Jump to content

Talk:Nicosia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Nicosia v. Lefkosia v. Lefkoşa

If this place is really called Lefkosia, shouldn't it be moved there? I'd do it, but I'm not sure, anyone with knowledge of the subject have any ideas about it? (Please don't do a copy-paste move however, because then the history of the article doesn't move along). Regards, JoanneB 13:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the government has attempted to change the English language designation to "Lefkosia" but it hasn't really stuck, it is still commonly referred to in English worldwide as Nicosia. Ramallite (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Worldwide it's reffered to as Nicosia, so making it Lefkosia won't help! But we can redirect Lefkosia to this article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erodotos5 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 October 2006.

Neither the Cyprus government English website [1] nor the European Union website [2] is unambiguous on the English name of the capital. Both sites use both Nicosia and Lefkosia. The site of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus [3] is more clear, citing the name as "Lefkosa (Nicosia)" (without the cedilla on the ş). Given the ambiguity of the official usage and the overwhelming dominance of Nicosia in general English use, we should keep Nicosia at least until official sources make up their mind. 69.159.93.116 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Steve-Mtl

The English name for the city is Nicosia. Lefkosia is just the Greek name transliterated into Latin characters. Lefkoşa on the other hand is the Turkish name. Changing the article to either would be like changing Cologne to Köln. Welshleprechaun (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Are you sure this is a photo of Nicosia or even a city?It looks more like a fossil or a rock... Padem 12:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Click on it, bud, and you'll get a better view of things. --(Mingus ah um 18:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

Division

This is a divided city, and yet, according to the article there is only one public transit company, only Greek sports teams etc. All the bus routes start at the Solomos Square terminal in the centre of the city and cover all the areas of the city: does this also hold for the Northern part of the city? Irrespecrive of the political situation the reader would like to know something about the Turkish part of the city. Andreas 20:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Then make additions to it if you know anything more. --www.doc 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a good question, Andreas. The only public transportation in the TRNC that I noticed was the taxi, and, while it has been two years, I don't think there has been enough political progress for the Northern Cypriots to allow a Greek Cypriot bus company to work their side of the city... Does anyone out there have a solid source of information on this issue (or, even better, live inside the city)? Your edits would be appreciated. --(Mingus ah um 18:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC))
There is no public transportion crossing the Green Line. The only buses that go across are tourist buses going from Larnacya Airport to hotels in the north, or people on organized day trips - but even those are limited. Taxis aren't allowed to cross either. The only vehicules allowed to cross other than that are private cars and (a very limited number of) lorries. Travelbird 21:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Transportation / City Bus service ?

Does anyone have a source for the purported 30-minute interval bus service ? I strongly doubt it exits - in over 4 years of Cyprus I've only seen about 3 buses a year. The "yellow bus service" in the old city isn't really a bus service, but rather a sightseeing route serviced by a Disneyland-like minuature train. Travelbird 21:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Because of this confusion, I have removed the offending paragraph: Nicosia has an organised network of urban buses that is managed by the Nicosia Bus Company Ltd. All the bus routes start at the Solomos Square terminal in the centre of the city and cover all the areas of the city. Buses run every 20 to 30 minutes depending on their destination while on weekends they run less frequently. In addition, Nicosia Municipality runs its own buses, the well-known Yellow Buses that cover the city within the walls. There is no fare charge for these routes. If anyone has information on bus activity on either side of the green line, feel free to include it... If you cannot provide a citation, describe your addition here or in the section above. --(Mingus ah um 21:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

I live in Nicosia... the bus service exists. If you've ever been to the squares in the old city you'll have seen them. As for the "yellow buses", 'they' are indeed just one shabby train-like vehicle that goes down Ledra street every hour or so.- anon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.109.91 (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

nicosia

This should be changed to Lefkosia. We changed Ivory Coast to Cote D'Ivorie and Burma to Mynamar, and Peking to Beijing. If the convention is to use the local preference than this article should be moved to Lefkosia—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.142.78.138 (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

One sided story

The Turkish Cyp-Greek Cyp situation is a subjective discussion. You should point that out before saying invasion to 1974 and many things. The article doesnt involve EOKA-B or any other things that Greek Goverment Tried. The whole story of the lefkosia is probably writen by a Greek Cypriot. Since the time of the Annan plan Turkey and Turkish Cypriots proven their request for peace more than many times but now that Greek Cypriots have the power of recognition and European Union they are re-writing the history as they see it. The worst part is the whole world saw how the things were during annan plan and they are now (even the Wikipedia which i used until now as the best source in internet) calling their ONE SIDED STORY cyprus' history! Well its true then, strong one writes the history, and you help as a tool! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epinox (talk • contribs) 12:42, 25 October 2006.

From the above it appears that you are either a Turk Cypriot yourself or know something about Northern Cyprus. So I would like to repeat my ideas stated above and incite you to add some information about the northern part of the city that is missing in this article, regarding economy, sports, transportation, culture, tourism, etc.   Andreas   (T) 13:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Page Edit

Can someone edit the page to get rid of those huge blank spaces? I think it has something to do with the placement of the pictures but I'm not sure how to fix it. stan goldsmith 01:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

EXCELLENT PICTURES!!!

I commend the person who put the pictures up. They look like digital photos. This article is starting to look beautiful.(UNFanatic 18:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

Wrong Dates

There is a mistake in the article. The city was divided in 1964. (See "Green Line") —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.175.246.5 (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

While the Green Line was drawn in 1964, the line didn't become what it is today until 1974. Travelbird 14:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This does not change the truth that Nicosia was divided in 1964. I will post a reference.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.255.4.225 (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

There was ethnic cleansing in Cyprus in general, from 1964, when the Turks withdrew to their enclaves, all of which were north of the Green Line. However, Nicosia itself was always "divided" into its Greek, Armenian, and Moslem quarters. Eugene-elgato (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not divided by Turkish Army in 1974 but by Major-General Peter Young in 1964 (see "Green Line")

Nicosia was not divided by the Turkish Army in 1974. It was divided by Major-General Peter Young in 1964 with the "Green Line" in order to protect Turkish Cypriots from Greek Cypriots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.175.246.5 (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Firstly : You can't quote yourself as source ! The edit to Green Line (Cyprus) on Major young, was by yourself. Secondly : You need to provide proper sources for your statement, otherwise the information will be removed as unsourced. Travelbird 14:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You can find a proper source at http://britains-smallwars.com/cyprus/UNFICYP.html "AT the request of Makarios, Britain now provided a "peace force" from its Sovereign Bases. It would be the forerunner of the UN Force. Greek and Turkish military units were expected to be part of it. Major-General Peter Young took command. By New Year's Day 1964 he had positioned his troops between the two sides in Nicosia and tried to impose a cease-fire. The General looked at a map of the capital and with a green china graph pencil drew a line. The Cypriot Turks were to stay North and the Greek Cypriots South. This has become known as "The Green Line".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.175.246.5 (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

not 1974 but 1964

I will not go into the Cyprus dispute. I just want to correct a mistake in the article. The "Green Line" for the city was drawn in 1964 and there was a turkish and greek side in Nicosia after 1964. So the city was divided in 1964 and there was a border in the middle of the city with a checkpoint which people had to pass in order to go to the other half. Reference http://www.unficyp.org/History/hist_ops_until_74.htm (search for green line). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.255.4.225 (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Please correct the dates

I am changing the article so that it reflects the true divison date of 1964. However someone is changing it back to 1974. The capital was divided in 1964. You can easily find it from the web page of the UN http://www.unficyp.org/History/hist_ops_until_74.htm and from http://britains-smallwars.com/cyprus/UNFICYP.html Please do not change the History. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.175.246.5 (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Nicosia in ASIA?

Why Nicosia(Cyprus) is situated in ASIA? Cyprus is not an asian country, is European! Baloo_SVQ (from the spanish Wikipedia)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.136.186.252 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

In Britain for some reason Cyprus has traditionally been categorized as being Asian and not European. One angry letter, I think in the Times, said how Cyprus shouldn't be joining the EU partially on this basis, and that Turkey has a stronger claim to join because of her European (Balkan) territory of Eastern Thrace. The gentleman also mentioned that under the Republic's constitution, Cyprus must not enter any international organizations or agreements without both Greece and Turkey first both being members. It was a rather lame argument coming from somebody who was very pro Turkish and recognized the TRNC, which means they cannot be entitled to then rely on the Republic's Constitution. I digress Eugene-elgato (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Landmarks" section needs editing for style

From the Manual of Style: Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. The "Landmarks" section has a lot of good information, but is currently written in the style of a guidebook, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. For example, we should not be telling people where is "definitely the place to head for first" or "well worth a visit". That's what Wikitravel is for, not Wikipedia. Loganberry (Talk) 21:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

YES, NICOSIA IS IN ASIA

It is a fact that Cyprus is geographically in Asia, whereas politically Cyprus is in Europe. Proof why Cyprus is in Asia: Southern part of Turkey is in Asia. Cyprus is even very far east compared to South of Turkey. Also, Syria is in Asia as well. An island that is surrounded by geographically Asian parts and very far away to Europe is in Asia. 78.168.70.19 (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicosia is not known as Khora. It was known colloquially as Khora 50 years and more ago. I live in Nicosia so don't change my edit again. Also, we always call it Lefkosia Λευκωσία instead of Nicosia which is only used in official documents.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laernaes (talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 June 2007.

People from villages still call it Khora —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankateif (talk • contribs) 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Colloquial Cypriot Greek usage is perfectly acceptable to say Xwra, even if that is old fashioned. The main city for any locale is called Xwra by the people in the Greek world. Eugene-elgato (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RESIDUALS OF CRUSADES (GREEKS) MUST RETURN TO THEIR HOMETOWN (GREECE)

After Crusades attacks to the Eastern world, italians returned to Italia, Spanians returned to Spania, Frenchs returned to France, etc. There is no reason for Greeks for staying in an Asian (Eastern World) island, Cyprus. There have been lots of time that Crusades wars ended. Hence, Greeks in the Cyprus must return to Greece without any delay. We don't want any greek in our Cyprus island. 78.168.70.19 (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the infobox with the North Cyprus flag - not because I want to censor it, but because it disturbed the format of the following discussion item. Oz1cz (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I strongly advise that you put down the fantasy book published by the Ataturk Social Nationalist Publishing House and pick a book that's based on historic facts and published in Europe. I find it funny how Turkey wants to join the EU yet Historical books have not even hit the shelves there yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.49.202 (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of Nicosia and Lefkosia

Does anyone know the etymology of the names Nicosia and Lefkosia? Oz1cz (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Leukwsia was once called Leukw8ea, as in "white goddess". I'm not sure why. Nicosia may be something to do with crusaders hearing Leukwsia wrong, e.g. it seems likely that Lemesos is called Limmasol by the English purely because that's how they heard it. Eugene-elgato (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from this URL: http://www.cyprusisland.com/01_Information/nicosia.htm. The material was added to the article on December 20, 2005, here. (Cf. this archived version of the source.) Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no Greek or Turkish part of Nicosia. There is a free part of Nicosia, where mostly Greek Cypriots reside and a Turkish occupied part, where Turkish Cypriots and Turkish settlers reside. I think this should be coreected all over the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.52.186.52 (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

is the capital and largest city of Cyprus

I am sure if this has already created controversy and subsequent editing, but it is highly recommended that this remains as only Cyprus. The de facto state TRNC (as outlined in the Wikipedia TRNC page) is not recognised by any NGO or global institutions (i.e. UN, NATO, WTO) and as such should not be referenced as sovereign state. Maintaining one national name and identity also helps maintain unity and promotion of peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikettg (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia isn't here to "promote unity and peace" or for that matter promote anything else. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

??? this is not promoting "unity and peace" as you put it. Wikipedia is based on pure facts, and the fact remains that the north is not a republic. We must work with international organisations classifications. Please do not edit again otherwise a complain will be raised against you and you will be banned from editing content. Please note that I am not of Cypriot origin and stand as an independent, unbiased contributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.221.68 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at NPOV notice board on how to include the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)

See WP:NPOV/N#Nicosia and Northern Cyprus - the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Archived at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 19#Nicosia and Northern Cyprus - the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Peter E. James (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mikettg, 19 October 2010

{{edit protected}} Dear Administrator,

I realise this might have cause some degree of up raw, and many debate on the various aspects of this article, as of course they do with many geopolitical situations.

But the facts should remain. Wikipedia endeavours to promote pure facts and nothing more. I bring reference to the following phrase (and any subsequent phrases containing the name):

Nicosia (IPA: /ˌnɪkəˈsiːə/, NIK-ə-SEE-ə), known locally as Lefkosia (Greek: Λευκωσία, Turkish: Lefkoşa), is the capital and largest city of both Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Should be more accurate and indeed consistent with other Wiki articles to present like so:

is the capital and largest city of Cyprus

Or, as an added option:

is the capital and largest city of both the Republic of Cyprus and the separate Turkish Cypriot political entity in the north

No International organisation or NGO makes reference to the entity in the north as a “Republic”, neither the UN, NATO or the EU. I am sure Wkipedia should adopt a similar stance.

Please note that I am not a Cypriot citizen, and thus stand as an independent and unbiased position. Mikettg (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this edit request. It is clearly POV and one sided. There is already a discussion going on above regarding this, which you have not participated in only copied your edit request to. Sources to support your claims as to the name of the TRNC? Outback the koala (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
And no, we are not promoting The TruthTM. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Leelouca, 21 October 2010

{{edit protected}} The record temperature should be 45.6 http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/temperature-breaks-all-records/20100803

Not done: I think in cases where the data conflicts we should stick with the more reliable source (UN).

The source for the weather isnt from the UN but from here http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/MS/MS.nsf/DMLclimet_reports_en/DMLclimet_reports_en?OpenDocument&Start=1&Count=1000&Expand=1 which is out of date! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.92.113 (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is a Pseudo state. Leelouca (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: There is a dispute about this currently. Please gain consensus first and cite a reliable source. -- Ϫ 13:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

How about the UN as a source then???? you said it yourself that the UN is a reliable source therefore this so called TRNC does not exist according to them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leelouca (talk • contribs) 10:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else suspect some kind of sockpuppetry going on here? Outback the koala (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Quite obviously so. File the report, I'll co-sign it (ping me). Cheers! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No it really is me lol!!! Just registered the other day after noticing the errors on the city I love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leelouca (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Population of the Southern Partition

Fact tags have been added to the population figures from South Nicosia. I will try to find a source in the next few days that is reliable. If the anon would discuss here that would be great. Outback the koala (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Misleading pictures and content for "North"-Turkish occupied Nicosia.

The last month we saw pictures of North Nicosia Hala Sultan being included in Nicosia article and not in the North Nicosia article. Also sister cities of North partition of Cities must be includedin Article North Nicosia and not Nicosia! Readers and Users of Wikipedia are really discussing and supporting this view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldglobal (talk • contribs) 17:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the whole city, not just the Southern Partition. Outback the koala (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 62.152.23.159, 8 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} when in the article it says:"is the capital and largest city of both Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" the following should be added: - There is only one recognized republic of Cyprus (Turkey invaded the island in 1974 and created a second and illegal state called "the turkish replublic of northern Cyprus" only recognized from Turkey)

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unficyp/background.shtml -.

No. This goes against NPOV for the page - long term issue. See above for more..Outback the koala (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

wrong date

On 3 April 2008, as part of efforts to reunify the island, a symbolic wall dividing the two communities at Ledra Street was opened ....the date should be 23 april 2003.... http://www.cypnet.co.uk/ncyprus/history/index.html ; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2969089.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.78.76.51 (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nicosia as capital of Northern Cyprus

{{edit protected}} In an attempt not to confuse the readers I would suggest not to refer Nicosia as capital of Northern Cyprus as there is Northern Nicosia to be the capital of Northern- Occupied Cyprus. Nicosia must remain pure capital of Cyprus and the only legal internationally recognised and repsected mayor of Nicosia Mrs Eleni Mavrou. Additionally with long discussion with many Turkish Cypriots from Northern part of city I have come to the conclusion they consider Nicosia as capital of the only legal republic of Cyprus. Please let me know if you support following changes we will make to remove Nicosia as capital of Northern Cyprus. With great respect "Economiesofscale" user, a non-Cypriot user with studies in Geopolitical status in Middle East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Economiesofscale (talk • contribs) 23:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done (again) Has been discussed before. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} User Seb az86556 obviously biz size Lefkoşa makalede değişiklikler izin vermez şekilde bir turk olduğunu fark vardır. I must know I am also from Turkish descent and I would like to see Nicosia being the only capital of Cyprus, NOT turkish occupied Norhtern Cyprus. Respect the others opinion and don't serve the opinion of Turkey only. It is an encyclopedic content which must be realistic and not a Turkish propaganda. Please allow changes of Nicosia not being the capital of Turkish Republic of Cyprus also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Economiesofscale (talk • contribs) 09:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Speak English. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Again no, Wikipedia does not take sides in disputes between states. I strongly agree, please contribute with english and not google translate. Outback the koala (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Lefkosia or Nicosia is not part of Northern Turkish Occupied Cyprus

Nicosia currently is capital of Republic of Cyprus and not Turkish Occupied illegal goverment. Please change it. Put Nicosia as capital of Republic of Cyprus only. Thank you From Tel Aviv, Israel—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.133.131 (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If the situation has changed, please provide a source to support your claim. Currently the city is still divided. Outback the koala (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Please remove all references to North Occupied part of Nicosia

All references to the Turkish occupied part of Nicosia is making the article unreliable and often Wikipedia readers are getting confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyork5 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be presented in a clearer fashion then. This article needs alot of work. Over to you. Chesdovi (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Seals

[4]. Please explain Neo. "Recognised" or not, Nicosia is one city. If you want to split each sector, then create them. If not, both sectors must be represented, legal or not. Chesdovi (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I disagree with you. But anyway, it is not a matter of opinion. The international community only recognises the government-controlled part of Nicosia as a municipality. You have to delete any entry in the Nicosia page that pertain to the illegal and unrecognised part of the city. This is it.Neo ^ (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

See "Full protection" section below - it's the Turkish Republic that isn't recognised, not the Turkish Municipality. It isn't clear whether international recognition is relevant to the status of local government districts - do they usually have formal recognition by other countries? Peter E. James (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The box should represent fact, not legal opinions, and the fact is that half of the town is looked after by and claimed by the Turks, so just as there are both flags for the mayor, etc, both seals are needed aswell. Chesdovi (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

Due to the ongoing content dispute, I've just fully protected the article for a week. Any uninvolved admin can unprotect if the situation is solved before that. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

And I've just reverted the article to this revision, which seemed the last stable one, before this edit war started; if I was wrong, any admin can correct it (or feel free to ping me on my talk page and I'll be happy to oblige). Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. Only the recognised Nicosia municipality must be represented. You simply don't get it. How would you feel if Turks came and invaded your country and occupied a third of it? Neo ^ (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What you "feel" is irrelevant. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The "Government" section of the article states that: "According to the constitution of Cyprus Nicosia Municipality was divided into a Greek and Turkish sector with two Mayors", and there is a reference for this at the end of the section. If this is correct, both should be included. Also there is something in that section that should be changed: the first paragraph is about airports and belongs in the "Transportation" section. Peter E. James (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
To the user whose comment was removed, and the user whose edits were reverted: The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus doesn't have international recognition, but the Nicosia Turkish Municipality is officially recognised if the references are correct. The UN Security Council resolution doesn't mention Nicosia. Peter E. James (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Apparently this was disputed in an edit summary by Lefkos 79 - a reference or clarification is needed. Peter E. James (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The argument based on "illegality" of TRNC was rejected at NPOV noticeboard discussion. In my opinion the Turkish Municipality should be in the article, but only in the infobox if recognised internationally, or by Cyprus, or by the Nicosia Municipality, or is commonly accepted as fact (references would be useful, as the article currently lacks them). Also I can't find any discussion about whether it is NPOV to give equal weight to something only recognised by one country. Has there been previous discussion (whether about Northern Cyprus or not) that could be used as precedent? Peter E. James (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
To Peter E. James: This body is not recognised by either the Cyprus government, nor the official Nicosia Municipality, nor by any other country apart from Turkey. Even though it is mentioned in the constitution of Cyprus, it is not recognised as a legal entity by the Cypriot state as it simply cannot have any control over it - in contrast, the Cypriot state does control legal municipalities in the south. You can't simply dismiss the "illegality" arguement, as this entity's existence is based on the existence of an illegal state as condemned by the international community. The fact that it exists can probably be accepted but we will need good references(apart from Turkish sources) on what exactly it represents. I disagree with your logic that it should be mentioned if its commonly accepted as a fact. This is exactly like me invading in your house next door and announcing that I control the whole neighbourhood. Should I have my flag in the neighbourhood's infobox just because I say that its mine wheareas the whole world agrees that its not? Masri145 (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the exact situation (whether North Nicosia is de facto or de jure), but there does seem to be some agreement between the municipalities (e.g. [5], [6]) so although they may prefer to be unified, "illegal" is probably not the best way to describe it. The Turkish municipality seems to have been created before Northern Cyprus declared itself to be independent, and if it was never officially recognised or ceased to be recognised since it was created, a reference is needed (as I can't find one). The lead section seems to be neutral enough, i.e. Nicosia is in the Republic of Cyprus but with part claimed by the TRNC. I support keeping the seals and details referring to North Nicosia in at present but I'm not sure about the flags - that's why I have asked if there is any attempt at dispute resolution within Wikipedia that could be used as precedent for this. Peter E. James (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't find any reliable sources on what exactly the Turkish Municipality of Nicosia represents and which state it belongs to (or wants to belong to). I couldn't find something in their website either. Surely it can't claim it belongs to both the Republic of Cyprus and TRNC. At the moment the summary page doesn't make sense as it seems that this entity claims it's legality under the internationally recognised Republic of Cyprus and at the same time its being funded and controlled by a de facto state. So it must be a de facto entity. Also the fact that its only twinnings are with towns in Turkey is a pretty strong evidence that it does not have legitimate status. The Republic of Cyprus is considering the Nicosia Municipality as an occupied municipality [7] This should be mentioned in the article. In addition we should also mention that the territorial division of Nicosia happened as a result of the Turkish Invasion and not as a result of the constitution ([8]). Currently this section in the summary "Following the intercommunal violence of the 1960s, the capital was divided between the island's Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities in the south and north by the Green Line in 1964" doesn't have any references. If we can't get some references we should remove it.
In my opinion the TRNC flags should not be shown in the infobox as it clearly isn't NPOV to give equal weight to something recognised only by one country. We can open a discussion if you like. But before we do it have a look at Kosovo. This is an entity recognised by more than one country and a much more controversial case than Cyprus, yet in the wiki page you can find more accurate historical information and no flags of the new state. In the Cyprus case it seems that it's Turkey vs. The World yet we choose to follow Turkey's POV and display the TRNC flags. I propose that TRNC flags are removed and that the summary changes to something more factual along the lines of Kosovo. Here's one suggestion, I'm open to amendments: "In consequence of the Turkish Invasion in 1974, the Republic of Cyprus lost control of north Nicosia. The TRNC a self-declared independent state (recognised only by Turkey) has de facto control over north Nicosia. The Turkish Nicosia Municipality, although initially created de jure as mentioned in the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, is currently considered by Cyprus a de facto entity as it is controlled by the TRNC." Masri145 (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Any reference of Turkish military occupied Northern Cyprus is illegal. Official capital of Cyprus is Nicosia without Nicosia Turkish Municipality being included. Please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitednationsorders (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal/Amendment of section

According to the constitution Nicosia Turkish Municipality (founded in 1958) was recognised in 1960, in addition to the Nicosia Municipality.[1] Following the intercommunal violence of the 1960s, the capital was divided between the island's Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities in the south and north by the Green Line in 1964.

1) The Nicosia Turkish Municipality never gained legal cover from the Republic of Cyprus as the president and vice-president never agreed on how the separate municipalities can work. In the first 4 years of the creation of the Republic of Cyprus there were negotiations on how to implement and maintain separate municipalities in all cities. The negotiations ended up in failure even though initially Makarios (the first president of the Republic of Cyprus) and Kutsuk (the first vice-president) were close to agreeing the unification of the two municipalities as a practical way of moving forward with a common Cypriot state. This article explains the Municipal Issue of Cyprus in great detail [9]. I suggest reading it before replying.

2)Nicosia was not geographically divided in 1964 as this section suggests. The division (aka. green line) was only drawn on a map with a green pen. The real city's population was multi-ethnic and mixed throughout the whole city. The Turkish Invasion of 1974 imposed ethnic and geographic separation of the people of Nicosia. The same fact is mentioned in United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus. Masri145 (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


As it stands the article is heavily one-sided. Even more controversial issues are balanced between sides in Wikipedia, a good example is Kosovo.

In my attempt to open a discussion, only one person bothered replying and their comments were removed. Why was that? If the admins have anything to add please let us know. Judging from the edit history, this is a highly controversial issue and you have to let it be discussed to achieve consensus otherwise its simply POV on your side.

My arguments for this change are presented above. This article should be consistent with actual facts. If you can't present reliable references regarding how the division of the city took place we should change the section as below.

I suggest that the section:

According to the constitution Nicosia Turkish Municipality (founded in 1958) was recognised in 1960, in addition to the Nicosia Municipality.[1] Following the intercommunal violence of the 1960s, the capital was divided between the island's Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities in the south and north by the Green Line in 1964.

changes to:

In consequence of the Turkish Invasion in 1974, the Republic of Cyprus lost control of the north part of Nicosia which is now controlled by TRNC - a self-declared independent state (recognised only by Turkey). According to the constitution of Cyprus the Cypriot state should maintain both a Greek-Cypriot and a Turkish-Cypriot municipality in the city, albeit without any territorial boundaries defined between them. The implementation of the separate municipalities was a long-standing controversial issue since the creation of the Republic and despite dicussions between the two communities, the issue was never officially resolved. Since the Turkish invasion and the declaration of TRNC, the Turkish Nicosia Municipality is controlled by TRNC and it is considered a de facto entity by Cyprus and the international community.

06:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC) -.

I agree with the previous user. According to the pre-invasion status, there was only ONE municipality in Nicosia, which was established in 1878 Neo ^ (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Neo you're an autoconfirmed user, so you can edit the article directly. As long as there is a consensus to make the edit, go ahead; and if there's not, someone will revert you and you can come back here to discuss more. One thing to note Masri, as I think you may be confused: Admins don't have any special say in content discussions--all we can do is make sure users follow the editing rules, and have some tools like blocking and protection to help be sure that they do. All editors together work towards consensus on what an article should say. If anyone feels like you're unable to get to consensus on your own, the next step is to try some form of dispute resolution, like requesting uninvolved help in the form of a Request for Comment. If you need help getting such a request started, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page and I can assist (assuming you've already tried to resolve it amongst yourselves, first). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Qwyrxian. My post has been there for more than a week and I have one positive comment. There are no disagreements so I can safely assume that this is the consensus. I have made the change in the article but I'm still open for improvements. If anyone disagrees please use this space to discuss rather than reverting. Masri145 (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


Pictures of Northern Turkish OCCUPIED Nicosia should be removed

This article is exclusively about Southern legal Nicosia. The following monuments located in Northern Nicosia are:

  • Büyük Han
  • Selimiye Mosque
  • Arabahmet Mosque.
  • Kyrenia Gate.

and they should be removed from Gallery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denmarkency (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

    • Exactly I beilive references to Northern Turkish occupied part of Cyprus to be erased! Some users for example Seric or Dr.K are absolutely critical over us and vandalise the article very often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeroskipou3 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. There are some very important and undisputed facts that we should point out here:
1)There is only one city called Nicosia.
2)Northern Nicosia is a section of the city which is under Turkish military occupation since 1974.
3)There is only one internationally recognised local government in the city which claims jurisdriction over the whole city (north and south).
4)The unrecognised Turkish Municipality of Nicosia claims jurisdriction only over the north part of the city.
So it is clear that these two conflicting approaches cannot co-exist in the same article. What should we do so to avoid reverting each others changes? We either need to look at a precedence case or have a mediator.
For precedence I can't find an identical case however one can look at similar cases like Kosovo and Taiwan. These are territories with states which have more recognition than the TRNC however in both these pages the message is clear and consistent with international law.
If we need to refer to a neutral mediatator, IMO there is no best mediator than the United Nations Security Council with the numerous security council resolutions[1] and the European Court of Human Rights Loizidou v. Turkey case which currently stands in favour of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus.
I suggest that we keep this page consistent with international law and only mention one internationally recognised Nicosia. This should also be reflected in the infobox. The Turkish POV can be shown in a separate article in North Nicosia. Masri145 (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


Exactly I totally agree with you. All references to north turkish illegally occupied Nicosia should be moved to North Nicosia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeroskipou3 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User Seric2 and continuous deterioration of the article

It is clear that the above named user is not willing to stop deteriorating the quality of the article on Nicosia. He is clearly trying to impose a structure that corresponds to his personal beliefs. This is, however, an encyclopedia that needs to be imprartial and reflect the true, current and actual state of the city of Nicosia and not how it should appear in one particular contributor´s eyes. The main infobox picture, File:Mis imágenes.jpg, that is continuously removed by user Seric2 is just depicting the reality: the current state of the city. These are pictures of the most important Avenue of the city, the most important and older school of the city, the Town Hall of the city and the most important and most historical square of the city where there is the greatest concentration of the city´s monuments. Further, all pictures appearing in the collage, namely File:Mis imágenes.jpg, were taken during August 2011. Despite all these, user Seric2 is insisting to remove this picture and replace it with another one that contains pictures of low quality, of quite a long time ago and furthermore momuments that are not even well known among Nicosian citizens themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.230.4 (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

a) Don't comment on users b) Seric isn't the only one c) stop edit-warring and IP-hopping d) make an unblock-request @ User talk:Giorgoos
Now... you were saying? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I was saying you are a fascist that allows a group of 4-5 Turkish nationalist extremists to produce a hugely biased article. They cannot stand the face of a Greek column or anythign Greek so they get heart attacks whenever they see the infobox pic that depicts the mere reality. Continue like this until you render Wikipedia a proper propaganda underrated webpage. I am not going to request unblocking as I am not willing to deal with fascistic regimes constructed by idiotic human beings even electronically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.56.143.241 (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop removing valid references

In his recent edits, user Seb az86556's claims that Seric2's version is not vandalism.

The definition of vandalism clearly states that "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia".

How is it not compromising the integrity of the article when valid references are removed - for example references about the fact that the north part of Nicosia is occupied by the Turkish Army.

This is perhaps the most important fact about the city and it should be mentioned. References have been already provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masri145 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! Nicosia as a whole is under Republic of Cyprus administration without any legality from Nicosia Turkish Municipality. There is no SSouthern or Northern Nicosia. Nicosia is one and is under Republic of Cyprsu. Pictures or content from Northern Nicosia should be removed. Yeroskipou3 (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
First of all, Nicosia is a city, and North Nicosia is a part of that city. If everything from the north part is going to be removed, this article should be titled "South Nicosia", and the article of Nicosia can be an article representing the whole city. The Nicosia Turkish Municipality is legal, according to the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus. In addition, the city was divided even before 1974, the division goes back to 1964, as it can be seen here or in the article of United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus or here. So, please stop making disruptive edits. --Seksen (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Seksen. This article cannot be named 'South Nicosia' as there is no such thing in any legal paper. You simply can't make up names of cities. There is only one internationally recognised name that is "Nicosia". North Nicosia is what the TRNC claims to be its capital. Even if that is not internationally recognised I have no problem with having this in the North Nicosia page since it is recognised only by Turkey. We should however add a reference to North Nicosia so that if people want to find information about the de facto state they should look there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masri145 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
One more thing I wanted to ask. Where does the Turkish Nicosia Municipality belong to (the de facto TRNC or the internationally recognised Republic of Cyprus)? What exactly is your interpretation of legality in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masri145 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
No, Nicosia is the name of the whole city, so the information about the whole city should be added here. North Nicosia is a portion of city which is the capital of TRNC, and as the city is actually divided, we cannot claim that one municipality represents the whole city, that also contradicts the constitution which you find the only legal one. Maybe the division of the article into three articles, Nicosia about the whole city, as well as North Nicosia and Nicosia, Republic of Cyprus (Cyprus is the name of the whole island, it does not make any sense here to call it "Nicosia, Cyprus") could be an alternative. But the Nicosia Municipality is certainly not the only legal representative of the city. --Seksen (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It belongs to both - it is the only recognised entity of the TRNC, and it has its place in the laws of both states. --Seksen (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Please now remove references to Turkish occupied north Nicosia and then we can manage how we will deal with North Nicosia article which is a separate case. Now we should erase sentences about Northern Nicosia Yeroskipou3 (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We know Nicosia is divided city and there are two municipalities. According to results of google books, termes South Nicosia and North Nicosia are frequently used. Even in the Annual report of the United Nations Development Programme.

I think taht we'd better explain non-political issue in this article, and explain political administrative issues in South Nicosia and North Nicosia. Takabeg (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Google references to Nicosia are not at all reliable! As the United Nations security Council voted there is no legal Cyprus Turkish administration due to the outbreak and the continuence of Turkish occupation of half of the island! There is no such thing as Southern and Northern Nicosia! Nicosia is only one and is under the country Republic of Cyprus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeroskipou3 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, it does not matter whether you believe, but practically there is. --Seksen (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Seksen stop being sarcastic. Its not a matter of one or two people believing. Its about facts of international law and the fact that the vast majority of the world agrees that there's only one state and one city. You simply HAVE to respect that and stop pushing POV.

By the way you still haven't answered my question on which entity the Turkish Nicosia Municipality belongs to? It is a de facto illegal entity. The Republic of Cyprus doens't recognise it as it does not exercise any control over it. Its as simple as that. The simple fact that its acting outside the Repuplic of Cyprus legal jurisdiction makes it a de facto illegal entity. How can you trust Google references more than UN Security Council resolutions? The article needs to have some more serious integrity don't you think?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masri145 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Seksen you are serving Turkish interests and you do not respect other users facts. When you say about Nicosia Turkish municipality you are abolutely bias! So Nicosia must remain as capital of Republic of Cyprus only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.186.139 (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Igonring the constitution you consider the only legal one, you go further and also violate the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. --Seksen (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
All resolutions of the United Nations security council are against Northern Turkish illegal military occupation of Cyprus. Whatever term or name exists to describe the de facto occupied part of the island is illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeroskipou3 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I will not repeat that the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus recognizes the Nicosia Turkish Municipality, and it is as legal as the Nicosia Municipality. --Seksen (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Well if you did your research properly and were not that quick to revert my changes, you would have read the references I provided ([The Divisive Problem of the Municipalities]) and I'm sure that would have changed your mind. I want to believe that you are a rational human being whose intention is to enrich Wikipedia with valid information and not a subject of Turkish propaganda.
And I repeat to you that as long as the Turkish Nicosia Municipality belongs to TRNC and not the Republic of Cyprus, even if it's mentioned in the constitution it is a de facto non-recognised entity simply because it cannot exercise any power over it. That is a fact and I'm really sorry if it breaks your heart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masri145 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
No other claim can be more reliable than that constitution. If it is there, it is there. There is no chance for a "but..." --Seksen (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
So its obvious that you just don't want to understand and instead you want to impose your POV on the page.
The constituton doesn't give legality to just any entity that calls itself the Turksih Municipality of Nicosia.
It would be legal if:
1) It belonged to the Republic of Cyprus and,
2) Abided by its law.
There is no such entity that currently exists in the world. What you have is an entity which is ruled by an illegal entity's (TRNC) law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.238.182 (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Seksen there is no such think as Nicosia Turkish Municipality. After the violent and crucial invasion in 1974, constitution of Cyprus has abandoned all of resolutions for Turkish Municipalities or Turkish state owned sectors. Nicosia belongs just to the republic of Cyprus.Wikibiggesfun (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC) — Wikibiggesfun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Some samples

Security council, Distr.: General 31 May 2011, Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations operation in Cyprus:

On 21 December 2010, a European club basketball match in south Nicosia between a visiting Turkish team and a Greek Cypriot team was marred by acts of hooliganism by Greek Cypriot fans against the Turkish team players. (UNFICYP)

Exploring South Nicosia and continually bumping into the Green Line makes visitors appreciate the physical division of Nicosia, but only by crossing the buffer zone into North Nicosia can visitors appreciate the social division. (Green Line in globalsecurity.)

-- Takabeg (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Great job there Takabeg...! You can now all see that any serious and reliable sources like the UN, do not refer to the two sections of Nicosia as "South Nicosia" and "North Nicosia" (with capital 'S' and 'N' as in North and South Korea). Instead they always use the geographical term of "north" and "south" so that they don't go against the territorial integrity of Cyprus and have trouble with international law. There's no reason for Wikipedia to go against this principle and risk breaking insternational law.

Here are some more samples:

"Nicosia’s first female mayor, a product of Cyprus’ division." (www.citymayors.com). If you search this site for 'Nicosia' it comes up with this page.

"Nicosia is the capital of the Republic of Cyprus since its establishment (1960). According to the Constitution, all essential government services need to be situated within the boundaries of the municipality of Nicosia. Until 1986, the activities of the municipality were conducted according to the Concerning Municipalities laws of 1964-1984. since 1986 the Nicosia Municipality operates according to the Concerning Municipalities Law of 1985 having general jurisdiction concerning local government. The Nicosia Municipality is an independent local authority organisation. It is administered by an elected Municipal Council (a mayor and 26 municipal councillors) based on the Concerning Municipalities Law of 1985. The Executive power and Director of the municipal services is the Mayor. " (The European Office Cyprus)

Finally, please checkout this, the site of the Union of Capitals of the European Union where the municipality of "Nicosia" is a member. This is their declaration in 2007 in Tallinn "http://www.uceu.org/PDF/PDF_UCEU_Decl_EN.pdf" and again you can see that "Nicosia" is mentioned as one entity at the bottom. Masri145 (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Few users of Wikipedia support the idea of making a South and North Nicosia. This is wrong and is not the case! Nicosia is one and under the flag of Republic of Cyprus. Cyprus has been the only recongised state of ALL organisations worldwide and the only ones who try to persuade there is North Nicosia are the Turks who serve interests of their country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeroskipou3 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Nicosia as capital of Republic of Cyprus only

{{edit protected}}

By the end of August Nicosia should be written only as the capital of Republic of Cyprus, as resolutions of all international organisations agree. Nicosia Turkish Municipality is no longer legaly existing after the outbreak of the Invasion of Cyprus where 200,000 people were forced to leave their homes, more than 3000 Cypriots died. International community does not recognise any organisation, institution relating to Turkish interests in occupied land of Republic of Cyprus in the North. Nicosia only belongs to Republic of Cyprus and there is no such thing as South and North Nicosia. Wikibiggesfun (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with Wikibiggesfun. The argument seems to be in favor of one Nicosia municipality under the Republic of Cyprus. The fact that the TRNC is referenced in this article and that it is also mentioned in the list of states with limited recognition is good. If you want Wikipedia to have any form of integrity it has to respect United Nations Security Council resolutions and International Law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.2.152 (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I excessively agree also!!! However Seb az86556 reverts the article ones it has been so much cleaned and tied up! Please Seb az 86556 discuss it in the discussion board and then we can make the edits as a group and cooporate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeroskipou3 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Please present any references you have to support your claims or to refute the claims of Seb az86556. Thank you.   — Jeff G.  ツ 13:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Which "United Nations Security Council resolutions and International Law", exactly?   — Jeff G.  ツ 13:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out how many socks there are in this whole deal; until then, there isn't really anything to discuss lest more socks will be created. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning Seb az86556. You in high risk of being reported for not allowing discussion and for abusing your administrator rights. There are so many people that disagree with you yet you keep reverting and call everyone a sock. The content you are reverting to is not the product of discussion but simply your personal POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.2.152 (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Seb az86556 has no administrator rights here. Can you prove that the content being reverted to is that user's personal POV?   — Jeff G.  ツ 13:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Seb az86556 you are facing opposition from many many users and you call them Socks! You are banning them without anyone else supporting your acts. Please allow Nicosia article to be edited without Turkish occupied North Cyprus referencesYeroskipou3 (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Seb az86556 has no administrator rights here, and thus cannot block here, much less ban here. Can you prove that the Turkish occupied North Cyprus references are faulty?   — Jeff G.  ツ 13:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

One more time: we don't care what the majority of users or socks says, we don't care what the UN says, and we don't care how many Greeks or Turks are protesting or going on rampage one way or the other. Any such arguments or "votes" are irrelevant. Over the past days, most of what's been posted has been rants about "illegal", "my dear country", "human dignity" and whatnot, accompanied by "I agree" (probably meaning "I agree with my sock or meat"). All that doesn't matter. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Yeroskipou3 and IP: I would add that you should stop the personal comments and concentrate on content only. Commenting personally on user:Seb az86556 is considered a personal attack. Comment on content and not on people. And if you really want to report Seb az86556 please go ahead and do so. However, after such action, it may be someone else who gets blocked and not Seb. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Seb az86556 you are protesting angrily without any serious reason! Many users here are enough knowledgable to edit Nicosia article! Of course we do not vote, but as you would have understood we all have a common demand for you not to revert Nicosia article. We have discussed the reasons why Nicosia should be the capital of the Republic of Cyprus ONLY without being capital of Turkish illegally occupied part of Cyprus. United Nations is the only law making body of the World and with its resolutions it has destroyed all chances to write about a Nicosia Turkish Municipality in Wikipedia. Whoever goes against UN decisions, he does not respect human rights and the international community. Yeroskipou3 (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You still don't get it; the UN does not matter, human rights do not matter. I think some sort of SPI might be needed soon to clear up who is actually "we" and who is just "you" in this drama. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree.   — Jeff G.  ツ 14:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we did not come to a solution to Article's problem! Article seems to be problematic. What do you suggest? Yeroskipou3 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest further steps per WP:DR.   — Jeff G.  ツ 14:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I have looked into this further. The facts are that the northern portion of Nicosia is currently controlled by Turkey, and the decision by Wikipedia Administrators at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 19#Nicosia_and_Northern_Cyprus_-_the_Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus_.28TRNC.29 to continue representing the northern portion of Nicosia in this article on Nicosia is binding. Unless and until Turkey no longer controls it, that information must stay in this article. Even if Turkey no longer controls it, that information can move to a historical section of this article, but it still must remain in this article. Edit warring and threats aimed at removing that information from this article are unacceptable, and will be dealt with appropriately by Wikipedia Administrators.   — Jeff G.  ツ 14:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeff. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome.   — Jeff G.  ツ 14:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I have read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 19#Nicosia_and_Northern_Cyprus_-_the_Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus_.28TRNC.29. It does not at all accept the term Nicosia Turkish Municipality again!!! Read it again please! I support article protection until we come to a conclusion of what is should be really done with Nicosia article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeroskipou3 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
If you are only concerned about the terminology for the northern portion of Nicosia above the green line, what do you suggest instead of "Nicosia Turkish Municipality", "North Nicosia", "Turkish occupied North Nicosia", "Northern Nicosia", "Turkish occupied Northern Nicosia", or something else?   — Jeff G.  ツ 14:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Good question. No-one's yet defined what exactly the issue is; thus far, all "votes" were for the complete elimination of any mention of the Northern part. That certainly won't fly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
First of all, it is obvious that no name apart from "North Nicosia" will be so commonly used. As for Nicosia Turkish Municipality, since it is recognized, and it prefers to call itself Nicosia Turkish Municipality, probably other names will not be correct. --Seksen (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Nicosia is the only capital of Republic of Cyprus and there is no Turkish Nicosia municipality existing nor North Cyprus. This is illegal and punishable ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishEnglishWiki (talk • contribs) 19:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Talking about "punishment" doesn't help your cause. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No legal threats --Seksen (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It isn't only that this kind of behaviour is against the WP:NLT policy. Issuing threats like this is patently stupid and counterproductive. Noone will take you seriously in an argument if you issue threats like that. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(and maybe we shouldn't be responding to each and every sock created for this... discussion Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC))

If any more suspected socks appear, rather than calling them socks, WP:SPI should be used. LadyofShalott 13:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, everyone. Unfortunately, there is edit war in this article. I think this edit war is caused by the lack of sources. Now, we can see only 10 references in this article. Let's provide sources. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Gyes I am a Turkish Historian from Erzerum and I advice you to allow me to make necessary changes to make the article as neutral as possible! At first stage Nicosia should be named as capital of Cyprus and North Nicosia capital of Northern Cyprus— Preceding unsigned comment added by FindoutNicosia (talk • contribs)

Please do provide sources for any changes you make, and for anything else in the article you can! If you show good reliable sources, your changes are much less likely to be challenged. If you don't give good (any) sources, I'm afraid that stating you are a historian doesn't really help. LadyofShalott 13:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
It would also be nice if you could (once your block has expired) tell us specifically what you want to change so others can chime in. Simply asking for "permission" to make "changes" is too vague. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

duplicated information

Hi Takabeg. Can you be a bit more specific please? Which duplicate information?
The Republic of Cyprus portal is already referenced elsewhere, when talking about the constitution. So I don't think it can be considered biased. The site is pretty neutral. Masri145 (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
And we prefer to use neutral sources and wording. Unfortunately, I think this your edits is POV-pushing, biased. Because we cannot find such sentence in neutral sources. Takabeg (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you, we should maintain neutrality, but again I'm struggling to see anything that can be considered POV in my edits. Can you be more specific? I think I'm simply stating the obvious and also providing good references. Do you have any other suggestions on how you think this can be made more neutral? Masri145 (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
How many times did you use "occupation" and "invasion" ? :))) Takabeg (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Rough Guide is nothing but travel guide. Takabeg (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what do you mean by "nothing but a travel guide"? It still requires a fair amount of history research to write these books. Masri145 (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want you can use travel guides. But many kind of travel guides usually use the name "South Nicosia". As long as I understand, you try to erase the term "South Nicosia". Takabeg (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
If you start creating city names like North Nicosia and South Nicosia you'll have a problem with cross-referencing other more reliable sources like the UN and the EU. You need to be consistent with the terminology used in international politics as well. Masri145 (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a branch of UN or EU. Your intention is very clear. We must neutralize this article. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but we can't ignore them. They're probably the most neutral and reliable resources you'll find online. Also if you really want to present things neutrally you shouldn't forget that the real dispute is not Turkey vs. Greece but Turkey vs. The World.Masri145 (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

Many historical affairs are explained in the lead section of this article. I think most of them should be moved down to the section history and replaced with unsourced contents. Takabeg (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Also everything about municipalities should be moved to the Government section. If you want to write unsourced content you need yo point out what seems to be the most important fact about the city. That it is currently Europe's last divided city with the north side being occupied by the turkish-army since 1974. That's probably the most undisputed fact so you don't need citations. Masri145 (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done and primary sources and travel guides were removed. Takabeg (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Why?

User:Masri145 is removing stubbornly an sourced sentence:

The Nicosia Municipality is responsible for all the municipal duties and responsibility on the southern part of city. The Nicosia Turkish Municipality, founded in 1958, carried out municipal duties on the northern part of city. (Phoebe Koundouri, Water Resources Allocation: Policy and Socioeconomic Issues in Cyprus, p. 70.)

This is neither travel guide nor primary source. As long as I understand, User:Masri145 dislikes the word South Nicosia. But in this sentence, we cannot find South Nicosia. So I don't understand why he/she removed this sentence. Takabeg (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I already answered in my talkpage. To start with, the sentence is incomplete as it talks about the past (i.e. 'carried'). What happened after it 'carried'?? If anything, it should read that "..the Turkish Nicosia Municipality is carrying out de facto municipal duties in north Nicosia as a result of the continuous turkish occupation."

Takabeg in his attempt to undo my recent edit is also adding false information about recognition of the Turkish Nicosia Municipality which has already been discussed in the section above. Masri145 (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

My attempt is to provide sourced information. I don't have allergies to South Nicosia. Because many sources refer to it. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Your attempt is appreciated but you if you're citing resources you have to be citing them correctly. The Bollens reference which you provided doesn't say "South Nicosia" and "North Nicosia", it says southern and northern. I fixed that and also added some more reliable sources which refer to "Nicosia" not South Nicosia as the capital of the Republic of Cyprus. Thanks. Masri145 (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

South Nicosia or Southern Nicosia

In fact, Bollens used p. 28., Southern Nicosia. Is South Nicosia different from South Nicosia ? Takabeg (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"the truncated Republic of Cyprus with its Greek Cypriot capital of Southern Nicosia" (in The Jerusalem Journal of International Relations) Takabeg (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"called South Nicosia by many English speakers" (Paul Hellander, Cyprus, Lonely Planet, 2003, p. 66.) - P.S. I don't prefer travel guides. Takabeg (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither. Why are you insisting with Bollens? Isn't the CIA World Factbook a more reliable source? Nicosia is the capital of the Republic of Cyprus. Not south or South or Southern or east or west. Thats why I had sugested we split the article into "Nicosia, Republic of Cyprus" (which would represent the capital of the Republic of Cyprus) and "Northern Nicosia, TRNC" (which would represent the capital of the self-proclaimed TRNC) and have links between the two articles. This is how other divided cities are represented. There's no point of arguing all the time. Is anyone else finding this reasonable or just me?Masri145 (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

According to google books:

South Nicosia is more common than Southern Nicosia. I think we can use South Nicosia in the place of Southern Nicosia.

Takabeg (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Takabeg.

My proposal to split to Nicosia, Republic of Cyprus and Northern Nicosia, TRNC stil stands.

Masri145 (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the quoted Google books numbers, I agree with Masri on the naming. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Your google gooks research "Nicosia without "South Nicosia") 380 books" is meaningless. Because

Nicosia -"North -Nicosia" (Nicosia without "North Nicosia") 382 books

λogos also confused, I didn't propose to change the name of this article. I wanted to know which one is more common name: South Nicosia or Southern Nicosia.

Takabeg (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

First my username is not λogos. My username is Dr.K. Second I don't see what confusion you are talking about. I did not make any comment about your proposal. I just agreed with Masri's proposal. You must be confused. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 Done as per discussion. Masri145 (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't change title without consensus. If you want you can use Wikipedia:Requested moves. Takabeg (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually spliting the articles of north and south is a good proposal, but there is a gap in this proposal: what about the history or geography sections? The two sides have the same history or geography. It would be better to split the aricle into three articles - Nicosia; Nicosia, Republic of Cyprus; Nicosia, Northern Cyprus; and the article of Nicosia will be used for history, geography etc. --Seksen (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically agree with Seksen. Nicosia must be kept (to 1950s). I've been to both side of Nicosia as a traveler. From a traveler's perspective and according to sources, I think we'd better create South Nicosia and North Nicosia to explain Nicosia after division in 1950s. Personally I want detail information about wards of Nicosia in articles South Nicosia and North Nicosia. Takabeg (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Seksen and Takabeg why do you keep pushing your POV and reverting to an old version which we've already agreed that it contains WP:OR interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY. What exactly do you disagree with this version. You're removing new and reliable information. Masri145 (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no POV on this issue. I edited in accordance with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Takabeg (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
You're making your a personal interpretation of the constitution. Why are we discussing this again and again? It doesn't say that Turkish Municipality of Nicosia is 'recognised'. So far you failed to produce any sources whatsoever to prove the contrary, yet you still try to include that statement in the article. That is a little POV. Please revert to the version before the move. Masri145 (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
We have not agreed on anything. Please do not try pushing your proposal as the consensus. I recommend an RfC because this is obviously not going anywhere. --Seksen (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
This article is far from consensus. In fact we've never really agreed on much that's on the page and thats why it should split to two. Your proposal to split to 3 articles is doesn't make sense. Other divided cities have 2 pages. South or southern Nicosia is completely out of question as we've already seen that such term in not frequently used.
The main reason is that Nicosia, as a whole is the official capital of the Republic of Cyprus (this is supported by a plethora of references in google books, reliable sources such as this and also by the internationational community here, whereas the TRNC only claims northern Nicosia to be its capital (legal or not is another question). So Nicosia, Republic of Cyprus and Northern Nicosia, TRNC seems to be the most neutral option. Masri145 (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Can I see an example of a divided city which has two articles? Of course, except from Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. It is not effectively divided, the whole city is under Israeli control, although the Israeli control over East Jerusalem is not recognised, but this is not the case here. And the history of Nicosia is not the history of Nicosia, Republic of Cyprus, so the southern part of the city, but instead the whole city. The history does not only belong to the southern part, it belongs to the whole city, that is why I want a separate article called Nicosia. Of course, another solution is that we have two articles as you said, but their history and geography sections should be the same, and the article of Nicosia is a disambugation. --Seksen (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
So I think we agree. This is what we almost have now. 3 pages. A Nicosia (disambiguation), a Nicosia and a Northern Nicosia. Only that currently Nicosia is not just Republic of Cyprus, its both and that's causing friction. That's exactly what I did, I renamed Nicosia to Nicosia, Republic of Cyprus and Northern Nicosia to Northern Nicosia, TRNC to distinguish between the two. I left Nicosia (disambiguation) untouched and provided a link to it from both pages. I agree history and geography should be the same in both places, only that each article will also contain geography and history for their side for after the separation. Are we good to proceed with this approach? Masri145 (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Question: Are we going to have three articles then? Nicosia, Nicosia, Republic of Cyprus and Northern Nicosia, TRNC? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Masri: I would support what you have said, if the name of the disambugation page is going to be Nicosia (not "Nicosia (disambugation)"), and the history, geography etc. sections of the articles about two sides are going to be completely the same, although my proposal of three different articles is still present. Actually, the title of the article about the northern part can be "Nicosia, Northern Cyprus" or "Nicosia, TRNC", since it simply referred as "Nicosia" in Northern Cyprus. --Seksen (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Just above you said "another solution is that we have two articles as you said, but their history and geography sections should be the same, and the article of Nicosia is a disambugation". I agreed and this is exactly what I described. Why are you changing your mind? It's simple, a user will first land on Nicosia (disambiguation) which already exists (so no changes there) and decide which one they want to visit, we won't have any information there, just links. Besides it would be plain ridiculous to have three articles with virtually the same information! It can't be Nicosia, Northern Cyprus because that implies that the whole city belongs to Northern Cyprus and this is something neither turkish-cypriots nor the international community accepts. You can mention that turkish-cypriots prefer to call their capital Nicosia (or Lefkosha) while the rest of the world calls it turkish-occupied northern Nicosia. I still think my proposal is the most balanced and I'd like to see what other editors think as well. Masri145 (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Could you please clearly describe the proposal? When we search for Nicosia, will it be redirected to "Nicosia (disambugation)"? If this is the case, I would support it, and sorry for the careless mistake in my comment. --Seksen (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.un.int/cyprus/resolut.htm UN Resolutions on Cyprus
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicosia/Archive_1&oldid=1137045963"