Talk:Northern Cyprus/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Northern Cyprus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Re-protected

I see User:3meandEr didn't wait long before resuming the edit war. I've temporarily protected the page so that there can be a proper discussion of how this article can be improved. Here's how it's going to work.

Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy is non-negotiable. We're not here to decide which point of view is "the truth", and we're not going to state any side's POV - Greek, Turkish, UN or whatever - as fact. If there are multiple POVs on an issue, those POVs will be summarised neutrally and fairly.
Any material added to this article must be reliably and verifiably sourced. Fringe and unreliable sources (e.g. personal websites) aren't going to be used as sources.
Anything added to the article must reflect the sources. Don't extrapolate from them. You may personally agree or disagree with them, but your view of their "truthfulness" isn't relevant. We're not here to determine "the truth", merely to reflect the arguments that have been advanced by reliable sources.

I'm not a Greek or a Turk (or a Cypriot of any flavour), so I don't have a side in this dispute. But I'm willing to have a go at rewriting the article section by section to get it up to a satisfactory standard. It definitely won't end up as a POV essay that supports one side or the other. If you want it to be a POV essay, I'm afraid that's not what Wikipedia is for. Let's use the space below to work out an agreed revised text. -- ChrisO 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You have already taken a side in this article, your impartiality is seriously flawed. Your comment above is definately not appreciated. You being an admin has deleted sourced info more than once and blindly reverted the title of the article. I would expect better from an admin. Plus whatever i have added was before and after long discussion that you seem to neglect or put aside. You jumped in the article from a point of authority reverting and protecting the article at the same time without reading whatever has been said above. Anyway, lets see how impartial you really are 3meandEr 19:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The only side that ChrisO has taken is the side of WP:NPOV, which is, as he has rightly said, non-negotiable. Please do not draw his impartiality into question. A ecis^Brievenbus 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, he has taken the side of U.K and Greece and the all other big countrys. he doesn't have to be greek or Turk to have a sithe discussion. Yaşa Mustafa Kemal Paşa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.57.210 (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Section by section discussion

Statements of fact

Let me kick it of.

Northern Cyprus is officially Republic of Cyprus occupied territory.

Let me hear your thoughts .3meandEr 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'officially' here? If you'd like to write about the UN position it's better to say 'UN considers Northern Cyprus something and something'. Alæxis_¿question? 20:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to do it section by section, let's consider the intro first. I'll kick that off below. -- ChrisO 23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Kick the phrase too"Officially this part of the republik of cyprus is under illegal Turkish occupation." What's this? EOKA and Greek army killed Turkish people and we invation there. It's not something illegal. It's not like something" British Columbia". It's acountry, which the Cypriot Turkish people lives. Yaşa Türkiye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.57.210 (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

Please see WP:LEAD for advice on how to write an article introduction.

The current version of the lead is as follows:

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti, KKTC), shortly Northern Cyprus, is a de facto independent republic^[1]^[2]^[3], located in northern Cyprus. The TRNC declared its independence in 1983, nine years after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus following a Greek Cypriot coup that was backed by the Athens Junta against the President of Cyprus. It is dependent on and recognized only by Turkey. The United Nations recognizes the de jure sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the whole island and the elected leader of the Turkish community of the Republic of Cyprus as a negotiating partner.

The TRNC extends from the tip of the Karpass Peninsula (Cape Apostolos Andreas) in the northeast, westward to Morphou Bay and Cape Kormakitis (the Kokkina/Erenköy exclave marks the westernmost extent of the TRNC), and southward to the village of Louroujina/Akıncılar. The no man's land or buffer zone stretching between the two areas is under the control of the United Nations.

This is a bit short. To quote WP:LEAD, a lead is supposed to "be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." I'd suggest rewriting it to something along the following lines:

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti, KKTC), commonly called Northern Cyprus, is a de facto independent republic^[1]^[2]^[4] located in the north of Cyprus.

The republic was established in 1983, nine years after the island was divided between its Greek and Turkish populations following Turkey's invasion of Cyprus. It has received diplomatic recognition only from Turkey, on which it is dependent for economic, political and military support.^[5] The United Nations, European Union and the rest of the international community (with the exception of Turkey) recognise the government of the Republic of Cyprus as being sovereign over the whole of Cyprus, including the territory of the TRNC. The Cypriot government regards northern Cyprus as being under an illegal occupation by the Turkish Army,^[6], the presence of which has been denounced in several United Nations Security Council resolutions.^[7]

Although the whole of Cyprus joined the European Union in 2004, EU regulations and laws do not apply in northern Cyprus and TRNC residents are not accorded the status of EU citizens. Attempts to reach a solution to the dispute have so far been unsuccessful.^[8]

The TRNC consists of the northern third of Cyprus. From the tip of the Karpass Peninsula (Cape Apostolos Andreas) in the northeast, the TRNC's contiguous territory extends westward to Morphou Bay and Cape Kormakitis. An exclave at Kokkina/Erenköy marks the westernmost extent of the TRNC. The most southerly point controlled by the TRNC is the village of Louroujina/Akıncılar. The TRNC's territory is separated from Republic of Cyprus-controlled territory by a United Nations buffer zone.

The population of the TRNC consists overwhelmingly of Turkish Cypriots and immigrants from mainland Turkey; almost all of its former Greek Cypriot inhabitants fled or were expelled to the southern part of the island during the Turkish invasion of 1974. The republic's international isolation and the closure of the border with the south have meant that its economy is considerably less developed than that of the Republic of Cyprus.^[9]

Any thoughts on this? -- ChrisO 23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

minor things. Remove the second dot from ".[5]." and introduce EU membership of Cyprus before the EU-related discussion above (now one might wonder, whey TRNC would be technically part of EU). Also I think that EU part should be moved down. Deniz^T_C 23:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

“

The United Nations recognizes ... the elected leader of the Turkish community of the Republic of Cyprus as a negotiating partner.

”

This info isn't present in your version. I'm not sure whether it's true but if it is it's rather important and shouldn't be omitted. Alæxis_¿question? 09:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but otherwise very nice work. I hope 3 now sees what I was talking about earlier. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not feel an expansion is necessary. The problem with expanding on certain points is that both pov's must be included equally, something the new version does not do. For example, it states TRNC was created after Turkey divided Greeks and Turks, but omits the Greek coup of 74 that triggered the invasion. It states the Greek Cypriots consider the TRNC an illegal occupation, but does not state Turkish Cypriots consider the RoC as an illegitimate Greek Cypriot state. It states Greeks were fled and expelled, but does not mention Turkish Cypriots fled or expelled. That is why on these kinds of controversial articles, the simples most general descriptions are always the best. Also, I do not see a need to appease 3 here considering the amount of discussion which already went into this intro and was agreed by all parties, Greek and Turkish, above. --A.Garnet 16:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the comments. I've made some changes above (indicated in red) to clarify the EU issue. With regard to A. Garnet's comments, there's always room for improvement in an article. I appreciate what you're saying about needing to keep things simple, which is why I've necessarily simplified the historical narrative - we can go into more detail in the history section. Regarding the issue with the UN position on its Turkish negotiating partner, again I think that's the kind of issue that is better dealt with further on in the article. Including it in the intro immediately raises issues (why, when, how) which we can't deal with there for reasons of space. -- ChrisO 23:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

POV issues (Turkish pov that stands out from the intro suggestion).

The articles title is Northern Cyprus (TRNC is something different) “commonly” called refers to turks alone weasly, it is not commonly called TRNC in the rest of the world. Northern Cyprus might well be “commonly called” occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus, just like 190 countries view it. “Officially” yes refers to the UN and it is all over wikipedia. The intro neglects the fact that the UN condemned the action and it is only sated as it didn’t receive recognition, two different things.
Northern Cyprus is officially Republic of Cyprus occupied territory, just like Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye), is known officially as the Republic of Turkey.
Turkey recognizing the TRNC is in violation of the UN charter, information that it is also silenced.
This phrazing is biased and weasly “The republic was established in 1983” it is debetable whether it is a republic. The majority of the world doesn’t consider it as such. Must be removed or rephrazed
The phrasing of this sentence is very biased and weasly “The United Nations, European Union and the rest of the international community (with the exception of Turkey) recognise the government of the Republic of Cyprus as being sovereign over the whole of Cyprus, including the territory of the TRNC”. Including the territory of … has no basis for existance in a sentense that starts of with “The United Nations, European Union and the rest of the international community”
The sentense “The Cypriot government regards northern Cyprus as being under an illegal occupation.[6] is also weasly as the rest of the world (excluding Turkey) views it as such. Why minimize it?
This sentense “Although the TRNC is technically part of the EU, the acquis communautaire (European Union law) is suspended in northern Cyprus, meaning that the citizens of the TRNC cannot benefit from EU membership until the political dispute over its status is resolved. Attempts to reach a solution have so far been unsuccessful.[7] “ Well, hopelesly POV and weasly totally turkish concept what have you been reading man? TRNC part of the EU technically? I do not possess an engineering degree nor am I mechanicaly inclined. Could yoou please explain the technicallity? Where did you see that? “meaning that the citizens of the TRNC cannot benefit from EU membership until the political dispute over its status is resolved”. Unfounded!!! Un heard of!!! EU stated: The turkish community of the Republic of Cyprus have full benefits of its EU accession.

This is totally unacceptable, I will not go further. Instead I will create another version of the lead and we take it from there. 3meandEr 17:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Northern Cyprus is officially the Republic of Cyprus illegaly occupied northern territory Read resolution 550 [1]. Turkey views the territory belong to an independent Republic self styled Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Following a Greek Cypriot coup against the President of Cyprus in July 1974 Turkey invaded claiming the Treaty of Guarantee signed in 1960 to preserve the independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus. letter to the UN by Turkish ambassador claiming that the invasion was in exercise of turkish rights and obligations under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee

The coup was dissolved in July 1974, and in August 1974 Turkey advanced to occupy 36% of the island nation and to this day refuses the return of the territory to the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey does not recognize it as a sovereign country.

Nine years after the invasion, The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) was declared, in violation of multiple UN resolutions (see resolution 550, one of many) that have since condemned the act. TRNC is dependent on and recognized only by Turkey in violation of the United Nations Charter. This illegal partition of the Republic of Cyprus extends from the tip of the Karpass Peninsula (Cape Apostolos Andreas) in the northeast, to Morphou Bay and Cape Kormakitis. The village of Kokkina/Erenköy marks the westernmost extent. The most southerly point being the village of Louroujina/Akıncılar. UNFICYP remains on the island to supervise ceasefire lines, maintain a buffer zone and undertake humanitarian activities. [2]

Thoughts? 3meandEr 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your very first sentence isn't supported by any references. This is not the only problem of course.

Why didn't you mention that TRNC is considered by some scholars to be de facto independent?

ps. The article was about the entity located in the north of Cyprus (=TRNC). While the name has been changed the scope of the article remained the same (there were no proposals to change this, actually). Please take this into account. Alæxis_¿question? 17:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the complete lack of sourcing means that it's a non-starter. It's also hopelessly POV. You really need to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, then start applying those policies here. -- ChrisO 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sources for which statement? Since you are familiar with the topic, for Which statement you never came accross a credible source before? Why is it hopelessly POV? UN and EU falls under all Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We can take sentense by sentese if you wish sources are abundant. They are all facts (in de facto perspective and de jure at the same time. Established and declared by multiple UN resolution and ECHR rulings.

Alaexis

Alaexis, (have added the reference to the very first sentense) you see “(de facto) meaning in fact, actually, whether legal or illegal” has two views. The one is the Turkish POV. In (de facto view) the northen territory of Cyprus could be either “occupied” or “TRNC”. That depends if you view it from the UN perspective or the Turkish perspective. For the UN, the occupation is reall!!!. For the Turks it is not. It just happens that the view supporting that the northern part of the island is occupied is both “de facto” and “de jure”, while in the Turkish perspective is only “de facto”. If you cant understand it, look at it tis way. Law is the ultimate vehicle to determine facts. Now that does not mean that when something is (de jure) it is automatically excluded from being both (de facto) and (de jure). "Occupation" in Cyprus is based on solid facts. It is at the same time acknowledged and supported legaly, lawfully so it also de jure. Once again try to understand that De facto it might well be an occupied area. The occupation is real. Governmental agents can not exert their effective control, refugees can not return to their houses or enjoy their properties in a way that they see fit. De facto it is an occupied area, and it is also de jure because the international law accepted that de facto there is occupation. 3meandEr 20:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO is talking about a lack of sourcing, not a lack of sources. If I understand him correctly, he's not saying that there are no sources available to support your version, he's just saying that those sources are not given in your version. They need to be given, per Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. A ecis^Brievenbus 20:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, i will gather them all 3meandEr 20:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

Correction: Replace the word "following" in the current intro with "followed". Can't do it myself. Globo 01:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Northern Cyprus is officially the Republic of Cyprus illegaly occupied northern territory see resolution 550.

Turkey views the territory belong to an independent Republic self styled Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Following a Greek Cypriot coup against the President of Cyprus in July 1974 Turkey invaded claiming the Treaty of Guarantee signed in 1960 to preserve the independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus. Article II of the treaty of guarantee let it be noted that this is a turkish web site

The coup was dissolved in July 1974, reference: Birand Mehmet Ali, “30 sicak gun”, Milliyet, March 1976 , let it be noted that it is a turkish author, and in August 1974 Turkey advanced to occupy 36% of the island nation reference: Birand Mehmet Ali, “30 sicak gun”, Milliyet, March 1976 , let it be noted that it is a turkish author and to this day refuses the return of the territory to the Republic of Cyprus. Case of Loizidou v. Turkey (Article 50) ECHR found that the continuous denial of the applicant’s access to her property in northern Cyprus and the ensuing loss of all control over the property was a matter which fell within Turkey’s “jurisdiction” within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention and was thus imputable to Turkey.

Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus as a sovereign country Turkey denying access to ship with the Republic of Cyprus flag, just hit ctrl +f “cyprus”

Nine years after the invasion, The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) was declared, in violation of multiple UN resolutions 550 541 that have since condemned the act.

TRNC is dependent on and recognized only by Turkey in violation of the United Nations Charter. see Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members”. The republic of Cyprus is a member, not recognizing the Republic of Cyprus is in violation of the charter that Turkey is a signatory.

This illegal partition of the Republic of Cyprus extends from the tip of the Karpass Peninsula (Cape Apostolos Andreas) in the northeast, to Morphou Bay and Cape Kormakitis. The village of Kokkina/Erenköy marks the westernmost extent. The most southerly point being the village of Louroujina/Akıncılar. UNFICYP remains on the island to supervise ceasefire lines, maintain a buffer zone and undertake humanitarian activities. [3]

I know, it looks messy now but i couldnt get < ref > < ref > to work maybe someone can help? Any other concerns? 3meandEr 16:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV, as mentioned before. You don't seem to have paid much attention to the concerns above, as the very first sentence suggests. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 20:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why dont you explain it to me? Sources in place, NPOV statement of fact ... 3meandEr 20:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, for a start, it's not Wikipedia's position to judge whether something is "official" or not. This is something that is dealt with reasonably well in the existing lead. The UN has no particular authority over the encyclopedia.

What should the first line tell you? What something is, or claims to be. (i.e., a political entity located here) You then add the most pertinent details (such as how it came about, bad intercommunal blood, Greek coup, Turkish invasion, declaration of independence) and the present status (in this case, recognized only by one country, not recognized by the UN, etc.). The facts should speak for themselves; if the country does not enjoy diplomatic recognition by other than its sponsor, you don't need to bash anyone over the head with adjectives about how illegitimate or whatnot it may or may not be; you might find that most people would agree with you anyway, and what sounds like a propagandistic or polemical tone can often have the opposite effect of that intended.

As was pointed out to me above, a lead that seemed reasonably good to me omitted a number of Turkish grievances. So what I write, or you write, might not, by itself be NPOV, even if we give it our best attempt, but that's what seeking consensus is all about. I have nothing against you bringing details into the article; I'd be happy if you can do so later in the article, provided you remember WP:NPOV; Wikipedia is not paper, after all. But nor is it a soapbox, and you might find you get most or all of what you want by discussing things here first, one point (and not one manifesto) at a time. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

ProtectOnions is right about what we're supposed to be doing here. I appreciate that the UN and Republic of Cyprus government have a particular point of view about the TRNC, but we're not supposed to present particular points of view as "the truth". Our task as Wikipedia editors is to present differing points of view fairly and neutrally. Unfortunately your version is slanted entirely towards one particular point of view, and it reads like a condemnation of the TRNC. 3meandEr, I notice that you've only ever edited this article. I'd suggest that you try editing other articles and learning a bit more about the way that Wikipedia works, before you get involved in a "difficult" article like this one. -- ChrisO 23:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Either of your comments above are not making sense because all of your mentioned concerns are covered in the lead proposal. I ll take prohibitOnions points one by one. Numbered points are ProhibitOnions comments

ProhibitOnions says: it's not Wikipedia's position to judge whether something is "official" or not.

The first line is not claiming anything. It simply states a fact, and it is backed up by a neutral, verifiable and reliable source(s). The fact being that officially= de facto and de jure northern Cyprus is illegally occupied territory a view supported by 190 countries, a global majority view. Just like here wikipedia states another fact, that “Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye), is known officially as the Republic of Turkey”. The sentense that follows refers to a global minority view (Turkish view alone) of what the facts are. You see both views are added like so:

Northern Cyprus is officially the Republic of Cyprus illegaly occupied northern territory see resolution 550. Turkey views the territory belong to an independent Republic self styled Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

ProhibitOnions says: “What should the first line tell you? What something is, or claims to be. (i.e., a political entity located here)” or i.e. de jure and de facto occupation?

this I totally don’t get. The first 2 lines state clearly what northern Cyprus is, or what the views of fact are. The one being de facto view and the other being both de facto and dejure view.

ProhibitOnions says: You then add the most pertinent details (such as how it came about, bad intercommunal blood, Greek coup, Turkish invasion, declaration of independence)

These are included the only part missing is the “bad intercommunal blood” we can add that in the lead too if you wish, but how back in time should we go? Intercommunal violence can be tracked all the way back to the ottoman empire invasion. We can mention simply intercommunal blood if you wish and then expand when we will be talking about all other sections in due course.

ProhibitOnions says: the present status (in this case, recognized only by one country, not recognized by the UN, etc.).

included.

ProhibitOnions says: if the country does not enjoy diplomatic recognition by other than its sponsor, you don't need to bash anyone over the head with adjectives about how illegitimate or whatnot it may or may not be

Could you be a little pre disposed to one side by this statement of yours? I have repeatedly expained that there are two views of facts here. And the view that it is a “country” is only one of the two. The turkish one. The other view sees (officialy also by the way) occupied territory. Please try to understand that your sentense is not impartial. Recognition is not the issue alone here. It is part of the issue.Once again, one view of facts sees illegally occupied territory of a country.

ProhibitOnions says: I have nothing against you bringing details into the article; I'd be happy if you can do so later in the article, provided you remember WP:NPOV;

thanks I enjoy contributing and will continue to don’t worry about that. But no, don’t get confused we are talking about the lead now, we will discuss all other sections later on

I suppose, ill be happy to hear (read rather) your personal views.

ChrisO you said

I appreciate that the UN and Republic of Cyprus government have a particular point of view about the TRNC, but we're not supposed to present particular points of view as "the truth".

we are not presenting particular points of view as "the truth". That is not what wikipedia is all about. We are just sharing the two sides of f”facts” as I have explained above. Please try to understand the difference, or elaborate if you feel that I don’t get it..

Unfortunately your version is slanted entirely towards one particular point of view, and it reads like a condemnation of the TRNC.

Disagree, note that it is not a personal view, you can see the references. The condemnation you are refering comes out from the facts.

Our task as Wikipedia editors is to present differing points of view fairly and neutrally.

The UN has condemned TRNC. Why should that information be silenced? Wgat are you trying to say? Wikipedia is not about silencing facts. Sticking to the facts in an unbiased manner is what I have done. 3meandEr 16:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Meander, I believe you don't fully understand the concept of 'de facto'. If UN and other countries consider Northern Cyprus an occupied territory then that is its (territory's) de jure status. De facto situation may or may not coincide with it. To determine the de facto situation we look at what is written in various reliable sources (such as books or scholarly articles). The words 'de facto indepndent' are applied to TRNC in the sources which are given after these words. Do you question the reliability of these sources? What other sources supporting your version could you present? Alæxis_¿question? 16:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

maybe you havent read it the second time see this 3meandEr 17:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, I've read it. However you haven't presented sources confirming your version there (or elsewhere). While de facto and de jure situations may coincide you've got to have refs proving it. Alæxis_¿question? 17:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Proving what? Havent the UN done that much before these "references" you ask to determine what? What the international community de jure sees as facts? Do you honestly believe that de jure there is occupation and there are no books or references about it to prove it de facto? you must be joking asking the obvious. Anyway If i understand what you mean, you are interested in books talking about occupied cyprus? I could lend you some if you promise to bring them back, in case you are thinking of bying your own then you may screen through these. And when you are done you will be able to tell me whether Cyprus is occupied or not? 3meandEr 17:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not me who needs this but Wikipedia. If you write something you should back it with sources. Could you name just several books or articles where this is written? Alæxis_¿question? 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, i will and make you a favor at the same time by giving turkish books

Roni Alasor "Sifreli Mesaj: "trene bindir!" ISBN 960-03-3260-6
Sener Levent "Yurdum isgal altinda, Bir Turkiyeli general buram buram yasemin kokan lefkosa gecelerini nerden bilir?" ISBN 9963-8713-0-5
Arif Hasan Tahsin "The rise of Dektash to power" ISBN9963-7738-3-4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3meandEr (talk • contribs) 19:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You have a strange idea of doing me favours :))). My Turkish is even worse than my Greek and levels of both are pretty close to zero.

Since this is English-language Wikipedia the most obvious choice is to give English-language refs (if they exist, of course). Again it's not for me but for the ordinary Wikipedia user who knows English (to some extent, anyway) and most likely doesn't know Turkish, Greek or Russian. Alæxis_¿question? 19:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please dont change the subject

So the UN and the EU and the Turkish books are no good for you, you need english books if they exist? You have managed to change the discussion i had in place with ChrisO and ProhibitOnions to something completely irrelevant and dubious, thats ok i assume good faith that you simply need to justify (wikipedia not you) occupation de facto, although it is recognized and deplored as such legally by the international community. Am i too old for this? Do not know whether that was on purpose but still the intro i have established is the most neutral that this article has ever seen.

No one so far, other than the turkish propaganda has managed to explain why in the current article is full with weasels and written from a tottaly turkish pov, important information is systematically erased. Heres is the new lead and lets hear your views, we need to dicuss all other sections also and this is taking too long:

Northern Cyprus is officially the Republic of Cyprus illegaly occupied northern territory [4].

Turkey views the territory belong to an independent Republic self styled Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Following a Greek Cypriot coup against the President of Cyprus in July 1974 Turkey invaded claiming the Treaty of Guarantee signed in 1960 to preserve the independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus. [5]

The coup was dissolved in July 1974, [6], and in August 1974 Turkey advanced to occupy 36% of the island nation [7] and to this day refuses the return of the territory to the Republic of Cyprus. Case of Loizidou v. Turkey (Article 50).

Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus as a sovereign country [8]

Nine years after the invasion, The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) was declared, in violation of multiple UN resolutions 550 541 that have since condemned the act.

TRNC is dependent on and recognized only by Turkey in violation of the United Nations Charter. [9].

This illegal partition of the Republic of Cyprus extends from the tip of the Karpass Peninsula (Cape Apostolos Andreas) in the northeast, to Morphou Bay and Cape Kormakitis. The village of Kokkina/Erenköy marks the westernmost extent. The most southerly point being the village of Louroujina/Akıncılar. UNFICYP remains on the island to supervise ceasefire lines, maintain a buffer zone and undertake humanitarian activities. [10]

And here are some books in English for Alaexis , Enjoy! Please tell me when you are done whether Cyprus is under occupation or not. Thanks!

Oriana Fallaci, “Interview with History”, ISBN 0395252237
MASSIP Roger, “Caramanlis, Un Grec Hors Du Commun”, Mar 24 1982
Stearns Monteagle Entangled Allies: U.S. Policy Toward Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus
Andrew Borowiec, “Cyprus: A Troubled Island” ISBN 0-275-96533-3 Publication Date: April 2000
Ball George W. “The Past Has Another Pattern”, ISBN: 0393014819
Ian Robertson, “Cyprus” , Published 1981 Rand McNally
William. Mallinson, “A Modern History”, ISBN-13: 978-1850435808
Brendan O'Malley, “The Cyprus Conspiracy: America, Espionage and the Turkish Invasion” ISBN-13: 978-1860647376
Crawshaw Nancy, “The Cyprus Revolt”, Allen & Unwin, London 1978
Stephen Tzikas, “Greece, the Next 300 Years”, Cosmos Publishing
Reeva S. Simon , Philip Mattar, Richard W. Bulliet, “Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East”, ISBN 0028970640

Sin Athena kai Xeira keini 3meandEr 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounds convincing to me. I'd like to know what other people think about these refs.

It doesn't mean I endorse the whole Meander's version but the occupation thing is persuasive. Alæxis_¿question? 17:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I can see where this discussion is going. 3meandEr, you seem to be editing from a partisan point of view. You clearly have strong opinions on the Cyprus issue. While it's fine to have your own POV, it's not fine to push that point of view in a Wikipedia article. It's clear from your editing history that you're focused entirely on editing this article and are seeking to turn it (in your own words) into a "condemnation". That's not compatible with our neutral point of view policy and we can't adopt that approach.

The recent edit conflict on this article seems to have focused around 3meandEr trying repeatedly to add highly partisan text to the article and being reverted by other editors. 3meandEr, clearly there isn't any consensus to include your material - you need to follow the steps set out at Wikipedia:Consensus and persuade editors of your case, rather than trying to force a particular outcome. I propose to unprotect the article so that people can resume editing it, but apply the Dcmdevit solution. In essence, If editors return to edit warring after an article is unprotected, the community has not forfeited the right to improve the article; rather, the editors have forfeited the right to edit. In practice, this means a zero reverts approach. If 3meandEr resumes edit warring, he'll be blocked. In the meantime, we can all try working through the article here on the talk page to improve the content, but it must be compliant with WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia policy requirements. -- ChrisO 00:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why a 0RR (per Dmcdevit) couldn't be tried, and I agree that the comments just above by 3meandEr don't suggest much desire to create a neutral article. If the usage of 0RR were experimental, it should not be a problem. It would also be beneficial if some editor who has been active on this page for a while could summarize here what he thinks are some consensus positions already settled.

Also since 3meandEr claims the article is 'full with weasels' that he might be invited to give examples of the weasels. EdJohnston 01:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just found a thread about this issue at the AN and left some notes there. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that things are twisted around a little bit here. Why Partisan? I never said i want to change this article into a condemnation, that is your opinion. What i have said is written down at least you may re read it. I asked a question and did not get a response from anyone. By resolution 550 that i have provided a link, Northern Cyprus is officially the Republic of Cyprus illegaly occupied northern territory [11]. Why should this information from a verifiable, reliable and credible source be erased, and silence. This article is about northern Cyprus. "Facts" do not enjoy undue weight on this article, instead, euphemism is used and weasel words (which i also gave examples it is already archived by ChrisO) to promote one side of the story while the other (that of the UN and the international community) is being silenced. Wikipedia:Consensus is what i have been trying to get in this talk page. No one has justified why in the current article that its title was recently changed (promoting it to a country) does not include the "facts" (de jure and defacto) that the international community claims. Instead all i get is that it is not NPOV. No one though explains why it is not NPOV. Instead i was asked for references which i have provided amongst other UN resolutions, EU statements of fact, ECHR rulings, Turkish books and english literature. Just because it so happens that no one else seems to support the UN stance on this issue in the past days, does that make me a partisan and i should be blocked, silenced? I dont get it. The way i see it? I have brought facts to this talk page which are erased/silenced or evaded from this article. And now i am a partisan, and i should be silenced. That is the response i get instead of discussion. Is it just me that has to get consensus? Shouldnt the opposing side of the debate also receive consensus on this article change? I object, the arguments i have raised have not been answered. Whatever i was asked i provided. This is definately one sided, and a view from a point of authority. Why dont i get a response to the arguments that i have brought forward? And by the way, the fact that i have been contributing to this page alone what does that have to do with anything? I do not sleep with the laptop in my hands and dream about wikipedia, i cant see why i need to justify to anyone whether i have time on my hands or not.3meandEr 10:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Improving the lead

It is possible that the word 'occupation' belongs somewhere in the lead. Though occupation is mentioned a number of times in the body of the article, it does not occur in the lead. Per WP:LEAD the lead should be a summary of the article. The lead will have to be longer to do an adequate job, in my opinion, and it will need to be planned carefully to ensure neutral wording. EdJohnston 20:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant in my post above. I'm sure, though, that the current intro isn't a bad one and it'd be better to add info to it rather than trying to conjure some totally new one. Alæxis_¿question? 20:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that we need to adequately represent the UN position that the Turkish military presence in Northern Cyprus is an occupation, though of course we need to state both side's positions without endorsing either. -- ChrisO 22:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggestEdJohnston ? ChrisO is not the the Turkish military presence, in northern Cyprus which is considered an occupation, northern Cyprus is de jure the occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus. That is the definition of "northern Cyprus" de jure or officially (UN stance) is "the illegaly occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus". Two different things. Do you agree? c16:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen a UN resolution that mentions 'occupation'? I think not. However, there are various officials who have referred to it as such, but I would strongly aruge that this does not make it an 'opening paragraph' quote. Politis 18:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Déjà vu?, Why do i feel we had this discussion before? Yes i have seen a (resolution 550 and 541)that mentions occupation, and if you had read the resolution that i have provided 10 times so far you wouldnt ask this question. c 22:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

but I would strongly aruge that this does not make it an 'opening paragraph' quote. Politis

May i ask why? 3meandEr 22:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Just now I read the article to see how good the references are. They can certainly be improved, since there are a number of random web sites (personal?) and some activist sites used as sources. There have to be more up-to-date sources of official UN documents. Nevertheless, it may be possible to fix up the lead to satisfy WP:LEAD without further ado. Occupation is a concept in international law, i.e. a legal term. I don't believe the references are good enough to justify the use of the term occupation in the lead, because relying on UN resolutions from the 1980s to prove things may not describe the current status well. Beefing up the article to give the right nuances to everybody's legal position would take considerable work, and I don't believe the lead has to wait until that is accomplished. I'd settle for a kind of a precis of what the rest of the article says NOW, without waiting for improvements in the rest of the article. Let me know if anyone else would like to see this rewriting of the lead go ahead. (I suppose we can quote the language of the 1984 UN resolutions as historical documents without asserting that they describe the current status). EdJohnston 23:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm now more confused about the occupation thing than ever...

Could you explain what exactly would you like to change in the intro? Alæxis_¿question? 05:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

EdJohnston on one hand I can see your line of thought, but then again there is a missing link to that thought. For starters I agree that

“there have to be more up-to-date sources of official UN documents”

but then I do not understand how you arrived to this conclusion:

“I don't believe the references are good enough to justify the use of the term occupation in the lead, because relying on UN resolutions from the 1980s to prove things may not describe the current status well.”

Can someone provide official UN documents which state that currently the status has changed since 1984?. Let me bring to your attention the fact that the UN’s most recent resolution is of 2007S/RES/1758 in which (page 2 of 3) clause 3 “Reaffirms all its relevant resolutions on Cyprus..[]”, meaning that in 2007 declares= affirm solemnly and formally as true once again all previous resolutions”. If anyone can provide an official UN document stating otherwise then your line of thought has no egressing dark spots. If there is no UN official document stating otherwise then we should assume that nothing has changed since 1984 to that respect, right? 3meandEr 17:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

References

What references do you consider not good enough? Alæxis_¿question? 06:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this addition to the lead?

There have been complaints that the current lead downplays the occupation. This sentence is one that's already in the article. How about adding it to the lead?

The presence of the mainland Turkish military in Cyprus is highly controversial, having been denounced in several United Nations Security Council resolutions^[10].

If there is consensus that it belongs, we could file an {{editprotected}} to get it added. If you prefer some other wording, please suggest improvements. EdJohnston 03:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

? Can we discuss one thing at a time please? References pinpoint as a fact that "northern Cyprus is officially the illegaly occupied northern territory of the Republic of Cyprus". I can see no reason why this sentense can not be added to the lead. Thoughts ? 3meandEr 20:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Officially the illegally occupied northern territory.." suggests there is only one view as to what is legal or official. I imagine that each faction has its own position as to what is legal: the United Nations, the TRNC, the Republic of Cyprus. I read that there was some proceeding in front of the World Court. If they make a ruling, does *that* Court determine what is legal? Your wording is, in my view, too absolute and makes it sound as though no-one disagrees, which could hardly be farther from the truth. The UN Security Council has denounced the presence of the Turkish army in Cyprus; that is easy to verify and that's why I proposed the particular addition. If it doesn't improve the article from your point of view, we can always leave it as it is. Or suggest something else that doesn't sound so absolute. EdJohnston 01:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, it's also the wrong focus. The article is about the political entity called the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, not the geographical region of northern Cyprus (not all of which is part of the TRNC). In describing the TRNC, we're not making any judgments about whether it's a legal entity or otherwise - we can only describe what others have said about it, without endorsing their views. Any wording that states one side's POV as fact isn't compatible with our neutral point of view policy. As for Ed's wording, I think that looks reasonable. -- ChrisO 08:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there more than one view to international law? When a political dispute exists the legal vehicle to sort the dispute is the U.N. and the only vehicle which can state judgment is the UNSC. Are you aware of any other? And if that is so, is there a case referring otherwise? Wrong focus? It is about northern Cyprus. Whether thats TRNC or occupied territory is two different views. 3meandEr 17:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We are not international lawyers, and Wikipedia does not need to take a position in political controversies. If we report what each of the important groups asserts about the legal situation, I think we've done our job. EdJohnston 17:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the new intro

I mentioned some grievances earlier that I had with the new intro.

The new intro omits the Greek coup of 74 which triggered the invasion, whilst the previous intro did mention it.
If we're going to state the position of the RoC, UN, EU and UNSC, then should we not also state what Turkey and Turkish Cypriots think? I.e. That the RoC has not been legitimate since 1963 when Turkish Cypriots no longer took part in parliament. (Turkish MFA).
The third paragraph on EU accesion should mention the Annan plan and the fact that Turkish Cypriots voted for reunifiaction.
The last paragraph should mention that both Turkish and Greek Cypriots fled to their respective communities in 1974.

I will place an edited version here to see what editors think. --A.Garnet 10:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti, KKTC), commonly called Northern Cyprus, is a de facto independent republic[1][2][3] located in the north of Cyprus.

The TRNC declared its independence in 1983, nine years after a Greek coup attempting to annex the island to Greece triggered a Turkish Invasion of Cyprus. It has received diplomatic recognition only from Turkey, on which it is dependent for economic, political and military support.[4] The rest of the international community, including the United Nations and European Union, recognise the authority of the Republic of Cyprus over the whole island. The TRNC and Turkey maintain that the absence of Turkish Cypriot parliamentarians from the Republic of Cyprus means the latter no longer carries legitimate authority over the island. The Turkish Army maintains a large force in the TRNC, which the Greek Cypriot government regards as an illegal occupation force; [5] its presence has also been denounced in several United Nations Security Council resolutions.[6]

Attempts to reach a solution to the dispute have so far been unsuccessful. In 2004 a UN backed plan to reunite the island was accepted by Turkish Cypriots in a referendum, but rejected by Greek Cypriots. The unresolved dispute means that EU regulations and laws do not apply in Northern Cyprus and TRNC residents are not accorded the status of EU citizens. [7]

The TRNC consists of the northern third of Cyprus. From the tip of the Karpass Peninsula (Cape Apostolos Andreas) in the northeast, the TRNC's contiguous territory extends westward to Morphou Bay and Cape Kormakitis. An exclave at Kokkina/Erenköy marks the westernmost extent of the TRNC. The most southerly point controlled by the TRNC is the village of Louroujina/Akıncılar. The TRNC's territory is separated from Republic of Cyprus-controlled territory by a United Nations buffer zone.

The population of the TRNC consists overwhelmingly of Turkish Cypriots and immigrants from mainland Turkey; almost all of its former Greek Cypriot inhabitants fled or were expelled to the southern part of the island during the Turkish invasion of 1974. The republic's international isolation and the closure of the border with the south have meant that its economy is considerably less developed than that of the Republic of Cyprus.

I believe this version is more npov. However, I still prefer the old version since as I warned, to go into detail in the intro and include both pov's will make for a very bloated introduction. Let me know what you think. --A.Garnet 11:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that the "absence of Turkish Cypriot parliamentarians" was self-imposed, that the Annan Plan would restrict Greek Cypriots' right of return while allowing Turkish forces to remain, and that the Cypriot government and the European Union regard your Turkish "immigrants" as illegal settlers. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your first point, the UN Secretary General's report of 1965 (S/6426) recounts the attempt by Turkish Cypriot parliamentarians to return, but only if they agreed to constitutional amendments which abolished separate majorities. A UK House Foreign Affairs Committee report of 1986-87 states "in July 1965 the Turkish Cypriot members of the House of Representatives sought to resume their seats they were told by the President of the House that they could do so only if they accepted the legislative changes to the operation of the Constitution enacted in their absence by the Greek Cypriot majority.22" (the reference is to UN SG report S/6569). Michael Stephen, the source used in this article, states "The United Nations tried to mediate, but the Greek-Cypriots would not allow the Turkish-Cypriots to return unless they accepted fundamental changes to the Constitution (UN docs. S/5950, S/6569, S/7350)."

So no, I did not forget to mention what you state (without sources) for the simple reason that plenty of sources attest otherwise. As for your second point, since I've included no reason for why Turkish Cypriots accepted the plan, which would have resulted in loss of land, property and relocation for thousands, I do not see why we have to give an apologetic explanation for why Greek Cypriots rejected it. On the issue of immigrants, i'm not aware of an EU resolution calling Turkish migrants illegal settlers. --A.Garnet 13:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the A.Garnet and ChrisO versions

I read over the version proposed on the Talk page above by A.Garnet and tried to compare it to the 03:45 UTC 1 Nov version of the article by ChrisO.

The only two sections where I noticed differences were two particular paragraphs: One begins, "The TRNC declared its independence..." and the other "Attempts to reach a solution to the dispute have so far been unsuccessful.." I show the two version below for just the first section, with newlines added between sentences.

Here is A.Garnet :

The TRNC declared its independence in 1983, nine years after a Greek coup attempting to annex the island to Greece triggered a Turkish Invasion of Cyprus.

The rest of the international community, including the United Nations and European Union, recognise the authority of the Republic of Cyprus over the whole island. The TRNC and Turkey maintain that the absence of Turkish Cypriot parliamentarians from the Republic of Cyprus means the latter no longer carries legitimate authority over the island.

The Turkish Army maintains a large force in the TRNC, which the Greek Cypriot government regards as an illegal occupation force; [5] its presence has also been denounced in several United Nations Security Council resolutions.[6]

Here is User:ChrisO:

The republic was established in 1983, nine years after the island was divided between its Greek and Turkish populations following Turkey's invasion of Cyprus.

It has received diplomatic recognition only from Turkey, on which it is dependent for economic, political and military support.[4]

The United Nations, European Union and the rest of the international community (with the exception of Turkey) recognise the government of the Republic of Cyprus as being sovereign over the whole of Cyprus, including the territory of the TRNC.

The Turkish Army maintains a large force in the TRNC, which the Cypriot government regards as an illegal occupation force; [5] its presence has also been denounced in several United Nations Security Council resolutions.[6]

On the whole I prefer the ChrisO version of this section. Negotiation on details may be possible. Others should comment also. EdJohnston 16:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Un-acceptable, hopelesly pov just like the existing article, minimizing and silensing views other than the turkish view. i have explained why in great detail. repeadetly. the definition of northern Cyprus has two sides. northern Cyprus in the turkish view is a republic, illegal occupied territory in UN view!!!! why should the turkish view alone be represented in this article??????????

Northern Cyprus is officially the Republic of Cyprus illegaly occupied northern territory [12]. Turkey views the territory belong to an independent Republic self styled Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Following a Greek Cypriot coup against the President of Cyprus in July 1974 Turkey invaded claiming the Treaty of Guarantee signed in 1960 to preserve the independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus. [13] The coup was dissolved in July 1974, [14], and in August 1974 Turkey advanced to occupy 36% of the island nation [15] and to this day refuses the return of the territory to the Republic of Cyprus. Case of Loizidou v. Turkey (Article 50). Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus as a sovereign country [16] Nine years after the invasion, The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) was declared, in violation of multiple UN resolutions 550 541 that have since condemned the act. TRNC is dependent on and recognized only by Turkey in violation of the United Nations Charter. [17]. This illegal partition of the Republic of Cyprus extends from the tip of the Karpass Peninsula (Cape Apostolos Andreas) in the northeast, to Morphou Bay and Cape Kormakitis. The village of Kokkina/Erenköy marks the westernmost extent. The most southerly point being the village of Louroujina/Akıncılar. UNFICYP remains on the island to supervise ceasefire lines, maintain a buffer zone and undertake humanitarian activities. [18]

this intro has both views of facts side by side. while the existing lead is endorsing only one point of view. 3meandEr 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC) and by the way ChrisO if i make my case in the talk and then noone replies you have absolutely no right to threaten me. You are not impartial in this article, you have taken a position long ago. 3meandEr 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt ChrisO need to get consensus on this talk page before editing the lead? Double standards ? I am adding the referenced by a verifiable credible source sentence3meandEr 17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Article protected again

3meandEr (talk · contribs) has changed the lead of the article, despite the discussions on this talk page. I have reverted the article back to the way it was when it was last protected, on October 22. I have restored full page protection. Please use this talk page to come to a consensus, and when there is a consensus, please respect that consensus. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why are these two sentences violating NPOV? Can anyone respond please? "Northern Cyprus is officially the Republic of Cyprus illegaly occupied northern territory [12]. Turkey views the territory belong to an independent Republic self styled Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" Thanks 3meandEr 17:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside NPOV for a moment, they are both grotesque violations of English grammar. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This has already been answered under #How about this addition to the lead?. You are wasting everyone's time here. -- ChrisO 11:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. With the pages and pages of discussions and advice that clearly address every question or issue you raise, you come back again with exactly the same messy sentences you added earlier. Your behavior here is unwarranted. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please help decide on the wording of the lead

Recently an editor unilaterally changed the lead, in a way that seems to have no support by anyone else on this Talk page, and this was the occasion for re-protecting the article. While the admins mull over their options, I see no reason why consensus development of the lead can't continue. The two items in User:A.Garnet's version which are missing from User:ChrisO's are these: (1) mention that a Greek coup preceded the Turkish invasion, (2) claim by Turkey that the Republic of Cyprus government is not legitimate in the absence of the Turkish parliamentarians. I don't mind either of these being added to ChrisO's version. Would other editors be OK with that? EdJohnston 15:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My version also contains some slight rewording (flows better imo) and the Annan plan of 2004. --A.Garnet 11:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I object to both ChrisO and Garnet leads. They are definately not NPOV. I have explained to all of you why. More than once 3meandEr 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to either addition - they seem reasonable enough. -- ChrisO 11:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't you join both versions somehow? _{El Greco}^(talk) 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I think the Garnet and ChrisO versions are very close, and I don't object to Garnet's style changes, so I suggest we go with Garnet's version. Let's invite User:A.Garnet to make a new complete draft of the article in some place like User:A.Garnet/Draft. Then let's ask for more comments here on his draft. EdJohnston 17:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, but what I pasted above was my draft. If editors are in agreement, which you and Chris O seem to be, then we can paste it in. --A.Garnet 13:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead replaced. I put A.Garnet's lead into the article, per the consensus here. Since I didn't have the actual wikitext to paste, I may have made some mistakes on referencing. Here are two missing ones:

"Which the Greek Cypriot government regards as an illegal occupation force <I don't know what reference was intended for this>
"The unresolved dispute means that EU regulations and laws do not apply in Northern Cyprus and TRNC residents are not accorded the status of EU citizens." Seems like this is a very specific assertion and might need an actual court case to settle. Is such a reference available? I left the sentence out pending a reference. EdJohnston 16:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have tweaked the wording in the lead to avoid further controversy. While the Turks would argue that the absence of the Turkish parliamentarians renders the Republic of Cyprus illegitimate, the Greeks would argue that it is in fact a self-imposed parliamentary boycott and that the Republic has had to continue to function without them. Furthermore, the phrase "Greek Cypriot government" (or administration) is commonly used by the Turks to deprecate the self-identifying and internationally recognised Republic of Cyprus and should be avoided. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 19:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kekrops, thanks for your response. Since you are concerned that the boycott by the Turkish parliamentarians is self-imposed, do you have any comment on A.Garnet's assertion that the Turkish deputies would not have been allowed back into the parliament without signing a constitutional amendment? This claim is sourced to a UN document, one that is surely reliable here. EdJohnston 20:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if that's the case, you'd have to go into why they abandoned their seats in parliament in the first place (a direct order from Ankara), why the amendments were sought by Makarios (the constitution was cumbersome and unworkable), etc. Far too much detail for the lead. We could also add Turkey's refusal to open its ports to Cypriot vessels despite its commitments to the European Union. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

2 issues:

The whole of the island is considered to be part of the EU. However, in the northern part of the island, in the areas in which the Government of Cyprus does not exercise effective control, EU legislation is suspended in line with Protocol 10 of the Accession Treaty 2003. This means for example that these areas are outside the customs and fiscal territory of the EU. However, the suspension does not affect the personal rights of Turkish Cypriots as EU citizens. They are citizens of a Member State, the Republic of Cyprus, even though they may live in the areas not under government control.[19]

and

The Secretary-General of the United Nations in 1965, described the policy of the Turkish Cypriot leaders in this way: "The Turkish Cypriot leaders have adhered to a rigid stand against any measures which might involve having members of the two communities live and work together, or which might place Turkish Cypriots in situations where they would have to acknowledge the authority of Government agents. Indeed, since the Turkish Cypriot leadership is committed to physical and geographical separation of the communities as a political goal, it is not likely to encourage activities by Turkish Cypriots which may be interpreted as demonstrating the merits of an alternative policy. The result has been a seemingly deliberate policy of self-segregation by the Turkish".(Report S/6426 10.6.65)3meandEr 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I myself would change the following statement by removing the bolded part, because only the first half is true according to the reference found by 3meandEr above:

"The unresolved dispute means that EU regulations and laws do not apply in Northern Cyprus and TRNC residents are not accorded the status of EU citizens."

I'd replace it with:

"The unresolved dispute means that EU regulations and laws do not apply in Northern Cyprus."

On the other hand, I believe that A.Garnet's statement about the Turkish parliamentarians remains true even if the parliamentarians left on their own initiative. So I would restore this sentence by Garnet:

The TRNC and Turkey maintain that the absence of Turkish Cypriot parliamentarians from the Republic of Cyprus means the latter no longer carries legitimate authority over the island.

Any comments by others? EdJohnston 04:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but i've reverted the intro to the version that was agreed upon. If Kekrops is not satisfied with the intro, then I expect him to make the same effort as we did in discussing it before unilaterally making changes. I answered his queries above (with sources) and my response was ignored. This is not the way to edit a controversial article.

As for his points I will answer them. The sentence about the absence of parliamentarians is not meant to be an explanation of the Cyprus dispute, it simply meant to describe the various positions held as part of this dispute, any more expansion can be done in the article. The Greek Cypriot view that the TRNC is illegal is included, there is no reason why the position of TRNC should not also be included. Secondly, the phrase "Greek Cypriot governemnt" is not meant to deprecate the RoC, its just a common way to distinguish between two administrations. A search on google will show theBBC, NY Times,CNN, IHT, Countrystudies and Washington Times all use the term.

If you still disagree then please discuss the edits first. --A.Garnet 10:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

But it's not just the parliamentarians; the Turks have boycotted all institutions of the Republic, from the vice-presidency to the civil service. Focussing solely on the House of Representatives makes no sense. A more appropriate wording would be something along the lines of The Turkish Cypriots have boycotted the institutions of the Republic of Cyprus since a constitutional crisis in the early 1960s led to intercommunal violence... In any case, that information belongs in the history section, not the lead. As for the issue of the name of the Republic, see WP:NCON. Wikipedia prefers self-identifying names, which is why the "TRNC" is allowed to exist without quotation marks. No double standards. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It would have been better for Kekrops to wait for full consensus. However the current state of the lead looks OK to me. Garnet's point about the Turkish parliamentarians is explained later in the article. And we got rid of the claim that Northern Cypriots are not citizens of the EU. I hope someone (Garnet?) has the reference for the ROC saying that the Turkish Army is an illegal occupation force, since that reference got lost in my cutting and pasting of his plain text. Since the phrase 'Greek Cypriot government' sounds non-neutral to me I am glad we no longer use that phrase. EdJohnston 19:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Commonly called by whom?

The lead now begins with: The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti, KKTC), commonly called Northern Cyprus.... [ ]. Commonly called by whom? Isnt "commonly called" not NPOV and weasly ? 3meandEr 16:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess the new title has to be justified somehow. But you have a point, sources would help. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. There are two views of what northern Cyprus is. The current lead defines only the one. Undue weight must be given for both views in my opinion. 3meandEr 20:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Commonly called such in English-language sources. You can find numerous examples here. In fact, there are so many examples from the last few weeks alone that I don't think it's necessary to provide a specific reference for this - it's common knowledge, like the German Democratic Republic being commonly called East Germany. -- ChrisO 22:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

commonly called northern Cyprus, is also the northern territory of the Republic of Cyprus in the english language. It is a geographic designation and TRNC is not called so by both views. For instance, Turkey was asked to compensate Loizidou in Loizidou Vs Turkey because of "denial of access to property in northern Cyprus was imputable to Turkey is res judicata – applicant entitled to compensation".Case of Loizidou v. Turkey notice the geographic designation as the court does not recognize TRNC but uses the phrase "northern Cyprus" as a geographic designation, instead finds applicant entitled to compensation by Turkey. There are 2 views of what northern Cyprus is. 3meandEr 23:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If it refers to the north of either the island of Cyprus or the Republic of Cyprus, north is written with a small n. When it refers to the TRNC, it is written with a capital N. This article uses "Northern Cyprus", with a capital N, thereby clearly referring to the TRNC. Aec·is·away ^talk 16:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if that is so, I dont think that a casual reader can make that distinction perhaps we can let the readers know out front, or create another article with a small "n" called "northern Cyprus". Either way to be NPOV we need to represent both views in an impartial way 3meandEr 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well? 3meandEr 17:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Should we add in italics that this article refers to TRNC, and not to the geographic northern territory of the Republic of Cyprus as viewed by the international law? (the second view). Please let me know what you think. 3meandEr 17:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please also have a look at this Talk:Northern_Cyprus#How_about_this_addition_to_the_lead.3F 3meandEr 17:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we add in italics on the Cyprus article, that it refers to RoC, and not the island in the Mediterrenian Sea as viewed by the Turkish and TRNC law (plus all the world of course). Please let me know what you think.

As you did experience a while ago, POV is not welcome in wikipedia. And my offer actually makes even more sense (A disambig. page could be useful for Cyprus, since nobody would type in "Northern Cyprus" awaiting to get a wikipedia article about a "geographical region" but that quite possibly could have happened for an island). Actually we could even use the Taiwan model on the Cyprus page, since the situation there also has similarities. What do you think? Kerem Özcan 17:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Kerem, Cyprus is officially known as the Republic of Cyprus, an island nation with its northern territory under occupation. As such it is known by Australia Group,CN, CE, CFSP, EBRD, EIB, EU, FAO, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICCt, ITUC, IDA, IFAD, IFC, IHO,ILO, IMF, IMO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, IPU, ITU, MIGA, NAM, NSG, OPCW, OSCE, PCA, UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNHCR, UNIDO, UPU, WCL, WCO, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WToO, WTO. [20] [21]3meandEr 18:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, but not by Turkey and TRNC. See, that's exactly what I meant. Wikipedia can not, and should not, put a view superior to another one. Kerem Özcan 18:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is about northern Cyprus. The title does not say TRNC 3meandEr 18:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

According to your point of view, the Cyprus article should be about Cyprus. Since the title doesn't say Republic of Cyprus.Kerem Özcan 18:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone who reads the current lead of this article will be quite clear that there is (a) a land area in the north, and (b) a government established on that land that not everyone recognizes. In common usage 'Northern Cyprus' seems to either mean (a) or (b), depending on context, and the reader can figure it out. I am not seeing a confusion that deserves more work on our part. EdJohnston 18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Kerem, then the Turkey article should say "Republic of Turkey", for Italy Italian Republic, for France French republic etc 3meandEr 18:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ed, no! The article's title is Northern Cyprus and the lead begins with "Turkish republic of Northern Cyprus..[..]" and the "commonly called..[..]" phrase rules that thought out3meandEr 18:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Appereantly you didn't get it, I was making Reductio ad absurdum. Plus your Italy and France examples are irrelevant, since they do not constitute a geographical meaning by themselves, unlike Cyprus. Kerem Özcan 18:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

ofcourse i got what you meant, that is why france and italy are 100% relevant as Turkey is because that is how country article are in wiki. If we are to dedicate an article on "northern Cyprus" then that article should mention both views 3meandEr 18:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Then the Cyprus article should also mention both views (We are back to point 0).

And let me tell you why they are not relevant; "Cyprus" -by itself- can mean either the island, or the abbrivation for the Republic of Cyprus. France and Italy, however, are just the abbrivations of the official names. Nobody would think of anything else other than the political entities when you use those names. However, the word "Cyprus" is used by many to refer to the island (And this is not limited to Turkey and/or TRNC. Question of the day: What do we mean by "Cyprus", when we are talking about "the British bases on Cyprus"? a)the island b)the political entity? Kerem Özcan 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Kerem, that is not correct. The british bases are there exactly because of the Republic of Cyprus it is based on the treaty of establishment of the Republic. Check it out. That refutes your argument. Here have a look at this Appendix O of the treaty of establishment of the Republic of Cyprus3meandEr 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Might be right. I'm not an expert on the status of British bases in Cyprus. Let me give you another, much simpler question then;

"Which is an island on the meditteranian see?"

a)Cyprus

b)Rhodes

c)Crete

d)All

Rhodes = Crete = Cyprus. Island = Island = Island. All are geographical entities, and not political. Capische?

Enough demagogy, Kerem Özcan 19:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Kerem, Cyprus is officially known as the Republic of Cyprus, although an island it is also an island country with its northern territory under occupation. As such it is known by Australia Group,CN, CE, CFSP, EBRD, EIB, EU, FAO, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICCt, ITUC, IDA, IFAD, IFC, IHO,ILO, IMF, IMO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, IPU, ITU, MIGA, NAM, NSG, OPCW, OSCE, PCA, UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNHCR, UNIDO, UPU, WCL, WCO, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WToO, WTO. [22] [23]. Crete and Rhodes are not countries your argument is irrelevant.Capische? 3meandEr 22:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with your suggestion about the italic text, 3meandEr. The very first sentence of the article already states "The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti, KKTC), commonly called Northern Cyprus, is a de facto independent republic, located in the north of Cyprus." That makes it clear that the article is about a political entity located in the north of the island of Cyprus, and not about a geographic designation. This makes an italic text as you have proposed redundant. A ecis^Brievenbus 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok then how else do you suggest to treat the issue and provide undue weight to both views? having a title a "northern Cyprus" and then linking the turkish purpose of the article to TRNC by commonly called removes undue weight.3meandEr 19:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How else do you suggest to treat the issue and provide undue weight to both views on the Cyprus Article? having a title a "Cyprus" and then linking the Greek Cypriot purpose of the article to Republic of Cyprus by commonly called removes undue weight. Kerem Özcan 19:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of 3meandEr's argument. We're not putting "undue weight" on one side when we state that the TRNC is often called "Northern Cyprus" in English - we're stating a fact. The English nomenclature has no bearing on the legitimacy or otherwise of the TRNC. It reminds me of a debate that we had a long time ago about the name of Kosovo - the fact that the English name for the place is the same as the Serbian name makes Albanians unhappy, but it's simply a fact of life. This is, after all, the English Wikipedia, so conventional English usage trumps any local political sensitivities. -- ChrisO 20:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why Cyprus should stay as Roc, and Northern Cyprus as TRNC. Regards, Kerem Özcan 20:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course we are putting "undue weight" on one side when this articles title is northern Cyprus and only one view is represented as the lead begins with "Turkish Republic of ..." while northern Cyprus is not the Turkish republic of Cyprus. northern Cyprus does not equal nor is it commonly called by all views as the TRNC. If this articles title was not northern Cyprus then there would not be this problem of WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight. There are multiple credible, verifiable sources which state that northern Cyprus is simply the northern territory of the Republic of Cyprus and not TRNC. Viewing the northern territory of the Republic of Cyprus as TRNC is POV. One of the two. Another view which is silenced states that northern Cyprus is the northern area of the republic of Cyprus. If this article is about TRNC then it should be named TRNC otherwise both views need be reflected according to WP:NPOV. Regards, 3meandEr 22:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course we are putting "undue weight" on one side when this articles title is Cyprus and only one view is represented as the lead begins with "Cyprus, officially the Republic of Cyprus" while Cyprus is not the Republic of Cyprus... (Somebody should put an end to this comedy) Kerem Özcan 22:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Isnt kerem now a disruptive editor? 3meandEr 23:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The two of you, cut it. This is an encyclopedia, not a boxing match. If you can't think of anything sensible or relevant to say, then don't say anything at all. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I am sorry for my share. Should have kept my temper. Kerem Özcan 23:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

@3meandEr: no view is being silenced. This article presents the views of relevant institutions, and the UN certainly is a relevant institution. But those views are not the be all and end all. The article (rightly) states that TRNC has declared itself independent, and it (rightly) states that only Turkey is the only country or institution to have recognized the TRNC as independent, and it (rightly) states that the EU and the UN "recognise the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the whole island." So everything you want to see included in the article is already in the article. As far as the name is concerned: if "Northern Cyprus" is pov, as you state, what alternative would you suggest? Remember that this article discusses the political entity located in the north of the island of Cyprus, more so than the area for which that entity claims sovereignty. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "Remember that this article discusses the political entity located in the north of the island of Cyprus, more so than the area for which that entity claims sovereignty".

If that is to be the scope of this article then the articles title should be something in the lines of the essence, balanced and neutral, i.e. "Cyprus area de facto administered by the Turkish Cypriot community". 3meandEr 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See, unfortunately that wouldn't qualify for NPOV, because according to Turkey, and more importanly according to TRNC, there's no "Republic of Cyprus area" to begin with (since RoC is not recognized) Plus, again according to those countries, TRNC is de jure administered by the Turkish Cypriots. Calling this article Cyprus area de facto administered by the Turkish Cypriot community", is something like calling Cyprus article " Former Cyprus area de facto administered by the Greek Cypriot community". Regards, Kerem Özcan 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What hypocrisy, the perpetrator shouting help me i killed my father and now i am an orphan!! 3meandEr 16:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no Cyprus republic says Kerem it was dissolved in 1963!. However the treaty of guarantee( a package Turkey signed in 1960 along with the treaty of establishment of Cyprus republic) was still in place in 1974 for her to invade! and create the TRNC. And now, he says, Cyprus does not exist de jure for Turkey. Recognizing in 1974 (for that summer i suppose only) the treaty of guarantee but not the package that was signed, not the Cyprus republic. as if the treaty of Guarantee was drafted to secure TRNC and not the Republic of Cyprus. Can someone please stop this? 3meandEr 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, do not say or advocate anything. I am just trying to keep this place NPOV. Turkish Cypriots can call their country whatever they want. I just don't think that we're supposed to implement a foxy article title, just because TRNC lacks general recognition. (See; NKR, Transnistria or simply the naming dispute of Republic of Macedonia)If you have that much problem with the title "Northern Cyprus" (Which I don't understand why, since you were one of the supporters of the change), I think it's also OK to go back to the previous title "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". Regards, Kerem Özcan 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriots can call anything whatever they want, but Wikipedia has rules that all, even turkish editors have to abide. The title of this article is "Northern Cyprus" and the way it is now it is 100% POV. Both views need be stated. The second view is currently silenced. northern Cyprus is not, does not equal TRNC. For instance, chrisO reverts the title here, from "northern Cyprus" to "TRNC" saying that this article is about a political entity and not a geographical area. [24]. TRNC is also POV though. I supported the title change for i hoped that both views would be included with the new title. What i am proving now. -- 3meandEr (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well? Agreed? 3meandEr (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, certainly not for my share. I just wanted to avoid repeating the same stuff over and over. But since you asked, I'm going to do it once more. See, you say there are two views about what Northern Cyprus is. One is used as a abbrivation for the political entity and other is a geographic area. To begin with, I don't really think that Northern Cyprus really constitutes a significant geographic meaning, say like Northern America. Hence, nobody will type in "Northern Cyprus" awaiting to get a description about a geographical area.

Secondly, and more importantly, the same problem also exists for the Cyprus article, and actually is even more relevant, since Cyprus is also the name of the island (Thus a significant geographical entity). You can see what I mean by looking at other examples such as Taiwan or Hawaii. So Cyprus article also doesn't reflect both views, since TRNC and Turkey see Cyprus only as a geographical entity, and not a political one. And according to your proposal, if we need to reflect both views, then Cyprus article also needs a disambiguation page or some notice in italics that says "This article is about Republic of Cyprus, and not the island of Cyprus".

But I seriously don't think we need such stuff. Just reading the first couple sentences will make it clear for the reader anyways. No need to make things complicated, or foxy as I mentioned in my previous post.

Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Have already responded to this line of thought adequately, last time you brought the same arguments you ended up apologizing for the fact that you had nothing constructive to say. In fact you were patronizing my words in the end. Look, we can work this out, the title is pov if both views are not mentioned. TRNC is not commonly called northern Cyprus period. TRNC is commonly called northern Cyprus by a specific POV. Work with me 3meandEr (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I apologized for being distruptive to other editors, not for having nothing constructive to say. And I disagree that you managed to respond my quary, otherwise I wouldn't be saying the same thing over and over. The view by United Nations or any other country/organization etc is not the decisive factor in Wikipedia. So if you claim that Northern Cyprus is TRNC only according a specific POV, same thing should also apply for Cyprus, since Cyprus does not mean Republic of Cyprus according to other point of view, namely TRNC and Turkey. Thus -with your logic- Cyprus article would also be POV since it's not mentioning the both views. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Kerem, try to understand that when two countries have a dispute they may seek a remedy at a courthouse that they see as predominant, and that is called international law. The international court will have judges from many nationalities including turks. It is this international law which sees northern Cyprus not being TRNC. you are referring to courts of turkey both in turkey and in cyprus (one and the same if you ask me). Why would you equate the two? Turkey is not what you think it is for Kurds, should we do the same for Turkey, disambiguation page ? 3meandEr (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am not advocating the disambiguation pages, you do. It's also apparent that you are not very well informed about what you call "International law". International Court of Justice, apart from non of its 15 members being from Turkey, has never had a case about Cyprus. Plus it's the Judicial part of the United nations, which takes us back to the step one. Yes, I would equate the two in terms of reliablity, and since this is an encyclopedia (and not a place to decide which view is superior) both views are equally credible. Present views, make clear who says them, source them, and let the readers have their own opinion. Kerem Özcan (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Section break

In the above discussion whether 'Northern Cyprus' is ambiguous, I don't perceive that any other editors have supported 3meandEr's concern about the problem. In my view, there is no Talk page consensus that there is any problem that needs fixing. I also don't notice any discussion of weasel wording, which in my view would require that particular words or expressions be singled out as examples. Lacking any apparent discussion of the weasel issue (aside from 3meandEr's lengthy views on the topic in an earlier period) I don't think the 'weasel' tag that 3meandEr put on the article is justified. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that so? Then can you notice that concensus was reach on renaming the article because of my former and not present consent? 3meandEr (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the 'POV-title' and 'weasel' tags from the article, since the views of 3meandEr on those issues have been extensively discussed here, and have attracted no support. I also note the wording put in this editor's block log by User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise, which suggests to me that he is to stay away from edit warring on this article. Since the earlier contretemps 3meandEr had stayed away from editing the article itself. I am leaving a note for that administrator about the discussion here.

It also bothers me that 3meandEr continues to use up Talk page bandwidth on issues where he has no support, apparently without modifying his views in the slightest degree. It does not seem to me that this represents good-faith participation in the Talk page, and indicates that his time might be better spent elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

3meandEr, could you answer one question? If Northern Cyprus is a pov title for this article according to you, what would be an npov title, consistent with the naming conventions? Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? A ecis^Brievenbus 11:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer the article to be called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. We're talking about a political entity which is commonly associated with a geographical appellation, not the other way round. Compare Republic of China/Taiwan or Republic of Macedonia/Macedonia. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Aecis i have already responded to your query here and i truly believe that that suggestion covers both POVs in a balanced manner. However in light of the fierce support that the current POV status receives (i have made one edit and immediately someone jumped in to say that i am edit warring and that he is bothered for i am using too much bandwidth!!!!) i am willing to compromise with ChrisO suggestion above. Aecis please note that this is also consistent with naming conventions. Also it would be nice to know the following: If "Israeli-occupied territories" is consistent then why "Turkish occupied Cyprus" instead of "TRNC" is not? 3meandEr (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Because even to Israel, those lands belong to other countries. TRNC, on the other hand, claims sovereignity on the Northern Cyprus. You can use the term you're suggesting for pre 1983, but not post 1983. Kerem Özcan (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Does Kerem speak on behalf of all? You all agree with Kerem? 3meandEr (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kerem that Northern Cyprus is better than Turkish occupied Cyprus. Try searching Google Books for Turkish occupied Cyprus, Turkish republicof Northern Cyprus, Northern Cyprus. The last variant is used much rarer... Alæxis_¿question? 18:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Turkish occupied Cyprus" is a description, and a disputable one at that. "Northern Cyprus" is a more neutral descriptive term (albeit that it's shorthand for a longer name). "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is the proper name of a political entity, for which "Northern Cyprus" is used as an abbreviated term. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

real estate

I wouldn't be very surprised if this info is true, however currently provided references are clearly insufficient to claim that 'properties belonging to Greek Cypriots and which are not currently occupied, are being sold as second homes...' Alæxis_¿question? 20:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nakhchivan

I hope users will stop adding recognition from Nakhchivan as it is irrelevant to that sentence. The sentence clearly states that Turkey is alone in the international community in recognising Northern Cyprus. Nakhchivan is a part of Azerbaijan and thus not a member of the international community. As long as Azerbaijan does not offer recognition, there is no relevance to what Nakhchivan does. JdeJ (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this fact could be added there... Alæxis_¿question? 09:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I bet it will be deleted in there too. I stated that Nakhchivan is an "autonomous" republic, however it is deleted (instead of editing the sentence. A proof of malice). Maybe we should just nevermind this fact... Kaygtr (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will delete this from that article. This may not be important enough to be included in the main article about TRNC but if we have a special article about its foreign relations this info should absolutely be there. Alæxis_¿question? 15:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a passage about this issue in Nakhchivan's own article. It says that Nakhchivan's parliament passed a non-binding declaration in the late 1990s asking Azerbaijan to recognize TRNC. The wording of this passage is quite legalistic, and might require a more mainstream source to determine what really happened. (The REGNUM agency is the only place I could find a report). The headline of the REGNUM report seems to be editorializing freely: Europe, the US, Turkey and Azerbaijan recognize the “unrecognized” Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. If Nakhchivan maintains its own relations with foreign countries, this point is not made clear in our Nakhchivan article. Since it is such a murky issue, its importance remains to be shown, and no exact date for the parliament's action was given, I wouldn't insist that we keep any mention of this in the encyclopedia. But the status quo is OK. The TRNC's article doesn't require changing, so far as I can see. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Island country

Like it or not, the territory is internationally recognised as part of the island country that is the Republic of Cyprus. All other articles on "de facto independent states" mention the internationally recognised states to which they belong, so why should northern Cyprus be an exception? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the inclusion of "island country" was never agreed upon in the large debate over the intro. Second, the presence of a defacto state, two sovereign British bases and a UN Green Line makes the term questionable. Thirdly, the term is pov, since it implies from the very beginning that Turkish Cypriots claims to statehood are false. Your recent edits have made what should be a simple statement of fact where this entity is located i.e. "located in the north of Cyprus" into a statement about its legitimacy i.e. "located in the north of the internationally recognised island country of Cyprus"

Can you see where the pov is more visible? I'll ask other editors to comment. --A.Garnet (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But your implication is that Cyprus is simply a disputed geographic (and not political) entity, which is clearly not an accurate description of the situation. The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by every country in the world (except Turkey), and, crucially, so is its sovereignty over the entire island. Hence, "island country" is the POV of everyone except the Turks. As for the Green Line and the British bases, who's being pedantic now? The UN does not claim sovereignty over the territory of the buffer zone, and the British bases are akin to Guantánamo Bay, which doesn't make Cuba any less of an island country. You may lament the fact that mentioning the Republic of Cyprus renders the Turkish Cypriots' claims to statehood false, but that applies to every unrecognised state, not just here. To give you an example, the article on the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic does not describe it as a "de facto independent republic in the southern Caucasus"; it describes it as "officially part of Azerbaijan". ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the phrase 'island country' should remain out of the article. It was hard enough to get agreement on the compromise language which is there now, and this change could keep us busy for a few more months, in an unproductive way. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain to me what part of "internationally recognised island country" is incorrect? And should we change the location descriptions of all other unrecognised states accordingly, so as not to be accused of undermining their claims to statehood? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "in the north of the island of Cyprus" is just attempting to state where the territorial claims of the TRNC are situated. Can you find a better way of describing the geographic area where the TRNC is physically located? It would be clumsy to use latitude and longitude. And what inadequacy do you perceive in the later sentence:

The rest of the international community, including the United Nations and European Union, recognise the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the whole island.

EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

ΚέκρωΨ· For once i agree with you Rockybiggs (talk) 11:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems that not everyone does, however. The neutral wording "in the north of Cyprus" has not been challenged by any other editor, so I've undone that edit. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken page move

As of this moment, the page is sitting at 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cypru.' I'm hoping this was a mistake. I was going to move it back, but then got worried that I could have the redirect mixed up with the page itself. Does anyone remember which is supposed to be the page, and which the redirect, betweeen 'Northern Cyprus' and 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus'? If you do try to fix this, please do it right, or an admin will have to untangle it later. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Separatist

I think this description is controversial, regardless of what the sourced book is supposedly saying. Just thinking about the fact that turks voted in favor of reunification in April 24 referendum makes the term odd to me. So I just googled the keywords and here I found a passage by Talat, the president of TRNC; "Talat said that the results of April 24th simultaneous referenda proved that Turkish Cypriots were not separatist and noted..." I don't think you can get any more official than that. So I suggest the removal of the term. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the interpretation of the result of a referendum by a single politician is sufficient to discredit (for lack of a better word) the use of separatist in this article altogether. Also, TRNC has declared independence; you can't get much more separatist than that. I have no strong opinion either way though. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well as I said, to my point of view you don't even need an interpretation. This was not just an ordinary referendum of something else. It was the referendum for reunification, in which the majority of the Turkish population voted in favor. Plus declaration of independence took almost ten years. Before that Turkish cypriots unilaterally declared a Turkish federate state under the republic of Cyprus. Yet I don't have a strong opinion on the subject either. I bet given the guarantee of international recognition and lifting of the embargoes, most of the the Turkish cypriots would pick the separatist option. I just don't think that it's true in the current context. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. International recognition would weaken the argument that it is a separatist régime, not strengthen it, simply because it would be acknowledged as a legitimate state in its own right, not the renegade corner of another. In fact, it is precisely the current context, i.e. the fact that it is universally recognized (except by Turkey) as part of the Republic of Cyprus, that makes it separatist. And yes, the Turkish Cypriots may have voted in favour of the Annan Plan, but they haven't otherwise renounced their claim to sovereignty over northern Cyprus, nor have they recognized the authority of the Republic of Cyprus. Finally, haven't they already picked the separatist option, in 1983? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's WP:OR for us to ascribe separatist tendencies to the TRNC people unless reliable sources have described them that way. We are not supposed to make inferences; we merely summarize. Since the word 'separatist' is the opinion of Christopher Hitchens, maybe we should attribute that description to him. If anyone has access to the cited 1984 work by Hitchens, maybe they could describe here what it actually says. Including the word 'separatist' in the opening sentence is very prominent placement, considering that it might just be an editorial comment by Hitchens, one that he wrote 24 years ago. Does anyone know if he still holds that opinion? EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the word "separatist" is ascribed to the "state", not the people, and in this case is arguably more accurate than the word "independent". Original research? I've seen it described as "breakaway" or "separatist" in countless news reports and publications. The "TRNC" made a unilateral declaration of independence in 1983, which has not been recognized by any country in the world except the one that created it. Furthermore, the very basis of its creation was the idea that the Turkish Cypriots could not and should not live side by side with the Greek Cypriots, which is why the Greeks were purged from the area it controlled. If you know of any other meanings of the word separatism, please share them with us. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the entry in Wikipedia for separatism is a bit different: Separatism is a term usually applied to describe the attitudes or motivations of those seeking independence or "separation" of their land or region from the country that governs them. If Wikipedia is correct in saying it is a matter of 'attitudes and motivations' then those who want to keep separatism in the article should be looking for reliable sources on the attitudes and motivations of the northerners. Do you consider Hitchens (1984) a reliable data point for that? Do you have access to the full text of what he said? If not, then 'separatist' just seems to be a tautological restatement of the fact that the northern republic was formed as a breakaway from the south. We already knew that, so 'separatist' doesn't add any new information. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You already knew that, but what about the casual reader who knows nothing about Cyprus? Again, I stress that the word is ascribed to the "TRNC", not the Turkish Cypriots, who can't all be painted with the same brush. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute its usage. The problem is Turkish Cypriots not only reject the South's authority, but also reject the existance of the Republic of Cyprus altogether. Since the RoC was found on equal political partnership, and since the parliament and vice-presidency have been vacant of TC's since 1963, they consider the RoC an illegitimate entity. To call the TRNC a "separatist" entity makes the article take a position as to who carries legitimate authrotity.

Besides this, looking at other de facto independent country articles, I fail to see use of the term separatist. --A.Garnet (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is the rest of the world disagrees. The notion that the Republic of Cyprus is an "illegitimate entity" is the minority view par excellence. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the point is this is a political dispute and decisions regarding recognition are primarily political in nature. The reason the world continued to deal with GC's after the 1963 violence was because the Security Council said it should do so ("The Security Council continued, following the breakdown of the 1960 constitution, to treat what was now effectively a Greek Cypriot administration as the properly constituted government of the Republic of Cyprus..." See Hannay, Cyprus search for a solution, p.5.). This does not mean the "world disagrees" with TC's, only that GC's succeeded in securing international political recognition and TC's did not. Events should be explained within the context of a political dispute, and words such as "separatist" which discriminate between views should not be used. --A.Garnet (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't know about the other arguments but I'm with EdJohnston in this. The word separatist describes an intention, an ultimate goal. So I think the usage is controversial while even the political parties in TRNC classify their policies as "separatist" or "unionist". Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the "ultimate goal" of the "TRNC" is actually to dissolve itself? If so, why is its purportedly "pro-solutionist" leadership seeking international recognition as a separate country? Or is that their idea of a "solution"? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest them to do? Wait for another 30 years until UN comes with another plan that Greek Cypriots might also like and meanwhile try to survive dependent on Turkey on almost every aspect? I am not saying that Turkish Cypriots are dying to dissolve themselves in, I'm just saying that the term is controversial. What's so hard to understand with that; The Cypriots are given a chance of reunification and the TRNC voted yes. Would the people of an entity with ultimate separatist intentions such as Kosovo, NKR, Tibetans, Chechens etc. do the same? Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I renew my suggestion. Here here and here are some other sources that labels TRNC as not separatist. Once more, I'm not saying that that's the case, but the term is controversial. Also, I wouldn't have any problems with replacing the term with breakaway republic by the way. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's because english is not my native language, but to me separatist sounds as if TRNC has an ultimate goal of separating itself from ROC and found a new, internationally recognized country, in which a reunification is not an option. Breakaway on the other hand, (again to me), is a statement. It's a breakaway enclave due to some consequences, and we don't know what's going to be happen. The options of solution (if there are any) include reunification, separation, federative republic or whatever... So once more, if my confusion is due to English not being my native language just tell me. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to remove the term separatist because

a)It is a loaded term which makes a judgment as to who is the legitimate state on the island rather than letting the facts speak for themselves.
b)From looking at the other partially or unrecognised states articles, I cannot see the use of the term "separatist" in their intro.
c)We arrived at the into (without the use of "separatist") after long discussion, therefore significant changes such as the inclusion of a loaded term should always be discussed here first. It is obvious from the above that a number of editors, including myself, disagree to its usage. --A.Garnet (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not very important question imho but I'm also against the word 'separatist' in the lead. I think that the intro makes the status of the entity absolutely clear to any reader so the word 'separatist' doesn't add any real info. Alæxis_¿question? 15:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrative divisions

A while ago (well over a year at least) I tried on several occasions to made some changes to the list of place names. I wanted the entry to have the actual place names in use now (i.e. their current Turkish names) with their original Greek names taking second place. However my edits were repeated removed by those wanting to have the original Greek names placed first. I now see that things have gone completely the other way, with only the Turkish names appearing. However, I don't see any discussion about this change and I still think my version was both the most neutral and the most useful. So, I've re-inserted the original names, placing them in brackets after their current Turkish ones. Meowy 16:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to have them that way. I hope other editors will express an opinion here, to get a consensus, since I imagine there will be future reverts as well. So Meowy's proposal is "[[Turkish place name]] (Greek place name)" for the places in TRNC. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We have to remember that "administrative division" refers to an official entity (not a city or town) and official language of TRNC is Turkish. Kaygtr (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't perceive the force of your argument. Take a look at Thessaloniki#Name, which gives the name of the city in five languages, including Turkish. According to your principle, since Greek is the official language of Greece, you would like to remove mention of the names in all these other languages? EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not the same thing. Greek names are placed in the linked articles, already. I do not remove Greek names from articles. We are talking about "Administrative divisions of Northern Cyprus". These are the names of the provinces, not the cities. Therefore I revert. Kaygtr (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

City name and province name are quite different. One can name a city in various languages, but province leads to an "official entity" and must be named in official languages of the state. As you know, official language of TRNC is Turkish. I can call Thessaloniki as Selanik in daily life, but I can not use "Kebabland" instead of "Macedonia Province" of Greece. Simple. I do not remove Greek names of cities. Kaygtr (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The names are wikilinked to entries on cities, not provinces. And the names of those entries are their Greek names, not the Turkish ones. Kaygtr, you are as wrong here as those who repeatedly removed the Turkish names when I tried to add them. Wikipedia exists to inform, and a reader would expect the list of current names to indicate their former names, especially since their former names are still the most commonly found names. Meowy 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right in this point. Then we should create articles for related provinces, and give detailed information. Thanks. Kaygtr (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Illegal state

Isn't it NPOV to call this an Illegal state? For example the rationale for keeping the 'Republic of Macedonia' article with that name is that "most" people refer to it like that. But when it gets to this that no country other than the one that invaded it accepts it, Greeks are still told sod off, we're still going to call this non-illegal. What's going on wikipedia. --Leladax (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Has it been declared illegal? When? By who? (please note that there is a difference between "illegal" and "legally invalid") A ecis^Brievenbus 23:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a straightforward question. There's no basis under international law for calling the Republic of Macedonia one thing or the other. In contrast, the question of whether the TRNC is an "illegal state" is a complex one. It's certainly an unrecognised one (except for Turkey, as you point out). However, the lack of recognition does not automatically make the state an illegitimate one. See Montevideo Convention and also Declarative theory of statehood, which defines what a state is in the first place. The TRNC argues that it seceded from the Republic of Cyprus, while the RoC argues that its secession was illegal, very much like the situations with China/Taiwan and Serbia/Kosovo. As with those two cases, the NPOV policy requires us to describe both sides' positions, without endorsing either one. See WP:NPOV#A simple formulation. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

?? Where does the article say that it is an "illegal state"? Nowhere. Or is the editor wanting the article to state that it is. I hope Leladax is not actually wanting such a stupid thing. Meowy 01:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had the same confusion at first. :-) My reading of Leladax's comments is that he wants the article to describe the TRNC as an "illegal state". Of course, we can't do so, as this would be a straightforward violation of NPOV as I've pointed out above. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the view of Leladax and have provided evidence before that the secession act to declare independence, has been declared "illegal" here. Resolution 550 [25] uses the word "illegal" and not "legally invalid" only. You can read through the talk how then the subject changed to argue about tit for tat. In addition, ChrisO, with all respect, your statement "The TRNC argues that it seceded from the Republic of Cyprus, while the RoC argues that its secession was illegal" ,is not 100% correct. Because the UN considers the secession act as illegal.

Moreover it is debatable whether TRNC has (b) a defined territory (of its own as ROC de jure and de facto existance makes the territory belong to the Republic of Cyprus). and (d) the capacity to enter into relations with the other states. as per Declarative theory of statehood. Due to its unrecognized status internationally, it is dependent upon Turkey to facilitate its contacts with the international community see here. That strikes two out of four, and thus making the Montevideo Convention an argument against as much as for "legality". Meander^₪ 07:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think both your points are not as clear as you make them to be. First, it does actually have a defined territory (namely, the territory north of the Green Line); the fact that its control of this territory may be against international law is not relevant. Second, it should have the capacity to enter into relations with other countries, and you argue that it does not have relations with other countries (excluding Turkey). However, I think the TRNC certainly has that capacity: for example, in the unlikely case that the Netherlands would decide to recognize the TRNC, there would be no problem with setting up a Dutch embassy in the TRNC and a TRNC embassy in the Netherlands. It is the whole point of the declarative theory that recognition by other countries is not relevant to statehood. Also, the undisputable fact that TRNC is a de facto state does not mean that it is not an illegal state (in fact, when it would not have been a state, it could not have been an illegal state either). Ucucha 15:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ucucha, as I have said before, I do not believe there is any concept of an "illegal state" in international relations. If I am wrong perhaps you can point me to where such a ruling has ever been made by a criminal court which renders a state illegal. --A.Garnet (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The UN refers to the Turkish Cypriots declaration of independence as "legally invalid", it does not refer to the TRNC as an "illegal state" since I do not believe such a concept even exists in international relations. Furthermore, The TRNC's relations with Turkey operate on the basis of sovereign recognition between the two, therefore although to a lesser extent than other nations, the TRNC does experience normal inter-state relations. --A.Garnet (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please. Describing the "TRNC" as an "illegal state" may be POV, but the notion that it experiences "normal inter-state relations" is an absurdity. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please what? The point is between Turkey and the TRNC relations occur at an inter-state level i.e. recognition of our borders, our ministers, our embassies, our passports, laws, juridiction and so forth, therefore "vis a vis Turkey, but no one else, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is a state. Diplomatic exchanges between these two states, as far as they - but no one else - are concerned, are governed by international law. There are, therefore, states in the international law sense with a greater or lesser degree of recognition" (Vyer, Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, p.34). --A.Garnet (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you go through the motions of sovereign statehood while Ankara calls all the shots. It's farcical. A more accurate wording would read something like "de jure independent (according to Turkish law) but de facto run by Turkey". ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure even that's accurate. From what I've read of the TRNC, its armed forces are indeed subordinated to those of Turkey but its civil institutions are substantially independent from Turkey's. Politics of Northern Cyprus doesn't describe a regime that's merely a Turkish puppet. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Substantially independent"? Are its "civil institutions" able to negotiate a settlement of the Cyprus dispute without Turkey's permission? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You think it is somehow absurd that a country of 70 million should have influence on a state of 250,000 on issues concerning its national security? Especially when this country has been the prime economic and security guarantor of your state for over 30 years? See Realism.--A.Garnet (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, and that's exactly my point; it is for those reasons precisely that I think it is absurd to call it "de facto independent". De jure, perhaps, in the Turkish view, but not de facto. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not defacto? Turkish Cypriots conduct their own democratic elections, and with the election of Talat and resignation of Denktas (who was and still is close to the Turkish Army) they are capable of turning their voice into policy. Turkish Cypriots pass their own laws in their own parliament, they staff their own ministries, they write their own curriculum, they issue their own title deeds and passports and they conduct negotiations directly with their Greek Cypriot counterparts. I could go on, talking about the free press which criticises Turkey, the embassies, consulates and commercial offices, its membership of the OIC and you will see the TRNC is a de facto independent republic which to the best of its ability (considering 40 years of crippling embargoes) runs its own affairs. Cyprus is and always will be (until Turkey in the EU) a security issue for Ankara, that means on major issues such a settling of the dispute it will have a major and perhaps final say. That does not mean however that Turkey runs the rest of the show. --A.Garnet (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So "on major issues" it isn't independent. Got it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not on major security issues, but why should that surprise you? Are you telling me Greece or Turkey never took orders from Uncle Same during the Cold War? Does the United States not station its troops in the thousands in South Korea and take a seat on all negotiations with the North? If your suggesting to be independent Turkish Cypriots must ignore the interests of the major power in the region then I think most states would fail your criteria of independence (funnily enough, this is exactly what Greece and Greek Cypriots attempted to do in the 60's and 70's, and look where that got us!). --A.Garnet (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You almost make it sound like a bad thing. I thought you were quite happy with where it got you: "independence". ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It was either that, or becoming a "Muslim minority" of Greece, go figure. --A.Garnet (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A minority which has managed to co-exist peacefully with its Christian neighbours since 1919. Interesting, isn't it? It could be done in Thrace but not Cyprus. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Garnet i dont understand your point. What is the problem with being a member of a minority group? Everyone is a member of some minority group. Meander^₪ 08:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"HISTORY" :
- Antiwar.com. [http://antiwar.com/hadar/?articleid=8042 In Praise of 'Virtual States'], Leon Hadar, November 16, 2005
- [http://www.humanrights.coe.int/minorities/eng/FrameworkConvention/StateReports/1999/cyprus/B.htm B. Recent political history and developments.] Council of Europe

DumZiBoT (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

.

The Republic of Cyprus, as the internationally recognised authority, has declared airports and ports in the area not under its effective control, closed. All U.N. Member countries and E.U. member countries respect the closure of those ports and airports according to the declaration of the Republic of Cyprus.

Theoretically, couldn't China do the same to Taiwan? --71.141.101.15 (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from this URL: http://www.cypnet.co.uk/ncyprus/main/weather/index.html. The material was introduced on January 8, 2007, here. Internet archives confirms that the material existed elsewhere first. Compare this archived version of the source from January 5, 2007: [26]. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Map

could we get a map like the europe location maps like this one of ukraine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_location_UKR.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 07:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Economy of Northern Cyprus into Northern Cyprus#Economy

Please discuss below this line:

Sorry I don't agree at all. The Economy of... series is common to all countries and territories and there is plenty of information out there to populate that article which would make this article imbalanced if included here. Instead, that article needs to be expanded and this one shortened to a summary. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on this argument, merge tags have now been removed and an expand tag has been placed in Economy of Northern Cyprus. --Zlerman (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

unnaccepatable name

the right name of this region should be this: "Οccupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.4 (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus (both North and South) was the Turkish territory during 1571-1878. North Cyprus is now again a Turkish territory.

The table of years of Turkish territoryness of Cyprus:

For North Cyprus: 1571-1878 & (1878-1959: Temporary English administration) & (1963 - Forever). NORTH IS TURK AGAIN.
For South Cyprus: 1571-1878 & (1878-1959: Temporary English administration) & (1960 - ??:Temporary Greek administration ).
So, answer who is occupier in fact. Turks or Residuals of Crusades (Greeks)? Spainish returned Spania; Italians returned Italia; British returned to England after the Crusades. Why are remaining Greeks in South Cyprus waiting for??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxia2010 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Housekeeping comment: the above entry was made by a banned sockpuppet, and otherwise would be automatically removed, except for the fact that it's already been responded to. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Greeks settled Cyprus at least a couple of millennia before the Crusades, but no matter. Where were the Turks during the Crusades? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Biased

This is exactly what proves the Greek hate. TRNC is not republic of Cyprus. Your army is not there, your president has no power over it, and your language is looked down at. They are seperate countries. If the TRNC is the Republic of Cyprus, i dare the Cypriot national guard to cross the border! Now to the more important topic. Accept the fact that the TRNC is on wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cano115 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Totally one sided intro

Why is occupied cyprus called TRNC? And why an article on northern cyprus does not mention anything but the self declared TRNC? And why does wikipedia promote propaganda? this article is totally biased "TRNC is not a de facto independent republic". If this article is to use that sentense then the source must be shown. Wikipedia readers should not receive a minority view (The three scholars = references) as the global view. This article has serious issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.162.51 (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Antiwar.com. In Praise of 'Virtual States', Leon Hadar, November 16, 2005
^ ^a ^b Carter Johnson, University of Maryland. Sovereignty or Demography? Reconsidering the Evidence on Partition in Ethnic Civil Wars, 2005
^ Emerson, Michael (2004). The Wider Europe Matrix. CPSE. ISBN 9290794690.
^ Emerson, Michael (2004). The Wider Europe Matrix. CPSE. ISBN 9290794690.
^ "Timeline: Cyprus", BBC News, 8 August 2007
^ "Τhe illegal occupation a serious obstacle in the efforts for the reunification of Cyprus". Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Cyprus. 15 November 2006.
^ UN Security Council resolutions 353(1974), 357(1974), 358(1974), 359(1974), 360(1974), 365(1974)
^ "Cyprus - Country Profiles", Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UK. 22 August 2007
^ "Cyprus", The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency. 18 October 2007
^ UN Security Council resolutions 353(1974), 357(1974), 358(1974), 359(1974), 360(1974), 365(1974)

[HISTORY-1] Antiwar.com. In Praise of 'Virtual States', Leon Hadar, November 16, 2005

[defacto1-2] Carter Johnson, University of Maryland. Sovereignty or Demography? Reconsidering the Evidence on Partition in Ethnic Civil Wars, 2005

[3] Emerson, Michael (2004). The Wider Europe Matrix. CPSE. ISBN 9290794690.

[4] Emerson, Michael (2004). The Wider Europe Matrix. CPSE. ISBN 9290794690.

[5] "Timeline: Cyprus", BBC News, 8 August 2007

[6] "Τhe illegal occupation a serious obstacle in the efforts for the reunification of Cyprus". Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Cyprus. 15 November 2006.

[7] UN Security Council resolutions 353(1974), 357(1974), 358(1974), 359(1974), 360(1974), 365(1974)

[8] "Cyprus - Country Profiles", Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UK. 22 August 2007

[9] "Cyprus", The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency. 18 October 2007

[10] UN Security Council resolutions 353(1974), 357(1974), 358(1974), 359(1974), 360(1974), 365(1974)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]