Talk:Northern Cyprus/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Northern Cyprus Immovable Property Commission (again)

I'm concerned about the following paragraph in the "International status and foreign relations" section of the article: On 1 March 2010, the The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recognized the North Cyprus' Immovable Property Commission (IPC) as the "domestic remedy" of Turkey. After the recognition, ECHR directed all new applications of Greek Cypriots to the IPC. The Greek Cypriots sold their properties to the Government of Northern Cyprus.

When the Northern Cyprus IPC was discussed last December (see here), I expressed concern that the language in the article at that time appeared to cite decisions by the ECHR as validating or endorsing the TRNC — when, in fact, the ECHR had effectively done the opposite by ruling that the NC IPC was a creation of the Turkish government. The paragraph I'm referring to now seems, in my view, to be leaning in the same direction as the earlier text. I'd be interested in hearing what others think about this.

I'm also unsettled by the way this portion of the article continues to be updated continually with running totals of the number of cases submitted to, and finalized by, the NC IPC. At best, this seems to me to be an unnecessary bit of trivia; at worst, it may signal ongoing disruption of this page by someone who should not be participating on Wikipedia. (Again, see my comments from last December's discussion via the above link to the talk page archives.) The fact that the running case counts are now being encapsulated in a footnote doesn't affect the issue IMO. Comments? Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Demopoulos and Others vs. Turkey" citation link does not work and it is a primary source and the IPC pdf is a primary source as well. This smacks of the usual WP:OR as well as sock activity. I suggest removal of the whole paragraph. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems WP:UNDUE. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph in question. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

After some investigation I found that it was readded by a now banned sock Revision as of 03:47, 8 March 2011 (edit). Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

EU citizenship

According to information elsewhere in Wikipedia, the people of Northern Cyprus have EU citizenship. What does that mean in practice? Are they free to take residence elsewhere in the EU, for example? Thank you. -- 77.7.175.230 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If they hold a passport of Cyprus, then they hold full rights as Cypriot citizens. However, those that have Turkish passports of TRNC passports would not be considered citizens of the EU, and thus would not have the rights given to other EU citizens. Neither would currently have the free movement granted by Schengen. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion. Is there something in the page you would like to change? Outback the koala (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Freedom House

Excerpt from article: "Freedom House, a human rights organization, has classified Northern Cyprus as "free" since 2000. In "Freedom in the World 2011", both of the countries Cyprus and Northern Cyprus were rated as free.[83]"

It's all very well quoting a "human-rights organisation" that nobody has heard of. But to deliberately quote it out of context with the claim that Northern Cyprus is "free" is criminal. If you are going to quote Freedom House then you have to explain why Freedom House thinks that Northern Cyprus is "free" (when it is under long term occupation by the Turkish Army and is not "free").

Hence it is essential to add the following:

"However, Freedom House notes that Northern Cyprus has been "listed as a territory of Turkey since the 1992-93 edition of the survey".[84]"

Because that is the proviso that Freedom House gives. Basically it considers Northern Cyprus to be part of Turkey. If you want to quote Freedom House then you have to say that Freedom House considers Northern Cyprus to be a part of Turkey.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 08:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised you haven't heard of Freedom House, their quite a prominent organisation humanrightswise. Anyway, free in this sense has nothing to do with military occupation, it's a measure of democratic freedom, something completely unaffected by what territory it is listed under. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A measure of democratic freedom that excludes the voting rights of the legitimate owners of the vast majority of land and property in northern Cyprus. What are they smoking at Freedom House? If you exclude the Freedom House proviso then Freedom House should not be quoted at all. Freedom House says that they consider Northern Cyprus to be part of the Republic of Turkey as far as their evaluation of democratic freedom is concerned. That should be stated clearly. Moreover, if it is only "democratic freedom" that is evaluated then that should be stated clearly also. At the very least state that it excludes "religious freedom" and the right for displaced persons to return to their homes. And it doesn't mention the fact that Greek christians are not allowed to buy land or property since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. And 80 per cent of Freedom House's funding is from the U.S. government which has always wholeheartedly supported the Turkish occupation of Cyprus. Hardly an objective reference source. Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Freedom house is a very prominent and renowned organisation, and your views on what they smoke does not affect that at all. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not right to claim that Northern Cyprus is "Free" when not explaining what kind of "Free". What kind of Free should be explained or Freedom House should be deleted from the article. It is dishonest quoting/referencing. Clearly there is no religious freedom. Freedom of movement was non-existant until recently. The right of displaced persons to return to their homes is also denied (and they do not have voting rights either). What exactly does Freedom House consider to be "Free" (other than the stolen homes and property of displaced persons). Moreover, Freedom House's reasoning should be explained because its reasoning is flawed.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 17:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunkdavis. It is properly referenced material and your personal assessment of their conclusion is not material. --Taivo (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Pray tell what is it exactly that they have concluded? What does "free" mean? And why is it that you both improperly conclude that it is satisfactory to exclude the fact that Freedom House notes that Northern Cyprus has been "listed as a territory of Turkey since the 1992-93 edition of the survey".  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 21:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

They concluded it has democratic freedom. Also, in the source given Northern Cyprus is in a table called "Table of Disputed Territories" Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you satisfied with that conclusion? Do you think it is acceptable to ignore the vote of the vast majority of legitimate property owners and land holders? Do you think that conclusion is acceptable? Moreover, if the conclusion is based on so-called "democratic freedom" then why not say so when mentioning Freedom House? And you have avoided answering the question "is it satisfactory to exclude the fact that Freedom House notes that Northern Cyprus has been "listed as a territory of Turkey since the 1992-93 edition of the survey"." i.e. Freedom House does not evaluate Northern Cyprus separately, it evaluates Turkey and gives Northern Cyprus the same rating. My own conclusion is that quoting Freedom House in this article doesn't make any sense because their evaluation is not of Northern Cyprus and nor is it based on any fact that adds any value to this article.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 10:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It evaluates Turkey separately. Turkey is only "Partly Free". You have no argument there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

But you are ignoring a direct quote from a Freedom House report. It says verbatim: "listed as a territory of Turkey since the 1992-93 edition of the survey". Where are you getting the different evaluations from?  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 14:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The source in the article. Nowhere in the source you gave did it say Northern Cyprus has the same rating as Turkey. That's your WP:OR. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Now eat your words. http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fow08/FIW_AllScores_Territories.xls . This was the source I gave and it is not WP:OR.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 14:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm eating. Where does it say it has the same rating as Turkey? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"‡Turkish Cyprus, which declared its independence in 1983, has been listed as a territory of Turkey since the 1992-93 edition of the survey."

Now where does it say that it is treated separately? Other than the separate listing in the latest so-called survey. Which clearly is an abomination because it ignores the legitimate landholders and property owners who have no right to vote in Northern Cyprus because Northern Cyprus is not free and is occupied by the Turkish Army. Moreover, the abomination that is called Freedom House is 80% sponsored by the U.S. government (not WP:OR, see article about Freedom House on Wikipedia). Freedom House portrays the proferred view of the government of the United States which is WP:OR and is not based on the legal actuality since the European Court of Human Rights has already made it clear that the legitimate owners of the land and property are those that were displaced during the Turkish invasion in 1974. Moreover, the government of the United States does not legally recognise "Northern Cyprus" or the "TRNC" and what is it doing in any American listing in any case?  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 14:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Quoting that phrase again and again won't help, it nowhere states it's given a different rating. When, in fact, as you admit, the actual survey report treats it differently. You've proven the contradiction, if Freedom House notes the TRNC, but the USA doesn't, clearly they're not just following the USA's government policy. Anyway, if you have nothing other than rants about landholders and courts which have no relevance to the Freedom House gradings, there's nothing more to discuss here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Then why make me quote it again and again by deleting it and ignoring it. The Freedom House gradings are based on WP:POV, WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. A fictitious fantasy rating about an unrecognised country that does not consider the reality of what is and is not free. The article needs to be tagged as POV.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Just because this reliable source contradicts your personal POV, Nipsonaomhmata, doesn't make it POV, OR, or CRYSTAL. --Taivo (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it a reliable source? Most Human Rights organisations are considered to be lobbying organisations that advocate something or other (and are rarely considered to be reliable sources). An organisation that claims that Northern Cyprus has better democratic rights than the Republic of Turkey when Northern Cyprus is a puppet-regime of Turkey is clearly publishing nonsense. Moreover an organisation that purports to have anything to do with human rights that ignores the human rights of the legal owners of the land and properties who have been displaced by the Turkish Army (as confirmed by a really reliable source called the European Court of Human Rights) clearly is a clown of a human rights organisation. The displaced have no right to vote in Northern Cyprus therefore Northern Cyprus is not free.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 00:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And gay people can't get married in the U.S., but individual issues are not the problem. The problem you have is that this organization doesn't come to the answer that you want it to come to. If you have a reliable source stating the opposite, then present it here. If your only issue is that you simply don't like the source that's been presented, that's not Wikipedia's problem. --Taivo (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"Perceived" ratings of democracy hardly constitute a reliable source. A source that received 80 per cent of its funding from the government of the United States which has military bases in Turkey. Freedom House could never come up with a satisfactory rating for Turkey or its puppet-regime in the northern part of Cyprus. It just isn't possible. They are being paid too much to come up with a first class rating to keep American bases in Turkey. That's not my POV. That's a fact.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 13:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Anything which says something you do not believe in is not reliable. It classifies Turkey as partly free, so the bases thing is just far from reality. It also talks bout other unrecognized countries. And Greece is also an ally of the US. It isn't just possible for this source to be biased. You are trying to make your POV seem as facts, but they are not. And if you talk without sources (Freedom House could never come up with a satisfactory rating for Turkey or its puppet-regime in the northern part of Cyprus. They are being paid too much to come up with a first class rating to keep American bases in Turkey.), I can talk, and I should say that, looking from my window, I see no people being beaten, and I neither see persecution in Dipkarpaz, where half the population is Greek. And it can be biased, yes, because it rates the Republic of Cyprus as free. Turkish Cypriots do not and vote in their elections, there is discrimination, just as in the case of ID documents and there is no Turkish school there, unlike Northern Cyprus, where there is a Greek school. So your claims just cannot go further than speculations. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Human Rights section

The Human Rights section has been whittled down with rose-tinted spectacles. What a lovely, cuddly view of the human rights of the Turkish military occupation of the northern part of the island of Cyprus. It's right to reduce the size of it now that there is a Human Rights in Northern Cyprus article but the most important issues are excluded. There is no mention of the fact that the displaced persons of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus who are the legitimate owners of the vast majority of the land and property in the occupied territory, as per the European Court of Human Rights, not only do not have the right to return to their properties but do not have the right to vote either. Then there are the military style executions of Turkish Cypriot journalists. And there are many, many more issues. Only the soft and cuddly statements are allowed by the "lets wrap Northern Cyprus in cotton wool crew".  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a summary article. I can see no reason why it should go into specific detail about individual cases either rose-tinted or otherwise, but should simply contain reliably sourced overview statements. When that Human rights article is done, be sure to try for a DYK. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you been to Northern Cyprus ever? I guess not, since you think that people are being beaten in the streets everyday, journalists cannot leave their homes and Maronites do not have any freedom. If most reports say that human rights are respected, they are respected. Individual cases cannot change the reality. It does not matter what you think, either. Wikipedia relies on sources. And I propose the human rights section in this article to be removed, as in the proposal in the article of Cyprus, it is impossible to have a neutral human rights section on this article, and it is not North Korea. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What's the benefit of doing a DYK? Why would I want to do that?  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 20:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Another person that thinks they know what I think and thinks they know where I have and have not been!  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 20:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Northern Cyprus is not North Korea. Northern Cyprus is worse than North Korea. The Koreans didn't invade any other country. The Chinese supported the North Koreans but didn't stay there. Korea was divided in to two countries whilst Northern Cyprus is an extension of the Republic of Turkey. The vast majority of the population of North Korea was and still is from Korea. Whilst the vast majority of the population that is in northern Cyprus today is not related to the population of northern Cyprus of the 1950s and a large part of the population that is there today is from the Turkish mainland. If the same had happened to North Korea then the majority of the population in North Korea would be Chinese and they would all be speaking Chinese today (and not Korean). Which just goes to show that North Korea not only is not comparable but the end result in North Korea was nowhere near as bad.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 20:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing more to tell you. Are you aiming to misinform people? At least there is freedom of speech in Northern Cyprus. Oh, I forgot the İncirlik base of the US, sorry. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is the misinformation? The facts are accurate. And no there is not. I have some beautiful exampled of why "freedom of speech" in Northern Cyprus is not "free" either. The assassination of journalists is one example. Unfortunately, the assassinations in Turkish-controlled territories are not individual cases either. They are common occurrences.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 22:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Human Rights section should stay. But it should be presented as a good overview summary of the content that is in the Human Rights in Northern Cyprus article.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 20:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nipsonanomhmata, as Chipmunkdavis has correctly said, this is an overview article only and individuals cases are simply not warranted. Do you want to list every single Greek who left their property in Northern Cyprus? By name? No. This is not an article on what happened to each Greek who was somehow wronged. Listing individual cases is a gross violation of WP:UNDUE here. It has absolutely nothing to do with POV, it is simply a question of relevance. I wrote a letter to my Congressman once complaining about some discriminatory treatment my ex-wife was receiving in the Army. That has no more place in an article on women in the U.S. Army than an individual property rights case has here. --Taivo (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Taivo. That's not the point that I was making. And you are all making a whole load of fuss over not very much. The point I was making is that the whittling is POV-oriented and it has favored the politics of Northern Cyprus. Now we have got that clear I hope that the editing can continue with a bit less POV. Noting that now there is a new Human Rights in Northern Cyprus section there is inevitably going to be some wrangling as the whittling is going on.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 20:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nipsonanomhmata, based on your editing and edit summaries in the past, I think that you calling others POV is a case of WP:POT. --Taivo (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And I thought that personal attacks were not allowed.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 20:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, Nipsonaomhmata, so I suggest that you stop your characterizations of other editors as pushing POV and calling them the "lets wrap Northern Cyprus in cotton wool crew". Read WP:POT. In your very first comment in this section, you started the personal attacks. --Taivo (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If there's no reliable sources giving sweeping statements about the poor state of human rights in the TRNC, then information about the poor state of rights can't be included. We can't just try and "balance" information by providing single cases to support a position. As for the question whether the human rights section should exist in this article, it's a case of whether of not it is WP:DUE. For what it's worth, only two FA countries have the section at the moment, Belarus and Chad, although in Chad it is titled "humanitarian situation". It wasn't in Belarus when Belarus reached FA anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh there's plenty. But if I place reliable sources with sweeping statements in the human rights section will they stay there? I doubt it. Or will they be ethnically cleansed as is the norm in Northern Cyprus.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 11:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are quite out of line; I'm almost inclined to revert you from spite. If you're going to show such obvious POV, perhaps you should edit elsewhere. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My comment is not out of line. It is not a POV. You have just classified the Greek Cypriots as a minority in a territory where they were the vast majority.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 11:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"You have just classified the Greek Cypriots as a minority in a territory where they were the vast majority" are you now claiming that Greek Cypriots are not a minority in Northern Cyprus? Chaosdruid (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Chaosdruid, did I say that? No I did not. The Greek Cypriots are currently a minority in Northern Cyprus but they were not before they were pushed out.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nipsonanomhmata's comment is out of line. It is a POV obviously. You are appearantly polluting the article by damaging the independence of North Cyprus. For example, you write "North Cyprus is not independent since NC takes electricity from (Greek) Cyprus". This is wrong. NC produces its electricity from Teknecik plant in North Cyprus. Stop polluting the Human Rights section as well. You are placing 1998 info when there is 2011 study of Freedom House. NC HR paragraph is not a statistical archieve page. Reem chi kanoo (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to quote me Reem chi kanoo then why not quote what I said. Northern Cyprus is not independent primarily because there are 30,000 Turkish troops there. Northern Cyprus depends on the Republic of Turkey and therefore cannot be independent. That is no POV. And if you did some research concerning the distribution of water and electricity you would also know that Northern Cyprus is not independent in its water or electricity supplies. You all scream POV when you have not done any research on the subject.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Singapore gets its water from Malaysia, Iceland is defended by the USA, yet they are considered independent. Your arguments are not a valid case against independence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Now tell me. Who is paying the bill for 30,000 Turkish soldiers? Northern Cyprus can't afford to pay that bill. Northern Cyprus is totally dependent on the Republic of Turkey. And nobody has ever paid any bill for all the free electricity supplied to Northern Cyprus from the Republic of Cyprus up till 1995 (see http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/All/bab10506df06dbbec22570fc003ce04b?OpenDocument&print&Click=&print ). And who is going to foot the bill for the underwater pipeline from the Republic of Turkey? (http://www.globalwaterintel.com/archive/9/8/general/northern-cyprus-eyes-usd350m-underwater-pipeline.html) Then there is the small matter of compensating all the Greek Cypriots in the Class Action for the loss of use of their homes and properties. Not even the Republic of Turkey can afford to pay that bill.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• It is impossible to have a neutral human rights section where individual cases are presented. It should be about the general situation, and human rights are generally respected, all neutral reports say it. Otherwise, it should be removed, in order to maintain NPOV. Individual cases may be presented in the article of human rights in Northern Cyprus, but not in this one. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean like the individual case of a crackpot organisation called Freedom House that has the gall to claim that Northern Cyprus is democratically "Free" when Greek Cypriots and Maronites have no right to vote. You are right that it is not possible to have a neutral human rights section when such crackpot organisations are quoted.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually Freedom House is a reliable and neutral source, and the fact Greek Cypriot and Maronite minorities do not have right to vote is an individual case because US reports also say that the elections were free. No need to discuss such "crackpot" ideas in the article. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh! How is the fact that Greek Cypriots and Maronites not being able to vote is an individual case? It's a permanent case that affects all Greek Cypriots and Maronites in Northern Cyprus.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 22:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not about balancing opposing viewpoints. It is not about placing a certain amount of 'good' or 'bad' information into a section to be 'fair'. It is about writing as closely as possible the actual situation, giving each viewpoint WP:DUE weight rather than giving every viewpoint. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Here, here. Well said Chipmunkdavis. For once I agree with you.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nipson, I think you would be much more successful if you adopted a less confrontational attitude. Right now it seems all you are doing is needlessly antagonizing everyone. There is no need to engage in pointless debates about the morality of northern Cyprus or whatever. Just report what is found in reliable sources, and everything will work out. I am also of the opinion that individual cases are not needed here, but general assessments of the human rights situation from reliable sources shouldn't be a problem. Athenean (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh! And after I agreed with a Chipmunkdavis statement. I am not pushing individual cases and I have no idea what you are suggesting. A brand new Human rights in Northern Cyprus article has been created and the human rights section in this article was pruned in a certain way (can I say it any less antagonistically). I am only responding to issues raised since there seems to be a very wide gap in knowledge on the issues. Ofcourse, this new setup takes some getting used to. We've got a brand new waterfall of information from Northern Cyprus to Human rights in Northern Cyprus to Freedom of religion in Northern Cyprus and information is being cut and pasted between these articles. But it remains that important human rights issues are missing from Northern Cyprus. Moreover, the Outline of Northern Cyprus list is much improved as a result of my efforts. More useful information with references has been introduced in the last week than has been done for years.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 22:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Athenean. General situation can be presented in the article. Individual cases cannot affect the general situation, although it can be added that there are some reports of violations, and where there are more severe and often violations, reliable sources (mainly reports) will report it in the very first sentence, saying that there are problems. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with what you consider to be an individual case. Not allowing Greek Cypriots and Maronites to vote in Northern Cyprus is not an individual case.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 22:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The article states they can not vote already. What's the problem? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I know. The sentence has been whittled down twice already. What's the problem? Seksen is complaining about it being an individual case as though he wants what is left of the sentence deleted altogether.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 23:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Maronites and G/Cs cannot vote in the TRNC is not an individual case for the rights of minorities, but an individual case for the democracy in the country, since they are not more than 1% of the population. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

How you can describe it as an individual case is beyond me. Your thinking must be on a higher level. These people cannot vote where they reside. It is a gross violation of the concept of democracy and in no way can be described as an individual case. Maybe when there is only one Greek Cypriot left you can then call it an individual case.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 18:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Rep.of Cyprus' (population) estimates on Northern Cyprus

First, Rep. of Cyprus (administered by Greeks) cannot perform census for North Cyprus' population since none of the state officials of Rep. of Cyprus (Greeks) cannot enter North Cyprus. Even the president of Rep. of Cyprus, Demetris Christofias, cannot enter North Cyprus. The president of Rep. of Cyprus, Demetris Christofias, can enter North Cyprus by showing his passport to the North Cyprus' border police, and he can enter not as a president (bec. North Cyprus does not recognize Cyprus, and all of its officials), but as a tourist. Also, in order to make an estimate statistically, one must take A SAMPLE from population (and understand the growth rate, and enlarge it to the whole population). (Greek) state officials of Cyprus CANNOT ENTER NORTH CYPRUS, let alone taking a SAMPLE from the NC's population.

• Hence, the population estimates of (Greek) Cyprus government on North Cyprus' population ARE STATISTICALLY COMPLETELY INVALID.

Also, estimates are for populations when there is no full counting (census). Hence, it would be meaningless to include the estimates when there is EXACT censusus about a population.

Based on all the above, The RoC's estimates (which are statistically impossible to be regarded as a valid estimates) should not be placed to the North Cyprus' article. Reem chi kanoo (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The 1974-result of Cyprus conflict is one of the parameters of the collapse of military junta in Greece

The military junta in Greece collapsed on 23 July, 1974. There are various factors that affect the collapse of the military junta in Greece which are mentioned here in detail in Wikipedia. In the cited Wiki-page, it reads: The Cyprus fiasco led to senior Greek military officers withdrawing their support for Junta strongman Brigadier Dimitrios Ioannides. Junta-appointed President Phaedon Gizikis called a meeting of old guard politicians, including Panagiotis Kanellopoulos, Spiros Markezinis, Stephanos Stephanopoulos, Evangelos Averoff, and others.. Also, I made the change in the HISTORY part of the article which is written chronologically. Notice some other Wikipedian started the previous sentence with "FOLLOWING...". Hence, my addition The military junta in Greece also fell on July 23 is connected with the CHRONOLOGY of the events of the History part. Only TIME CHRONOLOGY! There is NO CAUSE-EFFECT relation is mentioned here. Obviously, there is no sentence that states that "Military Junta in Greece fell JUST FOR THE REASON of failure in Cyprus". When one looks the cited article, s/he can see all the factors that affect the collapse of the military junta in Greece. Naturally, this cited article is given at the beginning of the paragraph in Northern Cyprus' History part for the sake of neutralityDianapeaces (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Chipmunkdavis, please state exactly to what you are objecting. Dr. K. warned me not to revert the single-page 3 times a day. If you are all OK, please indicate this here so that we can make the relevant change in the article. Dianapeaces (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Part of the issue is the grammar and structure of your edit, which is unclear. If I understand the gist of what you are saying, it is that the failure of the Greek action in Cyprus was not the sole cause of the fall of the Greek junta. I didn't get the implication from the current text, however I will see if I can change it to fix the problem. Dr K is right, you shouldn't revert more than three times, but you didn't so there's nothing to worry about. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? I thought it had something to do with this Britmax (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's also a problem isn't it ;) Regardless, I'm gonna copy edit that section slightly. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Basilwiki, 16 June 2011

In the 'History' section, the sentence 'Makarios clarified not to comply with whatever the decision of SCCC will be' is confused in tense and use of the word clarified. Request minor edit as follows 'Makarios announced that he would not comply with whatever decision the SCCC reached' I believe this will align with existing links for source.

Basilwiki (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jd2718 (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus (SCCC) and High Court of Cyprus (HCC) dissolved and Supreme Court of Cyprus (SCC) founded

Taivo, why did you delete referenced info?

After resignation of the president of SCCC, SCCC stopped to exist. Supreme Court of Cyprus (SCC) was formed by merging SCCC and High Court of Cyprus and undertook the jurisdiction and powers of the SCCC and HCC.Brasilian Prince (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That reference is not a reference, it's just an empty search box. --Taivo (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to help, this is the reference. --Seksen (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Taivo (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sports

Really? Model aircraft? I realise that there may be some problems with trying to "big up" the TRNC but this seems a little non-notable. What next? Three-legged race? Tiddlywinks?

There should also be notability of the participants. Stating that the "Bocce Federation of North Cyprus is a member of the International Bocce Association." does not say why the sport is important, nor why the sports-persons playing there are notable. For all we know there are 10 members and have never competed in anything.

I suggest editors go and look at some other countries and see how they have created their sports sections. Try Spain#Sport, Albania#Sport, New Zealand#Sports and Turkey#Sports (all chosen at random btw - I did first choose Colombia, Haiti and Senegal, but none of those have a sport/sports section) Chaosdruid (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never even heard of Bocce. Athenean (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The section is just a complete mess, an attempt to show that the TRNC is recognised by listing everything its atheletes have been registered in as Northern Cypriots. Actually weakens the section in my opinion. It can probably be scrapped, sports isn't really that notable for Northern Cyprus. Replace with a Culture section? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There are probably some famous sports personalities from NC, but this should rather be for the main sports that the republic plays, not those international sports that they participate.

I agree, that should probably be a culture section with a sub section for sports that the NC people generally have in the area and that they participate in. Northern Cyprus national football team, Cyprus Turkish Football Federation and Rugby union in Turkey ("The situation in Northern Cyprus is somewhat different, with teams playing in the Turkish leagues.")

There are also other areas that could be included, such as Scouts of Northern Cyprus (with a much more comprehensive page on the Turkish Wiki) Chaosdruid (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not even heard of Bocce, either. According to official sources (see tr.wiki) the most popular sport in the TRNC is taekwondo-karate-aikido-kurash. This is followed by football, shooting and hunting. This might give a general opinion about what to expand on. --Seksen (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, almost 14000 athletes in a country of 287000 means that 4.8% of the people are registered under a federation (the ratio looks quite high). --Seksen (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that hunting is a sport, it can be considered a recreational past-time though. Target shooting, tracking with dogs can also be sports, though if performed as part of hunting they would still be recreation. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The government of Northern Cyprus considers it a sport, and there are some regulations on competitive hunting (they have teams, registered athletes etc). --Seksen (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately that site has disabled right-clicking which prevents easy translation of the page. It is not what one body believes, but rather what the general conclusion is. Fox-hunting was considered a sport by many in the UK, but not the majority. While hunting as a sport does exist, it is generally with the use of non-living baits and trails. Perhaps a link to the government site would be more satisfactory. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Article should be renamed to Turkish illegaly Occupied Cyprus

{{edit protected}} Article should be renamed to Turkish Occupied Cyprus. International community and organisations worldwide deny the existence of the name North Cyprus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibiggesfun (talk • contribs) 11:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done... obviously. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Another great example of Seb's attitude to discussion...Masri145 (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

His reaction is reasonable. Nev1 (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It still is occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus. This is the position of the whole international community, except Turke. This hugely important fact is only mentioned in the last paragraph in the summary! So this page clearly has Turkish bias, but its ok since Nev and Seb think that's reasonable. Masri145 (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Turkish illegaly Occupied Cyprus" is a ridiculous and POV laden name. "North Cyprus" does not make a judgement either way on the legitimacy of its government. Nev1 (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion. I find it more ridiculous and biased that North Cyprus, an area which is subject to a dispute between Turkey and the whole of international community, points only to a non-recognised state (see infobox). If we decide to keep the name North Cyprus (which is referring to a disputed region - not a country) the infobox should be changed accordingly. Masri145 (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Turkish Cypriot pseudo state"

• Result of google books research is not considered as source itself.
• Greece and the Republic of Cyprus refer to the TRNC as the pseudo-state.
• Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus refer to the Republic of Cyprus as the "Greek Cypriot administration of south Cyprus" (7 results) or "South Cyprus Greek Administration" (3 results), in Turkish: Güney Kıbrıs Rum Kesimi or Güney Kıbrıs Rum Yönetimi in the same way.
  • If you want to put this term into the article, we must specify this point, refer to "Greece and the Republic of Cyprus refer to....."

Takabeg (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Masri145 claims "correct reference"

But,

first source he used says small pseudo-state in occupied northern Cyprus"

Second source says

"legislative assembly for the pseudostate"

Third source he used says

"TRNC is a psevdokratos (pseudo-state)"

Non of them is the correct source to prove the sentence "also known as the turkish-cypriot pseudo-state". To use them for this sentence, we need Greek ethnocentric interpreters. Takabeg (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to refer "pseudo-state", you have to avoid your ethnocentric approachs and propagandic wording. I think those expression is more realistic and more neutral.

"The Greek-Cypriot side always places the TRNC in quotation marks or refers to it as the 'Turkish-Cypriot pseudo-state".

Greece and the Republic of Cyprus refer to the TRNC as the pseudo-state.

Takabeg (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg, its a fact that it's referred to as 'pseudo-state' not just by greeks but also by others. Its not enthocentric but its a fact. Hiding it would not be NPOV. If 'also known as' bothers you so much, you can change it to 'also referred to as', which is still valid. Masri145 (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nono. Just 'cause you find it somewhere, doesn't mean it belongs in the lede; it's blatantly pointy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As for your edit-summary: there is no way to "re-write" this; I object to the words "pseudo state" being in the lede, no matter what qualifiers you want to put to it or how you want to weasel your way around it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not your personal page Seb. This is a wikipedia article which EVERYONE contributes to so its not a matter of what you personally object to. It's what the community decides. If it has to be mentioned, it will regardless of your POV. The very fact that your saying that there's no-way to re-write this just shows your general approach to discussion. You're not willing to talk and you constantly try to get your POV through.

It is a fact that this entity is also referred to as pseudo-state in a large number of books. We've already seen that and this HAS to be addressed in the article. My suggestion is presented but you disagree. Now tell us your reasons why this sentence should not be added and how you think we should address this fact. Surely we can't hide it right? Masri145 (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Anything mentioned in the introduction should be covered elsewhere in the article; the introduction should be an overview of the content of the article. The term pseudo-state is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, not even the International status and foreign relations section of the article. That section does state "The international community, with the exception of Turkey, does not recognise Northern Cyprus as a sovereign state." I don't think that anything about pseudo-state should be added to the introduction right now, but I wouldn't object if it's explained in the International status… section. —C.Fred (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Masri, you need a basic grammar lesson. In all these cited sources, the term "pseudostate" is not used as part of any proper name for Northern Cyprus, but only in POV descriptions of Northern Cyprus. Since they are not a part of any proper name, they should not be included as "alternate names" in the lead whatsoever. If you want a sentence buried somewhere down under "Greek Opposition" that says, "Greek authors sometimes call Northern Cyprus a 'pseudostate'", then you have correctly reflected your sources, but adding "pseudostate" as a part of some proper name is not backed up by any source and is not how the term is used. You're simply pushing your hyper-Greek POV and adding "pseudostate" to the lead is inappropriate. --Taivo (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Masri, if you could point me to a snippet where I have commented on your person or your beliefs, I will be glad to review my wording; otherwise, you need to cease your personalizing this issue and retract your latest additions both to this section and the one above. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Seb, you said I object to the words "pseudo state" being in the lede and you gave no reasons why. That is not the most constructive statement to make and it simply shows your intention to avoid discussion at all costs just because you don't like the word "pseudo-state". By the way you still haven't presented us with any serious arguments yet, unlike other users. Your remark about me weaseling my way around is a personal attack, so you can consider reviewing. Masri145 (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a personal attack, I am commenting on your style of pushing a blatant POV-term into the lead-section; I did give a reason: it's pointy, it's pushing one POV right into the first sentence. If you do not see why it is a biased term, I cannot help you. We do not put words like "terrorist", "murderer", or "rapist" into a lead unless there are multiple, damn good sources on all sides to back it up, and such label is explained in the body of the article. "Pseudo state" is a similar term for an entire political entity. That's why. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but judging from your editing habits, I can't accept "comments on my style" from you. That's prety much exactly what I did..."commented on your style" but you considered it as as a personal attack. I'll stop arguing with you now for the sake of discussion.Masri145 (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, the article is hugely biased toward turkish-POV from the very first sentence so I'm attempting to bring it more towards neutrality. For example North Cyprus isn't officially TRNC (which is the turkish-POV). North Cyprus is officially occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus (as recognised by the international community). This article screams turkish POV from the first line and downgrades the fact that it is an area under military occupation. Masri145 (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My impression, FWIW, is that the lead section (as it currently stands) is mostly balanced. It does, IMO, make it very clear that the Northern Cyprus government is recognized only by Turkey and is regarded as illegitimate by the international community as a whole. It specifically says that the presence of Turkish troops in the north is generally denounced as an illegal occupation force. At the same time, the text acknowledges the fact of Northern Cyprus's existence, as well as efforts by the UN to preserve order and to work towards a long-term solution of what is viewed as a still-unresolved problem. Perhaps most importantly, the current lead language carefully avoids placing blame for the partition of the island — an issue over which the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities fiercely disagree, and which has caused (and will probably continue to cause) no end of disruptive editing to this and related articles by ardent partisans of both sides.

My point was more about the infobox. This is a part of the world which is under turkish military occupation since 1974. This is not a dispute between greeks and turks, its is the official position of the whole of international community as expressed through the various UN resolutions, except Turkey. The infobox about the occupied area of Republic of Cyprus presents firstly information about TRNC and not the physical area and its political/military status. Its heavily biased towards the turkish-POV and misinforming readers about what the northern part of Cyprus actually is. The message from the infobox is clear, its first TRNC and then everything else (...so we also say that we maintain 'neutrality'!). True neutrality would be achieved better by something like "is a disputed area between international community and Turkey". Masri145 (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I do believe Masri145 may have a reasonable point w/r/t the word "officially". Saying Northern Cyprus is "officially" the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus begs the question of whose "official" decision is being talked about. "Formally" might be a more neutral term, though I fear some readers (and editors) may misread this as "formerly" and be confused. "Self-styled" or "so-called" carry negative connotations and would, I believe, be biased too heavily towards the Greek Cypriot position. One possibility I'd like to propose would be to replace "officially" with "which refers to itself as", or "which calls itself" — a formulation which factually states that this is the name the de facto government of Northern Cyprus uses, but without saying anything one way or the other about what other countries or international organizations think of the status quo. It might also be worthwhile to compare this language with the lead sections of articles about other de facto states with limited recognition, such as Transnistria, Abkhazia, or Republic of Kosovo (the latter, BTW, currently uses "officially" in its opening sentence). By mentioning these other articles, let me hasten to add that I am not necessarily endorsing the way they handle the disputes in their respective regions. Richwales (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that comment, Richwales, it is quite well-done. "Officially" is used in the sense that that is the name used in the country's own constitution, not in the sense that it is some internationally-recognized name. For example, Republic of Macedonia (where Greece contests the name) and Republic of Kosovo both use the word "officially" to refer to the constitutional name. --Taivo (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Richwales. I support your suggestion to change the word "official" to "which calls itself" so to avoid misinterpretation about who is the official representative of this area. It wouldn't also be false to say "officially turkish-occupied part of Republic of Cyprus" but I have a feeling that as true as that sounds it might bother some people. Taivo, regarding your argument, the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus says that the Republic has official jurisdiction over the whole of the island. And that is the only internationally recognised constitution of the island, so I think we're allowed to trust that a bit more. Masri145 (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Masri, I believe I understand your concern that (if I'm reading you correctly) any concession on our part to admitting the possible legitimacy of the TRNC constitutes a non-neutral point of view, and that the only truly neutral viewpoint is one that accepts the RoC's claim to the entire island and labels the TRNC as a rogue pseudo-state propped up by an internationally condemned military occupation. But WP:NPOV requires articles to represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Since there are "significant views that have been published by reliable sources" which either favour the TRNC, or at least concede its existence on a level similar to Transnistria or Abkhazia, we need to present those views and not take sides in the dispute. The article as a whole needs to give due representation to both sides of the disagreement — and the lead section, as a capsule summary of the article, needs to do the same.

Aside from the possible replacement of the word "official" in the lead (which I was just proposing as a possible change, and which would need to be subject to consensus), one other thing I see in the lead which might be worth tweaking is that "located in the northern portion of the island of Cyprus" might be changed to "located in a disputed region comprising the northern portion of the island of Cyprus". Again, pending consensus — this lead section has gone through so much edit-warring that I wouldn't want to change a jot or tittle without a definite consensus.

As for your concern that the infobox is biased towards the Turkish / TRNC viewpoint and disregards the internationally accepted position regarding the (lack of) legitimacy of the TRNC, my understanding is that this article intentionally deals with the political state (as opposed to the plot of land it occupies), so it's perfectly appropriate for this article to give information that describes what this region is currently like within its current political context. It would make no more sense to talk about Northern Cyprus solely as a land area within the RoC that has been subjected to foreign invasion — and as nothing more than that — than it would, for example, to talk about Transnistria solely as an integral portion of Moldova over which Moldova is currently unable to exercise its internationally recognized sovereignty. Again, there is a difference between acknowledging the facts on the ground (which Wikipedia must do) and saying that we either applaud or condemn the situation (which we can't do). Richwales (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Richwales is right. About two years ago a group of editors representing all three sides--Greek, Turkish, and non-aligned--spent several weeks working hard to come up with wording that would be acceptable to all three groups. This is the result and is as NPOV as we could get at the time. Richwales is absolutely right about the need to get consensus before making any changes that would affect the tone of the article. It is neutral, Masri. --Taivo (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You sound like you almost want to avoid discussion and your argument is that its been discussed before?? This is not a court. The case isn't closed. This is wikipedia, and this is an evolving article. Masri145 (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Richwales, I regret that you did not read me correctly. I did not say or imply at any point that any attempt to mention TRNC in the article is considered as turkish-biased. These are solely your words. What I said was that it is turkish-bias to give more weight to the turkish view as opposed to the internationally accepted view. Simple as that. What I also did not say is that the only neutral point of view would be to present the article in favour of the RoC POV. These are your words again. What I did say was that the most neutral way to present the article would be in that of a disputed region rather than a self-proclaimed state.

Regarding the articles you mentioned, Transnistria and Abkhazia. These articles are more neutral in their first lines, Transnistria is firstly mentioned as a breakaway territory and then everything else, and Abkhazia is firstly mentioned as a disputed political entity and then everything else. Clearly these two article present facts in a much more balanced tone and avoid misinforming people as this article does.

To make it along these more neutral lines I suggest that the first line changes to

Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus, is a disputed territory in the northern portion of the island of Cyprus. A breakaway territory of the Republic of Cyprus and a self-declared independent state which calls itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, recognised only by Turkey.

This is neutral. Not what is currently there. Masri145 (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Masri, my point in bringing up the work that has already been done is to point out the fact that in articles like this one, you cannot simply walk in, make a change and leave without being reverted, discussed, and having a consensus built. Your change sounds NPOV enough, but before making the change, I suggest you make a new section here on the Talk Page, propose the change at the top, and let the community weigh in. Without carefully building a consensus here first, you simply invite edit wars and disruption. You are correct that Wikipedia is not carved in stone for the most part, but Wikipedia also does not want to encourage endless edit warring, so some parts do get carved in stone once peace has been established in highly contentious articles such as this one. Proceed slowly and build a consensus here and your change might be approved by the broad spectrum of editors who watch this page (not just me and Richwales, I assure you). I also see from your contributions that your only interest in Wikipedia is Nicosia and Northern Cyprus. Being a fairly new single-topic editor often weighs against you in these discussions. If you are serious about contributing to Wikipedia, then get involved in other articles and gain some experience in how Wikipedia works in building consensuses. --Taivo (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Masri, I apologize if I misunderstood what you were trying to say. Something along the lines of the wording you suggest may very possibly work. I agree with Taivo, however, that it's important to go carefully here and to seek to build a consensus before anyone attempts to change the existing text. Richwales (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

First line

As discussed in the section above, my opinion is that the first line is misinforming and is biased towards the turkish POV as opposed to the international community POV. It needs to be balanced more as: a)it mentions nothing about the legitimacy of the territory under the Republic of Cyprus, b)the fact that the piece of land is a self-proclaimed breakaway state and c)that the international community regards this as an occupied territory. In addition the word official in the first line is misleading, as readers might be confused in thinking that the official international representative of this region is TRNC and not the Republic of Cyprus. In a similar way that Transnistria and Abkhazia articles have their first lines, my suggestion is that the first line is changed to something along the lines of:

Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus, is a disputed territory in the northern portion of the island of Cyprus. A breakaway territory of the Republic of Cyprus and a self-declared independent state which calls itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, recognised only by Turkey.

Masri145 (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The second "sentence" in the above is not a complete sentence. Can you repair the grammar — either by making the second sentence a complete sentence, or by combining everything into one sentence? I'm just trying to lessen the possibility of people piling on you because of small grammatical issues instead of dealing substantively with your suggestion (which I do believe is a reasonable starting point for discussion). Richwales (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Disputed territory" isn't really accurate. That makes it sound like two different countries are vying for ownership (like Kashmir or the regions disputed between China and India). Better (and simpler) wording would be:

Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus, is a self-declared independent state which officially calls itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Its territory is claimed in full by the Republic of Cyprus and its independence is recognized only by Turkey.

The original wording intended de facto to represent the meaning of "it is an independent state in fact, not in law", but this wording captures that with more clarity for the reader not well versed in Latin legal terms. Your interpretation of "official" is also mistaken, since we regularly use "official" to represent the name the state calls itself. Since there is a constitution for Northern Cyprus and that constitution uses "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", we must recognize that (see Republic of Macedonia and Republic of Kosovo for other examples of the use of "official" in this sense). --Taivo (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, Taivo. I think "disputed territory" may be perfectly applicable here, because there is a dispute between the Turkish Cypriots inhabiting the area (who want their own separate state) and the Greek Cypriots who insist the area is lawfully theirs (as part of the Republic of Cyprus). To me, it seems very analogous to the Republic of Kosovo (where the inhabitants want their own state on land that is also claimed by Serbia), or South Ossetia (a self-proclaimed state on land claimed by Georgia). And I do think the opening paragraph should identify the location more specifically; possibly like this: "Northern Cyprus, or North Cyprus, is a self-declared independent state which officially calls itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Its territory, a disputed region in the northern portion of the island of Cyprus, is claimed in full by the Republic of Cyprus, and its independence is recognized only by Turkey." Richwales (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I object to "is claimed in full by the Republic of Cyprus". This makes the Republic of Cyprus look like an aggressor here, when it's not. On the other hand, I agree with the parallel with Kosovo and South Ossetia. Kosovo is recognized by over 80 countries, yet we refer to it as a "disputed territory", because that's what it is. I also find "de facto indepedent" problematic because as we all know, the TRNC is heavily dependent on Turkey for nearly everything. So how can a territory that is "heavily dependent" on another country be really considered "independent"? It's a contradiction. It's either independent or dependent, but it can't be both. I propose something like is a disputed territory on the island of Cyprus. The territory is de facto controlled by the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is recognized only by Turkey, while the rest of the international community regard the Republic of Cyprus as the sole legitimate government of the island." Athenean (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that your version pushes too heavily on the ROC angle and too anti-TRNC. We must be more neutral. I would be fine with replacing the "disputed" wording with something like, "Its territory is a region of northern Cyprus which the international community, except for Turkey, recognizes as part of the Republic of Cyprus." That should fulfill the necessity of the disputed independence without placing blame on any party. Your wording is too strong, but you have a point about my version sounding like Cyprus is the aggressor. --Taivo (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

So my version would now be: Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus, is a self-declared independent state which officially calls itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Its territory is a region of northern Cyprus which the international community, except for Turkey, recognizes as part of the Republic of Cyprus. --Taivo (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, my only suggestion would be to remove "independent" and leave it at "self-declared state", since it is questionable just how "independent" the TRNC is of Ankara. Athenean (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I would object to removing "independent" since its removal is based on a value judgment. Northern Cyprus declared itself independent, and that's exactly what we should state. We should not be evaluating whether or not Turkish involvement negates their independence. --Taivo (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was going to make a similar point, but Taivo beat me to it. The Turkish Cypriots, as I understand things, have their own view of the situation which (to them) is just as reasoned and supported by facts as the Greek Cypriots believe their view is — and I really don't think the Turkish Cypriots view the TRNC as merely a client or puppet state propped up by Turkey. Remember that before any change can be presumed to have a broad consensus behind it, we're going to have to see significant involvement from Turks and Turkish Cypriots; so far, I see a couple of advocates of the Greek side, and some neutral people, but no one yet supplying a Turkish perspective. Richwales (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Taivo on the "independent" part. BTW congratulations on becoming an admin Rich. I don't normally watch RfAs, so I missed your second one. I regret that, but at least I supported you on the first. :) Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) But independent according to whom? What does it mean to be independent? That the TRNC is heavily dependent on Turkey is well-known [1]. They don't mint their own currency, rather they use the Turkish Lira. Which means they have no control over monetary policy. When the government in Ankara imposed austerity measures on the TRNC, there were protests by Turkish Cypriots against the government of Ankara. How can a government from another state impose austerity measures on another, supposedly independent state? This shows their economy is run from Ankara. The government in Ankara has moreover settled thousands of mainland Turks on the island, against the wishes of the Turkish Cypriots, who are now a minority within the TRNC. They don't get to decide who comes and goes, Ankara does. This shows they do not have control over their own borders. Turkey also has 30,000 troops on the island, that answer to Ankara, not the Turkish Cyprios. If (hypothetically) the Turkish Cypriots decided en masse to reunify with the south, against Ankara's wishes, do you think those 30,000 troops would allow that to happen? The future of the TRNC will be decided in Ankara, not North Nicosia. Minting one's own currency, setting fiscal policy, control over one's own borders, legitimate monopoly on violence. These are the attributes of a sovereign state. The TRNC meets none of them. Compare the relationship between the TRNC and Turkey, with that of the Republic of Cyprus and Greece. The latter is like that between two equals, the former is not. Of course, the Turkish Cypriots may think they are independent (although it would be interesting to know just how many do so), after all, everyone likes the trappings of independence. But to what degree they truly are an independent state is debatable. Athenean (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I think it is at least "nominally independent". However if the preponderance of the RS evidence calls it "dependent", then that's another matter. I haven't checked that, since it is not exactly my favourite subject. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Me neither :( But even a quick literature search shows that a large body of literature out there does not consider the TRNC a meaningfully independent state [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. I could live with "nominally independent" though. Athenean (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) They, themselves, say they are independent. As independent as many other nations in the world that rely on material support from one or more other countries. It's not up to us through original research or through highly POV sources from Greece and the Republic of Cyprus to make that determination. They say they are independent. Indeed, the way the line is phrased above, "self-declared independent", the objections are moot since it clearly means, "they have declared themselves to be independent". It doesn't matter what facts of dependence you want to adduce, they call themselves independent and that's exactly what the phrase "self-declared independent" says. The article clearly states that they are heavily dependent on Turkey for all kinds of things, but it is still not Wikipedia's place to judge whether or not they are a dependency. They say they're independent and that's what the wording above says--"they say they're independent". --Taivo (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you Athenean. I think that the problem lies in proving that the RS citations in their majority call this place "dependent" and that could be a value judgment. (Post ec): I would agree with Taivo's clarification. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)In examining your links, Athenean, none of them state categorically that TRNC is not a sovereign state. They mention the lack of international recognition leading to TRNC's dependence on Turkey for most everything, but in no case do they say that TRNC is a province of Turkey or that Turkey seeks to make TRNC a province of itself. A puppet state is different than a non-sovereign state. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, etc. were also puppet states during the Soviet era (many aspects of their foreign policy, monetary policy, social policy, etc. were completely controlled from Moscow), but they were still considered sovereign nations for most purposes. The Northern Cypriots call themselves independent and that's what really matters at this point. --Taivo (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I have serious problems with people using links to Google Books without holding the books in their hands and examining them for full context in cases where content and not just nomenclature is the issue. The quotes that Google Books provides could very well be illustrations of some argument that the author may completely disagree with. I'm going to assume good faith, Athenean, that these are books that you actually own or have read in their entirety and you are simply using Google Books as a convenient means to provide quotes in an on-line format. --Taivo (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you've read a single book on the subject in its entirety. Athenean (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't throw citations around unless I hold the book in my hands, Athenean. I don't consider finding an isolated quote out of context in Google Books to be honest scholarship unless all you're counting is naming terminology. Anything more complicated than that requires a knowledge of the book, not just a couple of sentences out of context on the top of some random page. --Taivo (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree if we were talking about snippets here, but most (though not all) of the sources I have provided are fully available online, and I spent quite a bit of time going over them, particularly the Nachmani book. Your requirement of going over the entire source from cover to cover is exceedingly stringent - there is no need to go over the entire "Encyclopedia of the Developing World", the entry on the TRNC would suffice. Ditto for a book about Turkey - the part on the TRNC is sufficient. Athenean (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion about the meaning of "independent" has become quite philosophical. How "independent" is Israel? They'd be wiped out without U.S.-aid. How "independent" is Liechtenstein? Switzerland could just bankrupt them. San Marino? Malta? There's more on that list. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Back on the subject, would "a self-proclaimed, nominally independent state" be acceptable to everyone? Athenean (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That would work for me. --Taivo (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So it seems the current wording is:

Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus, is a self-declared, nominally independent state which officially calls itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Its territory is a region of northern Cyprus which the international community, except for Turkey, recognizes as part of the Republic of Cyprus.

--Taivo (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this structure. Thank you Taivo. Nice seeing you btw. Best regards. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"Its territory is a region of northern Cyprus" — that could potentially be confusing for readers who aren't catching the fact that we're referring to the island of Cyprus here. Additionally, Turkish Cypriots might object that this is saying the TRNC is contained within the territory of the RoC — especially since the Cyprus article deals with the political entity (RoC) as much as it does with the land mass. The existing language in the lead uses the wording "the northern portion of the island of Cyprus"; is there any way the word "island" can be worked into the new phrasing? Richwales (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a false alarm Rich. The island and RoC are internationally and historically recognised as one and the same. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It does read a bit awkwardly, whether it's ambiguous or not. While the island and the Republic have historically been considered one and the same, we do have two separate articles in Wikipedia. How about:

Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus, is a self-declared, nominally independent state which officially calls itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Its territory comprises the northeastern part of the island of Cyprus, which the international community includes in the Republic of Cyprus. Only Turkey recognizes the independence of TRNC.

It needed a bit more rewording to fit "island" to prevent more awkwardness than it cured. (It's always a pleasure to see you as well, Dr. K.) --Taivo (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm good with that too. Thank you for your kinds words Taivo. :) Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this wording is that first sentence says that this disputed region is a single state. Which is why I originally used the term "disputed territory". The more neutral view is that this is firstly a disputed piece of land and then TRNC or Republic of Cyprus. Also there is no mention of the word "illegal occupation" which is again the official international community view, as opposed to words like "state" and "independent" which favour the turkish view. It might be a strong word but this is what the international community view is. Also remember that we're trying to achieve NPOV between turkish and international-view (not turkish and greek views). This is what I suggest:

Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus, is a region in the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus which the international community, except for Turkey, recognizes as a part of the Republic of Cyprus, illegally occupied by Turkey. Turkey regards North Cyprus as a self-declared, independent state which officially calls itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Only Turkey recognizes the independence of TRNC.

Masri145 (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This wording is unacceptable, Masri, because 1) it ignores the TRNC and its viewpoint and 2) it places undue emphasis on only one aspect of the article--TRNC's recognition. "Northern Cyprus" is not primarily a "region of northeastern Cyprus", it is primarily a self-declared independent state, that is what gives the name "Northern Cyprus" any meaning. If it were not a self-declared independent state, we would have no separate article in Wikipedia about it. Therefore, the most important information in the article must precede other, less important information. The most important information in this article is the state, so the definition of the state must precede all other information, including its international recognition. The article appropriately describes the international situation including Turkey's military presence, but those are not the primary focuses of the article. A secondary focus of the article must not be the primary focus of the lead. A particularly clear example of an unacceptable POV is the wording, "Turkey regards North Cyprus as a self-declared, independent state..." In other words, you talk about the TRNC as if it's not in the room--"Turkey thinks this", but what about the view of the people of TRNC? Their view is not even given the slightest hint in your wording, as if they and their views don't matter--only Turkey's and the international community's. The anti-TRNC POV in this phrasing isn't even subtle. It is completely and totally unacceptable and a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV. No, Masri, the lead must first state what TRNC is--a self-declared state located in NE Cyprus--and then state its recognition problem. That's a fair assessment of the situation and a fair summary of the content of the article. Your option states 1) there's a physical area of NE Cyprus, 2) the world thinks it's part of ROC, 3) Turkey thinks it's independent. That is not a fair or unbiased summary of the content of the article. I find it interesting, Masri, that your initial proposal (at the top of this section) is much closer to the current acceptable text (right below here) in structure and is far less POV than your last option. Indeed, the currently most acceptable text is an expansion and reworking of your initial proposal based on NPOV principles and the productive discussion which followed including input from Athenean, RichWales, Dr. K. and myself. --Taivo (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The following wording is the most acceptable NPOV wording as of this time:

Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus, is a self-declared, nominally independent state which officially calls itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Its territory comprises the northeastern part of the island of Cyprus, which the international community includes in the Republic of Cyprus. Only Turkey recognizes the independence of TRNC.

As far as integrating this into the existing lead paragraph, it would basically replace the first sentence and become a standalone paragraph. The second paragraph of the lead would then commence with the existing second sentence that begins with "Tensions between..." A sentence or two of the existing wording in the second and third paragraphs then becomes a bit redundant and could be deleted. Some of the references in the subsequent text might also be moved into the new first paragraph. --Taivo (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If this article is about the unrecognised state then it should be renamed to TRNC. You can't say that its unbiased to say that northern Cyprus is first a separate state and then everything else. That is exactly what the turkish POV is and has a huge bias against the RoC and international community view no matter how many words like "self-declared" and "nominal" we add. The view of the international community is clear: northern Cyprus is firstly occupied territory and this is not mentioned anywhere in that version. If this article is about the de facto political entity that exists in the region then it should be renamed to TRNC, otherwise if its about the region of northern Cyprus then it should say that its a disputed territory and also have no flags, government and politics sections. Masri145 (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The article on France is labelled "France", not "Republic of France". The article on Britain is labelled "United Kingdom" not "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". We use common names unless there is ambiguity. There is no ambiguity for Northern Cyprus since there is no other entity named "Northern Cyprus". There is no bias here against ROC (which is called "Republic of Cyprus" because the simple "Cyprus" is ambiguous between the country and the island). There is a very clear labeling and description here of a state that has no international recognition other than Turkey, proclaimed itself independent after ethnic troubles, is highly dependent on Turkey for economic and military support, and is claimed by ROC. But it would be highly POV to try to pretend, as you do, that it does not exist and is simply a figment of Turkey's imagination. Wikipedia must explain the "facts on the ground". The fact is there is a country that calls itself "Northern Cyprus" on the NE end of the island that the ROC has no actual control over. That's the fact and that's exactly what Wikipedia describes. All your "legality" bluster won't change that. --Taivo (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You have a couple of flaws in your analysis Taivo: 1)You are comparing internationally recognised countries (which don't have to handle such sensitive issues) with RoC and TRNC. Britain is obviously not a good case to draw parallels. A case closer to north Cyprus is Kosovo where the article speaks about the region rather than the self-proclaimed and partially recognised state. The Republic of Kosovo has its own page and Kosovo describes the facts about the region. 2)You intentionally avoid intentionally to mention the word "occupation" which is the international community POV (not the greek POV as you wrongly keep pointing out) 3)I never implied that the name Northern Cyprus isn't used by TRNC. In fact my version covers that as well ("Turkey regards North Cyprus as a self-declared, independent state"). So I don't understand why you insist on pushing the sentence toward the turkish POV. This version does not take ANY sides and presents facts about who believes what:

Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus, is a region in the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus which the international community, except for Turkey, recognizes as a part of the Republic of Cyprus illegally occupied by Turkey. Turkey regards North Cyprus as an independent state which officially calls itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Only Turkey recognizes the independence of TRNC. The international community has condemned the TRNC's declaration of independence through various UN resolutions.

Masri145 (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Masri, personally, I think Taivo proposes a fair and sustainable compromise. Sometimes, it is good to adhere to the concept of consensus, even if by doing so, all the points one wants to make are not reflected in the wording. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the lead section as a whole makes it very clear that there is an unresolved territorial dispute here, and that the majority view of the world community currently sides with the Republic of Cyprus and marginalizes the TRNC. I consider myself a detached observer here, with no ethnic or social ties to any of the involved parties, and I want you to understand that I do not view the current text of the lead (with or without Taivo's current proposed tweaking) as pushing a pro-Turkish POV. It is not necessary, or (IMO) even desirable, to attempt to frame every line of the lead to include words such as "illegal" and "condemned". And if you push too hard in this direction, you're pretty soon going to see advocates of the other side (many of whom no doubt see the current text as pro-Greek) insist on putting a lot more material into the lead about what they believe are wrongs perpetrated against them by the Greek Cypriot community and the 1970s-era Greek military junta — actions which the Turkish Cypriots believe forced Turkey to intervene (not "invade", in their view, but "intervene") to protect them and their way of life. There really are two sides (or maybe more than two) to this messy story, and we need to acknowledge the different sides without choosing one side or the other. Richwales (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that there is a dispute is very clear, and there's no need shove it down people's throats, either way. There's always the need to trust readers' intelligence and ability to form their own opinions, and anyone who really wants to know what's going on will read the entire thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dr. K., Richwales, and Diné.Seb have clearly stated that the following text is fairly NPOV and an appropriate lead paragraph for the article:

Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus, is a self-declared, nominally independent state which officially calls itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Its territory comprises the northeastern part of the island of Cyprus, which the international community includes in the Republic of Cyprus. Only Turkey recognizes the independence of TRNC.

Masri, in your comments from earlier today you completely misunderstand a couple of points, possibly because you are fairly new to Wikipedia and don't understand how our policies work. 1) It doesn't matter whether countries are internationally recognized or not as to how we label articles. Where there is a conflicting geographical region name, such as Cyprus or Macedonia or Ireland, we use the full constitutional name to disambiguate the name of the country (Republic of Cyprus, Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Ireland). This is not the case for Northern Cyprus, where there is no geographical unit known as "Northern Cyprus". That name is used strictly as a common form for the TRNC. Recognition makes no difference whatsoever, check out Transnistria and Abkhazia, neither of which is internationally recognized but we do not name those articles by their full constitutional names. You don't seem to understand Wikipedia policy on this matter. I suggest you read WP:NCON for future reference. 2) The so-called "occupation" is very clearly summarized in the remaining paragraphs of the lead. As Richwales clearly states, you can't (and don't want to) say everything in the first sentences. Look at the first sentence of the article on Iraq. It doesn't say a single word about American occupation forces. 3) You fail to understand my point. The NPOV text above says "Northern Cyprus is s self-proclaimed state which calls itself TRNC". Your unacceptable text says, "Turkey considers this to be XXX". Do you see the difference? If not, then you've got a serious POV problem. The neutral text describes what the people of TRNC consider themselves and call themselves. Your unacceptable text describes what Turkey thinks and ignores what the people of TRNC think. --Taivo (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, first of all you need to stop your patronizing tone and address the issues with pure rational arguments.

You keep willfully ignoring the fact that the examples of the controversial territories you mention are first presented as regions, terittories or entities and then everything else. And all these examples are common names of the unrecognised/partly-recognised states, and are not mentioned as states, regardless of what the the people that live there believe:

• 1) Kosovo - Kosovo is a region...
• 2) Transnistria - Transnistria is a breakaway territory...
• 3) Abkhazia - is a disputed political entity... followed by, Abkhazia considers itself an independent state

Why should North Cyprus be any different and first be named as a state? You also seem to have a very vague definition of "known geographical unit"? Why is Transnistria or Kosovo one but North Cyprus isn't?? Which borders do you think define a geographical unit?

Regarding the word "occupation". This is not just the greek-view. It's the official international community view (supported by the vast majority of UN member states) and not the minority view of a single state. Richwales, the coup d'etat and the intercommunal violence are mentioned in the second sentence, but the word "occupation" is currently only mentioned in the last sentence of the lead which I find hugely unfair for a statement that is the generally accepted view of the world. I wouldn't object adding it in the second sentence where it mentions the invasion, so it would be "military invasion and occupation by Turkey in response".

You're right however about your last point, my proposal should change to Turkey and the Turkish-Cypriots regard North Cyprus as an independent state. Masri145 (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Masri, you need to recognize that your proposal is simply too POV to be acceptable. Second, you need to realize that just because other articles do things one way doesn't mean that every other article must do it the same way. Indeed, all three of the articles you mention above do it differently. The first sentence of this article was arrived at by a careful process of consensus building a couple of years ago. I know that Dr. K., Athenean, and myself were involved in that process. I don't recall off the top of my head whether or not Richwales was involved, but he probably was. In these controversial articles, once consensus is reached, you have a mountain to climb in trying to change things, because consensus-building is very hard and no one enjoys going through the (sometimes painful) process again. Third, your anti-TRNC position in the wording of your comments is so obvious that it makes your position unacceptable even before we read your proposed wording. Your insistence on "occupation" in the first sentence is one such example. It automatically implies a whole range of anti-TRNC notions, which are actually neutrally described in subsequent sentences of the present article. At this point, you are simply repeating yourself over and over and your anti-TRNC rhetoric has not changed in your arguments. Your proposal has been rejected by other editors as POV and you have failed to build any consensus, both among neutral editors and among editors who might be predisposed to take the Greek POV (none of the editors who tend to be pro-Turkish Cypriot joined us for this). I suggest that you find another place in Wikipedia where you can contribute and your anti-TRNC POV isn't a problem. You are fairly new to Wikipedia so I'm sure that you will find this happening--sometimes you can build a consensus and sometimes not. This is one of those "not" instances.

At this point we have three options: 1) Masri's proposal which has been deemed too POV by several editors; 2) my proposal for revision which has received the most support, but is rejected by Masri; and 3) the current text. Since Masri does not accept the NPOV option that the other editors have agreed on, the current text in place will continue to stand. --Taivo (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, you're still failing to respond to any of my concerns or adjust your version to achieve consensus. Your only arguments seem to be that I'm new to wikipedia and that you spent a lot of time trying to build consensus in the past and therefore its hard to change. Both these arguments are invalid, counterproductive and just show how loose the arguments supporting for your version is. However, I accept that your version has received more support than mine, so this means that the current text is not acceptable and has to change. Our disagreement seems to be on 1)Mentioning that north cyprus is a terittory first and then a self-proclaimed state and 2)Mentioning the internationallly accepted view about occupation. I'm not going to push too hard on the first one as I think it's fairly (though not fully) covered, but I do think the word "occupation" should be added in the lead. This is the official view of the international community and simply mentioning the position of the international community contains no POV whatsover. This is similar to Golan Heights (see infobox). Its only fair that both views are given equal weight in the first line. Does this sound ok to everyone:

Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus, is a self-declared, nominally independent state which officially calls itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Its territory comprises the northeastern part of the island of Cyprus, which the international community considers as occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus. Only Turkey recognizes the independence of TRNC. Masri145 (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Occupied" is still too charged a term to introduce in the first paragraph. It implies that the occupation led to the declaration and that Turkey is responsible for the independence. That is not a POV that Wikipedia must be pushing. The circumstances of the Greek coup d'etat, the Turkish invasion, and the declaration of independence are too subtle and complex to be boiled down to a single POV-pushing word. Your version, while an improvement is still too charged to meet Wikipedia's standards for NPOV. The version that I proposed above makes no judgements whatsoever about the causes of the declaration of independence, it simply states the facts. The reader can then read the summary of the issue in the next paragraph and come to their own conclusion. We do not make the conclusion for them. Again, I point you to Iraq to compare, where there is no mention of the U.S. occupation in the lead paragraph.

So we are back to the version that has the most support:

Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus, is a self-declared, nominally independent state which officially calls itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Its territory comprises the northeastern part of the island of Cyprus, which the international community includes in the Republic of Cyprus. Only Turkey recognizes the independence of TRNC. --Taivo (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

International community does not include North Cyprus in the Republic of Cyprus. There are many maps that shows North Cyprus in the Republic of Cyprus separately: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/europe/cyprus/ http://tripedge.co.uk/holidayguides/cyprus.html etc. Synderalla45 (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Synderalla, you are incorrect on your assertion that the international community separates Northern Cyprus from Cyprus. Only Turkey recognizes it as an independent state. However, you are correct in your assertion that many international, non-governmental sources do, as a matter of course, mark Northern Cyprus separately from the Republic of Cyprus on maps. These are not official sources, but are things like guidebooks, atlases, etc. There is a certain level of practical recognition of Northern Cyprus in nonofficial publications and media sources. In the New York Times, for example, over the last year Northern Cyprus has been mentioned six times. Three times "northern" is not capitalized (non-recognition) and three times it has been capitalized (recognition). A slightly different pattern has been found in The Economist, where in five articles the state is mentioned--once with "northern" (non-recognition), three times wtih "Northern" (recognition) and once with both "northern" and "Northern". This seems to be a fairly strong tendency in media--perhaps dependent on the author of the article and his/her particular world view. In other words, in a practical sense, the media is mixed in its usage of "Northern Cyprus" versus "northern Cyprus", although articles such as this one and this one list Northern Cyprus without fanfare as a state without UN membership--there is no mention of its "occupied" status (Masri take note). --Taivo (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, this is a bit POV pushing from your side. You insist on hiding facts in the last sentence in the name of NPOV. Thats not the way it works, you should try to incorporate additions while not breaking the balance and this is exactly what my proposal does. We're asbolutely not taking any sides when we state what the international community thinks. It does not imply absolutely anything about how the self-declaration of independence came about. Its simply stating two equally important facts giving equal weight to both of them: International community considers this, Turkey considers this, without taking any sides. So it is NPOV. Hiding it, is not! The reader can still read further and make up their mind. Iraq is a very bad example as it's a fully recognised country. If you want similar examples check Golan Heights where the infobox states clearly the situation without deliberately trying to hide information from the reader. I'd still like to get feedback from other users on my proposal:

Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus, is a self-declared, nominally independent state which officially calls itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Its territory comprises the northeastern part of the island of Cyprus, which the international community considers as occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus. Only Turkey recognizes the independence of TRNC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masri145 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You just don't seem to get what NPOV means, Masri. NPOV means that you don't push something that is a POV. You simply describe things. You have already gotten feedback above--that "occupied" doesn't belong in the initial statement on what Northern Cyprus is. You simply ignore the viewpoint of other editors in pushing your anti-TRNC POV. Notice the two articles I pointed out from the Economist, both of which talk about TRNC in the context of other disputed states, but neither of which focus on it being "occupied". You are simply pushing your POV, not some kind of universally recognized and consistently used description. The occupation is described quite clearly in subsequent paragraphs and you pushing it further into the simple descriptive portion is simply pointy POV-pushing. If the international media doesn't make a point of mentioning the Turkish presence every time when discussing Northern Cyprus, then Wikipedia must not make a point of it either. Of the six NY Times articles in the last year, only two of them mention the Turkish presence in TRNC, the rest simply don't find it important enough to mention. That attitude of the media is actually closer to what Wikipedia strives to emulate--we mention it when the world finds it important enough to mention and ignore it when the world doesn't. It is all a question of WP:WEIGHT and WP:POV. How important is the Turkish military presence in basically describing the TRNC? And you completely ignore the TRNC's POV on the Turkish military presence. You call it an "occupation", but that is purely Greek POV--"the Turks are occupying ROC land". But there is another POV, that of TRNC--"the Turks are here to protect us from ROC". Your proposal does nothing to promote NPOV since it simply pushes one POV and therefore is totally unacceptable in Wikipedia. If the world's news media doesn't find the Turkish military presence in TRNC important enough to consistently mention it, then Wikipedia should not be placing it in the initial basic description either. --Taivo (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So far its only you rejecting my new proposal and forcing your pro-turkish views on this statement. I don't push absolutely anything as POV. I'm not even expressing my own personal POV or the greek-POV. I'm expressing the international community POV against the turkish POV. That is all! My position is more than clear. I'm simply stating the facts (exactly according to your description of NPOV above). You just want to hide things away because you simply don't like them and by references hugely biased sources! No-one thinks that the media you mention (NY Times and the Economist) are more reliable and neutral sources than UN resolutions as they express the true common position of the international community. We've already seen your pro-turkish views Taivo so you can now let other people express their views as well. Masri145 (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Masri, you need to read Wikipedia policy more widely if you think that international sources are more important than media sources when determining the effects of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NCON and WP:NPOV. When determining what deserves mention in the simple declarative introductory paragraph of an article such as this one, it is important to see how that state is defined in media as well as other sources because Wikipedia's NPOV stance is guided by what NPOV sources, such as media, consider to be the salient characteristics of a state. In this case, you have two prominent international media sources--the NY Times and The Economist--which do not consider the Turkish military presence in TRNC to be significant enough to mention in brief descriptions of Northern Cyprus. Indeed, international political sources are often more POV than non-political sources, since they must reflect the official positions of their governments, not necessarily the actual state of affairs. The UN, for example, must call Macedonia "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" even though that is not the official name of the country. It has to reflect the sensibilities of Greece for political reasons, not for any logical reason. Thus, international political declarations are not necessarily of any real importance in our descriptions of states. We must ask ourselves, "How do neutral reliable sources define Northern Cyprus?" I have presented two of those neutral, non-political sources and neither highlights the Turkish military presence as being a primary item of interest in defining Northern Cyprus. I have also pointed out that your phraseology, using the term "occupation", is itself POV. The people of TRNC certainly do not consider it to be an "occupation" since they welcome the presence of Turkish troops. An "occupation" implies that the foreign troops are unwelcome. They may be unwelcome to the people of the Republic of Cyprus, but then it's not an "occupation" when you object to foreign troops in your neighbor's territory. Richwales and Dr.K. have already stated that mentioning the so-called occupation in the first paragraph is inappropriate. Just because you rearranged the words doesn't mean that their objection to to mentioning the occupation has been negated. They objected to mentioning it altogether. It is described quite sufficiently in the second and subsequent paragraphs. Since international media don't consider it important enough to mention, then Wikipedia should follow their lead in assigning weight to its importance. --Taivo (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a clarification: The presence of the Turkish army on Cyprus according to International law and other conventions, constitutes occupation of a sovereign country, regardless of the support or not from the population of Northern Cyprus. Even this support, if it exists, is the product of ethnic cleansing of Northern Cyprus of the Greek element. I don't think that ethnic cleansing can disqualify an occupation from being called occupation. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Dr.K., this is one of several valid POVs concerning the Turkish military presence in Northern Cyprus. My point was not to say that one POV supercedes any other, but simply that using the term "occupation" ignores some of them and is not a neutral term in this case. --Taivo (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you Taivo for your reply, although we disagree on this point, since I consider this to be not a matter of interpretation, i.e. POV, but a case based on international law. Balancing POVs should not ignore such details as legal definitions. It is to be expected that the Turkish POV would be in favour of calling this a friendly intervention; this is of course ridiculous. Equally it should be expected that the Greek side would call this a bloody invasion. In a perfect world we should automatically cancel out these POVs and defer to International Law, which is the only truly neutral POV based on unchallenged criteria. But obviously the approach regarding this issue in the article is not close to being perfect. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And lest people forget, the NPOV policy does not say that every individual statement in an article must be neutral. (Indeed, that may not be possible, since no one statement is likely to be accepted as neutral by everyone.) NPOV also doesn't say that one "majority", "mainstream", "international", etc. view is to be identified as the preferred view. What NPOV does say is that we need to present all significant verifiable views "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias". So the lead as a whole needs to be neutral — and we need to try to present the various views without making it look like we are favouring the Greek view, the Turkish view, the "international community" view, etc., etc. over the others. It looks like that part is going to be the hardest — because it seems like every formulation which one set of people thinks is reasonably noncommittal is considered by another set of people as being biased against them. We need to find a way to summarize the facts of this situation and acknowledge the fact of the TRNC's existence, but without either supporting or opposing the TRNC's right to exist. Anyone (on either side) who simply cannot bring themselves to do such a thing probably should go work on other parts of Wikipedia and leave this subject area to other editors who are prepared to try dealing with it dispassionately — but to have people leave (or be forced to leave) this topic would be a loss to the project, so I hope we don't end up reaching that point. Richwales (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that all POVs should be presented "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias" The proportionality clause would demand that the opinion of the international community be given more weight than the isolated opinion of Ankara. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's what the policy means. I'd strongly recommend that everyone should read (or re-read) WP:NPOV — not with a goal of reading into it the interpretation they already favour, but in order to understand what it really says and really means. Richwales (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that Ankara's view is a fringe view given that the rest of the civilised world disagrees with it. The proportionality clause in the NPOV policy is there for a reason. To avoid giving isolated views WP:UNDUE coverage. I also think that your comment: — not with a goal of reading into it the interpretation they already favour misreads my goals and does not agf. Disregard my last comment if you added your statement as a general comment, not meant to apply to me. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to remember that this discussion isn't over the lead section as a whole. The lead section as a whole quite fairly and adequately summarizes the background to TRNC's existence, including the Turkish military presence. But we're not talking about the section as a whole. We're only talking about that first defining sentence or two, not the whole history of TRNC and certainly not the whole lead. I think that perspective must be remembered here. The question isn't whether we acknowledge the presence of Turkish troops in TRNC (we do quite readily as early as the second paragraph of the lead), but about whether that fact is important enough to mention in the first sentence or two. It's a question of weight, and using 1) the term "occupation" and 2) wanting to make mention of it right in the earliest sentences of the lead, is the anti-TRNC POV that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. The relative weight of the issue dictates how soon the issue should be mentioned. The second paragraph is quite soon enough to mention the Turkish military presence in TRNC. It is earlier than many other aspects of TRNC's life and history. Indeed, it is intimately tied up in TRNC's history, so its appearance in the second paragraph is quite appropriate, I think. However, while TRNC's disputed independence is appropriate for the first sentence, mentioning the presence of Turkish troops is not. That's where it is useful to look at how international media describe TRNC. The NY Times and The Economist do not include the "occupation" in their regular basic definitions of what TRNC is, so we can be guided by the weight given to the issue by neutral international media. I do not support removing mention of the Turkish presence or why they are there in the second paragraph of the lead. That is its appropriate position. But it doesn't belong in the basic definition section of the lead. That is giving it undue weight. And, Dr. K., calling Ankara's view "fringe" is a misuse of WP:FRINGE. It is the equivalent of calling Russia's view of South Ossetia or Abkhazia a "fringe" view. It is not "fringe", it is a minority view, but Wikipedia explicitly ignores "fringe" views or relegates them to footnotes, while it must fairly deal with "minority" views. --Taivo (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what we're discussing here is very minor. We're discussing slightly expanding the current first sentence by replacing the current de facto with a more descriptive "self-proclaimed, nominal", replacing "officially" with "which calls itself", and adding a second sentence that says that Turkey is the only nation that recognizes it while everyone considers it to still be part of ROC. That's really all that we're changing. In the current version, the very next sentence (starting with "Tensions"), that provides a clear summary of TRNC's historical background, isn't going to change at all. Masri is tilting at a windmill by wanting to add "occupied" earlier than it's already present (which is in the second sentence of the current version). --Taivo (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Inasmuch as WP:FRINGE applies to scientific topics maybe I shouldn't have linked to the WP:FRINGE guideline. But in the field of international law, Ankara's view is clearly fringe as it is in the wider international community. You call it a minority, an extremely isolated minority in my view, but I won't argue over semantics. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dr.K., I'm not trying to assume bad faith on your part or anyone else's here. I am suggesting that proportionality and avoiding the giving of undue weight to fringe views is a more complicated question than some people may believe. With regard to "the rest of the civilized world disagreeing with" the existence of the TRNC, there may be many different reasons why different people (or countries or international organizations) oppose the status quo on Cyprus, and it's probably worth noting and distinguishing these, rather than just lumping them all together into a single, monolithic anti-TRNC viewpoint. Some opposition to the TRNC, for example, may be based in a belief that Turkey is engaged in imperialist aggression; or because Cyprus is seen as a proxy for a more general, chronic Turkey/Greece tension; or because some countries see the Cyprus conflict as establishing a dangerous precedent vis-à-vis their own active or simmering interethnic conflicts; or because some countries are dependent on continued support from other governments which oppose the TRNC; or for many other reasons. So I would say it's important to gather as much info as possible regarding the various viewpoints, see what is there, and then figure out how to present it. Richwales (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

My username is rather short and simple, but it is not "K". Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No offence was intended, and I've edited my comment above accordingly. Richwales (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

None taken. Thank you Rich. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)