Talk:Democratic Party (Northern Cyprus)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dp logo.gif

Image:Dp logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Northern Cyrpus: Limited Recognition

@GGT: Any article discussing de facto states should have a note or statement mentioning their status. As the article may mislead readers into assuming these are widely accepted and/or recognized territories. In other articles such as the one from COVID-19, all de facto states are clearly listed for Somaliland, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, etc. The importance of this is that Turkey is the only state that recognizes Northern Cyrpus. Part of Wikipedia's purpose is to "...present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style."

The removal of cited information because someone else perceives it as biased violates the 'neutral point of view WP:NPOVHOW. ChaoticTexan (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It's unnecessary and irrelevant. The opening sentence simply states that this is a political party that exists in Northern Cyprus – the status of the territory has no bearing on that fact. There are several relevant articles where Northern Cyprus' status should be mentioned, but this isn't one of them. Number 57 22:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@ChaoticTexan: firstly, away with the straw man arguments, no one claimed that it is biased. Another superfluous straw man argument is that the article misleads readers into believing that the state is not de facto - nowhere in the article is that claim being made. These articles are technically speaking subordinates to the main article on Northern Cyprus. The status of the territory is thus presumed background knowledge, and if any reader is unfamiliar with it, they can just follow the link to the article. Same logic applies to any officials of Northern Cyprus or any mention of Northern Cyprus within context. There are certain cases that a discussion of the status is warranted despite the article being about Cyprus, such as village articles, see Angolemi for an example of that. Anything where it may be out-of-context like the COVID-19 pandemic is an altogether different discussion, so please don't go ahead and just apply whatever you guys decided there and accuse anyone who gets in your way of POV pushing, it's frankly disrespectful to folks who've been working on these articles for years. --GGT (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@GGT: I settled the dispute on another talk page with Number 57 on the basis that other de facto states do not mention such statuses in the articles relating to presidential elections and/or political parties. It is not a strawman arguement nor is it disrespectful to bring up this discussion. I said it may mislead readers into assuming these are generally accepted territories. Do not take things out of context.

I brought up the COVID-19 pandemic because on the talk pages some were echoing that territorial statuses were political and thus not related to the pandemic. The consensus ended with applying notes to all de-facto states. Hence the mentioning of it.

Additionally, "Same logic applies to any officials of Northern Cyprus or any mention of Northern Cyprus within context." is your opinion. As I said, other talk pages mirror this discussion and your opinion. If other administrators and/or editors form a future consensus on this talk page, then a note or statement will still have merit.

It's more disrespectful to exclude information than it is to bring up a relevant notes. You are acting as if de-facto statuses are assumed to be generally known (they are not).

Stop with the exclusion fallacies. If any other article de-facto's page has a consensus on similar notes, then it will apply to all. Lastly, the de-facto status is a fact not an opinion. I did the edit out of good faith, and I understand that it is my opinion that the issue is relevant, just as it is yours that it is irrelevant. ChaoticTexan (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)