if that was the case, I shall remind Ktrimi and FuturePerfect that per WP:ARTICLETITLE, a single name should be used even when no one is more frequently used than the other. Specifically it states: "However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly." This move to a single name should be done with consensus, be it either through this move request, or by discussing it. Wikipedia's rules however are very clear that the editors should reach a consensus and pick a single name instead of using two names even if they believe that none of them is more frequently used than the other. Thank you and good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 10:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that Krimi never challenged Google results before in the Albania topic area in disputes related to Serbia is not true. First, I am "Ktrimi", not "Krimi". I have noted elsewhere that there are cases where there is no obvious common name in English sources listed by GoogleBooks. Examples include [12] and [13]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for your corrections. I must have missed that edit! At least in your comment at Malisevo's Talk page [14], you aren't suggesting that they stick with two names for Malisevo's article title. Your statement: "It seems that editors from both sides are wrong in mentioning WP:COMMONNAME, as there seems to be none in English -obscure town after all. The closing editor should evaluate other reasons, such as how this stands against WP:NAMECHANGES and the name in the language of the local population." clearly shows that you are supporting that a single name is chosen based on certain criteria. Imo, I agree with your position at Malisevo since it is in line with WP:ARTICLENAME. However, I wonder now, why aren't you recommending the same here? Why not propose a single name for Imia based on certain criteria as well? If this isn't double standards of your part, then what it is, Ktrimi? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted there, Malisevo has a name used by its local population. When a common name in English is not obvious, then the logic says that the local name should be used. Imia/Kardak has no population at all, so it does not have a local name. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. And what makes you believe that non-inhabited places shouldn't somehow get a single name for their article title? My question is rhetoric because my point here isnt on what criteria we shall follow but on why you voted-oppose moving to a single name on wp:commonname grounds without recommending any better solutions (emphasis in italics). My goal here is to work towards a solution in line with Wikipedia's rules but your vote here indicates that you only came to support a double name formula on faulty "no WP:COMMONNAME" grounds (despite Google results being too striking and despite WP:ARTICLETITLE making it clear that even in cases of no common name, a single name should be chosen). I am sure you are fully aware what I am trying to say here, just you aren't admitting the fault of your positions. To me it is clear that you followed Wikipedia's rules in Malisevo's naming case but went against the same rules in Imia/Kardak's naming case without providing any adequate explanations. I respect your vote even if I disagree with it, but I can't stand this hypocrisy when it comes to Wikipedia's rules. Expect no more replies from me. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haha "hypocrisy", after accusing me of double standards, now a new personal accusation. There is no obvious common name in English sources, no local name, the tiny rocks (that will probably disappear due to sea level rise caused by climate change) are not controlled by any of the two sides of the dispute - and you still want the name used by one of the sides of the nationalistic dispute to be used as the article's title. If Imia was so obvious as a solution, why did not you propose it before, as you have been editing on Wikipedia for more than 10 years, including a long history of editing this article? Are you concerned about the format of the title? Then change it to "Imia-Kardak dispute". Anyways, we should not clutter the discussion, other editors could have better ideas. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: interesting how the editor Ktrimi991 just proposed that we go against WP:ARTICLETITLE and against WP:POVNAMING by changing "Imia/Kardak" to "Imia-Kardak dispute". Even though the rules discourage such practices in the project, and there is no such rationale or precedent. A careful look at the Disputed Islands topic area shows that Ktrimi's proposed double-name formula "[Name1]-[Name2] Dispute" isn't ever used. Quite the opposite. For example there is Senkaku Islands dispute, but there is no Senkaku-Diaogu Islands dispute. I don't know where that editor got their problematic ideas from, and how comes they got the impression that it is "too nationalist" to move from a double name to a single name, because even if this was truly the case, Wikipedia's WP:POVNAMING states that: "it may be used even though some may regard it as biased". To not mention that this very same rule also discourages double names: "Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, "Derry/Londonderry", "Aluminium/Aluminum" or "Flat Earth (Round Earth)" should not be used.". This instills me a little faith that this editor came here to contribute to Imia/Kardak dispute in WP:GOODFAITH.
This is a sensitive subject which served as a battleground for years before things calmed down. For this simple reason the editors are advised to be more cautious with their comments here. If someone has a problem with how the Wiki Project works, or even certain rules, they are welcome to take their complaints to the appropriate talk pages, not here. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry to see this is a retaliatory vote due to disagreements at Talk:Chaonians. (Diffs: Excine's vote at Imia/Kardak [15], happened immediately after their involvement in a disagreement at Chaonians [16] with the one edit being a straight follow up of the other). An editor appears to just have questioned Excine on their talk page [17] for WP:FOLLOWING us here apparently to repeatedly confront us and or inhibit the move request with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editors Excine is in disagreements with. I will appreciate if Excine familiarize themselves with the Wiki Project's naming policies: WP:ARTICLETITLE, WP:POVNAMING, to WP:MOS, and WP:SLASH and review their vote in the policy-compliant move request objectively, in line with these guidelines. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely disruptive. Could be a coincidence, but more likely this is a case of contribs-stalking someone here. When I asked him about he was keen to avoid the subject [18]. So in addition to familiarizing himself with the above guidelines mentioned by SilentResident, this user should familiarize himself with WP:STALK and WP:HOUND. Khirurg (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to believe that my comment is a point of conflict. Assuming that you are a neutral editor whose primary goal is to improve an article rather than to promote a specific point of view, you should encourage the expression and discussion of opposing viewpoints in order to put your own to the test. --Excine (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per argumentation provided by Future Perfect. Both Imia and Kardak are commonly used. Imia/Kardak is also used. The "common name" policy is relevant when there is only one common name. WP:POVNAME"When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources"This is not the case here. All three versions are common. An editor, quite rightly noted that Greek users use Imia, turkish users use Kardak, but there are published papers from both greek and turkish scholars that use the term, Imia/Kardak (when not talking to home audience). Cinadon36 07:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Cinadon: "All three versions are common" Not true. Imia (with 5.000 hits) is more prevailing than Imia/Kardak (with 3.200 hits, and which is not compliant with WP:POVNAMING and WP:SLASH and should be avoided), and certainly, Imia with 5.000 hits is far more prevailing than the next policy-compliant option, Kardak (with 900 hits), and is undisputably the most commonly used of all the names if not the common name.
In fact, when there are multiple names, Wikipedia guidelines encourage us to pick the most commonly used one of them all, the one which prevails in the English-language sources. Per WP:ARTICLETITLE: "However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. Also, I wouldn't go as to WP:CHERRYPICK on sources mentioning Imia/Kardak because there are dozens of more sources using plain Imia instead. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 10:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would resist calling my opinion as "true". I understand that we are having different perspectives, but you are not stating facts when you are saying that not all names are common. Would you say the same thing even if it was 51-49%? If it is 75%-25%? 99 to 1%? Also, counting hits, is not really a reliable way to measure what name is more common among RS. Imia stands for other uses as well besides the specific Aegean island. All names have been used plenty of times( meaning they are common names) so we can choose the less biased option. Cinadon36 10:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but we are supposed to (or, borrowing the guideline's choice of wording: should) do the exact opposite here...
  • Firstly, the project's naming guidelines here are quite clear that double names should not be used. For everyone's convenience, I am copy-pasting the relevant sentence here:
"Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, "Derry/Londonderry", "Aluminium/Aluminum" or "Flat Earth (Round Earth)" should not be used."
  • Secondly, the naming guidelines here and here tell us to discuss and find a solution when there is no obvious prevalence of a common name over another:
"Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy."
"When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly."
  • Thirdly, the naming guidelines here tell us that a name used widely in WP:RS, may be used even though it is regarded by some as biased:
"In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased."
  • Last, I can't see how the double name Imia/Kardak is a less biased option over Imia. By pairing the two names together, is to give WP:UNDUE weight to the alternative name on the article title, even though the guidelines tell us to not do such a thing. According to the naming guidelines here, the alternative names should be given due prominence within the article, not the title, and create redirects to it where appropriate:
"Instead, alternative names should be given due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate."
Please correct me and let me know if I missed anything but as far as I can see, there is no guideline recommending double name formulas over normal names in the event of no common name, in the event of multiple common names, or in the event of a biased name. A single name not only is in compliance with the naming guidelines, but also is WP:CONSISTENT with every other article in the same topic area: Category:Disputed islands and the List of territorial disputes. Imia/Kardak, thanks to its double name, is the only article that doesn't follow Wikipedia's guidelines. The move request aims to correct this, and, considering how politically sensitive this topic area is, we are supposed to fortify WP:NEUTRALITY and stability by following the rules, not make exceptions to them. If you don't have any better solutions to recommend than a double name, then the policy-compliant single name page move request could welcome your support. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Future Perfect. While I dislike double-barreled naming, this one is a justified exceptino. Actually, I would much prefer Imia–Kardak dispute, as I think it would transcend this debate about "common name", which misses the point. This article is not about geography or fauna of an uninhabited islet out of thousands similar ones in the Aegean; it is all about the dispute surrounding it. No such user (talk) 07:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting No_such_user: "This article is not about geography or fauna of an uninhabited islet out of thousands similar ones in the Aegean; it is all about the dispute surrounding it." Sure, this all about a dispute, none disagrees, but have you seen any other disputes in the English Wikipedia using the double name formula? Me not.
A look at every other dispute in List of territorial disputes, shows that all of them are given single names:
and so on.
The only striking exception to the whole list of 200+ entries, is, strangely, Imia/Kardak and only. None else.
Imia/Kardak is the only Dispute (or Disputed Territory) in the whole Wikipedia to ever use a weird double-name formula. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 10:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, SR. The alternate proposal "Imia-Kardak dispute" is so vague that it becomes incomprehensible. There's no dispute between someone called Imia and someone called Kardak. Dr. K. 20:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your thorough and sage analysis is very much appreciated, SR. In addition, WP:SLASH states:

Generally, avoid joining two words with a slash, also called a forward slash, stroke or solidus ( / ), because it suggests that the words are related without specifying how. Replace with clearer wording.

Translation, avoid this grammatical abomination which also violates WP:MOS and is so highly visible because it is part of the title of an article. This grammatical violation is also unique to this page only, as you have established. This should be a wake-up call for any grammar-respecting Wikipedian. Dr. K. 01:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is amusing how many policies and guidelines the present title has violated. Thank you.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose google scholar results don't indicate Imia or Kardak as the common name. As both names refer to uninhabited islets which became known only because of the 1990s dispute, most sources seem to prefer "Imia/Kardak". All recent political science studies prefer the dual name [19][20][21] as a means to highlight their "disputed" status. Side comment: this is a petty dispute between two states which - obviously - have no interest in barren rocks but utilize the dispute to cause Rally 'round the flag effects.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Maleschreiber: "All recent political science studies prefer the dual name" and how do you come to such conclusions? Because the most recent studies refer to them plainly as Imia as well: [22] [23] [24] To not mention that the amount of sources using the single "Imia" is surpassing the sources using the dual name "Imia/Kardak" by a rate of 2:1, a fact which you omitted.
Quoting Maleschreiber: "prefer the dual name as a means to highlight their "disputed" status". And so? There are sources that prefer using the dual name "Senkaku/Diaogu": [25] [26] [27] but the editors respected the naming guidelines by giving it only a single name: Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute.
The Wikipedia naming guidelines are clear that titles like "Imia/Kardak", *should not be used*. Your vote is a sad reminder that double-standards can apply in the Project. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 09:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: it is unfortunate that the editors have voted-oppose to the move request using faulty arguments like "sources prefer the dual name as a means to highlight their "disputed" status" when this clearly isn't the case here, because the sources do the same for Senkaku Islands and other similar disputes as well, where they are using double names such as "Senkaku/Diaoyu" , yet this didn't prevent the Wiki community from respecting what the naming guidelines say on the matter by choosing a single name nevertheless for these disputes. The dispute articles are always given a single name in the English Wikipedia regardless of their nature as disputes. Examples are Senkaku Islands dispute, Cyprus dispute, Macedonia naming dispute, Kuril Islands dispute, Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands sovereignty dispute and so on. That's because there is no naming guideline suggesting double-names for article titles, either to highlight their disputed status, or just because some sources prefer using double names to describe these disputes. Vote-opposes that go against Wikipedia's guidelines and are using faulty arguments, are extremely disheartening and reduce any little faith that has remained to the Wikipedia project. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 09:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think lost in the discussion is that the article definitely needs to not be Imia/Kardak. Whether or not it becomes Imia or Kardak is effectively a separate debate, although I'm inclined to side with Imia due to the larger body of sources referring to it as such. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Out of curiosity, I looked at the history of the guideline language against double names in the text of WP:NPOV. It turns out it was first inserted there in May 2007, one and a half years after the title of this page had been finalized (it's been stable since December 2005), at the initiative of User:Pmanderson [28]. This was in reaction to a POV dispute at Shatt el-Arab. There, a group of national POV warriors had been pushing for a double name in order to force their own preferred national name into the title, against the obvious fact that there was a very clearly predominant common English name (which just happened not to be the one they liked). The difference to the present case is obvious: the intention behind the guidance was to discourage the misuse of double naming schemes as a means to overrule the "common English" principle. It explicitly didn't mean to rule out the exceptional use of double names in cases where the "common English" principle genuinely fails to produce a clear result, or where common English usage itself might actually be in favor of the double name. Interestingly, in the accompanying discussion, the author of the change himself cited the case of Imia/Kardak as a positive example of a double naming that was both in line with usage and with neutrality. Accordingly, the language against double names has never been that of an absolute prohibition; it's a recommendation (the current wording says they are "discouraged"), which, like all Wikipedia guidance, allows for reasoned exceptions. In view of the exceptional stability of the double title in the present case (16 years without move wars and even without significant RM attempts), and in view of what is still a very high incidence of the double name in the non-partisan reliable sources, I'd still say "don't fix it if it ain't broken". Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If nationalist POV warriors at Shatt el-Arab tried to push for double names to give their preferred name more WP:DUE weight, and they used Imia/Kardak as a positive example for their cause (really, since when POV warriors recommending double names can be a positive thing for Wikipedia?), shows why double names should be avoided. Proves why it is a good decision to initiate a Move Request for Imia/Kardak. I see Shatt el-Arab is a single-named article nowadays, while Imia/Karak is not; thanks to its double name, it's a unique case among 200+ disputed territories across Wikipedia and that doesn't make it neutral. Contrary. It is an exception to these very WP:NEUTRAL rules we all editors are supposed to follow when neutrality is truly our concern here. The WP:NPOV policy is non-negotiable, and POVNAMING is part of it. Giving WP:UNDUE weight to alternate names on titles for disputes is an unacceptable exception from these WP:NEUTRAL rules and it should be corrected so that it can be consistent with all the other articles in the Disputed Territory topic area.
The fact that none had bothered to correct the Imia/Kardak name for years, doesn't mean it was ok. Just we missed it. Anyways, if it really was "ok" for everyone, then we wouldn't be there now. It was only recently that I realized that no other Disputed Territory is given a double name except Imia/Kardak. Looking at the WP:RS, I've noticed "Imia" had more prominence than "Kardak" (by an undeniable margin), making me realize that there is an WP:UNDUE case. Then I checked the WP:NPOV policy (of which WP:UNDUE is part), just to see if there is any mention about undue alternate names. It is there where I stumbled upon WP:POVNAMING (they are part of the same policy). Once I had all these facts and the rules at hand, I initiated a move request. There is absolutely no reason to stick with a double name in light of all this.
And no, even in cases where you may think that the names aren't more prominent than each other, still we can't go by double name formulas. The Wikipedia guidelines have made this clear: article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged and editors ought to discuss and find a solution when there is no obvious prevalence of a common name over another. In cases where multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title. And when there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which one is best based on certain criteria. Thats all. Also the name rules are clear on why Slashes (/) and Dashes (-) should be avoided: Double name formulas have a totally different meaning when slashes or dashes are used. For example Slashes (/) denote a relation between the two names. [Name1]/[Name2] implies that the one name is related to the other which isn't true in our case here. Imia has nothing in common with Kardak and no WP:RS ever confirmed that these two names relate in any way besides the one being just the alternative name to the other. Nor is a Dash (-), which some editors proposed above, a good idea to have between the two names. [Name1]-[Name2] implies that Imia is the one party in the dispute, with Kardak being the other. Wikipedia urges that *clarity* is preferred for article titles over of such unclear implications. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: RM was attempted closure by an closer who was involved in parallel disputes with several of the RM's voters, at other articles, and who, in their closure, have ignored the Wikipedia's guidelines regarding the number of votes versus weight of arguments, applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. The problematic closure has been reverted by another voter twice: [29] [30], and now an uninvolved third party Admin closure has been requested at: Wikipedia:Closure Requests. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisting comment I'm going to relist this one. A lot of good discussion has taken place, but a bit more analysis by editors (both of the points already made, and of any points not yet made) might help build a stronger consensus. I'd gently like to note that SilentResident's point about the policy on slashes in titles is taken; it would help not to repeat it further (in large amounts of prose), as that would aid in filtering through the mass of text when this discussion is reviewed again for closure (by myself or another closer). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader:, I appreciate this, and you are right that large amounts of texts don't help. I will heel to your advises. Edit: I realized that the RM text size too might been abit long and has now been trimmed: [31]. This is the best I can do without altering the original meaning of the RM message. To this, feedback by other commentators was taken in account as well. Hope that helps. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. Closed problematic discussion.
*Obvious canvassing case It is good that MareBG and Soundwaveserb "voted" here, as they made their long-term off-wiki coordination clearer than ever. They are part of a group of srwiki admins who edit enwiki once in a while, and "vote" in RMs and RfCs one after the other. The possibity that the two editors above find this RM independently from each other is zero. It is far away from their usual topics of interest, and although the discussion has been ongoing for a week, they came here today less than 2 hours after each other. It is not strange if others of their group come soon. To both of you: it is naive to prove your off-wiki coordination for a silly dispute over a rock in the Aegean Sea, where you (and many others here, including me) have nothing to "win" or "lose". See you soon hehe Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I presume, from editor Ktrimi991's comments, that Ktrimi991 and these two above editors Ktrimi991 mentioned, must have had a past in other disputes. Right? Why I am not surprised now? Thank you Ktrimi991 for sharing your concerns about 2 "srwiki" editors coming and "vote" for "a silly dispute over a rock in the Aegean Sea" (your choice of wording). However, since you are accusing others, expect that WP:BOOMERANG applies for you as well and I can't help but scrutinize your own tactics: Your and Maleschreiber, 2 editors from the Albania Topic Area who had zero contributions to the Aegean Dispute Topic Area and the Imia article, 2 editors who I have been involved in bitter disputes, suddenly to show an interest for Imia and come to downvote the RM I initiated??? How comes this sudden interest of you and Maleschreiber to "vote" for "a silly dispute over a rock in the Aegean Sea"?
Ktrimi991, I was afraid you will go down this WP:BALKANS road and I have already warned you earlier on this RM: [32] "This is a sensitive subject which served as a battleground for years before things calmed down. For this simple reason the editors are advised to be more cautious with their comments here. If someone has a problem with how the Wiki Project works, or even certain rules, they are welcome to take their complaints to the appropriate talk pages, not here. Good day."
It seems you didn't heel to my warnings but this was expected from you. Hence why I went to Administrator EdJohnston at [33] to seek the admin's advice on how to draw broader consensus from outside the WP:BALKANS topic area so that I can shield my RM from such bad WP:BALKAN days. I am disappointed! Should I start pinging the Admins about you now? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A report will be prepared on the group of srwiki admins. Whoever asked them to "vote" here, thanks very much. I do not care about this tiny rock, but I care about their disruption of Western Balkans-related RMs and RfCs. Their "votes" in this discussion that is far away from their usual topics of interest and the timing (one week after the RM was open but less than 2 hours from each other) speaks volumes. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what you will do, as long as you do us a favor and go away if you do not intend to contribute to the RM discussion positively. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're certainly seeing a classic excample of how our usual travelling circus works. First we've seen the Greek tag-team in its usual full force (wherever SilentResident is, Khirurg, Othon and Dr.K. are never far away), then the Albanian tag-team picks up the case (wherever Ktrimi991 goes, Maleschreiber will go too), and now there's the Serbian tag-team. And each tag-team is complaining about the other doing the exact same thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice way of wording your concern, but as you have a long time of accussing Balkan editors of travelling circus stuff, maybe you should start to report your concern. You are an admin after all. In any case, I get the point that these discussions have almost always the same participants - not a productive thing. For myself, I have several diffs where I disagree with Maleschreiber. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly, Perfect at Sunrise. Arguments have no tagteams. My motivation here was not to "tagteam". It was to discuss the grammatical abomination you so fervently defend despite being a linguistics expert. Bereft of any actual arguments, now you resort to PAs to besmirch the reputation of your perceived opponents. You have descended to the lowest level of human exchange. Dr. K. 14:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The crucial "missing link", so to speak is: Where Khirurg goes, Ktrimi soon follows, and the rest of the drama ensues. Ktrimi !voted in the morning [34] after my vote [35] (giving me the impression that this user literally begins his day by checking my contribs). Here he followed me to an article he had never edited before [36]. Here [37] and here [38] he followed SilentResident to another user's talkpage for no good reason. In one of those posts he even brags about how he interfered with an AN3 report I filed. This user has managed to evade scrutiny up until now, but what is becoming increasingly clear is that wherever there is drama in the Balkans, Ktrimi991 features prominently in it. As has been obvious for a long time, much of the drama in this topic area originates from this user, and there is no doubt the topic area would be much quieter with you outside of it, even more so considering the lack of positive contribs. Khirurg (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to attacks and weird claims by Ktrimi1991 Accusing me of whatever that you imagine is happening here is quite bizzare. I edit en.wikipedia on subjects like tennis, the Balkans and various other subjects and I have been doing so for many years, without any problem. In fact, this is the first time that somebody on en.wikipedia tried to attack me for no reason whatsoever. Another thing, I am no administrator, just an editor who is here from his own will and I plan to continue doing so, despite sad attempts to silence me and anyone else who is not to your liking. It is quite interesting how you were very fast to make a conspiracy theory that there is a group of administrators from sr.wikipedia, but that is not the case, as I am not one. And it is no secret that some editors from my home project follow each other's edit, in the sense that we check who is working on what from time to time, but that's it and doing so is not against rules as it is done for good reasons and good faith, that is how we can improve each other's articles and content and we can see what is going on in the community and how we can help, which is something I can recommend you to do. That would be a nice change. Thank you. Soundwaweserb (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you check the edits of srwiki admins, and rush to support their "votes" and reverts. Good, we will discuss these things at the right place. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: @EdJohnston:, @Drmies: can you please do something? Certain editors who WP:IDONTLIKEIT run from the discussion department to the accusations department. This is disruptive for the normal flow of the RM progrees, just one day after another partial editor tried to close the RM without following Wikipedia's naming guidelines. I am disheartened by what I am seeing here. I will apreciate if participants are asked to focuse on RM discussion instead of trying to derail it by commenting on other participants when they run out of arguments. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: an advice from me. I have noticed that you continuously complain about getting disheartened or having kinds of stress. Do not let content disputes cause you such emotional worries. After someone makes a comment that gives you stress, do not respond immediately. Wait for 30 mimutes or 1 hour, then give your response, that will certainly be a calmer one after waiting for such time intervals. Do not give too much importance to what others say. Remember: your well-being is much more important than an Wiki article. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your genuine interest to a woman like me but would you please stick to the RM discussion for once??? Thank you. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I actually planned to make only a post here. But then I had to respond twice to your claims that I and Fut Perft follow "double standards", and then stopped responding and let you continue to accuse me. Today posted due to my concerns about the srwiki editors. I do not plan to comment again, and I hope I will not have any good reason to waste more time. On the other hand, you alone have posted here more text than all the other editors involved combined. Do not respond to every single post that is made here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have I? Or, as the initiator of the RM that I am, I can respond to those who vote against my RM so that their arguments are put to test? Good day. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ktrimi991 complaining of about alleged "canvassing" is pretty rich, considering he and two other Albanian editors (Maleschreiber (talk · contribs) and Excine (talk · contribs), who as it happens also collaborate on various forums off-wiki) showed up here to !vote even though the topic of this article has nothing whatsoever to do with Kosovo, Albania, etc. All three of these editors clearly contribs-stalked Greek editors and !voted just to "stick it" to them. Khirurg (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in several Aegean disputes-related disputes in the past, mostly you too were present. I have a long history of getting involved in conflicts of the region, from Yugoslavia to Turkey. Tell me, what are those off-wiki forums where I collaborate with other editors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, the only way you could have found out about this move request was by checking either mine or SilentResident's contribs. It is not a conicidence your vote is the right after mine. It's plain as day, so spare us the bull about "Aegean-related disputes". What is true though, is you feature prominently in all the Balkan drama that takes place around here. As for the off-wiki forums, you need to read my post again - it's not in reference to you. So that is not any of your business, but I would be happy to email that information to any admin interested. Khirurg (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not waste time, but send the evidence for tag-teaming or whatever to admins, ASAP. By doing that you will help the community a lot. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I will do so at "the right place", so to speak. Khirurg (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg: Voting in an open community discussion is not "tag-teaming". Did I ever call your frequent votes on Kosovo RMs "canvassing" - despite the fact that you almost never edit subjects which are related Kosovo? Side comment: Everyone has a life outside wiki and I'm proud of my real life work. From the moment that nobody's off-wiki activity interferes in the slightest in how they operate on-wiki, you shouldn't even mention it on-wiki. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been editing Kosovo related topics since before you started editing wikipedia [40]. Thanks for making it obvious that your behavior here is a form of "payback" for that. Khirurg (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I've been editing Balkan international relations topics [41] since my early days. I saw a subject which was frequented by most Balkan editors and I gave my opinion - an opinion which is very different from the political narratives on display in these discussions. You have !opposed obvious AfDs like Demonization of the Serbs and have placed !oppose-only opinions on all toponym changes related to Kosovo. Should we gather all votes every editor has ever cast and call them "payback", "canvassing" or "tag-teaming"? I think that such disputes are going nowhere.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. This dispute has nothing to do with the Balkans, you just contribs-stalked Greek editors and saw what you thought was a "golden opportunity" to "teach them a lesson". And thank you for making it even more explicit that you are here for "payback". Khirurg (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, much appreciated. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note from me. While it certainly helps (for the closer) to know certain editors might've been canvassed, just so the closer is aware, it doesn't require extended discussion. From my perspective as a closer, I'd much prefer to see some deeper analysis based on policy and sources. In vote terms, I'd give a single well reasoned, policy and evidence based comment the weight of multiple votes that are just WP:VAGUEWAVES. When I reviewed the discussion earlier for closure (and ended up relisting) I found more interesting the discussion about usage in sources, as I don't think there's quite a consensus on that point yet. It's up to editors in the discussion to decide what the relevant policies are and what the relevant sources are, but I would imagine looking at the PAGs on geographic locations (e.g. WP:WIAN) would be quite relevant here. The discussion immediately above, however, is not as relevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader: I agree that the weight of the arguments as they stand against the policies and guidelines is the important thing, not the number of "votes". However, sadly, in practice closers, or the very majority of them, give much more importance to the number of "votes" than to the value of each argument. That is the reason why the issue of canvassing on Wiki exists. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Usage for Imia and Kardak in sources is where the focus should be more productive. If Imia is used in more, then we can go with RM proposal, or else we go Kardak. In all case, double names arent a solution and are nowhere used in the Disputed Territories Topic Area., Oh pardon me, ProcrastinatingReader, I had to strike my reply to you as I was reading the discussion in a haste from my mobile phone and misunderstood what you were talking about. Right now I was about to post a large number of sources before I re-read your comment and realize what you meant. Yes, yes, what you said is a great idea. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. Closed problematic discussion.
*Comment (edit conflict) Anyone can give their opinion on any subject. When somebody agrees with them it's not canvassing, when they disagree it's canvassing. In the Balkan topic area, common opinions tend to exist in similar areas. Thus, I disagree with Ktrimi's narrative. Now, the discussion should continue without interruption of its flow with canvassing accusations.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that one of the editors who contribs-stalked me to this talkpage and hints that this is a form of "payback" for my long-standing participation in Kosovo related topics [42] is so keen to "move on". Interesting indeed. Khirurg (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most active editors in the Balkan topic area have voted because this is the most active RM right now in the Balkans. There is no correlation between the !oppose and anyone's activity. And no matter how many !support or !oppose are counted, it's the arguments which count, not the votes. Some editors have even voted !speedy keep on specific AfDs, [43] and yet the articles were deleted: Wikipedia is not a democracy.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) This article has nothing to do with the Balkans topic area. The only way you and the other Albanian editors could have found out about it is by contribs-stalking. Stop spamming the discussion with red herrings, to divert attention from what is a clear "payback". Khirurg (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should consider the possibility that the editors who !opposed the move may have done so because there are real reasons to oppose it. Side comment: This is a public discussion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I gotta agree with ProcrastinatingReader [44]. If we are to build a really strong and stable concensus, just counting the votes isn't enough. Reflecting on the sources, evaluating on editor arguments and proceeding in line with the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are very important as well. Hence why some of you (if not all!) must have already noticed already my very lengthy comments I have made (sorry for this), because I have been not only citing a policy's or guideline's abbreviation but also quoting or explaining them in detail to give the editor the necessary clues on what grounds I am nominating the MR. Everyone has my apologies for not making shorter comments in the RM discussion. However, I am all open about following ProcrastinatingReader's recommendations and discussing about these matters (or anything else related to titles but was not mentioned in the MR yet) thoroughly. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have realised WP:NEUTRALITY wasn't as thoroughly discussed in the present discussion even if it has far-reaching consequences: So if you allow me I would like to make a final point here about it: Currently, all the articles in the Disputes Topic Area are given single titles except Imia/Kardak with its alternative name being given WP:UNDUE weight on the title, indicating how one of the most important rules of the Project, the WP:NEUTRAL, wasn't applied. Even though this isn't a whatever topic area. Nor a whatever geography. It is THE topic area where WP:NEUTRAL is supposedly one of the most pivotal rules that have to be applied without exceptions for maintaining stability due to the volatile nature of these disputes. It wasn't applied and this already had far-reaching consequences elsewhere, in unexpected ways, as we are told by one of the voters here, who found a case of POV warriors who pursued a double-name formula, citing Imia/Kardak as a precedent, just to justify their POV. This speaks volumes. I believe, not only the naming guidelines are relevant, but also neutrality is. And considering the complex nature of this topic area, the one can't be reliably applied without the other, if stability is really our concern here. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I feel obliged to clear a possibly major misunderstanding about WP:COMMONNAME that may have been caused among those editors who voted "oppose" to the RM. Some of them voted "oppose" probably because they had assumed that per Wikipedia's naming policies and guidelines, article titles are retitled from double to single name only based on WP:COMMONNAME or only when there is a clear WP:COMMONNAME. Nothing of all this is true. The naming rules in fact state the opposite: that the editors have to discuss and agree on a single name in the hypothetical scenarios where there are multiple WP:COMMONNAMEs or none of them. My RM didn't suggest that we should follow WP:COMMONNAME either. My RM only notes two things: Firstly, Imia is the WP:COMMONNAME (read: "[...] by pairing the more WP:COMMONNAME Greek name "Imia" [...]"). And secondly, RM explains that WP:COMMONNAME is just the usual practice, (emphasis in italics), aka, not mandatory, that would otherwise justify vote-opposes. If one reads my RM carefully, they would notice how my RM is carefully worded to reflect that it is the "usual practice" instead of i.e. "only practice": Usually, the WP:COMMONNAME which reflects on [...] (emphasis in italics). As one can understand from my responses to the oppose-voters, even if there was trully a lack of WP:COMMONNAME, still this wasn't a valid reason for the oppose voters to stick with a double name formula. None of Wikipedia's guidelines supports staying with a double name formula and there is no such rationale in the Territorial Disputes Topic Area. The guidelines are clear that if an editor doesn't agree with a particular single name, they can discuss it and find a solution and put the alternative name to the article body instead. No whatsoever guideline suggests that double names with Slashes or Dashes should be used ever in the event the editors believed there is an absense of a clear common name. I am hopeful this misunderstanding is cleared now and that the "oppose" voters re-think their positions by lending their valuable support to my RM, or, propose ways/criteria for determining which one of the two names qualifies the more -in their view- for the article's title. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment:: As probably everyone is aware already by now, I had made an early request for RM closure here at: Wikipedia:Closure Requests board (Reason I had requested RM closure a bit too soon, is due to a certain unfortunate incident where a not-so-impartial editor involved in other disputes against me, tried to close my own RM). This time, a really impartial and uninvolved Closer, ProcrastinatingReader, responded to my request and came from Closure Requests board to review the RM for closure. The closer took note of what my points about the Wikipedia's naming guidelines are, but they decided to not close the RM, since there wasn't quite a WP:CONSENSUS specifically about usage in sources, yet. For this reason, ProcrastinatingReader decided to relist the RM to give it some more time so that we reach a consensus before they (or someone else) finally closes the RM.
Since then, a very solid WP:CONSENSUS of 14 voters (of the total 20) has been reached, supporting the RM's notion that "Imia" is indeed the more common name of the two. However, it is worth to mention that even the remaining 6 voters who opposed the RM and weren't part of that consensus, didn't outright deny that "Imia" is a common name, just they didn't think it is the common name. In all case, none of the 20 voters ever suggested that "Kardak" is the common name over "Imia". Now, per WP:CONSENSUS, "Imia" has more prominent usage in the sources than "Kardak". Also, the strong support to the RM only means that the majority of the editors supports the move from "Imia/Kardak" to "Imia" in compliance with Wikipedia's naming rules and bring it in line (WP:CONSISTENT) with how all the other articles are named in the Disputes Topic Area (all of which were already given single names on their titles except Imia/Kardak).
Considering that ProcrastinatingReader's relisting has reached its goal, which is to get a WP:CONSENSUS regarding Imia's prominence in sources, there is simply no point waiting any further unless we want to turn this RM into an endless list of votes. Thank you all for your patience and support in bringing this article title finally in compliance with Wikipedia's naming guidelines by dropping this absurd double name formula which not only isn't used anywhere in this topic area, but also goes against Wikipedia's WP:NEUTRALITY rules which tell us to use a single name over double names, and which must be applied nevertheless since it is a non-negotiable policy that cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor editor consensus. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: In light of all this and the WP:CONSENSUS, I have re-requested RM closure at: Wikipedia:Closure Requests board. Thank you all for your strong support in correcting this weird article title. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: The discussion seems to have evolved in choosing between one of the two non-slash names. Between Imia and Kardak, Imia is more common.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your position on what is more common, is noted for the Closer. And I fully understand what you are trying to say but if you allow me, I could gently like to give you a feedback regarding your choice of wording: "non-slashed names" is factually correct description for these names, but may be kinda problematic as it may imply sometimes that they aren't the actual names, but non-slashed offsprings of a full name. I was aware of past misunderstandings based on this, and for this reason I myself decided to go with the term "single names" instead, just to be safe. Not big deal, just my two cents. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since the stats given are far from overwhelming. There are two names from two competing factions, and it would be unwise of WP to take a side here based on such flimsy evidence. Dicklyon (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, "since the stats given are far from overwhelming" is a weird conclusion considering the at least 4:1 ratio of source usage in favor of Imia over Kardak. Since when a name fivefold more prominent than another, is "flimsy evidence"? I can happily provide WP:RS, both secondary confirming the prominence of Imia over Kardak in the international scholarship, as well as secondary + primary sources confirming the prominence of that name over the other name in the international community. Also, the Project's rules say that even in cases where there is no clear (or "overwhelming" as you argue) prominence, editors still have to choose a single name over double name formulas.
Secondly, if you allow me, you have stated that "it would be unwise of WP to take a side here" which is factually wrong, since you are implying that Wikipedia was "took sides" in every single other of the 200+ articles in the Disputed Topic Area just because it picked a single name for each of them as well. An unfortunate thing to say of your part, since hundreds of editors have edited collaboratively all these articles in the Disputed Territory Topic Area. If I were you, I wouldn't be as unwise to challenge their objectivity or their WP:NEUTRALITY as editors from the moment they chose to pick single names in line with the WP's naming rules and guidelines over double name formulas, which go against them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Originally planned to close this discussion, but having reviewed the text and sat on it I've developed more of an opinion, and I don't think the blasé "Support per WP:COMMONNAME" do the issue justice, so just going to lean in with a comment. I've no interest in this topic area, but I do have some familiarity with policies on geographic place naming. I think the nominator has made a convincing case for titles not having slashes. That argument is fine, but the question then becomes which title should be used. Well, the appropriate guidance for geographical places is at WP:WIAN (an application of COMMONNAME for geographical places). Of the sources that guideline tells us to look at, not much evidence has been provided. We have been given search results above, but WP:NCGN tells us Raw counts from Google must be considered with extreme caution, if at all. and also Some sources require individual analysis to be useful; these include books and articles, such as those found at Google Scholar or Google Books. They must be looked at individually for accuracy, possible bias, and appropriateness of period. which largely discounts the quantitative data provided above.
    In general, title disputes are better decided by looking at what authoritative sources use, rather than hits. Google Trends/Ngrams counts can be helpful, but for reasons pointed out by Future Perfect at Sunrise I'm not sure it's appropriate to rely on here. As for actual authoritative sources, this island is usually not referred to in them. I checked some gazetteers I have access to (listed at WP:WIAN) and the place was not present in them. Several I don't have access to, weirdly, but I'm not expecting them to contain anything else. It does seem Google Maps refers to the place as "Imia / Kardak" [45]. As for other sources, I think the point made by some above (that sources that only use one name often have a leaning attached to them, or that the context of usage in the source needs to be considered) seems to be accurate. WP:WIAN advises: Due caution must be given to the possibility of bias in some, such as for nationalistic, religious or political reasons. A skim for neutral scholarly analysis shows that sources often use "Imia / Kardak", or spell it out (e.g. Imia islets (in Greek) or Kardak rocks (in Turkish)). See, for example: encyclopedic entry by University of Helsinki and contemporary scholarship [46][47][48][49]
    Finally, WP:NCGN tells us it's importance to avoid supporting a particular POV (In some cases, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view. For example [...]) and that slashes are perfectly acceptable in some cases (see the case of Biel/Bienne). It says This should not be done to settle a dispute between national or linguistic points of view; it should only be done when the double name is actually what English-speakers call the place. Well, all the evidence here points to the idea that "Imia/Kardak" is genuinely what English-speakers (or, at least, dispassionate scholarship) use to refer to the place. The criteria to use a WP:POVNAME is not met here, or at least appropriate evidence has been provided to suggest that criteria is met. So Wikipedia should continue using the current title. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the appropriate guidance for geographical places is at WP:WIAN" In fact, WP:WIAN is usually about notable geographic locations. Imia isn't a notable geographical location enough by itself, and doesn't even have its own article in Encyclopedia Britannica and others. I wouldn't be surprised, since it is about two small rocks in the sea.
However, we can look at how WP:WIAN applied on othersimilar disputed islands which are more notable than Imia, such as Senkaku Islands (I am picking Senkaku because it is the closest example; both being uninhabited and disputed), one can notice how in actual authoritative sources, these islands are usually referred differently than Wikipedia does. For example Encyclopedia Britannica calls them the Diaogu Islands (instead of Wikipedia's Senkaku) and, interestingly, Britannica's article has a signle name, not a double one even though contemporary neutral sources use a double name formula Senkaku/Diaogu to refer to them. Just like Wikipedia did, but with single title "Senkaku Islands" instead. This shows that WP:WIAN wasn't applied faithfully here in similar cases, at least not in the way you suggested for Imia's case, in a geographical context.
"A skim for neutral scholarly analysis shows that sources often use "Imia / Kardak", or spell it out (e.g. Imia islets (in Greek) or Kardak rocks (in Turkish)) See, for example: by University of Helsinki and contemporary scholarship". In fact, if you gave a more careful look at expert sources focused on the analysis of international disputes, such as this International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law by the University of Virginia, will show how Imia is preferred instead. The third party neutral experts and analysts on Mediterranean affairs, also are using Imia more often than anything else: [50] [51] [52]
"It does seem Google Maps refers to the place as "Imia / Kardak" however, if you are to mention Google Maps, you should also note how Google is acknowledging the two islands as being the wildlife parks of Greece: the Little Imia and the Greater Imia: [53]
"slashes are perfectly acceptable in some cases (see the case of Biel/Bienne)" Nope. sorry. Related ≠ Alternative. Slashes may be acceptable in cases where the two names relate to each other as is in Biel and Bienne's case, with the one being the German and the other being the French versions (the town of Biel/Bienne lies on the language boundary between the French-speaking and German-speaking parts of Switzerland). In our case here, Imia and Kardak are not related to each other in any way that would otherwise justify the use of slashes to pair them together, nor are these islands situated on a language boundary. They are two alternative names for a pair of uninhabited rocks at the sea. According to a source, Kardak may however be related to the Greek term Kardakia. Had this title discussion been between the names Kardakia and Kardak, then sure, Biel/Bienne would be a good example for us to follow with Kardakia/Kardak. However, even in this hypothetical scenario, it would have been very hard to justify using Kardakia/Kardak as a title about two uninhabited islands that are situated far away from any bilingual zones, and it is not an official name (unlike Biel/Bienne which is official since 2005). Let alone justifying Imia/Kardak. It is recommended that editors consider cases and criteria from the same topic area as Imia per WP:CONSISTENT, instead of using irrelevant examples outside that topic area (such as Biel/Bienne) whose very different topic and criteria cannot apply here.
"Finally, WP:NCGN tells us it's importance to avoid supporting a particular POV" I agree here about WP:NCGN, but what can we conclude here when you are advocating in favor of giving the alternative name undue weight by pairing it with an unrelated name using slashes? To give the alternative POV name an undue prominence is exactly what Wikipedia's WP:POVNAME tells us we shouldn't be doing here. Alternative names should be given prominence in the article body instead, with the relevant redirects. Wikipedia has never given undue prominence to any alternatives in other articles in the disputes topic area, and shouldn't in Imia/Kardak's case either because this isn't a neutral approach. IMO, had the editors trying to be WP:CONSISTENT by considering how things were done in the topic area (instead of looking for offtopic cases such as Biel/Bienne), then, Imia would have been treated the same way every other article in the Disputes Topic Area was. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I'd encourage spending a bit more time drafting your comment and sitting on it for a while before submitting. The case of Senkaku Islands is interesting, although the basis for that title seems to be a no consensus RM, and more pertinently the presumptive determination of that name being the COMMONNAME comes from RS (media) usage. Well, we've already looked at dispassionate scholarship, but if we look in what would normally be considered HQRS by searching "imia rocks" in Google News [54] and just picking out sources that have familiar names (e.g. The Economist, The Times), we see they are using both names, or heck even prioritise the usage of Kardak depending on the perspective they're writing from. e.g. [55][56][57][58]
As for you should also note how Google is acknowledging the two islands as being the wildlife parks of Greece: the Little Imia and the Greater Imia -- whether the islands belong to Greece seems to be well outside the scope of this discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Respectfully, I'd encourage spending a bit more time drafting your comment and sitting on it for a while before submitting.". For everyone's information, ProcrastinatingReader is referring to my disorder where I make successive correctional edits to my posts in the event I am to absorbed and I forget exactly this advice. Im sorry this wasn't intended.
"whether the islands belong to Greece seems to be well outside the scope of this discussion." Agree, but my point wasn't whether the islands are belonging to the one or the other party, but the fact that Google maps is acknowledging the law of Greece and the EU as being applicable here. The two islands became part of the EU's Natura 2000 programme and the two parks were created with a Presidential decree and are part of the EU law,[59] which, needless to remind you, is recognized by the 26 other EU member states and reflected on Google Maps. It may not be important for you, but a fact like this, is something that the Google Maps wouldn't ignore, let alone the supposedly-neutral English Wikipedia, if it really strives to be neutral and objective by reflecting on the majority's view on the matter.
"but if we look in what would normally be considered HQRS by searching "imia rocks" in Google News and just picking out sources that have familiar names (e.g. The Economist, The Times), we see they are using both names, or heck even prioritise the usage of Kardak depending on the perspective they're writing from." This is correct, it depends on the perspective they are writing from. However, if my memory doesn't fail me, none in the RM has ever disputed the fact that reputable newspapers, websites and other media may be using either names or a combination of both. However, mind you, the same is true for Imia as well, so we ought to be fair here and acknowledge this. Some quick picks ranging from US to Europe to Middle East (I pick them on purpose to make a point that it isn't exclusively to a certain region): [60] [61][62][63][64], and not only, but even articles by analysts, published in RS which are considered to be exceptional in their field on security affairs, where they use just Imia and I can provide dozens of them. As long as we are willing to acknowledge these facts, then it comes down to editors choosing, in line with the Wikipedia's naming rules and guidelines, the rationale and and the common practices, which one of the single name to use to resolve this weird double name formula. Usually, it is the name that has more prevalance than the other. But if you got better ideas than using more prevailing names over double ones (or even a less prevailing one), then I would be happy to hear it. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While there may be generally something to be said for slashed names in the disputed islets category, it is odd that Imia should constitute the lonely exception given the relative prevalence of the Greek term. I don't see the rationale for a lex Imia/Kardak on the basis of the guidelines we have (Biel/Bienne is slashed for entirely different reasons, being the undisputed official name of a community in an internationally recognized Swiss territory). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imia&oldid=1052793910"