Talk:Aegean Sea

Wiki link

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Aegean_Sea article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Aegean_Sea}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Edits by 81.214.49.176

The greek name should go before the turkish name as it is more common and more significant. This is because the large proportion of the sea is found in Greece and the large majority of the islands in the sea belong to Greece. The Map is also acceptable and shouldn't be deleted as there is no delineation to indicate that the Aegean Sea is "only in Greece". The map clearly shows the Sea with respect to Greece and the article is prefectly clear that the sea is not only in Greece but found in between Greece and Asia Minor. Aggelophoros 22:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Archipelago or sea?

Edit as at 03:09, February 27, 2006:

The Aegean Sea (Greek: Αιγαίον Πέλαγος, Aigaion Pelagos; see also List of traditional Greek place names) (Turkish: "Ege Denizi") is an archipelago of the Mediterranean Sea, located between the Greek peninsula and Anatolia (Asia Minor, now part of Turkey). It is connected to the Marmara Sea and Black Sea by the Dardanelles and Bosporus.

Is the Aegean Sea an archipelago, which is a landform, or a sea? --Sengkang 13:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right that archipelago isn't correctly used here. Perhaps the editor that made the change had an incomplete understanding of the English term. I've removed the part that calls the sea an archipelago. --NormanEinstein 16:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello! The original content, while somewhat inaccurate, was not completely off-base: in ancient Greece, Archipelago was the proper name used for the Aegean Sea; usage later shifted to refer to the Aegean Islands (since the sea is remarkable for its large number of islands) and is now used to generally refer to any island group. This is corroborated in the New Oxford Dictionary of English (p. 86) and the Columbia Online Encyclopedia. The original usage still has limited usage, i.e., the International Hydrographic Organisation refers to it as 'Aegean Sea (The Archipelago)'). As such, I have made editions to this and related articles. Psychlopaedist 02:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"the Turkish name belongs in history"

No, it obviously does not because Turkey has several islands in the Aegean, such as Imbros and Tenedos. —Khoikhoi 16:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed 'dialect word' to 'greek word'. saying just 'dialect' is confusing. btw, Turkey has just these two islands, not several... --Hectorian 16:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget about all the Turkish towns and cities on the coast...İzmir is perhaps one of the largest Aegean cities. —Khoikhoi 16:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course! In fact 2nd largest, after Athens. Look, i did not say that the turkish name does not belong where it currently is. i said that Turkey does not have 'several islands':). --Hectorian 16:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just include all the relevant foreign language names parenthetically at the beginning? Greek, Turkish, (and possibly) Italian. This is done in many articles. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the simplest way of course, but when it requires a bit more explanation (about etymology etc., like here) it's often treated better a bit further down so as to not take up too much valuable intro space. Also, placing "foreign" names in the lead sentence has tended to heaten up rather than neutralise those silly ideological debates about which languages are "relevant". Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Was doing some research and noted that AIGIS, according to The Perseus Digital Library, is Greek for "rushing storm". Demeter 01:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about that, but seems right. 'καταιγίς, Gen. -ίδα' (kat(o)+aigis) is modern Greek for 'storm'. Hectorian 02:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Goat. But beware, the "etymologies" of antiquity are word-games. --Wetman 06:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Aegean Archipelago Province of the Ottoman Empire

You land on this article when you go to the province, but there's no information about what parts of the archipelago constituted that province. There's no information about the Ottoman period at all, either here or there; something as basic as a map of the Ottoman velayats, showing their actual extent, would be very helpful. Were all of these islands and land forms part of it? How far inland did it go? 216.231.46.147 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Media

hey it's ok to put the pronunciation audio of Agean Sea in Greek. right?

but i suck with codes.. that's what i managed to pull
Αιγαίο Πέλαγος()

if i delete some link by mistake, fix it CuteHappyBrute (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sea levels before 4000 BC

Should the article mention that the present coastline only dates back to about 4000 BC ?

At the peak of the last ice age (c. 16,000 BC) sea levels everywhere were 130 metres lower, and there were large well-watered coastal plains instead of much of the northern Aegean. The islands, including Melos with its obsidian production, were probably still connected to the mainland when they were first occupied, with the present coastal arrangement only appearing c. 7000 BC, and post-ice age sea levels still rising for another 3000 years after that. [1]

Is this worth a mention? Jheald (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Now added to the "History" section. Jheald (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Colour of Aegean Sea

Aegean sea has a very distinct colour. Thats why it is on the Greek flag. Could any one explain or add this information on the article that why it is so special blue colour??

Babban12 (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Number of islands

"In the Aegean Sea there are two islands belonging to Turkey: Bozcaada (in Greek, Τένεδος) and Gökçeada (in Greek, Ίμβρος), while the rest belonging to Greece. The Aegean Sea has about 1,415 islands and islets, of which 1,395 belong to Greece."

So according to the first sentance all the islands belong to Greece apart from the two turkish ones, according to the second sentance there are an extra 18 islands not mentioned elsewhere, anyone know anything about these? a miscounting on somenes part? are they disputed, or just uninhabited and unclaimed?Philman132 (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this inconsistency in the text. I guess all these counts depend on how far down you go in counting small objects as "islands". They are not a matter of the status of any islands being unclear or disputed. If you count every rock off the coast, then the number of Turkish items is certainly much larger than either 2 or 20, while the number of Greek items may or may not be larger than 1,400. In fact, we have a List of islands of Turkey, which lists at least 220 named items in the Aegean – most of which are, of course, tiny. The two (Imbros/Tenedos) are just the only notable ones that are fully inhabited (plus, together with the Rabbit Islands, they are the only ones that are situated far enough off the coast that their sovereignty status didn't follow automatically from the 3-mile criterion of the Treaty of Lausanne and had to be stipulated separately in that treaty.) 20 may be a realistic number if you count only items upwards of the size of, say, Kara Ada (Bodrum).

However, if you count by such a criterion, I'm pretty certain you'd get a lot fewer than 1,400 on the Greek side. The relation of 1395 : 20 is thus most certainly wrong. In fact, I just did a little piece of shameless "original research" and went to count all items contained as separate geographical contours in the digitised SRTM Water Body Data, the same data source that provided all the impressive detail in this map. It has a total of 712 islands in the whole of the Aegean, of which (going by the commonly accepted boundary line) 587 seem to belong to Greece, and 125 to Turkey. This includes some pretty small ones, but is by no means exhaustive – for instance, the infamous Imia/Kardak islets are not even shown, not even at this fine-grained level. So 587:125 would roughly correspond to the same relation as 1395:220, which may well be true numbers on some even more fine-grained count, but 1395:20 is most certainly off.

In any case, without a good source and a clearly documented cutoff criterion, such numbers alone are rather pointless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Funnily, our Aegean islands article has for ages put the number arbitrarily at ten (Imbros/Tenedos plus "eight" others [2]). Just goes to show how arbitrary these figures are. None of all these are sourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ægean Sea

I re-added a reverted note on the spelling "Ægean Sea". It is sourced, and I've seen that spelling used before, including in Alberta education curriculum. There are also nearly 14,000 Google hits for this spelling. Before someone removes it again, could they please explain what is wrong about including alternative, if less popular, spellings? It seems to me this is the purpose of an encyclopaedia: to inform. Mnmazur (talk)

I agree that an encyclopedia's function is to inform. This goes without saying. But we have to inform in compliance with the relevant policies and guidelines. Please see below for my reply. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternative spelling

Per WP:BRD I have reverted the following recent addition to the lead: also spelled '''Ægean Sea'''<ref>{{cite book|title=Atlas of Canada and the World|year=1996|publisher=Reed International Books Limited|location=Toronto|isbn=1-55013-816-2|page=39. Given that the provided source is just a map of Canada and thus a WP:PRIMARY source and that the alternative spelling Ægean Sea only gets around 17,000 ghits last time I checked, I think that it is not predominant enough to be included in the lead per WP:LEAD and per WP:UNDUE. Thoughts, comments from others are welcome. Thank you. Perhaps this spelling can also be included except it may belong in another section about the origins of the term and not in the lead. It would also have to be supported by a better source than just a map which is a WP:PRIMARY source. A proper dictionary source would be acceptable per WP:RS. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

First, I must note that it was an atlas of the world, and a map of Greece therein, that was sourced; not a map of Canada. WP:PRIMARY states that primary sources are "very close to an event", which an independently-published atlas really doesn't fit into it my opinion. Furthermore, it also states that primary sources can be used to "make straightforward, descriptive statements"—I may be incorrect, but I think that making a note of the name does fit this description.

I do see your point about WP:LEAD, however. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to include it in a footnote linked next to the name...

The '''Aegean Sea'''<ref>Also spelled '''Ægean Sea'''. {{cite book|title=Atlas of Canada and the World|year=1996|publisher=Reed International Books Limited|location=Toronto|isbn=1-55013-816-2|page=39}}</ref>

...or included as a note under #Etymology.

What are your thoughts on this compromise? Mnmazur (talk)

There are plenty of sources to be found that refer to the Ægean Sea - a quick Google search brings back (amongst others) the following: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Bazonka (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A look at the sources which you provided: The New Zealanders at Gallipoli, A new gazetteer of the Eastern continent: or, A geographical dictionary ... By Jedidiah Morse, Elijah Parish and - Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (1913) reveals that they are almost a century old. The rest of the sources are Bible-related. This, in my mind, means that they represent a spelling which has become obsolete because the diphthong Æ is no longer used in modern dictionaries. As an example the book: "A new gazetteer of the Eastern continent: or, A geographical dictionary ... By Jedidiah Morse, Elijah Parish" has a whole page with words starting with "Æ", including the word "Ælana" which is modern Aqaba. "Ælana" is an obsolete form of "Aelana" which is an obsolete form of "Aqaba". No modern publication related to an encyclopedia or dictionary spells words using "Æ", which further serves to enhance my suspicion that this spelling is obsolete. Encyclopedia Britannica, for example does not offer this alternative spelling neither does any modern dictionary, including the Oxford. Therefore we are dealing with an obsolete spelling of the word. How encyclopedic or important it is to include it in the article is debatable. I stand corrected as to the title of the "Atlas of Canada and the World" but it really makes no difference because unless this is a predominant spelling among atlases and maps, which I really doubt, this is not important. Putting it under a note as alternative spelling could be acceptable but since the spelling seems to be obsolete it would be WP:OR to call it obsolete without a reliable source saying so. Not calling it "obsolete" could mislead readers that it is still in use, although it appears it is not, with the exception of the Atlas mentioned above. So, in my opinion, it should be left out. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, even if it is obsolete, there's nothing to say someone might come across it. The redirect at Ægean Sea has existed since 2005, indicating that at some point in time someone did see fit to create a redirect in case it was searched for. As well, whether it is obsolete or not, there's nothing to stop us from indicating that it is a rare or uncommon variant spelling: it's not original research to compare search engine results (in fact, it's encouraged by WP:GOOGLE), and would avoid both labeling it as 'obsolete' (which I agree would be OR) as well as misleading readers into using it inappropriately. With regard to your considering æ to be obsolete, I'd disagree, as we see such variant spellings as encyclopædia included in the introduction; the status of æ isn't, however, really pertinent to this discussion, so I'll leave it at that. Mnmazur (talk)

I don't think that we can make the claim that the "Ægean" spelling is rare or uncommon unless we have a reliable source describing it as such. Checking the Google results I see no modern use of this spelling. I think that this spelling is no longer used and that all the Google results mirror the early, archaic and now obsolete spelling of the term. We do not have to go to every article which features the "ae" combination and explain that it is equivalent to the Latin diphthong "æ". This would be something redundant in my opinion because it is already covered in the article about "æ". There is no reason to do so in this article either. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I share the impression that the "Æ" spellings are decidedly old-fashioned, and of the sources above, most appear to be from the early 20th century or older. The argument that we need to mention it because people might come across it elsewhere and there is also a redirect doesn't strike me as very convincing: the relation between "æ" and "ae" is so obvious that nobody will be confused about where they are. On the other hand, we do have similar notes on articles like Judea and aesthetics (though not on Aegina and Aeschylus). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly my point Future. Making the same point over and over again as to the relation between "æ" and "ae" in every article where they are used is tedious, and worse, redundant because it is so obvious and there is also an article covering this at æ which covers every possible nuance of their use. As far as the existence of a note at Judea and aesthetics, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS covers that and perhaps more so when the idea is not that great. Maybe the notes at Judea, aesthetics et al should all be expunged instead of adding more of these notes to every article where æ is found. These notes have also a homemade OR flavour to them and are unnecessary to boot. Not to mention that in the case of Judea the actual "ae" does not exist so it may be useful, only in this case, to mention that the sequence is "aea", something that it is not as obvious as in the case of the other words which already feature the "ae" in them. Let's face it, the equation "æ"="ae" is well understood and it sure does not need to be emphasised. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Plus we have also Aegea, Aegea (city), Aelana, Aegyptus (Roman province), Aegyssus, Aegyptosaurus etc. etc. The list can be almost endless. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I really can't be bothered wasting any more of my time arguing for the inclusion of four words, and accurate words at that, in an encyclopaedia article, when the only opposing argument seems to be "it's old". If it's Wikipedia's purpose to contribute to the devolution of language, so be it. I'll take my leave. Mnmazur (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120810001316/http://www.egeonet.gr/index_en.html to http://www.egeonet.gr/index_en.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

About the fishing industry

Hi. The article only mention the Greek fishing fleet, but what about Turkey? Or other nations? Is Greece the only nation that runs commercial fishing in the Aegean Sea? RhinoMind (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the maximum depth?

I've come here after trying to find a reference to the maximum depth of the Sea of Crete. That article states the maximum depth as being 3,293m, which is similar to the 3,544 stated on this article. I've looked around the web trying to find a reference for the maximum depth, but I can't find one as such. That figure of 3,544m just gets mentioned over and over again, with no source. The location is usually stated as being "east of Crete", sometimes specifically as "east of Cape Sidero (Akra Sidheros)". I have been looking at a website called Sailingheaven.com [8] which provides detailed nautical maps, although I don't know if they're accurate. It seems that the deepest point on that map is 2,550m slightly south-west of the Divounia islets (Ouanianisia) [9], which is slightly north, north-west of Cape Sidero (definitely not east). I've also looked at a bathymetric map of the Aegean Sea on an academic article on ReasearchGate [10], but there isn't the precision there. What I can say is that I've yet to find any potential reference as being anything over 3,000m, so I've being to conclude that the depths on this article and Sea of Crete are incorrect. I'm not a sailor or anything like that, so I don't know really where to look or how to interpret bathymetric maps properly. Does anyone know if there is a good place to check maximum depths of seas? Seaweed (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I've finally found something pretty reliable. There is a website called EMODnet Digital Bathymetry (DTM) operated by the European Union. [11]. The map itself can be access from that page or directly at [12]. It provides a detailed bathymetry map of the seas around Europe. There are no contours marked as 3,000m anywhere in the Aegean, which means that the maximum depth currently stated on the article of 3,544m can't be correct. I've had a look around trying to find the point with the deepest point on the EMODnet map and it seems to be 2,639m about 7km north-west of Leftkos on the island of Karpathos. I think you can download the actual dataset, but there is a commerical licence for that. I've tried my best to click around to find the maximum depth, but it's quite possible I've got it wrong. However, I think the most important thing to say is that 3,544m just doesn't seem plausible at all. I haven't seen any maps showing contours over 3,000m, but I could be wrong. The precise coordinates on the EMODnet map are Latitude 35.645633793316904 Longitude 27.02226251732903. I've copied that precisesly from EMODnet and I don't know how to write that in degrees and seconds. I'm going to bold and change the maximum depth of the Aegean Sea from 3,544m to 2,639m based on this reference. (My original investigation was for the maximum depth of the Sea of Crete, but this location is not in the Sea of Crete.) Seaweed (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Name and etymology

No etymology is provided. Manfariel (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)