Jump to content

Talk:Northern Cyprus/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

Construction boom and subsequent collapse (2003-2006)

In 2003 and 2004, intensive marketing in the UK, in conjunction with the prospect of the Annan Plan awaiting ratification, prompted an unprecedented construction boom and influx of foreign homebuyers and Expatriats. The property sector boom had an unparalleled effect on the North Cyprus economy, lifting agricultural workers into the service industries, lifting wages, creating wealth in all sectors and across all socio-economic classes. However, towards the end of 2006, the Foreign Home Buying/ Construction began a rapid decline as it became apparent to the majority of homebuyers and Expats like that titled deeds were not being delivered as per their contracts. The British High Commission posted warnings on their website, highlighting the potential dangers of buying property in North Cyprus to prospective buyers. As events unfolded the problems facing the foreign home buying tourism industry could be split into 3 catagories:

1. Stealth MortgagesItalic text (named as such as the homebuyers they affected were never informed that mortgages were placed on their site after they purchased) were registered by unscrupulous banks on residential sites where homes had already been contractually sold to foreign home-buyers. Thousands of buyers complained they had paid the sale price of their properties but had not received their title deeds due to slow administration processes. Mortgages however, were often granted with full notice to the bank of the existing pre-sold villas, and a number of Turkish Cypriot banks (Akfinans Bank, Universal Bank, Near East Bank, Vakiflar Bank, Limassol Bank and CO-OP bank) had registered their interest at the land registry in Kyrenia, having declared the collateral as "bare-land", and neglecting to mention the pre-sold villas. The most famous case involving 17 elderly British Expatriats, is the Kulaksiz 5 Case. The residents have attended court over 100 times, in an attempt to stop Akfinans Bank from evicting them, after Akfinans Bank bought their homes from auction as a result of a defaulted £38,000 loan, taken out after the residents signed contracts and had partially built homes. Ertu Kader of Akfinans Bank has been exposed for fraudulently declaring the land as “bare land” when registering the banks mortgage interest, despite the Akfinans’s commissioned survey report showing 13 partially built homes on the site. At default judgment hearings Kader/Akfinans failed to report the existing of the homeowners to the court and took a judjement based on false pretenses. Marion Stokes of the Home Buyers Pressure Group claimed that over 1500 other home buyers were in the same position as Kulaksiz 5, awaiting the outcome of the long drawn out court process.

2. Title deed RansomItalic text so called because when home buyers had finally obtained Permission to Purchase documents (PPT’s) and had paid their taxes and stamp duty, Landlowners and Developers held onto the title deeds in lieu of extra payments. Very often in the 10’s of thousand pounds.

3. Unfinished InfrastructureItalic text hundreds of residential sites were never finished, with roads, or connected electricity and water. Often disputes arose over build quality of the homes between buyer and developer leading in hundreds of unfinished sites.

ToZero (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You do know this is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a lecture on economics, right? Britmax (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: massacres of Turkish Cypriots by Greek Cypriots

Let us use the occasion to give a link to this article on massacres of Turkish Cypriots by Greek Cypriots, as there is none in all the article text. --E4024 (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's definitely too detailed for the lead. If you have a suggestion for a change in the article text, I suggest you open it in a new conversation, or it'll get lost between the conversation above and the sources below. CMD (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
And...? --E4024 (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I am still waiting. Seems like nobody is interested in the fact that Turkish Cypriots were massacred by Greek Cypriot mobs. (One of the reasons they opted for a separate state.) And we don't even have a WL to those massacres in this article... --E4024 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikilinks aren't just randomly inserted into articles. They're put there if they help explain the text. If you think part of the text should have that wikilink, note which part. If you think new text should be added, propose it. I said above that you should suggest a change in the article text if you wanted. If you're still waiting for your own proposal, that's nobody else's fault. CMD (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Britmax, that is a positive approach. I am "requesting" things in TPs instead of doing them by myself because there is some opposition here to let the Turks have a say on Cyprus; it looks like the Turks deserve being massacred. The pics concerning those massacres were eliminated from WP. --E4024 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"This" resulted in the eviction and partition

What exactly do we mean by "This"? Is it anything else than the invasion? Did the coup result in the evictions? No. Did the tensions result in evictions? No. Simple fact is that the turkish army forced people out of their homes and enforced partition. Plenty of sources above. Masri145 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There's more to the sentence than evictions. We know that the invading army evicted TurksGreeks, and we should trust our readers to make this connection, the two bits of info being next to each other, without changing a sentence to restart a train of thought ("This" allows flow, as it connects to the past sentence). The huge number of Turks fleeing North was due to a couple of factors, including but not just the invasion, and the slide towards greater and greater partition was due to ethnic segregation and differences between Greek and Turkish Cypriot leadership. Evictions are now mentioned, there's no need to hammer it in. CMD (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
1. The invading army didn't evict Turks afaik. I hope you mean Greeks? The problem is that what you know doesn't convey to the reader and you cannot assume that it will. In fact the way its written its as if you're deliberately trying to distribute the blame of the evictions to the coup and the tensions which I hope you know that it's not the case.
2. The word "This" is confusing the reader and diluting true facts. Its just 2 things that we mention here. The partition which was purely the result of the invasion and the evictions which were forced by the turkish army. Again, I trust you don't need additional sources for these facts?
3. What "sliding partition" are you talking about? Do you realise that the vast majority of people (thats the greek-cypriots) became refugees within a few hours having nothing but their clothes? It was really a shock partition which was purely the result of the invasion. In case you're thinking about the tc enclaves, these were a long time ago and were spread all over cyprus (i.e. the island wasn't partitioned).
4. It's not a matter of "hammering it in". It's a matter of telling the facts to the reader. Masri145 (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Greeks, not Turks. Corrected. The word this does not dilute "true facts" (as opposed to untrue facts?). I'm talking about the partition that gradually became deeper until it resulted in a declaration of independence. The facts are all there, and you haven't addressed the other factors in either sentence. I suggest you let up on the wp:lead fixation. CMD (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi CMD & Masri145 why are you using the word "evicted" / "eviction"? Could you please explain? "Eviction" is the "removal of a tenant by a landlord", here the situation is that the Turkish army was marching forward forcing civilians to flee from their homes, in order to save their lives creating in essence Internally displaced persons. Why did you choose the word "eviction" ? 23x2 φ 17:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
BBC says "the Greek Cypriots fleed". Source is in the EL. --E4024 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Forced to flee, and by force "prevented and still prevented to return" see section "I.Particular Circumstances of the case" on the below

  1. ECHR ruling on a case of a refugee
  2. Turkey compensates Cyprus refugee

23x2 φ 20:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Eviction: To force out: Expel. "Internally displaced persons" doesn't work as a verb. CMD (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with CMD here. I think "eviction" under the circumstances prevailing at the time can only be by force. So it is on the same scale as "expulsion" and "removal". Plus "eviction" is supported by reliable sources as shown above. The court documents are primary sources; we should not use them, at least not over the abundance of reliable secondary sources which clearly prefer "eviction". Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

23x2 I didn't choose the word "evicted" and I agree with you - "eviction" is not the best word to describe the situation. It's more commonly used in a legal context (e.g. for not paying the rent) rather than to describe a situation of invading and forcing people out of their homes. The whole sentence should be rewritten as follows:

The Turkish army occupied the northern part and forced the Greek-Cypriot population to the south while the Turkish Cypriots moved to the north due to security fears. The continuous occupation lead to a unilateral declaration of independence by the North in 1983. Masri145 (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm open to replacing eviction with another verb, despite the fact that as Dr.K. pointed out it's the word directly used by quite a few sources. As for the rest of your changes, not the whole Greek Cypriot population left the North, "security fears" is a blatant playing down of the situation of Turkish Cypriots at the time, and many factors besides the occupation, such as the inability to agree on a new federal government, led to independence. CMD (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
OK to be precise, according to official RoC figures, at the time of the invasion 162.000 gcs where living in the northern part out of which 140.000 fled to the south during the invasion. From the remaining 22.000, 21.500 people where forced to move to the south in the subsequent years and by the 90's only 500 remained (out of which only 384 were gcs and the rest were maronites). So looking at the official figures above, 161.848 out of 162.000 doesn't really justify saying "much of the Greek-Cypriot population", its in fact "approximately all" and given that we're always talking in approximation we can safely say "all".
To address your other concerns:

The Turkish army occupied the northern part forcing the Greek-Cypriots to the south while the Turkish Cypriots moved to the north. This lead to a unilateral declaration of independence by the North in 1983.Masri145 (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any attempt to address my other concerns at all. They all remain. CMD (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
That's probably because you didn't read my suggestion. I removed your concerns about the "security fears" and removed that the occupation resulted to the declaration. I can't see any reason why anyone would disagree with the above statement. Its far more accurate than the existing text which includes false information - that the evictions are the result of the coup and the tensions. Unless a source is provided this will need to be corrected. Masri145 (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
A novel explanation, but unfortunately wrong. How simply deleting any reason doesn't play down the situation is beyond me, especially for someone arguing that eviction isn't a strong enough word. There's no false information in the current text, you're just choosing to read it that way. CMD (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Do you really think that replacing "leading to a unilateral declaration" with "This lead to a unilateral declaration" plays down the situation? Masri145 (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
My reference to playing down the situation was unrelated to the declaration of independence. CMD (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Kulaksiz 5 Case Damages TRNC Reputation

Thousands of homebuyers are caught up in a property mess in North Cyprus.[1]

The residents of one particular site of 13 Villas(Kulaksiz 5 Site) are fighting to keep the homes that they paid for.[1]

Two of the residents, Hedley and Philomena Watkin-Jones, are 82 and 89 years old respectively.[2]

On the 6th March 2012, Todays Zaman a turkish newspaper wrote: "The British purchasers of the nine properties say they have never had relations with the bank and that they will fight to retain or regain the houses they paid for. Whilst two families have already been evicted, the remaining seven properties remain occupied by the families Akfinans [bank] hope to evict."[3]

The home owners are being asked to pay for their houses again.[4]

When interviewed by John Hughes-Wilson in the documentary "Banks Behaving Badly", Lord Ken Maginnis, who owns a house in Kyrenia stated in relation to the Kulaksiz 5 claims:

"Well,....this is the tip of the iceberg, that's the unfortunate thing, about the Kulaksiz 5. There has been so much unlawful activity by the banks and the developers; in collusion one with the other, to take the ground on which the houses have been built......."[4]

The Kulaksiz 5 Residents have attended over 100 hearings and court appearances, and have continue to fight to remain in homes they already purchased once[5]

The elderly residents of Kulaksiz are hoping that the European Court of Human Rights, provides them justice(should they lose their domestic battle).[6]

In an article in the Hurriyet Daily News, a Nationwide Turkish Newspaper, the Kulaksiz 5 residents again made a plea for justice:

“We have suffered a great injustice,” the residents said in another press release, stating that 10 villas were bought in 2004 for 800,000 British pounds ($1.27 million) cash for the properties in the Kulasız-5 site. “We never took loans,” said the residents, adding that the constructor of the houses took out a mortgage of over 40,000 pounds ($63,907) from Akfinans Bank one year after the residents purchased the villas.[7]

“Akfinans claims it did not know about us owning houses on the land, even though our houses were already built and paid for before they took out the mortgage,” the residents said in a written statement sent to the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review.[7] ToZero (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a warning on the webpage of the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office not to buy property neither in Northern Cyprus nor in the South, exactly like this: "There are risks involved with purchasing property on the island of Cyprus. Many British nationals, who have purchased property either in the north or south of Cyprus, face problems caused by; misleading advertising, the failure of developers to complete properties that have been purchased off plan, illegal construction or double selling."[8] If you insist on adding anything here please try to avoid WP:UNDUE and write balanced and in the correct place per WP:NPOV. --E4024 (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Geographic location diagram

Two questions: what possible use is this diagram and in what way is the number of Turkish flags it shows compatible with our NPOV policy? Britmax (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is useless. Thanks for pointing this out. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
This diagram is used for the whole countries articles.Recognized or unrecognized.Your opinion is completely built on prejudice and nationalism.N umber of Turkish flags? This is a situation in Northern Cyprus with its neighbors.Turkey is located in the north.I do not see any strange situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice07 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't care about nationalism. This diagram is of limited use as it says "Syria is vaguely that way, other countries are vaguely in that direction if you go far enough, and North is at the top". As to the number of flags, if Turkey is to the north why does the diagram need more than one flag at the top? These diagrams tell us nothing that is not on the map already included. In this particular case if it were Greece to the north I would make exactly the same points. Britmax (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The location template is completely vague and useless and the arguments advanced by Maurice07 are the usual personal attacks based on the nationality of other editors. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The template is meant for "articles about communities". For countries (aside from maybe city-states) it's fairly useless. Just because it's spread to many country pages doesn't mean it should be used. CMD (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 Done Thank you CMD. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

De facto or self declared

I replaced de- facto with self declared because as I wrote in the edit summary it proclaimed itself a state and was rejected by the UN. This makes it a self-declared state by definition. (Turkey which does recognize it is the invading force and not a 3rd party country) 95.141.20.196 (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Formal name change

Al-monitor says the name change we've supposedly missed for months was to “Cyprus Turkish Republic". Meanwhile, the Presidency website still uses Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. I suggest we keep TRNC unless substantial change is shown. CMD (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The source did not state anything of a kind relating to a formal name change for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. It claimed that its passports would be labeled as the Cyprus Turkish Republic, not the state itself. A name change is not required. TBrandley (T • C • B) 16:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead 4th paragraph

The current lead has a bit of duplication, which could be worked out in order to provide space for some other information, perhaps about demographics or culture. In particular, the fourth paragraph doesn't say much new. That the attempts to solve the Cyprus dispute have failed seems obvious due to the fact that Northern Cyprus remains a self-declared state. This sentence could be merged with the preceding paragraph on the history if it is needed. The next sentence, on one particular round of peace talks, doesn't seem that important, as there's no real reason why one particular round of talks deserves mention above any of the others (except perhaps the annan plan, but even that I would leave to the main text). The last bit on the military seems a bit too detailed, especially as we already mention the area is considered occupied territory in the first paragraph, and that Northern Cyprus receives military support in the third paragraph. Is there any objection to moving this detail out of the lead and into the main body of the article? (Where it should be anyway, irrespective of whether or not it's in the lead.) CMD (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Population

The data of Official DPÖ website of Northern Cyprus was used. Also, accusations of internal politics of NC are not relevant in Demographics part. There are no reference to show NC took aid for estimate of 700,000. WP infos and data should be based on facts, not claims and accusations, or internal politics.Alexyflemming (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

About the paragraph: "The third official census of Northern Cyprus was carried out in 2011, made under the auspices of UN observers. It returned a total population of 294,906.[84] These results were disputed by some political parties, labour unions and local newspapers. The government was accused of deliberately under-counting the population, after apparently giving an estimate of 700,000 before the census, in order to demand financial help from Turkey.[85][86][87]"

[85] This link (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Census+in+north+marred+by+delays+and+doubts.-a0274211364) contains info of..
Ali Korhan (NC state planning organisation undersecretary): "We extended the census into yesterday evening beyond the 6pm curfew, and will continue visiting uncounted people at home for the next two to three days, those casting doubt on the validity of the census were doing so purely for political reasons.
[86] This link (http://www.kibrisgazetesi.com/index.php/cat/2/news/129918/PageName/Ic_Haberler ; "TC’den para isterken 700 bin diyorlardı". Kibris. 13 Dec 2011. Retrieved 23 Dec 2011.) broken and does not exist now.
[87] This link (http://www.kibrisgazetesi.com/index.php/cat/2/news/129803/PageName/Ic_Haberler ; "Nifus sayımı gerçekçi değil". Kibris. 11 Dec 2011. Retrieved 23 Dec 2011) broken and does not exist now.

There are no reference in [85], [86] and [87] that shows 1. Turkey helps NC for its population estimate 2. there is a pop. estimate of 700,000 that was declared to Turkey. What is mentioned is
"Our authorities was saying that Turkish Cypriots are 700.000 for help of Turkey". There are no proofs of:
1. An authority of Northern Cyprus who really say "NC is 700.000"
2. An authority of Turkey who really say: "Turkey helps NC for its population; and
3. An authority of Turkey who really say: "Turkey was declared an estimate of 700.000 NC pop."
The cited newspapers (Afrika and Kibris) does not give any reference for the above 3 info that distance the given things from rumors!

The unreverted paragraph: "On December, 2011, Northern Cyprus performed third official census in wihch the criteria of population census and enumarating of houses of UN was implemented under the auspieces of UN observers. [R] The census revealed the population at 294,906."
[R] http://www.devplan.org/Nufus-2011/nufus%20son_.pdf DPO (Official State Planning Organization (DPÖ) Website)

1. includes info and data of official Northern Cyprus website (State Planing Organization of NC): www.devplan.org
2. excludes any rumors
3. both short and readable
4. consisting with the "First Page Intros of Countries". Northern Cyprus is the first page of Northern Cyprus. Alexyflemming (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


The official census of 4 December, 2011 was performed under the auspieces of UN observers and that the criteria of population census and enumarating of houses of UN was implemented.

Does there exist any UN observer who say "the census is doubtful" or smt. close to that? Obviously No! Are UN Observers not reliable source? Alexyflemming (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because links are broken does not mean the information must be removed. Better links would be useful, but webarchives would work. There is also no reason views that aren't the governments shouldn't be presented. CMD (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Assume for a while there really exists such links. Without the proof of followings, do the rumors have worth mentioning?

1. An authority of Northern Cyprus who really say "NC is 700.000"
2. An authority of Turkey who really say: "Turkey helps NC based on its population; and
3. An authority of Turkey who really say: "Turkey was declared an estimate of 700.000 NC pop. by NC"
The presentation of VIEWS and RUMORS of non-governments in Wikipedia are two totally different things! Alexyflemming (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The only way we're getting rid of the bit in question is if it's WP:UNDUEWEIGHT (which it doesn't seem to be). The possibility the accusations are false is immaterial. — Lfdder (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Alexflemming, you recently added the "VIEWS" of Freedom house, a non-government entity, yourself. CMD (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
What I oppose is not the addition of views of non-governmental organizations, but the rumors of non-government entities that completely based on non-factual things. Think about WP UNDUEWEIGHT: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources."

The newspapers Afrika and Kibris are only citing the thoughts of opposition group in NC, not proving or specifying anything about the reliability of the census. Notice the census was performed under the auspieces of UN and the criteria of population census and enumarating of houses of UN was implemented! Hence, when "UN and its observers" are on the arena, The "Afrika" and "Kibris" newspapers of the opposition parties of NC does not worth something. The findings and facts of "Afrika" and "Kibris" newspapers are still OK, but not the rumors. Does Afrika and Kibris show any disobeyance about the application of census? No. They only tell, there is a "doubt". Then, one say "Show me your proof". No, they does not show. They say "once upon a time, some authorities wanted help for 700.000 people". Then one say "who said 700.000?". They even cannot show anybody in NC government who said 700.000. Forget that, they even cannot prove Turkey help NC based on its pop. You see?Alexyflemming (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What does "enumarating of houses of UN was implemented" mean? The views of opposition parties are relevant. For UNDUEWEIGHT to apply to the extent that the dispute is completely removed from the page, you'd have to show that this opposition position is a very very small minority, and that the majority consider it valid. No party has even a simple majority in the Assembly. CMD (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
"criteria of" extends to the sentence. That is to say, "the criteria of enumarating of houses of UN". In the next censuses of Northern Cyprus, people will not be restricted to their houses. The census will be automatically performed based on "address-based counting". This is done currently in Turkey. Every year, the population is counted and updated based on automatic address-based counting. In 2014, Turkey revealed 76,667,864 automatic census result.Alexyflemming (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

The sources Nos 4 and 5 (as of this moment), at the first paragraph of the article, and which are primary sources, do not say at all, against what our text claims, that "Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus". I prefer another user to edit this and also remove those sources. I will do that myself if neither my request is done nor I am convinced by a possible discussion here. --E4024 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if the sources don't use those explicit words, it is quite clear form reading the sources that the UN (and thus the international community) considers the "TRNC" to be territory of the Republic of Cyprus under occupation. Athenean (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Instead of
"Recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus", I propose that
"Though recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus has an increasing international acception.". Reason: There are hundreds of International organizations in which Cyprus and Northern Cyprus are members as two completely different countries. Alexyflemming (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Those organizations do not operate at a political level and as such it is inaccurate to say that. Additionally, I've noticed that you have been adding details on various articles about the TRNC declaring an EEZ. This is also inaccurate since EEZ is declared according to UN laws. Please change the edits you have made adding a 'de facto' border.KalJohnson (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

As you clearly state, there are thousands of international organizations that do not operate "at a political level". Hence, these thosands of international organizations forming a very major bulk of "International Community" clearly nullifies the writing: "Recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus".
Even, from political context, international community is not restricted to UN. There are OIC with 57 member countries. OIC recognize "Northern Cyprus" as "Turkish Cypriot State". NC hosted many OIC meetings. Also, President, foreign minister and other ministers of NC participated to many OIC meetings. Even the UN itself cannot qualify the "president" of Cyprus as president. Whenever a Northern Cypriot president/minister/official is present in a UN meeting, UN qualifies differently. For example, UN qualifies "presidents" of C and NC as "community leaders". You also say, "EEZ is declared according to UN laws". UN laws are not crystal clear to reveal and clearly separate the EEZs of countries. For example,
Romania-Ukraine on Snake Island: UN International Court of Justice decided in 2009 that Snake island has no EEZ other than its 12-nautical mile.
(Both Romania and Ukraine declared their EEZs according to UN laws, each differently interpreting the laws.) Eritre-Yemen on Hanish Islands: UN International Court of Justice decided in 1998 that Hanish islands cannot affect the determination of EEZs of Yemen and Eritre.
(Both Eritre and Yemen declared their EEZs according to UN laws, each differently interpreting the laws.)
Whenever there is a dispute on EEZ and the countries in trouble choose to go the UN's ICJ then only that time UN actively participate to the procedure. Other than that, UN cannot specify the EEZs of each country in the world. Also, Turkey declared its EEZ with Northern Cyprus taking into account the UN laws. Could you specify clearly which changes you refer, I did not understansd?Alexyflemming (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

NOW: Recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus
PROPOSED: Though recognised only by Turkey and considered by the United Nations to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus, Northern Cyprus has an increasing international acception.
Supporters of the proposal:
Alexyflemming
E4024: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_Cyprus&diff=533907664&oldid=533224398
KalJohnson: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_Cyprus&diff=592158491&oldid=592157321

This is pure synthesis. There are no reliable sources which support this statement. Please consult WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:SYNTHESIS. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
"Northern Cyprus has an increasing international acception" is not synthesis. There are reliable sources that support this statement: Jerusalem Post 03.10.2008 "Northern Cyprus is opening a trade office in Israel, according to a prominent Israeli attorney, an indication of growing international acceptance of the isolated breakaway state." Alexyflemming (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Even so, putting it in a statement beginning with 'though' is synthesis. What is the connection btn 'increasing intl acceptance' and recognition? And where did the "according to a prominent Israeli attorney" bit go? Got lost in transit? — Lfdder (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
My view is that: If "no recognition" is followed by "no acception", then "though" will be meaningless. But,

The teams of Northern Cyprus and Rep. of Cyprus was matched and played in international organizations,
European and World Championships was organized in Northern Cyprus,
Some international organizations establised its headquarter in Northern Cyprus,
The accreditation institutions of Northern Cyprus was accredited to European accreditation institutions,
Northern Cyprus became members of some international political unions of countries,
The educational, sportive, and other institutions of Northern Cyprus became members of international educational, sportive, and other unions, etc.
I proved all these. If all were not realized, then "though" will be meaningless, I think. The usage of connectives like "though" is just to provide consistency in sentences of paragraphs.
It would be nice if you can provide a better composition of the infos:
"recognition only by Turkey and considered by the United Nations to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus" and "Northern Cyprus has an increasing international acception".
What about (a brain-storming):
Northern Cyprus is recognised only by Turkey and considered by the United Nations to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus, but it has an increasing international acception.
??? Alexyflemming (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

To which do you want a reliable source? I can supply sources to any of the following:
  • Recognised only by Turkey
  • Considered by the United Nations to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus
  • Northern Cyprus has an increasing international acception
Also, why insisting on "international community" phrase instead of the "United Nations"? "International community" is a very very general expression. Writing "UN" may suit. Besides this, there are also many parts of international community that intentionally separates themselves from politics completely (Education and Sports etc.). Do supplying references to "international community" part really truely depict the situation according to you? I supplied 21-points above. I can supply 100 more. I gave sources of "indirect recognition" from a Prof.'s article. See another (for "increasing international acception"):
Jerusalem Post - 03.10.2008 - http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Turkish-Cypriots-to-open-trade-office-in-Israel
"Northern Cyprus is opening a trade office in Israel, according to a prominent Israeli attorney, an indication of growing international acceptance of the isolated breakaway state."
Alexyflemming (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia must reflect the facts and realities in neutral way. Both the negative and positive things (pros and cons) must be reflected simultaneously.
Recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus. After saying this, a positive thing about the country must also exist in the ENTRANCE paragraph. Its successes, etc.Alexyflemming (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Not synthesis/interpretation: Here are the reliable sources

"Northern Cyprus has an increasing international acception" is not synthesis/interpretation. There are reliable sources that support this statement:
1. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Turkish-Cypriots-to-open-trade-office-in-Israel Jerusalem Post 03.10.2008
"Northern Cyprus is opening a trade office in Israel, according to a prominent Israeli attorney, an indication of growing international acceptance of the isolated breakaway state."
2. http://www.turkishny.com/other-news/4-other-news/32263-ba-kktcnin-uluslararas-kabul-gormesinde-talatn-pay-buyuk/printing
Bagis: "The share of Talat in international acceptance of TRNC is high."

3. http://www.haberturk.com/dunya/haber/510247-kibrista-yeni-donem Haberturk 23.04.2010
Talat (former prsident of TRNC) "....the international acception that we gained cannot be underestimated..."

The further discussion
  • Lfdder: 'Increasing intl acceptance' is an interpretation (I'd say an ambiguous one). Unless this is a resounding opinion in academia, I don't think it's lead material. 'Though' suggests a relationship btn recognition and 'acceptance' that's absent from the source. If you think that bit absolutely ought to be added, the best place would be under the 'International status and foreign relations' heading. It should say something like, 'According to one analyst, Northern Cyprus's opening of a trade office in Israel is indication of growing international acceptance' -- i.e. it should paraphrase the source, but not extrapolate from it. Frankly, I think it's WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, but others may think otherwise. Best to take the discussion back to the article's talk page.
I participate you in that "though" misdirect people who does not know the difference between the two: "acception" and "recognition" are not the same thing: Acception does not imply recognition whereas in almost all of the cases recognition implies acception. The following removes the "though" problem:

Northern Cyprus is recognised only by Turkey and considered by the United Nations to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus. Recently, it has an increasing international acception.Alexyflemming (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Δρ.Κ.:'Increasing international acceptance' is weasel, undue weight, synthesis and original research unsupported by the vast majority of sources which consider Northern Cyprus a part of Cyprus and illegally occupied at that. We cannot aggregate minor sport, cultural and political organisations which gave TRNC membership and call it "international acceptance". That's the very definition of synthesis.
If "acception" and "recognition" were complete synonyms of each other, then what you wrote would be correct. However, they are not. Acception does not imply recognition whereas in almost all of the cases recognition implies acception. Also, don't you feel any sort of over-loading in

Recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community as occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus
instead of the following
Recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is considered by the United Nations as occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus.
?? Please think this via the 3 sources and 21 indicators I supplied. Also, is the worldwide olympic "International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles (FILA)" a minor sport organization !? Alexyflemming (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

  • CMD: International acceptance is an interpretation, but furthermore, acceptance of existence should not be contrasted with recognition. If some groups are thinking, well, Northern Cyprus exists, and there's people there, so let's let them play sports, that does not mean that recognition of Northern Cypriot statehood follows. Similarly, if international organisations refused to interact with Northern Cyprus, that would not mean it didn't exist.
  • CMD: To make such a claim in a lead would need much more than a JPost article and a couple of statements from an involved Politician. Even if sources did generally support some sort of acceptance, the implications of placing it as a contrast to recognition would be highly misleading. If membership of any group is very important and has an impact on Northern Cyprus, it will be in the article. From there readers can make their own deductions.

Indicators of Increasing International Acception of Northern Cyprus

First notice, "acception" and "recognition" are not the same thing: Acception does not imply recognition whereas in almost all of the cases recognition implies acception.
1. Northern Cyprus and Cyprus are TWO DIFFERENT MEMBERS of "European Billiard Federation" and "World Billiard Championship":
http://www.billiardapps.com/members.asp?db=epc&client=&header=yes&filter=yes&footer=yes&showtabs=yes&tab=people (NC is in 22th row)
http://epbf.com/about-epbf/members/ (NC is in 8th row)
Northern Cyprus and Cyprus was matched and played in 2010 European Billiard Championship as two different countries and under different flags: http://www.kibrispostasi.com/print.php?news=36706
2. Northern Cyprus' passport is recognized by many countries (Australia, United States of America (USA), United Kingdom (UK), France, Pakistan, Turkey, Germany, Azerbaijan, Syria, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzistan, etc.). NC passport is a valid legal entrance document.
https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa/y/cyprus-north/transit/no (United Kingdom Border Agency Official Website)
http://www.turkishpress.com/news/176871/ (The countries for which NC passport is valid entry documents)
3. Yeni Bogazici municipality of Northern Cyprus became a member of International Cittaslow organization in 2013. See the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" name and flag in official Cittaslow page (There is no member of Republic of Cyprus and hence "Rep. of Cyprus" flag is not waved in official Cittaslow page!):
http://www.cittaslow.org/network/country/58
4. Northern Cyprus and Rep. of Cyprus' are represented as TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES in "European Biologist Union": http://www.europeanbiologists.eu/index.php/members/full (NC is in 10th row)
http://www.europeanbiologists.eu/index.php/members/full/73-full-members/13-north-cyprus
5. In June 2004, Northern Cyprus became an observer member of Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) under the name "Turkish Cypriot State".[9]
Twelfth Summit of the OIC (7 February 2013, Cairo, Egypt): "A solution to the Cyprus Problem would be based on the INHERENT CONSTITUTIVE POWER of the Greek Cypriot and TURKISH CYPRIOT peoples, their POLITICAL EQUALITY and CO-OWNERSHIP OF THE CYPRUS ISLAND, OIC express its solidarity with the Turkish Cypriots and its appreciation for their constructive efforts to attain a mutually acceptable settlement and call on member states to strengthen effective solidarity with the Turkish Cypriot State."[10]
6. United Nations negotiations are to bring the entities of Turkish Cypriots (Northern Cyprus) and Greek Cypriots (Rep. of Cyprus) under "UNITED Cyprus Republic". Even in 2004, UN Referendum Plan named it as "UNITED Cyprus Republic". That is to say, Northern Cyprus was considered to be LEGAL part of "FUTURE" UNITED Cyprus Republic.
7. Northern Cyprus became a member of Economic Cooperation Organization in 2012.
8. TRNC (Turkish Rep. of Northern Cyprus) Bike Lovers Association became a member of "European Cylist Federation" in 2013:
http://www.ecf.com/member-organisation/kktc-bisiklet-seveler-dernegi-bike-lovers-association/
9. TRNC Education Sciences Organization (KEB-DER) is a member of "European Education Research Union".
10. Northern Cyprus Higher Education Evalution Accreditation Organization (YÖDAK) became a member of "European Higher Education Quality Evaluation Union (ENQA)" in 2007.
http://www.enqa.eu/index.php/members-area/enqa-affiliates/
11. "FootballTennis Association of North Cyprus" is a member of the "Federation International FootballTennis Association (FIFTA)":
http://www.fifta.org/portal/tema.asp?subkatID=85 (NC is in 3rd row)
The 2011 European FootballTennis Championship was hosted by North Cyprus.
12. Northern Cyprus is a member of International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles (FILA):
http://www.fila-official.com/index.php?option=com_annuaire_fila&act=fiche&fed=642&filtre_continent=2&filtre_pays=&Itemid=105&limit=0&limitstart=0&lang=en
http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haberYazdir&ArticleID=75343&tip (Wrestling Federation accepts Turkish Cyprus as member)
13. Northern Cyprus became a member of the Islamic Solidarity Sports Federation (ISSF).
http://www.oic-oci.org/37cfm/en/documents/res/37-CFM-POL-RES-ENGLISH-FINAL.pdf
14. North Cyprus National Red Crescent became a member of nternational Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) in 2013
http://todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action;jsessionid=74D3DCDA53663022F0F176CDDD20F606?newsId=333125
15. Northern Cyprus and Cyprus are separately represented as two different countries in International Hotel and Restaurant Association (IHRA)
http://ih-ra.com/?s=&post_type=listing&et-listing-type=9&et-listing-location=10
16. Northern Cyprus is a member of Global Taekwondo Federation (GTF): http://www.gtftaekwondo.com/GTF/Country_Members.html and
GTF 9th World Championship was held in Northern Cyprus: http://kktctaekwondo.org.tr/gtf-9th-world-championships-2013
The headquarter of "Eurasia Taekwondo Federations Union" is in Kyrenia of Northern Cyprus: http://kktctaekwondo.org.tr/avrasya-taekwondo-federasyonlar-birligi/ and http://kktctaekwondo.org.tr/federasyonumuz/federasyonun-tarihcesi/
17. EasyKart Federation of North Cyprus is a member of the International EasyKart Federation. In 2008, Zeka Ozteknik of Northern Cyprus became International Easykart champion in 125cc.
http://www.brtk.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31459:zeka-oezteknk-died-in-a-motorcycle-accident&catid=5:kktc&Itemid=28
http://www.easykart.co.uk/2011/10/19/results-for-2012-here-2/]
18. Northern Cyprus is a member country of International TURKSOY Organization: http://www.turksoy.org.tr/en/members/trnc.html
19. There are 63,000 univ. studs from 108 countries in nine universities in Northern Cyprus: Near East University, Girne American University, Middle East Technical University-TRNC, European University of Lefke, Cyprus International University, Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU), Istanbul Technical University-TRNC, University of Mediterranean Karpasia, University of Kyrenia. Northern Cyprus far supersides Cyprus in education. I am writing this as an extra proof to "NC has an increasing international acception".
New York Times (17.02.2014): "Students Flock to Universities in Northern Cyprus"
20. There are many international organizations (Freedom House etc.) that classify the situation in Cyprus island as "disputed" and treat the statistics and data of the country of Northern Cyprus' completely different from Cyprus.
21. James Ker-Lindsay (Former UN Special Representative for Cyprus):The book "The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States", p.141:"Arguably, this has served as the single most important act of legitimization for the Turkish Cypriots on the international stage."; p.149:"...despite strong opposition from the Cypriot government, The Turkish Cypriot community was awarded observer status in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)".. "After the OIC, this was only the second major international organization to grant them some sort of official status".

Turkish Cypriots are represented in PACE by two Turkish Cypriot members selected in the Assembly of Northern Cyprus. The selected members (with parties indicated) are: 2005-2007: CTP Özdil Nami; UBP Huseyin Ozgurgun;[11] 27.01.2011 CTP Mehmet Caglar; UBP Ahmet Eti;[12] 04.12.2013 CTP Mehmet Caglar, UBP Tahsin Ertugruloglu[13]
22. Though on the charter basis currently, the direct flights to Northern Cyprus increased. Stefan Talmon: "Air Traffic with Non-Recognised States: the Case of Northern Cyprus" - Page 30: "Some of the states flies directly to Northern Cyprus and thereby indirectly recognise TRNC as an independent state: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sann2029/FCO_Paper%20by%20Dr%20Stefan%20Talmon.pdf

NOT true. The Freedom House does not regard North Cyprus as a separate country. The document you have provided only says about the TRNC being disputed, not the whole island. In contrast to what you are trying to say, the page for North Cyprus in the Freedom house says:

" Since then, a buffer zone called the Green Line has divided Cyprus, including the capital city of Nicosia. UN resolutions stipulate that Cyprus is a single country of which the northern third is illegally occupied." Source: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2012/northern-cyprus KalJohnson (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I gave the Freedom House example for the "disputed" phrase as is referred in FH Report. For the "regarding as separate country", see the above examples. Alexyflemming (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
To clarify the above post, I do not mean that the 'international community' part is correct, rather than point out that the Freedom House example is not. I believe that 'international community' should be changed to 'by the United Nations'. I also think it is time to stop giving examples as it serves no purpose. The point has been already made KalJohnson (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree with you: "by international community" should be changed to "by the United Nations". Somebody gave an article referring the situation as "international community". But, this phrase far exceeds the reality. I can give articles and many official pages as well, emphasizing the increasing acception of Northern Cyprus. Aside from that International Community is not a single personality acting all together as a block, and that the behaviour and attitudes of International Community are non-changeable over time, once more I wanna emphasize that "International Community does not act mutatis mutandis same with the politics". There are many international organizations intentionally separating themselves from politics, especially in sports and education.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

So, THERE ARE NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN WHICH NORTHERN CYPRUS AND REP. of CYPRUS ARE BEING REPRESENTED AS TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES UNDER DIFFERENT FLAGS. Hence the writing "Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus" is definitely wrong.

NOW: Recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus
PROPOSED: Though recognised only by Turkey and considered by the United Nations to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus, Northern Cyprus has an increasing international acception.
(See above)Alexyflemming (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend reading the terms of agreement for all these organisations. They may contain a disclaimer stating that nothing is warranted with regard to the political position of the state involved. Sporting quangos and voluntary organisations can take a pragmatic approach without it necessarily affecting the political status quo. Britmax (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
First, International Community does not act mutatis mutandis with "Resolutions of UN" and "Membership to UN". The word "Country" is not restricted to the scope of UN! There are thousands of international organizations that do not care about what the "political position of the state involved" is. I can give hundreds of international organizations that take Cyprus and Northern Cyprus as two completely different countries in all of its operations and regulations. As a conclusion, "International Community" is not restricted to the POLITICS, and in specific, the UN-basis.
Second, even from political context, the sentence "Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus" is completely wrong. OIC (with 57 member countries) states that the settlement to the Cyprus Dispute is based on the INHERENT CONSTITUTIVE POWER of the Greek Cypriot and TURKISH CYPRIOT peoples, their POLITICAL EQUALITY and CO-OWNERSHIP OF THE CYPRUS ISLAND. I linked above this decision. Northern Cyprus is a member of OIC. Northern Cyprus hosted many meetings of OIC till now. UN cannot qualify the president of Cyprus as the "president" whenever there is president of Northern Cyprus in a meeting of UN. UN qualifies both the "presidents" as "community leaders".Alexyflemming (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Self-declared (self-proclaimed) means

"given a name or title by yourself without any official reason for it",
"according to your own testimony or admission"
"based on one's own assertion".

1. Look at the above "Edit Request". There are NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS that accept "Northern Cyprus" and "Cyprus" as TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES under TWO DIFFERENT FLAGS". Hence, SELF-declared and SELF-proclaimed claim is wrong. There are other "SELVES" other than NC that care and regard Northern Cyprus different from Cyprus.
2. Also, the words "SELF-proclaimed" and "SELF-declared" became obsolete and invalid by the United Nations' International Court of Justice (In 22 July 2010): International law contains no prohibition on DECLARAtions of independence. See Political status of Kosovo, for example. That is to say, "A DECLARATION" cannot be viewed and declared ILLEGAL! Whether a country qualifies "illegal" the "declaration of independence" of other country has no legal binding in international law. Meaning that a country does not have a say on the "legality/illegality of declaration" of the other country. See Kosovo. Now, Kosovo is recognized by 106/193 countries and ALL of the countries (193/193) MUST ACT accordingly with the international law that "Decl. of Ind. of Kosovo is LEGAL" whether recognize the country Kosovo or not! Hence, changing "de-facto" to "self-declared" was definitely wrong. Hence, the original "de-facto must be re-put" whereas self-declared and/or self-proclaimed must be removed. Alexyflemming (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The UN clearly declared TRNC's independence as legally invalid. That is how legality is established. No single country other than Turkey maintains an embassy and formally recognizes the TRNC. That is why it has no calling code and is not member of global post. What you have mentioned above is true yes. TRNC is a member of some European organizations but no country recognizes it although it accepts its passports. Turkey does not recognize the Greek Cypriot side as a country but also accepts their passports if they get a visa. As long as the UN resolution which declares it legally invalid exists then it it.In any case what needs to be done I believe is wait for more people's opinions before any further changes.KalJohnson (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

UN Security Council (1983): "The Declaration of Independence of TRNC is illegal".
UN International Court of Justice (2010): International law contains no prohibition on declarationS of independence.
Now, the question: Which one of the organs are higher LEGAL AUTHORITY in UN in terms of law, judicial matters etc.. SC or ICJ?
Answer: UN ICJ. Reasons:
1. UN ICJ is an organizations established for judicial matters, state of legal affairs, law, etc. TO SAY THE LAST WORD. On the other hand, UN SC is not.
2. In 2010, UN SC sent the situation of LEGALITY of Declaration of Independence of Kosovo to the UN ICJ. That is to say, UN ICJ is hierarchically superior to UN SC in law, judicial matters etc. After UN ICJ decided a matter, UN SC and all other judicial organs in the world must act accordingly. UN ICJ supersides UN SC in international law.
3. In 2010, UN ICJ decided not "INTERNATIONAL LAW contains no prohibition on Declaration of independence of Kosovo", but decided
"International law contains no prohibition on DeclarationS of independence".
That is to say, UN SC cannot determine what is legal or illegal in international law. UN ICJ does.
4. UN SC's 1983 decision was clearly overridden by UN ICJ's 2010 decision.
5. Whether a country recognizes the other country or not does not determine the LEGALITY of other country in UN basis.
Recognition and legality are totally different. UK, USA do not recognize Northern Cyprus, but does accept the passports of Northern Cyprus. UK and USA do not recognize Abhasia and Ossetia and also do not accept the passports of Abhasia and Ossetia. See the difference.

In the article, it was already written as "de-facto". The anonymous IP (95.141.20.196) made the change (de-facto->self-declared) without waiting for anyone's opinion. Alexyflemming (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The United Nations International Court of Justice also considers North Cyprus as legally invalid because it was declared via an outside force. According to it, it is a prolonged military occupation: "The law of military occupation is set out in the 1907 Hague Regulations (Articles 42-56) the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, 1977 Additional Protocol I, and customary international law. As only Cyprus has adhered to the 1977 Additional Protocol I, the Protocol is not itself applicable directly, although those provisions that reflect customary international law in an international armed conflict apply. In addition, international human rights law is binding on Turkey in the territories it occupies (4). The European Court of Human Rights has ruled in a number of cases that Turkey exercises effective control over the north of the island, which engages its legal responsibility under the European Convention on Human Rights. (5)

The underpinning of the law of military occupation is that it is a temporary situation, which lasts until a political agreement is reached. During this period, the occupant does not enjoy sovereign rights over the territories it occupies and local law that was applicable prior to the occupation remains in force. At the same time, the Occupying Power is responsible for administering the local life of the population under its control, maintaining it as it was prior the occupation as closely as possible, and for providing security (Art. 43 of the Hague regulations)." As for the British Government, they DO consider it invalid.

Accoring to [[1]], "The UK does not recognise the self-declared 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' ('TRNC' in the northern part of the island. The 'TRNC' is not internationally recognised, except by Turkey. Throughout this document, the 'TRNC' is either referred to as such, or simply as the northern part of Cyprus." KalJohnson (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
According to United Kingdom Border Agency, The PASSPORT of Northern Cyprus is COMPLETELY LEGAL. You can enter UK with a Northern Cyprus passport. The Official page of UK: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/visas-immigration/do-you-need-a-visa/

Once more I repeat, "Recognition" and "Legality" is two completely different things. UK does not recognize Northern Cyprus, but UK recognizes the passport of Northern Cyprus; Hence, The passport of NC is completely LEGAL.
Also, International Community does not act mutatis mutandis with "resolutions of UN and membership to UN". Many international organizations do not care whether a country is a member to UN or not. For example, the biggest sports organization, FIFA of football, accepts non-UN countries as well. In 2011, Gibraltar (a country that even does not claim any sovereignity) became a member of FIFA. Hence, the sentence "Recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus" is completely wrong.
Also, according to UN, there is an ongoing dispute in Cyprus issue. UN cannot qualify the president of Cyprus as "president". Whenever there is president of Northern Cyprus in a meeting in UN, UN qualifies both presidents as "community leaders"!

Cyprus matched and played with Northern Cyprus in 2010 European Billiard Championship.
Also, Cyprus itself declared its EEZ that does not even cover the EEZ of Northern Cyprus. Here is the EEZ of Cyprus:

File:EEZ of Cyprus.jpg
The EEZ of Cyprus.

Alexyflemming (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What FIFA or the European Tennis association believe is rather irrelevant; while it might be true that recognition and legality are separate concepts, the very reason it is not recognized is because it is considered 'Illegal'. The UN resolution came up from the international community, not from some random people. The term occupied is true since it is considered by the UN as well as the International Court of Justice a prolonged military occupation. Furthermore, Cyprus does claim the north seas as it's own EEZ. Because according to the international community Cyprus is the de jure government, of the island, its EEZ covers the north as well. De facto though, it has no control over it. What needs to be done, is to wait and obtain consensus.KalJohnson (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
In the sentence "Recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus", especially the "International Community" part is over and over biased. One may establish a sentence to reflect the situation in UN. The EEZ that I put in this page declared by the Rep. of Cyprus itself! Also, as you specify, "The UN resolution came up from the international community, not from some random people.". That international community does not hold their situation as a constant and non-changable fact. As I say before, I can list hundreds of international organizations in which Cyprus and Northern Cyprus are regarded as two completely different countries. In some of these organizations, even Cyprus and Northern Cyprus matched and played as completely two different countries. I will expand the above list to make you sure that there are indeed that much organizations. The phrase "International Community" in the above context is definitely wrong. I gave not only international sports organizations, but also international education, international tourism, etc. organizations that regarded Cyprus and Northern Cyprus as completely different countries. Also, aside from the blurring picture in UN, OIC and other political context, International community does not act mutatis mutandis same with the UN and its politics. Many international organizations completely separate their view and attitude from politics. The thousands of these international organizations do clearly form part of "international community"Alexyflemming (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Assuming international community in that context, it perhaps makes sense to change it to 'considered by the United Nations'. But it is still considered by the UN as occupied territory as well as a self declared state and it should remain as such in the article. So what I propose is replace international community with 'by the United Nations' It is not up to me to decide though. More people need to express opinion KalJohnson (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks; though still incorporates some degree of bias, your offer is clearly less biased if compared with "international community". In UN, it is strictly prohibited that any UN official cannot use the word "president" for the president of Cyprus whenever a Northern Cypriot president is also present there. That is to say, acc. to UN, there is an ongoing dispute over Cyprus island, and UN is in position of neutral mediator.Alexyflemming (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes that's why it's called "de Facto" and not "de Jure". We've been through all this, do we have to do it every year or so? Britmax (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Then apart from De Facto it is also legally invalid and hence self declared KalJohnson (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Just do a Google Books search on self-declared and then another on self-proclaimed. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I've moved your posts to a new section. Please don't post in conversations half a year to a year old, this doesn't stimulate conversation. CMD (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"International Council of Arbitration for Sport" (ICAS) is an organization not subordinate to UN. Once again, international community does not act mutatis mutandis same with the UN and its politics. There are many international organizations that completely separate their view and attitude from politics on purpose. Recognition is a political act as stated by UN ICJ.Alexyflemming (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

ECtHR's View on Laws of Northern Cyprus

I wrote:
In July 2013, ECtHR decided that a de facto recognition of acts of Northern Cyprus may be rendered necessary for practical purposes; civil, administrative or criminal law measures of its authorities have a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the "European Convention on Human Rights".(ECHR (Reference:ECHR Decision 02.07.2013, App. nos. 9130/09 and 9143/09; Pavlides v. Turkey; Georgakis v. Turkey)
The source:
"...notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes Thus the adoption by the authorities of the “TRNC” of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention..."


Dr.K. reverted the page by the reasoning: "Reverted good faith edits by Alexyflemming (talk): Fail: WP:CRYSTAL, WP:PRIMARY". I expect him to explain his trouble further.
Dr.K., it is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand.
WP:CRYSTAL: (WP:CRYSTAL:Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation.) There is no speculation I made. There is a referenced reliable source.
WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.
There is no interpretation of mine (see above the "original text"). If Dr.K. thinks otherwise, he must state it clearly and show what are the interpretations.Alexyflemming (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

may be rendered necessary for practical purposes=Not yet rendered necessary=Speculation=WP:CRYSTAL Clear enough? As far as WP:PRIMARY this is obvious. Conclusion: We don't go around mining information from primary sources to dig up events that have not happened yet. And for the nth time, leave the personal attacks. Other users and I have repeatedly told you not to attack other editors. Calling my removal of your clumsy edits disruptive is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. So stop it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Based on the critiques, I am re-editing as follows:

In July 2013, ECtHR stated that "...notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus the adoption by the authorities of the "TRNC" of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention..."
Alexyflemming (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As for the personal attacks: Look what I wrote before (08.02.2014):

Edit Summary: "Dr.K., Please to the INFINITY! Stop continuously and insistingly accusing and insulting me!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots&diff=prev&oldid=594554538
This gives enough idea to others about what is heppening...
Writing "it is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand" is not a personal attack.Alexyflemming (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop the edit-warring. There is no consensus for your edits. Let's wait for other editors to provide their advice. As far as your personal attacks and insults, the fact remains that you have disrupted several articles with original research reminiscent of perma-blocked sock users and pointing to the similarities is not an insult but a matter of record. In addition you were reminded by other users not to personally attack. I suggest you heed their advice. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no edit war. You objected based on WP:CRYSTAL and WP:PRIMARY policies. WP:CRYSTAL is completely wrong since there is no speculation. There is a cited very strong reference. Anyway, the text was re-edited taking into your WP:CRYSTAL objections as well. As for WP:PRIMARY, "They offer an insider's view of an event". I neither interpret nor put my view into the cited reference. I mutatis mutandis took the mentioning in the source. If you Dr.K. still reject and revert the edit, let's take the case to the Arbitration Committee. As for your "you were reminded by other users not to personally attack" accusation, the large bulk of my edits on Talk Pages of articles disproofs you. Even there are cases that even though the society participated in my thoughts in Talk page, I still waited for the others to contribute and share the consensus as well.Alexyflemming (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How do we establish the significance of it? Primary sources are meant to supplement secondary/academic ones, and only where appropriate. It is speculation that that statement's significant. — Lfdder (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a very good point. But on top of that, the court has not decided yet to render any recognition. The court said "may be rendered", i.e. it has not been rendered yet. So it is mere speculation about a point whose significance has not been established. This is WP:CRYSTALBALL pure synthesis. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid we are deep into wp:crystal territory with this case. Predicting what might be done in the future is outside of the scope of this project, not to mention the complete lack of secondary material.Alexikoua (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
He is also trying to add this stuff in the Foreign relations article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This is getting really disruptive. AlexyFlemming copy-pasted this discussion on the Foreign relations talkpage but without the replies of Alexikoua and Lfdder to make it appear as if I were the only one objecting to his CRYSTALBALL synthesis. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And he's now claimed Cyprus does not recognise Turkey, which is hilarious coming from a self-reported 'expert on Northern Cyprus and Eastern Mediterranean'. I think we're dealing with a troll. — Lfdder (talk)
What is said is the non-recognition of 1963-RoC to Turkey, not non-recognition of 1960 RoC to Turkey. 1960 RoC definitely recognized Turkey. As you may know, 1963 RoC does not represent whole people in Cyprus island. Hence, in 1997 Parliamentary Assembly of European Council decided that Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus island will be represented by the Turkish Cypriots CHOSEN in the ASSEMBLY OF NORTHERN CYPRUS! Since 1997, Turkish Cypriots send PACE their own representatives chosen in the ASSEMBLY OF NORTHERN CYPRUS. The representatives sent by 1963-RoC represents only Greek Cypriots in PACE. 1963-RoC cannot talk as the sole representative of whole people in the island! 1963-RoC cannot recognize/derecognize Turkey as if it is 1960-RoC.Alexyflemming (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
So....Cyprus does recognise Turkey. — Lfdder (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
@Lfdder: I think that this is large-scale disruption characteristic of previous socks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Besides insulting to me by using the words "Silly" , Δρ.Κ. also never-stoppingly accuses me sockpuppettry, the last example is above.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
This is getting to be too much. I have explained to you on your talk why I told you that but despite my explanation you repeat the same baseless accusations on this talkpage as well, although you did not bother to reply to me on your talk. And you still do not write my full copmment to you so that someone can see the context of my remark. Why do you keep cutting my comment to just its beginning remark? That is not honest. Here is my reply on your talk for anyone who wants to check. As far as the ECHR edit you are still edit-warring to add it despite everyone on this talkpage having told you that it is unacceptable. If you don't stop adding it against consensus I will have to report you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

20.08.2014 08.33: The text was added by me (Alexyflemming):
In July 2013, ECtHR stated that "...notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus the adoption by the authorities of the "TRNC" of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention".
26.02.2014 13.59: The added text re-phrased by Chipmunkdavis:
The European Court of Human Rights notes that for practical purposes it may consider Northern Cypriot laws as domestic laws under the European Convention on Human Rights, while noting it lacks international recognition.[14]
(His edit has some merits: he shorted the text nicely.)
26.02.2014 15.35: The edit was completely deleted by Δρ.Κ. with the pretext "removed per WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL. See talkpage".
Δρ.Κ., also said "despite everyone on this talkpage having told you that it is unacceptable".

(( This is not the 1st case where Δρ.Κ. speaks on behalf of everyone: Example:
08.02.2014 16.23: Δρ.Κ.:Nobody agrees with you. You keep adding walls of text with information nobody agrees with.
08.02.2014 19.12: My (Alexyflemming) answer to Δρ.Κ.:
Dr. K., you say "Nobody agrees with you". To become modest and humble in this world is not a bad thing, is it?. Are you everybody? You seem to see yourself as everybody.
Proof: See this page above: I am talking with T*U, and saying him "...You seem to miss this point...". You (Dr. K.) reply "...He is not missing any point...". You put yourself to the T*U's place. Are you T*U? Don't T*U have any mind and thought to reply me? Perhaps, T*U may disprove my thoughts and arguments better than you. If you put yourself to the place of everybody in Wiki world, then definitely your "Nobody agrees with you" makes sense! ))
Alexyflemming (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you please keep me out of your ramblings against other editors? Thank you! --T*U (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Alex, I suggest you use much less formatting in your edits. Things like bold, and underline, and coloured text, add a lot of emphasis, and when used an excessive amount, and all mixed up together, they hinder, rather than clarify, whatever message it is that you're trying to send.
On the subject, why do you feel a statement about rulings on domestic law is notable enough to appear on this wp:summarystyle page? Its not really about recognition in a diplomatic sense, it's the Court deciding they would consider laws that are enforced in areas they are enforced, irrespective of the recognition levels. It's a pragmatic decision, rather than something like the ICJ ruling on Kosovo. CMD (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I neither claim nor state any kind of recognition in ECtHR decision. I want that ECtHR's decision to be placed in NC page. I want that "pragmatic decision" to be placed in NC page.Alexyflemming (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
It's obvious what you want. That's not what I asked. I asked "why" you feel it's important. CMD (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Please realise that problems with your edits won't go away by text-bombing them. In fact, as T*U commented, you have created more problems, so please stop your attacks and your text-bombing. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I bothered and upsetted with your word ("s..y"). Be sure since 2010 (my 1st edit in Wikipedia), I never used (and will never use) that tounge towards anybody in WP world. We are here friends of each other. I learnt many things through discussions with all of you. I also kindly require you stop the sockpuppettry accusation. Other than those, The usage of "nobody agrees with you"..."despite everyone.." is not fair. To be honest, you, Dr.K., do not use these phrases much. Anyway, please do not bother when I indicated my unrest in usage of these words. As for the discussion:

WP:NOCONSENSUS: There was already an ECtHR's decision in NC article. Hence, it is a "consensus" to include an ECtHR's decision in NC article. What is more logical to include the relevant "last" decision of ECtHR especially if it overrides to some extent the previous one? If one do not like the last overriding decision and insist on putting the previous one, then that is definitely the bias. It is best to remove any bias in Wikipedia.

WP:PRIMARY: (Primary Sources offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. ) Did I include my opinion/view in the last ECtHR decision? Did I distort ECtHR's decision? No! I edited "ECtHR's stated that ....". I mutatis mutandis wrote same exactly what ECtHR decided. Chipmunkdavis shortened the ECtHR's decision that I gave.

WP:NOTNEWS: (Journalism, News Reports, Who is who, Diary): ECtHR's Decision is nothing about "Journalism, News Reports, Who is who, Diary". There was already an ECtHR's decision in NC's page. The last ECtHR's decision overrides the previous one to some extent. An "updated" ECtHR's decision in NC page is not journalism. When the previous ECtHR's decision in NC's page put into NC's page, did someone object to it? No.

WP:CRYSTAL: (Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. ). Is ECtHR's decision speculation? No! Is ECtHR's decision unverifiable? No! ECtHR's decision is not WP:CRYSTAL since I edited "ECtHR stated that...". Did ECtHR state? Yes, it stated. That's why, there is no speculation in that. Alexyflemming (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

international community

This phrase (Int'l Comm) is very general: "Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community as occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus". This is misleading.
http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/getdocument.aspx?logid=5&id=2d1ffd74-f3e9-48c0-8b00-2397bb160885
Ker­Lindsay, James. 2012. "The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession:Preventing the Recognition of Contested States" page 77-78:
...Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia and Ossetia. All of these entities declared independence (unilateral secession) and received some degree of international recognition....
By the way, James Ker­Lindsay is former United Nations Secretary General's Special Representative on Cyprus.Alexyflemming (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That quote's from a review of Ker-Lindsay's book by some Natalia Piotrowska. It's not quoted in the review, so it's unlikely it appears word-for-word in the book. But like probably everything Alexyflemming has said and done, the aim is to deceive. — Lfdder (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The revert is not just based on Lindsay's book. Look at: [Indicators of Increasing International Acception of Northern Cyprus]. See these 21 proofs as well. Hence, your accusation "the aim is to deceive" is totally baseless. I speak with "sources and proofs", not "accusations". I advise you the same.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Sources you can't cite properly? — Lfdder (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I cited them properly (I specified the rows for those who cannot see Northern Cyprus in cited sources). Also, I added one more source: New York Times (17.02.2014): "Students Flock to Universities in Northern Cyprus".Alexyflemming (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

One might of course consider to change from "by the international community" to "by the UN and all its member states except Turkey as well as... etc. etc." Joke aside, the sentence as it now stands "Recognised only by Turkey,[3] Northern Cyprus is considered as occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus", simply begs the question "is considered by whom?". --T*U (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
"...by United Nations..." is true, but "...by international community..." is false (See above 21-point objection. Those are parts of International Community as well). Education/Sports bodies of many Int'l organizations purposefully isolates themselves from any politics.Alexyflemming (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Fun joke, but taking it seriously for a second, "all its member states except Turkey" would only be true if we had a statement from every single member state except Turkey that its militarily occupied. Not recognising something is not the same as holding the position it's occupied. That said, I agree we shouldn't be begging that question, and I've restored it in lieu of anything better. CMD (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
"...by United Nations..." is better and true, but "...by international community..." is bad and false (See above 21-point objection. Those are parts of International Community as well). Also, congratulations for your "Not recognising something is not the same as holding the position it's occupied.". Nicely explains many things. I could not explain it nicer than you. Thanks. Alexyflemming (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sex between males decriminalised

Conscientious sex among males has been decriminalised in North Cyprus with a recent amendment to the Penal Code. Please find a reference to it at the Travel Advice section of the UK Foreign Officehere. It states that "In the north of Cyprus homosexuality was decriminalised in January 2014". Therefore I propose amending the sentence at the Human Rights section that says "Male-male sexual intercourse is illegal and can result in up to three years imprisonment". Wikiturk (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Ozerim, Ipek (01/12/2012). "Get House in Order to save nation". Cyprus Today. Retrieved 02/12/2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  2. ^ Shepherd, Ian (24/03/2010). "Hammer Blow for Pensioner Aged 87". Cyprus Today. Retrieved 25/03/2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  3. ^ Bahcelli, Simon (22/04/2011). "Harassed Home-Buyers to Sue Cheating Bank in the North". Cyprus Mail. Retrieved 25/04/2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  4. ^ a b DVD,Produced by: Make North Cyprus Better Movement, Presenters: John Huges-Wilson, Lord Ken Maginnis, ″Banks Behaving Badly″
  5. ^ Make North Cyprus Better Movement, ″IS THE TIDE TURNING ON EVICTIONS″ , Malcolm Mitcheson - Joint Secretary of MNCB Movement,Retrieved: 15-12-2012
  6. ^ Stuart, Marion (10/02/2012). "K5 Residents Fears Grow as Outstanding Electric Bill Grows". Cyprus Star. Retrieved 15/02/2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  7. ^ a b ISTANBUL (28/03/2011). "Brits reportedly being evicted from their homes in northern Cyprus". Hurriyet Daily News. Retrieved 05/04/2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  8. ^ http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/europe/cyprus#lawsCustoms
  9. ^ http://www.mfa.gov.tr/data/DISPOLITIKA/KIBRIS/234.pdf
  10. ^ The Annual Coordination Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the OIC Member States UN Headquarters, New York, 28 September 2012 Final Communique
  11. ^ Todays Zaman
  12. ^ Sabah
  13. ^ RoC
  14. ^ ECHR Decision 02.07.2013, App. nos. 9130/09 and 9143/09; Pavlides v. Turkey; Georgakis v. Turkey
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_Cyprus/Archive_16&oldid=1137050419"