Talk:Zourafa

Attribution to el article

I've just removed a tag from this page claiming that the article is a copy of el:Ζουράφα. I've reviewed both articles and cannot find any evidence of content plagiarised from the Greek article. There is some overlap between sources (as would be expected), so some facts are cited in both articles. Many articles about Greek islands mention the etymology, the geography and any notable features, so it's not surprising that those topics are covered here. I feel that the burden rests with anyone claiming that plagiarism has taken place to substantiate such a claim. --RexxS (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The tag is not about plagiarism, but to give attribution to the original source in the spirit of CC-BY-SA-3. The en article is most certainly based on the Greek one, as not only it is a translation of most of it's parts, but uses the same sources as well, and it isn't an issue of some accidental overlap. As I wrote the original el article after doing a lot of research, I know it inside and out. If you do not agree with the above please discuss first. Gts-tg (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the article is "most certainly based on the Greek one" and that "it is a translation of most of it's [sic] parts". You need to adduce evidence of those claims because they are not substantiated by a comparison of the two articles. When two articles use a number of the same sources, it's obvious that they will contain a number of the same facts. That is the only overlap I can find between this article and the Greek one. Use of the same sources certainly does not require attribution, as the part of an editor's contribution that is copyrightable is the creative expression using in the wording. There is no evidence that any such creative wording has been taken from the Greek article and used here.

When you placed the tag, you made the claim that the original author passed off some else's work as their own by failing to attribute. That is the definition of plagiarism, and for you to make such a claim is a serious matter: it is sanctionable to make unsubstantiated allegations of that sort about another editor. Did you even bother to ask the original author of this article if they had taken someone else's material from the Greek article? I can see from your contributions that you did not. Why not?

So I will remove the tag and I expect you to provide clear evidence that the material was copied. And please don't rudely ask me to "discuss first" when I initiated this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexxS (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 July 2015‎

You removed the tag without talking first, so please be more frugal when using words like rudely and tone it down a bit. This is a translation of the el article, anybody that can read both languages, or even do an automated translation can see this. You can do all the wikilawyering in the world but it will not change this fact. The only way for the tag to be removed is to actually have the majority of the article have original content. Gts-tg (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not a translation of the Greek article. I was looking for good-quality articles in foreign languages that we're missing from en.wiki, and I did read the Greek article, but I did not translate any part of it. I was negligibly inspired by the Greek article. It is impossible for the "majority of the article to have original content", since they both cover the same bleeding topic. What would you like me to do, pretend that it lies in the Adriatic Sea? Alakzi (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi it does not need to be a 100% translation of the article in order to incorporate content from it. Why is this such a big trouble for you to accept? There are sources and sentences that have been taken verbatim from the el article. It's NOT a bad thing to have done so, but seriously don't you feel the need to provide attribution where it is due? I can see that you have incorporated some original content of your own as well, however this does not change the fact that there is content being included from the el article. Why is it so bad to have a tiny tag in the discussion page to indicate so? Also I will not reply further to user RexxS as he comes on way too aggressive and looks like he is looking for trouble. Gts-tg (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Which sentences have been lifted from the Greek article? Alakzi (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, (compare against revision oldid 670577191) the bits on the northeasternmost location in intro, Name section, and information on Geography. Also the first 4 sources (ones in Greek) are the ones that get reused the most and give the bulk of the info. We are a collaborative project and I really do not feel it is fitting to the nature of the project to go over pinpointing lines and sources being reused (I believe it is evident that content and info have been reused), as if we are deciding on whether a non-free license has been violated, instead of simply courteously acknowledging that yes, some parts were taken from the el article because it is free content, to share, adapt, change altogether, even for commercial purposes. I would like to note that I prefer to continue conversation with you rather than with RexxS who I find to be too quarrelsome to have a discussion with. If you feel I wronged you by placing the tag in question, I have explained my position above, which is that it is not a bad thing to adapt some content from free sources, on the contrary this is what free sources are about, and I am happy that someone else used a part of my work to further build on it. All I am asking is a simple acknowledgement that some content was incorporated from the el article, that's all and nothing more. Gts-tg (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

First off, sources are not content; we do not attribute reuse of sources. I've used the University of the Aegean overview - which, incidentally, is the second result on Google for "Ζουράφα" - as a primer. All of the similarities can easily be attributed to our use of this source. I have not copied any part of the Greek article. I do not understand why you insist that I have. Alakzi (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The intro:

• English: It is part of the Thracian Sporades archipelago and is the northeastern-most Greek possession in the Aegean.
• Greek: It is part of the protected areas of pan-European NATURA program , and is the northeastern edge of the Thracian Sporades and the Greek territorial seas.

• The source used in the English article states: Another important disputed island is Zourafa, 6 nautical miles from the island of Samothrace in the Thracian Sea, which forms the eastern boundary of the North Sea, the end of the Greek territory, and also of the EU.
• The corresponding source used in the Greek article states: ... we refer to the island of Zourafa, better known as Ladoxeras, known as the

most eastern border of the North Grecian Sea, which is the most north-eastern island of Thracian Sporades. Nobody, except Gts-tg, could possibly draw the conclusion that the former text was copied from the latter.

The Name section in English is clearly different from the Names and etymology section the Greek article: They cover much the same sources, but in a different order and with such different sentence construction that they are obviously different editors' interpretations of similar sources. Alakzi mentions the Piri Reis map; Gts-tg refers to the explorer, Piri Reis, and so on.

The Geography section in English describes the location and area, then the erosion, volcanic origin, navigation, and disputed ownership. The Greek article's section is Geography and geographic significance and discusses erosion first, next its importance as a marine boundary with Turkey and its disputed status, then its distance from other nearby landmarks, and finally the oil deposits.

Frankly, it is laughable to assert that the English article is copied from the Greek. Gts-tg needs to understand that he's not the only editor capable of reading sources and composing an article based on them. There is no doubt that Alakzi independently researched and wrote this article and Gts-tg's tendentious claims that it is his unattributed work are an attack on Alakzi's integrity and should not be tolerated. --RexxS (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gts-tg: Let me make this clear: you are completely wrong to claim that I removed the tag without talking first. My removal of the tag and my opening of this section were consecutive edits within minutes of each other. The rudeness is all on your part as you have accused another editor of plagiarism without evidence and insulted me by making nonsensical claims like "not talking first". What is true is that you placed the tag without talking first - either here or to the original author who has just confirmed that he did not copy the Greek article. This article is clearly not a translation by any stretch of the imagination - feel free to ask for a third opinion if you don't accept my word for it. --RexxS (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Before continuing here and on Dispute resolution (where I commented in more detail): can we please clarify what {{interwiki copy}} means, and how it compares to {{translated}}, and why any tag would be needed for two independently developed articles which cover the same topic and naturally have some content in common. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. To my understanding, the {{interwiki copy}} template as per the text it displays means that content has been incorporated from another source, in the particular case another source hosted in another Wikimedia Foundation project. The incorporated content needs not necessarily be translated, but incorporated one way or another, so it is not something that is tied to translation. Topics may naturally have some content in common, however I maintain that this is not the case here due to the novelty of the subject (literally a tiny rocky islet) where there are some very specific sources the el article has assembled and are being reused here, as well as some other information (i.e. facts and phrases) as pointed above. As I pointed out before, all I am asking is a simple acknowledgment that the el article provided a base for the en article to be built on, and incorporated some content from, which I believe is reasonable and straightforward thing to do. This is all the tag is being used for in here. Gts-tg (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen this tag ever. Looks to my that it's useful for copies (!) from another Wikimedia page, not simply translations from an article from a different language Wikipedia where "translated" would suffice IF translated. Here - nothing copied, nothing translated - the tag serves no reasonable purpose, imho, and the time spent arguing about almost nothing could have been put to better use in article improvement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Gts-tg: On the contrary, you are asking that this article acknowledges you as its the author of some of its content. That is simply untrue and the tag (which specifically refers to copying from another wiki) has a link to the list of other authors - i.e. you. This whole dispute is fuelled by your insistence that anybody who writes an article about one of your pet subjects must have copied it from you. --RexxS (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, Alakzi and RexxS, it is highly regrettable that the very simple task of providing a discrete attribution to the initial source that was used as a base for building the article, has evolved to scrutinizing the nuts and bolts of the article to see what has been used and what not, as if we are researching copyright infringement instead of one free work starting off from another. Or as if the el article was invisible to the original author of the en article (Alakzi did mention that he came across it before moving on to create the en one), a fully free source to get information from, and he did not use any of it or translated anything, although there is information and sources taken from the el article. Or that I am requesting that attribution is provided personally to me (for one of my ...pet projects as Rexx mentions), where if this was the case I wouldn't even have opted to make it available under a free licence and a pseudonym via Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a consensus based project, and as the consensus stands now it is in favour of not having the tag present. As such, I feel that I have presented the case to the best of my ability and information, but the community does not share the same view, and therefore I will not continue to maintain the tag. If anyone else joins the conversation and feels otherwise, or I am asked about further feedback, I will then resume. I feel disappointed by en wiki, in particular by Rexx who ignited the conversation by making personal remarks against me instead of attempting to reach an understanding; with regards to users Alaktzi and Gerda, I feel that they do not comprehend the purpose of the tag/attribution in the particular case and misunderstand it for something else. As I have not been able to convince them, and given the weight of their feedback as a group, this is the community we want to have, so this is the community we are getting. Thanks for your participation so far. Gts-tg (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gts-tg: There's no doubt that the Greek article inspired me to write this one. But it is simply not true that I've copied any part of the Greek article; I have done my own reading and writing. If you can find a tag to use to pay tribute to the Greek article, if that is at all necessary, which does not implicitly accuse me of plagiarism, then by all means. Alakzi (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: I never accused of plagiarism, I am sorry if you felt this way, but it certainly wasn't my intention nor did I make any mention of this at all, and I tried to make it abundantly clear from the beginning, it was a different person that made such an assertion. To my understanding the tag is simply an indication of the base/start off of the article with which it shares a lot of common information. Obviously our understandings differ, and the consensus leans towards your understanding -with regards to the use of the tag-, so that's what it will have to be. Gts-tg (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Alakzi (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Very disappointed Alakzi at User_talk:RexxS#Thank_you (oldid 673636013), to treat me like this after the way I have been talking with you and reached a consensus, and very disappointed from en:wiki overall. Disgraceful. (users have removed their comments) Gts-tg (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I started writing my own analysis of this before the matter was closed. In summary, I felt in comparing the two versions that Alakzi's work was not a direct and complete translation of the Greek Wikipedia article, but it certainly looked as if it was informed by it, and it seems that Alakzi himself admitted this while I was writing. Gts-tg was a major contributor to the Greek article, and I can understand his chagrin at the lack of acknolwedgement, but at the same time, the present English article reads more of a summary of the Greek one with some unique emendations of Alakzi's, not a complete Interwiki copy and translation. I think the best solution would be to acknowledge the English article is summary/stub in comparison to the Greek article, assume good faith that it was arrived at at least semi-independently, and work toward a full translation of the existing Greek article, which is much more detailed and informative, and add a translated content template to the talk page to show where it is coming from. I will admit that in my own efforts to translate other Greek Wikipedia articles, I have neglected to add this tag, usually just relying on the edit summary "Translating from Greek". I am going to go back and start adding tags to the talk pages of articles that I have already translated, but when that and some other projects are finished, I would be glad to help with translating this page and making sure that it is noted as such.--Jpbrenna (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the whole point of this to put me off starting any article that already exists in another language? How many times do I need to say that I've not translated the Greek article, not even partially? Alakzi (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that you translated it or copied it, I said that your work seemed to be informed by it. I don't think anyone can prove that you translated anything, as there are too many differences and omissions when compared with the Greek text. However, there are some similarities, and you did say that you were "negligibly inspired by" the Greek article, which I interpreted as you having at least consulted the Greek article first. If I am incorrect about that, I apologize. (I also apologize for misspelling your username earlier, which I have corrected). In any case, there is no "inspiration" tag that you could have put up whether you consulted the Greek article first or not. And no, I don't think that you should be put off from starting articles that exist in another language. It is important that they be here and I am glad that you are helping. I think that Gts-tg was misinterpreting what you did, but I can also understand his reasons for doing so, as some of the content seemed similar enough that it made him think that there was call for the copy tag. I disagree with that choice, but I understand why he felt motivated to do so. Going forward, I think that this article could benefit from expansion by translating the Greek, and in that case, we will want to note the translation with a tag to avoid future misunderstandings. -Jpbrenna (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sporades vs. Thracian Sporades

I have reverted the addition of Category:Sporades and the renaming of Thracian Sporades to Sporades. "Sporades", meaning "scattered" in Greek, is the WP:COMMONNAME of the Northern Sporades, a group of islands near Euboea. It is not a parent grouping of all archipelagos which bear the name "Sporades". Alakzi (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight based on a mere NOTAM

Regarding the recent changes that were attempted, it should be noted that NOTAM A7847/23 has to do with airspace, and only pertains to Zourafa indirectly. Besides that, claiming that the respective airspace is under the control of Istanbul ACC/FIR is nonsense, as it is negated by ICAO itself; the specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for assigning these airspace regions (search for Nisida Zourafa or Faros Zourafas-Ladoxeras in the search field of this official map). Furthermore, the Turkish name was already mentioned under § Name (in line with MOS:ALTNAME), while information regarding Turkey's questioning of the islet's status was already present under § Geography. Please do not make any such WP:UNDUE changes again; especially when there is an obvious lack of consensus. Demetrios1993 (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, for the most part. The newspaper reports about the recent NOTAM spat are, as so often, woefully inadequate – unfortunately there's no such thing as a reliable news source from either Greece or Turkey when it comes to these kinds of Aegean conflict matters. In particular, none of the reports seems to have quoted or published the text of the actual original A7847/23 NOTAM, so we don't know what the Turkish authorities were actually announcing and how they defined the area for which they were announcing it. On the other hand, I wouldn't put too much weight on the exact details of the gis.icao.int map you linked to. That map is clearly not of optimal precision and for all I can see it has no official normative value. As far as I understand, the only "official" regulation regarding the delimitation of the two FIR areas, according to the original treaties from the 1950s, is that it's supposed to coincide with the maritime boundary, and the ICAO itself has no mandate to regulate or interpret where that maritime boundary is. To the extent that Turkey might currently be considering the maritime boundary to be ill-defined according to its "grey zones" thesis, it may well also be considering the FIR boundary to be ill-defined. But since Turkey has always deliberately prevaricated over what exactly it considers a "grey zone", we probably can't expect any clear information about that to come from any official source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I shall note that Turkey has recently released NOTAM within the Syrian FIR just east of Famagusta, without Damascus's permission. That comes following the known cases of NOTAM inside Greek and Cypriot FIRs. I am not exactly convinced that the Turkish NOTAMs are purely administrative in nature either. Turkey's government is using the NOTAMs as a mean of projecting hard power, which is inconsistent and without regards for any international treaties. The international boundaries of any kind have already received some form of a violation. Not only on air and water, but also on land as are the following documented cases: [1] [2] [3] which occurred without the prior consent of the Cypriot/Syrian/Iraqi authorities. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Reference for "NOTAM within the Syrian FIR just east of Famagusta"? (How far east? According to the ICAO map, FIR Damascus only reaches as far as the Syrian national airspace, i.e. only a few miles beyond its coast. The rest would be FIR Nicosia, but of course it wouldn't be surprising for Turkey to refuse to cooperate with that.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You are right about the Cypriot FIR extending to and near the Syrian coast. I might been wrong then and mistaken such a close proximity to Syria as being under Syrian authority. Will try to find the source with the NOTAM map's boundaries. It is a very recent publication that occurred amid the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian crisis. The NOTAM off Famagusta had come right after the US sent their fleet off Cypriot waters and Germany sent their special forces on the island of Cyprus in response to the Gaza developments, to which Turkey expressed its strong disapproval. [4]. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

BTW, you may well be misunderstanding something in your apparent assumption that only the state in charge of a FIR can issue NOTAMs there. If country A is planning something, e.g. military exercises, in international airspace that happens to be inside the FIR administrated by country B (which it is perfectly entitled to do, as long as it's international airspace) then it will still be country A that has to notify the civil aviation community of these plans. So a Turkish-issued NOTAM pertaining to areas in Athens or Nicosia FIR would not, ipso facto, be anything irregular. Only if it were to touch on areas that are Greek national airspace, that would be a red flag. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. On this, I shall note that because I haven't looked as carefully on the NOTAM map (anyways, why I would? Back then, it wasn't looking to be an important detail to me, just a minor extra information on the article which was about regional developments) and by that brief look, it seemed as if -due to the close proximity to Syria- was falling within the Syrian national airspace. Hence why I was thinking it to be was an ipso facto case. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue is neither about Syria nor directly about the FIR. Turkey has directly announced that the reef belongs to it and that it will soon hit the island with missiles. There are many treaties that are not recognized by the United Nations. There are also treaties to which Greece is a party but Turkey is not. Taking a side in writing an encyclopedia does no one any good. Many sources claim that the island belongs to Turkey and many sources claim that the island belongs to Greece. Sources prepare content based on the words of politicians and statesmen (usually news sources). If both countries claim sovereignty over the island, we need to state this objectively. It doesn't matter whether we find the claim to sovereignty illogical or logical.

Another issue is the name. The first thesis about the name is the name "Zürafa", which means giraffe in Turkish (or "Zourafa" in English). We write this name with the Greek alphabet, but the Greek origin of the name is controversial, just like the Turkish origin. It seems to be biased to accept only the Greek origin of the name. There was a thesis for the Greek meaning, but not for the Turkish meaning? It is nice that the Turkish name is also mentioned in the content, but the Greek explanation is also included in the content of the article. The most logical thing to do then is either to include both the Greek and Turkish names in the entry or not to include both languages in the entry.

Would it not be best to change the description of a Greek island or reef to a disputed reef or island? Ata Barış (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No. You too need to get your facts straight. Turkey has announced no such thing as that the reef belongs to it, and it has certainly not announced it will "hit it with missiles". It has announced that it will do some firing exercises somewhere near it, in an area which the Greek side claims overlaps the Greek territorial waters of this rock. It's not even clear from the published information whether the area described in the Turkish NOTAM even includes the rock itself, or only part of the waters east of it. Nothing in the official Turkish announcements even mentions the rock - in fact, the later announcement is quite explicit about the Turkish thesis that the FIR delimitation and the territorial and maritime boundaries on the ground have nothing to do with each other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I second Fut.Perf.. No official authorities in Turkey ever claimed that Zourafa is Turkish. The only public figure to do so, was the lunatic ex-admiral Cem Gurdeniz, contributor of the irredendist Mavi Vatan concept, just a week ago. I have already informed the Raise Page Protection board about this fact [5]. The timing of the IP disruption on Zourafa isn't a coincidence: the IPs flocked this Wiki article right after Gurdeniz's new remarks on a TV News channel. The ex-admiral however doesn't hold any official positions and is sharing his WP:FRINGE theories at an unofficial capacity yet. Even if at some point his claims were to be officially adopted by the Turkish state, still, Wikipedia shouldn't give more WP:DUE weight than needed: the appropriate article for them is the Aegean dispute, not Zourafa. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 05:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)