Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:00, 19 January 2013

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Northern Cyprus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Template:Misplaced Pages CD selection

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Western Asia This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cyprus Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Unrecognized countries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Unrecognized countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Unrecognized countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Unrecognized countriesTemplate:WikiProject Unrecognized countriesUnrecognized countries

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article may be within the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 15, 2011.

• Units in metric should be spelled out with the converted English units abbreviated in parentheses per Manual of Style.
• Please use the correct WP:CITE format when adding references. If you are not sure what citation format is appropriate, please see WP:CITE for a list of available citation templates.

Archives

Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new section on THIS page. Baristarim 03:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Archives: Archive 1 - Archived on August 3, 2005 Archive 2 - Archived on October 5, 2005 Archive 3 - Archived on October 23, 2006 Archive 4 - Archived on November 4, 2006 Archive 5 - Archived on November 22, 2006 Archive 6 - Archived on December 31, 2006 Archive 7 - Archived on October 23, 2007 Archive 8 - Archived on May 16, 2009 Archive 9 - Archived on July 14, 2009 Archive 10 - Archived on May 18, 2010 Archive 11 - Archived on February 24, 2011 Archive 12 - Archived on June 16, 2011

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Amendment request declined

This is a courtesy notification that an amendment request this page was named in has been declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 September 2012

Politely request to have this information added to the North Cyprus Article.

ToZero (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC) RECOMMENDED SECTION TO NORTH CYPRUS ARTICLE

PROPERTY BOOM AND SUBSEQUENT COLLAPSE In 2003 and 2004, intensive marketing in the UK, in conjunction with the prospect of the Annan Plan awaiting ratification, prompted an unprecedented construction boom and influx of foreign homebuyers and Expatriats. The property sector boom had an unparalleled effect on the North Cyprus economy, lifting agricultural workers into the service industries, lifting wages, creating wealth in all sectors and across all socio-economic classes. However, towards the end of 2006, the Foreign Home Buying/ Construction began a rapid decline as it became apparent to the majority of homebuyers and Expats like that titled deeds were not being delivered as per their contracts. The British High Commission posted warnings on their website, highlighting the potential dangers of buying property in North Cyprus to prospective buyers. As events unfolded the problems facing the foreign home buying tourism industry could be split into 3 catagories: 1. Stealth Mortgages (named as such as the homebuyers they affected were never informed that mortgages were placed on their site after they purchased) were registered by unscrupulous banks on residential sites where homes had already been contractually sold to foreign home-buyers. Thousands of buyers complained they had paid the sale price of their properties but had not received their title deeds due to slow administration processes. Mortgages however, were often granted with full notice to the bank of the existing pre-sold villas, and a number of Turkish Cypriot banks (Akfinans Bank, Universal Bank, Near East Bank, Vakiflar Bank, Limassol Bank and CO-OP bank) had registered their interest at the land registry in Kyrenia, having declared the collateral as "bare-land", and neglecting to mention the pre-sold villas. The most famous case involving 17 elderly British Expatriats, is the Kulaksiz 5 Case. The residents have attended court over 100 times, in an attempt to stop Akfinans Bank from evicting them, after Akfinans Bank bought their homes from auction as a result of a defaulted £38,000 loan, taken out after the residents signed contracts and had partially built homes. Ertu Kader of Akfinans Bank has been exposed for fraudulently declaring the land as “bare land” when registering the banks mortgage interest, despite the Akfinans’s commissioned survey report showing 13 partially built homes on the site. At default judgment hearings Kader/Akfinans failed to report the existing of the homeowners to the court and took a judjement based on false pretenses. Marion Stokes of the Home Buyers Pressure Group claimed that over 1500 other home buyers were in the same position as Kulaksiz 5, awaiting the outcome of the long drawn out court process. 2. Title deed Ransom so called because when home buyers had finally obtained Permission to Purchase documents (PPT’s) and had paid their taxes and stamp duty, Landlowners and Developers held onto the title deeds in lieu of extra payments. Very often in the 10’s of thousand pounds. 3. Unfinished Infrastructure hundreds of residential sites were never finished, with roads, or connected electricity and water. Often disputes arose over build quality of the homes.

ToZero (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. RudolfRed (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The Article on Northern Cyprus is not strictly incorrect for the time-related information. However, times have changed in Northern Cyprus and over the past 8 years, since the Annan Plan was not ratified a number of factors have affected the economy, and should be added to or replace the economic data in the Economy Section.

The entire economy of Northern Cyprus has suffered due to 2 main factors weighing down on the Foreign Home Buying/ Construction industry. The first is "stealth mortgages", which are mortgages placed on sites where villas have already been contractually sold to foreign home-buyers but who have subsequently not received their deeds due to slow administration processes. Those mortgages have often been given with full notice to the bank, of the existing pre-sold villas, and a number of Turkish Cypriot banks have registered their interest at the land registry in Kyrenia, having declared the collateral as "bare-land", and neglecting to mention the pre-sold villas.

There is also sufficient evidence to show that Human Rights Violations have been claimed in Northern Cyprus especially by Expatriats living there who face eviction and blackmail, and who have suffered due to a lack of "freedom of press". The Cypriot banks and their owners, have considerable political interest due to the level of borrowing the TRNC government does, openly, and on a monthly basis, to bank-roll their public sector. There has also been a number of claims of influence by the banks over the judicial system.

Finally, similar to the Orams Case, a new property abuse case has surfaced over the last 4 years, which is referred to as "Kulaksiz 5". This case is a landmark case and a household name throughout the TRNC as it looks to decide the fate of 17 British Expatriat Home Owners residing in Karsiyaka 18 miles west of Kyrenia, but ultimately, stands as a "Test" case for over 1500 property buyers who have discovered mortgages on their land, taken out without their knowledge or consent, and who were never informed by bank or borrower. In virtually all cases the loan has defaulted, and in some cases sale of memorandums have been granted by courts to the banks, in violation of the "Principles of Natural Justice" and those banks are actively pushing for Public Auction dates, to sell the whole site, including the 3rd Party villas of the Home-Buyers.

KULAKSIZ 5 CASE The Kulaksiz 5, is an estate of 13 villas built in 2004 and finished in 2005. 3 villas were given to the landowner in return for the land, and 10 were sold by the developer Kulaksiz Construction, to 10 elderly couples from the UK. During 2005 Akfinans Bank, gave a loan to the landowner as guarantor and developer as loan applicant. The initial loan was £1600, given on March 16th 2005, but no payments were ever made. A subsequent loan was made of 83000tl, on 11th November 2005, at a 250% interest rate. Neither the bank or the landowner, or the developer informed the homebuyers. The loan was registered by Akfinans at Girne District Lands Office on 11/11/2005, with the description of the land being "tarla", or bare land (in English) despite all the villas having been fully completed, and payments schedules also completed, barring the final payment for transfer of deeds.

In 2006 Akfinans Bank filed a case for default judgement as a result of non-payment of the loan although at no point was any of the 3rd parties informed either by the courts or by the bank or the landowner or developer all of whom were party to the case. A judgement was finally given, and Judge Mehmet Turker allowed the two parties to agree the Judgement default interest between them. A figure of 80% quarterly compounded interest was agreed between the developer, the landowner and the bank, and the loan amount continued to increase.

Finally, in 2008, the Estate Agency Law was brought into being allowing homeowners to register their contracts at the land registry, whilst they await transfer of title deeds.

On arriving at the Land registry in April 2008, some residents and homeowners on Kulaksiz 5 were first informed of the presents of a mortgage on the site, 3 years after the mortgage had been granted.

At first the residents consulted their lawyers who were initially confused, others were advised not to worry that the mortgage would be removed.

In November of 2008 the residents were informed by a Junior Lawyer at Mentesh Law Office of Kyrenia that a court order was about to be given granting the sale of their properties, if they did not collectively pay off the mortgage at which time was over £113,000.

The Kulaksiz 5 residents took further advice and in February 2009 launched a case against the Akfinans Bank, Yuksel Yilmaz the landowner, and Kulaksiz Construction the developer. Over the following 3 years, the local courts in Girne have rebutted numerous applications for an injunction to stop the bank evicting the homeowners, and injunctions to stop them selling on their properties. The courts gave the Kulaksiz home owners no relief, and the main case was set for a 18 months time.

In the spring of 2009 a sale date was given for the Public Auction of all the houses in Karsiyaka, with the Notice of Sale itemising the houses and swimming pools, despite the fact the original loan document had only declared a "bare land". On June 6th 2010, the Nations eyes were focussed on Karsiyaka Square where over 400 British Expatriats and over 200 Turkish Cypriots turned out to witness the public auction of the estate. Founding President Rauf Denktas arrived before the proceedings and announced publicly that the Auction was illegal and would be declared so, and asked that no-one bid on the estate. Finally, a bid was made by an employee of AKfinans Bank. The bank purchased the site from Auction, as the buyer and the seller, and so needed only to pay for taxes and administration costs, and aquired the site of 13 villas worth over £1.3 million based on their initial loan of 83000tl (approx £38000).

Over the following 3 years, the legal team for the Kulaksiz 5 lodged an early appeal to the European Court of Human Rights siting violation of Article 1, 6, 13 and Article one of Protocol 1.

Despite a nationwide campaign to explain the legal facts to both the Government and the public, the Kulaksiz 5 eviction cases have proceeded. The next hearing on the 28th September 2012 will decide whether or not to stay the evictions, pending the outcome of the Kulaksiz 5 owners case against the bank. Whilst in most countries, it is unheard of for courts to allow evictions to take place, before the outcome of a main case disputing the true ownership, in this case, the TRNC courts have stated that evictions can take place before the main case has been heard.

Rauf Denktas, before his death claimed that the Kulaksiz 5 case was a case of negligence by the bank, or Fraud, one or the other, and officially reqeusted an investigation by the Attorney Generals office. The Kulaksiz 5 residents also made a request for an investigation but to date no investigation has ever been carried out.

The case will decide the fate of over 1500 homeowners, who purchase their homes prior to any mortgage, but where that mortgage has become the over-riding interest with the possability of leading to sale and eviction. ToZero (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done:. I do not see any sources to back these claims, and no consensus to add these sure-to-be controversial claims to the article. If you can get both feel free to reactivate the edit request. —KuyaBriBri 14:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This original edit request of 14th September was answered unsatisfactory with not done. However, the reason for the denial quite correctly asserts that no sources or consensus was provided.

I have today included the first of many sources to be added, and a source in good standing. Hurriyet newspaper (a National Newspaper in Turkey) began reporting on the Kulaksiz 5 case in March 2011.

Reference 1: Turkish National Newspaper Hurriyet:

On the 6th March 2012, Today's Zaman followed the story and reported receiving letters regarding the case.

Reference 2:

On the 30th April 2012 the Afrika Gazette published factual documents of the case, most specifically the "Akfinans Survey Report" which was a revelation to the entire country, as it proved beyond doubt that the bank were aware of the 17 homebuyers, as their houses (although Partially built) were indeed detailed on the survey report. Akfinans had claimed on their Land Registry documents at the time of registering the mortgage, that the collateral was just "a bare field".

http://www.afrikagazetesi.net/Afrika-Arsiv/Nisan2012/30nisan2012.pdf

The following Newspapers in Turkey: Hurriyet & Todays Zaman have informed the Turkish public of the story of Kulaksiz The following Newspapers in TRNC: Cyprus Today, Cyprus Star, Afrika Gazette, have written extensively on the problem. All of the articles can be provided as sources if necessary.

May I point out that the Kulaksiz 5 Site Case, is the key "test" case for over 3000 foreign homebuyers in the TRNC, who bought homes, and suddenly found themselves the victims of blackmail and stealth mortgages. This blackmail, in turn, is vitally important to explain the sharp downturn in the economy of the TRNC between 2007 and 2012, as the primary rise in living standards in the TRNC was due to an influx of retired European Homebuyers, and the subsequent collapse of so many restaurants, supermarkets and local businesses, is due to those Foreign Homebuyers returning home, as a result of blackmail, stealth mortgages and inability to obtain title deeds.

CONSENSUS:

The consensus of the problem can be found in the following articles on NorthCyprusFreePress who applied to have the page edited on the 6th October.

The following reference is a list of search results all relating to different NCFP articles on the subject. A substantial percentage of the articles site/quote the above national newspaper, and make comment and analysis on the subject.

Consensus 1:

Further consensus can be found through the website which documents and follows the Kulaksiz Case. The site is included in the reference below:

Consensus 2:

In addition the NGO Make North Cyprus Better (MNCB), has a number of updates, including judgments regarding the case and comment and analysis of regarding the incredible injustices to Kulaksiz residents and other sites. Most importantly, they sponsored the production of a film, which highlights the problems to all North Cypriot Home-buyers, using the Kulaksiz 5 Case as the central case study. All facts and documents regarding the history are included in the short film (26 mins)

The film can be seen on the MNCB website:

Consensus 3:

Today I have provided references and sited a number of sources of consensus on the subject below.

I respectfully request that the page be Edited to at least mention the devastating effect of Kulaksiz 5 Residents plight, the extent to which thousands of home buyers are relying on the case to be won by Kulaksiz 5 residents, and the affect on the real economy in TRNC as a result of property and mortgage crimes/abuses by banks, lawyers and the government alike.

End of Request — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToZero (talk • contribs) 7 November 2012

Please see this page for the Misplaced Pages definition of "consensus". I will leave this edit request open for others to weigh in. —KuyaBriBri 19:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with above. Looks there are sources now, but consensus can only be generated by discussion here and agreement by Misplaced Pages editors. That said, I think the amount of text above is probably undue weight for the subject, so I would not support the change in its current form. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the undue weight concern, but I think that the info is very important. Two months ago I spent 2 weeks in North Cyprus, and I noticed that along the coast there are literally thousands of newly built houses which are empty. Reading what the user above wrote, I think that at least one reason for this situation is now clear (the other being the financial crisis), and surely this problem deserves to be mentioned (with the due weight) in the article. Alex2006 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Other links

• North Cyprus Free Press An online newspaper dedicated to North Cyprus

Ncfp (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: solely on the basis that the requesting user's username matches the external link and therefore I see promotional intent. If an editor in good standing sees good reason to add this EL I will not object; however, I will note that the EL section of this article could use some trimming. —KuyaBriBri 17:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Editors,

You very kindly agreed with my request to amend the North Cyprus page to include a section on the economy and most importantly to notify readers of a highly sensitive 'test' case called Kulaksiz 5, which will determine the fate of thousands of Expats and foreign homebuyers there. Your agreement, along with one or two other editors, is only in principle, and the request was denied in relation to the current form of my recommendations ″undue weight". May I make a new suggestion therefore. How about I reduce the 'impact of the property abuses on the economy' parrt to one short paragraph citing the Kulaksiz case there, and then have a separate page on the Kulaksiz 5 case, as did the "orams" case which also was a landmark case there in North Cyprus. That is suggestion 1. Suggestion 2 would be one short paragraph on the 'effect on the economy part' of my recommendation, and one separate short section on Kulaksiz 5 case. Reason being that, in order to get agreement from yourself and the other editors, I really need to know what kind of "weight" I should be aiming for. If not I could see there being a lot of suggested amendments and requests, before anything is actually added. This would be a shame as there is a highly publicised and important Kulaksiz 5 court case on the 29th November (2 days time) which is the opening of the Main Case Kulaksiz 5 Residents vs Akfinans Bank. This is the big show down, after 3 years of guerilla court battles over injunctions (Kulaksiz 5 made 5 seperate attempts, including appeals, to get an injunction prohibiting resale of their homes by Akfinans) and it would be timely to have some information keeping people up to date on the case and it's proceedings (even if abbreviated updates, ie once sentence). There are many people in the UK, including members of Parliament who are following the case.

Thank you for your time on this matter.

Kind regards, ToZero

ToZero (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If there's no current article on the cases, I suggest creating a new section with all the sourced details on Economy of Northern Cyprus. Once it's all there, it will be easier to see if it should be on its own page, and it will be easier to determine what should be summarised on this page. CMD (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"the resettlement of many of its inhabitants"

I don't think the lead needs any further detail on the current "the resettlement of many of its inhabitants". Much of the paragraph it is in gives only a short space between two commas for many events, and I disagree that the shifts in population are of any greater importance than the other issues mentioned. The invasion itself gets only a few words. I also don't think that the Greek population from the north can be described as forcibly resettled. Forcible resettlement implies they were taken from one place and put in another, however they were forced from their homes and then settled by two separate groups. Forcibly removed, perhaps. I used "forced from their homes" in the body, which seemed to conform to the source. CMD (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Because of the excessive edit warring on this article regarding the above issue, I have protected the article for 3 days. Please discuss the issue here in a civil manner, and come to an agreement on the wording. If you come to an agreement in less than 3 days, let me (or any other admin) know and I'll unprotect the article. If you can't come to an agreement, please don't resume edit warring when the protection expires, but rather start an WP:RFC to get a wider range of opinions. Note that edit warring can result in blocks even if it doesn't exceed WP:3RR. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 22:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Good job Scotty. Love the firm hand, the bolding and the warnings. I like your style. :) Only gripe is I don't think that you should have used the rollback tool to revert Alexikoua. But I guess water under the bridge. Best regards. Δρ.Κ.  17:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"the resettlement of many of its inhabitants" is simply a very bad summary of the source. Masri145 (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

We have to stick with the source and I agree with Chipmunkdavis, a phrase like "forcibly removed the predominantly Greek population in the north from their homes" conforms the source. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The text in the lead wasn't even attributed to that source until the latest series of edits (leads don't always need sources anyway, as long as they only use information available in the text, see WP:LEADCITE). There's no reason to give particular prominence to this one effect of the war. CMD (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

When you say "giving particular prominence to this one effect of the war" do you mean you that the 160.000 people that were forced out of their homes is not an important enough fact to be mentioned? That's not very NPOV. If you don't think the resettlement part is important enough then you might as well remove the whole sentence altogether. You either say something according to the source or you don't say it at all. Masri145 (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In a four paragraph summary of Northern Cyprus, we don't need to be giving such specifics. However, contrary to your suggestion, it deserves mention as an effect. This has nothing to do with NPOV, and the argument that sources disagree that much of the population had to be resettled isn't going to go anywhere. CMD (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think that being kicked out of your house classifies as "specifics" of "resettlement"? As it stands the sentence does not have a source. You cannot revert the addition of a source to unsourced content. Masri145 (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What we are arguing here is basically a few more words to add more clarity to the current sentence which speaks only of "resettlement". I don't think that we can ignore the fact that one third of the island Greek population was forced to evacuate and use vague terms such as "resettlement". That was a great event. Not a small or a medium event. But a great event of a great social and political catastrophe. It deserves the additional word "forced" to properly describe it. Adding the adjective "forced" is not undue weight for the lead for an event of that magnitude but just a modest adjustment to add some definition to that great calamity. Lumping it all together as "resettlement" is very misleading and leads to reader misinformation. It is just a modest change which does not affect the balance of the lead in any way and in fact clarifies it and adds more balance to it. Not including it is where the real POV lies. Normally I agree with CMD and I can see his way of thinking quite clearly and on most, if not all, occasions I agree with him. This is one time, only one, that I am at odds with his opinion. Δρ.Κ.  17:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

@Masri: It's a specific. I doubt any reader would assume that people moving during a war are doing so for fun. A further explanation is sourced in the body, and the edit is more than just adding a source. If it was just adding the source, it would be unnecessary, but not a great issue. Anyone could, at any rate, revert any changes they wanted, hence WP:BRD.

@ Dr.K.: It won't lead the reader to misinformation, it'll lead them to the article body where further detail is given. If the proposal is to just add the word forced to the resettlement phrase (or some similar minor wording change), then that's a different matter to the actual edit which was being warred over, which was more than that. I still fail to see how "resettlement" is any vaguer than "tensions", or how the brief summary causes POV in any direction. In both cases the situation is elaborated upon in the body, where there's more room to delve into details, and presumably where readers could be linked to articles providing yet more detail (although there's no guarantees that the linked article would be a good one, of course). CMD (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I have no dispute with most of your arguments. In that case how about adding the word "forced evacuation of the Greek-Cypriot population" and I'll be ok with that. You can of course tweak this to your satisfaction. Δρ.Κ.  18:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to get into the differences between the ethnic groups at that point in the lead. It's a common pattern in civil wars or ongoing tension for the population to segregate along ethnic lines (or whatever other lines the war is being fought on), despite what the separate cases may be, be it being kicked out by an invading army, fleeing due to fear of retribution, trying to find a less dangerous place to live, or some other factor. Today's Iraq, for example. It's the result, that of a mass population movement, that is the important message that should be conveyed, and anything else in my opinion puts it in undue proportion to the rest of that paragraph.

For the statement that the Greek Cypriot population was evacuated, while I'm unclear of the exact details behind the evacuation of the Greek Cypriots, for whatever reason they clearly weren't all evicted, as they remain a minority population in parts of Northern Cyprus to this day. I'm also willing to bet many Greek Cypriots fled before the Turkish army even reached their houses, as that's a sensible reaction to an invading army approaching.

Perhaps we should replace the word resettlement with displacement? ie "the displacement of many of its inhabitants". It's less passive, which I feel may be part of the problem here. CMD (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

We have reliable sources which describe that the Greek Cypriots were forced to abandon their homes. We don't have the discretion to call this anything else but forced abandonment or something along these lines. We cannot "blend" the populations together if one part was not forced but the other was. Instead of "displacement" how about "eviction"? As in: "Many Greek Cypriots were evicted from their homes and many Turkish Cypriots relocated fearing for their safety". Again, you are free to tweak as necessary. Δρ.Κ.  21:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

We do have the discretion to use wording that is different to the source, as long as the content is the same. Saying that both populations were greatly displaced is an accurate summative statement. There's no way we should be using a single source which gives no details, and for all we know was switching up words for variety, to claim that one sides movement was completely voluntary as opposed to another's which was completely forced. Turkish Cypriots up to that point had spent a decade being forced into ever more militarised enclaves; it's difficult to see how it could be remotely argued that they moved, both then and during the war, because they wanted to move. How were the Greeks forced to abandon their homes? Was it a declaration by Turkish authorities, or something they did in response to the invasion? Both would be situations in which one could easily use the word forced. Do we have a source discussing Greek evictions (and one noting it at the time, rather than discussing eviction in terms of the prevention of return)?

Even putting aside the exact details behind the displacement, there's still been no explanation for how this one issue deserves more treatment than every other historical event which we summarise with just a few words each. The result, in terms of population displacement, is that there was a huge number of refugees. It is the result which we should be conveying in the lead, not the process, which is at any rate far more complicated than "many Greeks were evicted, many Turks were scared". CMD (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Because the other events are clear enough to summarise in a few words. An "invasion" is an invasion. A "coup" is a coup etc. But an "eviction" is not a "resettlement", it is an eviction and thus has to be described in more detail. But you are making a fair point about the details as to how the refugees were "forced" to evacuate versus their Turkish-Cypriot counterparts. I will investigate. Δρ.Κ.  22:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that an eviction is not a resettlement, but this is because one covers the loss of a home and another the gain of a home (however relatively unloved). Hence my proposal to replace resettlement with displacement, which was an immediate effect of the war. CMD (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the sources below conclusively prove that the Greek Cypriots were forcibly evicted and Turkey was actually found responsible by the council of Europe for the evictions: In its reports adopted on the 10th July, 1976 the Council of Europe stated that Turkey was responsible for the eviction of the Greek Cypriots from their home.. Noone criticises the Greek side for forcible evictions. Hence we can say that the Turkish Cypriots fled their homes but were not forcibly evicted. Δρ.Κ.  22:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Many of the sources seem to cover a different topic, discussing the eviction in terms of the Turks seizing the property once the Greeks had fled, and not allowing them to return. This is what the European courts ruled on. Source 2 actually seems to discuss evictions post-1975, which presumably are a different matter to any evictions during the fighting. Others discuss the war though. Complicated. However, some sources do validate what's current wording in the article body, which is good. Fair do's, working around your suggestion of using the word eviction, "and an invasion by Turkey in response. This resulted in the eviction of much of the north's Greek Cypriot population, the flight of Turkish cypriots from the south, and the partitioning of the island leading to a unilateral declaration of independence by the north in 1983." I've put the population shifts before partitioning as they (mostly) happened during the flux of war, and split the sentence to prevent it being a massive run-on. Also, as it now discusses both groups separately, it makes sense to me to have the note of partition after that, to show the partition was between those two groups. I've been toying with expanding on the pre-1974 tensions as well, but can't find a way to address it concisely. CMD (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you CMD. I agree completely with your time sequence and the wording you propose. It captures the essence of these sources. Only suggestion perhaps we could capitalise the "North's". Δρ.Κ.  01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Capitalising would establish the north as a defined area, which seems reasonable. We could probably also remove that glut of sources currently there. It actually makes it appear less sourced. CMD (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing sources from the lead is a good idea. Δρ.Κ.  01:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources

External links

BBC has a detailed "Timeline" of events in Cyprus. I will add it to the External Links section when the sysops only edit-protection is lifted. --E4024 (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link E4024. Its definitely useful. Would everyone be happy to use it and replace the current sentence "which resulted in the partitioning of the island" with the more accurate "which resulted in the enforced partition between north and south of the island" which is according to the source?

Again this is necessary as it clarifies that the partition wasn't voluntary or the result of an agreement between the two sides, but that it was enforced by the turkish invasion and continuous occupation. This part also needs clarifying. Masri145 (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I gather you mean "law enforcement"... --E4024 (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean the part in the source that says "Coup collapses. Turkish forces occupy third of the island, enforce partition between north and south " Masri145 (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: massacres of Turkish Cypriots by Greek Cypriots

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

That's definitely too detailed for the lead. If you have a suggestion for a change in the article text, I suggest you open it in a new conversation, or it'll get lost between the conversation above and the sources below. CMD (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And...? --E4024 (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I am still waiting. Seems like nobody is interested in the fact that Turkish Cypriots were massacred by Greek Cypriot mobs. (One of the reasons they opted for a separate state.) And we don't even have a WL to those massacres in this article... --E4024 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinks aren't just randomly inserted into articles. They're put there if they help explain the text. If you think part of the text should have that wikilink, note which part. If you think new text should be added, propose it. I said above that you should suggest a change in the article text if you wanted. If you're still waiting for your own proposal, that's nobody else's fault. CMD (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Britmax, that is a positive approach. I am "requesting" things in TPs instead of doing them by myself because there is some opposition here to let the Turks have a say on Cyprus; it looks like the Turks deserve being massacred. The pics concerning those massacres were eliminated from WP. --E4024 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Construction boom and subsequent collapse (2003-2006)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"This" resulted in the eviction and partition

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

There's more to the sentence than evictions. We know that the invading army evicted TurksGreeks, and we should trust our readers to make this connection, the two bits of info being next to each other, without changing a sentence to restart a train of thought ("This" allows flow, as it connects to the past sentence). The huge number of Turks fleeing North was due to a couple of factors, including but not just the invasion, and the slide towards greater and greater partition was due to ethnic segregation and differences between Greek and Turkish Cypriot leadership. Evictions are now mentioned, there's no need to hammer it in. CMD (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

1. The invading army didn't evict Turks afaik. I hope you mean Greeks? The problem is that what you know doesn't convey to the reader and you cannot assume that it will. In fact the way its written its as if you're deliberately trying to distribute the blame of the evictions to the coup and the tensions which I hope you know that it's not the case.

2. The word "This" is confusing the reader and diluting true facts. Its just 2 things that we mention here. The partition which was purely the result of the invasion and the evictions which were forced by the turkish army. Again, I trust you don't need additional sources for these facts?

3. What "sliding partition" are you talking about? Do you realise that the vast majority of people (thats the greek-cypriots) became refugees within a few hours having nothing but their clothes? It was really a shock partition which was purely the result of the invasion. In case you're thinking about the tc enclaves, these were a long time ago and were spread all over cyprus (i.e. the island wasn't partitioned).

4. It's not a matter of "hammering it in". It's a matter of telling the facts to the reader. Masri145 (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Greeks, not Turks. Corrected. The word this does not dilute "true facts" (as opposed to untrue facts?). I'm talking about the partition that gradually became deeper until it resulted in a declaration of independence. The facts are all there, and you haven't addressed the other factors in either sentence. I suggest you let up on the wp:lead fixation. CMD (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi CMD & Masri145 why are you using the word "evicted" / "eviction"? Could you please explain? "Eviction" is the "removal of a tenant by a landlord", here the situation is that the Turkish army was marching forward forcing civilians to flee from their homes, in order to save their lives creating in essence Internally displaced persons. Why did you choose the word "eviction" ? 23x2 _φ 17:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

BBC says "the Greek Cypriots fleed". Source is in the EL. --E4024 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

23x2 _φ 20:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Eviction: To force out: Expel. "Internally displaced persons" doesn't work as a verb. CMD (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm open to replacing eviction with another verb, despite the fact that as Dr.K. pointed out it's the word directly used by quite a few sources. As for the rest of your changes, not the whole Greek Cypriot population left the North, "security fears" is a blatant playing down of the situation of Turkish Cypriots at the time, and many factors besides the occupation, such as the inability to agree on a new federal government, led to independence. CMD (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

OK to be precise, according to official RoC figures, at the time of the invasion 162.000 gcs where living in the northern part out of which 140.000 fled to the south during the invasion. From the remaining 22.000, 21.500 people where forced to move to the south in the subsequent years and by the 90's only 500 remained (out of which only 384 were gcs and the rest were maronites). So looking at the official figures above, 161.848 out of 162.000 doesn't really justify saying "much of the Greek-Cypriot population", its in fact "approximately all" and given that we're always talking in approximation we can safely say "all".

To address your other concerns:

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

I don't see any attempt to address my other concerns at all. They all remain. CMD (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That's probably because you didn't read my suggestion. I removed your concerns about the "security fears" and removed that the occupation resulted to the declaration. I can't see any reason why anyone would disagree with the above statement. Its far more accurate than the existing text which includes false information - that the evictions are the result of the coup and the tensions. Unless a source is provided this will need to be corrected. Masri145 (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A novel explanation, but unfortunately wrong. How simply deleting any reason doesn't play down the situation is beyond me, especially for someone arguing that eviction isn't a strong enough word. There's no false information in the current text, you're just choosing to read it that way. CMD (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think that replacing "leading to a unilateral declaration" with "This lead to a unilateral declaration" plays down the situation? Masri145 (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

My reference to playing down the situation was unrelated to the declaration of independence. CMD (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Geographic location diagram

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

I agree it is useless. Thanks for pointing this out. Δρ.Κ.  02:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This diagram is used for the whole countries articles.Recognized or unrecognized.Your opinion is completely built on prejudice and nationalism.N umber of Turkish flags? This is a situation in Northern Cyprus with its neighbors.Turkey is located in the north.I do not see any strange situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice07 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about nationalism. This diagram is of limited use as it says "Syria is vaguely that way, other countries are vaguely in that direction if you go far enough, and North is at the top". As to the number of flags, if Turkey is to the north why does the diagram need more than one flag at the top? These diagrams tell us nothing that is not on the map already included. In this particular case if it were Greece to the north I would make exactly the same points. Britmax (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The location template is completely vague and useless and the arguments advanced by Maurice07 are the usual personal attacks based on the nationality of other editors. Δρ.Κ.  18:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The template is meant for "articles about communities". For countries (aside from maybe city-states) it's fairly useless. Just because it's spread to many country pages doesn't mean it should be used. CMD (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thank you CMD. Δρ.Κ.  06:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=britons-reportedly-being-evicted-from-their-houses-in-northern-cyprus-2011-03-28
2. http://www.todayszaman.com/mobile_detailn.action?newsId=273493
3. https://www.google.com/searchq=cyprus+star+kulaksiz&oq=cyprus+star+kulaksiz&sugexp=chrome,mod=14&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
4. http://trnchomehell.moonfruit.com/#/about-kulaksiz/4550087581
5. http://www.kkg2011.com/index.php?cID=banks-behaving-badly-video

ToZero (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Kulaksiz 5 Case Damages TRNC Reputation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. ^ Ozerim, Ipek (01/12/2012). "Get House in Order to save nation". Cyprus Today. Retrieved 02/12/2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
2. Shepherd, Ian (24/03/2010). "Hammer Blow for Pensioner Aged 87". Cyprus Today. Retrieved 25/03/2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
3. Bahcelli, Simon (22/04/2011). "Harassed Home-Buyers to Sue Cheating Bank in the North". Cyprus Mail. Retrieved 25/04/2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
4. ^ DVD,Produced by: Make North Cyprus Better Movement, Presenters: John Huges-Wilson, Lord Ken Maginnis, ″Banks Behaving Badly″
5. Make North Cyprus Better Movement, ″IS THE TIDE TURNING ON EVICTIONS″ , Malcolm Mitcheson - Joint Secretary of MNCB Movement,Retrieved: 15-12-2012
6. Stuart, Marion (10/02/2012). "K5 Residents Fears Grow as Outstanding Electric Bill Grows". Cyprus Star. Retrieved 15/02/2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
7. ^ ISTANBUL (28/03/2011). "Brits reportedly being evicted from their homes in northern Cyprus". Hurriyet Daily News. Retrieved 05/04/2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
8. http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/europe/cyprus#lawsCustoms

ToZero (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

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

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• C-Class Western Asia articles
• Unknown-importance Western Asia articles
• WikiProject Western Asia articles
• C-Class Turkey articles
• High-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• C-Class Cypriot articles
• Top-importance Cypriot articles
• All WikiProject Cyprus pages
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board
• Selected anniversaries (November 2011)