Talk:Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots

Objection

You reverted "the war in 1974" to "the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974". This clearly violates the Wikipedia's neutrality and objectivity principles.

When "the war in 1974" is used, only Turkish Cypriots who uses the phrase "peace operation" may object.
When "the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974" is used, there are many who can object. Notice, there are following PACE and Greece's Athens Court of Appeals decisions. Do you know PACE?

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE): (29.07.1974, Res. 573) "Turkish military intervention was the exercise of a right emanating from an international Treaty and the fulfilment of a legal and moral obligation."

Greece's Athens Court of Appeals (21.03.1979): "The Turkish military intervention in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London Accords, was legal".

Do you want sources? So, when there is a dispute somewhere somehow, Wikipedia must approach very cautiously.

I will also declare this situation in related Wikipedia board. I will suggest the change of the article name "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" since there is serious pre-conditioning of Wikipedians there!.Alexyflemming (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. It is the WP:COMMONNAME of the invasion. That's what's called by the majority of the reliable sources. As far as the invasion being legal that's what multiple socks of Justice Forever kept saying: [1], [2]. Strange coincidence, isn't it? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To justify yourself in your difficult edits about Cyprus/Northern Cyprus issue, you are almost always referring to the opposers of your edits by accusing all of them to be a sockpuppettry of justice forever. Strange coincidence, isn't it? Here are the proofs:

These are your edits in User talk:Lfdder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=594339462&oldid=594339422
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594339249
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594335726
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594280016

These are your edits in Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots:
Notice, you added the thing "As far as the invasion being legal that's what multiple socks of Justice Forever kept saying" as an extra edit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots&diff=594443187&oldid=594422649 ). Posssibly, you do not trust enough your arguement of WP:COMMONNAME. Here are what Wikipedia says:

Non-neutral but common names https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Non-neutral_but_common_names
Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:
1. Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
2. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious

It is better to change the article name "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" to something else:
"Cyprus war in 1974"
"1974 Cyprus war" as in "2013-14 Euroleague"
or other better alternatives.

Alexyflemming (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow you forgot to mention the main clause: In such cases, the prevalence of the name ... generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. The prevalence of the name "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" for what happened in 1974 is so obvious in English language literature that it is the only possible choice for the title. --T*U (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you state: "...generally overries...", not "...always overrides..."!. Also, English language literature well metions the events of that period as "the war in 1974" as well. Hence, "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is not the only possible choice for the title. Think the above PACE and Greece's Athens Court of Appeals as well. For the word "invasion" to be used, the followings must not be existed:

1. Turkey's Army has no right to have been in Cyprus, even to the minimal extent. Fact: The 1960 Cyprus Constitution itself allows the occurance of Turkey's Army in Cyprus!
2. Turkey's Army has no right to attack to Cyprus. Fact: Treaty of Guarantee in 1960 Cyprus Constitution gives Turkey's right to attack. Even, PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) accepted and declared that right.
3. The opponents of the dispute must stick to the phrases and arguements they defend. Notice, even the Greece's court call it legal and intervention!
There are numerous other logical arguements against the usage of the word "invasion" for the war in Wikipedia.
Alexyflemming (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the use of "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" with "Cyprus war" in books might give a clue to what is the Common name of the events: link. --T*U (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Google Books Ngram Viewer (link) shows sharp and constant decline in 1979 when Greece's highest court qualified the 1974 event as "legal" and "intervention". By the way, please be aware (and do not confuse) that I am not defending the usage of "intervention", I am defending the not to qualify the war in any way (intervention includes!)! You seem to miss this point, I think!Alexyflemming (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is not missing any point. You are missing the point that this is the WP:COMMONNAME for the article and has been so historically and your interpretation shows sharp and constant decline in 1979 when Greece's highest court qualified the 1974 event as "legal" and "intervention". is original unproven research, which does not matter in any case because the invasion is by far the most common name used in the reliable sources. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you TU-nor. This is the usual MO of this user. Constant arguments which defy various Wikipedia policies including WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and in this case WP:COMMONNAME. Remarkably, the arguments used, reflect faithfully the historical arguments of Justice Forever and his many socks. It is getting disruptive. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Alexyflemming: To justify yourself in your difficult edits about Cyprus/Northern Cyprus issue, you are almost always referring to the opposers of your edits by accusing all of them to be a sockpuppettry of justice forever. Strange coincidence, isn't it?

No, my edits are not difficult at all. Nobody agrees with you. You keep adding walls of text with information nobody agrees with. That should give you the message to stop your disruption. But it does not. Again, Justice Forever and his socks behaved in exactly the same way. Strange coincidence, isn't it? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You continuously and insistingly accuse me to be sockpuppettry of some other man.

Dr. K., you say "Nobody agrees with you". To become modest and humble in this world is not a bad thing, is it?. Are you everybody? You seem to see yourself as everybody.
Proof: See this page above: I am talking with T*U, and saying him "...You seem to miss this point...". You (Dr. K.) reply "...He is not missing any point...". You put yourself to the T*U's place. Are you T*U? Don't T*U have any mind and thought to reply me? Perhaps, T*U may disprove my thoughts and arguments better than you. If you put yourself to the place of everybody in Wiki world, then definitely your "Nobody agrees with you" makes sense!

Then, against your non-stopping and countless accusations, I even feared that someone else may block me without my disproving your claims. Fortunately, some Wikipedians acting with common sense and prudence, allowed me enough time to reply your millions of accusations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592735526

I replied to your countless accusations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592766108
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592771272
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592772379
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592773832

After my above defence, you continued to attack me with your new claims:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592780998

Against your new further accusations, I defended myself (look the edit summary: Further accusations and further proofs):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592796962

Wikipedia authorities analyzed both your accusations and my defence. And, your claims found to be inconvincing. The case was closed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592803341

I hoped you would stop your sockpuppetrry accusations towards me; I hoped you stop insults to me. You continued to your accusations whereever you find: here are the places you accused me: User talk:Lfdder, Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots

These are your edits in User talk:Lfdder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=594339462&oldid=594339422
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594339249
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594335726
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594280016

These are your edits in Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots:
"As far as the invasion being legal that's what multiple socks of Justice Forever kept saying" :
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots&diff=594443187&oldid=594422649 ).

"This is the usual MO of this user. Constant arguments which defy various Wikipedia policies including WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and in this case WP:COMMONNAME. Remarkably, the arguments used, reflect faithfully the historical arguments of Justice Forever and his many socks. It is getting disruptive":
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots&diff=594533973&oldid=594531437

I kindly alerted you that the place of sockpuppetrry accusations are not the Talk pages of articles or Talk pages of other Wikipedians. I alerted you to make such accusations in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexyflemming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever

Furthermore, I think most importantly of all, you are building and collecting "proofs" (in quotation!) from various places and various arguements to use against me in directing me a new sockpuppettry accusation. You even highlight them with different color and text style like (I collected your embellished text from various places):
shows sharp and constant decline in 1979 when Greece's highest court qualified the 1974 event as "legal" and "intervention".
To justify yourself in your difficult edits about Cyprus/Northern Cyprus issue, you are almost always referring to the opposers of your edits by accusing all of them to be a sockpuppettry of justice forever. Strange coincidence, isn't it?
By counter thinking, Lfdder, Chipmunkdavis, you (Dr.K.) seem to defend the similar arguments. Though I did not check your IPs, I do not think you are all the same people.

What does all of these efforts, countless accusations, insults show? OBSESSION! OBSESSION!

(By the way, since my academic career, I had a break in my Wikipedia during 2011-2013; defending towards your numerous accusations and insults, I remembered and learnt Wikipedia syntax a little further. Though there are myriad things I have to learn: you are accusing me WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:COMMONNAME-violations. You enlighten me what I should deeply learn next!)Alexyflemming (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, text-bombing the talkpage. Looks familiar. Where have I seen this before? Old habits die hard, I guess. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Attempt

The article was tried to be redirected to Cyprus dispute#Division of the island:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots&diff=595850384&oldid=595850115
without any consensus.

The article includes an agreement between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots; the directed page lacks it. Redirect many things here to there removes valuable infos. There is no consensus for redirecting.Alexyflemming (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to seek consensus before attempting to redirect. WP:BRD The agreement's referenced in Cyprus dispute. We're not about to have the original text of every agreement that's ever been made in a separate article. — Lfdder (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need! Read WP:BRD carefully. BRD does not always work for moving articles (changing their titles) because sometimes these changes can only be reverted by administrators (the move leaves the old title as a redirect and only administrators can move a title to an existing redirect if the redirect page has been edited). Instead the requested moves process has to be used. So extra caution should be observed if a "bold" change of name is contemplated. You know you need, that's why you suggested. Also, you say "There's hardly any content here, and the little there isn't unique to this page.". Absolutely no! The Agreement and its articles are unique to this page as well as the aftermath of the agreement; i.e. the villages who had chosen to remain in the North.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ this wasn't a page move. The 'aftermath' is not unique -- it's mentioned in Cyprus dispute. And even if it weren't, it could've been added there. I've already addressed your other point. — Lfdder (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus dispute article is long enough and containing lots of information. To inflate and blow it by mounting it various Wikipedia articles is illogical. Cyprus dispute contains the events and facts behind 51 years of past (even more than 1963). The article here is enough pecularities.Alexyflemming (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I suggest this page is redirected to Cyprus dispute#Division of the island where the matter's addressed in context. There's hardly any content here, and the little there isn't unique to this page. — Lfdder (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose:

The article here includes the "Population Exchange Agreement between Greek and Turkish Cypriots" (which is under auspieces of United Nations).
The article here includes "aftermath" of the "Population Exchange Agreement between Greek and Turkish Cypriots".
There is no need to inflate the section Cyprus dispute#Division of the island with bulk of knowledge.

These are the first things for rejecting the redirect. There are many others as well.Alexyflemming (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. What little content there is, can easily be merged into Cyprus dispute#Division of the island. The text of the Agreement has no place in a Wikipedia article. (Neither will you find Magna Carta, the United States Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or similar texts.) The text of the Agreement belongs in Wikisource. --T*U (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheWickerMan2014 has recreated this page at Third Vienna Agreement 1975. — Lfdder (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Deletion of the Population Exchange Agreement between Greek and Turkish Cypriots

There is no consensus to delete the articles of the agreement. If you continue to delete the articles of the Agreement, I will report the case in Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia. Alexyflemming (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, the Arbitration Committee. By all means then. — Lfdder (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a strange way Alexyflemming is right. There is not really a consensus to remove the text of the agreement, since the consensus (against Alexyflemming) is to remove the whole WP page by redirect/merge. If the text of the agreement is removed, there will be no real content left, which shows that there is no need for the page at all. The place for the agreement text is Wikisource. --T*U (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Aftermath of the Population Exchange Agreement between Greek and Turkish Cypriots

Lfdder removed the aftermath of the agreement:
Some of the Greek Cypriots (those in Rizokarpaso, Agios Andronikos, Agia Triada) agreed to live under Turkish Cypriot administration and remained in Northern Cyprus, citing the second article of the agreement.

Besides Greek Cypriots, the Maronites in Asomatos, Karpasia and Kormakitis agreed to live in the north.

with the pretext that "getting rid of all the unsourced sort-of-correct-but-not-quite crap then":
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots&diff=prev&oldid=596820630

I will present sources.Alexyflemming (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Difficulty of Making an Edit to the Cyprus Issue Related Articles

I tried to add the "Aftermath of the Population Agreement" and "Articles of the Population Agreement". Triple paranthesis are my interpretation.
Aftermath of the agreement:
With many pretexts, Lfdder deleted the "Aftermath of the Agreement":
07.03.2014 13.53 Lfdder: enough (((Deleted arbitrarily the whole referenced text without any explain)))
07.03.2014 13.44 Alexyflemming: Properly re-phrased. ((((((Re-phrase request solved. Extra source provided)))
07.03.2014 13:30 Lfdder: That's an editorial and you also keep reinstating a whole lot of other stuff you've not got a source for
07.03.2014 13:26 Alexyflemming: Lavinia Neville Smith:"The Maronite people were not forced out when the island divided; Those who went the south in 70s80s are for "job opportunities,better education". sourced for: "agreed to live in the north". (((relation of source and edit explained)))
07.03.2014 13:05 Lfdder: source for what exactly? put some effort in it (((Complaining the irrelation of the provided sources with the edited text)))
07.03.2014 12:21 Alexyflemming: Sourced. (((1st complain was solved)))
23.02.2014 21:08 Lfdder: ...getting rid of all the unsourced sort-of-correct-but-not-quite crap then (((1. Complaining the lack of sources; 2. accepting correctness of the added edit; 3. humiliating edit as "crap")))

The articles of the agreement:
23.02.2014 20:57 Alexyflemming: There is no consensus about DELETING the ARTICLES of the agreement. See Talk.
23.02.2014 20:49 Lfdder: there is consensus among everybody else (((Deleted the Articles of the referenced Agreement)))
23.02.2014 20:45 Alexyflemming : The Agreement is clearly sourced. The removal of articles of the Agreement is big defect, and removed without consensus.
21.02.2014 03:16 Lfdder (((Deleted the Articles of the referenced Agreement with no explanation)))
20.02.2014 14:52 Lfdder: rm agreement text and unsourced mashup
Alexyflemming (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

At last there has been made some effort to produce proper sourcing for the so-called "Aftermath" section. As for the two last sources given, it has been repeatedly explained that these are not reliable sources. The last one is nothing more than a tourist blog that does not really say anything about what happened in '74. The next one is the caption from a stock photo site, also with no historical information. The Famagusta Gazette source is more interesting. It actually describes what happened to those "enclaved" in '74. It supports the use of a phrase like "chose to stay". It does, however, not state that those who stayed, did so with any reference to the exchange agreement. The text refers to "constant harassment, including physical assault, restrictions on their movement..." etc., which implies that the agreement was never really implemented. The KU Brussel source is by far the most reliable. It is used for the number of those exchanged. This could (and should) also be used in the "Cyprus dispute#Division of the island" section, which will be the result if this article is merged there.

As the Aftermath section now stands, the first paragraph is well sourced. The second para, however, is stretching the sources much too far. Firstly, the parenthesis "those in" implies that all or most of the Greek Cypriots in those towns/villages stayed, which is not only unsourced, but positively false. The sentence would have to be "some of the GC in...". Secondly, it is not sourced that they stayed "based on the" agreement. They just stayed "in their villages" (even if the obligations of the agreement were not fulfilled). The Maronites are also mentioned in the KU Brussels source, and they may be worth mentioning in the merged article. The last sentence about some Maronites moving south has, however, nothing to do in this article at all.

Interestingly, the Turkish Cypriots that chose to stay in the south, are not mentioned in the "Aftermath", while they are mentioned in "Cyprus dispute#Division of the island". In this case the target article has more info than the article that is proposed for merging!

My edits to the article are just made to improve it before merging. I am even more convinced now that this article is not needed in its current form. Regards. --T*U (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say "It does, however, not state that those who stayed, did so with any reference to the exchange agreement.". So, please read the source carefully:"...despite the agreement achieved in Vienna on 2 August 1975 by which the Turkish side undertook to give...". This sentence and the sentence "...Most of these people have chosen to stay in the villages..." are just from the reality of the Article 2 of the Pop. Exc. Agr.:"The Greek Cypriots at present in the north of the island are free to stay and that they will be given every help to lead a normal life, including facilities for education and for the practice of their religion, as well as medical care by their own doctors and freedom of movement in the north.". Notice that Acc. to 1960 Agreement, Maronites are offered to be part of either Greek Cypriot Community or Turkish Cypriot Community. Maronites chose to be a part of Greek Cypriot Community. Hence, the "Greek Cypriots" in Art.2 not only refers to ethnic Greeks but also ethnic Maronites.

The other issue:The usage of "..Some of the" is superfluous since in the deleted reference, it explains the situation clearly:Just after the agreement, they stayed, but later some of them went to south for Job opportunities, better education etc. Hence, your deletion of the sources also resulted in ambiguity there.

As for Turkish Cypriots chose to stay in the south, I will give reference for them as well. Alexyflemming (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the Gazette article it is stated that in spite of the agreement the number of "enclaved" declined dramatically, due to harassment. Later it is stated that most of the 460 (out of 20,000) that stayed did it "as they feel emotionally attached to their homes". That they stayed "based on the second article of the agreement" is, in my opinion, pure syntehesis.

The source does not support that "just after the agreement, they stayed". They remained behind the ceasefire line and were "enclaved", but despite the agreement, their number declined dramatically, due to constant harassment. Since this is supposed to be about the "Aftermath", it is clearly false to say that "The Greek Cypriots ... chose to stay" when only some of them did.

And by the way: Thanks for doing the merge work on the "Cyprus dispute" article. --T*U (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "enclaved" is the term Greek Cypriots use for them. Nobody is "enclaved" and they are free to go to the South. Some of them already did so for job opportunities and better education etc. There is no enclave in Northern Cyprus. Just after the Agreement, the population in the stated GC and Maronite villages stated there. 460 is the number after decades later. "Aftermath" of the Agrement is just the Aftermath of the Agreement, not 40 years after!. "... due to constant harassment..." is just a political phrasing. Remember, the source is a Greek Cypriot newspaper. If you looked at the Neutral English (whose reference was deleted in the article), you would know that the real reason is "job" and "better education" opportunity in the south for them.
I did not make Merge Work. I corrected the info in the "Cyprus dispute" article. There are many things related with "Cyprus Dispute", and putting everything there would return that article into a garbage. You still insist to create such a garbage.Alexyflemming (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-paste "Cyprus dispute" article to Word and see the word count:Now: 14,475 words! Are we creating Wiki Articles or Wiki Theses?Alexyflemming (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for deletion of the templates?

Lfdder deleted the templates ("Foreign relations of Cyprus", "Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus", "Cyprus topics", "Northern Cyprus topics") from the article. On one hand he requires a merge since he views the article not stand-alone one. On the other, he objects improvements on the article that make it perfectly stand-alone. Navigation Templates were added to improve the stand-alone merit of the article. I wonder the "real reason" why the templates are deleted for many times from this article.Alexyflemming (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no linkbacks in 3 of 4, see WP:NAVBOX; not a matter of foreign relations of CY; not really a matter of foreign relations for the TRNC either -- it didn't exist back then. Nav templates don't improve 'the stand-alone merit of the article' — Lfdder (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issues in order:

A. Templates: "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines: 1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. 2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. 3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. 4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. 5. You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." The templates located provide these feature. Also, please explain in detail what you mean by "no linkbacks in 3 of 4, see WP NAVBOX".

B. Teplate of Cyprus: OK then, if you think it is not a matter of foreign relations of CY, then I hereafter will not put CY Template.

C. As for TRNC: TRNC did not exist in a second from nil in 1983. That is to say, the people of 1983-TRNC were the Turkish Cypriot people of 1571-1982 of the Cyprus island. Hence, it is relevant per people issue; the transition issue. Secondly, the "Population Exchange Agreement" was realized under the auspices of United Nations in Vienna, Austria. Hence, it is definitely a foreign relation for Turkish Cypriots. Note that Turkish Cypriots are the principal people of Northern Cyprus.

D. Last, Navigation templates at least contribute the stand-alone merit of the article; even if the word improve is little larger.Alexyflemming (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. A: "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." D not true. — Lfdder (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for the deletion of the templates

Lfdder provided a reasoning for the deletion of the templates here. Do you have any reason other than that of Lfdder to delete the Templates from the article? If so, what?Alexyflemming (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the above from my TP, since I feel it is better to answer here. Firstly, I generally agree with Lfdder's arguments. I find it especially odd to connect this article to foreign relations of NC, when the Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus article is strictly limited to the foreign relation of the 1983 republic. There exists no such thing as "foreign relations" of an ethnic group.

I also have another reason for removing the templates. In Wikipedia, when your bold edits are reverted, the way to continue is not to do the same edits again (and again and again), but to discuss in order to create a consensus for your view. You started to put the templates in. That has been (repeatedly) reverted. Now try to create consensus before you put them in again.

Finally, templates do not "contribute to the stand-alone merit of the article". Templates are not content. Whether certain templates are or are not in an article has no relevance to discussions about deleting or merging an article. --T*U (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]