Misplaced Pages

Talk:Cyprus: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:12, 14 May 2007 editKerem Ozcan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users960 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 08:28, 14 May 2007 edit undoKerem Ozcan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users960 edits →User:Aristovoul0sNext edit →
Line 601: Line 601:
== User:Aristovoul0s == == User:Aristovoul0s ==


Will you please discuss your changes before you make them? Or at least join me when I'm trying to open up a discussion. TRNC page has got full protection (And currently the first sentence states that it's a region?!) Everything has a decent politically correct wording and we have to keep these kinda issues within in that neutral wording. No need for provacation also. Will you please discuss your changes before you make them? Or at least join me when I'm trying to open up a discussion. TRNC page has got full protection (And currently the first sentence states that it's a region?!) Everything has a decent politically correct wording and we have to keep these kinda issues within in that neutral wording. No need for provacation by going out of these npov wordings.


So my point; ''de facto'' already means that it's legally invalid, and that's the politically correct, npov wording for it. TRNC is not the sole example on the world. Similar de-facto independent countries get the same wording, whether you like it or not. ], ], ] you name it. and those countries are not even recognized by any country. So my point; ''de facto'' already means that it's legally invalid, and that's the politically correct, npov wording for it. TRNC is not the sole example on the world. Similar de-facto independent countries get the same wording, whether you like it or not. ], ], ] you name it. and those countries are not even recognized by any country.


You know; it can also be sourced it and put into this article as; "Republic of Cyprus, which is declared legally invalid by Republic of Turkey". But no need for witless POV by word-bending and pleonasm. You know; it can also be sourced it and put into this article as; "Republic of Cyprus, which is declared legally invalid by Republic of Turkey". But no need for witless POV by word-bending and pleonasm.

Revision as of 08:28, 14 May 2007

Template:WP1.0

Wikimedia subject-area collaboration "WP:WPC" redirects here. For the WikiProject on WikiProjects, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council. For the editing tool, see Misplaced Pages:WPCleaner. See also Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Categories and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject China.
Project Countries main pageTalkParticipantsTemplatesArticlesPicturesTo doArticle assessmentCountries portal

This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate!
Shortcuts

This WikiProject helps develop country-related pages (of all types) and works toward standardizing the formats of sets and types of country-related pages. For example, the sets of Culture of x, Administrative divisions of x, and Demographics of x articles, etc. – (where "x" is a country name) – and the various types of pages, like stubs, categories, etc.

WikiProject Countries articles as of November 2, 2024

What's new?

Article alerts

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Categories for discussion

(1322 more...)

Redirects for discussion

(1 more...)

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Updated daily by AAlertBot — Discuss? / Report bug? / Request feature?
Click to watch (Subscribe via  RSS  Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics!

To do list

To-do list for Cyprus: edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Scope

This WikiProject is focused on country coverage (content/gaps) and presentation (navigation, page naming, layout, formatting) on Misplaced Pages, especially country articles (articles with countries as their titles), country outlines, and articles with a country in their name (such as Demographics of Germany), but also all other country-related articles, stubs, categories, and lists pertaining to countries.

Navigation

This WikiProject helps Misplaced Pages's navigation-related WikiProjects (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Portals, etc.) develop and maintain the navigation structures (menus, outlines, lists, templates, and categories) pertaining to countries. And since most countries share the same subtopics ("Cities of", "Cuisine of", "Religion in", "Prostitution in", etc.), it is advantageous to standardize their naming, and their order of presentation in Misplaced Pages's indexes and table-of-contents-like pages.

Categories

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Countries
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
WikiProject Countries

Subpages

Formatting

Many country and country-related articles have been extensively developed, but much systematic or similar information about many countries is not presented in a consistent way. Inconsistencies are rampant in article naming, headings, data presented, types of things covered, order of coverage, etc. This WikiProject works towards standardizing page layouts of country-related articles of the same type ("Geography of", "Government of", "Politics of", "Wildlife of", etc.).

We are also involved with the standardization of country-related stubs, standardizing the structure of country-related lists and categories (the category trees for countries should be identical for the most part, as most countries share the same subcategories – though there will be some differences of course).

Goals

  1. Provide a centralized resource guide of all related topics in Misplaced Pages, as well as spearhead the effort to improve and develop them.
  2. Create uniform templates that serve to identify all related articles as part of this project, as well as stub templates to englobe all related stubs under specific categories.
  3. Standardize articles about different nations, cultures, holidays, and geography.
  4. Verify historical accuracy and neutrality of all articles within the scope of the project.
  5. Create, expand and cleanup related articles.

Structure and guidelines

This section contains an essay on style, consisting of the advice or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how to format and present article content within their area of interest.This information is not a formal Misplaced Pages policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada, Japan and Australia)

Main polities

Main article: Country

A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory.

Lead section

Shortcut See also: WP:Lead section
For lead length see, #Size
Opening paragraphs
Further information: MOS:INTRO

The article should start with a good simple introduction, giving name of the country, general location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article). The primary purpose of a Misplaced Pages lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article.

First sentence
Further information: MOS:FIRST

The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is, and where. It should be in plain English.

The etymology of a country's name, if worth noting and naming disputes, may be dealt with in the etymology section. Foreign-languages, pronunciations and acronyms may also belong in the etymology section or in a note to avoid WP:LEADCLUTTER.

Example:

checkY Sweden, formally the Kingdom of Sweden, is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.
☒N Sweden,(Swedish: Sverige ) formally the Kingdom of Sweden,(Swedish: Konungariket Sverige ) is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.

Detail, duplication and tangible information
Shortcut Further information: Misplaced Pages:How to create and manage a good lead section

Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, excessive numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article. The lead prose should provide clear, relevant information through links to relevant sub-articles about the country an relevant terms, rather than listing random stats and articles with minimal information about the country.

Example:

checkY A developed country, Canada has a high nominal per capita income globally and its advanced economy ranks among the largest in the world, relying chiefly upon its abundant natural resources and well-developed international trade networks. Recognized as a middle power, Canada's strong support for multilateralism and internationalism has been closely related to its foreign relations policies of peacekeeping and aid for developing countries. Canada is part of multiple international organizations and forums.
☒N A highly developed country, Canada has the seventeenth-highest nominal per-capita income globally and the sixteenth-highest ranking in the Human Development Index. Its advanced economy is the tenth-largest in the world and the 14th for military expenditure by country, Canada is part of several major international institutions including the United Nations, NATO, the G7, the Group of Ten, the G20, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and the Organization of American States.

Infobox

There is a table with quick facts about the country called an infobox. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.

Although the table can be moved out to the template namespace (to e.g. ]) and thus easen the look of the edit page, most Wikipedians still disapprove as of now, see the talk page.

The contents are as follows:

  • The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s). This is not a parameter to list every recognized language of a country, but rather for listing officially recognize national languages.
  • The conventional short-form name of the country, recognised by the majority of the English-speaking world; ideally, this should also be used for the name of the article.
  • A picture of the national flag. You can find flags at the List of flags. A smaller version should be included in the table itself, a larger-sized version in a page titled Flag of <country>, linked to via the "In Detail" cell. Instead of two different images, use the autothumbnail function that wiki offers.
  • A picture of the national coat of arms. A good source is required for this, but not yet available. It should be no more than 125 pixels in width.
  • Below the flag and coat of arms is room for the national motto, often displayed on the coat of arms (with translation, if necessary).
  • The official language(s) of the country. (rot the place to list every recognized or used language)
  • The political status. Specify if it is a sovereign state or a dependent territory.
  • The capital city, or cities. Explain the differences if there are multiple capital cities using a footnote (see example at the Netherlands).
  • If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country.
  • Land area: The area of the country in square kilometres (km²) and square miles (sq mi) with the world-ranking of this country. Also add the % of water, which can be calculated from the data in the Geography article (make it negligible if ~0%).
  • Population: The number of inhabitants and the world-ranking; also include a year for this estimate (should be 2000 for now, as that is the date of the ranking). For the population density you can use the numbers now available.
  • GDP: The amount of the gross domestic product on ppp base and the world ranking. also include the amount total and per head.
  • HDI: Information pertaining to the UN Human Development Index – the value, year (of value), rank (with ordinal), and category (colourised as per the HDI country list).
  • Currency; the name of the local currency. Use the pipe if the currency name is also used in other countries: ].
  • Time zone(s); the time zone or zones in which the country is relative to UTC
  • National anthem; the name of the National anthem and a link to the article about it.
  • Internet TLD; the top-level domain code for this country.
  • Calling Code; the international Calling Code used for dialing this country.
Lead map

There is a long-standing practice that areas out of a state's control should be depicted differently on introductory maps, to not give the impression the powers of a state extend somewhere they do not. This is for various types of a lack of control, be it another state (eg. Crimea, bits of Kashmir) or a separatist body (eg. DPR, TRNC).

Sections

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Summary style and Misplaced Pages:Too much detail Shortcut

A section should be written in summary style, containing just the important facts. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Main article fixation is an observed effect that editors are likely to encounter in county articles. If a section it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections.

Prose should provide clear, relevant information and links to relevant sub-articles about the country, rather than listing random stats and articles with minimal information about the country.

checkY Corruption in Liberia is endemic at every level of society, making it one of the most politically corrupt nations.
☒N Liberia scored a 3.3 on a scale from 10 (highly clean) to 0 (highly corrupt) on the 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index.


Comparison table of section sizes in country articles as a percentage of article size. Click image for latest data.

Articles may consist of the following sections:

  • Etymology sections are often placed first (sometimes called name depending on the information in the article). Include only if due information is available.
  • History – An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events. Sub-article: "History of X"
  • Politics – Overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Sub-article: "Politics of X"
  • Administrative divisions – Overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (and subsequent levels, if available) (e.g. provinces, states, departments, districts, etc.) and give the English equivalent name, when available. Also include overseas possessions. This section should also include an overview map of the country and subdivisions, if available.
  • Geography – Details of the country's main geographic features and climate. Historical weather boxes should be reserved for sub articles. Sub-article: "Geography of X"
  • Economy – Details on the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Sub-article: "Economy of X"
  • Demographics – Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Uncontextualized data and charts should be avoided. (See WP:NOTSTATS and WP:PROSE) Sub-article: "Demographics of X".
  • Culture – Summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known cultural contributions. Caution should be taken to ensure that the sections are not simply a listing of names or mini biographies of individuals accomplishments. Good example Canada#Sports. Sub-article: "Culture of X".
  • See also – 'See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s).
  • References – Sums up "Notes", "References", and all "Further Reading" or "Bibliography"
  • External links – Links to official websites about the country. See WP:External links
Size
Graphic showing article quality, size, contentiousness, protection, and vital level. Click for live data.
Shortcut Main pages: Misplaced Pages:Article size and Misplaced Pages:Summary style § Article size
Articles that have gone through FA and GA reviews generally consists of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 words as per WP:SIZERULE, with a lead usually 250 to 400 words as per MOS:LEADLENGTH.
  • Australia = Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9,304 words) "readable prose size"
  • Bulgaria = Prose size (text only): 56 kB (8,847 words) "readable prose size"
  • Canada = Prose size (text only): 67 kB (9,834 words) "readable prose size"
  • Germany = Prose size (text only): 54 kB (8,456 words) "readable prose size"
  • Japan = Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8,104 words) "readable prose size"
  • East Timor = Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8,152 words) "readable prose size"
  • Malaysia = Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9,092 words) "readable prose size"
  • New Zealand = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9,761 words) "readable prose size"
  • Philippines = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9,178 words) "readable prose size"
Hatnote

The link should be shown as below: Avoid link clutter of multiple child articles in a hierarchical setup as hatnotes. Important links/articles should be incorporated into the prose of the section. For example, Canada#Economy is a summary section with a hatnote to Economy of Canada that summarizes the history with a hatnote to Economic history of Canada. See WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE, WP:HATNOTERULES, WP:HATLENGTH for more recommended hatnote usages.

checkY== Economy ==

Main article: Economy of Canada

☒N== Economy ==

Main article: Economy of Canada

See also: Petroleum industry in Canada and Agriculture in Canada

Further information: Economic history of Canada and Early Canadian banking system

Charts

Shortcut

As prose text is preferred, overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams that lack any context or explanation such as; economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS.

Galleries

Shortcut

Galleries or clusters of images are generally discouraged as they may cause undue weight to one particular section of a summary article and may cause accessibility problems, such as sand­wich­ing of text, images that are too small or fragmented image display for some readers as outlined at WP:GALLERY. Articles that have gone through modern FA and GA reviews generally consists of one image for every three or four paragraph summary section, see MOS:ACCESS#FLOAT and MOS:SECTIONLOC for more information.

Footers

As noted at Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as "Economy of..." and "Foreign relations of..." Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use.

Transclusions

Transclusions are generally discouraged in country articles for reasons outlined below.

This section is transcluded from Help:Transclusion. (edit | history) Shortcut Further information: Misplaced Pages:Transclusion costs and benefits

Like many software technologies, transclusion comes with a number of drawbacks. The most obvious one being the cost in terms of increased machine resources needed; to mitigate this to some extent, template limits are imposed by the software to reduce the complexity of pages. Some further drawbacks are listed below.

Lists of countries

To determine which entities should be considered separate "countries" or included on lists, use the entries in ISO 3166-1 plus the list of states with limited recognition, except:

  • Lists based on only a single source should follow that source.
  • Specific lists might need more logical criteria. For example, list of sovereign states omits non-sovereign entities listed by ISO-3166-1. Lists of sports teams list whichever entities that have teams, regardless of sovereignty. Lists of laws might follow jurisdiction boundaries (for example, England and Wales is a single jurisdiction).

For consistency with other Misplaced Pages articles, the names of entities do not need to follow sources or ISO-3166-1. The names used as the titles of English Misplaced Pages articles are a safe choice for those that are disputed.

Resources

Sisterlinks

Related WikiProjects

Popular pages

Notes

  1. Swedish: Sverige ; Finnish: Ruotsi; Meänkieli: Ruotti; Northern Sami: Ruoŧŧa; Lule Sami: Svierik; Pite Sami: Sverji; Ume Sami: Sverje; Southern Sami: Sveerje or Svöörje; Yiddish: שוועדן, romanized: Shvedn; Scandoromani: Svedikko; Kalo Finnish Romani: Sveittiko.
  2. Swedish: Konungariket Sverige
Misplaced Pages key policies and guidelines (?)
Content (?)
P
G
Conduct (?)
P
G
Deletion (?)
P
Enforcement (?)
P
Editing (?)
P
G
Style
Classification
Project content (?)
G
WMF (?)
P
 WikiProject Council
 WikiProject guides
 Directories and summaries
 Culture and the arts
 Geographical
 History and society
 Science, technology
and engineering
 Misplaced Pages assistance
and tasks
Misplaced Pages help pages
About Misplaced Pages (?)
Help for readers (?)
Contributing
to Misplaced Pages (?)
Getting started (?)
Dos and don'ts (?)
How-to pages and
information pages (?)
Coding (?)
Directories (?)
Missing Manual
Ask for help on your talk page (?)

Template:FAOL Template:V0.5

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.
Former FACThis article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed.
For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.
WikiProject iconWestern Asia B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEurope B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCyprus B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cyprus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cyprus on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyprusWikipedia:WikiProject CyprusTemplate:WikiProject CyprusCypriot
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archive
Archives

Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 05:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Archives:

Comments

Comment

Mistakes

The census and the estimated population are inverted. Also GDP per capita PPP is $29105 (not 31000) and Cyprus' position in the rankings climbed to 25th place. There is a massive boost in the purchasing power as I observe of more than 5000 compared to the last rankings. --User Talk:WhiteMagick 18:24, 23 April 2007 (GMT)

BC --> BCE change_BCE_change-Comments-2006-11-12T14:54:00.000Z">

This article was recently changed from consistently using BC for years to using BCE. I was unaware of any discussion on this and note that the editor who did doesn't usually edit this article. Is there consensus for such a change? If not I'll change it back. --Siobhan Hansa 14:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)_BCE_change"> _BCE_change">

Seperate Articles

I know this has probably been discussed before but can we not have an article for the island and then two different ones for the seperate state?Someone write below and tell me what they think of my proposal.

I agree. Dermo69 12:33, 19 November 2006

I don't agree. All information about Cyprus should be collected together.

I don't know. If you are suggesting something like Cyprus, Republic of Cyprus and TRNC, I can see the logic behind it, however I can also see many problems that can come along with such a seperation, the most prominent being huge debate that will follow on what would be in each of these articles. If you are trying to address concerns for different aspects of Cyprus, such seperate articles already exist, such as History of Cyprus, Geography of Cyprus etc. What do you mean by a seperate article for the island and for the country(ies)? Can you elaborate on what would be included under these articles? Baristarim 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE JOIN THE GROUP: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cyprus. It will serve to unify these aspects as regards to Cyprus in all matters. There is much work to be done!!!
(UNFanatic 01:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

Church attendance

Is there a reference on this? From my past experience ordinary Sunday church attendance is a tiny fraction of e.g. attendance of the Christmas service. And what are the numbers on church attendance in countries like Poland or indeed Britain? Mavros 20:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality regarding politics

As a neutral observer, it seems to me that the description of the Greek/Turkish conflict under the "Politics" heading is quite anti-Turkish and pro-Greek in its stance. It condemns the military intervention of Turkey quite clearly and repeatedly but does not comment in a similar way on the Greek coup. To me, this severely compromises the neutrality of this article.

MrNancy 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well then why don't you try making it more neutral? //Dirak 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This was MrNancy's first edit to Misplaced Pages. Vizjim 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
MrNancy is correct, and for an article relating to the history of a ongoing and important problem in the European Union it has numerous features that belie an NPOV standpoint. This article should be tagged to say that it has NPOV problems in the hopes of attracting people to come fix its POV. It is barely a B-level article, and well below the standard for such an article that I expect here. It is a Top level EU related article.
SubcomOvashins and SubcomandanteOvashinsky, who made sequential (unsigned) edits to this page, have both made no other contributions to Wikiepedia. Vizjim 07:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It is more than being biased it is written in a prejudiced manner. As Foucault has stated "How can history have a truth, when truth has a history?" If the article is so obviously against neutrality, how has it not been modified till this time? This is a serious political issue and a disregard to Turkish people.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ipok (talk • contribs) 01:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

About Percentages

The population of TRNC is 264,172 which is dominantly Turkish. The claimed population of the Cyprus Republic is 704,301 which also includes this population. 264,172 / 704,301 = 0.375 which means 37,5 % of the population is Turkish. Even if we assume, the claim of 704,301 includes the southern part only, it results in a Turkish Percentage of 264,172 / (704,301 + 264,172) =~ 28 % of the population. How in the world this can be calculated as 18%? I think there has been an intented miscalculation to decrease the Turkish Population. Therefore I am correcting the ratios.--Ogulsev 10:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Errr because in 1974 the turkish cypriots only composed 18%. Thats when the invasion took place. The fact that since then several Turks have been illegally imported to the occuppied north should not make a difference as they do not belong there! Demetris 27Jan2007. Am thus recorrectin the %ges

I am sorry but I also need to reconfirm Demetris in one point. This number is excluding the settlers, if you include them it is even much more. Additional note: Right now, there are more than 300,000 Turkish Cypriots only living in United Kingdom. However, this does not mean that Greek Cypriots are not living outside of Cyprus.

Possible split?

What would people think of splitting this article between Cyprus (the island) and the Republic of Cyprus (regime/government/state)? Kind of like China and People's Republic of China for example. I am only suggesting this since the geographical region also carries the same name as the country as well, which is quite peculiar as far as many countries are concerned. Italy/Italian penisula, Spain/Iberian peninsula, Turkey/Anatolia articles exist, but with Cyprus that's not the case. And maybe the history section should be tightened up as well, it is too long. Since Republic of Cyprus is the official govt for the whole island, there is no problem with basing the sections on that premise (geography etc). I know that it is a long hard slog to get Cyprus-related articles in encyclopedic order, however such a split might help with dividing up what is political and not-political about Cyprus (geography, history (before the 60s :)), climate etc)I was just perusing through China articles, and they seemed to have done a good job organizing them. So, what do people think? Baristarim 18:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This proposal was aired before, but never seriously. Back then I hadn't checked similar articles, but now that I have taken a look, such an organization seems possible. Baristarim 18:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In Response To...

Any weasel wording like "claimed to be", or "cited to be" (which, incidentally, is poor grammar verging on the incomprehensible) when it comes to the invasion should be deleted. The invasion was a response to the coup. Whether Turkey had larger intentions is irrelevant - the invasion could not and would not have happened without the coup. Any attempt to insinuate otherwise is bias. Vizjim 13:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"citing it as a response" is very good English (excuse my wrong edit summary) and the one who claims something is the one who has to be mentioned as the one who said it, not to create the illusion that this is a global-POV per WP:WTA#So-called, supposed, alleged, purported that you cited exactly:
Misplaced Pages maintains a neutral point of view, and in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable—at the very least the person who said it! Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications.
I am writing who was doing the doubting that the coup was acting to the detriment of the TCs in particular (rather to all Cypriots in general).
However, if you find others who have said that the coup was a reason for Turkey to respond with an invasion, you are free to include them too. Your persistence in view of my good faith comment that "claim to be" sounded WP:WEASEL and should be replaced, borders WP:POINT, so I suggest you stop. NikoSilver 15:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Turkish Cypriots are not mentioned in the sentence. Please answer this simple question: is there anyone claiming that the invasion would have happened without the coup having taken place?
Assuming that there is no such claim, then any phrase like "claiming to be", "citing it as a response" etc, is by definition a weasel phrase designed to throw doubt on the historical fact. No assumption of bad faith is involved, just of POV thinking.
In the context, "citing it" is not good English. They are not citing the invasion, they are citing the coup. Vizjim 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to prove the non-existence of a third-party assertion that the invasion was a response to the coup. You have to prove the existence of such an assertion by specific third parties (and then we can add those too). As for the English, I really don't care, as long as you can find a way to reflect that Turkey says/thinks/considers/affirms/declares/states the invasion was a response to the coup. As simple and as NPOV as that! NikoSilver 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is weasel wording Nikos. Turkey invaded in response to a coup, whether it had invasions plans before or not are inconsequential, it was the coup which triggered it. It is like saying Britain "claims" to have declared war on Germany after it invaded Poland. Or the US "claims" to have joined the Allies after Pearl Harbour. Whatever the strategic or political value of such actions there was an obvious trigger. --A.Garnet 23:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Just in case you want a source: "The Greek Cypriot coup d'etat in July 1974 triggered off a series of events that profoundly altered the parameters of the Cyprus problem...Within days the Turks invaded Cyprus." Hannay p.6

Serious npov issues

I guess it is to be expected from an article involving the Cyprus problem. Some examples:

  • 1) Italicising TRNC
  • 2) Constant reference to any action from the North as "illegal" i.e. "their families flew into the illegal Tymbou airport", "have participated in trips through this illegal entry point.", "Illegal excavation is a frequent occurrence", "the illegal authorities in occupied Cyprus", "It is estimated that about 160,000 settlers from Turkey have been illegally established", "The Turkish Cypriot administration has allowed the illegal sale of real estate", "Turkish Cypriots in the illegally occupied North", "In the meantime Turkey illegally imported Turkish colonists" (colonists!)
  • 3) Highly politically charged statements: "The ongoing and systematic destruction by Turkey of Cypriot cultural heritage in the occupied area of Cyprus is part of a pre-planned policy aimed at eradicating and destroying all trace of the 9,000 years of Cypriot history and civilization, and at transforming occupied Cyprus into just another Turkish province, through a systematic process of Turkification." or "These settlers were given citizenship and the right to vote, in an attempt to undermine the position of the Turkish-Cypriot community, so that it might lend its support to the occupation regime." or "the ratio of Turks to Turkish-Cypriots in occupied Cyprus is about 2 to 1. This is a tragic irony" Needless to say all unsourced and unencylopedic statements.
  • 4) Factually incorrect statements: "Turkey invaded Cyprus, despite the fact that the coup had been quashed before the arrival of Turkish paratroopers" - Sorry, but utter rubbish used to remove any justification of Turkey intervening. The coup died after Turkey invaded, (and so did the junta in Greece!)
  • 5) "Papadopoulos had a reputation as a hard-liner on reunification and based his stance on international law and human rights" oh please, and Klerides was a criminal i suppose?
  • 6) "In considering the outcome it is interesting to note that whilst the Turkish settlers (who make up the majority in the occupied north) were allowed to vote" - more pov pushing (no credible source to suggest they are majority - and i dont mean roc press office statistics)
  • 7) "The most vital reason for the sudden increase of the per capita income of the Turkish Cypriot economy was the conditional “opening” of the borders" - factual innacuracy. It is a construction boom which has generated increased earnings. Cross border trading is minimal.
  • 8) No mention of TC refugee figures.
  • 9) No mention of appropriated TC properties and land.
  • 10) More unreferenced claims: "Turkish forces killed several thousand Greek Cypriots captured in the occupied areas"

This is just a quick glance. This article shouldnt be the place to make political accusations, this is it how reads at the moment. For that reasons i'm going to put a totally disputed tag i.e. neutrality and factualy accuracy disputed. --A.Garnet 00:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To aid discussion, I've numbered your points.
  • 1) The TRNC is not recognised as a state by anyone other than Turkey, and most observers agree that it has limited autonomy thus limiting even its claims to de facto nationhood. (See for example : soveriegn nations do not consult foreign armies about such decisions).
  • 2) The TRNC is a militarily occupied area. The invasion has been near-universally condemned as illegal. Resolutions by bodies such as the EU, UN, European Court of Human Rights, etc, all decrying the occupation and the subsequent establishment of a dependent quasi-state (see above) by the invading force, remain in place and have not been challenged. Recent realpolitik decisions to open direct channels of communication do not run counter to these decisions. It is possible that in future the TRNC will gain recognition, but for the moment it remains an illegal occupation of sovereign territory under international law. Thus virtually every action with an effect on the fabric of Cyprus (its demography, archaeological sites, land ownership etc) is indeed illegal.
  • 3) Agree entirely: these statements are Greek Cypriot POV-pushing and should be removed.
  • 4) Agree entirely: the Makarios government had not been re-established and the coup was still in effect. More Greek Cypriot POV-pushing.
  • 5) Not sure what your point is: if it's that the second half of the sentence should be removed, again, I agree. Any attempt to re-instate the sentence should only be allowed if serious sources are appended.
  • 6) I don't understand why demographic information from the government of Cyprus is not acceptable to you. If you can produce credible sources stating that the majority of people in the TRNC are indeed Cyprus-born and Turkish Cypriot by ancestry, then that should go in as an opposing point of view. But I think you'll have difficulty. I can't find it at the moment (apologies), but I think even the UN stated that Turkish-born settlers were in the majority, during the referendum.
  • 7) Cross-border trade may be minimal, but there has been an influx of money from the South since border restrictions were relaxed. Greek Cypriots gambling in the North have poured millions into the economy (through taxes on casinos). Thousands of Turkish Cypriots work in the Republic and bring their wages back. This should be reflected in the article. Moreover, the contruction boom is also influenced by the relaxation of border controls: developers see a chance of the north opening up and move in. None of this is POV-driven as far as I can see.
  • 8) Stick them in! Unless they've been removed, you can hardly say this is a POV issue.
  • 9) Stick them in! Unless they've been removed, you can hardly say this is a POV issue. Actually, in this case, I'll try and put something in over the next few days.
  • 10) The European Human Rights Commission report of 1977 upheld charges that Turkish soldiers, post-invasion, were "guilty of widespread murder, rape, looting, inhuman treatment, siezure and wanton destruction of property and enforced explusion". BBC news report, 18/01/77. Maybe this should go in until a source for the word "thousands" can be found.
  • 11) I'm surprised you didn't pick up on this. The section "Post-independence" seems to make no reference to the several genocidal massacres of Turkish Cypriot villagers that took place in the period 1959-1974. The current unearthing of these graves provides ever more evidence of the darker side that's completely excluded from this paragraph. Vizjim 15:10, 18 January 2007

(UTC)

Thank you for your constructive replies Vizjim. Why do i oppose the term illegal? It is a political statement, used primarily by Greek Cypriot to discredit the TRNC. This however, is an encyclopedia, we do not choose which state is more legitimate, nor do we attempt to portray one state as more rightful than the other. The only place i have seen TRNC italicised is in this article, i have not seen any Misplaced Pages policy which says non-recognised states must be italicised, it is only a way of pov pushing that one state is more legitimate than the other, when in fact Misplaced Pages must treat both the RoC and TRNC without bias. No court has ever declared the TRNC illegal, nor the Turkish intervention for that matter. There have been political statements denouncing its creation, but certainly no judgement that the TRNC is illegal in its entirety. Not only that, but again, it is simple encyclopedic style that you do not attempt to portary one state as more legitimate than the other. We can say for example "their families flew into the Ercan airport, a port of entry not recognised by the Cypriot government" - but we cannot say "they flew into the illegal port", illegal according to whom? Turkish Cypriots and Turkey certainly do not see it as illegal. My point is these statments smack of pov, they can all be worded in a far more neutral manner.
Regarding Papadopolous, my point of dispute was that he bases "his stance on international law and human rights". Is the article suggesting Clerdies did not base his stance on international law and human rights, or that Turkish Cypriots are opposed to international and human rights? Again, another needless political statement. On the census figures, i do not accept GC statistics to be credible no, no more than i would expect you to find TC statistics credible on their own. It is a political dispute, all figures are distorted (as any third party writer on the Cyprus problem will tell you). But basically i agree with you, both figures have to be included, but GC statistics alone are not neutral (and we must also state where these statistics came from i.e. According to GC statistics...whilst TC's own figures state etc).
On the TC economy we need reliable sources. It was not pov i was concerned about but factual accuracy. As far as i'm aware, cross border trading is minimal, the number of TC workers in the South is still relatively small. The real boom to the economy however came in wake of the Annan plan and the construction boom which followed. Like i said we need to find sources on this. On the actions committed by Turkish soldiers, i dont deny innocent GC's were killed, but the way the article showed it is that thousands were massacred implying some sort of organised massacre of GC civilians. As for massacre of TC's, i already wrote some time ago that Turkish Cypriot villages were massacred in reprisal for Turkish army landing, though i did not use the word genocidal. I hope editors realise i'm not sticking in the totallydisputed tag for fun, there are serious issues with how this article is written. I will try to edit it when i have more time. Thanks, --A.Garnet 18:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but for the moment I'll only pick you up on one point. "This... is an encyclopedia, we do not choose which state is more legitimate." Exactly. The TRNC is not recognised as a state by any country other than Turkey. It is not a state. Any attempt to describe it as a state by Misplaced Pages is pushing a Turkish POV that is not supported by the rest of the world. Hence, "illegal state". Other terms that could be used would be "occupied area", "colonised area" and maybe "Turkish military-controlled area", but "illegal state" gets the point over without stressing it overmuch.
  • "Turkish Cypriots and Turkey certainly do not see it as illegal." No, but everyone else in the world does, hence any attempt to remove the "illegal" descriptors is POV-pushing.
  • "it is simple encyclopedic style that you do not attempt to portary one state as more legitimate than the other"... unless, as in this case, one state is internationally recognised as more legitimate than the other. Vizjim 06:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Following this discussion with interest. I take it that there is no serious objection to removing the following statement from the article:

The ongoing and systematic destruction by Turkey of Cypriot cultural heritage in the occupied area of Cyprus is part of a pre-planned policy aimed at eradicating and destroying all trace of the 9,000 years of Cypriot history and civilization, and at transforming occupied Cyprus into just another Turkish province, through a systematic process of Turkification.

To my mind this is most obvious and inflammatory of the POV passages. I flagged it for citation a few days ago, but frankly I can't imagine what sort of citation, outside of rank conspiracy theory, would support such a statement. --Javits2000 10:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Vizjim, but i've had this argument ten fold on Misplaced Pages. The TRNC is a state, its existence does not rest on international recognition, nor is international recognition a prerequisite to function as a state. No state can be deemed "illegal" and if you object I would ask you provide a source where an international court of law has declared otherwise. There may be illegal acts within that state in the eyes of international law i.e. the flow of migrant workers, or the sale of pre-74 GC property, but this does entitle you to say the "illegal TRNC".
Also, i would like to see a source whereby the rest of the world considers the TRNC illegal. If you are suggesting a lack of diplomatic relations implies this then you are wrong. I do not see people refer to "illegal Taiwan" for instance. Finally, I found your suggestion of "colonised area" completely offensive and utterly derogatory to Cypriots and naturalised Cypriots in the North of the island. These are the kinds of terms i would like the article to go away from, it is needlessly politicising the issue when most of these sentences can be written in a fare more encyclopedic manner. --A.Garnet 17:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


I am sorry A.Garnet but as a neutral and fair minded person i feel i have to intervene in this dispute against you. You are totally and absolutely incorrect to say that a states status as a 'legal' state does not rest on international recognition. It absolutely does. that is the very definition of a legitimate state. Why do you think every separatist or seccessionists goverments first act is to try and secure international recognition? why do you think that places such as Biafra, Croatia or East Timor devoted so much of their energy to trying to secure foreign recognition of their declarations of independence. A state is only a state when other nations recognise its lawful authority and sovereignty over a particular area. Without that recognition, it is only an area of military control, pending resolution of its status. Without international recognition, no one is under legal obligation to respect its borders, abide by its laws, accept its control of waters for 12 miles around its coast and so on. without the rcognition of the UN, or at least a large number of substantial states, it has no legal status, and hence is 'illegal'. A state that already exists cannot be declared 'illegal' because of its actions, as you say; but a state that has not yet been recognised, and which was created in a manner that the international community judges to be unlawful or inappropriate, can have legal recognition withheld, and hence will remain illegal until that staus is given. I hope this deals with some of your points. Mattlav 17:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above point; you say that you would like to see a place where the internatonal community has declared that turkish cyprus is illegal; well, it is cited in this very article. The UN responded immediately to the turkish invasion by declaring it illegal, and the proclamation of a separate turkish state as illegal. That resolution still stands. The only thing that could have changed that, or removed its authoirty, would have been if the recently proposed federation between north and south had been successful, and had been ratified and recognised by the UN General Assembly. However, as the federation was rejected in a referendum (by the greek cypriots) it has not taken place and therefore northern cyprus remains in legal limbo. If you need any further evidence of this; why do you think it is that southern cyprus is now part of the EU, while the northern part is not? It is because the EU does not recognise the northern part as a legal entity, and hence it connot have membership.Mattlav 18:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments Mattlav. The area of international law governing statehood is complex, and your opinion above is merely one interpretation of what is necessary to be considered a state. Let me quote a Brittanica article on international law and statehood: "According to the “declaratory” theory of recognition, which is supported by international practice, the act of recognition signifies no more than the acceptance of an already-existing factual situation—i.e., conformity with the criteria of statehood. The “constitutive” theory, in contrast, contends that the act of recognition itself actually creates the state." ]. You clearly have opted for the latter constitutive theory, whilst i have stated the former i.e. the TRNC is a defacto state in existence and a reality on the island, recognition would only confirm this state, but not create it.
Also, I believe you and Vizjim are underestimating the significance of even one state recognising the TRNC. I found this passage quite important, "a political community only constitutes a state for purposes of international law, in as much as other states, through recognition and through entering into internal relations with that political community, permit it to participate in areas governed by international law. Vis-a-vis, Turkey, but no one else, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, is a state. Diplomatic exchanges between these two states, as far as they - but no one else - are concerned, are governed by rules of international law. There are, therefore, states in the international law sense with a greater or lesser degree of recognition" ].
Both these sources would directly counter your assertion that "Without that recognition, it is only an area of military control, pending resolution of its status." What i am trying to say is that usage of the term "illegal TRNC" is divisive and above all political. It is the kind of term an encyclopedia should try to avoid. --A.Garnet 18:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That is a political and legal question Vizjim, one i'm not qualified as an editor of an online encyclopedia to answer, by that same token i can ask you is Taiwan a state? My only point from the beginning of this debate was that referring to the TRNC and its institutions as illegal at every mention is not good encyclopedic practice. All we have to do is say the UN declared its UDI legally invalid and refer to its non-recognised status except by Turkey. That is enough, but to keep saying "illegal TRNC", "illegal airport", "illegal excavations" is an unnecessary and aggresive way of pov pushing. --A.Garnet 19:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Taiwan is recognised by more than one country. Misplaced Pages style is a very shaky ground to make any argument on. Vizjim 11:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Where in international law does it say how many countries must recognise a political community before it can be deemed a state? If you read my sources above you will realise there is no clear cut definition, there are simply "states in the international law sense with a greater or lesser degree of recognition". --A.Garnet 12:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Common sense would dictate that the recognition of at least one country NOT directly and militarily involved in the territory would be an absolute minimum. Vizjim 13:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Common sense is a very shaky ground to make an argument on Vizjim. My common sense tells me there are two distinct states on the island. That is why the OIC recognises the TRNC as the Turkish Cypriot State, why the British foreign minister met Talat in his Presidential Office, why Talat was invited to Pakistan in his official role as President of the TRNC, why Talat is recognised even by the United Nations Peace Process as the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community. This is what common sense is to me. --A.Garnet 14:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Common sense also allows us to detect people who don't directly answer our points, and to assume that their minds are closed to argument. Do please feel free to have the last word, but I think I'll leave this for others to pick up. Vizjim 15:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Come off it Vizjim, i have argued your points, I have provided you with academic sources. You have not replied to any of these, merely dismissed everything on the basis of "common sense". How can you accuse me of not being open to argument? --A.Garnet 15:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Vizjim, i see Garnet is trying to convince you that Homer was a turk, and that Troy belongs in Turkish history... common sense!!! It is in turkish text books!!! Aristovoul0s 16:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Perilously close to breaking the rules, but "heh" all the same. Vizjim 05:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Warning Sign

I have moved the dispute warning sign away from the head of the article, and to the start of the paragraphs which i believe are disputed or have problems. Most of this article is very good, and does not deserve to be slandered because of a few stupid things written at the end. Hopefully putting the sign here will give people a better understanding of what the problems are and make it clear where the dsisputes lie.Mattlav 18:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute stub

Please offer your comments here Template talk:Cyprus-stub Aristovoul0s 17:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Universities and educational establishments

I think the TRNC universities should be restored to the article. Not being recognised by the EU is no reason to censor their existence, though the dubious utility of the qualifications they hand out could be noted. Also, why single out private secondary schools? Surely these should be split off into a sub-article, Schools of Cyprus? Vizjim 11:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Island nation

I honestly can't fathom the kerfuffle over the "island nation" terminology. Cyprus is an island and it is also an internationally recognised sovereign nation, is it not? Even the Turkish Cypriots have acknowledged that a united Cyprus is the ultimate aim of any solution to the Cyprus dispute and that the "TRNC" is by extension a temporary arrangement until the Greeks smarten up and accept the Annan Plan, so what's the beef? The size of the British bases on Cyprus relative to the US base at Guantánamo cannot be a serious argument, surely. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote from the linked article, "Some island countries share their islands with other countries", so there is no need for this argument at all. Vizjim 05:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

European Union

Isn't this technically in Asia?? --SunStar Net 15:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

mmmmm, I'd suspect that question alone is hard enough to answer, but as to being in the EU, geographically it doesn't have to be literally part of europe for member states to agree to it being part of the EU - but without getting out a map and just guessing - isn't it right on the edge of the eurasian plate? --Streaky 23:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
it's part of Europe. I have a National Geographic Magazine's Europe map hanging right here before my eyes. It's in all other books and geographical dictionaries. ISasha 10:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is where ever you define the Europe/Asia borders to be, which is quite lame of a debate (like as if Asia is inferior or something?). Many geographers adopt different definitions and different borders for these two adjacent continents. Cyprus being an island makes things even more vague. I'm sure we could reflect that trivial issue neutrally within the article with proper wording. NikoSilver 13:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes by anon

Anon 85.102.134.194 (talk · contribs) made the following changes:

  • deleted "the Anatolian peninsula (Asia Minor) or modern-day "
  • moved a picture awkwardly in the beginning, leaving a huge blank space on the left
  • moved {{npov-section}} to the beginning of the article without specifying what he/she disputes.

I'm reverting all changes. NikoSilver 13:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Grammar change

I have a question. I wanted to change the grammar of a sentence to make it more clear. The change got reverted, and I don't really understand why. The sentence as originally worded said 'This concern was highlighted by the UK's Telegraph Newspaper in 2006 when the wife of Britain's prime minister, Cherie Blair, touched a diplomatic nerve;'. As currently worded, the grammar does not make it clear that 'Cherie Blair' is the wife. It sounds like 'Cherie Blair' is the prime minister. I changed the sentence to say 'This concern was highlighted by the UK's Telegraph Newspaper in 2006 when Cherie Blair, the wife of Britain's prime minister, touched a diplomatic nerve;' I know that this change is a very minor point, and I am not overly concerned about this particular sentence. However, this is my first attempt at editing something on Misplaced Pages, and my edit was not accepted, so I am wondering what edits will be accepted? Khollings 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That was my error Khollings. Apologies. I'm inserting your sentence. It's the fact that I was first using a watchlist tool that I didn't know that it cuts off part of the edited preview! I thought you had deleted something. Please do not let this discourage your future editing! NikoSilver 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Khollings 22:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

this page totaly smells racism

i think wiki should prepare itself this kind of disputed issues.we can clearly see that this page edited by some nationalists. I could understand that greek cypriots want to defend their case it is normal thing but no one have lux to change realty. i can hear the empty boos already —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilybaeum (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Serious npov issues

First off I am very new to posting anything on wikipedia so please forgive me if I am not following conventions I should know about.

I should also say I am part Cypriot (Turkish) and currently live in northern Cyprus.

I wish to add to the discussion re lack of NPOV in this article and specifically to the "Post-independence" section where it reads

"In November 1963, Archbishop Makarios, the first President of the Republic of Cyprus, proposed thirteen Amendments to the constitution in his desire to improve the situation, amendments not involving any radical changes but designed rather to remove some of the more obvious causes of friction."

I can not see how anyone with a NPOV could say that the proposed ammendments did not make 'any radical changes'. One has only to read the proposed ammendments to see that they radicaly and fundamentaly changed the whole basis of the agreements that created the Republic of Cyprus. In my humble view the statement that these amendments did not involve 'any radical changes' is not just a NPOV issue but actually just factualy incorrect.

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/www.cyprus-conflict.net/13_points.html

It is also my view that stating as fact that Makarios's intention in these ammedments was merely to 'remove causes of friction' is itself a contentious and baised statement. Certainly this was the claim of Makarios but there is much well documented evidence that his real intent was far from this and it can not be in dispute that the result was far from this.

Having started I also have to say something about the following part as well

"Unable to reach a solution, the government of the Republic of Cyprus brought the matter before the UN."

Actually Britain was the first to make a call on the UN security council to convene a meeting to discuss the unfolding crisis in Cyprus in a tactical move to get in before Makarios did. A more serious failing of the above description however is the idea that the UN action and subsequent miltary intervention was concerned with wrangling over the Cyprus consitution and that they got involved simply because the Republic of Cyprus wanted them to resolve the issue of the Cypriot consitution. The reason why the UN became involved was not to settle a dispute over the Cypriot consitution, for which it had no mandate to get involed in any case, but in fact to deal with the threat to regional peace and stability that the intercommunal violence in Cyprus threatend. So the above is in my humble view factualy incorrect - it was Britian that first called on the UN security council to meet , closely followed by Makarios government and the purpose of the UN meeting and involvment was not to settle issues on the consitution of Cyprus but in fact to try and stop the intercommunal fighting that threatend regional peace and stability. You do not send a peace keeping force to a place to resolve a dispute over the constitution.

Erolz 14:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Hi - why not change the article, adding sources for each of your claims? The big problem with that section of this article is that loads of nationalists with strongly pro-Greek(/Cypriot) POV have created it without adding sources for many of their claims. Then loads of nationalists with pro-Turkish(/Cypriot) POV have altered it, again without adding sources. The resultant mass is currently a poorly-written article that clearly breaks the POV rules (I'm pretty much pro-Greek, and yet the NPOV issue is obvious even to me) and yet can't be changed because nobody, including me, seems bothered to actually do any research. Since you have sources for your claims, why not add them in? If someone else disagrees, it will then be up to them to find authoritative sources that contradict your source. In short, why not get involved as opposed to complaining uselessly here? Vizjim 14:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the reply Vizjim. Why do I not just change the article? The main reason is that I do not feel qualifed to do so to be honest - not in my html editing skills, my knowledge of wikipedia editing in general nor in my general english skills. What I can and will do is try and provide sound reason logic and referances as to where and why I think the article can be improved. Maybe in time I will feel confident enough to edit a main page and not just particpate via the discussion sections but right now I do not. As for sources for my claims, as far as describing the proposed ammendments as not containing any 'radical' changes, I with respect do not know what more needs to be provided but the ammedments themselves and the application of common sense. I aready provided a link to the ammendments themselves and I just do not see how anyone could make the claim that they contained no radical changes that is currently the text on the main page. As far as Makarios' intent there is no source that can prove his intent. There is however the undeniable fact that whatever his intent the result was the direct opposite of that claimed to have been his intent on the main page. As for the claim that it was the British that first called on the UN security council to convene and consider the crisis unfolding in Cyprus I will try and find some hard sources to support this claim. As for the claim that the purpose of the UN deliberations on and subsequent intervention in Cyprus was not about 'resolving consitutional issues' at the request of the RoC government (the Makarios government) as the main article implies, again I am at a loss to know what source could be provided other than the actual resolution passed by the Security Council (S/RES/186(1964)) and the application of common sense. This resolution makes no mention of consitutional issues at all or resolving them. What it does mention is the threat to international peace and security that the intercommunal fighting in Cyprus represented and the need to place a UN force in Cyprus "in the interest of preserving international peace and security, to use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of fighting and, as necessary, to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order and a return to normal conditions;". None of this is apparent in the main page description as it currently exits, implying as it does that UN involvment in Cyprus was about resoving a constituional dispute at the request of the Makarios government. These misrepresentations of reality that exits today on the main page are not about a lack of sources but about a designed attempt to spin the reality of what occured and why it occured in this period. At least as far as I can see.Erolz 04:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources re the involvment of the UN in Cyprus in 1964

In the above discussion I said I would try and provide some hard sources re impled inaccuracies in the main article section "Post-independence" and specifically the claim that "Unable to reach a solution , the government of the Republic of Cyprus brought the matter before the UN."

Below is a link to a UN document on a UN website that details the sequence of discussion on this subsequent resolution. The document is in pdf format and the relevant section starts on (pdf) page 18, where first the resolution is listed and then the discussion leading upto this resolution

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/repertoire/64-65_08.pdf

In summary of the above document

Britian spoke first at this meeting, refering to its letter of the 15th Febuary to the Security Council detailing the serious deterioration of internal secruity in Cyprus and serious acts of violence in intercommunal fighting.

The RoC spoke second reffering to its letter, also of the 15th Febuary, to the Security Council in which it raised a complaint against Turkey, alledeging that Turkey was perparing for an imminent and obvious invasion fo Cyprus.

My point here is that is that the current description on the main page of who made recourse to the UN over the Cyprus situation and why they made that recourse is simply factualy inacurate. Both the UK and the RoC both made calls on the UN to become involved in the situation not just the RoC as the main page currently state. Neither of the countries did so in order for the UN to resolve the dispute over Makarios' proposed ammendments to the consitution as the main page implies and nor would the UN have a madate for such a role in any case. Both countries brought the matter to the UN under the UN's mandate of maintaing international peace and stability yet there is no mention of this in the main page description. The UK did so re the issue of the break down of internal security in Cyprus and the intercommunal violence that was occuring there and the RoC on the issue of allegations of Turkish preperations for an invasion against Cyprus. These were the submissions made to the UN that lead finaly to resolution 186.Erolz 05:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

major rewrite of the 1st 1/2 of Post-independence section

Ok I went ahead and boldy made my first edit od wikipedia main page. I believe this latest version is more factualy correct and less POV laden the the old one, but of course would welcome input and improvements from others. Erolz 04:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Islands of Turkey/Greece???

I noticed that Cyprus article is included in the "islands of Turkey" and "islands of Greece" categories. Though the situation is disputed, neither Turkey nor greece has annexed the island by any means. so I think links to these categories should be removed. Kerem Özcan 15:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, how did that POV slip though :) I've removed them.--Domitius 15:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Will someone please tell me, in the opening paragraph, in nice simple short words, whether this is an indepedent country, or a territory of Greece/Turkey, or something else. Cos I is confused, and after reading the opening paragraph I is still confused, and I has got an IQ of about 160 and a very good geographical knowledge of the world. I can see axes being grinded left, right and centre there, without telling mewhat I want to know. God help anyone else reading it! Bards 18:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It is an island nation, i.e. an independent country. Says so there in the first sentence or so. The legal issues surrounding the occupation and UDI of one third of the island do make things a bit more complex, but they are all sort of explained through the rest of the article. Vizjim 20:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
(Reply to Bards)Hahaha :D I see your confusion. Actually the answer of your question can vary depending on whom you are asking it to. It is a "terrorist/freedom fighter" kind of thing. (No analogy, just wanted to say that it is impossible to give an opinion without some level of POV mixing in it.) So I guess I won't be able to provide you with the "one-sentence-explanation" that you asked for, and I believe nobody else also can do it. The situation is too complex to do it anyways. The best is to read articles such as Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Turkish invasion of Cyprus and Cyprus dispute besides Cyprus article. And then you should read also beyond wikipedia too... Well, what can I say, welcome to the club :) But to warn you, once you step in, there's no way out :) Regards, Kerem Özcan 21:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
;) So why is it divided into a Greek part and a Turkish part, instead of a Cypriot (natives) part and a Turkish (invaded) part? What claims do the Greeks have over this island? Bards 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way - I am posing the question, because I think it needs answering in the opening paragraph. I realise it may be dificult to simplify the problem, if you are on the inside looking out; but if you can summarise it before going into detail, you'll have a better article (imo). It shouldn't be necessary to read the entire article to get an overview. Bards 22:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, So I try it with as little POV as possible and with simpler words :). See Cyprus used to be a Hellenic Island until Ottoman army conquered it 1570. Usually the policy of the Ottoman Empire was to intervene as little as possible to the demographics&culture of the newly conqured lands, rather than surprassing them. (That's why the former Ottoman nations still speak their language and preserve the religion - compare it to the South America under spanish rule) But Ottoman empire thought that the island was in a strategic location, so lumped a bunch of Turkish settlers there to "turkify" the island, changing the demographics. Then you might say that the Ottomans "sold" the island to the British for their support against Russians in late 1800s. In mid fifties there was an IRA like militant organisation (called EOKA) that tried merge Cyprus the Greece. But for some reason, UK wouldn't allow that, claming that the rights of the Turkish people in the island should be preserved, and a seperate Cyprus state was found (1960) in the guarantorship of three nations (Greece, Turkey, UK it is), thus allowing UK to have military bases in the island ;)
So that might be where my POV comes in :) After the independence, things worked fine for a while, until Greece military government supported a coup in Cyprus (1974), abolishing the rights of the Turkish population. Thus Turkey, as a guarantor state, invaded the island until a solution was found. After no constructive steps towards reunification were taken from both sides for 9 years, Turkey granted indepence to the northern part of the island; and thus the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) found, a state that is recognized only by Turkey.
A unified Cyprus plan offered by Kofi Annan was taken to the referendum in 2004, which is approved by the Turkish cypriot side, yet rejected by the greek cypriots, keeping the island divided.
So; answer to your question. Now all the maps on the world, show the island wholly as unified republic of Cyprus. Except the ones that are in Turkey which shows it as two seperate countries. Republic of Cyprus government policy rejects recognition of TRNC of any kind and any means, and that is what's causing the intro in the Misplaced Pages to look like that. You may take your part in trying to clarify it in the beginning, but I guess it won't stay there long. (No offense anybody)
I'll be willing to answer your further questions on this subject as much as I can. And since your user page says you are Celtic, when you have time I would like to hear your point of view regarding Iron Lady and the situation around her time in the office (I am serious about it by the way. But please make it dummy proof :) )
Regards; Kerem Özcan 00:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Mrs Margaret Thatcher, also known as The Iron Lady, became the United Kingdom's first female prime minister in 1979. She was a conservative PM, and applied Keynsian Theory (?) to the nation's economy, to streamline government and improve its domestic and international competitiveness. With the advantage of landslides victories winning 3 terms in office, and her authoritarian style, she was able to push through a number of very unpopular measures, such as the Poll Tax, the closure of unprofitable coal mines (after the "winter of discontent", with its frequent miner strikes), and ... Eventually these generated sufficient bad feeling amongst the proles (oops) to set forces in motion which removed her from office in a famously unceremonious and sudden leadership vote in 1992(?). She was replaced by John Major. Also, she was a stupid cow who thought she could run an entire country using small-town grocery-shop economics (oops, POV creeping in there) ;) erm.
How's that? (I'll have to go look at the article now, to see what guff they've written, haha). Bards 01:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So anyway - does this mean that part of Cyprus is an island of Turkey, according to Turkey, but not according to the rest of the world? (Is it the *whole* world, or are there other countries who recognise the TRNC?). I propose a rewrite of the intro, involving (a) simplification of things by removing details to create a digestable overview, and (b) removal of parentheses wherepossible, to make it more readable -

The Republic of Cyprus (Template:Lang-el; Template:Lang-tr) is an island nation in the Mediterranean Sea, south of Turkey. It is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea. It is divided into two political zones, commonly known as the Greek and Turkish Districts (?). The Greek part, to the south, is inhabited mainly by native Cypriots of ancient Greek descent. The Turkish part, to the north, is the result of an invasion by Turkey in 1974, and has been settled by Turkish people. On Turkish maps, the Turkish part is shown as a separate country named the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

(NB: failure to explain the above is a POVpush, imo - refusing to accept the facts of history and the current state of the island.).

This should go into the political section -

The Republic of Cyprus is divided into six districts:

And move the rest into the 'History' section, again - simplified - as an introduction.

More, non-disputable facts of a general nature could be added to the intro as a 2nd paragraph.

Bards 01:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. See the island is not seen as "part of Turkey" or "part of Greece" by anybody. But according to the Turkey there's another country in the north of Cyprus. And the Turkish population there is not due to the 1974 invasion (or intervention as Turkey calls it) of Turkey. But rather because of the 1570 conquest of ottoman empire. Back in the day all of the island was populated with Turks and Greeks together as the Turkish Cypriots being the biggest minority. Bu after 1974, almost all of the Greeks were gradually forced to the south, and the Turkish to the north.
About your offer to change the intro as such. Try it. Actually I had the exact same complain in the TRNC page. There is (and thre will be) always some kind of wording that somebody doesn't like and it turns in to an edit war. But go ahead, give it a shot. Maybe you'll come up with a better wording. Regards, Kerem Özcan 06:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem with your suggested rewrite is that it is factually incorrect. Nobody refers to "Greek and Turkish Districts". The TRNC is, depending on where you sit and what your point of view is, "A government", "A separatist regime", "An enclave", "An area illegally occupied by foreign troops". All of these descriptions are true for someone. The United Nations do not formally recognise the TRNC, which supports the last description, especially given their condemnation of the invasion. The EU governments also do not recognise it, but they have been negotiating for direct trade to be opened up with the TRNC state, which suggests they are treating it as an enclave. The TRNC itself voted for reunification under the Annan Plan, which would seem to obviate the "separatist" descriptor, but at the same time accept their description by Turkey as a separate country, which would suggest a government. And there are other complexities that I haven´t even gone into yet! To do justice to this incredibly complex problem of international law while not offending either the Turkish Cypriots (who suffered horrible things in the 1960s when the island was a single republic, and still suffer under international sanctions today) or Greek Cypriots (who suffered horrible things under Ottoman and British occupation, and again during the Turkish invasion) is complex and probably impossible. I continue to strongly urge anyone altering this article to describe any aspect of the politics of the island to research the topic first, and to always add external resources. Vizjim 07:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've done some reading. I would still like to improve the intro, to make it more digestible and easier to read. My proposal now is to separate the intro into - a description of the current state of the island (para 1), an explanation of the alternate country names (para 2); and an outline of the history which has brought about this situation (para 3) -

Cyprus (Template:Lang-el; Template:Lang-tr) is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea, located south of Turkey. It is divided into two political zones. The south is inhabited mainly by Cypriots of ancient Greek descent. The north is inhabited mainly by Cypriots of Turkish descent. A buffer zone between them is controlled by United Nations forces. The south also contains two Sovereign Base Areas controlled by the British.

Officially the island is a single island nation, the Republic of Cyprus (Template:Lang-el; Template:Lang-tr). However, the Turkish invasion of the northern part of the island resulted, in 1983, in their declaration of a new country, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. This is not universally recognised, but during the upheaval, most of the Turkish Cypriots moved to the north, and most of the Greek Cypriots to the south, creating a de facto partition.

(optional 3rd para giving an overview of the history fo the conflict)

This situation is the result of over a hundred years of conflict between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, polarised by the British influence into a major cultural rift. The island was originally settled by Greeks around 1600BC, and later invaded by Turkey around 1570AD. The two cultures seem to have lived harmoniously for the most part. However, in 1878 the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) gave control of the island to Britain in exchange for military aid, setting into motion a long chain of troublesome events. In 1913, the British formally annexed Cyprus, and in 1925 declared it a Crown Colony. Reactions to British rule generated a militant movement amongst the Greek Cypriots for reunification with Greece (known as enosis), which led to continued anti-Turkish feeling during the 20th century - including a revolution in 1931, continued riots, the formation of the partisan guerrilla army EOKA, and a near-collapse into civil war in the late 1950s. The conflict was temporarily resolved in 1960 by the creation of a new island nation, the Republic of Cyprus, which was free of control from Greece, Britain and Turkey. However, the appointment of pro-enosis prime minister Makarios, and his inability to resolve the cultural differences, resulted in 1963 in the collapse of his government, and fighting throughout the island which continued through the 1960s. In 1974 a new leader of the EOKA set enosis as his top priority, and Turkey, wishing to provide its people with a stable homeland, responded by invading the north of the island. In 1983 they declared the north as a new country, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Since then, a series of peace talks and unification plans have been proposed and rejected, and the island remains in a state of political limbo.

Bards 01:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. 3rd para. I'm tempted to add, after the 1960 bit, "The new nation should have restored the island's earlier harmony between the Greeks and the Turks living together as Cypriots. But the idea of enosis had acquired a cultural momentum, and continued to cause problems. The appointment of...". But suspect that may be inflamatory (and POV ish) to today's enosis supporters, and may only result in edit wars (doh!). Bards 01:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bards I have a couple of suggestions on the first two paragraphs as below
Cyprus (Greek: Κύπρος, Kýpros; Turkish: Kıbrıs) is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea, located south of Turkey. It is divided into two political zones. The south is inhabited mainly by Cypriots of Greek cultural descent and the north by Cypriots of Turkish cultural descent. A buffer zone between them is controlled by United Nations forces. The south also contains two Sovereign Base Areas controlled by the British.
Officially the island is a single island nation, the Republic of Cyprus (Greek: Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία, Kypriakí Dhimokratía; Turkish: Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti). However, the Turkish invasion of the northern part of the island in 1974 resulted, in 1983, in the declaration of a seperate independant state by the Turkish Cypriot community, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. This entity is recognised as a legitimate state only by Turkey. The events of 1974 resulted in wholesale movement of Greek Cypriot populations from the North of the island to the South and the reverse movement of Turkish Cypriots from the South to the North creating the de facto partition that exists today.
Basically I personally prefer the term 'cultural descendant' - because basically Greek and Turkish Cypriots geneticaly are closer to each other than they are to either Greek or Turkish populations respectively. We are not geneticaly seperate but culturaly so. I have also tweaked the 2nd paragraph a bit.
As for the third I see quite aa few problems with it to be frank and I am not sure of the necessity for it at all in the introduction. I do not have the time right now to suggest improvments to it but will try to do so soon. In any case thanks for your efforts to get this article improved Erolz 02:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Erolz, that looks good to me. I'll let this sit here for a day or two, and if no one jumps up and screams, and I'll change it and see what happens ;) Bards 13:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

All of these talks are between the greeks and the turks.... what about the cypriots??!!! The ottoman empire took all of greece and every island, they also took all of northern africa, it doesnt mean that they should all be part of turkey. Before the cypriots wanted independance there was no such thing as a greek or turkish cypriot, the brits came up with it to try and stop the island from joining with greece. My point is that there are no greek cypriots who can claim that they have no turkish blood and there are no (legitimate) turkish cypriots that can claim that they have no greek blood. This island is its own, It has a mixture of greek, italian, french, english and turkish culture. Cypriot greek is very different to that spoken in athens. There was once a kingdom of cyprus that did very well and even had its own tiny empire, so why dont we just leave cyprus to the cypriots eh? Ge0rg10

It seems that a whole bunch of people are now pre-emptively modifying the intro, trying to correct the POVcreep and inserting phrases from this discussion, thus stalling my plan to overhaul it. I'll let them get on with it for the moment! Bards 08:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with this now. It is possible for a novice to read the intro, and get a good basic grasp of the situation. Thanks for the good advice. Bards 12:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also satisfied with the current intro: its concise, yet comprehensive (e.g., importantly summarising the de facto partition). Thanks! Corticopia 12:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually I also agree that it looks really much more clear this way. Just one thing. I think TRNC shouldn't be labeled as "seperatist" since it was the Turkish cypriots who voted in favor of the reunion referendum in 2004. I was going to write "a de facto sovereign state" but it is also said like that in the following sentence, and I couldn't think of any other wording. Would one of the native english speakers help? Thanks, and regards, Kerem Özcan 14:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Merely removing 'separatist' may suffice, if at all; any other word changes are discouraged. And including that word shouldn't be problematic anyway, since a number of countries may also have separatist movements -- Canada (Quebec) most readily comes to mind -- and the TRNC (by its very presence) remains a separate entity despite the referendum. however, the TRNC is not a "de facto sovereign state" (and this assertion would have to be sourced, anyway), since one of the key criteria for statehood (Westphalia) is a territory's ability to establish relations with other states. Only Turkey has recognised the TRNC, with others disregarding it, not having acknowledged it, etc. Anyhow, the links for TRNC etc. should tell a reader all they need to know, without overloading the introduction. Corticopia 14:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
My two pence worth is that seperatist shoud be removed - it implies to the average reader that continued seperation is the offical policy of the TRNC - which is not the case. As for a referance for the TRNC as a de facto state there is one here http://www.britannica.com/nations/Cyprus but personaly I also accept this can be considered misleading. Certainly the echr in its rulings to date considers the trnc as de facto a part of turkey for example. The TRNC does have realtions with other states and indeed with the EU , it's just they do not recognise it as a legitimate state. Erolz 18:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The Britannica reference is interesting -- thanks. However, note that it merely notes de facto state, with no implication about the TRNC's sovereignty. I cannot say whether the TRNC is truly that, and changes in the article lead saying that may be misleading -- I would limit or remove any such notations from the intro and keep it simple. Corticopia 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Given recent edits, at this juncture, it is important to include the entire footnote for the Cyprus entry in Britannica (emphasis mine):
  • Two de facto states currently exist on the island of Cyprus: the Republic of Cyprus (ROC), predominantly Greek in character, occupying the southern two-thirds of the island, which is the original and still the internationally recognized de jure government of the whole island; and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), proclaimed unilaterally Nov. 15, 1983, on territory originally secured for the Turkish Cypriot population by the July 20, 1974, intervention of Turkey. Only Turkey recognizes the TRNC, and the two ethnic communities have failed to reestablish a single state....
While the TRNC may be a legal entity under Turkish law, it has no de jure ("in law") standing internationally and it is incorrect to say or imply otherwise. De facto means "in fact", and the island is -- in actuality -- subdivided into four potions. Based on this alone, the current introduction is sufficient and attempts to imbalance it without added discussion or consensus will be corrected. Thanks. Corticopia 13:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree above. I would have no problems calling TRNC seperatist, but most of the turkish cypriots, (and also the party in power) is for one state solution according to last referendum. What I understand from a seperatist state is like Chechen Republic of Ichkeria or NKR. Regards, Kerem Özcan 21:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The demographics section

There is a problem with the demogrpahics section, which has long been an area of propaganda re the Cyprus issue. However as the section stands atm we have it saying that "about 150,000 Turks from Anatolia were transferred or decided to settle in the north" and then a referance to here http://www.observercyprus.com/observer/NewsDetails.aspx?id=1180 that contradicts the earlier figure of 150,000 mainland turks. I am not sure how to fix this problem but it is certainly inconsistent. Maybe we need to say that the number of settlers introduced into north cyprus by the TRNC is highly disputed by both sides ? Erolz 19:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • That news story seems inherently contradictory - its figures don't really add up, unless 100,000+ people in the TRNC have at least 1 parent born neither in Cyprus or Turkey. Vizjim 06:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The figures do add up , it the way the article is written that is confusing. Another repot on the figures is here http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=30725&archive=1 . Basically there were 256k people in the north on the day of census. Of this 256k, 178k were trnc citizens and 77k were temporary visitors. Of the 178k that were citizens, 120k have two cypriot parents, 12k have onbe cypriot parent and 46k have no cypriot parent. Of the 46k, 30k were born outside cyprus and 16k were themeselves born in Cyprus. The wiki article currently states " about 150,000 Turks from Anatolia were transferred or decided to settle in the north." and "The TRNC has granted citizenship to these immigrants:". Yet according to the census quoted this figure is actually 46,000 (42,500 if u just counting TRNC citizens with no cypriot parents thast came orginally from Turkey) not 150,000 (those with neither parent cypriot AND with TRNC citizenship). Of the 46,000 with no cypriot parent 42,500 are from mainland Turkey (the rest being TRNC citizens with no cypriot parents from other countries). I think we have to recognise that the number of mainland Turkish people who have been given TRNC citizenship has always been a disputed figure and used as propaganda. The wiki article as it stands at the moment merely presents a figure of 'about 150,000' (with no source for this btw) and then sources an article that reports on the latest TRNC census that shows this gigure to 42,000. I really think we need to find a way to make all this clear in the demographics section here, if we are to maintain as NPOV appraoch as possible. Erolz 08:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

Look, the opening paragraphs simply do not need to describe the multitudinous legal ramifications of the TRNC's pariah status, the Republic's recognised control etc etc et bloody c. That's why they were so confused and gave such a bad picture of the island before. Just a brief note of the de facto state of things (which is, by the way, why it says "de facto" in the paragraph above the list of areas), and on to the main article.

I disagree. If you want to dumb things down to such an extent, go to http://simple.wikipedia.org. There is nothing that complicated in stating that the Republic of Cyprus is internationally recognised as the legitimate authority of the whole island, and that the "TRNC" is recognised only by Turkey. These are fundamental parameters of the island's division that shouldn't be buried in obscurity further down the article. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
but that Turkish military action in Cyprus was precipitated by the Athens backed coup in Cyprus should be burried in obscurity futher down the article? Erolz 08:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. The Republic is indeed internationally recognised as the legitimate authority of the whole island, but at the same time the TRNC exists. The de facto situation is generally recognised, and the intricacies can be explained in their proper context. Vizjim 09:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

History section

I think it is time the history section was split off into a separate article. It is ridiculously long and overly complex for this article. What do others think? Vizjim 04:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if it needs to be split off or left here but what is needed is something about the period 64-74. The post independence section jumps from UN troops arriving in 64 to coup and Turkish military action in 74 with nothing about the period 64-74 (which in fact has 2 distinct parts 64-68 and 68 -74). At the end of the day the situation in Cyprus toaday and it's historical roots IS complicated Erolz 08:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
There's Cypriot Civil War, which for me is a model of what should happen with the rest of the history sections - split off into better articles with a bare-bones brief summary in the main article. Cyprus is a lot more than the sum of its various invasions, more even than the result of the Cyprus Problem, and this article buries that fact. Vizjim 09:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Municipalities

If anyone knows a good resource or would like to offer to help sort out the various municipality names for the map I made, I would greatly appreciate it! :) Rarelibra 19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro part

Base Areas

The base areas are an integral part of the Republic of Cyprus. The existance of the base areas is based on the Treaty of Establishment of the Republic Appendix "O". Should the Republic of Cyprus collapse there is no legal standing (international law) for the british bases in Cyprus.

The islands official (accepted and recognized internationally) name is Republic of Cyprus an island country. For short Cyprus. Thus the intro part should read "...has contributed to the Republic of Cyprus de facto partitioning into 3 main parts: "

Even American foreign policy, a traditional Turkish Ally states that. I am more than willing to provide UN references should the need exists, multiple evidence have been offered to this articles talk page, just skim the archives.

Turkish reublic in Cyprus

It is self styled as such. For ECHR, the UN, the EU it is called "area not under effective control of the Republic of Cyprus, or area administered by the Turkish Cypriot community (of the Republic of Cyprus).

The intro part now is well balanced according to internationally accepted view (UN EU ECHR), before it was not Aristovoul0s 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Get off the soapbox: you and you alone continue to insinuate this subjective text/perspective without any consensus, and (in this instance) without discussion until now, despite prior agreement above concerning an equitable introduction. This information already resides in this and other articles. As well, please read the introduction carefully: the SBAs are among the four parts into which the island has been split -- the SBAs are not responsible for the dispute. Unless compelled otherwise, the prior introduction will be restored. Corticopia 16:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. Nice of you. I take pride in all of the above. And NO the SBAs and the republic are one. the SBAs are NOT a colony, simply military bases and for military purposes only. Are there references to back up your stance? Independent... verifiable.... reliable...Aristovoul0s 16:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't mention it: pride is a sin, after all. This has been already been discussed above -- despite your POV-pushing, you were absent and not involved in recent discussions (for reasons I don't need to care about), and you seem to have overall difficulty comprehending. And there's a reason why the SBAs are Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom, comprising one of the four parts of the island in fact.Corticopia 16:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Sin is in the eye of the beholder. Whats next hell? Since i do not understand and you are so kind explaining please elaborate on the reasons in fact that SBAs are called "Sovereign" with evidence that are at your disposal, unless it is a secret!!!. Let me provide the link for your easy reference and we take it from there Aristovoul0s 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please note the TLD in that URL. As repeatedly indicated in recent discussions, this information is already in the article and or wikified. The evidence at your disposal is also at our disposal and has already been discussed. Read recent discussions and or get involved in them; otherwise, refrain from continued Greek-POV pushing without any modicum of consensus. Corticopia 17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thats it? I am afraid you are POV pushing Feast your eyes Aristovoul0s 17:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
That's it! Au contraire: in particular, please read your own reference -- that the SBAs "remain under the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom". You have added no new facts to the article, only redundant text, and these items have already been discussed -- do I stutter? Corticopia 17:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tweaked the intro to separate ideas that some editors were apparently confused by or were otherwise intransigent about. As discussed before -- with the intent of keeping the intro concise yet informative and impartial -- redundant, atomic details have been excised. Corticopia

This needs to have more discussion before you 'tweak' it. The 'soverign base' areas are admin areas of the UK, not part of the 'divisor' of the Republic/island. Also keep in mind you are one editor in question, there are at least two who disagree with you - this calls for a consensus, then. Rarelibra 17:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Can't you read, Carnac? This was already discussed and agreed upon -- look far above. The fact that an editorial 'ally' of yours nor you were involved in those discussions is not my problem. The SBAs are sovereign areas of the UK (not merely administrative) and, therefore, comprise one of the four main divisions of the island. Also keep in mind that, per discussions, other editors supported this, so desist. I'll be back later to correct. Corticopia 17:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Coriticopia - I will give you one chance to either remove or strike your personal attack, or report you to an admin, if you like. Unless you know, wiki doesn't allow insults in any language or euphimism. It's up to you. Rarelibra 17:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You reap what you sow. Read first, edit war not. Corticopia 17:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You cannot justify your actions. Your failure to understand indicates either a lack of education, lack of intelligence, or belligerence to the rule. Rarelibra 17:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Nor can you -- I have been involved in this discussion throughout, unlike you and yours. And you are whining about personal attacks? Either contribute constructively or remain silent. End communication. Corticopia 17:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem

I have a small problem regarding the (awwww) intro wording, especially here:

  • the area under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus, the internationally recognized state, in the south of the island

This seems to contradict itself, on the fact that it does not make clear that the "internationally recognized state's" sovereignty is not "in the south of the island". Can we please work on it a bit? I'm open to all kind suggestions. Thanks. NikoSilver 14:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that the phrase should read "The area under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus in the south of the island". Unfortunately, several (Greek?) editors seem unable to trust the readers to read the rest of the article to understand what this means. Vizjim 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No, that particular wording has been pushed by User:Corticopia, who has been engaging in a low-level edit war with the Greek editor User:Aristovoul0s. Personally I'm not fazed either way. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
How is it contradictory? Cyprus -- the island and the republic -- are not one and the same in fact ... hence de facto. I insist on this phrasing or similar because it is important to highlight that the Republic of Cyprus (i.e., government and institutions) is, de jure, the internationally recognised state -- and please consult the true meaning of this term, which differs from country, nation, and similar synonyms -- on all of the island of Cyprus (hence the commas/clause), but it only has de facto control over the south. So, yes: the RoC has de jure sovereignty over the entire island (i.e., in the north too), but in actuality does not/cannot exercise it. The wording I am 'pushing' is intended to clarify this dichotomy: conversely, if editors 'push' excessive details and notions (which is the main reason why we don't need to highlight the Treaty of Establishment upfront), expect a push back. Corticopia 17:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoah guys, you're all a little winded up. Let me try to make it clear for everybody by a couple of tweaks. Wait and comment please. NikoSilver 18:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ti léte? NikoSilver 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
This bears a similarity to this version, which I'm tempted to tweak accordingly, but is otherwise fine. Corticopia 19:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I knew it reminded me of something, but I didn;t have it handy. The final tweaks were most welcome. Are we all happy now? NikoSilver 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The RoC does not have dejure sovereignty over the whole island, the British SBA's are completely independent of Nicosia. As it is the sentence is misleading. --A.Garnet 19:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
In retrospect, yes (and I qualify my entries above with the Uk connxn in mind): that's why I believe this version is a little clearer, I think: it places the point where it belongs. Corticopia 19:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think those parts are too small to disqualify "whole" (especially with the explanation regarding their "retained jurisdiction after Cypriot independence"), but I am open to further clarification for them too. Cotricopia, I like your version, but it returns us to my initial comment, where "internationally recognized" might be misinterpreted to apply to "the south of the island" only. I'm sure we are close to an acceptable solution for everybody. NikoSilver 20:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think this can be misinterpreted because (1) this is already touched upon in the first sentence (Cyprus, officially the RoC), after which we explain the situation; and (2) remember that ", the internationally recognized state," reiterates that and is offset by commas -- it's an independent clause within that sentence ... so, if you were to remove it, the meaning of the sentence would remain unchanged. The flavour of the sentence would be much different (actually nonsensical) if those commas weren't there. Corticopia 20:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The misinterpretation is more likely, especially due to the mere "touch up" that you mention. Nowhere is it explicitly mentioned that RoC has de jure sovereignty over the whole island (apart from the bases). I feel that this danger for misinterpretation is much more important than the danger of misinterpreting the status of two otherwise strategically obsolete bases (which is explained by "retained"). Plus I am open to further explain that too. What do you say? NikoSilver 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Please pardon what may seem as my oversensitivity, but I feel that this is the root of the dispute over the intro lately, and once we clear it out, I'm sure we'll tremendously improve the article. NikoSilver 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
And also, with all respect, try reading the 2 last parts (without the first part behind the first comma). It makes sense, and that's the wrong meaning I'm talking about (at least it makes the same sense as sentence parts 1 and 3). Grammar skills (two commas) shouldn't be the prerequisite for readers of controversial articles. NikoSilver 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, arguably, recent touch-ups have further confused the matter. Aren't we being unnecessarily wordy for not what? The edition I originally indicated (and prefer) above clearly separates distinct points and indicates what the internationally recognised state is -- read carefully. One of the defining notions regarding statehood is the ability to exercise sovereignty over a portion of land. If one maintains that the whole island is the RoC, then it follows that it has de jure AND de facto sovereignty over all of it (less the UK SBAs) -- in this case, this is not true. That is why this must be qualified and aligned in the relevant points ... with the territory it does occupy de facto on the island. Moreover, the SBAs are sovereign 'British' territory regardless of their 'retention': that's why they comprise one of the four main portions of the island. Alternatively, all four portions are part of the island, but (de facto) not part of the RoC -- that's the NPOV I'm trying to maintain. Compare with Ireland. Other versions, some of which are conciliatory and were somewhat agreeable, in are less clear and unpreferable in retrospect (e.g., your first crack at the intro recently).
Moreover, one needn't or shouldn't try to read just one portion of a sentence, since that alters the context and that logic can be applied to any sentence. And yes: grammar skills should be a requisite when clarifying and editing content, with links to content elsewhere -- this is, after all, supposed to be an encyclopedia. Otherwise, what's the point? Corticopia 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that it is not clear if the middle part of the sentence refers to the first part, to the second part, or to both. I read your point, but is it worth the risk of misinterpretation? NikoSilver 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It properly applies to the first part ("the Republic of Cyprus, the internationally recognised state," Maybe that's the joy of it: it may apply to both parts, since (de facto) it is solely in the south. Corticopia 21:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be joyful at all! :-) Colloquially, "internationally recognized" alludes to "de jure", so if it applied to both parts, then we would say something much more than mere "de facto". NikoSilver 22:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
To back up A.Garnet on this one, the Green Line and the UK bases together make up around 3% of the total landmass, which is definitely large enough to disqualify "whole". Vizjim 20:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not misunderstand me, I definitely do not intend to leave this vague. It is just that de jure sovereignty of 37% is IMO far more important over that of 3%. How would you propose we have both clarified, so that we are all happy? (we do not disagree anywhere, it is just a matter of putting it to words). NikoSilver 21:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No real argument, but I believe the precedence is properly relayed through the order of the four constituent points. Corticopia 21:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hallelujah and praise Niko, Corticopia and all other editors, I think this is a version that everyone could be happy with... no? Vizjim 20:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I can live with it, I think but I maintain it's a little too wordy and (to me) redundant of notions that are alluded to in the lead. I maintain the my version linked to above concisely fulfills and relays the same information, without getting into the nitty-gritty of what a state is. Corticopia 21:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I added "almost" to address that 3%. NikoSilver 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
And being an awkward sod, I reverted you. As I understand it, the republic has de jure sovereignty over even the base areas and Green Line. That is to say, no other entity can enter into international agreements on behalf of those areas. This is the point on which de jure and de facto part company. Vizjim 21:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha! Thanks for making that clear to me too! NikoSilver 21:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something? Why are we still stating the RoC has dejure sovereignty over the whole island, and the SBA's are only defacto independent? And why does the sentence beging with "The internationally recognised...", I know of no other country article which uses such a sentence. --A.Garnet 00:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, I do not find the following npov: "this led to the displacement of thousands of Cypriots and the establishment of a separate Turkish Cypriot regime to govern the invaded area in the north". The sentence is pushing the pov that the TRNC is merely there to govern an invaded area i.e. a nice way of saying puppet state. We could simply write established a seaparate Turkish Cypriot political entity on the island or something along those lines. As it is, the sentence is passing judgement on the nature of the Turkish Cypriot state. --A.Garnet 00:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced (aka A Whole New Can Of Worms

I have added in lots of unreferenced tags, because the lack of sources for this entire article is lamentable. I propose that all editors actively contributing to this page should spend the next few weeks - up to mid-June, say - adding in sources wherever possible. This will help long-term toward reducing the edit wars that have been going on, and enforcing a higher level of debate. What do others say? Vizjim 21:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh, a great idea! NikoSilver 22:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Reworded Intro

I've gone ahead and reworded the intro to do away with the list. Everything is still there minus the factual innacuracies, poor writing and pov. Hope people can agree to this, I certainly see nothing wrong with it. --A.Garnet 01:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I also don't see anything wrong with it, but still I'd prefer the previous claus by claus writing. Your version looks ok, but (I think) the situation there is too complex to explain with this paragraph style. The mass usage of conjunction words (which is definately needed) makes it very hard for the people who are not familiar with the subject. Even I had to read it slowly to digest it. That was why it was styled like that couple of weeks ago. I am sure you put your time on it, and I respect that, but I still think the previous wording was more clear (I wouldn't say better since what you've written says the exact same stuff) Regards, Kerem Özcan 07:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the bullet points, which have been worked on for ages and are there in response to independent editors' concerns regarding clarity and incomprehensibility. The aim is to split off, as much as possible, the brief overview of the Cyprus dispute (paragraph 2) from a factual description of the human geography of the island (paragraph 3 + bullets). Your point about the description of the TRNC is well made and I think correct, so I have amended that.Vizjim 09:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand people have been disputing the list for ages, that is probably why it has imo turned out ugly. That is why I integrated all of it into a couple of sentences which puts everything in a much more concise and readable way. As I've said I know you've all been wrangling over this for ages but that imo proves why the list needs to go and something more stable brought in. --A.Garnet 10:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The ugliness you see is indeed only in your opinion: the article intro now divides neatly into 3 parts as follows: a very brief description of the Republic; a very brief description of the Cyprus dispute; a very brief description of the human geography of the island. The older version to which you basically reverted muddies these last two and (see way, way above) caused confusion. If there are still POV elements in the intro to be addressed (such as the use of "regime", now altered), they can be addressed, but the current format seems to enjoy reasonable support from all sides while remaining brief enough to serve as an introduction. Vizjim 12:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I just find it unnecesarrily complicated and hard to read, and I believe other readers will think the same. The use of certain phrases seems more concerned with appeasing the various pov's here than creating something concise and readable. e.g. "The internationally recognized state of the Republic of Cyprus", "the area under the effective control", "styling itself". The intro has gone into too much detail, that is why it has become so unstable. I'll wait and see what other editors think also. --A.Garnet 13:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
But the fact is that the intro you were reverting to was actually queried by other readers, whereas this intro format (which does not seem unstable, though it has taken a while to get here) is only being queried by yourself so far. Vizjim 15:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Vizjim: 'ugliness' is in the eye of the beholder. In response, the reworded intro is inferior to the predecessor: that version is harder to read (since it doesn't clearly delineate entities on the island) and also gives more of a (false) impression that the island is equivalent to the nation-state and unified. The current intro, awhile in the making and with relatively minor disagreement about content -- like the first line of the third section, which still seems wordy for not what to me -- gives due treatment to everything while itemising main points; however, the alternate is unclear and not consensually arrived at. I'm all for being concise, but when it's at the expense of being clear, it becomes counterproductive. Corticopia 21:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


I haven't seen many intros with bulletpoints, but anyway, I moved the tourism info down a bit, it might not even deserve to be in the intro. Also I removed a few non-Cypriot born people there, per the comment on that section. The footnote in the lead is not necessary, it is being redundant. DenizC 16:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It was in the lead. If you want it to be in the first para, please revert yourself and just move that sentence up. DenizC 18:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Vizjim 18:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Done what? nothing is changed. DenizC 19:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is. Vizjim 22:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:OWN. You are reverting each and every edit of mine (as far as I can see). If we need discussions, we need discussions for all edits. Considering that this article had tens of edits on May 4th only (my first edit was probably today), I don't know whether it is plausible to do that. I have so many questions. The least, if you want it shorter, why did you restore & n b s p ; 's. Why did you remove 'as'? More importantly, why do you remove all those tags, that are quite necessary? Most importantly, why do you restore POV? Please do not do such things. Now please revert yourself (most of the edits). The article has seen so many edits (more than 100 by you), but it still is lacking encyclopedic content, all POV statements with no sources, in so many sections. Let's improve it. DenizC 23:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this means: why did you restore & n b s p ; 's.. Presumably a copy & paste went wrong. Would you care to restate those concerns? As for POV, please explain where your edits combat this? Your edits to the introduction broke the continuity of the three paragraph structure (described at exhausting length above and arrived at by rough consensus) and added overly precise information that could be left in a footnote (thus keeping the length of the introduction down). Your fact tags are unnecessary since the entire section is tagged as "unreferenced". "Styling itself" is better English than "Styling itself as". I am now restoring your other edits. Vizjim 07:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
nbsp thing was aimed at your "shorter is better" comment. nbsp might appear as blank space but it's 5 characters more. Anyway, fact tags will be helpful (they are not 'evil' things), they will indicate where we need resources. We should not delete fact tags just because we have the unreferenced tag up there. For instance one might just add a few sources to the section and remove the "unreferenced" tag, instead of replacing it by the "more sources" tag (there might still be sentences that need sources). Anyway, i still don't see why we should have "raided and attacked the peoples of Cyprus at will" instead of " raided and attacked Cyprus many times.", neither do I see why we reverted my changes on te section "Notables". There are some more things that missed my eyes earlier. We should not have phrases like "In a fit of sardonic irony" imo. DenizC 14:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Also the only extra infos in that footnote are the percentages, adding them won't make the lead much bigger, in fact we should add them in my opinion, the reader should know about it from the start. DenizC 17:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Excessive?

If you find this excessive, don't hesitate to revert me. NikoSilver 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes: I think the map is excessive for the introduction; it may also crash into the text. Maybe just a piped link in the intro to the appropriate section would suffice? In addition, maybe the locator map (the prior one of which I've restored) can be jerry-rigged to more exhibit the same thing, but not as detailed? Corticopia 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Locator map

There are POV and other issues with the 'nicely drawn, nicely detailed' locator map -- as opposed to the 'simpler' PNG map -- that is supposedly used in other EU/Europe articles; while innovative to some, there are a number of detriments to using such a map here. First of all, the 'enhanced' map does not clearly exhibit Cyprus' location (perhaps partially due to the odd map projection (Mercator)): an image the needs a caption to explain topic matter is clearly flawed. As well, it doesn't even exhibit the Levant on mainland Asia (to the east of Cyprus). Relatedly, it places undue weight on the island's inclusion in the EU and, hence, Europe, despite its proximity to Turkey (Asia Minor) and many sources which reckon Cyprus as part of Asia. Lastly, there is no clear consensus on the use of these maps in EU and other articles, and I dare someone to point this out.

While not as detailed, the original 'simpler' PNG map is far more functional as a locator map and (per the country wikiproject) consistent with the locator maps used for most other countries. Until these issues are addressed point for point and satisfactorily, I see no reason to maintain the 'enhanced' map and will continue to restore the 'simpler' PNG map. Corticopia 16:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave the wrong link in my edit summary. This is the correct one: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#Final_survey. (I haven't read your comment yet, will look into it.) NikoSilver 16:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. As you may recall, the results of this survey are in dispute (hence there being no clear consensus), and really have no authority here. Other points remain unaddressed. Corticopia 16:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok. No need to get angry over this. First, the consensus exists where I point you in respect to the issue of highlighting the EU for member states, which is the one reason for your objection. Second, all EU members have the same map. See France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, UK... to name a few. Last, I agree with it being too small, so maybe we should bring it forward in the proper venue for discussion. Maybe there should be a zoomed window or something. That does not mean we are going to change it in the meantime. EU is considered a big thing, not a POV. For most in that poll at least. NikoSilver 16:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. As you may recall, the conduct, interpretation, and results of that poll/survey are in dispute (hence there being no clear consensus), and iterate that this has no authority here. If a genuine consensus materialised from that survey, it should be east to demonstrate; conversely, the consensus implied through the use of the 'simpler' maps can easily be demonstrated since they were in place for months -- more than a year? -- before they were willfully changed. Importantly, if one is to believe that Cyprus is Asian (e.g., geographically) or of Eurasia, also a big deal, highlighting its inclusion in the EU to the exclusion of other viewpoints is a point-of-view assertion and reason enough to change it. Corticopia 16:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Norway a non-EU uses the same map as all EU countries. 16:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
As does Switzerland. 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
EU is not highlighted in these. Thanks for illustrating further the issue of consistency. I quoted what has been decided for member states. The others are indeed ambiguous, as Cotricopia says. NikoSilver 16:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I maintain that what has been decided for EU member states has not been obtained through a clear consensus: PNG maps were in place for all of these territories for months beforehand, with no clear consensus for the changes. And non-Eu European states were changed to bring them inline with nonconsensual changes, despite the PNG maps per the over-arching Country Wikiproject. And most other countries use other maps. Again, if a clear consensus exists, point it out succinctly. Corticopia 16:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The options with no highlighting gained minimum support. The ambiguity remains in the rest. Read the poll, and we both know how messed up that was (for other reasons). Anyway, as it seems, you are the only one here with another version, so consensus in this page at least is not an issue. NikoSilver 16:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
That's your opinion: ambiguity prevails throughout. How can something decided among merely a handful of editors -- many more of which were probably exasperated by the skewing of the polls -- and challenged y others usurp a prior state (the 'silent majority', if you will, regarding the PNG maps) which was unaltered for months and prevails across even more articles now? This has been lost amid accusations of consensus in support of the ass'enhanced' maps. Read the page on consensus. As well, a sufficient number of editors must clearly assert this or that before a clear consensus materialises. So, a clear consensus here and elsewhere IS an issue; as it is, this is unclear at best and arguably nonexistent. Corticopia 16:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on Corticopia, what are you saying here? The same consensus for EU members had emerged in the previous poll there (before SomeHuman's insane complexity). And that was by 40(!) users! NikoSilver 16:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#Results_of_this_.27final_survey.27! NikoSilver 17:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't point me to an unclear and subjective interpretation of the results of the 'final' survey. In Misplaced Pages, nothing is final. I'm still waiting, and will wait for Godot if necessary. Corticopia 17:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree wholly with NikoSilver. Nothing to add to the debate, just helping to build consensus on this page. Vizjim 07:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Aristovoul0s

Will you please discuss your changes before you make them? Or at least join me when I'm trying to open up a discussion. TRNC page has got full protection (And currently the first sentence states that it's a region?!) Everything has a decent politically correct wording and we have to keep these kinda issues within in that neutral wording. No need for provacation by going out of these npov wordings.

So my point; de facto already means that it's legally invalid, and that's the politically correct, npov wording for it. TRNC is not the sole example on the world. Similar de-facto independent countries get the same wording, whether you like it or not. NKR, Abkhazia, Transnistria you name it. and those countries are not even recognized by any country.

You know; it can also be sourced it and put into this article as; "Republic of Cyprus, which is declared legally invalid by Republic of Turkey". But no need for witless POV by word-bending and pleonasm.

Please stop blindly reverting and discuss it here. I'll revert your edit just once to not to start an edit war.

Btw, I posted this message here so the other editors can comment on the subject. And please do.

Regards; Kerem Özcan 08:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. EUROPA - The EU at a glance - Maps - Cyprus
Categories: