Jump to content

Talk:Cyprus/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Enclaves

This presents a completely misleading picture and only serves as propaganda:

Turkey counters that the Turkish Cypriots - before 1963 - owned and farmed 33% of Cypriot land before being forced into enclaves by the TMT (the Turkish Cypriot counter organization to EOKA and later EOKA-B), thus the take-over of one-third of Cyprus was seen as compensating the Turkish Cypriots for their lost land.

It is beyond absurd to claim that all Turks or even that a majority of Turks were forced into enclaves by the TMT.

I, along with many others, fled to one for 4 years when Greek paramilitaries were carrying out a massacre in Kucuk Kaymakli in 1963. Yes, TMT were involved in activities designed to allow for the easier partition of the two communities, however it is an absolute joke for this page to claim that this small group alone were responsible for the massive displacement of Turkish Cypriots throughout the 63-74 period. This is something that the Cypriot Government did to a part of its own people as policy.

It was the President, Makarios himself, who stated "Unless this small Turkish community, forming part of the Turkish race, which has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism is expelled, the duty of the heroes of Eoka can never be considered as terminated." (Aphrodite's Killers, David Carter).

Here you have the extraodinary scenario of a President retaining the services of a terrorist group to ethnically cleanse his own citizens.

His view was shared by the Foreign Minister, Polykarpos Yorgadjis: "The is no place in Cyprus for anyone who is not Greek."

The policy of the Cyprus government utilizing both its military forces and paramilitaries cannot be attributed to a small group with very limited numbers and resources.

You did not have 33% of the land

Mistakes

The census and the estimated population are inverted. Also GDP per capita PPP is $29105 (not 31000) and Cyprus' position in the rankings climbed to 25th place. There is a massive boost in the purchasing power as I observe of more than 5000 compared to the last rankings. --User Talk:WhiteMagick 18:24, 23 April 2007 (GMT)

BC --> BCE change

This article was recently changed from consistently using BC for years to using BCE. I was unaware of any discussion on this and note that the editor who did doesn't usually edit this article. Is there consensus for such a change? If not I'll change it back. --Siobhan Hansa 14:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Seperate Articles

I know this has probably been discussed before but can we not have an article for the island and then two different ones for the seperate state?Someone write below and tell me what they think of my proposal.

I agree. Dermo69 12:33, 19 November 2006

I don't agree. All information about Cyprus should be collected together.

I don't know. If you are suggesting something like Cyprus, Republic of Cyprus and TRNC, I can see the logic behind it, however I can also see many problems that can come along with such a seperation, the most prominent being huge debate that will follow on what would be in each of these articles. If you are trying to address concerns for different aspects of Cyprus, such seperate articles already exist, such as History of Cyprus, Geography of Cyprus etc. What do you mean by a seperate article for the island and for the country(ies)? Can you elaborate on what would be included under these articles? Baristarim 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE JOIN THE GROUP: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cyprus. It will serve to unify these aspects as regards to Cyprus in all matters. There is much work to be done!!!
(UNFanatic 01:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

Church attendance

Is there a reference on this? From my past experience ordinary Sunday church attendance is a tiny fraction of e.g. attendance of the Christmas service. And what are the numbers on church attendance in countries like Poland or indeed Britain? Mavros 20:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality regarding politics

As a neutral observer, it seems to me that the description of the Greek/Turkish conflict under the "Politics" heading is quite anti-Turkish and pro-Greek in its stance. It condemns the military intervention of Turkey quite clearly and repeatedly but does not comment in a similar way on the Greek coup. To me, this severely compromises the neutrality of this article.

MrNancy 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well then why don't you try making it more neutral? //Dirak 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This was MrNancy's first edit to Wikipedia. Vizjim 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
MrNancy is correct, and for an article relating to the history of a ongoing and important problem in the European Union it has numerous features that belie an NPOV standpoint. This article should be tagged to say that it has NPOV problems in the hopes of attracting people to come fix its POV. It is barely a B-level article, and well below the standard for such an article that I expect here. It is a Top level EU related article.
SubcomOvashins and SubcomandanteOvashinsky, who made sequential (unsigned) edits to this page, have both made no other contributions to Wikiepedia. Vizjim 07:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It is more than being biased it is written in a prejudiced manner. As Foucault has stated "How can history have a truth, when truth has a history?" If the article is so obviously against neutrality, how has it not been modified till this time? This is a serious political issue and a disregard to Turkish people.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ipok (talk • contribs) 01:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

About Percentages

The population of TRNC is 264,172 which is dominantly Turkish. The claimed population of the Cyprus Republic is 704,301 which also includes this population. 264,172 / 704,301 = 0.375 which means 37,5 % of the population is Turkish. Even if we assume, the claim of 704,301 includes the southern part only, it results in a Turkish Percentage of 264,172 / (704,301 + 264,172) =~ 28 % of the population. How in the world this can be calculated as 18%? I think there has been an intented miscalculation to decrease the Turkish Population. Therefore I am correcting the ratios.--Ogulsev 10:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Errr because in 1974 the turkish cypriots only composed 18%. Thats when the invasion took place. The fact that since then several Turks have been illegally imported to the occuppied north should not make a difference as they do not belong there! Demetris 27Jan2007. Am thus recorrectin the %ges

I am sorry but I also need to reconfirm Demetris in one point. This number is excluding the settlers, if you include them it is even much more. Additional note: Right now, there are more than 300,000 Turkish Cypriots only living in United Kingdom. However, this does not mean that Greek Cypriots are not living outside of Cyprus.

Possible split?

What would people think of splitting this article between Cyprus (the island) and the Republic of Cyprus (regime/government/state)? Kind of like China and People's Republic of China for example. I am only suggesting this since the geographical region also carries the same name as the country as well, which is quite peculiar as far as many countries are concerned. Italy/Italian penisula, Spain/Iberian peninsula, Turkey/Anatolia articles exist, but with Cyprus that's not the case. And maybe the history section should be tightened up as well, it is too long. Since Republic of Cyprus is the official govt for the whole island, there is no problem with basing the sections on that premise (geography etc). I know that it is a long hard slog to get Cyprus-related articles in encyclopedic order, however such a split might help with dividing up what is political and not-political about Cyprus (geography, history (before the 60s :)), climate etc)I was just perusing through China articles, and they seemed to have done a good job organizing them. So, what do people think? Baristarim 18:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This proposal was aired before, but never seriously. Back then I hadn't checked similar articles, but now that I have taken a look, such an organization seems possible. Baristarim 18:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In Response To...

Any weasel wording like "claimed to be", or "cited to be" (which, incidentally, is poor grammar verging on the incomprehensible) when it comes to the invasion should be deleted. The invasion was a response to the coup. Whether Turkey had larger intentions is irrelevant - the invasion could not and would not have happened without the coup. Any attempt to insinuate otherwise is bias. Vizjim 13:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"citing it as a response" is very good English (excuse my wrong edit summary) and the one who claims something is the one who has to be mentioned as the one who said it, not to create the illusion that this is a global-POV per WP:WTA#So-called, supposed, alleged, purported that you cited exactly:
Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable—at the very least the person who said it! Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications.
I am writing who was doing the doubting that the coup was acting to the detriment of the TCs in particular (rather to all Cypriots in general).
However, if you find others who have said that the coup was a reason for Turkey to respond with an invasion, you are free to include them too. Your persistence in view of my good faith comment that "claim to be" sounded WP:WEASEL and should be replaced, borders WP:POINT, so I suggest you stop. NikoSilver 15:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Turkish Cypriots are not mentioned in the sentence. Please answer this simple question: is there anyone claiming that the invasion would have happened without the coup having taken place?
Assuming that there is no such claim, then any phrase like "claiming to be", "citing it as a response" etc, is by definition a weasel phrase designed to throw doubt on the historical fact. No assumption of bad faith is involved, just of POV thinking.
In the context, "citing it" is not good English. They are not citing the invasion, they are citing the coup. Vizjim 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to prove the non-existence of a third-party assertion that the invasion was a response to the coup. You have to prove the existence of such an assertion by specific third parties (and then we can add those too). As for the English, I really don't care, as long as you can find a way to reflect that Turkey says/thinks/considers/affirms/declares/states the invasion was a response to the coup. As simple and as NPOV as that! NikoSilver 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is weasel wording Nikos. Turkey invaded in response to a coup, whether it had invasions plans before or not are inconsequential, it was the coup which triggered it. It is like saying Britain "claims" to have declared war on Germany after it invaded Poland. Or the US "claims" to have joined the Allies after Pearl Harbour. Whatever the strategic or political value of such actions there was an obvious trigger. --A.Garnet 23:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Just in case you want a source: "The Greek Cypriot coup d'etat in July 1974 triggered off a series of events that profoundly altered the parameters of the Cyprus problem...Within days the Turks invaded Cyprus." Hannay p.6

Serious npov issues

I guess it is to be expected from an article involving the Cyprus problem. Some examples:

  • 1) Italicising TRNC
  • 2) Constant reference to any action from the North as "illegal" i.e. "their families flew into the illegal Tymbou airport", "have participated in trips through this illegal entry point.", "Illegal excavation is a frequent occurrence", "the illegal authorities in occupied Cyprus", "It is estimated that about 160,000 settlers from Turkey have been illegally established", "The Turkish Cypriot administration has allowed the illegal sale of real estate", "Turkish Cypriots in the illegally occupied North", "In the meantime Turkey illegally imported Turkish colonists" (colonists!)
  • 3) Highly politically charged statements: "The ongoing and systematic destruction by Turkey of Cypriot cultural heritage in the occupied area of Cyprus is part of a pre-planned policy aimed at eradicating and destroying all trace of the 9,000 years of Cypriot history and civilization, and at transforming occupied Cyprus into just another Turkish province, through a systematic process of Turkification." or "These settlers were given citizenship and the right to vote, in an attempt to undermine the position of the Turkish-Cypriot community, so that it might lend its support to the occupation regime." or "the ratio of Turks to Turkish-Cypriots in occupied Cyprus is about 2 to 1. This is a tragic irony" Needless to say all unsourced and unencylopedic statements.
  • 4) Factually incorrect statements: "Turkey invaded Cyprus, despite the fact that the coup had been quashed before the arrival of Turkish paratroopers" - Sorry, but utter rubbish used to remove any justification of Turkey intervening. The coup died after Turkey invaded, (and so did the junta in Greece!)
  • 5) "Papadopoulos had a reputation as a hard-liner on reunification and based his stance on international law and human rights" oh please, and Klerides was a criminal i suppose?
  • 6) "In considering the outcome it is interesting to note that whilst the Turkish settlers (who make up the majority in the occupied north) were allowed to vote" - more pov pushing (no credible source to suggest they are majority - and i dont mean roc press office statistics)
  • 7) "The most vital reason for the sudden increase of the per capita income of the Turkish Cypriot economy was the conditional “opening” of the borders" - factual innacuracy. It is a construction boom which has generated increased earnings. Cross border trading is minimal.
  • 8) No mention of TC refugee figures.
  • 9) No mention of appropriated TC properties and land.
  • 10) More unreferenced claims: "Turkish forces killed several thousand Greek Cypriots captured in the occupied areas"

This is just a quick glance. This article shouldnt be the place to make political accusations, this is it how reads at the moment. For that reasons i'm going to put a totally disputed tag i.e. neutrality and factualy accuracy disputed. --A.Garnet 00:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To aid discussion, I've numbered your points.
  • 1) The TRNC is not recognised as a state by anyone other than Turkey, and most observers agree that it has limited autonomy thus limiting even its claims to de facto nationhood. (See for example [1]: soveriegn nations do not consult foreign armies about such decisions).
  • 2) The TRNC is a militarily occupied area. The invasion has been near-universally condemned as illegal. Resolutions by bodies such as the EU, UN, European Court of Human Rights, etc, all decrying the occupation and the subsequent establishment of a dependent quasi-state (see above) by the invading force, remain in place and have not been challenged. Recent realpolitik decisions to open direct channels of communication do not run counter to these decisions. It is possible that in future the TRNC will gain recognition, but for the moment it remains an illegal occupation of sovereign territory under international law. Thus virtually every action with an effect on the fabric of Cyprus (its demography, archaeological sites, land ownership etc) is indeed illegal.
  • 3) Agree entirely: these statements are Greek Cypriot POV-pushing and should be removed.
  • 4) Agree entirely: the Makarios government had not been re-established and the coup was still in effect. More Greek Cypriot POV-pushing.
  • 5) Not sure what your point is: if it's that the second half of the sentence should be removed, again, I agree. Any attempt to re-instate the sentence should only be allowed if serious sources are appended.
  • 6) I don't understand why demographic information from the government of Cyprus is not acceptable to you. If you can produce credible sources stating that the majority of people in the TRNC are indeed Cyprus-born and Turkish Cypriot by ancestry, then that should go in as an opposing point of view. But I think you'll have difficulty. I can't find it at the moment (apologies), but I think even the UN stated that Turkish-born settlers were in the majority, during the referendum.
  • 7) Cross-border trade may be minimal, but there has been an influx of money from the South since border restrictions were relaxed. Greek Cypriots gambling in the North have poured millions into the economy (through taxes on casinos). Thousands of Turkish Cypriots work in the Republic and bring their wages back. This should be reflected in the article. Moreover, the contruction boom is also influenced by the relaxation of border controls: developers see a chance of the north opening up and move in. None of this is POV-driven as far as I can see.
  • 8) Stick them in! Unless they've been removed, you can hardly say this is a POV issue.
  • 9) Stick them in! Unless they've been removed, you can hardly say this is a POV issue. Actually, in this case, I'll try and put something in over the next few days.
  • 10) The European Human Rights Commission report of 1977 upheld charges that Turkish soldiers, post-invasion, were "guilty of widespread murder, rape, looting, inhuman treatment, siezure and wanton destruction of property and enforced explusion". BBC news report, 18/01/77. Maybe this should go in until a source for the word "thousands" can be found.
  • 11) I'm surprised you didn't pick up on this. The section "Post-independence" seems to make no reference to the several genocidal massacres of Turkish Cypriot villagers that took place in the period 1959-1974. The current unearthing of these graves provides ever more evidence of the darker side that's completely excluded from this paragraph. Vizjim 15:10, 18 January 2007

(UTC)

Thank you for your constructive replies Vizjim. Why do i oppose the term illegal? It is a political statement, used primarily by Greek Cypriot to discredit the TRNC. This however, is an encyclopedia, we do not choose which state is more legitimate, nor do we attempt to portray one state as more rightful than the other. The only place i have seen TRNC italicised is in this article, i have not seen any Wikipedia policy which says non-recognised states must be italicised, it is only a way of pov pushing that one state is more legitimate than the other, when in fact Wikipedia must treat both the RoC and TRNC without bias. No court has ever declared the TRNC illegal, nor the Turkish intervention for that matter. There have been political statements denouncing its creation, but certainly no judgement that the TRNC is illegal in its entirety. Not only that, but again, it is simple encyclopedic style that you do not attempt to portary one state as more legitimate than the other. We can say for example "their families flew into the Ercan airport, a port of entry not recognised by the Cypriot government" - but we cannot say "they flew into the illegal port", illegal according to whom? Turkish Cypriots and Turkey certainly do not see it as illegal. My point is these statments smack of pov, they can all be worded in a far more neutral manner.
Regarding Papadopolous, my point of dispute was that he bases "his stance on international law and human rights". Is the article suggesting Clerdies did not base his stance on international law and human rights, or that Turkish Cypriots are opposed to international and human rights? Again, another needless political statement. On the census figures, i do not accept GC statistics to be credible no, no more than i would expect you to find TC statistics credible on their own. It is a political dispute, all figures are distorted (as any third party writer on the Cyprus problem will tell you). But basically i agree with you, both figures have to be included, but GC statistics alone are not neutral (and we must also state where these statistics came from i.e. According to GC statistics...whilst TC's own figures state etc).
On the TC economy we need reliable sources. It was not pov i was concerned about but factual accuracy. As far as i'm aware, cross border trading is minimal, the number of TC workers in the South is still relatively small. The real boom to the economy however came in wake of the Annan plan and the construction boom which followed. Like i said we need to find sources on this. On the actions committed by Turkish soldiers, i dont deny innocent GC's were killed, but the way the article showed it is that thousands were massacred implying some sort of organised massacre of GC civilians. As for massacre of TC's, i already wrote some time ago that Turkish Cypriot villages were massacred in reprisal for Turkish army landing, though i did not use the word genocidal. I hope editors realise i'm not sticking in the totallydisputed tag for fun, there are serious issues with how this article is written. I will try to edit it when i have more time. Thanks, --A.Garnet 18:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but for the moment I'll only pick you up on one point. "This... is an encyclopedia, we do not choose which state is more legitimate." Exactly. The TRNC is not recognised as a state by any country other than Turkey. It is not a state. Any attempt to describe it as a state by Wikipedia is pushing a Turkish POV that is not supported by the rest of the world. Hence, "illegal state". Other terms that could be used would be "occupied area", "colonised area" and maybe "Turkish military-controlled area", but "illegal state" gets the point over without stressing it overmuch.
  • "Turkish Cypriots and Turkey certainly do not see it as illegal." No, but everyone else in the world does, hence any attempt to remove the "illegal" descriptors is POV-pushing.
  • "it is simple encyclopedic style that you do not attempt to portary one state as more legitimate than the other"... unless, as in this case, one state is internationally recognised as more legitimate than the other. Vizjim 06:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Following this discussion with interest. I take it that there is no serious objection to removing the following statement from the article:

The ongoing and systematic destruction by Turkey of Cypriot cultural heritage in the occupied area of Cyprus is part of a pre-planned policy aimed at eradicating and destroying all trace of the 9,000 years of Cypriot history and civilization, and at transforming occupied Cyprus into just another Turkish province, through a systematic process of Turkification.

To my mind this is most obvious and inflammatory of the POV passages. I flagged it for citation a few days ago, but frankly I can't imagine what sort of citation, outside of rank conspiracy theory, would support such a statement. --Javits2000 10:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Vizjim, but i've had this argument ten fold on Wikipedia. The TRNC is a state, its existence does not rest on international recognition, nor is international recognition a prerequisite to function as a state. No state can be deemed "illegal" and if you object I would ask you provide a source where an international court of law has declared otherwise. There may be illegal acts within that state in the eyes of international law i.e. the flow of migrant workers, or the sale of pre-74 GC property, but this does entitle you to say the "illegal TRNC".
Also, i would like to see a source whereby the rest of the world considers the TRNC illegal. If you are suggesting a lack of diplomatic relations implies this then you are wrong. I do not see people refer to "illegal Taiwan" for instance. Finally, I found your suggestion of "colonised area" completely offensive and utterly derogatory to Cypriots and naturalised Cypriots in the North of the island. These are the kinds of terms i would like the article to go away from, it is needlessly politicising the issue when most of these sentences can be written in a fare more encyclopedic manner. --A.Garnet 17:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


I am sorry A.Garnet but as a neutral and fair minded person i feel i have to intervene in this dispute against you. You are totally and absolutely incorrect to say that a states status as a 'legal' state does not rest on international recognition. It absolutely does. that is the very definition of a legitimate state. Why do you think every separatist or seccessionists goverments first act is to try and secure international recognition? why do you think that places such as Biafra, Croatia or East Timor devoted so much of their energy to trying to secure foreign recognition of their declarations of independence. A state is only a state when other nations recognise its lawful authority and sovereignty over a particular area. Without that recognition, it is only an area of military control, pending resolution of its status. Without international recognition, no one is under legal obligation to respect its borders, abide by its laws, accept its control of waters for 12 miles around its coast and so on. without the rcognition of the UN, or at least a large number of substantial states, it has no legal status, and hence is 'illegal'. A state that already exists cannot be declared 'illegal' because of its actions, as you say; but a state that has not yet been recognised, and which was created in a manner that the international community judges to be unlawful or inappropriate, can have legal recognition withheld, and hence will remain illegal until that staus is given. I hope this deals with some of your points. Mattlav 17:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above point; you say that you would like to see a place where the internatonal community has declared that turkish cyprus is illegal; well, it is cited in this very article. The UN responded immediately to the turkish invasion by declaring it illegal, and the proclamation of a separate turkish state as illegal. That resolution still stands. The only thing that could have changed that, or removed its authoirty, would have been if the recently proposed federation between north and south had been successful, and had been ratified and recognised by the UN General Assembly. However, as the federation was rejected in a referendum (by the greek cypriots) it has not taken place and therefore northern cyprus remains in legal limbo. If you need any further evidence of this; why do you think it is that southern cyprus is now part of the EU, while the northern part is not? It is because the EU does not recognise the northern part as a legal entity, and hence it connot have membership.Mattlav 18:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments Mattlav. The area of international law governing statehood is complex, and your opinion above is merely one interpretation of what is necessary to be considered a state. Let me quote a Brittanica article on international law and statehood: "According to the “declaratory” theory of recognition, which is supported by international practice, the act of recognition signifies no more than the acceptance of an already-existing factual situation—i.e., conformity with the criteria of statehood. The “constitutive” theory, in contrast, contends that the act of recognition itself actually creates the state." [[2]]. You clearly have opted for the latter constitutive theory, whilst i have stated the former i.e. the TRNC is a defacto state in existence and a reality on the island, recognition would only confirm this state, but not create it.
Also, I believe you and Vizjim are underestimating the significance of even one state recognising the TRNC. I found this passage quite important, "a political community only constitutes a state for purposes of international law, in as much as other states, through recognition and through entering into internal relations with that political community, permit it to participate in areas governed by international law. Vis-a-vis, Turkey, but no one else, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, is a state. Diplomatic exchanges between these two states, as far as they - but no one else - are concerned, are governed by rules of international law. There are, therefore, states in the international law sense with a greater or lesser degree of recognition" [[3]].
Both these sources would directly counter your assertion that "Without that recognition, it is only an area of military control, pending resolution of its status." What i am trying to say is that usage of the term "illegal TRNC" is divisive and above all political. It is the kind of term an encyclopedia should try to avoid. --A.Garnet 18:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That is a political and legal question Vizjim, one i'm not qualified as an editor of an online encyclopedia to answer, by that same token i can ask you is Taiwan a state? My only point from the beginning of this debate was that referring to the TRNC and its institutions as illegal at every mention is not good encyclopedic practice. All we have to do is say the UN declared its UDI legally invalid and refer to its non-recognised status except by Turkey. That is enough, but to keep saying "illegal TRNC", "illegal airport", "illegal excavations" is an unnecessary and aggresive way of pov pushing. --A.Garnet 19:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Taiwan is recognised by more than one country. Wikipedia style is a very shaky ground to make any argument on. Vizjim 11:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Where in international law does it say how many countries must recognise a political community before it can be deemed a state? If you read my sources above you will realise there is no clear cut definition, there are simply "states in the international law sense with a greater or lesser degree of recognition". --A.Garnet 12:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Common sense would dictate that the recognition of at least one country NOT directly and militarily involved in the territory would be an absolute minimum. Vizjim 13:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Common sense is a very shaky ground to make an argument on Vizjim. My common sense tells me there are two distinct states on the island. That is why the OIC recognises the TRNC as the Turkish Cypriot State, why the British foreign minister met Talat in his Presidential Office, why Talat was invited to Pakistan in his official role as President of the TRNC, why Talat is recognised even by the United Nations Peace Process as the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community. This is what common sense is to me. --A.Garnet 14:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Common sense also allows us to detect people who don't directly answer our points, and to assume that their minds are closed to argument. Do please feel free to have the last word, but I think I'll leave this for others to pick up. Vizjim 15:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Come off it Vizjim, i have argued your points, I have provided you with academic sources. You have not replied to any of these, merely dismissed everything on the basis of "common sense". How can you accuse me of not being open to argument? --A.Garnet 15:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Vizjim, i see Garnet is trying to convince you that Homer was a turk, and that Troy belongs in Turkish history... common sense!!! It is in turkish text books!!! Aristovoul0s 16:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Perilously close to breaking the rules, but "heh" all the same. Vizjim 05:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Warning Sign

I have moved the dispute warning sign away from the head of the article, and to the start of the paragraphs which i believe are disputed or have problems. Most of this article is very good, and does not deserve to be slandered because of a few stupid things written at the end. Hopefully putting the sign here will give people a better understanding of what the problems are and make it clear where the dsisputes lie.Mattlav 18:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute stub

Please offer your comments here Template talk:Cyprus-stub Aristovoul0s 17:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Universities and educational establishments

I think the TRNC universities should be restored to the article. Not being recognised by the EU is no reason to censor their existence, though the dubious utility of the qualifications they hand out could be noted. Also, why single out private secondary schools? Surely these should be split off into a sub-article, Schools of Cyprus? Vizjim 11:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Island nation

I honestly can't fathom the kerfuffle over the "island nation" terminology. Cyprus is an island and it is also an internationally recognised sovereign nation, is it not? Even the Turkish Cypriots have acknowledged that a united Cyprus is the ultimate aim of any solution to the Cyprus dispute and that the "TRNC" is by extension a temporary arrangement until the Greeks smarten up and accept the Annan Plan, so what's the beef? The size of the British bases on Cyprus relative to the US base at Guantánamo cannot be a serious argument, surely. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote from the linked article, "Some island countries share their islands with other countries", so there is no need for this argument at all. Vizjim 05:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

European Union

Isn't this technically in Asia?? --SunStar Nettalk 15:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

mmmmm, I'd suspect that question alone is hard enough to answer, but as to being in the EU, geographically it doesn't have to be literally part of europe for member states to agree to it being part of the EU - but without getting out a map and just guessing - isn't it right on the edge of the eurasian plate? --Streaky 23:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
it's part of Europe. I have a National Geographic Magazine's Europe map hanging right here before my eyes. It's in all other books and geographical dictionaries. ISasha 10:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is where ever you define the Europe/Asia borders to be, which is quite lame of a debate (like as if Asia is inferior or something?). Many geographers adopt different definitions and different borders for these two adjacent continents. Cyprus being an island makes things even more vague. I'm sure we could reflect that trivial issue neutrally within the article with proper wording. NikoSilver 13:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes by anon

Anon 85.102.134.194 (talk · contribs) made the following changes:

  • deleted "the Anatolian peninsula (Asia Minor) or modern-day [Turkey]"
  • moved a picture awkwardly in the beginning, leaving a huge blank space on the left
  • moved {{npov-section}} to the beginning of the article without specifying what he/she disputes.

I'm reverting all changes. NikoSilver 13:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Grammar change

I have a question. I wanted to change the grammar of a sentence to make it more clear. The change got reverted, and I don't really understand why. The sentence as originally worded said 'This concern was highlighted by the UK's Telegraph Newspaper in 2006 when the wife of Britain's prime minister, Cherie Blair, touched a diplomatic nerve;'. As currently worded, the grammar does not make it clear that 'Cherie Blair' is the wife. It sounds like 'Cherie Blair' is the prime minister. I changed the sentence to say 'This concern was highlighted by the UK's Telegraph Newspaper in 2006 when Cherie Blair, the wife of Britain's prime minister, touched a diplomatic nerve;' I know that this change is a very minor point, and I am not overly concerned about this particular sentence. However, this is my first attempt at editing something on Wikipedia, and my edit was not accepted, so I am wondering what edits will be accepted? Khollings 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That was my error Khollings. Apologies. I'm inserting your sentence. It's the fact that I was first using a watchlist tool that I didn't know that it cuts off part of the edited preview! I thought you had deleted something. Please do not let this discourage your future editing! NikoSilver 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Khollings 22:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

this page totaly smells racism

i think wiki should prepare itself this kind of disputed issues.we can clearly see that this page edited by some nationalists. I could understand that greek cypriots want to defend their case it is normal thing but no one have lux to change realty. i can hear the empty boos already —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilybaeum (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Serious npov issues

First off I am very new to posting anything on wikipedia so please forgive me if I am not following conventions I should know about.

I should also say I am part Cypriot (Turkish) and currently live in northern Cyprus.

I wish to add to the discussion re lack of NPOV in this article and specifically to the "Post-independence" section where it reads

"In November 1963, Archbishop Makarios, the first President of the Republic of Cyprus, proposed thirteen Amendments to the constitution in his desire to improve the situation, amendments not involving any radical changes but designed rather to remove some of the more obvious causes of friction."

I can not see how anyone with a NPOV could say that the proposed ammendments did not make 'any radical changes'. One has only to read the proposed ammendments to see that they radicaly and fundamentaly changed the whole basis of the agreements that created the Republic of Cyprus. In my humble view the statement that these amendments did not involve 'any radical changes' is not just a NPOV issue but actually just factualy incorrect.

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/www.cyprus-conflict.net/13_points.html

It is also my view that stating as fact that Makarios's intention in these ammedments was merely to 'remove causes of friction' is itself a contentious and baised statement. Certainly this was the claim of Makarios but there is much well documented evidence that his real intent was far from this and it can not be in dispute that the result was far from this.

Having started I also have to say something about the following part as well

"Unable to reach a solution, the government of the Republic of Cyprus brought the matter before the UN."

Actually Britain was the first to make a call on the UN security council to convene a meeting to discuss the unfolding crisis in Cyprus in a tactical move to get in before Makarios did. A more serious failing of the above description however is the idea that the UN action and subsequent miltary intervention was concerned with wrangling over the Cyprus consitution and that they got involved simply because the Republic of Cyprus wanted them to resolve the issue of the Cypriot consitution. The reason why the UN became involved was not to settle a dispute over the Cypriot consitution, for which it had no mandate to get involed in any case, but in fact to deal with the threat to regional peace and stability that the intercommunal violence in Cyprus threatend. So the above is in my humble view factualy incorrect - it was Britian that first called on the UN security council to meet , closely followed by Makarios government and the purpose of the UN meeting and involvment was not to settle issues on the consitution of Cyprus but in fact to try and stop the intercommunal fighting that threatend regional peace and stability. You do not send a peace keeping force to a place to resolve a dispute over the constitution.

Erolz 14:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Hi - why not change the article, adding sources for each of your claims? The big problem with that section of this article is that loads of nationalists with strongly pro-Greek(/Cypriot) POV have created it without adding sources for many of their claims. Then loads of nationalists with pro-Turkish(/Cypriot) POV have altered it, again without adding sources. The resultant mass is currently a poorly-written article that clearly breaks the POV rules (I'm pretty much pro-Greek, and yet the NPOV issue is obvious even to me) and yet can't be changed because nobody, including me, seems bothered to actually do any research. Since you have sources for your claims, why not add them in? If someone else disagrees, it will then be up to them to find authoritative sources that contradict your source. In short, why not get involved as opposed to complaining uselessly here? Vizjim 14:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the reply Vizjim. Why do I not just change the article? The main reason is that I do not feel qualifed to do so to be honest - not in my html editing skills, my knowledge of wikipedia editing in general nor in my general english skills. What I can and will do is try and provide sound reason logic and referances as to where and why I think the article can be improved. Maybe in time I will feel confident enough to edit a main page and not just particpate via the discussion sections but right now I do not. As for sources for my claims, as far as describing the proposed ammendments as not containing any 'radical' changes, I with respect do not know what more needs to be provided but the ammedments themselves and the application of common sense. I aready provided a link to the ammendments themselves and I just do not see how anyone could make the claim that they contained no radical changes that is currently the text on the main page. As far as Makarios' intent there is no source that can prove his intent. There is however the undeniable fact that whatever his intent the result was the direct opposite of that claimed to have been his intent on the main page. As for the claim that it was the British that first called on the UN security council to convene and consider the crisis unfolding in Cyprus I will try and find some hard sources to support this claim. As for the claim that the purpose of the UN deliberations on and subsequent intervention in Cyprus was not about 'resolving consitutional issues' at the request of the RoC government (the Makarios government) as the main article implies, again I am at a loss to know what source could be provided other than the actual resolution passed by the Security Council (S/RES/186(1964)) and the application of common sense. This resolution makes no mention of consitutional issues at all or resolving them. What it does mention is the threat to international peace and security that the intercommunal fighting in Cyprus represented and the need to place a UN force in Cyprus "in the interest of preserving international peace and security, to use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of fighting and, as necessary, to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order and a return to normal conditions;". None of this is apparent in the main page description as it currently exits, implying as it does that UN involvment in Cyprus was about resoving a constituional dispute at the request of the Makarios government. These misrepresentations of reality that exits today on the main page are not about a lack of sources but about a designed attempt to spin the reality of what occured and why it occured in this period. At least as far as I can see.Erolz 04:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources re the involvment of the UN in Cyprus in 1964

In the above discussion I said I would try and provide some hard sources re impled inaccuracies in the main article section "Post-independence" and specifically the claim that "Unable to reach a solution [to the consitutional ammedments proposed by Makarios], the government of the Republic of Cyprus brought the matter before the UN."

Below is a link to a UN document on a UN website that details the sequence of discussion on this subsequent resolution. The document is in pdf format and the relevant section starts on (pdf) page 18, where first the resolution is listed and then the discussion leading upto this resolution

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/repertoire/64-65_08.pdf

In summary of the above document

Britian spoke first at this meeting, refering to its letter of the 15th Febuary to the Security Council detailing the serious deterioration of internal secruity in Cyprus and serious acts of violence in intercommunal fighting.

The RoC spoke second reffering to its letter, also of the 15th Febuary, to the Security Council in which it raised a complaint against Turkey, alledeging that Turkey was perparing for an imminent and obvious invasion fo Cyprus.

My point here is that is that the current description on the main page of who made recourse to the UN over the Cyprus situation and why they made that recourse is simply factualy inacurate. Both the UK and the RoC both made calls on the UN to become involved in the situation not just the RoC as the main page currently state. Neither of the countries did so in order for the UN to resolve the dispute over Makarios' proposed ammendments to the consitution as the main page implies and nor would the UN have a madate for such a role in any case. Both countries brought the matter to the UN under the UN's mandate of maintaing international peace and stability yet there is no mention of this in the main page description. The UK did so re the issue of the break down of internal security in Cyprus and the intercommunal violence that was occuring there and the RoC on the issue of allegations of Turkish preperations for an invasion against Cyprus. These were the submissions made to the UN that lead finaly to resolution 186.Erolz 05:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

major rewrite of the 1st 1/2 of Post-independence section

Ok I went ahead and boldy made my first edit od wikipedia main page. I believe this latest version is more factualy correct and less POV laden the the old one, but of course would welcome input and improvements from others. Erolz 04:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Islands of Turkey/Greece???

I noticed that Cyprus article is included in the "islands of Turkey" and "islands of Greece" categories. Though the situation is disputed, neither Turkey nor greece has annexed the island by any means. so I think links to these categories should be removed. Kerem Özcan 15:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, how did that POV slip though :) I've removed them.--Domitius 15:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Will someone please tell me, in the opening paragraph, in nice simple short words, whether this is an indepedent country, or a territory of Greece/Turkey, or something else. Cos I is confused, and after reading the opening paragraph I is still confused, and I has got an IQ of about 160 and a very good geographical knowledge of the world. I can see axes being grinded left, right and centre there, without telling mewhat I want to know. God help anyone else reading it! Bards 18:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It is an island nation, i.e. an independent country. Says so there in the first sentence or so. The legal issues surrounding the occupation and UDI of one third of the island do make things a bit more complex, but they are all sort of explained through the rest of the article. Vizjim 20:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
(Reply to Bards)Hahaha :D I see your confusion. Actually the answer of your question can vary depending on whom you are asking it to. It is a "terrorist/freedom fighter" kind of thing. (No analogy, just wanted to say that it is impossible to give an opinion without some level of POV mixing in it.) So I guess I won't be able to provide you with the "one-sentence-explanation" that you asked for, and I believe nobody else also can do it. The situation is too complex to do it anyways. The best is to read articles such as Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Turkish invasion of Cyprus and Cyprus dispute besides Cyprus article. And then you should read also beyond wikipedia too... Well, what can I say, welcome to the club :) But to warn you, once you step in, there's no way out :) Regards, Kerem Özcan 21:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
;) So why is it divided into a Greek part and a Turkish part, instead of a Cypriot (natives) part and a Turkish (invaded) part? What claims do the Greeks have over this island? Bards 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way - I am posing the question, because I think it needs answering in the opening paragraph. I realise it may be dificult to simplify the problem, if you are on the inside looking out; but if you can summarise it before going into detail, you'll have a better article (imo). It shouldn't be necessary to read the entire article to get an overview. Bards 22:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, So I try it with as little POV as possible and with simpler words :). See Cyprus used to be a Hellenic Island until Ottoman army conquered it 1570. Usually the policy of the Ottoman Empire was to intervene as little as possible to the demographics&culture of the newly conqured lands, rather than surprassing them. (That's why the former Ottoman nations still speak their language and preserve the religion - compare it to the South America under spanish rule) But Ottoman empire thought that the island was in a strategic location, so lumped a bunch of Turkish settlers there to "turkify" the island, changing the demographics. Then you might say that the Ottomans "sold" the island to the British for their support against Russians in late 1800s. In mid fifties there was an IRA like militant organisation (called EOKA) that tried merge Cyprus the Greece. But for some reason, UK wouldn't allow that, claming that the rights of the Turkish people in the island should be preserved, and a seperate Cyprus state was found (1960) in the guarantorship of three nations (Greece, Turkey, UK it is), thus allowing UK to have military bases in the island ;)
So that might be where my POV comes in :) After the independence, things worked fine for a while, until Greece military government supported a coup in Cyprus (1974), abolishing the rights of the Turkish population. Thus Turkey, as a guarantor state, invaded the island until a solution was found. After no constructive steps towards reunification were taken from both sides for 9 years, Turkey granted indepence to the northern part of the island; and thus the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) found, a state that is recognized only by Turkey.
A unified Cyprus plan offered by Kofi Annan was taken to the referendum in 2004, which is approved by the Turkish cypriot side, yet rejected by the greek cypriots, keeping the island divided.
So; answer to your question. Now all the maps on the world, show the island wholly as unified republic of Cyprus. Except the ones that are in Turkey which shows it as two seperate countries. Republic of Cyprus government policy rejects recognition of TRNC of any kind and any means, and that is what's causing the intro in the Wikipedia to look like that. You may take your part in trying to clarify it in the beginning, but I guess it won't stay there long. (No offense anybody)
I'll be willing to answer your further questions on this subject as much as I can. And since your user page says you are Celtic, when you have time I would like to hear your point of view regarding Iron Lady and the situation around her time in the office (I am serious about it by the way. But please make it dummy proof :) )
Regards; Kerem Özcan 00:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Mrs Margaret Thatcher, also known as The Iron Lady, became the United Kingdom's first female prime minister in 1979. She was a conservative PM, and applied Keynsian Theory (?) to the nation's economy, to streamline government and improve its domestic and international competitiveness. With the advantage of landslides victories winning 3 terms in office, and her authoritarian style, she was able to push through a number of very unpopular measures, such as the Poll Tax, the closure of unprofitable coal mines (after the "winter of discontent", with its frequent miner strikes), and ... Eventually these generated sufficient bad feeling amongst the proles (oops) to set forces in motion which removed her from office in a famously unceremonious and sudden leadership vote in 1992(?). She was replaced by John Major. Also, she was a stupid cow who thought she could run an entire country using small-town grocery-shop economics (oops, POV creeping in there) ;) erm.
How's that? (I'll have to go look at the article now, to see what guff they've written, haha). Bards 01:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So anyway - does this mean that part of Cyprus is an island of Turkey, according to Turkey, but not according to the rest of the world? (Is it the *whole* world, or are there other countries who recognise the TRNC?). I propose a rewrite of the intro, involving (a) simplification of things by removing details to create a digestable overview, and (b) removal of parentheses wherepossible, to make it more readable -

The Republic of Cyprus ([Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία, Kypriakí Dhimokratía] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); Turkish: Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti) is an island nation in the Mediterranean Sea, south of Turkey. It is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea. It is divided into two political zones, commonly known as the Greek and Turkish Districts (?). The Greek part, to the south, is inhabited mainly by native Cypriots of ancient Greek descent. The Turkish part, to the north, is the result of an invasion by Turkey in 1974, and has been settled by Turkish people. On Turkish maps, the Turkish part is shown as a separate country named the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

(NB: failure to explain the above is a POVpush, imo - refusing to accept the facts of history and the current state of the island.).

This should go into the political section -

The Republic of Cyprus is divided into six districts[1]:

  • Nicosia (the capital; [Λευκωσία, Lefkosia] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); Turkish: Lefkoşa; Latin: Nicosia)
  • Famagusta ([Αμμόχωστος, Ammochostos] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); Turkish: Mağusa)
  • Kyrenia ([Κερύνεια, Keryneia] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); Turkish: Girne)
  • Larnaca ([Λάρνακα, Larnaka] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); Turkish: İskele)
  • Limassol ([Λεμεσός, Lemesos] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); Turkish: Limasol)
  • Paphos ([Πάφος, Páfos] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); Turkish: Baf).

And move the rest into the 'History' section, again - simplified - as an introduction.

More, non-disputable facts of a general nature could be added to the intro as a 2nd paragraph.

Bards 01:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. See the island is not seen as "part of Turkey" or "part of Greece" by anybody. But according to the Turkey there's another country in the north of Cyprus. And the Turkish population there is not due to the 1974 invasion (or intervention as Turkey calls it) of Turkey. But rather because of the 1570 conquest of ottoman empire. Back in the day all of the island was populated with Turks and Greeks together as the Turkish Cypriots being the biggest minority. Bu after 1974, almost all of the Greeks were gradually forced to the south, and the Turkish to the north.
About your offer to change the intro as such. Try it. Actually I had the exact same complain in the TRNC page. There is (and thre will be) always some kind of wording that somebody doesn't like and it turns in to an edit war. But go ahead, give it a shot. Maybe you'll come up with a better wording. Regards, Kerem Özcan 06:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem with your suggested rewrite is that it is factually incorrect. Nobody refers to "Greek and Turkish Districts". The TRNC is, depending on where you sit and what your point of view is, "A government", "A separatist regime", "An enclave", "An area illegally occupied by foreign troops". All of these descriptions are true for someone. The United Nations do not formally recognise the TRNC, which supports the last description, especially given their condemnation of the invasion. The EU governments also do not recognise it, but they have been negotiating for direct trade to be opened up with the TRNC state, which suggests they are treating it as an enclave. The TRNC itself voted for reunification under the Annan Plan, which would seem to obviate the "separatist" descriptor, but at the same time accept their description by Turkey as a separate country, which would suggest a government. And there are other complexities that I haven´t even gone into yet! To do justice to this incredibly complex problem of international law while not offending either the Turkish Cypriots (who suffered horrible things in the 1960s when the island was a single republic, and still suffer under international sanctions today) or Greek Cypriots (who suffered horrible things under Ottoman and British occupation, and again during the Turkish invasion) is complex and probably impossible. I continue to strongly urge anyone altering this article to describe any aspect of the politics of the island to research the topic first, and to always add external resources. Vizjim 07:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've done some reading. I would still like to improve the intro, to make it more digestible and easier to read. My proposal now is to separate the intro into - a description of the current state of the island (para 1), an explanation of the alternate country names (para 2); and an outline of the history which has brought about this situation (para 3) -

Cyprus ([Κύπρος, Kýpros] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); Turkish: Kıbrıs) is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea, located south of Turkey. It is divided into two political zones. The south is inhabited mainly by Cypriots of ancient Greek descent. The north is inhabited mainly by Cypriots of Turkish descent. A buffer zone between them is controlled by United Nations forces. The south also contains two Sovereign Base Areas controlled by the British.

Officially the island is a single island nation, the Republic of Cyprus ([Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία, Kypriakí Dhimokratía] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); Turkish: Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti). However, the Turkish invasion of the northern part of the island resulted, in 1983, in their declaration of a new country, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. This is not universally recognised, but during the upheaval, most of the Turkish Cypriots moved to the north, and most of the Greek Cypriots to the south, creating a de facto partition.

(optional 3rd para giving an overview of the history fo the conflict)

This situation is the result of over a hundred years of conflict between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, polarised by the British influence into a major cultural rift. The island was originally settled by Greeks around 1600BC, and later invaded by Turkey around 1570AD. The two cultures seem to have lived harmoniously for the most part. However, in 1878 the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) gave control of the island to Britain in exchange for military aid, setting into motion a long chain of troublesome events. In 1913, the British formally annexed Cyprus, and in 1925 declared it a Crown Colony. Reactions to British rule generated a militant movement amongst the Greek Cypriots for reunification with Greece (known as enosis), which led to continued anti-Turkish feeling during the 20th century - including a revolution in 1931, continued riots, the formation of the partisan guerrilla army EOKA, and a near-collapse into civil war in the late 1950s. The conflict was temporarily resolved in 1960 by the creation of a new island nation, the Republic of Cyprus, which was free of control from Greece, Britain and Turkey. However, the appointment of pro-enosis prime minister Makarios, and his inability to resolve the cultural differences, resulted in 1963 in the collapse of his government, and fighting throughout the island which continued through the 1960s. In 1974 a new leader of the EOKA set enosis as his top priority, and Turkey, wishing to provide its people with a stable homeland, responded by invading the north of the island. In 1983 they declared the north as a new country, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Since then, a series of peace talks and unification plans have been proposed and rejected, and the island remains in a state of political limbo.

Bards 01:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. 3rd para. I'm tempted to add, after the 1960 bit, "The new nation should have restored the island's earlier harmony between the Greeks and the Turks living together as Cypriots. But the idea of enosis had acquired a cultural momentum, and continued to cause problems. The appointment of...". But suspect that may be inflamatory (and POV ish) to today's enosis supporters, and may only result in edit wars (doh!). Bards 01:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bards I have a couple of suggestions on the first two paragraphs as below
Cyprus (Greek: Κύπρος, Kýpros; Turkish: Kıbrıs) is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea, located south of Turkey. It is divided into two political zones. The south is inhabited mainly by Cypriots of Greek cultural descent and the north by Cypriots of Turkish cultural descent. A buffer zone between them is controlled by United Nations forces. The south also contains two Sovereign Base Areas controlled by the British.
Officially the island is a single island nation, the Republic of Cyprus (Greek: Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία, Kypriakí Dhimokratía; Turkish: Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti). However, the Turkish invasion of the northern part of the island in 1974 resulted, in 1983, in the declaration of a seperate independant state by the Turkish Cypriot community, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. This entity is recognised as a legitimate state only by Turkey. The events of 1974 resulted in wholesale movement of Greek Cypriot populations from the North of the island to the South and the reverse movement of Turkish Cypriots from the South to the North creating the de facto partition that exists today.
Basically I personally prefer the term 'cultural descendant' - because basically Greek and Turkish Cypriots geneticaly are closer to each other than they are to either Greek or Turkish populations respectively. We are not geneticaly seperate but culturaly so. I have also tweaked the 2nd paragraph a bit.
As for the third I see quite aa few problems with it to be frank and I am not sure of the necessity for it at all in the introduction. I do not have the time right now to suggest improvments to it but will try to do so soon. In any case thanks for your efforts to get this article improved Erolz 02:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Erolz, that looks good to me. I'll let this sit here for a day or two, and if no one jumps up and screams, and I'll change it and see what happens ;) Bards 13:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

All of these talks are between the greeks and the turks.... what about the cypriots??!!! The ottoman empire took all of greece and every island, they also took all of northern africa, it doesnt mean that they should all be part of turkey. Before the cypriots wanted independance there was no such thing as a greek or turkish cypriot, the brits came up with it to try and stop the island from joining with greece. My point is that there are no greek cypriots who can claim that they have no turkish blood and there are no (legitimate) turkish cypriots that can claim that they have no greek blood. This island is its own, It has a mixture of greek, italian, french, english and turkish culture. Cypriot greek is very different to that spoken in athens. There was once a kingdom of cyprus that did very well and even had its own tiny empire, so why dont we just leave cyprus to the cypriots eh? Ge0rg10

It seems that a whole bunch of people are now pre-emptively modifying the intro, trying to correct the POVcreep and inserting phrases from this discussion, thus stalling my plan to overhaul it. I'll let them get on with it for the moment! Bards 08:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with this now. It is possible for a novice to read the intro, and get a good basic grasp of the situation. Thanks for the good advice. Bards 12:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also satisfied with the current intro: its concise, yet comprehensive (e.g., importantly summarising the de facto partition). Thanks! Corticopia 12:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually I also agree that it looks really much more clear this way. Just one thing. I think TRNC shouldn't be labeled as "seperatist" since it was the Turkish cypriots who voted in favor of the reunion referendum in 2004. I was going to write "a de facto sovereign state" but it is also said like that in the following sentence, and I couldn't think of any other wording. Would one of the native english speakers help? Thanks, and regards, Kerem Özcan 14:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Merely removing 'separatist' may suffice, if at all; any other word changes are discouraged. And including that word shouldn't be problematic anyway, since a number of countries may also have separatist movements -- Canada (Quebec) most readily comes to mind -- and the TRNC (by its very presence) remains a separate entity despite the referendum. however, the TRNC is not a "de facto sovereign state" (and this assertion would have to be sourced, anyway), since one of the key criteria for statehood (Westphalia) is a territory's ability to establish relations with other states. Only Turkey has recognised the TRNC, with others disregarding it, not having acknowledged it, etc. Anyhow, the links for TRNC etc. should tell a reader all they need to know, without overloading the introduction. Corticopia 14:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
My two pence worth is that seperatist shoud be removed - it implies to the average reader that continued seperation is the offical policy of the TRNC - which is not the case. As for a referance for the TRNC as a de facto state there is one here http://www.britannica.com/nations/Cyprus but personaly I also accept this can be considered misleading. Certainly the echr in its rulings to date considers the trnc as de facto a part of turkey for example. The TRNC does have realtions with other states and indeed with the EU , it's just they do not recognise it as a legitimate state. Erolz 18:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The Britannica reference is interesting -- thanks. However, note that it merely notes de facto state, with no implication about the TRNC's sovereignty. I cannot say whether the TRNC is truly that, and changes in the article lead saying that may be misleading -- I would limit or remove any such notations from the intro and keep it simple. Corticopia 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Given recent edits, at this juncture, it is important to include the entire footnote for the Cyprus entry in Britannica (emphasis mine):
  • Two de facto states currently exist on the island of Cyprus: the Republic of Cyprus (ROC), predominantly Greek in character, occupying the southern two-thirds of the island, which is the original and still the internationally recognized de jure government of the whole island; and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), proclaimed unilaterally Nov. 15, 1983, on territory originally secured for the Turkish Cypriot population by the July 20, 1974, intervention of Turkey. Only Turkey recognizes the TRNC, and the two ethnic communities have failed to reestablish a single state....
While the TRNC may be a legal entity under Turkish law, it has no de jure ("in law") standing internationally and it is incorrect to say or imply otherwise. De facto means "in fact", and the island is -- in actuality -- subdivided into four potions. Based on this alone, the current introduction is sufficient and attempts to imbalance it without added discussion or consensus will be corrected. Thanks. Corticopia 13:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree above. I would have no problems calling TRNC seperatist, but most of the turkish cypriots, (and also the party in power) is for one state solution according to last referendum. What I understand from a seperatist state is like Chechen Republic of Ichkeria or NKR. Regards, Kerem Özcan 21:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The demographics section

There is a problem with the demogrpahics section, which has long been an area of propaganda re the Cyprus issue. However as the section stands atm we have it saying that "about 150,000 Turks from Anatolia were transferred or decided to settle in the north" and then a referance to here http://www.observercyprus.com/observer/NewsDetails.aspx?id=1180 that contradicts the earlier figure of 150,000 mainland turks. I am not sure how to fix this problem but it is certainly inconsistent. Maybe we need to say that the number of settlers introduced into north cyprus by the TRNC is highly disputed by both sides ? Erolz 19:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • That news story seems inherently contradictory - its figures don't really add up, unless 100,000+ people in the TRNC have at least 1 parent born neither in Cyprus or Turkey. Vizjim 06:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The figures do add up , it the way the article is written that is confusing. Another repot on the figures is here http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=30725&archive=1 . Basically there were 256k people in the north on the day of census. Of this 256k, 178k were trnc citizens and 77k were temporary visitors. Of the 178k that were citizens, 120k have two cypriot parents, 12k have onbe cypriot parent and 46k have no cypriot parent. Of the 46k, 30k were born outside cyprus and 16k were themeselves born in Cyprus. The wiki article currently states " about 150,000 Turks from Anatolia were transferred or decided to settle in the north." and "The TRNC has granted citizenship to these immigrants:". Yet according to the census quoted this figure is actually 46,000 (42,500 if u just counting TRNC citizens with no cypriot parents thast came orginally from Turkey) not 150,000 (those with neither parent cypriot AND with TRNC citizenship). Of the 46,000 with no cypriot parent 42,500 are from mainland Turkey (the rest being TRNC citizens with no cypriot parents from other countries). I think we have to recognise that the number of mainland Turkish people who have been given TRNC citizenship has always been a disputed figure and used as propaganda. The wiki article as it stands at the moment merely presents a figure of 'about 150,000' (with no source for this btw) and then sources an article that reports on the latest TRNC census that shows this gigure to 42,000. I really think we need to find a way to make all this clear in the demographics section here, if we are to maintain as NPOV appraoch as possible. Erolz 08:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

Look, the opening paragraphs simply do not need to describe the multitudinous legal ramifications of the TRNC's pariah status, the Republic's recognised control etc etc et bloody c. That's why they were so confused and gave such a bad picture of the island before. Just a brief note of the de facto state of things (which is, by the way, why it says "de facto" in the paragraph above the list of areas), and on to the main article.

I disagree. If you want to dumb things down to such an extent, go to http://simple.wikipedia.org. There is nothing that complicated in stating that the Republic of Cyprus is internationally recognised as the legitimate authority of the whole island, and that the "TRNC" is recognised only by Turkey. These are fundamental parameters of the island's division that shouldn't be buried in obscurity further down the article. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
but that Turkish military action in Cyprus was precipitated by the Athens backed coup in Cyprus should be burried in obscurity futher down the article? Erolz 08:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. The Republic is indeed internationally recognised as the legitimate authority of the whole island, but at the same time the TRNC exists. The de facto situation is generally recognised, and the intricacies can be explained in their proper context. Vizjim 09:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

History section

I think it is time the history section was split off into a separate article. It is ridiculously long and overly complex for this article. What do others think? Vizjim 04:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if it needs to be split off or left here but what is needed is something about the period 64-74. The post independence section jumps from UN troops arriving in 64 to coup and Turkish military action in 74 with nothing about the period 64-74 (which in fact has 2 distinct parts 64-68 and 68 -74). At the end of the day the situation in Cyprus toaday and it's historical roots IS complicated Erolz 08:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
There's Cypriot Civil War, which for me is a model of what should happen with the rest of the history sections - split off into better articles with a bare-bones brief summary in the main article. Cyprus is a lot more than the sum of its various invasions, more even than the result of the Cyprus Problem, and this article buries that fact. Vizjim 09:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Municipalities

If anyone knows a good resource or would like to offer to help sort out the various municipality names for the map I made, I would greatly appreciate it! :) Rarelibra 19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So NOBODY knows any resource for the names of the municipalities? :( Rarelibra 01:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro part

Base Areas

The base areas are an integral part of the Republic of Cyprus. The existance of the base areas is based on the Treaty of Establishment of the Republic Appendix "O". Should the Republic of Cyprus collapse there is no legal standing (international law) for the british bases in Cyprus.

The islands official (accepted and recognized internationally) name is Republic of Cyprus an island country. For short Cyprus. Thus the intro part should read "...has contributed to the Republic of Cyprus de facto partitioning into 3 main parts: "

Even American foreign policy, a traditional Turkish Ally states that. I am more than willing to provide UN references should the need exists, multiple evidence have been offered to this articles talk page, just skim the archives.

Turkish reublic in Cyprus

It is self styled as such. For ECHR, the UN, the EU it is called "area not under effective control of the Republic of Cyprus, or area administered by the Turkish Cypriot community (of the Republic of Cyprus).

The intro part now is well balanced according to internationally accepted view (UN EU ECHR), before it was not Aristovoul0s 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Get off the soapbox: you and you alone continue to insinuate this subjective text/perspective without any consensus, and (in this instance) without discussion until now, despite prior agreement above concerning an equitable introduction. This information already resides in this and other articles. As well, please read the introduction carefully: the SBAs are among the four parts into which the island has been split -- the SBAs are not responsible for the dispute. Unless compelled otherwise, the prior introduction will be restored. Corticopia 16:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. Nice of you. I take pride in all of the above. And NO the SBAs and the republic are one. the SBAs are NOT a colony, simply military bases and for military purposes only. Are there references to back up your stance? Independent... verifiable.... reliable...Aristovoul0s 16:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't mention it: pride is a sin, after all. This has been already been discussed above -- despite your POV-pushing, you were absent and not involved in recent discussions (for reasons I don't need to care about), and you seem to have overall difficulty comprehending. And there's a reason why the SBAs are Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom, comprising one of the four parts of the island in fact.Corticopia 16:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Sin is in the eye of the beholder. Whats next hell? Since i do not understand and you are so kind explaining please elaborate on the reasons in fact that SBAs are called "Sovereign" with evidence that are at your disposal, unless it is a secret!!!. Let me provide the link for your easy reference [4] and we take it from there Aristovoul0s 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please note the TLD in that URL. As repeatedly indicated in recent discussions, this information is already in the article and or wikified. The evidence at your disposal is also at our disposal and has already been discussed. Read recent discussions and or get involved in them; otherwise, refrain from continued Greek-POV pushing without any modicum of consensus. Corticopia 17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thats it? I am afraid you are POV pushing Feast your eyes Aristovoul0s 17:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
That's it! Au contraire: in particular, please read your own reference -- that the SBAs "remain under the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom". You have added no new facts to the article, only redundant text, and these items have already been discussed -- do I stutter? Corticopia 17:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tweaked the intro to separate ideas that some editors were apparently confused by or were otherwise intransigent about. As discussed before -- with the intent of keeping the intro concise yet informative and impartial -- redundant, atomic details have been excised. Corticopia

This needs to have more discussion before you 'tweak' it. The 'soverign base' areas are admin areas of the UK, not part of the 'divisor' of the Republic/island. Also keep in mind you are one editor in question, there are at least two who disagree with you - this calls for a consensus, then. Rarelibra 17:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Can't you read, Carnac? This was already discussed and agreed upon -- look far above. The fact that an editorial 'ally' of yours nor you were involved in those discussions is not my problem. The SBAs are sovereign areas of the UK (not merely administrative) and, therefore, comprise one of the four main divisions of the island. Also keep in mind that, per discussions, other editors supported this, so desist. I'll be back later to correct. Corticopia 17:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Coriticopia - I will give you one chance to either remove or strike your personal attack, or report you to an admin, if you like. Unless you know, wiki doesn't allow insults in any language or euphimism. It's up to you. Rarelibra 17:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You reap what you sow. Read first, edit war not. Corticopia 17:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You cannot justify your actions. Your failure to understand indicates either a lack of education, lack of intelligence, or belligerence to the rule. Rarelibra 17:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Nor can you -- I have been involved in this discussion throughout, unlike you and yours. And you are whining about personal attacks? Either contribute constructively or remain silent. End communication. Corticopia 17:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem

I have a small problem regarding the (awwww) intro wording, especially here:

  • the area under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus, the internationally recognized state, in the south of the island

This seems to contradict itself, on the fact that it does not make clear that the "internationally recognized state's" sovereignty is not "in the south of the island". Can we please work on it a bit? I'm open to all kind suggestions. Thanks. NikoSilver 14:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that the phrase should read "The area under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus in the south of the island". Unfortunately, several (Greek?) editors seem unable to trust the readers to read the rest of the article to understand what this means. Vizjim 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No, that particular wording has been pushed by User:Corticopia, who has been engaging in a low-level edit war with the Greek editor User:Aristovoul0s. Personally I'm not fazed either way. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
How is it contradictory? Cyprus -- the island and the republic -- are not one and the same in fact ... hence de facto. I insist on this phrasing or similar because it is important to highlight that the Republic of Cyprus (i.e., government and institutions) is, de jure, the internationally recognised state -- and please consult the true meaning of this term, which differs from country, nation, and similar synonyms -- on all of the island of Cyprus (hence the commas/clause), but it only has de facto control over the south. So, yes: the RoC has de jure sovereignty over the entire island (i.e., in the north too), but in actuality does not/cannot exercise it. The wording I am 'pushing' is intended to clarify this dichotomy: conversely, if editors 'push' excessive details and notions (which is the main reason why we don't need to highlight the Treaty of Establishment upfront), expect a push back. Corticopia 17:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoah guys, you're all a little winded up. Let me try to make it clear for everybody by a couple of tweaks. Wait and comment please. NikoSilver 18:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ti léte? NikoSilver 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
This bears a similarity to this version, which I'm tempted to tweak accordingly, but is otherwise fine. Corticopia 19:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I knew it reminded me of something, but I didn;t have it handy. The final tweaks were most welcome. Are we all happy now? NikoSilver 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The RoC does not have dejure sovereignty over the whole island, the British SBA's are completely independent of Nicosia. As it is the sentence is misleading. --A.Garnet 19:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
In retrospect, yes (and I qualify my entries above with the Uk connxn in mind): that's why I believe this version is a little clearer, I think: it places the point where it belongs. Corticopia 19:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think those parts are too small to disqualify "whole" (especially with the explanation regarding their "retained jurisdiction after Cypriot independence"), but I am open to further clarification for them too. Cotricopia, I like your version, but it returns us to my initial comment, where "internationally recognized" might be misinterpreted to apply to "the south of the island" only. I'm sure we are close to an acceptable solution for everybody. NikoSilver 20:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think this can be misinterpreted because (1) this is already touched upon in the first sentence (Cyprus, officially the RoC), after which we explain the situation; and (2) remember that ", the internationally recognized state," reiterates that and is offset by commas -- it's an independent clause within that sentence ... so, if you were to remove it, the meaning of the sentence would remain unchanged. The flavour of the sentence would be much different (actually nonsensical) if those commas weren't there. Corticopia 20:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The misinterpretation is more likely, especially due to the mere "touch up" that you mention. Nowhere is it explicitly mentioned that RoC has de jure sovereignty over the whole island (apart from the bases). I feel that this danger for misinterpretation is much more important than the danger of misinterpreting the status of two otherwise strategically obsolete bases (which is explained by "retained"). Plus I am open to further explain that too. What do you say? NikoSilver 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Please pardon what may seem as my oversensitivity, but I feel that this is the root of the dispute over the intro lately, and once we clear it out, I'm sure we'll tremendously improve the article. NikoSilver 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
And also, with all respect, try reading the 2 last parts (without the first part behind the first comma). It makes sense, and that's the wrong meaning I'm talking about (at least it makes the same sense as sentence parts 1 and 3). Grammar skills (two commas) shouldn't be the prerequisite for readers of controversial articles. NikoSilver 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, arguably, recent touch-ups have further confused the matter. Aren't we being unnecessarily wordy for not what? The edition I originally indicated (and prefer) above clearly separates distinct points and indicates what the internationally recognised state is -- read carefully. One of the defining notions regarding statehood is the ability to exercise sovereignty over a portion of land. If one maintains that the whole island is the RoC, then it follows that it has de jure AND de facto sovereignty over all of it (less the UK SBAs) -- in this case, this is not true. That is why this must be qualified and aligned in the relevant points ... with the territory it does occupy de facto on the island. Moreover, the SBAs are sovereign 'British' territory regardless of their 'retention': that's why they comprise one of the four main portions of the island. Alternatively, all four portions are part of the island, but (de facto) not part of the RoC -- that's the NPOV I'm trying to maintain. Compare with Ireland. Other versions, some of which are conciliatory and were somewhat agreeable, in are less clear and unpreferable in retrospect (e.g., your first crack at the intro recently).
Moreover, one needn't or shouldn't try to read just one portion of a sentence, since that alters the context and that logic can be applied to any sentence. And yes: grammar skills should be a requisite when clarifying and editing content, with links to content elsewhere -- this is, after all, supposed to be an encyclopedia. Otherwise, what's the point? Corticopia 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that it is not clear if the middle part of the sentence refers to the first part, to the second part, or to both. I read your point, but is it worth the risk of misinterpretation? NikoSilver 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It properly applies to the first part ("the Republic of Cyprus, the internationally recognised state," Maybe that's the joy of it: it may apply to both parts, since (de facto) it is solely in the south. Corticopia 21:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be joyful at all! :-) Colloquially, "internationally recognized" alludes to "de jure", so if it applied to both parts, then we would say something much more than mere "de facto". NikoSilver 22:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
To back up A.Garnet on this one, the Green Line and the UK bases together make up around 3% of the total landmass, which is definitely large enough to disqualify "whole". Vizjim 20:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
[e.c. with 2 below] Please do not misunderstand me, I definitely do not intend to leave this vague. It is just that de jure sovereignty of 37% is IMO far more important over that of 3%. How would you propose we have both clarified, so that we are all happy? (we do not disagree anywhere, it is just a matter of putting it to words). NikoSilver 21:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No real argument, but I believe the precedence is properly relayed through the order of the four constituent points. Corticopia 21:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hallelujah and praise Niko, Corticopia and all other editors, I think this is a version that everyone could be happy with... no? Vizjim 20:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I can live with it, I think but I maintain it's a little too wordy and (to me) redundant of notions that are alluded to in the lead. I maintain the my version linked to above concisely fulfills and relays the same information, without getting into the nitty-gritty of what a state is. Corticopia 21:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I added "almost" to address that 3%. NikoSilver 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
And being an awkward sod, I reverted you. As I understand it, the republic has de jure sovereignty over even the base areas and Green Line. That is to say, no other entity can enter into international agreements on behalf of those areas. This is the point on which de jure and de facto part company. Vizjim 21:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha! Thanks for making that clear to me too! NikoSilver 21:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something? Why are we still stating the RoC has dejure sovereignty over the whole island, and the SBA's are only defacto independent? And why does the sentence beging with "The internationally recognised...", I know of no other country article which uses such a sentence. --A.Garnet 00:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, I do not find the following npov: "this led to the displacement of thousands of Cypriots and the establishment of a separate Turkish Cypriot regime to govern the invaded area in the north". The sentence is pushing the pov that the TRNC is merely there to govern an invaded area i.e. a nice way of saying puppet state. We could simply write established a seaparate Turkish Cypriot political entity on the island or something along those lines. As it is, the sentence is passing judgement on the nature of the Turkish Cypriot state. --A.Garnet 00:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced (aka A Whole New Can Of Worms

I have added in lots of unreferenced tags, because the lack of sources for this entire article is lamentable. I propose that all editors actively contributing to this page should spend the next few weeks - up to mid-June, say - adding in sources wherever possible. This will help long-term toward reducing the edit wars that have been going on, and enforcing a higher level of debate. What do others say? Vizjim 21:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh, a great idea! NikoSilver 22:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Reworded Intro

I've gone ahead and reworded the intro to do away with the list. Everything is still there minus the factual innacuracies, poor writing and pov. Hope people can agree to this, I certainly see nothing wrong with it. --A.Garnet 01:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I also don't see anything wrong with it, but still I'd prefer the previous claus by claus writing. Your version looks ok, but (I think) the situation there is too complex to explain with this paragraph style. The mass usage of conjunction words (which is definately needed) makes it very hard for the people who are not familiar with the subject. Even I had to read it slowly to digest it. That was why it was styled like that couple of weeks ago. I am sure you put your time on it, and I respect that, but I still think the previous wording was more clear (I wouldn't say better since what you've written says the exact same stuff) Regards, Kerem Özcan 07:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the bullet points, which have been worked on for ages and are there in response to independent editors' concerns regarding clarity and incomprehensibility. The aim is to split off, as much as possible, the brief overview of the Cyprus dispute (paragraph 2) from a factual description of the human geography of the island (paragraph 3 + bullets). Your point about the description of the TRNC is well made and I think correct, so I have amended that.Vizjim 09:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand people have been disputing the list for ages, that is probably why it has imo turned out ugly. That is why I integrated all of it into a couple of sentences which puts everything in a much more concise and readable way. As I've said I know you've all been wrangling over this for ages but that imo proves why the list needs to go and something more stable brought in. --A.Garnet 10:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The ugliness you see is indeed only in your opinion: the article intro now divides neatly into 3 parts as follows: a very brief description of the Republic; a very brief description of the Cyprus dispute; a very brief description of the human geography of the island. The older version to which you basically reverted muddies these last two and (see way, way above) caused confusion. If there are still POV elements in the intro to be addressed (such as the use of "regime", now altered), they can be addressed, but the current format seems to enjoy reasonable support from all sides while remaining brief enough to serve as an introduction. Vizjim 12:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I just find it unnecesarrily complicated and hard to read, and I believe other readers will think the same. The use of certain phrases seems more concerned with appeasing the various pov's here than creating something concise and readable. e.g. "The internationally recognized state of the Republic of Cyprus", "the area under the effective control", "styling itself". The intro has gone into too much detail, that is why it has become so unstable. I'll wait and see what other editors think also. --A.Garnet 13:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
But the fact is that the intro you were reverting to was actually queried by other readers, whereas this intro format (which does not seem unstable, though it has taken a while to get here) is only being queried by yourself so far. Vizjim 15:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Vizjim: 'ugliness' is in the eye of the beholder. In response, the reworded intro is inferior to the predecessor: that version is harder to read (since it doesn't clearly delineate entities on the island) and also gives more of a (false) impression that the island is equivalent to the nation-state and unified. The current intro, awhile in the making and with relatively minor disagreement about content -- like the first line of the third section, which still seems wordy for not what to me -- gives due treatment to everything while itemising main points; however, the alternate is unclear and not consensually arrived at. I'm all for being concise, but when it's at the expense of being clear, it becomes counterproductive. Corticopia 21:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


I haven't seen many intros with bulletpoints, but anyway, I moved the tourism info down a bit, it might not even deserve to be in the intro. Also I removed a few non-Cypriot born people there, per the comment on that section. The footnote in the lead is not necessary, it is being redundant. DenizTC 16:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It was in the lead. If you want it to be in the first para, please revert yourself and just move that sentence up. DenizTC 18:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Vizjim 18:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Done what? nothing is changed. DenizTC 19:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is. Vizjim 22:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:OWN. You are reverting each and every edit of mine (as far as I can see). If we need discussions, we need discussions for all edits. Considering that this article had tens of edits on May 4th only (my first edit was probably today), I don't know whether it is plausible to do that. I have so many questions. The least, if you want it shorter, why did you restore & n b s p ; 's. Why did you remove 'as'? More importantly, why do you remove all those tags, that are quite necessary? Most importantly, why do you restore POV? Please do not do such things. Now please revert yourself (most of the edits). The article has seen so many edits (more than 100 by you), but it still is lacking encyclopedic content, all POV statements with no sources, in so many sections. Let's improve it. DenizTC 23:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this means: why did you restore & n b s p ; 's.. Presumably a copy & paste went wrong. Would you care to restate those concerns? As for POV, please explain where your edits combat this? Your edits to the introduction broke the continuity of the three paragraph structure (described at exhausting length above and arrived at by rough consensus) and added overly precise information that could be left in a footnote (thus keeping the length of the introduction down). Your fact tags are unnecessary since the entire section is tagged as "unreferenced". "Styling itself" is better English than "Styling itself as". I am now restoring your other edits. Vizjim 07:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
nbsp thing was aimed at your "shorter is better" comment. nbsp might appear as blank space but it's 5 characters more. Anyway, fact tags will be helpful (they are not 'evil' things), they will indicate where we need resources. We should not delete fact tags just because we have the unreferenced tag up there. For instance one might just add a few sources to the section and remove the "unreferenced" tag, instead of replacing it by the "more sources" tag (there might still be sentences that need sources). Anyway, i still don't see why we should have "raided and attacked the peoples of Cyprus at will" instead of " raided and attacked Cyprus many times.[citation needed]", neither do I see why we reverted my changes on te section "Notables". There are some more things that missed my eyes earlier. We should not have phrases like "In a fit of sardonic irony" imo. DenizTC 14:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Also the only extra infos in that footnote are the percentages, adding them won't make the lead much bigger, in fact we should add them in my opinion, the reader should know about it from the start. DenizTC 17:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Excessive?

If you find this excessive, don't hesitate to revert me. NikoSilver 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes: I think the map is excessive for the introduction; it may also crash into the text. Maybe just a piped link in the intro to the appropriate section would suffice? In addition, maybe the locator map (the prior one of which I've restored) can be jerry-rigged to more exhibit the same thing, but not as detailed? Corticopia 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it looked way better than the word-spagetti but if it has any chances to crash, I am also not so sure about that. Though I didn't think that it was very excessive. Though the map seemed a little bit TMi for the beginning, it gave a quick idea about the proportions of the areas and the general layout of the island. I also think that maybe a simplified version can be merged with the locator map. Regards, Kerem Özcan 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Locator map

There are POV and other issues with the 'nicely drawn, nicely detailed' locator map -- as opposed to the 'simpler' PNG map -- that is supposedly used in other EU/Europe articles; while innovative to some, there are a number of detriments to using such a map here. First of all, the 'enhanced' map does not clearly exhibit Cyprus' location (perhaps partially due to the odd map projection (Mercator)): an image the needs a caption to explain topic matter is clearly flawed. As well, it doesn't even exhibit the Levant on mainland Asia (to the east of Cyprus). Relatedly, it places undue weight on the island's inclusion in the EU and, hence, Europe, despite its proximity to Turkey (Asia Minor) and many sources which reckon Cyprus as part of Asia. Lastly, there is no clear consensus on the use of these maps in EU and other articles, and I dare someone to point this out.

While not as detailed, the original 'simpler' PNG map is far more functional as a locator map and (per the country wikiproject) consistent with the locator maps used for most other countries. Until these issues are addressed point for point and satisfactorily, I see no reason to maintain the 'enhanced' map and will continue to restore the 'simpler' PNG map. Corticopia 16:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[2x edit conflict] I gave the wrong link in my edit summary. This is the correct one: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#Final_survey. (I haven't read your comment yet, will look into it.) NikoSilver 16:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. As you may recall, the results of this survey are in dispute (hence there being no clear consensus), and really have no authority here. Other points remain unaddressed. Corticopia 16:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok. No need to get angry over this. First, the consensus exists where I point you in respect to the issue of highlighting the EU for member states, which is the one reason for your objection. Second, all EU members have the same map. See France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, UK... to name a few. Last, I agree with it being too small, so maybe we should bring it forward in the proper venue for discussion. Maybe there should be a zoomed window or something. That does not mean we are going to change it in the meantime. EU is considered a big thing, not a POV. For most in that poll at least. NikoSilver 16:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. As you may recall, the conduct, interpretation, and results of that poll/survey are in dispute (hence there being no clear consensus), and iterate that this has no authority here. If a genuine consensus materialised from that survey, it should be east to demonstrate; conversely, the consensus implied through the use of the 'simpler' maps can easily be demonstrated since they were in place for months -- more than a year? -- before they were willfully changed. Importantly, if one is to believe that Cyprus is Asian (e.g., geographically) or of Eurasia, also a big deal, highlighting its inclusion in the EU to the exclusion of other viewpoints is a point-of-view assertion and reason enough to change it. Corticopia 16:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Norway a non-EU uses the same map as all EU countries. El Greco (talk • contribs) 16:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
As does Switzerland. El Greco (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
EU is not highlighted in these. Thanks for illustrating further the issue of consistency. I quoted what has been decided for member states. The others are indeed ambiguous, as Cotricopia says. NikoSilver 16:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I maintain that what has been decided for EU member states has not been obtained through a clear consensus: PNG maps were in place for all of these territories for months beforehand, with no clear consensus for the changes. And non-Eu European states were changed to bring them inline with nonconsensual changes, despite the PNG maps per the over-arching Country Wikiproject. And most other countries use other maps. Again, if a clear consensus exists, point it out succinctly. Corticopia 16:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The options with no highlighting gained minimum support. The ambiguity remains in the rest. Read the poll, and we both know how messed up that was (for other reasons). Anyway, as it seems, you are the only one here with another version, so consensus in this page at least is not an issue. NikoSilver 16:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
That's your opinion: ambiguity prevails throughout. How can something decided among merely a handful of editors -- many more of which were probably exasperated by the skewing of the polls -- and challenged y others usurp a prior state (the 'silent majority', if you will, regarding the PNG maps) which was unaltered for months and prevails across even more articles now? This has been lost amid accusations of consensus in support of the ass'enhanced' maps. Read the page on consensus. As well, a sufficient number of editors must clearly assert this or that before a clear consensus materialises. So, a clear consensus here and elsewhere IS an issue; as it is, this is unclear at best and arguably nonexistent. Corticopia 16:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on Corticopia, what are you saying here? The same consensus for EU members had emerged in the previous poll there (before SomeHuman's insane complexity). And that was by 40(!) users! NikoSilver 16:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#Results_of_this_.27final_survey.27! NikoSilver 17:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't point me to an unclear and subjective interpretation of the results of the 'final' survey. In Wikipedia, nothing is final. I'm still waiting, and will wait for Godot if necessary. Corticopia 17:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree wholly with NikoSilver. Nothing to add to the debate, just helping to build consensus on this page. Vizjim 07:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you also agree with Corticopia's comment that Cyprus appears too small and my proposed solution to discuss inserting a zoomed window in the picture? (or vice versa, i.e. window with small EU and Cyprus in large background of zoomed map). NikoSilver 12:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly it makes sense.  :) Vizjim 03:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the new map. Very nice!!! El Greco (talk • contribs) 18:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! It is the perfect implementation of Corticopia's original idea. NikoSilver 20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes: nice work. If only other suggestions above were embraced, things would be copasetic. Anyhow, some neither here-nor-there suggestions: include a dashed line demarcating TRNC north and de facto RoC south. Also a circle should inset/expand to a circle or rectangle to rectangle, not a circle expanding to a rectangle. Lastly, the right of the map looks rather cramped (and this seems due to the original map); perhaps the inset can be off to the left in the Atlantic? Of course, I am also in left field, so do or don't with the above as needed. Thanks. Corticopia 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Aristovoul0s

Will you please discuss your changes before you make them? Or at least join me when I'm trying to open up a discussion. TRNC page has got full protection (And currently the first sentence states that it's a region?!) Everything has a decent politically correct wording and we have to keep these kinda issues within in that neutral wording. No need for provacation by going out of these npov wordings.

So my point; de facto already means that it's legally invalid, and that's the politically correct, npov wording for it. TRNC is not the sole example on the world. Similar de-facto independent countries get the same wording, whether you like it or not. NKR, Abkhazia, Transnistria you name it. and those countries are not even recognized by any country.

You know; it can also be sourced it and put into this article as; "Republic of Cyprus, which is declared legally invalid by Republic of Turkey". But no need for witless POV by word-bending and pleonasm.

Please stop blindly reverting and discuss it here. I'll revert your edit just once to not to start an edit war.

Btw, I posted this message here so the other editors can comment on the subject. And please do.

Regards; Kerem Özcan 08:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe this editor, in the last 24 hours, has reverted this tidbit four times. Perhaps the question should now be: who should report his breach of 3RR? (Of course, I'm no saint. :)) Corticopia 11:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
he made four edits at most three of them reverts. That's what I see when I check the history. DenizTC 23:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If it was me who you were talking about, I want to clear the misunderstanding. I did 4 edits, 3 of them which were reverts and one re-wording of an edit by me. Regards, Kerem Özcan 15:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Deniz, Kerem Özcan and Corticopia since you have stated what you believed, let me express my belief: You are promoting a strong Turkish POV, a POV that is in violation to multiple UN Security Council resolutions, not to mention ECHR rulings and EU declarations. I have repeatedly offered evidence from independent, verifiable, reliable, third party sources to no vain.

  • Issue number 1 "Area not under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus""

Repeatedly gets removed by your POV. Evidence in support from the EU:

  1. "In light of Protocol 10 of the Accession Treaty 2003 Cyprus as a whole entered the EU, whereas the acquis is suspended in the northern part of the island (“areas not under effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus”). This means inter alia that these areas are outside the customs and fiscal territory of the EU. The suspension has territorial effect, but does not concern the personal rights of Turkish Cypriots as EU citizens, as they are considered as citizens of the Member State Republic of Cyprus"[5]
  2. and this see definitions "line" "a) for the purpose of checks on persons, as defined in Article 2, the line between the areas under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus and those areas in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control;"
  3. From the UN (A/58/865–S/2004/628) just picked one at random; "between the area of the Republic of Cyprus which is under the effective control of the Government and that which is not". [6]

therefore the sentense should read: "the area not under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus in the north, styling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus";

I expect to see your references justifying that the sentence above is not from a NPOV, independent, verifiable, reliable. Aristovoul0s 08:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, I see no reason to delete. This "de facto parition between North and South" is unlawful and the article should plainly say so.--Ploutarchos 12:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Aristovoul0s,
I think you have been ignoring what I have written. Neither I claimed that TRNC was legally valid, nor I opposed that the area was not under the effective control of Roc. As far as I see you misconcieved all the reasoning behind my reverts.
You are accusing me of being POV, for saying the exact same thing that you are saying, with the politically correct wording taken straight from the CIA World fact book[7].
calling TRNC; "the area not under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus in the north, styling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", is a weasel worded pleonasm. You would have inserted that definition of yours in some other place in the article, which would be alright if it had any value to add. But it has no place in the intro. If you keep acting like that, as I mentioned before, next day somebody can also find a source and edit the intro as; "Republic of Cyprus, which is declared legally invalid by Republic of Turkey". (See that's a simple fact, but I would also revert it myself if somebody put that in the intro. Wouldn't you?) This page has seen enough of this low-level mouth-fighting, and we should all act within reasonable bounds.
So my suggestion is using the previous wording there, which has been stable for a long time; "the area in the north, styling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus"
When it comes to the TRNC page, which is blocked because of your unreasonable first edit, unwillingness to discuss, and blind reverting. Your version states that TRNC is a "region". In international politics, the NPOV description of the status of the TRNC is; "de-facto independent republic". I'll copy and paste my points from the Talk:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus page, since I didn't get any replies from you there. I am going to use the same source, the CIA world book, which is hopefully enough independent, verifiable, reliable for you. [8]
TRNC is independent (independent in terms of independent from Republic of Cyprus, since ROC doesn't have any control in the area), republic (so says the constitution), and since it's described as "legally invalid" by UN, we gotta put "de-facto" in front of all these definitions. CIA world book here has a whole section here about Turkish Republic of Cyprus' independence (of ROC), adding that TRNC is "heavily dependent on transfers from the Turkish Government". So once more; a) Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is independent of of the RoC. b) Since it's a fact that rest of the world doesn't "legally" accept, it's de facto. Similar examples can be found on the pages of the countries similar cases; South Ossetia, NKR, Abkhazia, Transnistria. (And I'd like to note that none of those countries are recognized by any other). Your "region" description for TRNC is, aside from being POV, an incomplete statement that doesn't cover any of this information.
Many parts in this articles already witholds a number of national POVs. (Have you noticed that the source I've just attached use the word "intervention" instead of "invasion"?) So please act sensible and maybe we can at least keep the intro Neutral. Kerem Özcan 15:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Aristovoul0s, I really, really hope that you are not going to accuse me of a pro-Turkish bias. The "four parts" introduction is a short, snappy geographical summary of the division of Cyprus. The status of the TRNC is laid out in full in at least three places on Wikipedia: in this very article; in the List of unrecognized countries; in the TRNC article. I think you can assume that the reader will have the patience to read to at least one of these links. Inserting the extra material you are trying to put into the introduction is merely clumsy point-scoring and to most neutral readers will just scream POV. Paradoxically, I think that trying to bend an encyclopedia to a particular point of view actually repels people rather than helping them to understand. So I will join with the Turkish and neutral editors in reverting your edits till the cows come home. Regards, Vizjim 15:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The link you have attached is fron CIAs library. That is NOT a neutral source. Please keep in mind that UN and CIA although both are organizations differ drastically and substantialy. The first as the Name implies has ~200 member countries that as i noted above all have a saying including both Turkey and Greece. The CIA factbook on the otherhand is a reliable source on statistical matters, but it is also a US government publications and reflects US diplomatic usage. Which organization would be "bias-less organization" internationaly respected and recognized to resolve global disputes. The Cia Factbook or The UN? If the argument here is between the two, i would advocate that the UN Security Council is much closer to neutrality merely due its organizational structure (mind if i add organizational objectives?). Why would someone equate the two?
If a collection of all knowledge is required then the article should also include knowledge derived from all countries of the world who have a saying on the issue and not only the CIA – (US government publications) . The best way to include all knowledge is through a consensus reached by multiple countries on global issues. This is reached through voting that takes place in the UN agenda. A conglomeration of multiple sides input. Not just the US. Otherwise we need to retrieve information from specific countries that would like to offer an input such as Turkish, British Greek and what have you Information offices and create subheadings as to what each country states. Once again the structure of the Security Council is such that multiple countries have input on a dispute and not just one country’s diplomatic stance or foreign policy. If to that balance (UN) and consensus we add as equivalent information from a specific country’s diplomatic stance then the exact equilibrium we need to establish is distorted because we are equating a consensus of multiple countries with the governmental publication of one country. Right?
We will provide knowledge and take action to ensure the national security of the United States and the preservation of American life and ideals.
"We are the eyes and ears of the nation and at times its hidden hand. We accomplish this mission by: Collecting intelligence that matters. Providing relevant, timely, and objective all-source analysis. Conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve United States policy objectives".
Values In pursuit of our country's interests, we put Nation before Agency, Agency before unit, and all before self. What we do matters. Our success depends on our ability to act with total discretion and an ability to protect sources and methods. We provide objective, unbiased information and analysis. (internaly but national interest externaly) Our mission requires complete personal integrity and personal courage, physical and intellectual. We accomplish things others cannot, often at great risk. When the stakes are highest and the dangers greatest, we are there and there first. We stand by one another and behind one another. Service, sacrifice, flexibility, teamwork, and quiet patriotism are our hallmarks.
Have a look at this

] to understand what "intervention" by CIA means. And no you have not provided independent, verifiable, reliable sources to remove the NPOV sentense in the introAristovoul0s 16:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Aristovoul0s, I really suspect that you are not reading what I have been writing. I'm sick of rewriting the same stuff in different talk pages over and over, and all you do is misleading the discussion. I'll Simplfy it; Your edition in the intro of this article is unnecessery verbiage, and your edit in The the intro of the TRNC page is totally inacurate. Kerem Özcan 16:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Vizjim try to understand that what i am posting is directly taken from the UN and EU. That is the neutral side. Aristovoul0s 16:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


  • 1 TRNC is independent (independent in terms of independent from Republic of Cyprus, since ROC doesn't have any control in the area), False, Turkish POV. The Republic of Cyprus has "no effective control" There is a major difference between the two in international law, fairly attributed as such by the references i have provided above.
  • 2 republic (so says the constitution), The "Constitution" is null and void by the UN i have repeatedly provided one specific resolution which says so.
  • 3 and since it's described as "legally invalid" by UN, we gotta put "de-facto" in front of all these definitions. NO. If it is described as "legally invalid" we need to put "legally invalid" infront. de facto meaning in fact, in practice whether legally or not differs vastly from "legally invalid"
  • 3 CIA world book here has a whole section here about Turkish Republic of Cyprus' independence (of ROC), adding that TRNC is "heavily dependent on transfers from the Turkish Government". Have explained CIA diplomatic stance above.

Kerem hope this makes clear to you that i have indeed read what you wrote although irrelevant to this article. Still the sentense in one of the disputes should read: the area not under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus in the north, styling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which has been declared as legally invalid by UN resolution 541;

I expect to see your references justifying that the sentence above is not from a NPOV, independent, verifiable, reliable. Aristovoul0s 17:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Aristovoul0s;
Your misunderstanding are in such a fundemental level.
Your interpretetation of the words independent and de facto are completely irrelevant.
I am taking these definations from Merriam-Webster;
De facto (adjective); 1) actual; especially : being such in effect though not formally recognized <a de facto state of war>, 2) exercising power as if legally constituted <a de facto government>
Independent (adjective); 1) not dependent, not subject to control by others : self governing
TRNC fulfills all these criterias. Kerem Özcan 17:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the definition, read it carefully it explains why the illegal Turkish Subordinate regime in Cyprus (as refered to by the ECHR in Loizidou Vs Turkey), does not by no means satisfy any of the aboveAristovoul0s 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Of Course that's how UN will refer to TRNC on paper. Because TRNC is de jure a subordinate regime in occupied turkish territory. But it's a de facto independent republic. to analyse it; TRNC is a state that is "exercising power as if legally constituted" (de facto) "self governing" (independent) TRNC is not the only example and that's how those countries are referred. CIA world fact book is NPOV in this case btw. I am not getting a quote about Iraq or Iran. Or will you claim that CIA world fact book is pro-Turkish and/or anti-Greek.
Would somebody please put an end to this comedy? We shouldn't even be discussing it. Kerem Özcan 10:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Aristovoul0s, try reading what I wrote and replying to that instead. Vizjim 03:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Vizjim if it is geographical summary of the de facto partition of the Republic of Cyprus then it belongs in the geography section. YES it will just scream out loud the UN POV the most of all organizations balanced and acknowledged as such to deal with global disputes. Turkey is a member of the UN and it is the only member to violate resolutions that she is part of. This should also be noted (not in geography though). I hope you are covered.
Kerem i did not expect you would read anything that i have said so far and by he looks of it i was right. Try reading everything said once again please. Aristovoul0s 11:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I advise you to do the same. You keep bringing a "de jure" source for a "de facto" situation. I dare you, try to put "region" instead of "de facto independent republic" in any of South Ossetia, NKR, Abkhazia, Transnistria articles and see the results. If it's accepted there, than we'll have it here. Kerem Özcan 12:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Aristovoul0s, you are not answering the point that all of the things you mentioned are covered at excruciating length within this article, and do not need to be re-iterated when the existing structure already makes clear that the TRNC is not a state in the same way as the Republic, and is the product of invasion. And does so in admirably few words, as well. Vizjim 15:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I copied the discussion to the talk:TRNC page, since the discussion here is mostly on TRNC. issues regarding the intro of this article can still be discussed here. Regards, Kerem Özcan 01:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sovereign base areas

I noteiced the "four parts" intro includes the SBAs within the "de facto partition" of Cyprus. Does that mean the Republic disputes the UK's right to control these areas? If that's the case surely it should be mentioned further down? Moyabrit 11:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've found the dispute covered in Akrotiri and Dhekelia, but not in Sovereign Base Areas. Does anyone else agree that combining those articles would make sense, with a separate article (linked from the top of the page) on the former SBAs in Ireland? Otherwise they cover exactly the same subject, but the text has diverged rather confusingly. Moyabrit 11:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

New European vector maps

You're invited to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Only Real Solution To The Cyprus Problem

Firstly if Turkey had not sold Cyprus to Britain in 1878, it is very possible that Cyprus would have enjoyed the same fate as Crete and united with Greece (Crete had a population that was 33% Turkish, although most were Greeks turned Muslims, Cyprus had significantly less Turks) however this was not the case, and due to oppressive British rule, which included the banning of Greek flags, EOKA was set up to fight the British occupiers. Since the Greeks made 4/5 of the population, EOKA was beginning to be too much for the British to handle, so the British sought to stir up nationalist feeling amongst the Turkish-Cypriots and helped the Turks counter EOKA with TMT.

Anyway, pre-1960 the only fair solution was enosis (union) with Greece, but the British didn't want to give away the strategic island, so they supported the Turks by making it a separate country whereby the minority Turks of 18% had majority rights!! This is what led to the inter-communal fighting in the fist place because the Turks were given way too much power even though they made up less than 1/5 of the population. The puppet military dictatorship of Greece only made things worse by withdrawing over 100,000 Greek troops from the island leaving it defenseless, before provoking the Turkish invasion in July, 1974 in which they captured an almost completely Greek town. There was no legitimate reason or provocation for the second Turkish invasion which occupied 37% of the north.

So after 1974, when the Turks ethnically cleansed 200,000 Greeks from the north, they brought in 160,000 illegal settlers from the Turkish mainland who now outnumber the Turkish-Cypriots 2-to-1. Thus there can never be a fair vote for unification because the majority of the population of the north are illegal settlers who would never vote to leave the Greek-Cypriot homes which they occupy, ie, they won't vote to evict themselves.

So since a fair solution would never be agreed upon by the Turks on the island, the only real solution would be Greek military action to achieve enosis, with the support of the European Union, which doesn't look very likely soon, unless the Kurds become way too much for the Turks to handle.

Also, on another note, why is it that after the population exchange of 1923 between Greece and Turkey, 200,000 Greeks were permitted to stay in Constantinople and 100,000 could remain in the islands of Imbros and Tenedos, yet no more than 5000 remain today, due to pogroms and evictions, yet the 100,000 Turks in Thrace are still there enjoying their minority rights? Just another example of Turkish hypocrisy.--Waterfall999 07:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well; there's a turkish slang expression that goes as; "Only if my aunt had balls, than she would be my uncle"
First of all the reason of problem in Cyprus was not the Turkish minority having majority rights. It was (and always been) the people making distinction with "the Greek" and "the Turkish". There's was no Greek and Turkish in the island to begin with. They were all cypriots for god's sake. So with your way of thinking: Only if these "minority-majority" thing was never intoduced, it would be a unique country where two communities blend. (I don't know who to blame for this. The British rule, or the nationalist from both sides who played with them...)
So only if EOKA didn't aim for enosis there would be no Turkish invasion. (Turkey had enough trouble at that time due to the 1971 Coup) Plus Turkey had no intentions at all to create a seperate country (that's why it took ten years to declare independence). Though it was a very faulty action in the first place to invade the third of the island, creating a natural division. (If it was me, I would go all the way and put the Makarios' government back to the power). By the way, just recently a retired Turkish Army officer who took part in the invasion (or peace operation as he names it. I think both descriptions fall short to describe the situation), had published his memoirs. He said that they even invaded more than they were planning because there was no resistance and they thought it would be strengthening their position in the bargaining talks for reunification. Since the reunification didn't take place, they are still oddly occupied by TRNC.
Following years were the hardest for Turkish Cypriots. Economical isolation, no recognition, you name it... Most of them had to emigrate to UK, just making the problem worse. After ten years of no solution in creating two federal governments effort, TRNC was found. Soon it became the a money laundring, gambling island for Turkey. This new situation was new opportunities for many, and having already lost blood after the immigrations of Turkish Cypriots, TRNC had to accept that role as to survive. (So it's not that The Turkish government "brought" Turkish people to the island. We're not living in the middle ages where the sultan orders a bunch of people to settle there. But situation led to it.) Plus how can you say that it's because of those people the unification didn't take place. Remember it's the Turkish side who voted yes for annan plan. (which I didn't like by the way, because it still was not the solution of the problem, still mentioning a distinction between "the Greek" and "the Turkish". Why can't there just be a plan for the "Cypriots". Those people lived together for ages. All Cypriots have some Greek and Turkish blood)
Yet the the process of creating a nation state, and so-called "Turkification of the economy" are the dark faces of Republic of Turkey. Varlık Vergisi and Istanbul pogrom are the two main subheadings beneath that. And though I wouldn't say that 54.000 in Thrace are "enjoying" their minority rights today (most of those rights were shelved during the Junta regime), what they have been going through is nothing near what the minorities in Turkey suffered. Nobody denies this today, talhough most Turks come up with many self defending reasons (such as the minority in Turkey were the richest part of the population during Great depression and World war II, or the biased information by nationalist Turkish sources such as the bombing of Atatürk's hause in Thessaloniki which some claim that it was by JIC to stir up the situation Cyprus) it doesn't even come close to justify it. Let's just hope that the same mistake won't ever happen again anywere in the world.
And your proposal for "the solution": Enosis would definately not be the solution (not that it's ever going to happen), but it would just make the situation worse. The Solution would be creating a bilangual state where there would be no Turkish minority or Greek Majority, but Cypriots. It wouldn't be easy in the beginning after the years of nationalistic propaganda for both sides, but hey, normalization takes time. And If a French today can talk with a German with no prejudice, Cyprus can also manage that.
Well. That was my two cents, which I think is pretty neutral. Not that it will contribute the article in any level. Regards, Kerem Özcan 10:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
More parts of the text above find me agreeable than those which find me disagreeable. Most notably I applaud your highlighting of your people's past mistakes, as I think it is a major step to improvement. Sweeping them under the carpet for ill-perceived "good" national causes is wrong from both sides. I wish I had the knowledge to highlight my own people's past mistakes to help them in the same way. You may find it interesting to comment on my Nationality quiz; I would certainly appreciate your feedback. NikoSilver 12:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I will soon take the test. Kerem Özcan 09:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Kerem, the Turks are against a fair unification, like i said, the 160,000 Turkish settlers would never vote to evict themselves from the Greek houses which they occupy, and since the Annan plan allowed them to stay, thats why they voted yes.
There is no such thing as a "Cypriot" ethnicity or race, 98% of the population are Greeks who have inhabited the island for over 3000 years, and the Turks who first came in 1571, and brought in a few nomadic settlers. The idea that they are all "Cypriots" and not Greeks is Turkish propaganda, trying to separate Greeks and so that if Greece tries to intervene to stop another Turkish invasion, Turkey can say that its none of Greece' business.
Turkey never invaded Cyprus to protect the minority Turks - they would have done it anyway because it is too strategic which was admitted by Rauf Denktash when he said "Even if the Turkish Cypriot community did not exist, Turkey would not have left Cyprus to Greece." The Turkish invasion propaganda posters portray aggressive Turkish tanks, planes and soldiers, and does not convey a "peace-keeping force" at all. It's like Turkey is laughing about their invasion, showing off but pretending to be the victims to the rest of the world.
Any peace plan that is against enosis is anti-Greek and pro-Turk. Why? Because if you do create a very weak bi-communal state, Turks will again want to have majority rights and be overly represented again creating the same problems. Moreover, the Turkish settlers won't vote to leave either, and even if they did and the Turkish Cypriots accepted minority rights, then there would be nothing wrong with enosis.
The ONLY fair and logical solution was and still is full enosis. 82% of the islands population is in favor of it so why deny them the right to self determination? Just because the island is strategic does that give others the right to deny them what is right? Don't forget that the unfortunate Greek population which had been living in Anatolia and Thrace for thousands of years before the Turks, were severely repressed and from WWI to 1923 Turkey committed genocide against them and evicted the survivors. But Turkey isn't content with what its got, it still has more territorial ambitions not only in Cyprus, but in the Greek islands of the Mediterranean, and Western Thrace, which is obvious through its use of military reconnaissance aircrafts who daily violate Greek airspace, taking photographs in preparation for a future military invasion.
Papandreou had the right idea when he wrote this as part of a letter from the Greek Prime Minister Papandreou to Dean Acheson, August 22, 1964:
"We would of course prefer obtaining Enosis without giving any- thing in exchange. This would have been fair since Turkish minority will acquire full protection under Greek administration as Moslem minority enjoys in Thrace for many years. Moreover, security of Turkey would be completely safeguarded as Cyprus becoming part of Greece would belong to NATO. Besides, since Cyprus was sold by Turkey to Great Britain the former never had any base in the island for security of Turkish state. Neither did agreements of Zurich grant Turkey such a right."--Waterfall999 13:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Believe you me, here on Cyprus 82% of the population is most certainly NOT in favour of enosis. That figure comes from the period just before the ending of British rule, and again just after the Turkish invasion there was a small spike of interest in the ideal of enosis. But the idea that Cypriots would today choose to join their superbly successful economy and political system to the broken-down engine of the Greek economy is not even thinkable. The main headlines in the Cypriot press regarding Greece in the last six months have mostly been about the fact that Greek universities have been on strike AGAIN, putting Cypriot student's education in peril. Vizjim 05:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
82%, ie all the Greek-Cypriots would be in favor of FULL enosis regardless whether the Greek economy is not as successful. But obviously that cannot happen at present due to the Turkish military occupation. Very few want enosis with half the island, but if it was possible to achieve full enosis there would be no Greeks against it. The only Greeks that opposed enosis in 1974 was the Communist party because they would become outlawed in the fascist Junta regime. But that is not the case anymore. Remember FULL enosis (not partial enosis) is what Greek-Cypriots want, and is the only permanent solution to the Cyprus problem.--Waterfall999 09:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You very clearly don't live in Cyprus. Vizjim 10:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Waterfall;
I never said there's a Cypriot ethnicity. Contrarily, what I said was that the main problem is dividing people with their ethnicity. There's no American ethnicity either. But people from different ethnicitie make up a nation, just like the Cypriots can do as well. I don't understand how you call that a Turkish propaganda. I don't understand how you got the inaccurate %98 figure either, the people with Turkish ethnicity before the occupation made up the 1/5 of the population. (Not that this matters, as I said)
Firstly, if Turkey invaded Cyprus because of "strategic reasons" (whatever that is), she would invade it all the way and annex it. Current situation "strategically" has no use to Turkey. Plus, there would be no Turkish occupation, if the Makarios' government was not thrown away by EOKA. And about that poster; I was thinking about to question it, and I guess it's about the time. It doesn't look like anything official. It can simply be a poster depicted by some ordinary ultra-nationalist. And as I said before, "peace operation" falls short to describe that (therefore the turkish officials now rather use the word "intervention"). Yet no one can say that the island was "in peace" before 1974, during the years of civil war.
Also, your the "Genocide against Greek between 1923 - WW2" claim is totally irrelevant. (I think that genocide word is becoming too easy to use. It actually turns to be a disrespect against the ones that really suffered from genocide) To begin with, minorities in Turkey had no surpression by the government until the 1940s (That's the time period when Atatürk was in power. Ps: Venizelos, the strong supporter of enosis, had nominated Atatürk for Nobel peace prize) . After than, beginning with the WW II, a process of turkification of the economy and generating a higher class (consisted of the people with Turkish ethnicity) had started. Due to that nationalist policies, many minorities (majorly greeks) had to evacuate their possessions and leave Turkey. If you read the Varlık Vergisi and Istanbul Pogrom articles I previously linked, you'll see that the target was not the people, but their wealth. I already mentioned about my feelings about those unfortunate events, so no need to parrot myself.
And leave aside your Turkophobia. Turkey has no intentions of invading Greece. Plus it's only Greece that claims Turkey is violating her Airspace. What you mentioned is an issue that is a part of Aegean dispute. I'll briefly explain it. Due to the special situation of Aegean sea (Consisting lots of small islands), Turkey and Greek signed an aggrement that would keep the territorial waters in 6nm (rather than 12nm), as you can see in this map. (Otwerwise a small island of a couple thousand meter squares would have unproportional territorial waters.) The rest of the area is considered as International waters. And as you can read in the Airspace article; airspace = territorrial waters. Yet Greece announced that she one-sidedly increased her airspace to 10nm as you can see in this map. Turkey claims that this extended 4nm belongs to international airspace, and UN refuses to take a side in this situation. Thus Turkish jets are patrolling that 4m area frequently to show that they don't recognize this claim by Greece. Yet Greece calls it a violation, so responses with her own jets, which causes dogfights between the sides. I personally think that this is amazingly childish, a peeing contest one might name it.
And I never even mentioned about a bicommunial state (I said a bilangual state for the one united Cypriot nation). There we share the same idea; bicommunial state is never the solution, but neither is the enosis. What is needed is a Cypriot community, and I believe it's going to happen on that day where we get rid of our prejudices. Regards; Kerem Özcan 12:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Vizjim, you very clearly are British and thus not a Cypriot. It is partly due to the British that Enosis has not happened. Cyprus was promised to Greece from Britain several times including during WWI and WWII, which were lies. Like i said before, EOKA became too much for the British to handle, so the British stirred up Turkish nationalism on the island to help combat the Greeks desire for Enosis, because they did not want to give up the strategic island Greece couldn't publically support EOKA because we were economically dependent on Britain. The British who illegally buy houses in the occupied areas only make things worse. All Cypriots would support Full enosis regardless whether Greece's economy is worse, countless have died to achieve enosis with Cyprus, just like those who died in Greek independence, in Crete's enosis, Smyrna and Pontos, etc.

Kerem, Cyprus is extremely strategic, being at the crossroads of Africa, Asia and Europe. It is very close to the middle east and has been described as a massive aircraft carrier. The British have bases there because of its closeness to the Suez canal and the Middle East. Ozal the former Prime Minister of Turkey said in 1983: "Cyprus is an island which pierces the middle of Turkey like a dagger. It is extremely vital from the viewpoint of our security. This island should not be in enemy hands." That is how strategic Cyprus is to Turkey. It's abit similar to the Greek island of Megiste which is very strategic in Greek hands, but if Turkey had it, it would be useless to them. The islands of Imbros and Tenedos were almost exclusively Greek, but they were retained by Turkey due to their strategic position "guarding" the straights. Their Greek population was permitted to stay under the treaty of Laussanne 1923, but now the only Greeks who remain are very few old people since the heavy persecution of the Greeks of the islands just like the Greeks of Constantinople. And yes the propaganda posters are official and were released by the Turkish government.

The genocides i refer to happened during 1913-1923, during and just after WWI (not WWII). Millions of unarmed Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians were murdered, and the Greek survivors were sent to Greece after having lived in Anatolia for thousands of years before the Turks ever arrived there.

Turkey has issued a casus belli if Greece extends its territorial rights to 10nm, which it has a right to do. It is ridiculous how Turkey thinks it can have half the Aegean even though it has no significant islands there. The Aegean has always been a "Greek lake". And i doubt that all the photos the Turkish planes are taking are not for war preparation. Turkey has repeatedly stated it wants some of the Aegean islands: "Cyprus is the first step towards the Aegean." Former Turkish Foreign Minister Melih Esenbel

"All the Aegean islands off the Turkish mainland, including the Dodecanese islands, must belong to Turkey." Former Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Alparslan Turkes

"Half the Aegean belongs to us. This is what the world must know. If the honour and interests of the Turkish nation are attacked we shall crush the head of the enemy." Former Turkish Prime Minister Sadi Irmak

So it is quite clear that Turkey has expansionist aims and it is quite clear they are not limited to Cyprus.

A "united" Cyprus is definitely not the solution because as i said before the Turks would never accept a fair plan. Even if they did it would create a weak Cyprus who would be bullied by other nations, it would not be able to take a clear stand on any aspect on foreign policy, and the British would never leave the enormous bases which they occupy without paying a cent. Full Enosis is the only real sustainable option that would not be the cause of any future conflicts and would help the economies of all Cypriots.--Waterfall999 08:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasted almost an hour looking for the Turkish versions of the quotes you sent. I tried almost every single turkish equivalent word that I could think of, yet got no results. Then I decided to check the English versions and... Bam! There's only one website that provides those quotes, and apparantly you copy pasted those from this web site. It didn't take too long before I noticed that there's a quote by Atatürk in 1939, a year after his death, saying "The turn of Cyprus is yet to come", after Hatay becoming a part of Turkey, an event after his death (so I just wanted to emphasize that it's not a simple typo mistake. Somebody put those words into his mouth) Propaganda pages like that (doesn't matter Greek/Turkish/Xish...) always have a tendency to switch, twist or distort the facts. Probably that's what happened also in this case.
Hance, I still have my doubts about the propaganda poster; and I guess I should if that's how you get your information. I'd recommend you to be a little bit more skeptic about believing in everything you read.
I don't claim that every quote on that page is made up by the way. But the politicians you quoted are already dead long ago, and their statements (if such statements ever existed) were probably told around 1974. I ask you to the same resarch about what Greek politicians said around that time. You might be surprised to see that none of the sides were exactly holding out olive branches to each other. We all did mistakes. There's no need to repeat them.
I explained enough about airspace issue. Briefly once more; Airspace = Territorrial waters (See Airspace article). Territorrial waters in Aegean see = 6nm. Greek government accepts the 6nm for her territorrial waters, yet claims her airspace is 10nm. Other than that you are free to believe "the Turkish expansionism" or "Turkish imperialism" whatever you name it. But don't worry. Turkey is not invading anywhere.
This discussion can go on and on but it's not helping neither the article, nor the actual dispute. I see that you have a very fixed opinion and with your arguements I don't think I'm going to change my mind either. So maybe I'll... well... get a life :P,
Anyway, that was my humble opinion. Regards, Kerem Özcan 19:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10
  1. ^ EUROPA - The EU at a glance - Maps - Cyprus
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyprus/Archive_4&oldid=1255304362"