Talk:Northern Cyprus/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1

←

Archive 5

Comments

Who is the total idiot who thinks the “TRNC” has a GDP of 2 billion and then goes on to divide that by the alleged population of 264,172 to get the super-magical figure of $16,900 p/capita? This childish nonsense is nothing short of vandalism. Regards, Marios Polycarpou.

This data is from University of Oxford, European Studies Centre, Workshop on Cyprus 10-11 March 2006. Look at the note 20 of the article. What's the problem with it? Alaexis 11:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple mathematics: 2,000,000,000 / 264,172 = $7,570.80 Regards, Marios Polycarpou.

LOL - xC - | ☎ 12:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, really. I've never calculated it myself:) Alaexis 13:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the the '2 billion' number seems not to be supported by any evidence, while '16,900 per capita' has the reference to the European Studies Centre.

ps. One number could be calculated in ppp-adjusted terms while another one is not. Alaexis 13:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

update. There IS reference to the 2 billion number, it's just hidden. However this reference is to a Turkish site, so it could be biased. I'll put a fact tag to this figure. Alaexis 14:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

These are much more accurate stats for the "TRNC": Population : 220,000 (only 120,000 odd are TC) GDP : 800 Million P/Capita : $3,700

I don't have links to back them right now but i'll post some soon. The very thought that the "TRNC" (an illegal Cypriot territory held captive by Turkey) has a similar p/capita as that of countries like Cyprus and Israel is laughable. On the one hand the "TRNC" portrays the "embargoed" victim to the World and on the other it shows off by posting absurdities such as these! It seems the only thing that's embargoed is the common sense of their brains. Regards, MP.

Why there is no reference either in the text or in the map that there are two distinct British territories on the island too which are military bases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.170.4 (talk • contribs)

Number of Turkish Cypriots

Who put this idiotic claim here: there are 120K TCs and further 12K claim one cypriot parent.Anyone with a Cypriot parent is a Cypriot. I am correcting this unnecessary seperation.No where in the world such a racist seperation is mentioned.

FAO Dirak

You added the tag once before, and it was removed after consultation with Fut: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus&diff=94672477&oldid=94609618 I assume you were one of those consulted, i guess it will be easy to check. Also, please dont vandalise the article anonymously. --A.Garnet 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No comment... if you think the anon is me (which you probably don't), feel free to request an IP check. As for Fut's views, why don't we put them into practice universally. He doesn't think highly of perpetual tags as I'm sure you're aware. //Dirak 22:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So did you consult with Fut in the removing the tag last time or not? (and yes i do believe the anon was you). --A.Garnet 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

He didn't talk to me. Funny however how you don't respect the sanctity of tags here though. The title is disputed as can be seen by the lengthy discussions in the archives and on this very page. As a fan of tagging disputed articles (indefinitely if necessary), what is your problem here? As for the anon, beyond saying "it was not me", there's nothing more I can do; you can draw your own conclusions. //Dirak 23:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what exactly is the dispute? There is a self proclaimed state calling itself TRNC, and this is the article about it. If this article will ever be renamed Northern Cyprus, then the Cyprus article must be moved to Rebuplic of Cyprus, and Cyprus article focus only on the geographical area called Cyprus. If not, the distinction is neccessary. Baristarim 23:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You lost me... //Dirak 23:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, other country examples do not provide the correct analogy. There is no breakaway country calling itself the "Italian Republic of Southern France". If there were, then the France article would have to be moved to Republic of France. But since there is no such conflict, then there is no problem naming the country article simply "France". With Cyprus, there is a problem: there are to two distinct entities who claim the same geographical name. Good analogy is this: China, People's Republic of China and Republic of China. Are the common rules of logic so rare to come by these days? :) If anything, Cyprus article should be renamed Republic of Cyprus. Baristarim 23:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please reread WP:NPOV#Undue weight. As far as everyone is concerned Cyprus = Rep. of Cyprus. Why again are we supposed to be giving so much weight to the turkish POV? //Dirak 23:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What 'sanctity' of tags means i dont know. Tag on PGC article was added by consensus, the tag here was added to make a point by you and even that was removed by consensus again. I am happy to have a pov tag until all the neutrality issues are sorted, but i will oppose tags being thrown in to make a point, and turning Wikipedia into some worthless tit for tat game. Well done on the George Bush article btw, very serious of you. I await your new username with anticipation. --A.Garnet 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See ad hominem. //Dirak 23:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as anyone is concerned China = People's Republic of China. Why are we giving so much weight to the Taiwanese POV? I will tell you why: because this is an encyclopedia, not the local coffee house. Seems that the Chinese are smarter than us. Not surprising, really. PRC is FA. (Struck my earlier comment about China being FA and RC GA, I must have been thinking of another article, RC was in GA two weeks ago, I wonder what happened - but they are still in better shape than Cyprus articles) Go figure. And we are here discussing such a stupid thing. Yeah Dirak, putting that tag up there is going to change everything, right? The whole TRNC will become part of Cyprus again!!! Whatever, people should take a page out of the book of the Chinese. Seriously. Correct solution: Three articles for "Cyprus", "Republic of Cyprus" and "TRNC". If people can't see that, than I wonder if people are in Wikipedia to actually contribute or simply turn Wikipedia into a political showcase. Baristarim 23:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The (republican/nationalist/...) Chinese are indeed smarter than you. That's how Britannica has a Taiwan article [1] but no TRNC article, but includes it in the Cyprus article. I agree with you, this is an encyclopedia - would you mind if I added {{Merge|Cyprus|date=March 2008}} to this article as well? //Dirak 23:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to that. Niko Silver 23:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course you would, shall we conduct a straw poll also? --A.Garnet 23:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And Garnet scores again! //Goalie 23:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha, because there is no seperate entity in the north of the island. See the last sentence of my last post Dirak. I was not talking about Taiwan. Maybe you should learn how to read: I said Republic of China. Taiwan is an article about the geography of the island. Do your homework first. Yeah, talk about ad hominems, you should also watch your language.Baristarim 23:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretty bad damage control :-D The Britannica article says Official name: Chung-hua Min-kuo (Republic of China) and includes the Republic of China flag etc. Britannica also prefers the short names!!! What is the short name of "TRNC"? What would Britannica (a real encyclopedia) do? //Dirak 23:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you apply for a job at Brittanica then. I heard there were some good jobs, not for editing articles though :) I was talking about Wikipedia where they are two different articles. If you do not like Wikipedia and prefer Brittanica, you can go there. Nobody is holding a gun to your head u know. Baristarim 23:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

<Duh>Maybe, because Taiwan has 24 states recognizing it (among other differences)?</Duh> Niko Silver 23:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Turks like comparing "TRNC" with Taiwan. Don't ask me why, as far as I can see, it is incomparable. //Dirak 23:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wonder what you can and cannot see: If you are still seeing this issue as "Turks" and "Greeks", I wonder in which age you are living in. And Nikos, yes. I had forgotten about states like Vanuatu, Marshall Islands, Bermuda recognizing RC. Still undue weight my friend: 21 out of 220~ is definitely undue weight. But the Chinese are smart enough to see that there actually is an entity there that styles itself as such, and instead of treating Wikipedia like a alt. or Myspace group, they are actually working to improve their articles. The same cannot be said here, unfortunately. Whatever, the joke is not on me or Alf here. Again: four articles exist: China and Taiwan for geographical regions, and People's Republic of China and Republic of China for political entities. Now, unless you are claiming that we are smarter than the Chinese, then the problem is here, not there. Baristarim 23:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Karıştırıyorsun Bay Barış. Undue weight again; which (independent) sources indicate that you can compare the Cyprus situation with the China situation?? Britannica has an article for both the communist government and one for the republican government of China. Why don't they have an article on the TRNC? Why don't any English language encyclopedias (Encarta, Hutchinson...)? As I once said, comparing Cyprus with China is wishful thinking... //Dirak 23:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Tabi canim, boyle giderse butun Kibris'i fethedeceksin - sakin durayim deme!! :) Wishful thinking, whatever... Kimse burada herhangi bir ulkeyi fethetmeye çalismiyor. Adam gibi katkida bulunacaksan bulun. Sahte soykirim sayfalari yazmakla olmuyor bu isler canim benim. Sen bu yollardan giderken biz geri donuyorduk... Baristarim 00:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict: You neither responded on (a) the other encyclopedias contradictory examples, nor on the (b) "other differences" I said, like maybe TECRO and TECO offices, etc. And don't forget (c) that 24 (even small) states is really far better than ZERO EVER. As I said, I feel there are differences, and I dispute the logic behind the name of this article. Niko Silver 00:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes us Turks like comparing TRNC with Taiwan, makes more sense than comparing Pontian Greek "genocide" with TRNC though eh? With regards to the title, undue weight does not apply to countries recognised or not. So you can keep trying to draw a parallel between international recognition and academic opinion, bu the comparison is entirely void, it is like chalk and cheese. TRNC is not a view, it is a defacto reality. We can have views about the TRNC, its formation, its history, but the TRNC itself is not a view in itself. Northern Cyprus is a geographical expression, this article about the self-declared entity of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, therein lies the logic behind this article. --A.Garnet 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the entity ITSELF is not a view, but a fact. The NAME of the entity, however, could well range from "Katechomena" (Greek for "Occupied [lands]") to whatever it styles itself. I don't see why we should prefer how it styles itself to how e.g. proper legit Cyprus refers to its de jure part... (or the rest of the whole world, you know, as in: everyone else!) Niko Silver 00:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the whole thing. This is an encylopedia, not the UN security council. On this encylopedia, the Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Cyprus are two equal and notable topics. How many countries recognises each is about significant as turd on a shoe. Take a leaf out Brittanicas book:

"Provision of separate data does not imply recognition of either state's claims but is necessitated by the lack of unified data." http://www.britannica.com/nations/Cyprus

We do not take sides, what you consider "proper legit Cyprus" is your pov. Do not try and push it on others. --A.Garnet 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and for this reason nowhere does Wikipedia state that TRNC is illegal (another score by Garnet). However, the title of this article nevertheless is POV (in favor of the minority POV). The title dispute is not over the legitimacy of the regime (or its existence), but over whether the title endorses the "turkishness" and "republicanness" of it, and why this case merits using the full name of the entity and not the conventional short one as is the norm on Wikipedia unless there are special circumstances. Britannica also does so (even more than Wikipedia). //Dirak 22:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense. The Britannica article even uses the full term Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus under the official names of Cyprus. Are they endorsing a Turkishness and Republicanness too? --A.Garnet 22:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a special circumstance, and it has nothing do with politics per se. There are two entities who claim the word "Cyprus" in their official names. That is not the same thing with Nagorno-Karabakh for example. NK is claimed by Azerbaijan, not Republic of Nagorno Karabakh. If NK was "Armenian Republic of NK", and Azerbaijan was "Republic of NK", then both those articles would have to be moved. That's why the case is similar to China. When I was making the comparison, I was not making a political comparison at all. The question is one of syntax. When the "official" entity and the "breakaway" entities carry different names, then there is no problem. As I said before, if Corsica was a breakaway state and called itself the "Italian Republic of Southern France", then "France" article will have to be moved to Republic of France. That's why there are four different articles for China; it is not because of political reasons. That's why I was giving the example of China. We should have three different articles: Cyprus, RoC and this one. Baristarim 22:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Quite the contrary, the article on the Republic of Cyprus (Cyprus) is neutral because it is not using a disputed name (Turkey doesn't recognize a "Republic of Cyprus"), it is just using the most common name in English (Google speaking). This article uses both a disputed name, and a less common name in English (how many English language sources do you know which call it TRNC outright?). I have no particular problem with renaming the Cyprus article on the condition that this article is renamed as well. //Dirak 22:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Republic of China is also disputed, if I may add. The most common name for People's Republic of China is also simply China. Nearly all news sources simply say "China". As I pointed out, there is a special circumstance that you asked: there are two entities who claim the same name in their official names. That's a very unique case. What is the point of renaming Cyprus it this will be named Northern Cyprus? In fact, even better, we can do like the Chinese: let's have four articles: "Cyprus" and "Northern" Cyprus for the geography, and "RoC" and "TRNC" for the entities. And you might want to cut down on WP:POINT edits, btw. Don't be creating any more fake genocide articles :)) Just a question: Do you actually do work on Wikipedia (you know, contribute positively (add something)), or are you simply here to just hang around and WP:POINT?

Baris, I have been on Wikipedia since 2004 with a variety of usernames and have contributed more content than you've most likely ever read. Dismissing any edit you don't like as POINTy also won’t get you anywhere. As I say above, comparing Cyprus with China is wishful thinking on your part. All English language encyclopedias (all I can find at least) treat the China issue very differently from the Cyprus issue (presumably for historical reasons). Additionally, the name Republic of China is not that disputed; in fact, they would likely face an invasion by the PRC if they changed it! Finally, do you accept my proposal (rename both to non-disputed titles)? If you really like drawing parallels with other articles and removing tags that way, remember the PGG article. Would you object if I did the same thing as you are doing now? //Dirak 23:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why you had to change your usernames, that's all :) Baristarim 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I like variety :) You have encountered many of my reincarnations (last one was User:Euthymios) and changes are no secret. If you think I'm trying to hide something, then you must think that this certainly is the wrong way. //Dirak 23:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I was just wondering out loud :) In that case, it might be better to move the user page so that you can see its history, just my two cents. Baristarim 23:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Tag

Is there some particular reason why Garnet keeps removing the POV title tag? This is a fully explained dispute. If you want the other tag as well, feel free to add both, but the title should remain until the dispute is resolved. //Dirak 22:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Read my last post above.Baristarim 22:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, and you didn't explain why the tag was removed. //Dirak 22:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was it removed? a)you added it without consensus to make a wp:point. b)you agreed to remove by consensus in which you consulted with Fut. c)This article has nothing to do with pontian greek "genocide", so do no try and link the two as some kind of market stall tag bargaining. --A.Garnet 22:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A) There is no consensus to keep a tag at the PGG article (you assuption of POINT is a violation of WP:AGF), B) any agreement no longer stands as the tag is still there [2], C) say that to yourself. //Dirak 23:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dirak, you have a lof of nerve to accuse others of vandalism. After your latest wave of WP:POINT edits and blatant disruption, after the one that followed the creation of bogus POINT articles and their speedy AfDs, I had to take a look at your contribution list (go tell admins if you like), and I noticed that even the VandalBOT is reverting you [3]. Really be careful, if such disruptive behavior continues, there will be an ArbCom if need be. I don't know what you have to do, but I would take a chill pill if I were you. If you are actually going to conribute to Wikipedia, then stay; if not, I wonder what you are doing here. Baristarim 23:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Threats (=attempted intimidation) are not allowed. I'm beginning to interpret all these POINT accusations as personal attacks too (come on, this title dispute has been going on for months, that accusation is nothing more than an ad hominem). The "agreement" Garnet appeals to was an understanding of a tag ceasefire (=both sides), and if there is realistic prospect of change, the tags will not be there forever. Unfortunately, it seems that all this is a case of gullible me assuming that the "opposition" in both disputes would act in good faith. //Dirak 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No threats, I am just letting you know of something that will happen. That's all. I don't do edits that are reverted by the VANDALBOT. By POINT, I was referring to KG and its more than unusual AfD, as well as your very recent tag of POV for the Turkish diaspora article. Baristarim 23:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Is or is not the Turkish diaspora article sourced? You can't go around claiming millions of Turks live everywhere without it being disputed! The thing speaks for itself. As for KG, it was sourced and my humble creation has expanded significantly. I have explained how it is not a POINT case but the natural course of events time and time again. Let me refresh your memory: when one does research on Turkey and Genocide, you find lots of interesting things! I just wove a few of them into an article and there is nothing wrong with that. Trying to delegitimize everything I do by appealing to my vandalbot experiment or claiming POINT is nothing more that cases of this and this. Common logical fallacies. //Dirak 23:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalbot experiment?? Do you experiment with vandalism? :) Well, in any case, Turkish diaspora article is sourced, sources are there if you take a look. Most numbers have a ref right next to it, ones that don't have a citation tag. Nearly all those numbers are sourced ismi sabit degil bey.Baristarim 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have a question: isn't "Northern Cyprus" the conventional short name for the TRNC? Khoi khoi 00:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to suggest that there can be a conventional name for an unconventional entity? :-) Niko Silver 00:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

For the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic there is. :-) Khoi khoi 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The "entity" is treated as a sub-article (or paragraph) of Republic of Cyprus (aka Cyprus) in all other encyclopedias online (check bottom of this thread for links). I'd also like opinions on this draft I made for WP:VPP. Niko Silver 00:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, TRNC is the conventional short form. Northern Cyprus is a geographic expression, this article concerns the defacto state of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. --A.Garnet 23:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

But there is another problem with simple syntax and language here that is being overlooked, and it is more important. Don't forget that two entities claiming the same name in their official names is extremely rare. Nagorno Karabakh, Transnisteria, South Ossetia are not the same since their "claiming" entities carry a different name. I gave examples of this somewher above. That's why I am giving an example of China. It doesn't have to do with the partial political recognition/non-recognition of Taiwan/RC. Moreover, if there was a different geographic name for Northern Cyprus, such as "Turkland" etc, then there wouldn't be a problem with having two articles, one for Cyprus and one for "Turkland". The problem is there is no such name. They both carry the same geographical name. Baristarim 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... I don't buy that... one claims to be "Cyprus" (all of it) and the other merely claims to be "northern Cyprus" (the north part of the island). If they both claimed to be Cyprus, it would be called the "Turkish Republic of Cyprus". This contrasts with the China situation where both regimes claim the whole of their own and their opponent regime's territory. If "TRNC" is the short form of "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", how is "Nagorno-Karabakh" the short form of the "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" (what about "NKR")? Sockul 18:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. The finer point is that the Republic of Cyprus also claims Northern Cyprus via its official name. There are no other examples other than TRNC/Cyprus and RoChina/PRC where two entities/breakaway states/whatever use the name of a geographical region in their names in a way that puts them, syntax wise, in direct confrontation. NG is claimed by Azerbaijan, an entity that doesn't incorporate the NG name in its official name. If Azerbaijan was called "The Republic of Nagorno Karabakh", then the current article of Nagorno-Karabakh would have to be moved to NGR, or some other name. Baristarim 18:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Citizenship" and "worker--A.Garnet 22:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)s" (?)

"Workers" (also why not eg. "farmers" or "entrepreneurs"?) is a subset of "settlers". Citizenship is a de jure term, so we say "citizenship" (with quotes) to illustrate the non-de jureness [sic]. Niko Silver 13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, settlers is a more general term and therefore covers both workers with temporary intentions and people who intent to really "settle", as in make a new land their home for the rest of their foreseeable future. Considering the context of this specific issue, I'd like to point that "settlers" are apt to be considered as a body of people who are the result of a deliberate attempt to populate the land with Turkish people. While I'm not going to question the existence of such a thing right now, not all of those settlers were there with the intention of settling and I feel that we shall reflect that difference. I think it would be more of a commonground and appropriate if we use both "settlers and workers", what do you say?

And as for the term "citizenship" being strictly de jure, here is the definition right from Wikipedia: "Citizenship is membership in a political community (originally a city or town but now usually a country) and carries with it rights to political participation; a person having such membership is a citizen." Whether or not TRNC is recognized as a de jure country, their citizens are the member of that political community and this membership grants them rights to political participation in that community, making them citizens (without the quotation marks).

Now I'm going to show the decency of waiting for a response for some time before making any more changes to the article, a practice that I hope will be generally adapted in the future. Take care --Xasf 16:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your WP:AGF.

Workers: I actually felt the exactly opposite way than you: I felt that the term "workers" aimed to justify the existence of all those settling (regardless work status). I have no doubt that there are people indeed settling for work (although we need citation for the exact numbers, and I really don't know if the citation could fall within WP:RS, given the status of the entity). Moreover, I really don't understand what type of excuse for settling employment per se may be. However, I have no problem accepting "settlers and workers", but I think it would be a pleonasm (much like "Greeks and Athenians"). I hope we can find better terminology for that, but feel free to add your proposal in the meantime. Niko Silver 01:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship: This is much more complicated and we all know that. For all I know, the TCs have two citizenships. They have citizenship for RoC, and citizenship for TRNC. Right or wrong, the latter citizenship is recognized only by their entity, while the first citizenship is recognized by the whole rest world. Now if we have to show that this citizenship is something claimed unilaterally by one entity, what do we do? If you feel the quotes are not appropriate, I suggest we expand the word citizenship to illustrate this conflict of jurisdiction, and mention the other citizenship in question (RoC's) as well. Niko Silver 01:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, I'm changing "settlers" to "workers and settlers", and I'm removing the quotation marks from "citizenship" while adding a tag that it needs further clarification. I think this works for everybody for now and we can collectively fine-tune it in time. Take care--Xasf 12:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Xasf you are quite correct. Incidently this is an issue that isnt even up for debate (or is that "debate') as scare quotes are NOT ALLOWED under wikipedia policy. Nico I'm dissappointed to see you endorsing the use of scare quotes. Adam777 18:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:WTA#So-called, supposed, alleged, purported suggests that Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications. I thought it was a usual practice, having seen it around probably too much. See my comment above for a solution that includes that. Thanks for your constructive criticism, Adam. Niko Silver 01:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No harm done and in the grand scheme of things it isnt a biggie. It wasn't constructive criticism, more like me throwing my toys out of the pram again, as usual I could have worded things better. Adam777 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No Niko, you cannot enter the TRNC without a work permit. Those who marry a Cypriot or remain for a number of years may become naturalised Cypriots, but we cannot presume their sole intention is to "settle" as the term settlers would imply. Just as in Germany, the Turks were and are still referred to as guest workers, despite their settled status. As for citizenship being a "dejure" term, i really dont know where you make these statements from. There is no prerequisite to be part of an internationally recognised state to be deemed a citizen of a political community, in fact i would like you to provide me with one source which proves otherwise. --A.Garnet 22:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What about using "immigrants"? Baristarim 01:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised at the diagreement over 'settler'. After 1975, thousands of Anatolian Turks were shipped in to northern Cyprus and settled in the properties of departed Greek Cypriots. Those people had no means of 'emigrating' since they were too poor, that is why they are called settlers. I was never aware that the term could provide disagreement and never encoutered disagreement amongst TC people. Would appreciate it, just out of curiosity, if Baristarim and Garnet exanded and backed their objection (if, indeed, they are objecting). Politis 19:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not even sure what the dispute is. Why can't we call them immigrants? Most of them are not permanent-settlers, some of them are there to go to collegs, some for seasonal work etc etc. Immigrant covers all types of migration. "Settler" sounds kind of like the settlers of America. I am not even sure how many stayed, how many would like to stay there forever, how many are there only for a couple of years etc. On a sidenote, emigration is actually done by mostly poor people. Even in the States, Mexicans aren't called "settlers" - they are called immigrants. That's why I asked why we can't use the word immigrant. Immigrant covers both short-term and long-term migration, as well as economic, political, cultural etc migration. Baristarim 19:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The number of people who voted on the Anan Plan provides us with the most reliable figures. I have never heard the term immigrants used with regard to the north (any references, even if they are in Turkish?). The Mexican and German case is quite different. Most Mexicans are either legal or, most often, illegal immigrants. They were not shipped by the Mexican government into the US... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Politis (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

We are not talking about sheep :) You can't just ship people to some place else. Nobody put a gun to their heads, encouragement is a different thing. In any case, there is also the problem that Cyprus considers practically every single immigrant as a "settler", even those who moved there after finding a job there or after a marriage etc. Moreover, nobody is putting a gun to the heads of those settlers to continue to stay there :) Baristarim 21:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

While Turkey and TRNC do not deny this policy of encouraging Turkish immigration, it is justified on the grounds that (a) the demographic 'tilt' towards the Greek Cypriots needed to be redressed, and (b) Turkish Cypriots have been emigrating to Europe in order to find better opportunities since the international embargo on Northern Cyprus has made the economic situation there difficult. Line 17 i believe [4] . Immigrants were brought to cyprus expatkiwi says (Turkish Pov look at the comment when the edit was done) to redress the demographic tilt... I kind of believe him/her. Oh by the way happy new year to all of you. 2873 after the first OlympiadAristovoul0s 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick note "[Mr MERCAN (Turkey). There are two reports on the agenda that relate to the rights of Greek Cypriots and minorities living in the northern part of Cyprus, and the colonisation by Turkish settlers of the occupied part of Cyprus".http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/ul_kom/akpm/orta/konus_haz2003.htm .gov.tr ?? whats going on? Aristovoul0s 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I find this argument above quite compelling, and would request the Turkish users' response on the issue, before I remove the irrelevant subset referring to "workers". Employment is not more of an excuse than any other reason for settling either way. Niko Silver 23:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The rest of that page indicates that Mr. Mercan is referring to a third-party report prepared by foreign researchers, and his wording may simply be reflecting those found in that reports (which are described as "containing facts but also in need of a major revision"). I think it would be better to aim at correctly clarifying the whole settler/worker/immigrant issue by locating sources to get some specifics about the Turkish population coming from mainland Turkey rather than go "word hunting" through the internet. Take care--Xasf 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to recapitulate, we have immigrants, gastarbeiter, settlers...? It seems unfortunate that, due to its isolation, very little is known about Northern Cyprus and much misunderstanding is generated. (On a personal note: Since April 2004, the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community seems, in a crazy sort of way, as tragic as the isolation of the Istanbul Greeks). Politis 00:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Greeks of Istanbul have valid passports - they can go to any country they want, either for tourism or work, as long as they have a visa just like other Turkish citizens - It is also hard for many Turks to get a visa too. They do not have to route their flights from Greece either. Plus they live in a city that has a population greater than many countries in the EU, a city which has every single organization/building/institution that would be needed to run even a country, economically, culturally and socially. They are not isolated :) Baristarim 09:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Baris Turkish Cypriots are not isolated either. They are citizens of the Republic of Cyprus and can go in any European Country or elsewhere they wish to. Heres a note directly from the EU : "In light of Protocol 10 of the Accession Treaty 2003 Cyprus as a whole entered the EU, whereas the acquis is suspended in the northern part of the island (“areas not under effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus”). This means inter alia that these areas are outside the customs and fiscal territory of the EU. The suspension has territorial effect, but does not concern the personal rights of Turkish Cypriots as EU citizens, as they are considered as citizens of the Member State Republic of Cyprus"[5].

But the issue at hand is slightly different, as Xasf mentioned above we have Mr. Mercan referring to a third-party report prepared by foreign researchers (third party...) referring to colonisation by Turkish settlers... Who can dick up those reports and see whether the reports have been reviewed? :) Aristovoul0s 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Nhahaha :) You can't tell people what country they are a citizen of aristos. If they choose to, then fine - if not then we have to respect that as well. You should also read some opinions about the legal ramifications about the rejection of the referendum by the Greek Cypriots, by the way. In the future, it can easily be considered as a case of "loss of right to sovereignty"

EU doesn't make international law by the way. It is an entity just like others. Let me give you an example, legally, why all those statements of the European Union that you quoted is nothing but hypocricy, bullshit and political manouevring that has absolutely no legal basis:

There are various schools of thoughts as to how a "state" is formed:
- constitutive theory,
- declarative theory,
Constitutive theory is outdated, and is not accepted as a criteria as far as the creation of a state is concerned. And most importantly, it is not codified in international law.
Declarative theory has at least one incidence of being subject to a international treaty: Montevideo Convention
- A state is this: " territory+people on that territory+an entity who disposes the right of "legitimate force" (as a legal term) and whose de-facto authority extends over that territory and people on that territory" - recognition is not necessary.[6] Recognition only concerns third parties that would like/not like to enter into relations with that state.
EU hasn't signed it; however, in one of its committees, it has adopted this resolution in line with the spirit of that convention:

the state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty" and that "the effects of recognition by other states are purely declaratory

[7] - (Check that link as to why it can be easily considered that Cyprus has lost its right to sovereignty over the north; thank that Turkey is trying to enter the EU, otherwise TRNC would have made stronger moves to become a truly independent state - I will actually try to find legal opinions about this as well)

Therefore, that EU declaration contradicts the findings of one of its own commisions on Yugoslavia, ergo - it is nothing but a scrap of political toilet paper written just to pay lip service to Papadopoulos. Again, EU doesn't mean jack s..., it is a political entity that doesn't have the capacity to make international law. Just because it considers the citizens of TRNC as citizens of RoC doesn't make it so.

Don't make me dig up more legal stuff, I argue about law enough in my real life :) However, now that this issue is getting heated up again, I will try to dig a lot more legal and academic sources as to why we will never have "illegal" or something else in the intro. I will also try to prepare a section on the international status of TRNC with regards to intl law. UN resolutions from 25 years ago don't mean anything in the light of the developments of since then. Baristarim 19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This one also gives a nice summary of the TRNC/Turkey subject [8], as well as basic principals of international statehood recognition (it refers to "it" as Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus btw)

Moreover, TRNC was never declared to be illegal - its declaration of independence was considered to be "legally invalid" - there is a great difference. Therefore, as a state, it has a right to grant citizenship to whoever it sees fit.

TRNC, legally, is an "unrecognized state" - it is not "illegal" nor is it "pseudo" or I don't know what. Even though the international law doesn't allow the creation of internationally recognized states except in two cases (which do not cover the case of TRNC), a third case could also be applied: the recent jurisprudence established by the report on Kosovo by the UN that establishes the criteria for the "loss of right to sovereignty" can easily be applied to TRNC - armed conflict followed by the seccession in the aftermath of foreign armed intervention to stop the conflict (which Turkey had a legitimate legal right to do per its guarantor powers). As I said, Cyprus should be thankful that Turkey is trying to enter the EU, otherwise there would be no chance in hell that TRNC would not become a independent state one day. TRNC has a much stronger case than some people think actually. Just my two cents :) Baristarim 19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Baristarim, you gave us a few POV stuff, but what's a bit of POV between friends :-?. Now this is what you gave us (based on the links you provided):

The 1991 Badinter Arbitration Committee gave an opinion. That was all.

As for the Montevideo Convention and the entry in the encyclopaedia britannica[9], we read that, "International law has been quite adamant in proclaiming the sanctity of post-World War II national borders, and in censuring attempts at secession in instances such as Katanga, Biafara and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus".

Finally, you said that the TRNC "has a right to grant citizenship", but which countries accept those documents for legal entry for the purposes of tourism, business or work, into their territory? If there are any (other than Turkey), they should appear in the main article.

As for the EU being hypocritical, etc... people who live in glass houses should not throw stones (this applies also to the ROC authorities). The EU does not make international laws, but it certainly sets its own laws, criteria and standards and by which other entities have to abide. The ROC is seriously abusing this state of affairs to the detriment of the Turkish Chypriots, but it is its right to do so :-( Politis 20:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

lol.. How can we get along without some POV? :) The thing I am trying to point is that TRNC is a state, it has seceded, its declaration of independence has been considered as "legally invalid" since it doesn't conform to the criteria established in intl law for the intl recognition of states, however - as a state, it still retains the state prerogatives. The EU declaration on the citizenship of TRNC "citizens" cannot be considered as an authority because in the eyes of the TRNC, those people are its citizens. The point is, EU is not even a state and therefore can't decide who is whose citizen. It has a right to consider them as not being "valid" for itself - however not illegal. Recognition only implies a willingness to deal/not deal with a state and is not required for a state to be sovereign. It just is if it is - a state by definition is sovereign over a defined people living on a defined territory. The article is attaching too much importance to the opinion of the international community IMO.

In any case, I need to find some better references specific to the TRNC's current situation in its relationship to Cyprus. Some of my comments were not directly related to the article in the sense that the legal status of TRNC is still a theoratical one that is open to a big variety of interpretations. The new jurisprudence of Kosovo is also important, but again it is also fuzzy in what exactly it would be imply for TRNC.

However, there needs to be a distinction between the legality of Turkey's actions and those of the TRNC. Even if Turkey's military presence is disputed, that only concerns Turkey, not TRNC as an entity since they are two different states.

ROC of course has the right to act as it sees fit, can say nothing about that.

I will try to get back to this later, I am just too tired :) Baristarim 20:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Things aren't as clear-cut as that, of course. In fact, the legal confusion has served the Turkish Cypriots well. They want their Cypriot citizenship and EU passports issued by the Republic of Cyprus, but at the same time will not abandon their separatist project in the north. At some point, they're going to have to decide what is more important to them. Those who place the sanctity of the "TRNC" and their Turkishness über Alles should be stripped of their Cypriot citizenship, and with it, the right to move freely in Europe. They can't have it both ways. Possessing the "citizenship" of the "TRNC" is a direct denial of the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you will the find the majority of Turkish Cypriots were more than willing to dissolve the TRNC in favour of a United Cyprus via the Annan plan. If anyone wants its both ways it is the Greek Cypriot administration. They want to avoid any United Nations peace settlement and at the same time demand Turkish Cypriots abandon their state and join them. As for violating the sovereignty of the RoC, Makarios did that in 63 with his 13 amendments, Grivas did that when he attacked Turkish Cypriots villages in 64, Greece did that when she sent 20,000 soldiers in 64 against Turkish Cypriots and military junta did that again in 74 when they tried to annex the island. So please excuse Turkish Cypriots if we hesistate to accept the sovereignty of Greek Cypriots over us. --A.Garnet 12:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody bring out the violins... Meanwhile, in the here and now, supporting the continued existence of the "TRNC" while at the same time applying for a Cypriot passport in order to reap the benefits of EU accession (to which Turkish Cypriots did not contribute one iota) is hypocrisy, pure and simple. The citizenship of any state entails certain responsibilities towards that state, not just rights. I would have more respect for Turkish Cypriots if they boycotted the Republic of Cyprus entirely, rejecting the "Greek" passports, electricity and pensions still handed out to them freely despite their openly hostile attitude towards the evil gavurlar. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Turkish Cypriots voted for reunification, that is the majority of them do not support the continued existence of the TRNC in its current state, if a referendum cannot prove that you i dont know what can. 2. Citizenship is a two way affair, loyalty derives from the ability of the state to look after its citizens interests. Between 63-74 the RoC looked after only Greek Cypriot interests, and under the leadership of Tassos Papadopolous, it is effectively a Greek state. 3. You do not provide free electricity, we pay for it. 4. Do not confuse the fanaticism harboured by Greek and Greek Cypriots against Turks to be reciprocal. The Turkish Cypriot curriculum has even abandoned the Cyprus conflict as part of its history, the south however continues to teach the same hate filled propopanda.--A.Garnet 17:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriots voted for a plan which heavily favoured their interests to the detriment of those of the Greek Cypriots. The result would have been very different if the plan ordered the immediate and total withdrawal of the Turkish occupation forces and the unhindered right of return for Greek refugees. If the Republic of Cyprus is "effectively a Greek state", why do you continue to seek the benefits of Cypriot citizenship? Perhaps it isn't Greek enough, if Turks are still travelling to Europe with "Greek" passports. I don't see how the "Greek Administration of Southern Cyprus" is any more Greek now than it was under Clerides. Finally, the Republic of Cyprus has provided electricity to the occupied territories for decades and not received a cent in compensation. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well now i know the scope of your knowledge on Cyprus probably stretches to reading Simerini online. Turkish Cypriots have paid millions of dollars to the South for use of their electricity. Luckily when i was in Cyprus over the New Year four new generators were delivered to the TRNC from Finland, so Tassos can keep his "free" electricity. --A.Garnet 19:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the few thousand Turkish Cypriots who have gained a roc passport, what do you expect? Turkish Cypriots want the benefits of EU membership and they have been denied them by the Greek Cypriot who were effectively given a blank cheque to vote how they wanted on the referendum. We did not have such a luxury. For TC's now, especially the youth, gaining a roc passport is the only means of improving their lfie. This is the thing with you people, we vote for reunification it means nothing, we force Denktas to resign it means nothing, we bring in Talat and Papadopolous does not even meet him for two years! We become roc citizens and we are called hypocrites. What do you people want, blood? Finally, on the Annan plan, please spare the garbage fed by the nationalists. This plan didnt fall from the sky, Papadopolous put his pen to paper the entire way, that is why when he suddenly announced to Greek Cypriots to reject the plan, the EU enlargement commisioner said he felt cheated by Tassos. Like it or not, Annan plan is going to be the basis of any solution, and in that solution there will be two states, because that is what GC's have agreed on for the past 30 years. There will be no unhindered right of return, if you want that then do expect to be taken seriosly about reaching a solution. --A.Garnet 19:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice. You all forgot to mention that the Annan plan in its wisdom foresaw that 18% of the population should hold 50% of the government. No wonder why the rest 80% or so (GCs) flunked it (and why the TCs accepted it)... Niko Silver 21:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

More distorted nonsense. Senate would be 50/50 yes, but Chamber of deputies would allow for 75% GC makeup and Presidential Council 4 GC and 2 TC representatives. Senate would ensure no community pass law detrimental to the other, but Chamber of Deputies would reflect numerical majority. --A.Garnet 21:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Niko Silver 22:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You also forgot the Supreme court. Check why the 50-50 in both Senate and Supreme court is bad here. Niko Silver 22:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to your content as distorted nonsense. What on earth does "The majority becomes minority in important decision centers" mean on the Annan plan article? The supreme could court would vote by simple majority, if there is a deadlock, a panel of non-Cypriot judges would have the final say. What is wrong with this? You are also forgetting Niko, that the 1960 roc was found on the basis of equal partnership between GC and TC, not on one of numerical majority and this will be reflected in any solution. --A.Garnet 22:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How is this compatible with that:

Many Greek Cypriots opposed the plan as it meant endorsing a confederal state with a weak central government and considerable local autonomy, rather than the pre-1974 status quo ante of Greek Cypriot majority rule over a minority Turkish population. It would also have left Greeks dispossessed of their homes in 1974 without financial redress or the return of their property. The plan would have cemented the division of Cyprus into two political entities and safeguarded the presence of settlers from mainland Turkey, both of which were felt to be illegitimate and unfair outcomes. Any solution other than a return to the status quo ante was deemed unacceptable by many Greek Cypriots, and opinion polls conducted over the entire period of the negotiations from start to finish had always shown around 80% opposition to the proposals.

Status quo ante appears to be different there. I think we need sources here... Niko Silver 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It maybe be somehow irrelevant, but a panel of non-Cypriot judges had the final say in another case... Asking all the time neutral judges, but never implement their verdicts, doesn't seem logical to me. Hectorian 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly Hectorian, your right that is quite irrelevant. I dont see what Turkey asks from the ECHR has to do with the 1960 Republic of Cyprus constitution. Niko, what is written in that article is wrong, or deliberately chooses to leave out important clarifications. The 1960 roc was was unitary, one state one government, but it was founded on a principle of equal partnership. That is why Fazil Kucuk and Makarios signed the treaty of Zurich in 1959, that is why TC was always Vice President and had important veto, that is why all institutions of the state were divided on Turkish/Greek ethnic lines on 70/30 ratio, why Greek and Turkish were official language, why each community had own communal chambers etc etc. It was as David Hanny wrote (and since you want a source) "best be described as bi-communal but unitary state" (hannay, cyprus: search for solution, p.28). That is why from the 1970's onwards the Greek Cypriot administration agreed that a Bizonal, Bicommunal, Federated state (BBF) would be the solution to the Cyprus problem, abandoning any chance of full right of return for refugees, or a return to the status quo.

There was never, and never will be simple majority rule without safeguards for the Turkish Cypriot community. The violence of the 60's and 70's appropriately demonstrates why. That is why i dont like clever dick remarks on the Annan plan by people who have a vague knowledge of what happened in Cyprus and what is happening today. --A.Garnet 00:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your insistence that Greeks should be the only people whose freedom of movement is permanently restricted in the European Union in the 21st century, on the basis of their ethnicity alone, is the main obstacle to a solution. Why should Greeks accept a plan that restricts their right to return to their own homes? As for the poor Turkish Cypriots not having the "luxury" of rejecting the citizenship of a state they detest, I say they would garner more respect if they suffered a bit for their racist ideology of ethnic purity. I would start by stripping you of your Cypriot passport; being a Turk is more important to you, after all, so perhaps it's time you start travelling on your Turkish "passport" and see how far you get. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 02:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Garnet, when i was posting my comment i was thinking that it is somehow irrelevant... But after searching and reading a bit, i realized that it is not that irrelevant after all... The Loizidou case is linked with the Greek Cypriot rejection of the Annan Plan. Isn't that right that, had the GCs votes for 'yes', this case and all similar cases that would ever arise, would be outlawed, both in Cyprus and the EU? wouldn't a positive vote to that undemocratic plan never give them the chance to claim back their properties and to return to their homeland? the "plan" gave full return rights for the TCs, but not for the GCs... is this democratic? as for your newly-coined sense of "democracy" (id est giving to the 18% of the population equal electoral and governmental power with the 78%, with 2 federal states and 50-50 chamber members), how about that: would ever Turkey accept to share power with the Kurds? they form the 15% of Turkey, so, let them elect the 50% of the members of the Turkish parliament, and let the PM of Turkey be Kurd, since the President, head of state, shall be Turk - if parliamentary-presidential democracies mix things up, lets change the Turkish political system into the later, since the Annan Plan also wanted to change the Cypriot political system... Really, have u seen any country in the world that changes its president every 2.5 years and that in official meetings the presidents of its subnational entities should be both present? lol It would be laughable is the chancellors of the 16 German Landers would travel all together for an EU summit:). do not ask to be done for Cyprus things that have no chance to succeed in any other country... Do me a favor and see, if u can, the history of the Annan plans, from the first till the last (which, according to the agreement made in the beginning, should not be modified, but presented to the Cypriots to vote in a referendum). U will see that each new was worst (for the GCs) than the previous. After all, the GC people voted for no, and noone can blame then for the fact that they did not like it... The best someone can do is to understand why they didn't like it. I can understand why the TCs voted for yes, and, perhaps, if they did not have 40,000 troops over them, they would had made further steps towards a solution. Hectorian 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See Belgium and Switzerland - democracy doesn't mean the rule of the jungle; seemingly "anti-democratic" measures can be taken to assure the democracy in the long run. They are particularly common in small states. Frankly, it would be much simpler and save everyone a whole lot of headache if both Greece and Turkey directly annexed the Greek and Turkish parts of it respectively :) Again, that's my personal opinion, I just don't like the idea of small or micro states. Btw, Turkey already had presidents of Kurdish descent, the analogy is not correct. Nobody is stopping Kurds in Turkey from running from office, traveling, working, having a valid passport etc. Don't forget that Turks in France can't run for political office without being proficient in French either. Turkey is not the big daddy of -ification you know :) Baristarim 07:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And there are Turkish nationalists who think Turkey should annex Greece for the same reason; that argument can hardly be taken seriously. The Cypriots have come to take pride in their distinct statehood, whatever their ethnic loyalties. Their democratic right to live in their own state and to vote any way they see fit in a referendum, however powerful its international sponsors, must be respected by all. 2004 was the first time the Cypriots' opinion about their own future was ever taken into account, after centuries of bullying by outsiders. Good on them for finally giving those outsiders the proverbial middle finger. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 07:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

lol. It was not a serious comment to begin with - I was just musing :) It is true that Cyprus has been kicked around like a football by lots of great powers. Britain did it share of kicking around too back in the day, but their kicking was not only confined to Cyprus, unfortunately. What can you do? I definetely agree that they should decide what they want to with their future though. Baristarim 07:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And that's what they're doing, at long last. The withdrawal of all foreign forces would certainly help the process. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 07:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Baris, I know about Belgium and Switzerland and I had the later in mind when posting "2.5 years presidency", but the examples are not the best... These states have 1 president/1 king and 1 PM each. It is only Verhofstadt who represents Belgium in meetings with other leaders. The seats of the members of the Belgian Chamber of People's Representatives are proportional to the provinces' population (and currently the members are 88 Dutch-speaking and 62 French-speaking, almost the same as the 60%-40% respectively of the population strength of each); same thing happens in the Belgian Senate. also, for at least the past 35 years, the Belgian PM is always Dutch-speaking (not cause of any stupid law, but cause of simple democratic procedures). On the other hand, Switzerland is a direct democracy and its Federal Council is not divided along ethnic, linguistic or religious lines, but simply according to people's vote. Small state or microstate or whatever, Cyprus should not be treated differently than the other countries. I know that Turkey had Presidents of Kurdish ancestry (Inonu and Ozal are those i can remember), but none of them ever dared to speak Kurdish in the parliament or to say that is not a Turk (note: not to say that is not a Turkish citizen). To my knowledge, the Kurds of Turkey have all rights, as long as they do not say they are Kurds, as long as they do not claim autonomy or independence, linguistic or minority rights... My comparison above was completely different in its base:). Neither in France nor in any other country can anyone run for President or PM without proficiency in the official language (and some states have limitation laws, e.g. there can never be a Catholic PM in Britain, and the Greek President must always be Orthodox). But the Annan Plan had no chance to be accepted, and it is a shame that the word canton was used in it. I think that the annexation of the two parts by Greece and Turkey, that u said above, had been proposed in the past, but also could never be accepted... IMO, if Cypriots want to be independent, they should be. if other states would also be willing to lose some of their territory and their population to be deprived of its property in its own land, this would be fine; but still, in that case, Turkey should annex the 18%, not the 37%! and the British bases should get the hell out of there, since the only thing they guarantee is the eternal british involvement in the Middle East... Hectorian 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop 'cleansing' the article, argument (usually) works best

Will the anonymous, User: 213.149.169.173, please, please stop 'cleansing' the article; that is no way to erase anyting on wikipedia. Thanks. Politis 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him/her for 31 hours. Khoi khoi 19:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The ethnic %

I read resently that about 1.0% of all North Cipriots and 1.5% South Cipriots were ether British (ex-pats), Malties and/or Italians. --Lilidor 17:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

TRNC without any ""

For those interested in including this information, 3 members of of the British parliament Politis 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC):

House Of Commons (UK parliament)

MISS YONCA SENYIGIT - 07-01-17

18:12:06

Sir Nicholas Winterton [MP] Ann Winterton [MP] Ben Chapman [MP] * 3

:That this House warmly welcomes the appointment of Miss Yonca Senyigit as the London Representative of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, and wishes her every success in her new appointment; and in particular wishes her success in securing the lifting of restrictions on trade and communications with Northern Cyprus, mindful that on 18th May 2004, the UK Prime Minister said `I think it is important... that we end the isolation of Northern Cyprus... that means lifting the embargoes in respect of trade and in respect of air travel' and mindful of the UN Secretary-General's opinion that the Turkish Cypriot vote (for the Annan Plan) has undone any rationale for pressuring and isolating that community.

It was a good article for about 3 days

For a few days this article read very well and was as close to balanced and neutral as its ever been since the Nationalists got hold of it. Since then we have Aristovoulus claiming that Makatrios's changes to the constitution were the maintain order (man I dont know WHAT you are smoking) and the arrival of a new Sock Puppet Thurium (or something)...a new user with a two day old account that jumps straight into the Hellenic arguments and adds 'Turkish sources say' to make this article, once again, not worthy of being on Wikipedia. Disgusting behavior all around from those two users. I would edit things but I have better things to do than lower myself to their level. Adam777 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I made the edit anyway...disgraceful behavior people, so which one of you is the sock puppet? Adam777 01:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thulium is a sockpuppet

Can an admin look at the IP information for user Thulium. In 2 days this user has jumped immediately into specific controversial articles (TRNC, Pontian Genocide) and shown a sophisticated knowledge of the ongoing disputes and a knowledge of the use of Wikipedia that a new user would not have in such a short time. The offending accounts should be blocked. Adam777 11:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam, nothing of what you mention above is an offence per WP:SOCK, unless the user uses two accounts simultaneously. Any user has the right to vanish and re-appear. Do you have such evidence? Niko Silver 12:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ermm yeah... As far as I see he doesn't claim anything. He is just suspicious and just asks for a check Ombudsee 12:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have no problem in a checkuser, but IMO "Thulium is a sockpuppet" and this edit summary don't exactly go along with "he doesn't claim anything". Niko Silver 13:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the "user" use two accounts simultaneously though? We wont know until a check has taken place. It is very unlikely that a user with a two day old account just stumbled into the articles he has taken it upon himself to add NPOV edits into. An IP check would give more information. Adam777 14:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that CheckUser is not for fishing. If you say that "he is probably someone else and I would like to find out who that is", your request for CheckUser will in all likelihood be rejected. A ecis^Brievenbus 14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I would disagree that it is fishing as the user in question has chosen a very specific list of articles being used to promote a nationalist agenda with certain editors. I could throw names out there but those would be 'best guesses' on my part and nothing more. Providing the user restrains from POV edits then no harm no foul I suppose. Adam777 14:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be fishing, because you would not provide the name of the account against which to check Thulium. Also please read the criteria for CheckUser. There are six cases in which a CheckUser may be requested:

1. "blatant vandalism and attack accounts" - A content dispute is not vandalism

2. "Evasion of bans or other remedies issued by the arbitration committee" - The ArbCom case has not dealt with this article, or any of its users afaik

3. "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism" - See 1.

4. "Vote fraud for a closed vote where the possible sockpuppet votes affect the outcome" - No AFD has occurred.

5. "3RR violation using socks" - No users have been blocked for 3RR over this article recently.

6. "Evasion of community-based bans or blocks" - No users involved in this article have been banned or blocked.

A ecis^Brievenbus 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

History

I think history section is not well-written. Especially the intro of it. I think it should be written in a language that can appeal also to the people that are not familiar with it. It lacks the basic info and even a simple chronology about the events, but directly starts from the middle of a debate-like structure. Ombudsee 12:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I see our rabid hellenic nationalists were not happy with the article as it was an had to keep pushing their hate filled agenda. That intro to the history section is a joke as is any claim that Makarios was acting for TC best interests when he attempted to usurp the constitution. Honestly I don't know how some of you can function with so much hatred to contend with. Adam777 14:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam777 is a sockpuppet

Can an admin look at the IP information for user Adam777. In 2 days this user has jumped immediately into specific controversial articles (TRNC) and shown a sophisticated knowledge of the ongoing disputes and a knowledge of the use of Wikipedia that a new user would not have in such a short time. He also falsifies sources and represses the origin of the falsified sources (e.g. he hides the fact that a particular source is Turkish and says it says something the source never said, e.g. something about Qatar when the source in question doesn't even mention Qatar). The offending accounts should be blocked. Thulium 12:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: Adam777 has been with us since February 2006, and first edited this article in July 2006. A ecis^Brievenbus 12:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I had been suspecting that what I regarded as Adam's strong pro-Turkish POV, which was manifested numerous times IMO (numerous diffs on request), was a strong indication that he may be a sockpuppet too. I cannot back this up right now, and I am not accusing anyone. However, on the present content dispute, I have to agree with Thulium. The {{failed verification}} tag is more than appropriate, and the claim inside the article must definitely reflect that it derives from Turkish sources. Niko Silver 13:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, even the Greek media have reported that some Muslim countries such as Azerbaijan and Pakistan have been making noises towards recognition. Who cares, really? It would hardly confer any more legitimacy on the pseudostate in the eyes of the "international community". Let them eat cake. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point Kekrops. The interpretation that these moves constitute "gestures towards recognition" is Turkish-POV. Mentioning the visits etc themselves is NPOV, but claiming that they are "steps" or "gestures" or "indications" towards recognition is an entirely different approach, which I am sure that WP:INDY sources do not exactly endorse. Niko Silver 13:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Uhm... I guess I'll be the mediator once more :) Well my personal opinion is to remove it completely from the article, since it sounds more like a press comment than a solid fact. But I read the article in Today's Zaman and except that it doesn't say anything about Qatar, it mentions about Pakistan and Gambia. I think we can remove Qatar and the facts tag if we don't get rid of that completely. Regards, Ombudsee 13:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, unless of course a reliable source can be presented that backs up the (currently WP:OR) interpretation that those visits are "gestures towards recognition". Qatar and whatever other visits/exchanges of gifts/welcome parties are minor IMO. Niko Silver 13:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with a removal. The original entry was changed to 'Turkish Sources' from 'Sources' which is NPOV in my mind. As for me being a sockpuppet Nico, get a life pal, look though my edit summaries. My issue with on this article is with rabid greek nationalists (or indeed nationalists of any origin) distorting reality. If I'm a sockpuppet then I've been around for quite some time and my puppetry is being used to make NPOV edits on a variety of subjects well removed from Turkish/Greek conflicts in Cyprus. Niko I used to hold you in high regard but you seem to let the more rabid of your peers influence your judgement. Adam777 14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please check the tense that I used in my previous comment. Pardon me for my sincerity in admitting that. As for "what I regarded as pro-Turkish POV", I will refrain from posting the diffs here because I really don't see any good in proving my point. You remeber of course older misunderstandings we had (such as this one), when you yourself later admitted that you were in the wrong. Niko Silver 14:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The tense used in that sentence is very vague with that sentence construct, however I realise that your very good English is a second language and I can see with the benefit of your clarification what you say your point was.

I'd honestly like someone to point out my 'Turkish POV' which seems to equate to disagreeing with some of the rabid and openly anti-turkish editors on Wikipedia. I've spent many years in Greece and have always been shocked at the level of hatred that many of your countrymen display towards your neighbor to the south. I've spent less time in Turkey and have not seen that hatred reciprocated in such a commonplace way. Thats why I took it upon myself to stem some of the more ludicrous assertions that end up on these articles whilst maintaining the core truths. Disagreeing with the likes of Aristovulous who claims that the TCs went WILLINGLY into enclacves, where they lived like animals according to the UN, simply to obtain Takism isnt taking an Anti-Greek POV in my mind....its more akin to showing a child the error of his ways. Some horrible attrocities occured in Cyprus instigated by both sides, and for one side, three decades later, to continue to contrive, lie, distort and manipulate language to try to diminish or obscure their own crimes against humanity is deeply offensive to me. So those are my motives for what it is worth. I have nothing against Greece but I have a lot against Greek Nationalists that think its okay to lie about crimes against humanity. Adam777 15:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Some horrible attrocities occured in Cyprus instigated by both sides, and for one side, three decades later, to continue to contrive, lie, distort and manipulate language to try to diminish or obscure their own crimes against humanity is deeply offensive to me.

I wonder which side that "one side" is? It's probably the more experienced side, after all, contriving, lying, distorting and manipulating language to try to diminish or obscure the Armenian Genocide makes you a veteran of that kind of spin. Doing the same to the mediocre by comparison Turkish doings to the Greek Cypriots must be like a day at the park. Thulium 16:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Adam, from your posts on this page, it seems you are harbouring more hatred inside you than all Greeks put together. Thulium 16:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see, so because I disagree with your position then I must be Turkish. How very predictable of you. I didn't work with you sailing from Piraeus by any chance did I, I seem to recognise that argument. Adam777 16:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I said you are Turkish many times, didn't I? Tell you what, why don't you quote a passage where I call you Turkish (assuming such a thing exists)? You really should carefully read what you are answering to before answering. It saves you from looking like a fool. Thulium 17:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"after all, contriving, lying, distorting and manipulating language to try to diminish or obscure the Armenian Genocide makes you a veteran of that kind of spin." I guess if you wernt talking to me then you might need to learn how to use the word 'you' in conversation.....now what were you saying about looking foolish? :) Adam777 17:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, yet wrong. The "you" refers to that "one side"; perhaps it would have been clearer to say "...makes one a veteran...". Thulium 18:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know is Adam777 is Turkish, but his comment above is not something that i would call "balanced", as he might liked it to be... Been in Greece and seen much hate from fellow Greek countrymen against Turkey, but been in Turkey and saw nothing comparable against Greece? I suppose actions speak for themselves: Istanbul pogrom, bomb attacks against the Ecumenical Patriarchate, labour battalions of the Constantinopilitan Greeks during WWII, expulsion of the (supposedly) protected Greek minority from Istanbul, Imbros and Tenedos, casus belli, etc. who made all these, Adam777? the Greeks? or maybe were/are these some sort of acts of friendship and love? Hectorian 17:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't change the subject please, Turkey has enough blood on its hands but that doesnt make Greek actions in Cyprus any less repugnant. Oh thats right they didnt happen did they. Listen its been fun but I have better things to do, Im sure I'll drop by again soon and see how reality differs from this article yet again. Adam777 17:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the Turkish actions on Cyprus? Oops, I forgot, we are not allowed to talk about it (we may get imprisoned or murdered for "insulting Turkishness")! More Greeks suffered and died as a result of Turkish thuggery on Cyprus than vice-versa. Remember that. Thulium 18:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Enough. Wikipedia is a respectable and serious project, not a chatroom. Verbal attacks and soapboxing won't get you any further, and certainly do nothing to improve the article. If you have something to say, do so rationally, calmly and civilly. Wikipedia is not a battleground. A ecis^Brievenbus 12:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Drawing conclusions?

How is that supposed to be drawing a conclusion for the readers? It's a piece of accurate information regarding the source. Are you saying that if I loaded a set of dubious claims backed up with Greek sources they would be readily accepted as WP:INDY and WP:RS like this one was? I don't get it! Thulium 16:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already qualified by "reportedly". By stating "Turkish sources" you are insinuating that they are biased. The link can be clicked on to see what the source is (and it is noted as Zaman in the footnote as well, with a link to that paper's article). No need to pound it into the head of the reader—presumably they can read for themselves. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying I can load "a set of dubious claims backed up with Greek sources they would be readily accepted as WP:INDY and WP:RS like this one was" (quoting my first post in this section)? Thulium 18:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how dubious these claims are. They're actually fairly weak as it is currently worded. If your claim is obviously dubious, then obviously it won't be considered a reliable source. However, if it is simply a question of weight to be given to the claim, and the claim is from a generally acceptable source (such as a major daily newspaper which is the case here), and you make it clear that it is a report and not a fact, and the subject is actually relevant, then there may be a place for it in the article. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to work something out in the text to reflect what I mean above. Visits can, or cannot be considered as "steps towards recognition" depending on how you want to see them. Thanks for the general cleanup Oz! Feel free to reword my text. Niko Silver 21:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Arguably" works fine with me. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My intention was to move the dispute from the fact that the visits indeed took place (which is indisputable no matter how partizan the source), to those visits being a gesture towards recognition or not. Hence, I replaced reportedly with arguably. Niko Silver 22:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but are we talking about whether a visit of an official of a state equals recognition? Sorry, (again), but are we serious?! could we also include the fact that Rauf Denktas could not and cannot visit the UK (or any other EU state), cause he may have the fate of Augusto Pinochet? this constitutes absolute non-recognition and comparison with dictatorship for the TRNC. To me, this is more important for the Cyprus issue than the visit of an official of Gambia in the TRNC... Hectorian 00:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Discuss changes

I see that we're on the verge of a new edit/revert war, with two "competing" versions of the intro text. Let's stop the war before it starts. Please use this talk page to discuss the intro, instead of reverting back and forth between two different versions. We are here to serve the reader, and the reader is entitled to a stable article. Readers should never have to expect to flipflop from one version to another in a matter of minutes. Please use this talk page to discuss any changes. Continuing in reverting each other will result in me full-protecting the article. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There are actually three versions. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am an outsider, I have no interest in TRNC, on either side what so ever, but I want a better wiki-pedia that helps the reader. Please keep this current version:

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) (KKTC) is a de facto independent republic located in northern Cyprus within the internationally recognised borders of the Republic of Cyprus.

The rest is open for debate, but there is nothing factually incorrect in this initial opening sentence, and it is neutral to either side Pernambuco 23:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

During our debate with Aristovoul0s I've found out that the main problem is with 'de-facto independence'. The compromise I proposed is to add the phrase 'Turkey exercises strong infliuence over the TRNC and supports it financially and diplomatically' (well, something like that) to the first paragraph. Alaexis 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

An informal mediation was entered into some months ago on the subject of 'De facto' and the decision was that 'De Facto' was the correct term to use here. Aristovolus, who is currently banned, keeps pushing on that issue even long after the mediation ruled against him. If you want to pander to a disruptive banned editor go ahead. Adam777 05:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

He is blocked for 48h for breaking WP:3RR. Rightfully, I might add, but that doesn't make him a disruptive banned editor (unless of course he persists in breaking the rules). Niko Silver 13:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the original wording of "de facto state" accordingly. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 06:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of the resistance to De Facto comes from a lack of understanding of the term. It does 'sound' like it refers to a legally valid concept when the opposite is actually the case. Perhaps the initial use of the term 'de facto' could link to the Wikipedia definition of the term and we could link to the list of unrecognized nations elsewhere in the first few sentences. Just a thought. Adam777 16:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The repeated insertion of the word "independent" in the lead is becoming tiresome. The reason why Turkey is the only country to "recognise" the "TRNC" is because the rest of the world rightly views it as nothing more than the territory occupied by Turkey since it invaded in 1974. While the fact that the Republic of Cyprus exercises no control over it is indisputable, its "independence" from Turkey is POV, and a minority view at that. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of argument how independent one state is from another, especially in this era of globalisation. Turkey provides economic and military aid, but Turkish Cypriot citizens elect their own leaders and parliament and look after their own administrative affairs. Relations between the TRNC and Turkey are treated like those between Turkey and any other state. In this respect the TRNC is a defacto independent state. --A.Garnet 17:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

POV.--Domitius 17:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Article is sliding to POV yet again

Once again biased entries citing non neutral sources are sliding the article away from the neutral point of view. I specifically refer to the History section where unspecified 'abuses' of the Cypriot constitution by Turkish Cypriots made the constitution unworkable. Even if you believe that the language, copied verbatim from a ROC report on the issue is not neutral. I would think that the editor in question, just back from a ban, would have chosen to take a more reasoned approach to this article. If (and its a huge if) those abuses can be substanciated from a reliable source then that paragraph can STILL be written in a less antagonistic tone. Your thoughts? Adam777 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How would you suggest then that this sourced information be accommodated? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Find a neutral source that specifies these 'abuses' or revert the text back to the neutral text that preceded it. Its vague and POV right now. Adam777 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well its been a little while and this has not been addressed. I would add a 'citation needed' tag but the issue isnt with the lack of a tag, the issue is with POV vague items being introduced via a POV and vague citation. So I will revert this section back to the non neutral former text at the end of this month unless the 'editor' that put this 'edit' in place chooses, or any editor chooses to remedy the faults. Adam777 21:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Trade Statistics

Can we have some trade and economic statistics for this article? Figures for north-south exchanges, exports to Turkey, imports, tourism revenues, aso, aso... Politis

Aristovoul0s warned

I have issued an official warning to Aristovoul0s, for continuing to add his personal opinion to the article. What tipped the bucket is this series of edits. The user needs to stop soapboxing and editorializing. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Never have i added personal opinion.

"Turkey, in furtherance to its designs, based on territorial aggrandisement, instigated the Turkish Cypriot leadership to resort to insurrection against the state, thus forcing the Turkish Cypriot members of the executive, legislature, judiciary and the civil service to withdraw from their posts, and created military enclaves in Nicosia and other parts of the island" [10]. "As a result of the above, and the intercommunal violence that ensued, the Security Council of the United Nations was seized-of the situation, and by resolution 186 of 4 March 1964 a Peace Keeping Force (UNFICYP) was sent to Cyprus and a Mediator was appointed. In his Report (S/6253, A/6017, 26 Marach 1965), the Mediator, Dr Gala Plaza, criticized the 1960 legal framework, and proposed necessary amendements which were again forthwith rejected by Turkey, a fact which resulted in serious deterioration of the situation with constant threats by Turkey against the sovereignty and territorial intergrity of Cyprus, necessitating a series of UN Resolutions calling, inter alia, for respect of the sovereignty, independence and territorial intergrity of Cyprus". [11]. "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 Cypriots" (Report S/6426 10.6.65)"[12].

"Approximately 37% of the territory of the Republic was and remains occupied. Many thousand of people amounting to 40% of the Greek Cypriot population, representing 82% of the total population of the occupied part of Cyprus, were forcibly expelled. Thousands of people, including civilians, were wounded, ill treated or killed. Moreover, the fate of hundreds of Greek Cypriote, including women and children and other civilians, many of whom were known to have been captured by the Turkish army, is still unknown. The Turkish occupation authorities resorted to a policy of systematic destruction of the cultural and religious heritage of Cyprus.

On 15 November 1983, in the middle of yet another United Nations initiative, the regime installed by Turkey in the part of Cyprus occupied by Turkish troops, issued a declaration by which it purported to create an independent state. Turkey immediately accorded recognition to the secessionist entity which, however, has not been recognized by any other state. Further secessionist acts followed. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 541(1983) and 550(1984), condemned the unilateral declaration and all subsequent secessionist acts, declared them illegal and invalid, and called for their immediate withdrawal. The Resolutions also called on all states not to recognize the purported state and not to facilitate or in any way assist it.

In its search for a peaceful solution, the Cyprus Government, despite the continuing illegal occupation, agreed to intercommunal talks being held in line with the aforesaid UN resolutions. No success was so far achieved, because of the Turkish intransigence and partitionist designs. In the words of the UN Secretary General: "For the present, the Security Council finds itself faced with an already familiar scenario; the absence of agreement due essentially to a lack of political will on the Turkish Cypriot side" (para 53, doc. S/1994/629 of 30 May 1994).

From the above, it is evident that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus is prevented by armed force from exercising authority and control and ensuring implementation and respect of human rights in the occupied area (pl. see inter alia European Commission of Human Rights Reports, Cyprus agains Turkey, op.sit. "The Commission concludes that Turkey's jurisdiction in the north of the Republic of Cyprus, existing by reason of the presence of her armed forces there which prevents exercise of jurisdiction by the applicant Government, cannot be excluded on the ground that jurisdiction in that area is allegedly exercised by the "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus"". pl. also see Judgement of European Court of Human Rights, "Case of Loizidou v. Turkey (Merits) (40/1993/435/514) Judgment, 18 December 1996". [13]. Aristovoul0s 14:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all there's no need to copypaste your entire edit, since everything is visible in red in the diff I provided. I will not go into detail with you on this, since the case is clear. The above text is full of pov, original research and soapboxing. Your warning is not negotiable. Stop using Wikipedia to further your own opinion or case. And I repeat: if you wish to see something changed in this article, use this talk page to gain consensus. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, Aecis, kindly observe that all edits are taken verbatum from the country report of Cyprus to the Council of Europe (here). That is definitely neither WP:OR, nor WP:NOT#SOAP, nor WP:POV. It may be not WP:NPOV either, but that should require addition of the other POV, rather than deletion of the existing POV. Consensus is not required for sourced edits. Maybe quote attribution would be the case here. And of course Aristo should not delete other sourced edits (if he did) to add that POV only. Niko Silver 23:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Three points regarding your reply. 1. Copypasting a text verbatim from another source without proper attribution, without even adding so much as quotation marks, is plagiarism. 2. The text still does not meet our neutral point of view policy, regardless of who originally wrote it. We should give proper weight to the view of the government of the Republic of Cyprus regarding this issue, but we do not present that view as fact. 3. The edits are part of a larger pattern of edits, which together constitute an attempt to further a pro-Cypriot, anti-TRNC point of view. While such views are entirely legitimate, Wikipedia is not the place to vent those views. This behaviour needs to stop. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Exactly, he should mention the source and add the quotation marks. -- 2. Would be solved if he did #1. -- 3. The user is bound to have a pro-Cypriot POV, being a Cypriot himself. We can always add the Turkish-Cypriot-POV also. Patterns of edits are bound to exist both ways, and what we need is a cool head to help weigh those patterns; not to mute one pattern in favor of another.

Look, I understand your concerns. I'm sure your warning will help in toning things down here, but let's try to take whatever is good from Aristo's edits and sources. His knowledge on the issue is very helpful for the article in expressing the Cypriot POV, and in part the international POV (given that he backs that latter one especially with WP:INDY sources). Niko Silver 00:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro (again and again and again)

Listen people, "defacto state" doesn't mean anything - it sounds silly. "de facto inpedendent" (literally meaning independent as a matter of fact, or in street language "independent just 'coz") however means that it is not internationally recognized as such, because it is the opposite of "independent per international law". I find it really ironic that it is being reverted actually - aren't we seriously confusing notions here? Baristarim 09:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The notion that the "TRNC" is "independent" in any serious sense of the word is preposterous. It may be "independent" of Cyprus but it is certainly dependent on Turkey in every way imaginable. That might be the reason it remains unrecognised internationally. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The "independence" here is vis-à-vis RoC first of all, and that's what it means primo. Since it is not internationally recognized, its relative degree of independence is not for the lead to develop - there is the whole article for that. By the way, it could also be said that it is dependent on Turkey because it is not recognized and because of the "defacto" embargo of RoC. How about looking at it from that angle? If Turkish Cypriots have to route their flights from Turkey, obviously they will be dependent on it. Right? :) No need to reply to that one. lol Baristarim 09:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit seems pretty ok actually. But I am sure we will come back to this sometime in the near future, so I am not going to ponder too much about it. :) Baristarim 09:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect neither of us is going to solve the real life issue by tweaking the wording in WP. Kekrops and me want to highlight that the independence is not universal. It is indeed dependent on Turkey alone. I understand Baris' argument that it is dependent on Turkey because of the boycott, but we'll never end citing reasons (ie. it is dependent on Turkey due to the boycott, due to the legally invalid self-declaration, due to the Turkish invasion, due to the attempt for unification with Greece by the Junta that wouldn't go and didn't go through anyway, due to the Turkish Cypriot provocations, due to the Greek Cypriot provocations, due to the Ottoman settlement, due... -we'll never end). How about we write that factual and important information elsewhere? I'll make an attempt. Please advise. Niko Silver 11:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Baris, do you agree with my change? I'm not saying something new here, and I think it accomodates our concerns while it doesn't clutter the first sentence. Niko Silver 11:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, how independent a country is is entirely subjective. We could say Liechtenstein is in fact not independent because it relies on the Swiss for defence and uses the Swiss Franc, or the RoC is dependent on Greece for security. We could even say that under Rauf Denktas the TRNC was in fact dictating Turkish policy, as Denktas had a way of sidelining the Turkish politicians. So saying it is "dependent on Turkey" is simply open to interpretation, and something that should elaborated on in the article, not in the lead. --A.Garnet 13:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The exact same rationale can be applied to how independent a country is. We may as well strike both (like it was before for months), or keep both to show the contrast. Come on Garnet, please, I've done my best in trying to find a middle solution for this wording to refrain from edit warring. We can't say that TRNC being depended on Turkey is POV, and at the same time endorse that its de facto independence is NPOV! Liechtenstein and the others do have interactions with the whole rest of the planet! Niko Silver 13:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

once we get into an argument of how independent a country is, then it never stops, the truth is that no country in the world is truly independent of anyone else these days, Israel depends on the United States, and the United States depends on other countries for oil, and depends on China or else Walmart would be empty, almost the entire Africa depends on donor countries for their survival, not even North Korea is independent even though they have their Juche theory and want to be. The fact is that TRNC governs by itself and that RoC rules do not apply within the territory that is under TRNC control, and that what the intro refers to, the rest of the article also makes that perfectly clear. So the intro is in line with the rest of that article, and please don't change it, it is factual and correct one hundred percent even if some people don't like this reality, when the reality changes, change the intro, not before Pernambuco 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The key difference being of course that Liechtenstein was not produced by a Swiss invasion. The reality is that the "TRNC" only exists as a direct result of the Turkish invasion and occupation of Cyprus, or to put it simply would never have existed without. Its situation is not quite comparable to that of an existing or at least self-generated small country inevitably falling under the influence of a much larger neighbour. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The TRNC exists. No it doesn’t. Yes it does. No yes no …. How long is this going to go on ? I don’t really get what all the fighting is about. No strike that – I do know. But I have a strong feeling it’s not really about the factual accuracy of this article, but rather about whether we want the TRNC to exist or not.

From a neutral point of view : The TRNC exists. Within the constraints of an international embargo it is operating pretty much like a completely independent country. Whether we like that or not, whether it’s “right”, legal, illegal or the result of an illegal occupation – it’s still a fact. Changing the wording in this article to something like “puppet state” doesn’t change that.

At the same time the TRNC is also not recognized by anyone except Turkey and is largely dependant on that country for economic and military aid. Whether or not Northern Cyprus will eventually become recognized, become fully self-sufficient and a full member of the international community one day, doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t yet. No amount of weasel-wording is going to change that.

So – isn’t there someone who can put this into words and finally put an end to this never-ending edit war ? After all - this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a proxy-war zone. Travelbird 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You were talking about me perhaps? ([14][15][16]) Thank you, but I'd be more cautius in excluding people like myself from "a proxy-war zone"... :-) Niko Silver 00:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We could (and apparently are) argue about the definition of independence. However I would guess that most other articles about nations don't specify their independence in the intro. The TRNC has declared independence but that has yet to be agreed upon by the UN. The TRNC is a de-facto state, it exists in fact but is legally invalid. So I would say that the word independent isnt warranted. Thats just my 2 cents. Adam777 19:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What makes its independence worth noting is that it is of a defacto nature. A number of non-recognise states follow the exact same wording in their intro i.e. Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, South Ossetia etc. So this nothing controversial imo, just a waste of time and effort arguing over it. --A.Garnet 19:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, and someone who adds a fact tag (like here[17]) is just plain out disruptive, the fact is in the very existence free of Republic of Cyprus rule. Stop arguing about it, other de facto states that had "outside support" in their creation also has that phrase, it is just reality so stop waste time and effort Pernambuco 22:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I thank Permabuco and Travelbird for endorsing the present version. Niko Silver 00:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A.Garnet, not only is the TRNC (overwhelmingly) dependent on Turkey, but so does its de facto independence status, specifically. So Niko's addition strikes me as rather sensible. Regards, El_C 00:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nikos, do you mean this [18]? Yeah, I suppose it is ok. I don't think that it is necessary to repeat the "Republic" twice in the lead anyways (in addition to the title) + dependancy and recognition by Turkey go hand in hand. The article's main can develop that further down in the article. It is factually correct to state that it is dependant on Turkey for survival in any case, everyone knows that. And I don't see any inherent POV with that either since for the Turkish side it is a good thing, for the RoC side a bad thing. It is just a matter of interpretation. Baristarim 01:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: republic/state — agreed and ammended accordingly. El_C 01:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree and linked T...[R]...N...C (instead). Is it ok? Niko Silver 01:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it uncessary to wikilink republic for this entry, but sure. El_C 01:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry El_C, but the inclusion of the word "dependent" just strikes me as another way to push the "puppet state" pov. We already state it is defacto independent, that it is within the RoC's recognised borders, that the UN recognises the RoC sovereignty over the whole island etc, now we are introducing an ambigous statement that it is "dependent" on Turkey. Dependent how and to what extent? Surely this needs to be elaborated on in the article as part of the economy and military section, not be used to further push the pov which would rather have this article labelled "Turkish occupied northern Cyprus".

Also El_C, while you are here, can you please comment on the pov-title tag. Thanks, --A.Garnet 02:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think dependent is fine for the lead; elaboration as to what this mean can take place in the body. At the momement, I favour Niko's formulation over the alternatives. As for the tag, I'm going to remove it (we can't have a title contested indefinitely — I think that at this point, either either someone files a request for a move, or we should move on). Thank you. El_C 12:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not just economically and militarily reliant on Turkey, but also politically, diplomatically, culturally, in terms of transportation, and so on and so forth. "Dependent" is the only succinct and accurate description of this "special relationship". ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It really is quite remarkable. El_C removes the POV-title tag on this article, then suddenly up pops Dirak out of hibernation, removes the tag from PGG with the help of his Greek editor in arms, and now magically we have the tag reappear here and disappear off PGG! I wish we had half as many dedicated Turkish editors as you people, I really do envy what you can achieve! ;) --A.Garnet 21:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no stake in this issue, other than having had a Greek Cypriot friend whom I once visited 17 years ago. Having read with interest this entire talk page, it seems to me both sides can reasonably and unresolvably argue whether TR/NC is "independent," and therefore "de facto" is too strong a modifier to use as it suggests an accepted, facts-on-the-ground reality. However, the full phrase "de facto independent" has a specific WP definition which appears accurate and NPOV here. This is a problem: "de facto independent" (one phrase) is probably the technically correct term to use based on its WP entry, but for the casual reader who might not click the link in the article (or even realize it's not two links, which I didn't) it sounds as though TR/NC's real-world independence is without dispute. That is of course not the case, so it sounds like POV and I can understand why the intro keeps being edited. I'd propose replacing "de facto" with "self-declared" (which is indisputable), and perhaps a link to "de facto independent" under "See Also". (Note that I am not an experienced WP editor and am just floating an idea on an issue in which I have no stake or strong opinion, so please don't flame me.) Ivanxqz 18:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

For those readers you're talking about it's written two times in the intro that TRNC is not recognised by international community. 'Self-declared' is technically true but the main argument against it is that a lot of the countries (like US, Ukraine or Slovenia) are also self-declared. It would be inconsistent to use this term only for unrecognised countries, it's like writing one thing and meaning another one. Alaexis 18:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair point regarding self-declared, so that is perhaps not the best term to use. But to your other point, while it's clear enough to readers that TRNC isn't recognized by the international community, "de facto independent" (when read casually, not according to its specific WP entry) still suggests that the TRNC's independence is beyond dispute, which from what I can tell is not the case. International recognition and the reality of TRNC's independence appear to be separate issues here. I was trying to find a term everyone could agree on, because I couldn't see everyone agreeing on "de facto independence" when de facto suggests "real," and "independence" is heavily argued. Ivanxqz 19:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we cannot make a version that would please everyone. So I think the current compromise works well enough. Another issue is that these words (de-facto independent within int'ly recognised borders of XXX) seem to hold in almost all articles about unrecognised states. Changing something here would either require changing all those articles as well (which is by no means easy) or will cause similar things to be named differently across the wikipedia. Alaexis 15:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am an outsider to this, but it is clear, the version "de facto independent within the internationally recognized borders of Cyprus" is by far the best, it is factual and true, and it is how the same introduction is done for other entities in the same situation, so count my vote 100% for this Pernambuco 01:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Consistent title

Unlike most here that support TRNC as the title, I don't have much problem with changing it to Northern Cyprus, but I prefer TRNC. Likewsie, I also prefer NKR to Nagorno-Karabakh. I think the title of all de facto countries should reflect this key feature (i.e. through the conventional longform). I also think that, crucially, it needs to be comprehensive for it to work. So I'd like to broaden the scope of this, but before taking it to centralized discussion venue, I'm interested in some brief impressions. Many thanks for your patience. El_C 05:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it El_C, when talking about non-recognised entities, we are not conveying information on a geographic location (as Northern Cyprus would imply), but rather a defacto governmental entity, its institutions, politics, economics etc. In this case it is the TRNC that is notable and not simply the north of Cyprus. Furthermore, as Wikipedia:Naming conflict cleary states, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We use the term TRNC because that is what it is called and what we are describing, not what people think it should be called. --A.Garnet 10:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but my main point is about consistency elsewhere. I'd like to see that addressed, too. El_C 10:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about non-recognised entities in general. So yes, I agree the other should use their long form also. --A.Garnet 11:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, good. I think it would be best to start a centralized discussion on renaming those currently using the conventional shortform into the longform and leave a refractored note in those entries talk pages. El_C 11:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I had said from the beginning that it should be a standard practice.. But obviously it will need to be a centralized discussion because the case is not only about the TRNC. Hmm.. Maybe we can get WP Countries or something else involved to create such a discussion.. Baristarim 11:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to facilitate a centralized discussion about this during the following week. Also, I'm wandering if any editors from the 'Greek side' have any input to offer. El_C 13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not on any side about this, though I'm more familiar with the Greek side of the story than the Turkish. With that said, my vote is for TRNC. Either NC or TRNC reflects a POV of some kind. However, TRNC also describes an entity that does in fact exist, whether or not one believes it to be legitimate. Therefore the name "TRNC" might be political and POV, but it is also descriptive. NC, on the other hand, specifically rejects/ignores the existence of the government which controls the northern part of the country (much the same way as Syria refers to Israel as "Occupied Palestine" on their visa applications). So NC in my view is the "more" POV of the two names because it purposefully denies reality to make a political statement. Therefore, when choosing between two political, POV names, I think we have to choose the one that describes an entity which clearly exists (TRNC), rather than the one that suggests it does not (NC). Ivanxqz 18:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Aristov edits

If you want to include selective sources which demonise one community over the other, then that is a game both of us can play, plenty of sources out there implicating GC's in attrocities and genocides. Personally, i prefer the history to be an objective overview of the event, but if you insist on these kind of sources, I will be forced to give a fuller account of the events (and yes, they will all be sourced). --A.Garnet 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, i had enough. What are you talking about? One of the two paragraphs you are referring to in such a twisting way above are the words of The Secretary-General of the United Nations in 1965. Practicaly you are dismissing the SG's words as "selective source" which "demonise one community over the other", you prefer "objectivity" but not "these kind of sources". You are deleting ^{[citation needed]} tags while providing no sources and believe in "objectivity". This article is blatantly biased, and one sided. What you consider as "objective" sad to say, is the removal and silencing of third party statements made by the United Nations Secretary-General

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

In this article every little piece of information is being twisted to portray and promote Turkish POV by selective sources like this sentence: "In 1963 President Makarios proposed changes to the constitution via thirteen amendments, an unconstitutional act itself according to David Hannay". "Proposing" amendments is deemed unconstitutional (mind you, the amendments were not discussed or implemented), and the amendments are portayed as "to settle many of the constitutional disputes in the Greek Cypriots' favor". A definite Turkish propaganda. Feel free to go through the amendments that were proposed and pinpoint "Greeks favor". And you consider this phrasing and tone and style of writing to be "objective" while the SG words above "demonise" one community over the other?

Feel free to add any piece of information that it is sourced, wikipedia has guidelines that all editors should adhere to. But do not delete sourced information that other editors are adding as if you own wikipedia. Aristovoul0s 18:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been contacted by Aristovoul0s about this edit. I have replied to this on his talk page. My answer may be of use to this discussion: "... One point I would like to make at the moment is my first impression, which is that the two paragraphs you added were somewhat uncontextual chunks of text. I would recommend rewriting the paragraphs, so that they fit within the already existing body of text. (Note: this is purely a layout suggestion, I haven't yet looked into the content of what you added). A ecis^Brievenbus 20:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the disputed paragraphs, I have decided to hide them from view for the moment. If they are to be included in the article, they should be copyedited and wikified to fit in with the existing text. A ecis^Brievenbus 14:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Lock?

Why isn't this page locked? There seems to be so much vandalism from both side and so much arguing nothing is ever going to be achieved by debate. My suggestion is to get a 'neutral' strips the article down to the bones and rebuilds it, not necesserily to it's current length, just stating facts rather than using evocative language. Might be a rubbish idea but thought I'd put it forward. Cls14 17:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

EC report

Let me make this clear. This is not a demographic study. It is a report on languages in the EU which makes a passing mention of the Republic of Cyprus's estimate of the Turkish Cypriot population. It is not an "alternative figure" to a exhaustive census carried out by the TRNC. So please, dont try and pass this off as a EC census or estimate of the TC population when it is nothing of the sort. --A.Garnet 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how reliable the civilized world considers this "exhaustive census". Probably in a similar way to their own self-proclaimed "referenda".--Domitius 14:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Meaning, Turkish Cypriots are part of the uncivilised world? Regardless of this racial slur, I'd ask you do not try and misrepresent the source. It is not a demographic study, it is a report on languages which just happens to mention an RoC estimate. Therefore, it is an RoC figure and not an alternative figure by the European Commision. --A.Garnet 14:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your straw man argument aside, suffice it to say that the Turkish way of doing things on Cyprus barely qualifies as civilized. The Euromosaic is very relevant, and (and now having gone through it) even if it does mention the ROC government that doesn't make it unusable. I've reworded the passage, happy?--Domitius 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because you are still mispresenting it. These are not "Alternative figures published by the European Commission". It is a report on languages which makes a passing mention to an RoC estimate. Therefore it is the RoC estimate that is notable and not its inclusion in a Euromosaic report affiliated to the European commision, which you are trying to portray as granting these figures more authority than the TRNC census. There should be no mention of the EC, all we are concerned with is the RoC figure, not who uses them. --A.Garnet 15:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In principle, I agree with A. Garnet here. Two things: (1) The Euromosaic study carries no authority of its own with respect to those figures. The authors didn't do research on this topic. They assume no authorial responsibility for the correctness of the figures. The figures are those by the RoC authorities. The fact that the Euromosaic authors quote them doesn't change their status and is of no importance for the article. We should be mentioning the Euromosaic study only for technical purposes of attribution (as our direct source, because we are citing the figures second-hand), but not within the text as if it had any bearing on their reliability. (2) To describe the Euromosaic study as "published by the European Commission" is technically true, in the sense that the EU commissioned the study. But the EU doesn't have the authorship of the study. They act in the role of publishers, not as authors. The authorial responsibility lies with individual teams of researchers.

What the whole conflict here seems to boil down to is that A. Garnet is concerned lest the mentioning of the European Commission insinuate a higher degree of authority to those figures than they deserve. This would indeed be inappropriate. The figures carry no authority connected to the EU, both because of the role the figures play in the report, and the role the commission played in creating the report. The wording should be clarified to avoid any such insinuation. I suggest: "Estimates by the RoC say...<ref>Quoted by Euromosaic, a study commissioned by the European Union ...</ref>"''

Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks btw Fut. --A.Garnet 17:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think of no reason not to write that this data is included in the EU study.. Alaexis 17:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The so-called TRNC

Is this a joke? --Kanuni Sultan Suleyman 18:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus before today. But your edits appear to be promoting one point of view, and we strive here for neutrality. Try thinking about what wordings for the section are factual enough that both sides would agree that the article is correct. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it recognized by UN or not? --Kanuni Sultan Suleyman 18:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Is just means that its legal status is in question. Travelbird 18:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well,...it is not...OK, since it is not, that means that it doesn't need infobox like UN-recognized countries. --Kanuni Sultan Suleyman 18:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to request such a change (would have to apply to all non-recognized countries though). Feel free to start a discussion below - just try not to make controvertial edits without discussing them and reaching a consensus with other editors beforehand. Travelbird 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I just did..Show me UN report please.--Kanuni Sultan Suleyman 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I requested a block for Kanuni Sultan Suleyman for disruptive edits in this article. I hope he'll use the time to read up on Wikipedia policy, so he'll be better able to help if he decides to return to this article when his block expires. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What legal status you r talking about? what about Israel? UN recognised it means it is recognised by everyone.......if that is the case then TRNC should also be recognised by EU etc(although many countries recognised TRNC). Sonny00 20:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No need for infobox for UN not recognized countries

I start this discussion here.

PRO

My conclusion is that the Cypriot conflict has entered a very delicate period in its protracted and troublesome history characterized by a deadlock game. Strong domestic and international factors have created the conditions for each side to follow a non-cooperative strategy aimed at unilateral victory rather than a compromise.--Kanuni Sultan Suleyman 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think you'll need to elaborate a bit on why you don't want an infobox Travelbird 18:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment +1. Alaexis 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment No activity for over two weeks. I think we can consider this matter closed. Bl a st 15.04.07 2238 (UTC)

Against

The main issues

The main issues dividing the Greek Cypriots from the Turkish Cypriots are:

(i) the future political system;
(ii) guarantorship;
(iii) freedom;
(iv) the military status of Cyprus;
(v) displaced persons;
(vi) Turkish settlers;
(vii) territorial adjustment; and
(viii) EU membership.

Among these (ii), (iii), and (viii) have direct relevance to EU-Cyprus relations. Kanuni Sultan Suleyman 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Aristov

"The United Nations Secretary-General at the time describes the outcome of the efforts in this way"...The UN Sectretary General says no such thing. The report you have linked to is written by the Republic of Cyprus, the full version of which is available here. Do not manipulate sources. --A.Garnet 13:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Garnet if in doubt simply request the report from the UN. It is Secretary-General of the United Nations report S/6426 of 10.6.1965, p. 271 Aristovoul0s 15:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC) What you have cited is not S/6426 Aristovoul0s 15:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so it is a quote by the SG from a report that we have no access to. If you wish, we can fill this page with reams of quotes supporting our respective pov's. Perhaps one by Sampson threatening to annihilate the Turkish Cypriot population, or Ioannides urging Makarios to attack every TC on the island, or Makarios stating independence was the first step to enosis etc. As it is, you've made no effort to integrate this text or provide a npov accout of what is being said, if you choose to do so, then I will be more than happy to include a reference to this statement. --A.Garnet 21:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Since readers won't have an access to the UN report (or do they?), we should not use it as a source. But it is the Greek Cypriot government's report, we can have it. If you want to, you can check the UN report or someone (Aristo?) can e-mail you an image. Meanwhile, we should maybe indicate that the source is actually a Cypriot government report where they refer to U Thant's statement. Deniz^T_C 22:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are you leading the conversation? Garnet the Secretary Generals statement is NOT a "reams of quotes supporting our respective pov's". I refute all your statements as irrelevant. Aristovoul0s 04:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I support including this information. It has to be written though that these words of the UN SG are taken from the "report submitted by [the Republic of] Cyprus". This note could be removed after someone will have found these words in some other source that's not associated with the parties of the conflict. Alaexis 13:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

More censorship? Sigh... Garnet, you're free to add anything you want. Saying you're not doing so is no excuse for blanking. I've noticed there's an ever larger group of (pro) Turkish users who do little other than deleting sourced text.--Ploutarchos 13:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said above and in my rv, I am more than happy to include a reference to this statement so long as it is integrated into the text and not simply copy and pasted without any context. If you want to do this then fine, go ahead, but I wont accept what is a concise history being dominated by statement pushing one pov. --A.Garnet 14:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean you like paraphrasing quotes? That's odd - I have been in other disputes where an acceptable paraphrase couldn't be agreed on so we just included the massive quote instead. I doubt Aristovoulos would have a problem with using a consise summary of the quote instead.--Ploutarchos 14:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Niko, I did not delete the sourced material. I paraphrased it and added a counterpov within the same paragraph. Either you have compeletely ignored what I wrote, or your only intention here is to revert for Aristov (along with his sock/meat puppets) --A.Garnet 20:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Check my last diff for an excuse. ok now? Niko Silver 21:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Whose are all these socks (if they are indeed socks)? Ploutarchos 21:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody without danger of technically violating 3RR undo this rampant idiocy? This is the version we want. Niko Silver 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Legally invalid"

I'm not arguing if it is right to include the UN declaration in the intro, but it is definitely sourced. I am referring, of course, to this edit summary. One source is already linked in the article.^here Some more sources exist in this simple search (click HTML if you don't have access to the UN site). I can't imagine why this does not add to the article (we're not saying it's "legally invalid" ourselves, we're saying UN calls it that; which is 100% accurate and WP:ATTributable). Niko Silver 13:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I hate becoming WP:bold with the article for people to notice comments in talk, so please comment. Niko Silver 10:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The UN's position is already given in the intro, the legally invalid term is best suited where it is already mentioned i.e. International Status. --A.Garnet 15:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Where? Niko Silver 15:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"The United Nations considers the declaration of independence by the TRNC as legally invalid in several of its resolutions." Under International Status and Foreign relations. --A.Garnet 15:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If your referring to the intro "The United Nations recognizes the de jure sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the whole island." --A.Garnet 15:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Gah, the diff I provided is from Cyprus! Niko Silver 00:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Greek population expulsion

My adition regarding the expulsion of Greek population from Northern Cyprus was removed by newbie Aloou (2 edits in Wikipedia). Isn't it true or is just the usual censorship of Wikipedia? Or maybe is not a notable event?--MariusM 17:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Valid point (although your edit was not limited to adding this info, was it?). I hope nobody would object to the current version. Alaexis 17:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed my edit was not limited at this info. I removed also "independent" republic, as just bellow in the article is written: "It is dependent on and recognized only by Turkey". Either is independent, either is dependent on Turkey, cann't be both true. Same situation with Abkhazia, South Osetia and Transnistria which are not independent, but dependent on Russia - you know those situations very well, dear Alaexis. Political POV pushing is a serious problem in Wikipedia, and there are many political activists here with a pro-separatist agenda, we should defend Wikipedia against them.--MariusM 14:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Another set of insults... not that I'm surprised

One country could depend on another one to some degree (like San Marino and Italy (high degree), USA and Israel (low degree)); one could argue that all countries of the world depend on each other nowadays, however but that doesn't make all those countries non-independent. Alaexis 16:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't nominate you. If you feel targeted by the expression "political activist" (which anyhow is not an insult), this is your problem.--MariusM 23:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

i didn't say all your insults were directed at myself.

by my personal standards statements like "and you know it very well" (the way you used it 2 paragraphs above) aren't very civil also. Of course your standards could differ from mine. Alæxis_¿question? 04:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification: Did I ever insulted you? If yes please show me when and how. If you consider "and you know it very well" as an insult, then indeed we have different understanding of the word "insult". I should appologies for my low level of English, it is not my native language.--MariusM 17:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

POV

Is it in UN list? No.--193.223.98.186 17:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

they keep warning me but they don't speak here... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.223.98.186 (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

where are your arguments?

Why am I reverted? why they make blind reverts?

Because you're over WP:3RR. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 17:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer a text without citation tag.

I will not rervert anymore but tell me why is it better to have a text that has no source in an article?

Last edists by Aristovoul0s

1. de facto independent republic: I don't understand howcome you people have a problem with that. It's an independent (independent in terms of independent from Republic of Cyprus, since ROC doesn't have any control in the area), republic (so says the constitution), and since it's described as "legally invalid" by UN, we gotta put "de-facto" in front of all these definitions. CIA world book here has a whole section here about Turkish Republic of Cyprus' independence (of ROC), adding that TRNC is "heavily dependent on transfers from the Turkish Government" [19]. So once more; a) TRNC is independent of of the RoC. b) Since rest of the world doesn't "legally" accept this, it's de facto.

2. I don't understand how you come to the conlusion that the reason for the Turkish Cypriot immigration is due to its "legally invalid" status. If it was so, they'd rather immigrate to Roc right? Plus I don't understand how you put it there like that without any source, interpretting UNs statement as so.

Anyway; out of this subject. I think that Greece should've won the Eurovision last night. I really liked the songs and performance there. And you guys also should start to vote for us too. All the world is holding their neighbours there, we could also use a friend ;) Regards, Kerem Özcan 09:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I liked Russians better, but their songs were too Britney'ish, I felt like I heard their song before. Deniz^T_C 23:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Another edit war, another request for page protection

It seems that another edit war has broken out. I have filed a request for page protection of this article. This would be the sixth time this article has been protected. Discuss changes to an article. Assume good faith. Don't try to push pov's, and don't accuse others of pushing pov's. Use this talk page. Don't engage in a back-and-forth revert war. Noone is entitled to an edit war, no matter how right you think you are, no matter how strongly you feel about this subject. I'm this close to filing an RFC on the behaviour of all of you. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I explained my points above, and tried to open up a discussion about it, but all I get is blind reverts. Kerem Özcan 22:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss

I see that the differences of opinion that led to the protection of this article are not being discussed on this talk page. I would like to urge you to discuss and settle the issue, otherwise this will start up again after unprotection, leading to a new edit war and a new protection, and another one, and another one, and another one. A ecis^Brievenbus 10:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Which are those? Can you specify or give a link? (I certainly think that the title should be first and foremost, I find it preposterous given that "Northern Cyprus" redirects to that. It's like pointing Western Sahara to Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.) --Polyvotis 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

.nc.tr?

Why we include .nc.tr as TLD for 'TRNC'? Internet Assigned Numbers Authority does not recognize such a TLD [20]? In fact, .nc.tr is not even a TLD, because TLDs are by definition the part after the final full stop (dot). It is propaganda -the TLD of websites ending in .nc.tr is the .tr.--Ploutarchos 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"De facto independent republic"

Does this term, with the impressive google performance, which was enforced on all the pseudo-states' articles by blocked User:William Mauco's permablocked sockpuppet User:Pernambuco, have any source supporting its existence? I think a fact-tag free lead is more than desirable by now...--Ploutarchos 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, don't look any far from wikipedia. Here lies the sourced description. First and the last paragraphs of the politics section. Kerem Özcan 01:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't use Wikipedia articles as sources.--Ploutarchos 08:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't. I redirected you there to point out the source. It's the description from a law dictionary. To be specific; (30 Am Jur 181. Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 345.) Kerem Özcan 15:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to become part of the dispute in any way, shape or form. I will not choose any side, other than the side of Wikipedia's behaviour guidelines. The following message is merely written in order to stimulate a discussion, in the hope that it will put an end to the edit wars, the disputes and the protected status of the article. Ok, enough with the disclaimer. The CIA Factbook article on Cyprus (the Factbook itself is down at the moment, so I'm using a Google cache) says some things about the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. To quote:

"The entire island entered the EU on 1 May 2004, although the EU acquis - the body of common rights and obligations - applies only to the areas under direct government control, and is suspended in the areas administered by Turkish Cypriots."
"the Turkish Cypriot community, which administers the northern part of the island, refers to itself as the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (TRNC)"
"... this separation was further solidified after the Turkish intervention in July 1974 that followed a Greek junta-supported coup attempt gave the Turkish Cypriots de facto control in the north ..."
"in 1975, following the 1974 Turkish intervention, Turkish Cypriots created their own constitution and governing bodies within the "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus," which became the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)" "
"area administered by Turkish Cypriots: Assembly of the Republic or Cumhuriyet Meclisi (50 seats; members are elected by popular vote to serve five-year terms)"
"area administered by Turkish Cypriots: last held 14 December 2003 (next to be held in 2008)"
"area administered by Turkish Cypriots: Assembly of the Republic - percent of vote by party" etc.
"there is also a Supreme Court in the area administered by Turkish Cypriots"
"area administered by Turkish Cypriots: Communal Liberation Party or TKP" etc.
"As in the area administered by Turkish Cypriots, water shortages are a perennial problem;"

I will not draw any conclusions from these quotes myself. I'm merely posting them here in order to provide a basis for discussion, so that you may come to some form of consensus. The only interpretation I will make is that the quotes seem to imply some degree of administrative control of the TRNC over a specific area. The key question that imo you should discuss, is whether these mentions are sufficient to substantiate the term "de facto independent." If it does not, should we use the term sovereign or self-governing instead? In that discussion, I will merely be an onlooker. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is an ongoing dispute about this (on the talk:Cyprus page), though it should rather be discussed here (Since it's the reason why this page was protected from editing) So I am copying and pasting it here, hoping that the discussion continues here; Kerem Özcan 01:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TRNC is independent (independent in terms of independent from Republic of Cyprus, since ROC doesn't have any control in the area), republic (so says the constitution), and since it's described as "legally invalid" by UN, we gotta put "de-facto" in front of all these definitions. CIA world book here has a whole section here about Turkish Republic of Cyprus' independence (of ROC), adding that TRNC is "heavily dependent on transfers from the Turkish Government". So once more; a) Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is independent of of the RoC. b) Since it's a fact that rest of the world doesn't "legally" accept, it's de facto. Similar examples can be found on the pages of the countries similar cases; South Ossetia, NKR, Abkhazia, Transnistria. (And I'd like to note that none of those countries are recognized by any other). Your "region" description for TRNC is, aside from being POV, an incomplete statement that doesn't cover any of this information.

Many parts in this articles already witholds a number of national POVs. (Have you noticed that the source I've just attached use the word "intervention" instead of "invasion"?) So please act sensible and maybe we can at least keep the intro Neutral. Kerem Özcan 15:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Aristovoul0s, I really, really hope that you are not going to accuse me of a pro-Turkish bias. The "four parts" introduction is a short, snappy geographical summary of the division of Cyprus. The status of the TRNC is laid out in full in at least three places on Wikipedia: in this very article; in the List of unrecognized countries; in the TRNC article. I think you can assume that the reader will have the patience to read to at least one of these links. Inserting the extra material you are trying to put into the introduction is merely clumsy point-scoring and to most neutral readers will just scream POV. Paradoxically, I think that trying to bend an encyclopedia to a particular point of view actually repels people rather than helping them to understand. So I will join with the Turkish and neutral editors in reverting your edits till the cows come home. Regards, Vizjim 15:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The link you have attached is fron CIAs library. That is NOT a neutral source. Please keep in mind that UN and CIA although both are organizations differ drastically and substantialy. The first as the Name implies has ~200 member countries that as i noted above all have a saying including both Turkey and Greece. The CIA factbook on the otherhand is a reliable source on statistical matters, but it is also a US government publications and reflects US diplomatic usage. Which organization would be "bias-less organization" internationaly respected and recognized to resolve global disputes. The Cia Factbook or The UN? If the argument here is between the two, i would advocate that the UN Security Council is much closer to neutrality merely due its organizational structure (mind if i add organizational objectives?). Why would someone equate the two?

If a collection of all knowledge is required then the article should also include knowledge derived from all countries of the world who have a saying on the issue and not only the CIA – (US government publications) . The best way to include all knowledge is through a consensus reached by multiple countries on global issues. This is reached through voting that takes place in the UN agenda. A conglomeration of multiple sides input. Not just the US. Otherwise we need to retrieve information from specific countries that would like to offer an input such as Turkish, British Greek and what have you Information offices and create subheadings as to what each country states. Once again the structure of the Security Council is such that multiple countries have input on a dispute and not just one country’s diplomatic stance or foreign policy. If to that balance (UN) and consensus we add as equivalent information from a specific country’s diplomatic stance then the exact equilibrium we need to establish is distorted because we are equating a consensus of multiple countries with the governmental publication of one country. Right?

Vision here

We will provide knowledge and take action to ensure the national security of the United States and the preservation of American life and ideals.

Mission here

"We are the eyes and ears of the nation and at times its hidden hand. We accomplish this mission by: Collecting intelligence that matters. Providing relevant, timely, and objective all-source analysis. Conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve United States policy objectives".

Values In pursuit of our country's interests, we put Nation before Agency, Agency before unit, and all before self. What we do matters. Our success depends on our ability to act with total discretion and an ability to protect sources and methods. We provide objective, unbiased information and analysis. (internaly but national interest externaly) Our mission requires complete personal integrity and personal courage, physical and intellectual. We accomplish things others cannot, often at great risk. When the stakes are highest and the dangers greatest, we are there and there first. We stand by one another and behind one another. Service, sacrifice, flexibility, teamwork, and quiet patriotism are our hallmarks.

Have a look at this

] to understand what "intervention" by CIA means. And no you have not provided independent, verifiable, reliable sources to remove the NPOV sentense in the introAristovoul0s 16:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Aristovoul0s, I really suspect that you are not reading what I have been writing. I'm sick of rewriting the same stuff in different talk pages over and over, and all you do is misleading the discussion. I'll Simplfy it; Your edition in the intro of this article is unnecessery verbiage, and your edit in The the intro of the TRNC page is totally inacurate. Kerem Özcan 16:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Vizjim try to understand that what i am posting is directly taken from the UN and EU. That is the neutral side. Aristovoul0s 16:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

1 TRNC is independent (independent in terms of independent from Republic of Cyprus, since ROC doesn't have any control in the area), False, Turkish POV. The Republic of Cyprus has "no effective control" There is a major difference between the two in international law, fairly attributed as such by the references i have provided above.

2 republic (so says the constitution), The "Constitution" is null and void by the UN i have repeatedly provided one specific resolution which says so.

3 and since it's described as "legally invalid" by UN, we gotta put "de-facto" in front of all these definitions. NO. If it is described as "legally invalid" we need to put "legally invalid" infront. de facto meaning in fact, in practice whether legally or not differs vastly from "legally invalid"

3 CIA world book here has a whole section here about Turkish Republic of Cyprus' independence (of ROC), adding that TRNC is "heavily dependent on transfers from the Turkish Government". Have explained CIA diplomatic stance above.

Kerem hope this makes clear to you that i have indeed read what you wrote although irrelevant to this article. Still the sentense in one of the disputes should read: the area not under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus in the north, styling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which has been declared as legally invalid by UN resolution 541;

I expect to see your references justifying that the sentence above is not from a NPOV, independent, verifiable, reliable. Aristovoul0s 17:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Aristovoul0s;

Your misunderstanding are in such a fundemental level.

Your interpretetation of the words independent and de facto are completely irrelevant.

I am taking these definations from Merriam-Webster;

De facto (adjective); 1) actual; especially : being such in effect though not formally recognized <a de facto state of war>, 2) exercising power as if legally constituted <a de facto government>

Independent (adjective); 1) not dependent, not subject to control by others : self governing

TRNC fulfills all these criterias. Kerem Özcan 17:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the definition, read it carefully it explains why the illegal Turkish Subordinate regime in Cyprus (as refered to by the ECHR in Loizidou Vs Turkey), does not by no means satisfy any of the aboveAristovoul0s 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Of Course that's how UN will refer to TRNC on paper. Because TRNC is de jure a subordinate regime in occupied turkish territory. But it's a de facto independent republic. to analyse it; TRNC is a state that is "exercising power as if legally constituted" (de facto) "self governing" (independent) TRNC is not the only example and that's how those countries are referred. CIA world fact book is NPOV in this case btw. I am not getting a quote about Iraq or Iran. Or will you claim that CIA world fact book is pro-Turkish and/or anti-Greek.

Would somebody please put an end to this comedy? We shouldn't even be discussing it. Kerem Özcan 10:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Aristovoul0s, try reading what I wrote and replying to that instead. Vizjim 03:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Vizjim if it is geographical summary of the de facto partition of the Republic of Cyprus then it belongs in the geography section. YES it will just scream out loud the UN POV the most of all organizations balanced and acknowledged as such to deal with global disputes. Turkey is a member of the UN and it is the only member to violate resolutions that she is part of. This should also be noted (not in geography though). I hope you are covered.

Kerem i did not expect you would read anything that i have said so far and by he looks of it i was right. Try reading everything said once again please. Aristovoul0s 11:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I advise you to do the same. You keep bringing a "de jure" source for a "de facto" situation. I dare you, try to put "region" instead of "de facto independent republic" in any of South Ossetia, NKR, Abkhazia, Transnistria articles and see the results. If it's accepted there, than we'll have it here. Kerem Özcan 12:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Aristovoul0s, you are not answering the point that all of the things you mentioned are covered at excruciating length within this article, and do not need to be re-iterated when the existing structure already makes clear that the TRNC is not a state in the same way as the Republic, and is the product of invasion. And does so in admirably few words, as well. Vizjim 15:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What I would like to know is what is the word "independent" doing in the lead. Is there any source for independence? The way I see it, "TRNC" is de facto part of a sovereign state (Cyprus) under military occupation by a foreigner (Turkey), and functions more like a province of Turkey than like an independent state. The word "republic" means very little, because all it signifies is form of government: Republika Srpska and Tatarstan are also "republics" without being independent. I propose a lead along the lines of: "TRNC is how the regime administering the part of the Republic of Cyprus which is under illegal Turkish military occupation styles itself".--Ploutarchos 08:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TRNC can not be described as "independent". because it's not independent according to law (de jure). However it is "de facto independent". Which means her indepence is illegal. Under this illegal independence, it functions as a sovereign state, not like a province of Turkey. TRNC has it's own president, prime minister, cabinet, constitution... basicly every requirement an independent state should have. Yet, we can't solely say that it's an "independent state", without putting "de facto" in front of it, because all I counted has no validation by law. (Having no army or using the currency of another country doesn't revoke this de facto independence. Otherwise Liechtenstein, Vatican City or San Marino wouldn't able to be classified as independent.)

And your second statement should be the exact opposite. TRNC is "de jure" (the law says so) part of a sovereign state (Cyprus), under military occupation by a foreigner (Turkey)(That's why it's "legally" invalid). Yet it's de facto a self governing state. (One might say that the policies of the TRNC administration is dictated by Turkish government (which I wouldn't agree btw), but that would be WP:OR. Same thing could also be said for the USA on current Iraqi government, but that would just be a personal opinion.

About Republic, it does signify something. Let's suppose that the self declared Turkish Cypriot state had a king, (instead of a president and a cabinet). Than we would have to call it a "de facto independent monarchy"

And my suggestion for the intro: Though I think "de facto indepedent republic" is the adequate NPOV term for it, I agree that to the ears of somebody unfamiliar with the situation it sound as if this independence is legal, which makes it "de facto POV :)". On the other hand "styling itself" is correct but insufficent (it would be sufficent in the Cyprus page but not here). To prevent this; I would suggest the following wording:

"TRNC is a ~~self-proclaimed~~(see below) de facto independent(sources are below) republic recognized only by Turkey. It's located in northern Cyprus, within the internationally recognised borders of the Republic of 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. The United Nations recognizes the de jure sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the whole island.

From the tip of the Karpass Peninsula (Cape Apostolos Andreas) in the northeast, the TRNC extends 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 territory between the TRNC and the area under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus is separated by a United Nations-controlled buffer zone."

I hope this satisfies everybody. Regards, Kerem Özcan 15:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Kerem, is 'self-proclaimed' really needed? After all a lot of world's countries (starting from USA) are self-proclaimed and it's not written in their articles.

Btw there's a dispute about similar issues at the Talk:List of sovereign states. Regards. Alæxis_¿question? 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, actually "self proclaimed" is not needed at all, but I thought that it might help the reader to understand that TRNC's independence is not widely recognized. I understand the confusion you mentioned. We can still use de facto instead, it already states that it's only recognized by Turkey. I have the sources for de facto independence below; Regards, Kerem Özcan 02:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence of "de facto independence", I'm sorry. Totally unsourced...--Ploutarchos 22:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are five other sources;

This article has such a source; "58 Kaufmann (1998), p.126. The role of Turkey in enabling the de facto independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has been well-documented, ..."

This one is an article from The Guardian, stating that "The Turks, on the other hand, demand some form of recognition of their de facto independence, which the rest of the world refuses to accept"

This one talks about sovereignity and de facto independence; and how these terms would be applied to states such as TRNC.

This one is an Article from the Halkın sesi, goes as "Following 1974, Turkey was able to secure the security and the de facto independence of the TRNC but failed to demonstrate the same success in the economic field."

Another one on this web page, of of an article.

I hope these are satisfactory. Regards, Kerem Özcan 02:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the first post on a talk page so please excuse any errors in the way I post my opinion on the matter.

The term "sovereign" applies to states that are able to contact international relations with other states in a legal (according to international law) and formal level. The TRNC has not that ability to this point since it has formal relations only with Turkey (the Republic of Turkey) and is recognised only by Turkey as a sovereign state. The term "independent" is more flexible and can apply to any area, part or entity that can be considered self-governed, either formally/legally or not. If the independence is formally aknowledged then we have a de jure status. If the situation is close to independency (because the sovereign state, in this case Cyprus (the Republic of Cyprus) has not control over the area, over the populace and cannot exersice it's law) because the course of events lead to it, then we have a de facto status. So I think the term "de facto independent" is the most proper. The title of the article should be Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus because that's the title they chose for themselves, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must not act like no such term exists. Furthermore, the man who is the head of the government of that de facto self-governed part of Cyprus, is also recognised by the UN and the Republic of Cyprus as an official spokesman of the Turkish-Cypriot community. The term should also be linked to the phrases "Turkish Cypriot side", "Northern Cyprus", "occupied Cyprus territory" (since the Turkish army is internationally recognised as an occupational force) "occupied northern Cyprus". As for the analog to the question over the China name and whether there are two Chinas or not: Both the People's republic of China (China) and the Republic of China (Taiwan) agree that there is only one China but cannot agrre on which of the two has rightfull authority over it. As for whether the term Cyprus should apply only to geographical information and not to the Republic of Cyprus I disagree. Noone uses in his everyday speech the official name of a country. Nobody says "I read a travel guide about the Islamic Republic of Iran" or "I recently visited the Eastern Republic of Uruguay". If the term is spelled "Cyprus" it should apply to both the island as a geographical region and to the country (the Republic of Cyprus). the term "northern Cyprus" should apply only to the geographical region, and the term "Northern Cyprus" should apply to the occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus, which is self-proclaimed as TRNC. Let's not forget that still the Republic of Cyprus is recognised by the UN as the sole governing body on the island, it uses the same constitution as in the day it was recognised as sovereign state, and that the seats of the Turkish-Cypriots are still kept vacant in the country's administrative bodies, pensions to Turkish-Cypriots are still on the states budget and Turkish-Cypriots can still use their citizenship as citizens of the Republic to acquire a Cypriot passport. thank you for your time HolyDio 23:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Those gestures are pretty dinky ones. Even Glafkos Clerides regards Papadopoulos' present policies regarding Northern Cyprus as self-defeating. Pretty soon, the partition will be formalized, and the TRNC rightly acknowledged as a sovereign state, despite the efforts of any and every xenophobic Greek nationalist to stop it. User:Expatkiwi

And pigs might fly. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Why is it that these Greek Cypriots, who were once murdering the Turkish Cypriots, and getting Murdered themselves by the Mainland Greeks.. Still find the time to give such detested hatred to Turkish Cypriots. Everyone Knows that the 1974 was actually started by the Greek Cypriot Genocide Files... and we all remember the fact that they even went far enough as to kill British Soldiers at them time (Archived by Birtish Papers), lets all look at the BBC timeline: [www.bbc.co.uk] for Cyprus, and remember the facts before listening and actually diluting the credibility of a Turksih Cypriot community.

This is all part of a unsuccesful coup by the Greeks, and this is still carrying on today not with guns but with words... if it wasnt for Turkish intervention the innocent people of Cyprus (Turkish) would all now be dead! STOP IT and GET OVER IT.. otherwise you are just proving your hatred, and murderous attitude to the world! As for victimisation.. you had 30 years to get over a war.. 30 years to forget that you once had hatred for the turks..but yet in an EU vote you still said NO TO PEACE! we all know what the facts are.. so stop this nonsense!![21] RO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.161.169 (talk • contribs)

Moved down from Talk:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus#Comments. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^Rule^/^{Contributions} 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use this talk page to discuss the article, not the subject of the article. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^Rule^/^{Contributions} 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WHY is it that Turks always blame their victims for their actions??? The Greeks were responsible for the brutal Turkish invasion of an 82% Greek populated island? The Armenians were killing Turks instead of the Turks annihilating them in genocide? Turkish hypocrisy is outrageous! Greeks voted no in the Annan-plan because they would not be able to move back into their homes (most of which are occupied by illegal settlers from the Turkish mainland who now outnumber Turkish-Cypriots themselves) and the Turkish military would be allowed to stay, there were no benefits for the Greek-Cypriots whatsoever.--Waterfall999 11:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources

[22]

“

The role of Turkey in enabling the de facto independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has been well-documented

”

[23]

“

Following 1974, Turkey was able to secure the security and the de facto independence

”

Alæxis_¿question? 12:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the sources are pretty clear. Of course her indepence is only recognized by Turkey. Otherwise it wouldn't be "de facto". I suggest reverting the edits by Aristovolous. If one has something to bring, talk page is the place where it should be done. Regards, Kerem Özcan 13:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a Turkish newspaper, and original research by a student at a University. Reverted. Unacceptable Aristovoul0s 03:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I presented 5 sources: One of the sources is the Guardian newspaper. (If you want we can odd out the rest and just use that one). Another one is an article from Leon Hadar, a middle east specialist, presented in the Anti-war.com. The one that you claim is an OR by a student, actually quotes that whole information from an other book so we can directly use that book if you want: ("Kaufmann (1998), p.126). And one as matter of fact is a Turkish newspaper quoted by "Hellenic resources Network" because it criticizes Turkey for not helping TRNC economically as she should. (So can it be used as a source to back the ideas you like and not the otherway around?) But it's a Turkish newspaper anyway, so I wouldn't be against of removing it. There are enough sources anyway.

And excuse me but what the hell is this? This is not a place for propaganda. Regards, Kerem Özcan 08:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And now this? Will somebody stop the guy? He has time for such things but not for discussing his changes on this page. Regards, Kerem Özcan 13:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If no voices are raised against it in couple of days I'll take it as a consensus and put the sources back into the article. Kerem Özcan 20:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

One more revert and the article goes back to being protected. Discuss, don't editwar. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

GENOCIDE AGAINST TURKISH CYPROTS

I strongly believe there was a genocide against Turkish people in the island of Cyprus to get them out of the island. I think it sounds a lot more sensible and reasonable then other "officially accepted" genocides. Thelorien 18:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use this talk page to discuss the article and to suggest improvements. This talk page is not the proper place to discuss the subject of the article. A ecis^Brievenbus 18:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't hear about any source supporting Thelorien's affirmations.--MariusM 19:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thelorien, you can not say that you believe a genocide happened, or did not happen. genocide is not a religion, if it happened, than it happened. I am sure, you do not BELIEVE that armenian genocide existed, this is the classical turkish speech. you can not write history according to your beliefs. 83.19.35.2 09:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Turks have the moral authority to even use the word genocide, considering the fact that they refuse to recognize several of the largest genocides of the 20th century (committed by themselves of-course) including the Armenian Genocide, Greek Genocide, and Assyrian Genocide. 8000 Greek-Cypriots were killed in Turkey's bloodthirsty invasion of Cyprus so enough with the hypocrisy--Waterfall999 11:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tags out?

Article has been stable for a while, so if no one opposes I propose to remove the tags in the beginning. Kerem Özcan 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The Cyprus-related entries are always amongst the worst on Wikipedia regarding bias. Innocent or uninformed users of Wikipedia should be given a clear warning that this entry falls far short of even Wikipedia's low standards. Meowy 23:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly don't you like in the article? Alæxis_¿question? 06:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I renew my proposal. I'll take it as a consensus if no voices are raised. I am sincerly open to any solid and constructive criticism. Regards, Kerem Özcan 21:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, being busy with my "real life", I totally forgot about my proposal. Since the tag-in/out edits just started, I'll remove the tags soon, if no solid concerns are voiced here. Regards; Kerem Özcan 11:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Both the tag regarding the POV title and the POV content of the article must certainly stay. People tend to accept that this being an article on the non recognised "TRNC" it is supposed to be representing the issues from the perspective of the Turkish MOF and its propaganda organizations so they do not really bother editing the content, but to claim that the article is not POV verges on the absurd. The tags stay. Larisv 11:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

well, though you say it's absurd, I claim the article is fairly NPOV. What exactly you think is pov/unsourced? bring it here, and we'll discuss. Regards, Kerem Özcan 13:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here goes a critisism of the article (from the history section):

"The Constitution of Cyprus, while establishing an Independent and sovereign Republic, was, in the words of de Smith, an authority on Constitutional Law; "Unique in its tortuous complexity and in the multiplicity of the safeguards that it provides for the principal minority; the Constitution of Cyprus stands alone among the constitutions of the world". Within three years tensions between the two communities in administrative affairs began to show. In particular disputes over separate municipalities and taxation created a deadlock in government. In 1963 President Makarios proposed unilateral changes to the constitution via thirteen amendments, an unconstitutional act itself according to David Hannay."

Firstly you cannot propose unilateral ammendments. The two terms are contradictory. Clearly the original version talked about a proposal for ammendments and someone foolishly added the term unilateral to give the whole issue a POV flare. Hannay's views are clearly not an expression of a majority view and therefore given undue importance to support the author's POV.

Makarios proposed the amendments without consultation with Turkis Cypriot members of government i.e. unilaterally. The term unilateral is sourced and Hannay is an authority on the Cyprus problem, therefore it warrants inclusion. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots rejected the proposed amendments as an attempt to settle many of the constitutional disputes in the Greek Cypriots' favor[6] and as a means of demoting the Turks' status as co-founders of the state to one of minority status, removing their constitutional safeguards in the process. The President believed the amendments necessary, "to resolve constitutional deadlocks".[1] "

This reference is POV. It gives greater emphasis on TC arguments and includes pov statements such as reference to the Turks as co founders of a state as statements of fact. The reference to the GC pov is cryptic and inadequate.

Look, you cannot dismiss sources as pov because you do not like them. The fact that the amendments were in favour of GC political ambitions on the island are well established, the above source merely confirms it. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"On 21 December 1963, a Turkish Cypriot crowd clashed with the plainclothes special constables of Yorgadjis."

Unsourced and factually unfounded. If the clash occured with special constables, they were special constables of the State, not a Minister.

I believe that is taken from www.cyprus-conflict.net, which is to remind you probably the best academic resource on the Cyprus dispute on the net. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Almost immediately an organised attack by Greek Cypriot paramilitaries was launched upon Turkish Cypriots in Nicosia and Larnaca."

Utterly unfounded, unsourced and clearly POV.

Again, I believe this is on the above website, will have to source these. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Though the TMT-now charged with defending the Turkish Cypriots- "

Reference to the TMT as charged with defending the TC's is POV. It implies that the TC's were under attack and needed protections, a POV interpretation of events.

TC's were under attack, that has been established in the above sources. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"committed a number of acts of retaliation, the historian Keith Kyle notes “there is no doubt that the main victims of the numerous incidents that took place during the next few months were Turks”[6]. "

Selective use of sources to present a POV statement as a fact. Though Keith is probably the least biased source in the article he still is not the unquestionable authority expressing the majority view nor is the opposing view represented in the article regarding this matter. For example one can argue that it would be more accurate instead of speaing of "victims of incidents", to speak of fights for control in which in most - but not all - cases Greek Cypriots prevailed.

There is no unquestionable authority on anything, if you believe Turkish Cypriots were not being attacked in 63-64 then find such sources. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"700 Turkish hostages, including women and children, were taken from the northern suburbs of Nicosia. "

Unsourced, factually inaccurate (look at http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/Patrick-chp%203.htm) and misleading. After the fierce fighting for the control of the mixed suburb in Omorphita which resulted in a victory for the Greek Cypriot fighters the Turkish Cypriot civilians were indeed taken prisoners and kept for 3-4 days in a school in Nicosia until they could be handed over to the mediators unharmed. The GC's would argue that the TC civilians that had remained in Omorphita after the fighting were taken to the school because they did know what else to do with them.

See http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/www.cyprus-conflict.net/narrative-main-%203.html --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Nikos Sampson led a group of Greek Cypriot irregulars into the mixed suburb of Omorphita and massacred the Turkish Cypriot population indiscriminately.[7]. "

Nonsense! The source is clearly biased, completely unreliable (you might as well have quoted the greekmurderers.com web site) and utterly false (see Patrick at http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/Patrick-chp%203.htm, himself voicing a Turkish POV who speaks of 49 Turk-Cypriots and 20 Greek-Cypriots killed - including GC civilian residents of Omorphita shot by Turkish Cypriot snipers, the very killings as well as a Turkish Cypriot attack on the Greek Cypriot neighbourhood in Omorphita, that brought about the fighting in the first place).

When there is no source you shout unsourced, when there is a source you complain of bias and remove the source, what exactly is it that you want? --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"By 1964, 193 Turkish Cypriots and 133 Greek Cypriots were killed, with a further 209 Turks and 41 Greeks missing, presumed dead."

The reference is not quite correct (again see Patrick) and wrongly stated. By 1964 means that the deaths occured in the 9 or so days of fighting until the 1st January 1964.

This not a npov issue, reword it to make it clearer. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Turkish Cypriots members of government had by now withdrawn, creating an essentially Greek Cypriot administration in control of all institutions of the state. Widespread looting of Turkish Cypriot villages led to twenty thousand refugees retreating into armed enclaves which remained for 11 years,[1] relying on food and medical supplies from Turkey to survive. "

The reference is clearly unfounded (looting did occur but after the Turks left their homes not before - just like all Greek Cypriot properties in the North were looted), unsourced and clearly POV. It attributes the movement of TC to the looting, not a claim that can be taken seriously and nothing more than a point of view and a frindge one to say the least. Reference to armed enclaves is also inaccurate. TC's actually moved to the nearest large Turkish Cypriot village or town quarter or simply to the Turkish quarter of their own town or village. Most TC's just moved within a 10 km radius of their homes. The areas became "enclaves" only to the extend that they were brought under the control of Turkish gunmen denying access to the authorities of the Republic. The point is not made in the article. Reference to the refugees relying for 11 years on food an medical supplies from Turkey to survive is also unsourced and unfounded.

What do you mean the reference is unfounded and unsourced, how can something be referenced and unsourced? Again, your not really disputing the facts, just that you do not like this particular fact. Furthermore, we do not really care for your analysis of the Cyprus problem, just bring forward sources, otherwise do not question those that are already stated. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Turkish Cypriots thus formed paramilitary groups to defend the enclaves, "

Utter and complete nonsense. The statement is unsourced and unfounded. The TC "paramilitary groups" were alive and funcioning since 1958 and took up positions along the borders of the TC neighourhoods under the command of their military commanders from day 1 of the fighting (or have you not seen the photograph of Dentkash in fatigues smiling and inspecting his forces from the 1st day of fighting?).

Source it then. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"leading to a gradual division of the island's communities into two hostile camps. Approximately 20,000 Turkish Cypriots fled their homes and villages to live in enclaves with many of their abandoned villages and homes looted. [6]. "

Reference to TC's fleeing their homes is one sided and POV. Clearly their is an opposing view that is not mentioned at all for the reason why TC's moved.

Sorry, it is sourced, it is verifiable, and it will stay. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"As Professor Clement Dodd notes, “They had, of necessity, to relocate themselves in about 3 per cent of the land they owned, estimated at about 34 per cent of Cyprus. Many left the country in those years to seek a living in Britain, Australia and Turkey, and elsewhere, with active encouragement by Greek Cypriots.” [8]."

Nonsense. Firstly, Dodd is not an authoritative source. He is a propagandist of Turkish policy. You could as well refer to the website of the Turkish MOF for that matter. Secondly, even the particular source is not directly quoted. It is supposedly a footnote in some other Turkish propagandist material. ALl statements in the particular section are hogwash. The claim that the Turks relocated to 3 percent of the land they owned is inacurately phrased. The statment was supposed to say that Turks were limited to 3% of the territory of Cyprus, a statement which is also idiotic. If only about 15% were actually relocated to the land populated by the remaining 85% of the TC population, are we supposed to assume that 85% of Turks only owned 3% of the land but the 15% that moved owned 2, 5 or 10 times as much land? The claim that Turks owned 34% of the land is unsourced and unfounded (they actually owned about 12% of all land and about 16% of privately owned land), it assumes that Turks somewhow lost their land in 1963 which is false. The claim that GC's actively encouraged the emigration of TC's is nonsense and in any case not backed by a reliable source and clearly an one sided POV not a statment of fact.

Accusations of scholars being "propogandist of Turkish policy" will not be taken seriously by me. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Republic of Cyprus argues the withdrawal from government and the retreat to enclaves by Turkish Cypriots was voluntary and part of a desire by Turkish Cypriots to form their own state. In support of this, they refer to a 1965 statement by the then United Nations Secterary General who stated Turkish Cypriots had furthered a policy of "self-segregation" and taken a "rigid stand" against policies which may involve recognising the governments authority. [9] Turkish Cypriots point to the ruling of the Supreme Court which found Makarios to have violated the constitution by failing to fully implement the constitution and that Turkish Cypriots were not allowed to return to their positions in government without accepting Makarios's amendments.[10]"

Fist of all this is an abuse of references which are comletely inadequate. The POV of the Government of Cyprus is inadequately mentioned and quotes are used to indicate that the statments are not accepted. On the other hand in the Turkish POV, reference is made to the position of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (which is totally irrelevance) to give credance to the position of the Turkish side and then POV statements are made, appearing as statenemts of fact, not disputed claims - without the use of quatations this time.

So once more, nothing wrong with the source, you just dont like it being there. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"On 15 July 1974, the Greek military junta of 1967-1974 backed a Greek Cypriot military coup d'état in Cyprus. President Makarios was removed from office and Nikos Sampson, a former EOKA fighter and a member of the Parliament, became president. Turkey claimed that under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee the coup was sufficient reason for military action and thus Turkey invaded Cyprus on 20 July 1974. "

The statment implies that Turkey had under the Treaty of Guarantee a right to intervene. The claim is highly disputed by the Government of Cyprus and independent scholars and therefore POV (the treaty of guarantee is subject to the UN charter and no unilateral military action can be taken - unless in self defence - without the prior sanction of the Security Council).

The statement doesnt imply anything other than that Turkey claims it had the right to intervene, nothing wrong here. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Turkey's position was that such intervention was necessary to protect the Turkish Cypriot populace. "

A POV claim without reference to the opposint view. TC's hadn't been affected by the coup and would not have been affected had it not been for the invasion.

That was one of the reasons cited by Turkey but it needs a source. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"The coup failed and Makarios returned to Cyprus. Turkish forces proceeded to take over about 37% of the island, causing large numbers of Greek Cypriots to abandon their homes. "

Inadequate reference to the active policy of the ethnic clansing of the Greek Population from the Occupied areas (see for example summary of decision of the Europeean Commission of Human Rights at http://www.lobbyforcyprus.org/press/press1998-1940/suntimes230177.htm).

See below. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Approximately 160,000 Greek Cypriots fled to the south of the island, while 50,000 Turkish Cypriots fled north. "

GC's did flee to the south, that is a fact, however reference to 50.000 tc's fleeing to the North is factually inaccuarate on two grounds: the number is wrong (we are probably talking more of about 35.000 tc moving to the North) and the term flee is wrong. Fleeing implies a sense of urgency, people hastily moving to avoid imminent danger. This occured with the GC's who fled South (actually not all 160.000 fled), not so with the TC's who moved to the North.

Figures need sources. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Approximately 1500 Greek Cypriot and 500 Turkish Cypriots remain missing.[11]"

Factually inaccurate statement. Of the 500 TC "missing" about half were missing from 1964 (and most of the so called missing are also refered to by TC as martyrs and have memorial plaques dedicated to them, depending on the context and occasion - for example the 500 missing also include the victims of the killings in Aloa and Maratha whose bodied were exhumed by TC in 1974 and buried in graves). Furthermore, the article implies all TC missing are from the war of 1974.

Statement is sourced. I dont believe any distinction is being made between 74 and 63-74, the missing is for the entire conflict. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"In 1975 the "Turkish Federated State of North Cyprus" was declared as a first step towards a future federated Cypriot state, that would guarantee the political equality of both communities.[citation needed] "

Clearly a POV statement. It implies that this was indeed the intention of the TC's. A disputed POV not a fact. The opposing view (that this was another expression of the declared national goal of the TC's for partition) is not stated.

The statement should be removed. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"The move was rejected by the Republic of Cyprus, by the UN, and by the international community."

Fine, but always mentioning the RoC rejecting TC unilateral actions, and not the position of the international community is not NPOV. The view of the international community is of far greater importance and should be stated first.

View of international community is given throughout the entire article, e.g. "International Status". --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The tag regarding the factual accuracy and neutrality of the article is clearly justified and must stay.

You have given no reason to keep your tag. Firstly, the unjustified pov-title tag, placed here in violation of WP:Point yonks ago, already mentions "subject matter" as disputed. Second, you have not been able to challenge one fact with a source of your own, you simply tell me it is biased or propogandist because it makes GC's look bad or doesnt make Turks or Turkish Cypriots look bad enough. Well, tough shit, the reality is GC's did bad things in those days and the attrocities are well documented. No amount of tagging and source removal is going to change that. --A.Garnet 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Another source

Here's another source for you guys:

“

Alpay Durduran, leader of the opposition party, Yeni Kibris (New Cyprus), estimates that 40,000 Cypriots have emigrated since 1974, most of them to the United Kingdom. He believes 80,000 have remained in Cyprus, which means - since the 1997 census recorded a population of 160,000 - there must be equal numbers of natives and new arrivals

”

This info is notable imho and should be mentioned in the article (with the proper attribution, that is, until more sources supporting it are found). Alæxis_¿question? 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont really see a need to include Mr Durduran statement since a)we have no reason to give his estimate (which do not how he came to) more authority than the TC census b)what he says and the TC census says are rougly the same anyway i.e. an almist 50/50 split between natives foreigners. --A.Garnet 15:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

Copying from the article:

According to a report sponsored by the European Commission, 36,000 Turkish Cypriots emigrated between 1975 and 1995, with the consequence that within the occupied area the native Turkish Cypriots have been outnumbered by settlers from Turkey.*ref name="Euromosaic"/*

and further below:

A large percentage of the people living in northern Cyprus after 1974 have emigrated, particularly to United Kingdom but also to Turkey.^{[citation needed]} Many left the island due to the economic situation of the TRNC which, because of its "legally invalid" status as acknowledged by the international community, faces many difficulties in trading with third countries.

The Greek population of Northern Cyprus was expelled as result of the Turkish invasion.

What is the problem and on what grounds are these parts being deleted? What is there to dispute (apart from the "also to Turkey", maybe)? And for which of the above is there no source in the article? I am restoring the content until proper explanation is given. Niko Silver 16:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Garnet is affronted by the fact that the European Commission agrees with the Republic of Cyprus that Turkish settlers outnumber the Cypriots in occupied northern Cyprus. He wants to present the disagreement over the numbers as yet another Greco-Turkish argument, when in reality it's the Turkish figures that contradict those of the outside world. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"The European Commission agrees with the Republic of Cyprus". Sigh...the report has nothing to do with the EC, the EC had no input in this report and the report is not an EU sponsored demographic study as you would like readers to believe! It is European wide study into linguistics of which the EC is publisher that is all. The report is citing Greek Cypriot figures, the report is written by a Greek Cypriot professor and the figure being presented are Republic of Cyprus estimates. So when you come here and tell me I'm affronted the EC agress with the RoC you make yourself look like a Class A fool and nothing else. We have had this argument before, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus#EC_report above where Fut. agreed the reference to the EC was pretty pointless other than to skew the authority of these figures.

With regards to the second paragraph, I didnt see anything of worth related to demographics. If there is something in it you think is particularly importat tell me because I cant see it. --A.Garnet 10:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bitch all you like, the fact remains you are trying to remove sourced material. Of course it's not an EU-sponsored demographic study; the Turks would never allow such a thing. But the EU has published alternative figures to yours, whether you like it or not. And, considering the international illegitimacy of your beloved régime, it is our duty to report them if only to provide the article with at least one credible source. Over and out. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"The EU has published alternative figures"...No it hasnt, it has published Greek Cypriot figures. --A.Garnet 10:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

After reading all this, (including Fut.Perf's proposal on the linked thread by Garnet) I'd go for a wording of the sort:

Estimates of the RoC, which have been quoted by Euromosaic, ...

I think this is accurate, and does not imply that the Euromosaic did the study itself ("quoted"). Niko Silver 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what is so notable about Euromosaic that we must mention these figures have been quoted in this particular report? The report is not after all a demographic study into Cyprus, in which case i'd understand the need make reference, but rather a study into languages in Europe. As I have said all along (and Fut. reiterated above), it is the figures that are notable, and not the report or the publisher of the report. I see nothing wrong with Fut.s suggestions above which was "Estimates by the RoC say...<ref>Quoted by Euromosaic, a study commissioned by the European Union ...</ref>" - This is what was done originally and I see nothing wrong in it. Also, I'd appreciate if you could translate both Greek comments which were placed above. --A.Garnet 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User Template

Some user(s) attack to the template of {{Template:User_Northern_Cyprus}}. I warn the members of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please take care. Kaygtr 10:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop revertwarring, part 249

Please stop revertwarring. Discuss this issue on this talk page. One more revert and the article goes back to full protection. A ecis^Brievenbus 09:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The revertwarring has continued, so I have protected the article for two weeks. Use the time to discuss the issue and come to a consensus. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Aecis, I'm dissapointed in what you've done here. You could have easily intervened to sort this out as I asked you (and you ignored) on your talk page. Rather than take five minutes to give your opinion here, you've crudely blocked this article for two weeks and stopped any constructive edits which is unfair. So i'm asking you here as a third party editor to this conflict, do you believe the tag added by Larisv serves any purpose in this article? --A.Garnet 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not ignore your message. I have read it, but I haven't answered it yet. I haven't given my opinion here, because I am not a party in this dispute, and I will not become one. Therefore I will not answer your question about whether the tag "serves any purpose." I only care about Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines. Revertwarring contravenes those guidelines, and when editors revertwar, I step in. Instead of waiting for the discussion in #Tags out? to come to a conclusion, you and Larisv (talk · contribs) have reverted each other back and forth for the past three days or so. Prior to that, you revertwarred with Kékrōps (talk · contribs).

The protection (not blocking) of the article was not crude, since it is a direct consequence of your (plural) actions. Editors wishing to make constructive edits to the article can use this talk page, as the template says: "You may use {{editprotected}} on the talk page to ask for an administrator to make an edit for you."

A ecis^Brievenbus 22:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to become a party to this dispute, only to comment on the changes being made. If this will stop the revert warring and the lengthy protection then why as an admin should you not take five minutes to at least try? In fact, looking above, I see that you have done this before, so why not in this case? As for the tags out discussion, when an editor removes sourced material he does not like from Cyprus intercommunal violence, tags 5 TRNC articles because "TRNC is pov", and disputes academic sources in this article as being pov and propogandist, then you understand why I felt the discussion would come to no conclusion (though I did take time to address each of his points). --A.Garnet 00:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Garnet here. I am quite busy at time so I didn't have time to read and/or think on the #Tags out? discussion but as far as I could follow up, although Garnet has answered the claims in some way (satisfying or not), what he got was no more comments but continious reverts. I can understand why he's disappointed, because I had the same problem with User:Aristovoul0s couple of months ago. (I mean I always came up with my reasonings and sources, yet all I got was no answers but rather continuous reverts)

Plus Larisv (talk · contribs) in some point came with an edit summary that says "you need to get a consensus to remove a tag". In fact the article has been stable for a while and even when I proposed this tags out thing couple of weeks ago, nobody seemed to be against it. Now after few weeks what we get is another tag, and a concensus to remove it...

The same user (Larisv (talk · contribs))also couple of days ago put some info in the Cyprus page with a very biased wording, and removed some sourced info with that. There we had a little edit war of couple of hours, but as I said I am very busy with my personal life right now snf I can't really spend time on Wikipedia, so I couldn't spare time to work on it and had to let it go to stop that witless tug-of-war. But to admit I was a little disappointed that nobody else really seemed to care about that edit. A part of that dissappointment is also towards my fellow Greek and Cypriot wikipedians. In my watchlist, I always try to be just and npov, and fix any POV edits regardless of my nationality. I expected the same from others, but although their active contribution continued, nobody did what I'd do in that case.

I'll try to take a look at that edit sometime in future, and hopefully pick a side in this discussion if I have time. But not possible anytime soon, therefore I request from the other wikipedians to be take out whatever glasses they have, and then take another look at the issue. Regards, Kerem Özcan 03:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Kerem, it's really absurd to think that the article is anything more than the promotion of the Turkish Cypriot POV on the issues involved in the Cyprus problem, which clearly justifies the totally-disputed tag.

The main position made in the history section of the article is that the events of 1963 were nothing more than an organised and calculated attack by the Greek Cypriot majority on the Turkish Minority. "Almost immediately" states the article to refer the events that followed the incident of the 21 December 1963 in the Nicosia red light district, "an organised attack by Greek Cypriot paramilitaries was launched upon Turkish Cypriots in Nicosia and Larnaca." The position is presented as undisputed fact. Further down in the same paragraph, a reference is made to Andrew Borowiec (2000. Cyprus: A troubled island. Praeger/Greenwood) as one of the sources of the article. Yet even Borowiec (who by the way is a journalist and not an academic) specifically dismisses the view promoted by the article (from pp 55 and 56 of Borowiec):

That statement is based on the cyprus-conflict website, it referes to the manner in which Greek forces attacked Turkish Cypriots: "...was followed immediately by a major Greek Cypriot attack by the various para-military forces against the Turks in Nicosia and in Larnaca"--A.Garnet 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"As usual in Cyprus, each side has its version of the incidents, some of which deteriorated into limited but nonetheless savage massacres. It is impossible to determine objectively to what extent the incidents were part of plans by various groupings within each community to achieve obscure or even brutal objectives. The Turks claim that the crisis was a master plan to eliminate the Turkish Cypriot minority—“push it into the sea,” according to a slogan used by some Greek Cypriot extremists. To many Greek Cypriots, the Turks wanted to trigger intercommunal slaughter in order to induce Tur key to intervene. Each side has “documents” proving its case. One aspect of the situation that cannot be denied is the active participation of paramilitary organizations in the killings. It is not difficult to see why: They had the means and training to conduct quasi-military operations, often against innocent civilians.

The above statment seems to be referring to the entirety of the Cyprus conflict, the organised attack statement refers specifically to the outbreak of violence in 1963 and the manner in which Greek forces attacked Turkish Cypriots in a remarakably organised way.--A.Garnet 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Historians of the Cyprus problem generally dismiss any suggestions of coherent high-level plans by either community. They tend to espouse the theory of sporadic, frequently unexpected actions that simply deteriorated, either because of ethnic tensions or by the sheer weight of fear that often generates violence. According to Robert Stephens, “Despite their clandestine activities, both sides were ill-prepared militarily and politically when the clash came. Nor had either side taken the elementary precautions which should have been evident if they had been preparing for battle, such as the removal of their compatriots from unsafe areas.”"

The intepretation given by Borowiec is in line with that given by many other authors and is probably the accepted majority view on the issue. Glafkos Clirides for example in his book My Deposition (in Vol.1) states the following: "[B]oth leadershipes formed organisations, which, even though they believed them to be necessary for defencive purposes, were used in final analysis offensively with the intention each of imposing their own policy." Yet the article omits any reference to any POV that is not in line with that of the official Turkish Cypriot line.

How does this contradict the article? It merely confirms both sides had organised groups capable of inflicting violence if need be. --A.Garnet 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The factual pov taken by the article, that what followed the December 21st incident was an attack by Greek Cypriot paramilitaries against the Turkish Cypriot quarters in Cyprus, though supported by Kyle (http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/www.cyprus-conflict.net/narrative-main-%203.html, the main source used by the article to support the particular point of view) is rejected by other authors. For example James Ker-Lindsay in "Britain and the Cyprus Crisis 1963-64" describes the events as follows (pp 24 - 25):

"As the day [of the 21st December 1963] progressed there were numerous reports of sporadic gunfire around the old town as a large crowd of Turkish Cypriots, many armed, roamed the streets. Initial appeals for calm issued by President Makarios and Vice-President Kuchuk were ignored and by afternoon the fighting had spread to other parts of the capital. By the next morning authorities in Larnaca were also reporting violent incidents. However, as evening approached the situation on the island appeared to be calming down. It was a short lived respite. Fighting erupted again the following morning when Greek Cypriot families living in the strategically important Nicosia suburb of Omorphita, which was primarily Turkish Cypriot, came under heavy attack. Soon afterwards conflict broke out in Famagusta when Turkish Cypriot gendarmes attempted to storm their headquarters..."

According to the Ker-Lindsay account at the initial stages of the fighting at least it was the Turkish Cypriot militias that were instigating the attacks and driving the events, not the Greek Cypriots.

The attacks against Turkish Cypriots can be verified further if you wish. But again, I dont see how the above source contradicts the article, Ker-Lindsay is telling you Omophita, a village heavily populated with Turkish Cypriots, came under heavy attack, what more do you want? --A.Garnet 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Clerides in his book makes a fairly extended reference to the military preparations done by the Turkish Cypriots prior to the 1963 events, a view which totally contradicts the position proposed by the article (and not attributed to any source) as an undisputed fact that the Turkish Cypriot paramalitary groups were formed after the events of Christmass 1963 to defend the enclaves. ("Turkish Cypriots" states the article "thus formed paramilitary groups to defend the enclaves.") And the particular statement made in the article is also implicitely contradicted by Ker-Lindsay account of the events of the 21-22 December.

I agree this needs to be reworded since the TMT was formed following the creation of EOKA in 1955. --A.Garnet 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Indiana University Professor Van Coufoudakis, in his own book "Cyprus, a Contemporary Problem in Historical Perspective" setting out a view in line with the view taken by the Greek Cypriot government states that it was the Turkish Cypriot extremists who instigated the 1963 events on the basis of a prearranged plan. "On the evening of 21 December 1963," says Coufoudakis "a minor incident involving a police patrol and a suspicious car driven by Turkish Cypriots led to major intercommunal violence instigated by Turkish Cypriot Extremists. This was the work of the TMT, which, as shown earlier, was organized, trained and equipped by Turkey's special forces. The outrbreak of violence appears to have been based on a prearragned plan."

This is Coufoudakis's view, more than enough sources can be found to contradict his view that TC's "started it". --A.Garnet 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The main claim of the section is therefore nothing more than a Turkish Cypriot POV which is represented as an accepted fact, whereas other equally important (or more so) views are completely ommitted.

No, the claims made here are supported by independent third party scholars, just because they seem to show the GC's in a bad light does not make them "nothing more than Turkish Cypriot POV". --A.Garnet 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The history section of article is also riddled with factual inaccuracies, a collage of unverified factual statements taken from various sources without any care to verify that they indeed represent the accepted view on the issue, or one sided references intended to promote a particular pov in line with the official position of the Turkish Cypriots. "700 Turkish hostages," says the article "including women and children, were taken from the northern suburbs of Nicosia", a statement taken for Kyle. The article completely ommits the Greek Cypriot point of view on the particular incident. In his book, Clerides, after making a general reference to attrocities carried out by pramilitary gangs against members of both communities states the following: "There were also actions of a humanitarian and responsible nature ... like, for example, the removal of 800 Turkish Cypriot women and children from the areas of fighting, their shelter during the night in the safety of a Greek school and their handing over to the Red Cross to be transferred ito a safe turkish area." For the Greek Cypriots the civilians were evacuated from what was in effect a war zone and surrended safely to the Red Cross. The article also omits to make any mention to the Greek Cypriots seized by Turkish Cypriot paramilitaries in the same period.

Well you tell me, do we take the word of an independent third party scholar, or the word of a GC politician who was involved in the conflict? You do not see me using Denktas's memoirs as a source do you? If you have third party sources (of which cyprus-conflict.net is among the finest) then you are more than welcome to include them. --A.Garnet 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The article refers to the claim that Sampson "led a group of Greek Cypriot irregulars into the mixed suburb of Omorphita and massacred the Turkish Cypriot population indiscriminately." The actual statment made in Borowiec is "stormed into the Nicosia suburb of Omorphita, killing Turkish Cypriots, apparently indiscriminately, including women and children", not necessarily a reference to an "indiscriminate massacre". The book contains no other reference which can allow the statement to be verified on any detailed reference to the events which can help evaluate the quality of the particular reference. Nor is the position corroborated by any of the other sources mentioned in the article despite the fact that other sources include fairly detailed references to the fighting during that period without mention of a massacre in Omorphita. The particular claim is also vehemently denied by those who took part in the Omorphita clashes. Yet the article presents the claim of Sampson "indescriminately massacaring" the civilian population of Omorphita as an accepted fact. If the statement were to remain it should clearly indicate that is an opinion of a particular author which is not confirmed by other more authoritative texts and an opinion that is completely disputed. Or better still the statement should go unless it can be supported by other material. Furthermore, the article fails to give a proper account to the Omorphita clashes. It completely omits to make any reference to the attack by Turkish paramilitaries against the Greek Cypriot civilians in Omorphita referred to in Ker-Lindsay (above) and set out in detail in Greek sources (for example see the account in http://www.apoellas.com/1963_omorfita.html) which sparked off the bitter fighting that resulted in the Turkish militias being routed by their Greek Cypriot counterparts with serious losses from both sides. The article is just intended to give the false impression that armed gangs of Greek Cypriots simply walked into the turkish quarter of Omorphita and began to massacre the population.

The "indiscriminate" statement can be changed to meet Borowiec's sentence more closely. --A.Garnet 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dodd's claim that the Turkish Cypriots had to "relocate themselves in about 3 per cent of the land they owned, estimated at about 34 per cent of Cyprus" is presented as a statement of an undisputed fact. The first premise of the claim, that the Turkish Cypriots had to relocate en masse is contradicted by other information in the very article which states that only about 1/5 of all Turkish Cypriots relocated. In any case, the article fails to state that the claim that the Turkish Cypriots after the intercommunal war occupied only 3% of the land is disputed by the Greek Cypriot authorities and it omits to state the Greek Cypriot position that according to official Land Registry records Turkish Cypriots only owned 12% of the land (or 16% of non state land, see http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpDocuments)/EF6541C01C87AC8EC125729C003130C9/$file/PRIO+Cyprus+Property+Report.pdf) In fact according to the figurs in the PRIO report, the Turkish Cypriots never even claimed to ever own 34% of the land.

I'm not familiar with the land ownership data, but the article does mention it to be the view of Dodd, though this can be made clearer it may contradict other sources. --A.Garnet 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The article also fails to treat fairly the conflicting views as to the causes the led to the Turkish Cypriot withrdrawal from government and the civil service, as well as the reason for the displacement or relocation of about 20-25.000 Turkish Cypriots. The article sets out the Turkish POV (that the Turks were forced out of their homes and government) as an accepted fact and then the Greek Cypriot opinion as a disputed POV. Furthermore, the Greek Cypriot POV is not treated accurately or fairly. For example some of the arguments set out in support of the Greek Cypriot position, like the statement made by Kutchuk to the New York Times on the 31st December 1963 that the Constitution was dead and that any further Greek and Turkish Cypriot cohabitation was impossible (Ker-Lindsay, p.37), or the fact that on the 7th January 1964 the Turkish Cypriots put on trial the chief of the gendarmerie, Niazi and the deputy commander of the police force, Refik for refusing to obey orders of the Turkish leadership to surrender their posts and set up a separate police force (Diana Weston Markides, Cyprus 1957-1963, From Colonial Conflict to Constitutional Crisis, p.154) are ommitted. The articles also makes no reference to other sources that do not corroborate the article's claims and present a different interpretation of the events. For example, the point of view of Ker-Lindsay shared by many if not most authors is the following (at p.40): "This raises ... the question whether the Turkish Cypriots were forced out of the government, or whether they left voluntarily. Needless to say, the Greek Cypriots insist that the Turkish Cypriots withdrew from their government posts was entirerly voluntary. Alternatively the Turkish Cypriots are adamant that they were forced out. In reality, as is so often the case with such controversies, the real answer lies somewhere between the two poles of opinion." Diana Weston Markides says (p. 154): "[T]he Turkish Cypriot leadership welcomed the opportunity to withdraw behind the municipal barricates to build their separate state." All this views are simply ignored and only the official Turkish position presented, and presented not as a POV but as fact.

Actually, the article treats the withdrawal of TC's from government, considering the controversy surrounding it, remarkably fairly. All it states is TC's had withdrawn without going into the disputes of how or why. Also, I do not see what Kutchuk's statement to a newspaper has to do with the TC's being forced out of their homes, the enclaves created by the fleeing TC's are well documented. --A.Garnet 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many other aspects of the article that are not in line with the NPOV guidelines as I have set in my previous post, but they cannot all be resolved in one go. The question is whether there is enough genuine dispute on the content of the article to justify a totally-disputed tag, and I think that simply the fact that we are having this discussion is enough reason to keep the tag. As for you comments regarding the Cyprus article, I think that it is more proper if you would take them to the talk page of the particular article so that we can talk them through in their proper forum.Larisv 04:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

From what i see, you have a raised a number of points that can be dealt with and when I have time i'll try and make some changes. --A.Garnet 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject TRNC

A permablocked 3RR-violating SPA sockpuppet created Wikipedia:WikiProject TRNC yesterday. Since its creator is now blocked, we have a WikiProject without a leader. I think Wikipedia would be better off with just WikiProject Cyprus, since that's a place where Turks and Greeks can (or at least should) work together—however, since the TRNC project has already been created, I'm asking here if there's anyone (who's not a crazed fanatic who will ignore policy like the creator) who would like to take over leadership of this project. If not, I'll put the project up for deletion soon. Lexicon (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

How was the WP started in the first place? ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 15:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, a sockpuppet created it. I don't think it would be a problem to just delete it outright since a now-banned user created it just yesterday, but I'm mentioning it here because if someone can find a genuine use for it and wants to take on the responsibility for it, then they should probably be allowed to do so. Lexicon (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll speedy delete it, as is required if it's solely the work of a banned user. I see this has occurred already, and that it has been revived by User:HonorousGreek, who appears to be another sockpuppet (and, pending confirmation it is not, I have blocked). ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Onion, I have reverted this article back to its original title. For such a large change, not only to this article, but to every TRNC aritcle out there, I would expect at least some modicum of discussion with editors involved. If you look above you will see the title has been part of a dispute before, with User:El_C (called in to mediate) suggesting the opening of a centralised discussion concerning how to name all non-recognised countries. Simply ignoring the dispute, and forcing a wholesale rename is, in my opinion, not the way to approach this. I will revert only this article for now (will re-add the pov-title tag also) until editors are made aware of the proposed changes. --A.Garnet 12:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a large change but a simple application of WP:COMMON (and, for that matter, WP:BOLD); Northern Cyprus is what it's called. It has nothing to do with the entity's lack of international recognition, although it is incongruous to insist on a full official name of a self-proclaimed entity (in the article title, and elsewhere, such as in templates) when all other countries/territories listed used the conventional short form. The short form is a name that both sides in this dispute should be able to agree on. Your statement in the earlier discussion ("We use the term TRNC because that is what it is called and what we are describing, not what people think it should be called") is, sorry, not correct. Most countries scrupulously avoid ever using the term "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" precisely because it is an unrecognized entity. On Wikipedia, we usually go by what might appear in a mainstream wire report. For example, Munich, West Germany (before 1990); Pyongyang, North Korea; Belfast, Northern Ireland; and Famagusta, Northern Cyprus. (Or "northern Cyprus" as, for example, the BBC writes it: [24].). As with other countries and territories, the entity's proclaimed official name is described in the introductory sentence of the article, and I have no objection to it being the header on the infobox referring to the government. Northern Cyprus is the conventional short form and should therefore be the title of the article per WP:COMMON. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Republic of China where long form is used to distinguish between two political entities regardless of international recognition. For the time being, I'm going to alert some editors who have contributed here in the past to this discussion. --A.Garnet 11:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the title change from "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" to "northern Cyprus". References are abundant, and it is the main stream. As it is right now the article title neglects the mainstream but focuses on a single point of view. That of Turkeys. 3meandEr 09:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The title reflects no pov, that is simply its name. As I said before, Wikipedia:Naming conflict states we must be descriptive, not prescriptive. We use the term TRNC because that is what it is called and what we are describing, not what people think it should be called. --A.Garnet 11:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. the statement above is ignoring a conglomeration of national third party views and promotes a single biased one. That is not the name. 3meandEr 12:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, setting aside the recognition issue, on which many users evidently have strong feelings, countries are listed on Wikipedia under their common short-form names, which "Turkish Republic of" is not. Germany is under Germany, not "Federal Republic of". France is under France, not "French Republic". And so on. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 13:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess that the naming is a minor issue. Though the France or Germany analogy is not correct here. One does not think of a geographical area when mentioning about those countries with those names. Better examples here would be East timor (pro) or Republic of China (con).

But I don't think that either of the names are POV. The situation is the same, whatever the country calls itself. So I'll also disagree that TRNC is Turkish POV, and also disagree that Northern Cyprus is Greek POV (It's not rare that TRNC is called Northern Cyprus in the daily speech by a Turk) Kerem Özcan 18:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true, and it would be relevant to the Turkish Wikipedia, although not to the English one. "Northern Cyprus" is not "Greek POV"; you'd be hard-pressed to find many mainstream English-language news reports referring to the "TRNC" without qualifiers such as "self-proclaimed" or "recognized only by Turkey", and you won't find other governments (besides Turkey's) referring to it by that name at all. Turks can think of "Northern Cyprus" as the short form of "Turkish Republic of" and Greeks can think of it as a geographical designation -- how is that not NPOV? I'd even agree with capital N in this case, which tilts toward the former. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you got me wrong. I meant that I don't think that it's Turkish or Greek POV either way. Not being recognized is not making it any lesser of a country, and nobody (at least nobody that has a bit of an idea about the situation in cyprus) thinks of a geographical region when someone says "Northern Cyprus". Not recognizing (or using such qualifiers) doesn't mean that people actually don't know that TRNC is there. Hence, I am OK with both names. Actually we can put an end to that dispute using the format that all the other examples are using (Germany, France, Italy, Cyprus etc...), So the name can be Northern cyprus, the infobox can contain the name TRNC and the first sentence can start as "Northern Cyprus, (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs, Greek: Βόρειας Κύπρου), officially Turkish republic of northern Cyprus (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti, Greek: Τουρκική Δημοκρατία της Βόρειας Κύπρου) is...)" Thus it sounds more encyclopedic (and more wikipedia). Regards, Kerem Özcan 05:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me -- that's pretty close to the solution I had in mind. Any other opinions on this? ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Prohibit, Kerem's solution seems pretty sound to me. Only I'd avoid the Greek name, as no Greek would ever use it.--Aldux 17:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally doubt that a solution can be reached here, as the issue is too emotionally charged, but if I can give my opinion, I'd tend to agree with Prohibit. This especially because 1) Northern Cyprus is much simpler, and I personally have a crush for solutions that are the simplest possible; 2)as Ozcan also agrees, this solution doesn't violate Turkish pov, and is far more common. 3) also, even if the TRNC was the most recognized country in the world, I think Prohibit's argument regarding France and Germany; and if you feel that those two countries are not good examples, consider my country, Italy: it's been a geographical entity well before starting to have a cultural unity.--Aldux 20:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue in favor of "northern Cyprus" just because its declaration was condemned and wikipedia should go by the mainstream. 3meandEr 08:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, not a single Greek would call it "northern Cyprus", so hardly a Greek POV. Greeks refer to it as "occupied Cyprus". 3meandEr 08:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If nothing but TRNC is referred to as 'Northern Cyprus' I also have nothing against the proposed change. Alæxis_¿question? 08:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Greeks refer it as, Northern Cyprus is the official northern part of the island not the TRNC. --Vonones 03:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Any objection, then, to my moving the article to Northern Cyprus? ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be moved. --Vonones 16:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why?

These sources state that TRNC is recognized only by Turkey as an independent republic^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]. It is not stating that TRNC is a de facto independent republic. This information is twisted.
The recognition of the TRNC is in violation of the United Nations Charter which Turkey is a signatory. Countries sign the charter in recognition of each others statehood, and sovereignty and integrity. Cyprus is also a member. This information is silenced.
The United Nations member states recognizes the island as the Republic of Cyprus, an island nation, and a EU member with its northern territory under occupation Res 550, this information is silenced.

The Eurasian island country of Cyprus is de facto partitioned into four main parts:

the area under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus in the south of the island;
the area in the north, styling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus;
the United Nations -controlled Green Line, separating the two; and
two Sovereign Base Areas (Akrotiri and Dhekelia), over which the United Kingdom retained jurisdiction after Cypriot independence.^[5] in line with the Cyprus article. This information is also silenced.

It was established across the north of the island by Turkey in 1974, occupying the northern third of the island of Cyprus on the internationally recognised sovereign territory of the Republic of Cyprus. This information is altered with weasel "borders".
The United Nations stated by Resolution 541 that "the attempt to create a Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is invalid" : Further, “expressed strong disapproval of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus. Considered the declaration as legally invalid and called for its withdrawal. Requested the immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from the Republic of Cyprus. Called upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus”. Res. 541

All the above are stylishly silenced. Regards 3meandEr 20:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, before making such edits in disputed articles, you first discuss them on the talk page and then make the edit when you reach consensus. Not the other way around, getting into an edit war first and try to look for consensus;

I'm really sick of all this "de facto independent" issue, since we make the same discussion here about every 3 months and nobody takes time to read it. ::Anyway; here we go again;

Firstly, there's no twisting in the sources. All of the sources clearly uses the definition "de facto independence". I think the problem is in the way you percieve it. It means exactly the same thing with "independent but legally invalid (unrecognized)". It's is not a POV phrase, but a rocksolid fact. The same definition is used for all the countries with the same case: see NKR, Abkhazia, Transnistria
No information is silenced. It's been told both in the intro and the article maybe about a dozen times that TRNCs existence is invalid. On the contrary, your version is too blatant about it. Just in the intro it says the same thing about five times, demoting the focus of the article to one single point. This article is about the TRNC state (including everything from geography to demographics) not the Cyprus dispute. Don't get me wrong, neither your version, -nor the old version- consists any incorrect information. But I'd rather complain about the pleonasm in your version, by saying the right thing too many times :) (Especially since the intro is supposed to be a brief summary of everything in the article, rather than a pumped up mass of information) Thereby it's making the situation even more complex for somebody that's not familiar with the issue.

Please do not turn this thing into a "I win/you lose" situation. I really don't care about what it says in the Wikipedia about TRNC, and neither should you (Since it's not helping the situation in the "real life" at all) Try to look at it with the eyes of an outsider reading an encyclopedia. I bet then you'll agree. Regards, Kerem Özcan 22:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am looking at it with the eyes of an outsider and i disagree with your points. A heavily one sided intro, with fictitious statements in now more cohesive, sourced, explanatory and neutral to the outsider. Regards 3meandEr 15:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"If a man would pursue philosophy, his first task is to throw away conceit. For it is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he has a conceit that he already knows" - Epictetus. Hehehe :) As I said before, I neither have the will to explain all the stuff to you once more, nor the time to waste. Regards, Kerem Özcan 16:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quote from here (page 5). TRNC is clearly called de facto independent

“

Kaufmann (1998), p.126. The role of Turkey in enabling the de facto independence of the Turkish

Republic of Northern Cyprus has been well-documented;

Could mean : "The effort to establish the Turkish POV is well documented" 3meandEr 16:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

”

Alæxis_¿question? 05:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh, and who do you mean here? Please check WP:NPA. Alæxis_¿question? 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

“

The Turks, on the other hand, demand some form of recognition of their de facto independence, which the rest of the world refuses to accept.

”

The Guardian quote isn't very clear, imho the word 'accept' is used here as a synonym of the word 'recognise'. This would mean that they also agree that TRNC is de facto independent. However this is indeed a bit controversial.

Thats your interpretation. Maybe they try to be impartial and state the facts. That is "Turkish POV rejected..." 3meandEr 16:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is the most clear one. The rest of the world refuses to accept the "demand of recognition", not the "de facto independence".

You can't recognize a country as "de facto independent" anyway, -that's an oxymoron- since once you recognize a country, that recognition is "de jure" (legally accepted). So you can either choose to recognize the "de jure independence" of a country, or refuse to recognize it and leave it with it's presence of "de facto independence" (it's still there but legally invalid). It's that simple :) Regards, Kerem Özcan 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another source that calls all the European de facto states 'de facto independent entities' - By Michael Emerson, Published 2004, CEPS, ISBN 9290794690.

Original research 3meandEr 16:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? It's a book published by the respectable Brusseles-based think-tank. Check WP:OR to see what OR means. Alæxis_¿question? 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

See also "System membership case description list" Kristian S. Gleditsch and Michael D. Ward. Some of the unrecognised states (including TRNC) are described there as de facto independent.

Alæxis_¿question? 15:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

An essay? Original research also 3meandEr 16:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if you dismiss this source there are still two valid sources. Alæxis_¿question? 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Another edit war

It seems that another edit war has broken out on this article. I have brought this matter to the attention of other admins, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a full protection is not needed this time since there's been only two reverts or so. I know the article has a notorious past of edit wars but I believe this time we can solve it by discussing it (or at least hope I should say). I'll ask for halting the protection for a little while. Regards; Kerem Özcan 23:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Beware of the tigers

I would like to recommend that all editors on this article read Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers thoroughly. Aec·is·away ^talk 13:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Weasels

thumb|right Could you write what words in the article do you find 'weasly'? (leaving other issues aside temporarily) Alæxis_¿question? 15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Tags in general

Huh... So I guess it's OK for some people as long as the tags stay there, since nobody takes time to explain why they are there in the first place;

First, Title was being disputed, and some people were fiercely advocating that it should be moved to Northern cyprus. Title tag comes in, I make my points and come with a proposal, and then some user says that "it shouldn't be moved" without giving any reasons, not answering a question as simple as "why?", then nobody takes any action and the dispute stays unresolved...

Then Another user comes in, turns the whole intro into repetetive "TRNC is illegal" verbiage, claiming that before it was all Turkish-bias, rejecting half a dozen perfectly valid sources along with the proper wording that is used in all articles alike. Same user, after seeing that those claims of his are irrelevant, puts two more tags in the article and stops posting, leaving another dispute unresolved. (Yet he still has time to revert back the tags)

As I said before; I do not care what it says in Wikipedia about TRNC or Cyprus or anything. But it is really irritating when I (or somebody else) try to discuss something, and it is just like discussing it with a wall (Actually wall is even better, since it doesn't respond at all. In this case, my counterside, aside from not responding, is actually taking time to drive things to a deadlock)

Now; somebody, anybody... Why do we need to have this tags? Let the other wikipedians discuss and fix the stuff that doesn't look alright to you.

Regards, Kerem Özcan 19:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there was a consensus on title change to "Northern Cyprus", but it was later changed back to TRNC by User: Vonones. Moving this to "Northern Cyprus" might help us get rid of one of the tags. Don't see any reason for keeping the other tags. The 'dispute' sections (eg history, int status-foreign relations, military) are well sourced, but the 'innocent' ones like the geography and climate section aren't sourced. They should be well-sourced as well, though I don't think this is the cause of the tags. Deniz^T_C 23:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well since the only opposing user is blocked indefinetly, I made the changes according to prior consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerem Ozcan (talk • contribs) 14:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Administrative map

Would it be possible for someone to create an administrative map of Northern Cyprus? I cant find an image from which to copy, I'm hoping others with graphic skills could find and develop one. Thanks, --A.Garnet 15:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Official view - de jure- added clearly to the intro. 3meandEr 16:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with you about the word 'offcially' (although I don't think it's a weasel word) - it's indeed somewhat confusing. 'De facto independent' is certainly not a weasel word (please look what does weasel word mean). TRNC and similar entities are described like that in a lot of scholarly sources.

Regarding your changes to the structure of the intro you failed to achieve consensus that your version is better indeed. Please do this first and then make changes. Alæxis_¿question? 20:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Reaching consensus? Someone supporting the views of the United Nations has better luck with the Turkish foreign office than with yourself the , Kerem Özcan , Deniz and A.Garnet. How is the Abkhazia article btw? Next in line to be promoted as a country through the wikipedia :). Please spare me of your political agenda. It is about time that the de jure side of the story is out in the open and not in the Turkish closets. What is going on is definately unacceptable 3meandEr 20:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you REALLY need to read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. No offense, but you clearly don't know what weasel means or how to use it. Kerem Özcan 09:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Half of your tags were sourced and it was clear who said it. The other half also didn't contain any weasel wording, however was lacking citation. I changed the ^[who?] tags with ^{[citation needed]} tags, and changed the tagging of the article according to that. Other than that, you still need to explain why we need the tottallydisputed tag. Regards, Kerem Özcan 10:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

you are unbelievable. All sentenses that i have pinpointed use weasel words repeatedly to promote a propaganda. That is the problem of the whole article as it promotes the de facto view over and above the de jure and not in line. And in order to do that Turkish POV uses abuntant weasel. Just so you know i know what i am talking about read thie pasted paragraph below. And a note, who made you an authority to push your propaganda as you see fit? Your comments are definately not appreciated.

"Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, aspires to be authoritative by definition. Including the opinions of "some people" in an article implicitly gives credibility to their opinion and vouches for its relevance, because if it were not important or relevant, it would not have been included. Given the unique nature and status of Wikipedia, this makes its articles easy to exploit in this way in order to spread hearsay, personal opinion and even propaganda. The first line of defense against this is Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which provides specific criteria for the support a claim must have to survive a challenge. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. Weasel words undermine verifiability, and editors are encouraged to avoid them." 3meandEr 17:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Before beginning, I beg you to read all of these till the end.

See, again no offense, but your misunderstanding about WP:WEASEL is in such a fundemental level. please keep your cool before accusing me of being "unbelievable". It's clear that you don't master wikipedia policies and guidelines and the definition of "weasel wording" in you mind is not the same as WP:WEASEL

Let me give you a basic example;

a)Some scientists think that tomatoes are red = weasel word, needs ^[who?] tag

b)Some scientists think that tomatoes are red + a source that shows who those scientists are = perfectly OK

c)Tomatoes are red = unsourced information, needs ^{[citation needed]} tag

d)Tomatoes are red + a neutral source or a footnote = perfecly OK

Let's examine the places where yo put the weasel tags;

...de facto independent republic... (4 reliable, neutral sources) = perfectly OK, all sources are (all verifiable and NPOV) clearly states this.
...the TRNC and the area under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus ... = There's a territory between TRNC and the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus right? I didn't really understand why you tagged it. If it had written "Cyprus" I could understand it, though still it wouldn't need a weasel tag, but it would just be wrong information.
...some observers viewed as an unconstitional attempt... = It could be weasel wording IF there were no sources following it. the sentence can be changed to; "according to David Hannay and Leon Hadar it was an unconstitional attemp..."
...the Republican Turkish Party, which favours a peace settlement and the reunification of Cyprus... = See, again, senteces like these do NOT qualify as weasel wording. If you doubt that this information is not correct, you can put a ^{[citation needed]} tag after it, and other editors look for sources. If they find one, than it makes the statement valid (and is constructive) If none found, you can delete it after a while.
...There is no support for admitting two Cypriot member states into the EU, as long as the Cyprus dispute is not solved... = I think you tagged this one simply because you misunderstood it. It simply says that even if TRNC get some kind of recognition it's not going to be an EU member. But it doesn't cite any sources so also needs a ^{[citation needed]} tag. But if you ask me, we can completly remove it since it doesn't give any info.
It acts essentially as a gendarmerie with a self-proclaimed mission of protecting the border = again, what's weasely here? If you have doubts about this information being correct, than what you need is a ^{[citation needed]} tag
Because of its status and the embargo, the TRNC is heavily dependent on Turkish military and economic support = same as above. Let me give you a weasel worded example of this; "Many academics think that TRNC is dependent on Turkish military and economic support because of the embergo". see a sentence like this would be there to cheat the reader. "Because of its status and the embargo, the TRNC is heavily dependent on Turkish military and economic support" is a mere statement, that can be true or false. If you think it's false, put a ^{[citation needed]} tag after it
Direct flights to Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are restricted as part of the embargoe on Turkish Cypriot ports. The airports of Geçitkale and Ercan are only recognised as legal ports of entry by Turkey and Azerbaijan. In addition, the TRNC's sea ports in Famagusta and Kyrenia had been declared closed to all shipping by the Republic of Cyprus since 1974. Since the opening of the Green Line, Turkish Cypriot residents are allowed to trade through Greek Cypriot ports. = Same thing. Not being recognized neither makes TRNC any lesser state, nor makes it's airports lesser airports.
And last but not least; Wikipedia is NOT supposed to promote "de jure" views over "de facto" ones. "de jure" views are NOT "better" than "de facto" views. wikipedia is aiming to be NPOV. that also includes "de jure POV" and "de facto POV". If it were like you said, TRNC article shouldn't have existed here at all. But the situation is clearly explained throughout the article I don't know how many times. More detailed infos are present in maybe dozen other cyprus dispute articles.

Plus, I feel obligated to mention this; your edit summary says "facts, not de facto weasels". See, "de facto" things are "the facts", "de jure" is the way law looks at them. I also think that you have a confusion about the concepts here.

One more thing, I see that all you edits are Cyprus related. You just directly jumped into a very tense place here in wikipedia, and it's normal to have such confusions in the beginning. Here's a quote from Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers;

“

Now I understand you feel like he's being unfair and twisting your prose. I also recognize that you don't get why your behavior seems so far out of line. Those are reasonable feelings to have, and they're typical of a passionate person whose first foray into Wikipedia is a topic where they have strong views. As you come to spend more time on Wikipedia, you'll see why: Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about them the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection, with all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem.

I see you've been blocked from editing for a week. When you get back to it, consider first working on some articles where you have knowledge but aren't so passionate. (You may find that hard, but consider that Wikipedia has made it for years without the perfect article on Simon Wessely; another few weeks won't hurt much in the grand scheme of things, and you'll do better work here with a bit more experience.) For example, if you've just gone through the process of writing a book and dealing with lawyers about a potentially controversial book, consider working on related articles like index or publishing or libel.

”

So please, read the provided policy links. Don't get me wrong, I am not being an authority or trying to impose anything (neither to you, nor the article) but if you put those tags there, you should at least know what they mean

and Lastly, it takes a while fo all of us to get our minds free of what our governments have been teaching to us for years. If you think what I'm doing here is making "Turkish propaganda", than you don't know about the official view of the Turkish government :) Same goes for the "de jure" views. We are not here to promote anything. Wikipedia is not a bulletin by United Nations, but a wannabe NPOV encyclopedia. And if you ask for my personal opinion about the subject, we (Greeks and Turks) all need to get our noses of the situation and leave the Cyprus to Cypriots.

I put on so much time on the text. Please, earn it for me, so make it worth. Regards, Kerem Özcan 19:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let's examine the places where i put the weasel tags; In points are your arguments.

....de facto independent republic... (4 reliable, neutral sources) = perfectly OK, all sources are (all verifiable and NPOV) clearly states this.

In order to silence a (de facto and de jure view) the current version promotes a (de facto view alone) but not a (de fato and de jure view) over and above it. 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. Realities :) as Dektash and egevit (how do you spell it? ) would say. 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”. The way it is structure right now silences the first one and pinpoints the de facto view of the Turks in order to give credibility to less credible view as it is a minority view on a global scale. It is definately propaganda – pushing a political agenda and definitely not an NPOV statement. 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. The current structure is weasly as it promotes a turkish pov of the facts, and silences all other views.

. ...the TRNC and the area under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus ... = There's a territory between TRNC and the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus right? I didn't really understand why you tagged it. If it had written "Cyprus" I could understand it, though still it wouldn't need a weasel tag, but it would just be wrong information.

Same issue. De facto there is an area between TRNC and Republic of Cyprus. But also, de facto and de jure the republic of Cyprus is partitioned by occupation depending from which viewpoint you see it. Undue weight is definitely not in place. If the sentence said “the area which is not under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus and the area which is, is separated by the United Nations buffer zone/green line”. A de facto and de jure statement. Not a de facto statement alone again depending from which viewpoint you see it. And speaking about the UN buffer zone and their mission to Cyprus is an oximoro to state the sentence as it is. From the un perspective de facto and de jure cyprus is under occupation. For the Turks, de facto cyprus is not which is propaganda-pushing political agenda.

...some observers viewed as an unconstitional attempt... = It could be weasel wording IF there were no sources following it. the sentence can be changed to; "according to David Hannay and Leon Hadar it was an unconstitional attemp..."

From the weasel article: “The problem with weasel words is not that what they state is false. Clearly that latter statement is not; some people do say that. The problem is that truth, while obviously welcome and necessary, is not enough to constitute encyclopedic writing in and of itself. The progression of an article must also be relevant and informative, and this statement about what-some-people-say is neither. Who are these people? When, where and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have?” What kind of bias might he have? The constitution of the Republic does not state anywhere that it is unconstitutional to propose amendments. A note that all of you deleted 3 times so far. What David Hannay and Leon Hadar has said is as relevant and as personal opinion as what you or anyone else says if it is not backed up. Once again since the constitution of the Republic does not state anywhere that it is unconstitutional to propose amendments, the statement is clear propaganda and weasly as it attempts to justify a political view. It attempts to justify the turkish view, that the amendments were rejected. At the same time though you and all the other Turkish affilated view editors have deleted so far 3 times the clear statement by the Secretary General of the UN who said that the constitution of Cyprus NEEDED to be amended. Deliberatetly silencing info. Why? Pushing a political agenda and not writing an encyclopedia article. Whatever does not support the Turkish view, is deliberately and repeatedly deleted or put in weasly wording or summarized to 3 words.

...There is no support for admitting two Cypriot member states into the EU, as long as the Cyprus dispute is not solved... = I think you tagged this one simply because you misunderstood it. It simply says that even if TRNC get some kind of recognition it's not going to be an EU member. But it doesn't cite any sources so also needs a [citation needed] tag. But if you ask me, we can completly remove it since it doesn't give any info.

This is again weasly and pushing a political agenda, and you are right it is also uncited. There are no two cypriot states de jure, let alone joining the eu. This sentence is structured to provide credibility to the TRNC, because we know for a fact that the EU accepted Cyprus (an island nation) to the EU. But because in EU view de facto and de jure Cyprus is occupied (the ECHR stated that repeatedly) the area not under effective control of the republic of Cyprus is considered in. And this has only territorial effect as the Turkish Cypriots are EU citizens (those that receive a recognized passsport) and many have by the way. Un due weight here and at el.

It acts essentially as a gendarmerie with a self-proclaimed mission of protecting the border = again, what's weasely here? If you have doubts about this information being correct, than what you need is a [citation needed] tag

Border? Again weasly. This is a biased statement and a Turkish POV. As expained before, de facto and de jure from on side there are no boarders in Cyprus. It is a buffer zone, or the green line. “Boarder” is the Turkish pov and the sentence is structured in a way to give credibility to that POV. Weasly, the body who stated that has affiliations and biases.

Because of its status and the embargo, the TRNC is heavily dependent on Turkish military and economic support = same as above. Let me give you a weasel worded example of this; "Many academics think that TRNC is dependent on Turkish military and economic support because of the embergo". see a sentence like this would be there to cheat the reader. "Because of its status and the embargo, the TRNC is heavily dependent on Turkish military and economic support" is a mere statement, that can be true or false. If you think it's false, put a [citation needed] tag after it

There is no embargo!!! Again Turkish POV and weasly so as to promote a propaganda. Turkish Cypriots can work in the south of the republic and many do!!! The Turkish viewpoint sees “embargo” as it wants to promote and push for credibility for TRNC. But for the UN (notice am not saying Greece’s view) there is no such thing, either de facto or de jure. Weasly wording in order to promote propaganda.

Direct flights to Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are restricted as part of the embargoe on Turkish Cypriot ports. The airports of Geçitkale and Ercan are only recognised as legal ports of entry by Turkey and Azerbaijan. In addition, the TRNC's sea ports in Famagusta and Kyrenia had been declared closed to all shipping by the Republic of Cyprus since 1974. Since the opening of the Green Line, Turkish Cypriot residents are allowed to trade through Greek Cypriot ports. = Same thing. Not being recognized neither makes TRNC any lesser state, nor makes it's airports lesser airports.

There is no embargo from the UN view and there are no Greek Cypriot ports but Republic of Cyprus ports.. Again weasly wording and structure to promote propaganda and credibility to a minority view of a “fact”. There are two viewpoint of “In fact”. The one (un) says “in fact” there is occupation in that territory and is supported by law, it is also de jure (law is based on facts my friend) and the other view says, oh you know what “in fact” there is no occupation. Undue weight is not applied, not only here but the whole article is written or maybe altered through time from the turkish pov of what the “facts” are.

And last but not least; Wikipedia is NOT supposed to promote "de jure" views over "de facto" ones. "de jure" views are NOT "better" than "de facto" views. wikipedia is aiming to be NPOV. that also includes "de jure POV" and "de facto POV". If it were like you said, TRNC article shouldn't have existed here at all. But the situation is clearly explained throughout the article I don't know how many times. More detailed infos are present in maybe dozen other cyprus dispute articles.

This is where you did not understand the whole argument, maybe because I didn explain it right to you. Hopefully now you understand that in fact (NOT DEJURE) for 190 countries there is occupation and in fact (NOT DE JURE) for one country there is no. By the way just out of curiocity, if you don’t care what is written here in wikipedia, why do you bother? And why don’t you leave the article to the Turkish Cypriots (I don’t nderstand what you are try to say that’s all). I see you are taking a mighty big interest in all these for a person who “doesn’t care”. 3meandEr 08:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

See in all your arguements, you state that "de facto independent republic" is Turkish POV. But it is NOT. Turkish POV would plainly be "independent republic". "de facto" puts away all the recognition issues and POVs. Because, in fact, TRNC is there. It's not important who recognizes it. That's what "de facto independent" simply means.

But please, read this about WP:WEASEL;

a)Some scientists think that tomatoes are red = weasel word, needs ^[who?] tag

b)Some scientists think that tomatoes are red + a source that shows who those scientists are = perfectly OK

c)Tomatoes are red = unsourced information, needs ^{[citation needed]} tag

d)Tomatoes are red + a neutral source or a footnote = perfecly OK

But I agree with the last part you wrote about (wasting time here in wikipedia), and hence I'll be taking a break (a real one this time, promise :) ) from Wikipedia. I don't know. At least I feel like I tried. But you know; "It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he has a conceit that he already knows" - Epictetus

I think you'll understand me, the more time you spend in Wikipedia;

Regards;

Kerem Özcan 09:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well thats your choice, i can only say "Enjoy your holidays" then. As far as your comment above that i state that "de facto independent republic" is Turkish POV. It is not myself stating that. Because as i explained above de facto it is an occupied area of the Republic of Cyprus. And this view of "fact" is supported by law, and it is also, in addition, de jure. Hope that helps. Best regards, 3meandEr 10:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is totally vandalised by Greek Nationalism... Kaygtr 22:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop editwarring, part 225

Please stop revertwarring over this article. Try and find a consensus here. Continuing the editwar will result in the article being protected from editing. A ecis^Brievenbus 14:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected

The article has been protected... again... The protection will expire in two weeks time. In the meantime, use this talk page to come to a consensus over the article. Don't revert back and forth between two completely different versions every hour. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Waiting

I have included all the points above, i ll wait for prohibitOnions to justify his change. waiting 3meandEr 15:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Article title changed, i suppose ChrisO gathered consensus
Still waiting for justification for the cleansing of referenced info

i say there is 5 to 1 :) that i will get none, by the time the article is unprotected. If there is no justification i hope it is obvious to all here that there is intentional silencing of information in an article full of weasel words and turkish POV 3meandEr 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

3, I don't actually care one way or the other about any of your "points". The way you rewrote the intro made it harder to read and less encyclopedic. There's plenty of room in the article to add other details, but the introductory sentence isn't it. That's all. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 16:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"harder to read and less encyclopedic" is that your argument for your blind revert and the silencing of referenced information [25] removal of tags, and usage of Weasel words? 3meandEr 09:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

PO, I agree. I thought the overuse of citation tags was pointless (or perhaps WP:POINTy) - as in this example inserted into a cited sentence that I wrote some time ago: "It is led by a Brigadier General drawn from the Turkish Army. It acts essentially as a gendarmerie with a self-proclaimed mission of protecting the border^[who?] of the TRNC from Greek Cypriot incursions and maintaining internal security within the TRNC.^[6]" What on earth is the point of adding a citation tag to a line that's already cited? -- ChrisO 00:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is

Article rename

Where was the discussion about renaming this article? I don't see it on this page. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be #Article title above. -- ChrisO 21:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I see it now. This talk page has become so large you can get lost in it. Thanks! _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

^ [26]
^ "[27]". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)[28] (259 KiB)
^ "Cyprus". The Guardian. 2002-01-16. Retrieved 2007-05-24. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ [29]
^ According to Article 1 and Annex A of the Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus - see [30]
^ "Cyprus." Jane's Sentinel: Eastern Mediterranean, issue 22, 2007.

[HISTORY-1] [26]

[defacto1-2] "[27]". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)[28] (259 KiB)

[defacto2-3] "Cyprus". The Guardian. 2002-01-16. Retrieved 2007-05-24. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[defacto3-4] [29]

[5] According to Article 1 and Annex A of the Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus - see [30]

[janes-6] "Cyprus." Jane's Sentinel: Eastern Mediterranean, issue 22, 2007.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Comments

Number of Turkish Cypriots

FAO Dirak

Tag

Question

"Citizenship" and "worker--A.Garnet 22:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)s" (?)

Reply

Stop 'cleansing' the article, argument (usually) works best

The ethnic %

TRNC without any ""

It was a good article for about 3 days

Thulium is a sockpuppet

History

Adam777 is a sockpuppet

Drawing conclusions?

Discuss changes

Article is sliding to POV yet again

Trade Statistics

Aristovoul0s warned

Intro (again and again and again)

Consistent title

Aristov edits

Lock?

EC report

The so-called TRNC

No need for infobox for UN not recognized countries

The main issues

Aristov

"Legally invalid"

Greek population expulsion

POV

Last edists by Aristovoul0s

Another edit war, another request for page protection

Please discuss

.nc.tr?

"De facto independent republic"

Comment

Sources

GENOCIDE AGAINST TURKISH CYPROTS

Tags out?

Another source

Deletions

User Template

Please stop revertwarring, part 249

WikiProject TRNC

Article title

Tags

Why?

Other problems with the proposed version

Another edit war

Beware of the tigers

Weasels

Tags in general

Administrative map

Intro

Stop editwarring, part 225

Protected

Waiting

Article rename