No article found for “File:Ruslan Bzarov 2010 2.jpg”.

Talk:1987 Aegean crisis

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

Comment

Andreas Papandreou was not Prime Minister in 1976, it was Constantine Karamanlis. And the Sismik was not sunk.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.66.126.16 (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The Hora (later Sismik-I) was the ship involved in the 1976 incident. The Greek Prime Minister at the time was the late K. Karamanlis. Andreas Papandreou was at the time the leader of the minority party PA.SO.K and indeed ask from the goverment to "sink the Hora". After a peak in the tension in the Aegean, Greece and Turkey engaged in negotiations at Berne, which resulted in a sort of “modus vivendi” between the two sides. A protocol was signed in Berne on 11 November 1976, fixing a code of conduct to govern future negotiations concerning the delimitation of the Continental Shelf in the Aegean. No tangible result was obtained, however, and the matter remained unresolved until March 1987, when a new crisis led to the brink of hostilities.

This new crisis was provoked by Turkey, when she sent the oceanographic research vessel Sismik-I,(former Hora) escorted by Turkish warships, into the Aegean in order to engage in research activities on the seabed just outside the territorial waters of the Greek islands. Subsequently, in letters exchanged between the Prime Ministers of Greece (Andreas Papandreou at the time) and Turkey (Turkut Ozal if i remember correctly), Greece reiterated her position concerning the delimitation of the Continental Shelf, the cornerstone of which is that the matter should be settled through recourse to the International Court of Justice. Although the two countries were at the edge of war, Turkey withdrawed and the condition eventually de-escalated. This position remains unaltered to this day, as does Turkey's refusal to submit her claims to the judgment of the Court. Officially there was no fire exchange at any time and as an effect there was no casualties from any side...

So who ever wrote the text about A.Papandreou being the PM on 1976, the sunken Sismik and the 'war casualties' had a very colourfull imagination.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.233.251.59 (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

1987 Aegean crisis

I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently expanded (material and sources). It was assessed by the Military portal as a B-Class and recognized the potential for GA. Nevertheless, they suggested to go through a peer-review first to get feedback. Any input to improve this article is greatly appreciated.

Thanks, A.Cython (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  • @A.Cython: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
    I will do so and try my best. Thank you for the invitation.A.Cython (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Admittedly I know more about early than late 20th century history in the region, but I'm scratching my head at Turkey's revisionist strategy, as perceived from the Greek side, to challenge the status quo in the Aegean sea as established by the Treaties of Lausanne (1923) and Paris (1947). I would rewrite this without attribution, because I don't think it's seriously disputed that Turkey has violated the treaty of Lausanne to obtain more influence and "security" in the Aegean. Per NPOV, we should avoid stating reality as an opinion... (t · c) buIdhe 03:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
    I guess this is my chance to become a "pro-Greek" editor, after having already been accused of being anti-Greek, pro-Armenian, anti-Turkish, insensitive to Assyrians, etc. (t · c) buIdhe 03:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
    @Buidhe Any constructive input is welcomed. I worked on the article mostly because I was working on Andreas Papandreou article to bring it to GA status (to the displeasure of some Greek editors). It is thanks to the current article that I started working on improving MHWP articles. My goal is to bring this to GA status as well, though I was pleasantly surprised but surprised when it was added to FAC list. While I tried to be faithful to the books, I am not the most experienced editor on handling these topics (I struggled to find WP:RS that provide the details of the event) hence the request for a review. A different pair of eyes would help.
    If the particular statement appears as WP:POV, it is probably my poor attempt to write what is in the book in my own words. Also, it depends what you mean violated the treaty. Turkey has multiple times stated that the particular treaties are unfair and the current status quo should be changed (for various reasons) and there have been some episodes (Imia#Military_crisis comes to mind), but as I understand there has not been any military landing (for extensive period) on Greek islands. I am open to suggestions on how it should be better phrased though in the source it is explicitly states that this is a Greek perspective. I have included below the relevant quotes from which I draw support from the source:
    • The crisis which erupted between Greece and Turkey in April 1987 –when a Turkish vessel started conducting a seismic survey in a disputed area in the Aegean sea – further reinforced Greek perceptions about Turkey’s revisionist policies aiming at changing the status quo in the Aegean, which had been established by the Treaties of Lausanne (1923) and Paris (1947) (Coufoudakis, 1985: 201–4).
    • According to the Greek narrative,53 Turkish “revisionist actions” include violations of Greek airspace, refusal to submit the delimitation dispute of the Aegean continental shelf to the International Court of Justice, threats of war should Greece extend the territorial waters limit from six to twelve miles (as allowed under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention), and challenges to the Aegean status quo as codified by a number of international treaties (the aforementioned Lausanne and Paris Peace Treaties, and the 1932 Agreement between Turkey and Italy).
    These statements are based on the Greek perspective, because I suspect that if you ask the other side they might not agree. Unfortunately, I have not found a WP:RS that explains (in English) the Turkish position on why the status quo should change. If you are aware of one, please let me know of it, I think it should be included.
    Whether it is opinion or not, this perception affects the foreign policy of Greece as I understand it and relevant in understanding the context of the current article. For example, from the same source:
    • As Professor Christos Rozakis – former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs – concisely put it almost twenty years ago:
      [T]he mechanisms Turkey opts for in order to achieve a tipping of balance [in the Southeastern Mediterranean region] start with the use of violence (Cyprus), or the threat of the use of violence (as evidenced by the concentration of troops along the Aegean coasts, or with reference to the casus belli, or with the display of power, through the constant violations of Greek air space or the Athens FIR), continue through direct or indirect claims over Greek soil (Turkish officials’ declarations challenging Greek sovereignty over the islands) and conclude with more sophisticated, diplomatic forms for changing the status quo’ (emphasis added).
    Any input to correctly phrase this is greatly appreciated. A.Cython(talk) 04:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
    Well I removed the part that made it as a comment. A.Cython(talk) 04:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
    Well, given that Turkey has multiple times stated that the particular treaties are unfair and the current status quo should be changed I would just delete the words "as perceived by the Greek side". It seems unnecessary to say explicitly that Greece opposes the Turkish effort to revise the treaty to Turkey's benefit. I might consider adding a source that makes a more objective statement to avoid the perception that you are going against the cited sources, but overall the article seems in great shape for GAN. (t · c) buIdhe 06:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
    I have already removed the particular words (I do not mind to be blamed for the edit since I rewrote the whole article and I was acting upon a suggestion). Feel free to add the source, I would love to read it. I am planning to keep the review open for a couple more weeks after which I am planning to submit it for GAN. Thank you for your comments. A.Cython(talk) 06:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

GA review

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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1987 Aegean crisis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: A.Cython (talk · contribs) 03:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Looks good. Minor stuff to confirm that I read it:
  • References:
    Sources are good quality
    fn 1, 9, 19, 22, - okay

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Spot check performed - see above
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    See above for review
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Suggested changes are too minor to warrant placing on hold, so passing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Did you know nomination

(
)
  • ... that during the 1987 Aegean crisis, two NATO countries were on the brink of the war with each other over a misunderstanding?
  • Source: Heraclides, Alexis (2010). The Greek-Turkish Conflict in the Aegean p. 121 Turkey read the Denison statement as the true intentions of Greece and was duly alarmed. ... As emotions reached boiling point, the US, the UK and NATO intervened to defuse the crisis. Instrumental in this were Robert Keeley, the US ambassador in Athens, Sir Geoffrey Howe, the British foreign minister, and Lord Carrington, the NATO Secretary-General. Howe and Carrington got in touch with Özal as he was returning to Ankara via London. ... The 1987 crisis, even more than that of 1976, was the outcome of a series of misunderstandings that would not have arisen had the two sides not been in the midst of a cold war. The positive side of this crisis was that, as in 1976, it acted as ‘a catalyst’36 for a brief thaw in Greek-Turkish relations.
    Katsoulas, Spyros (2021). The United States and Greek-Turkish Relations, The Guardian's Dilemma p. 188 Heated rhetoric was immediately followed by shows of force. On 19 March, Turkey dispatched the oceanographic exploration vessel Piri Reis, escorted by two warships, to sail for four days around the northern Aegean Greek islands. In response, Greek warplanes flew over the Turkish vessel with orders to attack if surveys were conducted. The Greek government also delivered a strong protest to the Turkish ambassador, and sent letters to NATO and the United States, warning that Greece should not be held responsible for any consequences that might result from the Turkish activities. A week later, Turkey would send another oceano-graphic vessel—the protagonist of the 1976 crisis: the Sizmik-1—and tensions would escalate into a crisis.
Improved to Good Article status by A.Cython (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 21 past nominations.

A.Cython(talk) 03:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC).

    General: Article is new enough and long enough
    Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
    Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
    QPQ: Done.

    Overall: Article has recently been improved, using reliable sources and maintaining clear, neutral prose. Hooks are punchy and well-sourced, though I might suggest condensing main hook to: "... that during the 1987 Aegean crisis, two NATO countries nearly went to war over a misunderstanding?" and ALT1 to: "... that an open heart surgery and the lack of a red phone fueled the 1987 Aegean crisis?" Otherwise, great work!

    Sure, here per your suggestion