Jump to content

Talk:North Nicosia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments in 2010

[edit]

Most of the images (well, I think all of them but the last one) belong to South Nicosia! The Town Hall, Phaneromeni School, the Municipal Theatre, Liberty Monument, Pancyprian Gimnasium... all are buildings situated in South Nicosia, not North Nicosia. --Enric.enwiki (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the images are totally wrong!Turco85 (Talk) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that there are many photos of North Nicosia, so why should we use the images of South Nicosia? (so, I agree with you) Also, there are other mistakes. North Nicosia isn't locally known as "Lefkosia", it is Lefkoşa, because it is in the Turkish-controlled area. Except from these, there can't be article called "History of North Nicosia". Nicosia is one city and it wasn't divided until intercommunal violence and Cyprus Operation of Turkey, so the history is the same. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have done my best to find a rang of images that depict Northern Nicosia rather then the old pictures taken from the Nicosia page. I hope that everybody find the new pictures acceptable? Seric2 (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for changing them. I think this image can be added in order to show that it is under Turkish control. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image does show the rooftops of what I hope is Northern Nicosia, maybe it would be more suited to the Kyrenia mountain range page, or both, I digress. If you do decide to add the picture I will not object Seric2 (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image appears to be the result of Photoshopping. It also appears to be TRNC propaganda. Wikipaedia is not the correct place to spread propaganda, it is a neutral source of information and should respect all opinions, and the image appears to be an attack against Greek Cypriots.Hendrick 99 (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Takabeg (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a large number of citations to "turkish-occupied north" side of the island which includes the northern part of Nicosia. In fact that's more citations than any of the above. This should be taken into account somehow.

Masri145 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Turkish-occupied north" is usually used for Northern Cyprus, not Northern Nicosia. See this for example. --Seksen (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bölgeler

[edit]

Personally I want detail information about wards such as Göçmenköy, Küçük Esnaf, Sanayi Sitesi, Köşlüçiftlik, Şehit Arsaları, Kermiya, Kumsal, Küçük Kaymaklı, Kızılbaş, kısmen Yenişehir, Gelibolu, Marmara, Taşkınköy etc.... Takabeg (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I have time, I will try to add some information on the regions of North Nicosia. There are articles such as Yenişehir on Turkish Wikipedia, but there are articles for only two of them there. --Seksen (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Trachonas is Kızılbaş. --Seksen (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merci. Does Küçük Kaymaklı (Omorphita) belong to South ? Strovolos, Aglandjia, Agios Demetios Engomi etc. belong to South.

Where are Latsia, Lakataamia, Tseri, Yeri ? Takabeg (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect of Omorphita to Kaimakli is wrong, they are different suburbs. And Küçük Kaymaklı is in Northern Cyprus. Latsia, Lakatamia, Tseri and Yeri are in the south, but they are not suburbs of Nicosia, they are villages near Nicosia. --Seksen (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Latsia, Lakatamia and Yeri used to be villages but today are suburbs of Nicosia (they're included in the greater nicosia urban plan). Tseri is still considered a village outside of Nicosia. Masri145 (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of the term 'De Jure'

[edit]

Wikipaedia is a neutral source of information. North Nicosia is only 'de jure' a part of the Republic of Cyprus according to people who agree with them and the UN. It is 'de jure' a part of the TRNC according to people who agree with them. Unlike the term de facto, which simply means 'effectively', calling something de jure implies that it is universally accepted. This is not the case, since not all people agree with that position. Wikipedia, as an NPOV source of information, can't align itself with either opinion, and therefore can't deem something as 'de jure' if it is not universally accepted as such. The term 'de facto', since it doesn't necessarily imply that something is 'de jure' or not, can be utilised in an NPOV manner. I understand perfectly well how South Cypriots feel about their nation being torn in half, but it's better to control one's personal feelings and edit Wikipaedia articles from a neutral perspective. Wikipaedia is not a place for people to vent out their anger at groups and organisations (e.g. quasi-independent puppet states like the TRNC) that have adversely impacted them or their nations. Imagine how you would feel if pro-TRNC editors edited the Nicosia article to claim : De jure TRNC (De facto Republic of Cyprus). I guarrantee you it would make you feel extremely depressed. 'Treat Others as You Would Have Them Treat You'. Hendrick 99 (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is all backwards. The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by International Law as the de jure government of the whole island. Please do not try to impose your original research on this topic and more importantly stop your edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but your statement 'this is all backwards' implies conservative bias. The 'International Law' recognising the RoC as the government of the whole island, itself is not recognised by the effective administration of the northern portion of the island, nor by Turkey. This is not original research it is WP:NPOV. Wikipaedia doesn't take ANY side in ANY conflict or dispute. It is a NEUTRAL source of information, respecting ALL major view-points. It is NOT a place for RHETORIC for or against ANY entity, recognised or otherwise. Plus, Greek and Turkish users are likely to be biased as per their country's political view-point. I know how you feel, my parents are still angry about the division of India and Pakistan, but they don't go around Wikipaedia spreading political bias. Remember, Wikipaedia is NEUTRAL.Hendrick 99 (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your statements: The 'International Law' recognising the RoC as the government of the whole island, itself is not recognised by the effective administration of the northern portion of the island, nor by Turkey.and North Nicosia is only 'de jure' a part of the Republic of Cyprus according to people who agree with them... are obvious nonsense. It is not up to you, Turkey or the TRNC regime to reject a universal principle governing the International relations of the International community such as International law. Indeed not recognising International law is prima facie evidence of the illegality of TRNC which the international community has refused to recognise. International law is not something that you can decide to dispense with or hide and ignore. Reliable sources such as academic publications published by Oxford University Press, Encyclopedia Britannica, Manchester University Press, and many others, universally proclaim and affirm the de jure sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the whole island satisfying multiple times our core policies of WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY. You cannot overrule the verdict of the whole international community and academic publications based on your original synthesis backed up by your edit-warring and personal attacks on my national origin. This behaviour is utterly disruptive and must stop. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hendrick 99 makes a good point. Wikipedia is a neutral source of information. It is not the correct place to distribute one's own opinion. 123.30.137.66 (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dr.k., I respect the notice at the top of your talk page to discuss disputed articles only on the talk page. I would normally make this request on your talk page: Please stop making disruptive edits on articles relating to the so-called TRNC. It reduces the reliability of Wikipaedia when users utilise it as a means of spreading their personal beliefs. Hendrick 99 (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My talkpage has nothing to do with your disruptive editing. I have added extremely reliable sources about well-known historical facts and you have no place advising me about reliability and disruptive editing on Wikipedia. Please stop your disruptive original research and read our policies of WP:RS and WP:NOR. And these are not my "personal beliefs". Read the four reliable sources which support the facts I added and stop your silly personal attacks and tripe such as for example: Plus, Greek and Turkish users are likely to be biased as per their country's political view-point. I know how you feel, my parents are still angry about the division of India and Pakistan, but they don't go around Wikipaedia spreading political bias. Remember, Wikipaedia is NEUTRAL. which is too silly to reply to, although it betrays abject prejudice and false judgment based on my national origin, a behavioural trait on your part which I advise you to speedily rectify. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And since you are talking about my personal opinion are the following sources my personal opinion as well?

<ref name="Inc.2010">{{cite book|author=Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.|title=Britannica Book of the Year 2010|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=QeKbAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA558|date=1 March 2010|publisher=Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.|isbn=978-1-61535-366-8|pages=558–|quote=...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, }}</ref>

<ref name="Cremona2008">{{cite book|author=Marise Cremona|title=Developments in EU External Relations Law|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=wjc4q2oAw5IC&pg=PA72|year=2008|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-955289-4|pages=72–|quote=The EU had to take account of the situation that the Republic of Cyprus is the only dejure recognized State on the island,}}</ref>

<ref name="Verney2013">{{cite book|author=Susannah Verney|title=EUROSCEPTICISM IN SOUTHERN EUROPE|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=1S_dAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA161|date=13 September 2013|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-317-99612-5|pages=161–|quote=The international community (UN, EU, Council of Europe and other international organisations) recognise the de jure sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the whole island.}}</ref>

<ref name="Diez2002">{{cite book|author=Thomas Diez|title=The European Union and the Cyprus Conflict: Modern Conflict, Postmodern Union|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=A4QTUWBEC2kC&pg=PA76|year=2002|publisher=Manchester University Press|isbn=978-0-7190-6079-3|pages=76–|quote=In other words, it is only the Republic of Cyprus that is internationally recognised, and so the Greek-Cypriot government has been also accepted as the de jure government of the island as a whole,...}}</ref>

I think you need to closely consult our policies of reliable sources and verifiability not to mention WP:NPA, especially when you accuse me of alleged "disruptive editing" for adding verifiable facts supported by top-notch academic sources such as the ones quoted above. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction between the city, urban area and the metropolitan area

[edit]

Just noting here to avoid any confusion: Firstly, I thank Alakzi for his/her corrections. Urban area indeed seems like a vague term to use in this case: do we define it as the contiguous built-up area of North Nicosia, which would include Hamitköy and Gönyeli, which is a separate municipality, or do we define it as the city limits, in which case the inclusion of Haspolat, which is detached from the main conurbation, would contradict its definition in the article? I think in either case it would be original research. I think it is most appropriate to use the term "city" in this case, which Alakzi has replaced it with, to describe the areas under the Nicosia Turkish Municipality (which would include the center, Hamitköy, which is an integral part of the city, and Haspolat). The only practical way to define the city for practical purposes is to use the legal boundaries of the municipality, not including Hamitköy would be rather impractical as it is practically an integrated mahalla/mahalle of the city with no distinct legal status. However, Alayköy and Kanlıköy are most certainly not in the urban area, including non-LTB areas as defined by the Department of City Planning would exactly satisfy the definition of a metropolitan area: "a region consisting of a densely populated urban core and its less-populated surrounding territories, sharing industry, infrastructure, and housing". I do not think that not including Alayköy and Kanlıköy would be an option at any point, and they are satellite towns/villages, at least on paper, not part of the Nicosia urban area. --GGT (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you change the city area in error? 58.4 is the figure reported for the LTB in our source. Ah I see, they've split out Haspolat and Hamitköy. Alakzi (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lefkoşa/North Nicosia

[edit]
Main entrance of the Nicosia Turkish Municipality headquarters

To the anonymous user: in this case, it does not really matter what Turkish Cypriots call their city, what matters is the common name in English (WP:COMMONNAME) per the policy, which is simply "Nicosia", or specifically North Nicosia. This is not a Turkish city where the Turkish name is used for international purposes; Nicosia has been established as the name of the city in English for centuries. The exceptions are the districts, Lefkoşa District etc., as they are called that way by the government and there isn't much international literature about them. Note that while the Nicosia Turkish Municipality's English-language website has been down for several years (they probably never even had one), there is evidence that it is called the Nicosia Turkish Municipality by the municipality itself: [1], the name written on the city hall itself is "Nicosia Turkish Municipality". There is no "Lefkoşa Municipality" anyway (North Nicosia is not Lefkoşa, Lefkoşa is the Turkish name for the whole city), this is not the Turkish-language Wikipedia. --GGT (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I would like to thank you for your interest in the articles and would like to see the continuation of your contributions, please do not misunderstand this, it is just a small issue. --GGT (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I dont understand why they call it Ercan in Turkey and in airline destination lists and airport articles here, it is the city's airport name, Ercan is not even an area where the airport is located that it should be used like Narita for example.202.163.108.183 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on North Nicosia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dont use Ercan as city name

[edit]

I want to draw admin's attention to the fact that Turks are using Ercan airport's name as the city name in airline destination lists and airport articles, for unkown reasons this practice stems from Turk culture and politics which they are draging into Wikipedia. Ercan is not even an area where the airport is located that it should be used like Narita area for example in Tokyo, it is simply the airports name Ercan International serving the city of North Nicosia, at the most they can list it as Nicosia-Ercan like other cities with more than one airport do, ofcourse the current Nicosia airport in Greek Cyprus is inactive so there is just one active airport in Nicosia of Turk Cyprus, but the idea is to get them to use city's own name instead of airport name for the city.202.163.108.183 (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Other uses" hatnote

[edit]

According to the usage instructions at Template:Other uses § When not to use this template, it should only be used when an article name is ambiguous, and could refer to several things:

Do not use this template on an article with an unambiguous title; for example, a reader who searches specifically for "Paris, Virginia" is not likely to have been looking for an article about a city in France (or anywhere else)

The example applies directly to this article: a reader who searches specifically for "North Nicosia" is not likely to have been looking for some other Nicosia. Therefore I deleted the hatnote accordingly: [2], with the explanation "Not an ambiguous name, there is only one notable North Nicosia. See Template:Other uses#When not to use this template".

My edit was reverted by Barracuda41: [3], with the explanation "However there are multiple Nicosias". This is not a valid reason, because the article is not named "Nicosia" (which is ambiguous and correctly has an "Other uses" hatnote). "North Nicosia" is an unambiguous title, because there are no other notable subjects that it could refer to. The hatnote should be removed. --IamNotU (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Nicosia&oldid=1209421527"