This is an archive of past discussions about Northern Cyprus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments9 people in discussion
That is not a republic recognized by the U.N. It should change to "Northern Cyprus" since it is misleading for people that do not really know the whole story. And North Cyprus is misleading too since there is not a South Cyprus (it like having North Korea without a South Korea) Alaskaris (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it was North Cyprus and not Northern Cyprus (since North Cyprus does not designate a geographical area). Alaskaris (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
We, Greek Cypriots, refer to the turkish-held portion of the island as "the occupied area". That is the only term Greek Cypriots use to refer to the Turkish-held portion of the island. Therefore, this article should not be called "Northern Cyprus". If it should, then a place in Sri Lanka should be called RTT(Republic of the Tamil Tigers). Webbbbbber, please do verify my statements as the name(and content) of this article are misleading and must be edited in some way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.26.206 (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
No, this has been resolved and is not something to be dredged up again, particularly as there has been improper methods used by many sockpuppets with a strong non-neutral point of view on this 'issue'. It's all there straight away in the article and the reader can decide for themselves. Nja24718:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't care if improper methods have been used. That does not mean I cannot converse about the matter. So do not use pointless statements just to back up your ideas. It IS an issue. There is no "Northern Cyprus". If you want to believe there is a "Northern Cyprus" please tell us where you back up your beliefs. I also asked Webbbbbbber to verify my statements.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casbyhouse (talk • contribs) 10:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It is another sad example of mobs determining "correct" and "true" names. There is no "Northern" in the Turkish translation, only North. More importantly, Northern refers, in normal and proper English to a "region" of a single political entity. North, on the other hand refers, in COMMON USAGE, to a seperate political entity, as in North Korea. That IS the common English usage. This charade should end here, there must be an authorized editor out there who can see through this etno-nationalistic name distortion game the extremists play here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.156.90 (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The determining factor for naming this article needs to be which name is most commonly used in English when people are referring to the TRNC. As far as I'm aware, that would be "Northern Cyprus" — driven, I assume, by the English translation of the TRNC's name which has been universally used since the region's 1983 UDI. I will concede that the common English translation of Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti is probably flawed, but such is life. I also agree that some people prefer the name "North Cyprus" — and that this name should be (and indeed already is) acknowledged in the article — and note too that "North Cyprus" already works as an alias redirecting to the article — but I, for one, have not seen anything approaching a clear majority popular usage in English which would favour "North Cyprus" as the primary name.
Additionally, I agree that there is a customary connotation of "Northern" (vs. Southern) meaning a region and "North" (vs. South) meaning a separate entity — probably meaning, I assume, that Turks and Turkish Cypriots will tend to prefer "North", whereas Greeks and Greek Cypriots are likely to favour "Northern" — but in my opinion, this isn't enough all by itself to drive the choice of name for the article in the absence of actual evidence that "North Cyprus" is the natural first choice of English speakers and writers as a name for the TRNC.
Just so there will be no misunderstanding, by the way, I am intentionally not considering the sock-puppet incident of a few weeks ago as meaning anything, one way or the other. Also, I personally have neither Greek, Turkish, nor any sort of Cypriot connections or sympathies, so I don't have any vested interest in any particular name (other than whatever is most commonly used in English at the present time).
I will also mention again that, some time back, I suggested renaming the article "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", with "Northern Cyprus" to be changed (along with "North Cyprus") into an alias redirecting to the full name of the political entity. This, I thought (and still think), would be a reasonable compromise — probably equally distasteful to everyone (!) — but no one (on either side, or in the middle) seemed very interested in this proposal at the time, and sadly, I rather doubt the idea will be any better received now. Richwales (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
"Northern Cyprus" is not ambiguous and Wikipedia policy (WP:NAME and WP:NCON) specifically deprecates using long form names when the common English usage is unambiguous and widely recognized. So "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is not supported by Wikipedia policy in preference to Northern Cyprus, which is the common English name. (Taivo (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC))
I apologize but I cannot see the reason in using the "common" name,even if there is one. To name this article. Does wikipedia offer common knowledge in a more archived manner???? When people have doubt they simply visit wikipedia and check to see the truth. Naming this article "Northern Cyprus" is ridiculous. Visitors would definetely ascertain that such an entity exists when it does not, by simply reading the title of this article. I fail to see why people are still debating this subject. Just use the word "occupied" in the article and you have it. Would anyone care to state that the nortern part of Cyprus is not occupied? Sadly, I am starting to see wikipedia as an authority failing to control certain very important matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casbyhouse (talk • contribs) 09:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand Taivo's comment above and do think it has merit. WP:NAME#Controversial names says, for example: "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another" (emphasis in the original) — and I think it would be instructive to compare the current dispute with questions over the proper naming of the article on Macedonia. On the other hand, a too rigid adherence to the concept of preferring short, commonly used and widely recognized names might dictate renaming the article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to "Mormon Church". It was precisely for the purpose of avoiding a choice between two apparently equally controversial names that I suggested avoiding both of them by using the official name (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) — and although I'm not proposing this on a casual whim, I do still think it's worth considering as an alternative to prolonged arguing and possible edit-warring. Richwales (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
A big problem is the extensive use of socks to evade a ban that advocate a strong opinion on this topic. Nja24721:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a fundamental difference between Northern Cyprus and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and even Macedonia. There is only one "Northern Cyprus" and it is completely unambiguous in meaning as it is the common English term for just the de facto sovereign state and nothing else. The discussion about "Macedonia" is that there are some minor meanings of the word that conflict in limited circumstances with the name of the sovereign state. There are also about a dozen different "Mormon" churches, of which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is only one, albeit the largest one. Compare "Congo"--there are two countries with that as their common English name, so it is important to disambiguate them. There is no conflict with "Northern Cyprus"--there is only one of them and nothing else is called that. Thus, there is no Wikipedia policy which supports using the long name over the commonly used short one. According to WP:NCON taking political and emotional considerations into account is strictly excluded. Only common English usage prevails and long forms are used only when there is a question of ambiguity. (Taivo (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC))
While I agree that we've seen a lot of sockpuppetry lately, I am not prepared to summarily dismiss everyone advocating either view, simply because some people are so recklessly zealous that they are willing to break the rules and do whatever they think is necessary to make their position prevail. If we see more sockpuppetry, evasions of bans, etc., I'm confident we'll be able to deal with such, but such misbehaviour should not be allowed to influence legitimate discussion here.
The situation with Macedonia is, in fact, more involved than stated above. There has been a long-standing controversy between one group which insists "Macedonia" is perfectly legitimate as a name for a sovereign state (part of the former Yugoslavia), and another group which feels intimidated and insulted by the use of that name by said state. Since editors advocating these two positions simply could not see eye to eye, the Macedonia article naming question eventually required Wikipedia's arbitration committee to impose a solution. I believe it would be worthwhile for everyone to read this ArbCom ruling and carefully consider how the concepts dealt with therein might constitute helpful guidance for us here.
In hopes of improving Wikipedia, I would propose that we should look further for reliable English-language sources which refer to the region/state in question by the name "Northern Cyprus" (standing alone, not simply as a portion of the larger phrase "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus"), and cite such sources at the first use of this name in the lede of the article. Similarly, reliable English-language sources referring to this entity by the name "North Cyprus" (and not simply as a proposed alternative translation of "Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti") should be sought out and cited where this name is mentioned in the lede. The more we can concentrate on looking for (and discussing the worth of) specific sources for both names, the less likely we are to stay bogged down in general arguments which are doomed to get us nowhere. If constructive efforts along these lines prove fruitless, I would support taking the naming question to ArbCom (by analogy to what was done with the Macedonia article) rather than have us continue to be plagued by an endless stream of usage bickering and edit wars. Richwales (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
About Macedonia, that is exactly why it is not relevant here. The only relevant question here is "What is the most common English usage?" (since there is no ambiguity with any other entity possible). Don't clutter the article page with needless references to usage. If you truly want to survey printed sources, then do it here. (Taivo (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC))
References
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Collapsed content of a discussion regarding edits by a sock of a banned user
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Wiki users must not upgrade or downgrade the status of North Cyprus. "Deleting the international organization (and links to the members pages of these international pages) to which North Cyprus is a member" is clearly DOWNGRADING.
Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus has been semi-protected, and you presumably can't edit it because your account is too new and/or not yet established by a sufficent number of edits. If you believe an admin has abused his/her privileges to vandalize an article, bring it up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI), not here. If you're going to pursue this, by the way, you should also be prepared to defend yourself against allegations (mentioned in the revision history of Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus) claiming that you are a sockpuppet of the banned user VivaNorthCyprus — an accusation which, if true, would trump any other issues you might want to raise. Richwales (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Action looks good, I was planning on doing the same. No user, and especially banned users (as they shouldn't be editing at all), should attack others' (ie Peripitus and Passportguy) contributions by calling them vandals. Nja24712:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Salamis illegal excavations
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The ancient site of Salamis is being excavated by archaeologists from the University of Ankara. Many Turkish and just about all foreign archaeologists are deplore this because it contravenes UNESCO agreements and because the excavation standards are poor. Relevant information welcome... Politis (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
What is this got to do with Wikipedia? Maybe they should have turned into a parking lot the way it has been done in the South? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.229.112.98 (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Neither Greek Cypriots or the Cypriot Government ever vandalized any monument in the non-occupied part. This is a true lie and I dare you to prove otherwise. The Republic of Cyprus is a globally recognized state, whose actions are observed by the UN and there was never an incident such as the one you claim. On the contrary the Turkish invaders have vandalized many sites of historical and religious importance. Some of them are Salamis, the cemetery of Morphou and several other churces, sites, cemeteries and so on. The next time I visit these sites I will upload the photographs of the results of your actions so you can be convinced.213.7.180.33 (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Book : Kollektive Nichtanerkennung illegaler Staaten. Grundlagen
und Rechtsfolgen einer international koordinierten
Sanktion, dargestellt am Beispiel der T ü rkischen
Republik Nord-Zypern [Collective Non-recognition of
Illegal States. Legal Foundations and Consequences of an
Internationally Co-ordinated Sanction with Particular
Reference to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus]
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.162.51 (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Country categories
Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion
Since this area is only recognized as an independent country by Turkey, it should not be listed in the "country" categories. (Taivo (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC))
The "Southwest Asian countries" category currently includes Abkhazia and South Ossetia, whose claim to official status is hardly better than that of Northern Cyprus. Richwales (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Taivo here. Perhaps we need a 'contested countries' or 'non-UN countries' section or something similarPolitis (talk)
Perhaps we need to rethink whether Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be included in these categories as well. (Taivo (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC))
Quite a few existing category lists are for "countries and territories". Transnistria, for example, is listed in several such categories. Not sure if this will help, since some will argue that "territory" is no good as a generic term and has to mean only a dependency of a sovereign state. Richwales (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Even if Transnistria is treated like Greenland, that's better than having to include Sealand because it's a self-declared independent state. (Taivo (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC))
I agree with Taivo here. I don't think Abkhazia and Ossetia should have country categories either. After all, how many reliable English-language sources refer to places like Abkhazia and Northern Cyprus as "countries"? They are almost always referred to as "breakaway territories" or "unrecognized states" or something like that, almost never as "countries". The label "country" to me implies widespread acceptance and recognition, a well-established entity, not one who's status is the subject of dispute. Then, we also have the example of Kosovo, which is recognized by over 60 states being, referred to as "a disputed territory" in wikipedia because there is a longstanding consensus among editors that that is the most NPOV solution (after pages & pages of discussion). To describe Kosovo as a "country" would be an endorsement of the Albanian POV, to describe it as a "province" would be an endorsement of the Serbian POV. Same goes here. Northern Cyprus (and Abkhazia and Ossetia) are only "countries" depending on who you ask. Turkish Cypriots and Abkhazians will refer to them as countries, but Greek Cypriots and Georgians would certainly not. Hence, to refer to them as countries is an automatic endorsement of one side's POV. The most neutral thing therefore is to remove the country categories and only keep the "disputed states" or "unrecognized states" type categories. --Athenean (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Northern Cyprus, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Kosovo, etc. should be in the category of "Disputed states", not in the categories of "Countries of Europe", etc. When dividing Europe up (for the purpose of making lists in atlases and textbooks, for example), these disputed regions are virtually never included in English-language sources. They are virtually always included in the recognized territory to which they belong. The reasoning behind this is simple--these states are not (yet) permanent and their final status is still the subject of negotiation or battle. (Taivo (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC))
I am in complete agreement with Taivo's reasoning and categorization scheme. I couldn't have said it better myself. --Athenean (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I could come up with a different line of reasoning: the actions of atlasses etc. reflect the official POV of the countries they are published in. I am quite sure Turkish atlasses will show Northern Turkey as an independent country, and Turkish sources will call it a 'country'. Of course most English language publications are from a select few countries, but that does not mean that we should adopt the inherent bias in these publications. My personal opinion is that in matters like categories, Wikipedia should be flexible, and should e.g. categorise Northern Cyprus both in Category:Countries of Europe, because general recognition aside, there is nothing that distinguishes Northern Cyprus from Burundi, and in Category:Cyprus, because in certain aspects it is a sub-topic thereof. Another matter is that it would be helpful for readers to have a category 'Territories with contested status' which would also include Northern Cyprus.sephia karta | di mi15:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Sephia, you are wrong about the use of sources in Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia specifically relies first and foremost on common English usage. That is the driving force behind most decisions in the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia specifically relies on reliable English sourcesfirst and foreign sources only second. Usage in the English-speaking world is that disputed entities like Northern Cyprus, Kosovo, South Ossetia, etc. are not given equal status with countries that have near-universal recognition in the the world community. Northern Cyprus should not be afforded equal status within the world's countries until its long-term fate is determined through a final agreement. In the Turkish Wikipedia, you can list Northern Cyprus as a separate country, but this is the English Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC))
Well, each Wikipedia has their own rules, but it would be very sad indeed if Wikipedias follow the POV of the countries where their languages are spoken. I really hope you're not advocating that. Indeed, I quote from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view: "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia". You link to WP:RS under the cover of 'reliable English sources', but English isn't even mentioned in that guideline - quite disingenious. I know of no other guideline for that matter that attributes greater authority to English sources.sephia karta | di mi07:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
You repeatedly mention "POV", but you are advocating that Wikipedia follow here a POV yourself--the Turkish one. Turkey is the only country in the entire world that treats Northern Cyprus as a separate country. The entire rest of the world treats it as a part of Cyprus and leaves its future status subject to negotiation. I thought that I had read the "English source" at WP:RS, but I guess it is elsewhere--no intent to be disingenuous, just a bad memory. But English is still the primary language of this Wikipedia, thus English "POV" will always prevail even subtly--there is no such thing as "pure NPOV". The usage of the vast majority of English-language sources is that Northern Cyprus is not treated as a separate country, but as a part of Cyprus. Indeed, if you look at the vast majority of non-English sources, you will see the same usage--Northern Cyprus is not a separate country, but a disputed region whose permanent status is subject to a future agreement. Turkey's position is a fringe position. We acknowledge that fringe position by listing Northern Cyprus as a disputed region, but we acknowledge that it is, indeed, a fringe position by not affording Northern Cyprus full "diplomatic recognition" in the pages of Wikipedia. It is a disputed region, not a sovereign nation. (Taivo (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC))
Move without discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This page should never have been moved from "Northern Cyprus" without discussion and the gaining of a consensus first. I have notified an admin to keep an eye on this. If you want to move this, then you should place a request for move template here and discuss it first. If the community comes to a consensus that it should be moved, then it can be moved. Until then, leave it at "Northern Cyprus". (Taivo (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
Turkis Republic of Norhtern Cyprus is my country
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It is not a region. There is no such a region in Cyprus Island. So even it is recognized or not it is a country. It is enough to be recognized even by one country. And we are. So it should be Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.Maverick16 (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses common English names for places. Read WP:NCON. The common English name for Northern Cyprus is "Northern Cyprus". If you feel strongly about the name then initiate a Page move request and present your evidence that common English usage is something else. The Wikipedia community will then decide whether the evidence supports a change in the article's name or not. (Taivo (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
human rights
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The consensus to keep the article here at Northern Cyprus has been demonstrated over and over. Do not move without initiating a Request for Move and gaining consensus. (Taivo (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC))
Naming dispute
Latest comment: 14 years ago28 comments9 people in discussion
Name of the article must be official name: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Because it is not only an area, it is a country. --.dsm.20:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The vast majority of articles on countries in Wikipedia do not use official names, but common English names. Thus, it is Hungary and not "Republic of Hungary", France and not "Republic of France", etc. (Taivo (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
If China is the appropriate analogue, then what is the other country that has split off of the geographic and cultural region known as Northern Cyprus? —C.Fred (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
China, like Congo, is exceptional because there would be two countries named "China" without the official title in the article. There is only one Northern Cyprus and no one is confused. (Taivo (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC))
Get over it, guys. The common English name of Northern Cyprus is "Northern Cyprus". It's not ambiguous and it doesn't conflict with anything else that is named "Northern Cyprus". That's the end of the affair. We mention the official name in the first sentence, but the article is named after the common English name. And what encyclopedia lists France under Republique Francaise? None. The "encyclopedic" name is the name that most people are going to use in looking up information. Look at the criteria at WP:NCON and look at the archive for the most recent article move request at Talk:Kiev for an example of the kind of evidence you have to amass to prove that "Northern Cyprus" is not the most common name. Then if you think you have enough evidence, follow Wikipedia policy and submit a move request and see if the community agrees with you to move the article. (Taivo (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC))
I completely agree with Taivo et al. Apart from that though, I don't quite understand the motivation here. Certain comments make me believe you are supportive of Northern Cyprus, and yet, you would rather have it be grouped together with the Principality of Sealand than with France? As a friend of mine would say, "Dude..!!". sephia karta | di mi00:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This refers that it is a turkish country! That is why there should be written as Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The original name is like this.. Whenever It is written northern cyprus.. it is The north part of the island. It doesnt refer to any country. This is a consciously made propoganda by Greeks. United kingdom refers that it is a kingdom.. We are not just a republic. We are Turkish Republic.
Let me reiterate. Please read WP:NCON. It is very, very clear--Wikipedia uses the common names in English of countries unless there is ambiguity. The Dominican Republic and the Czech Republic are always called that in English--those are their common English names. Republic of China/People's Republic of China are both called "China" in common English usage, so it is required to use the official names in order to disambiguate them. The same is true of the two Congos--Democratic Republic of Congo and Republic of Congo--we have to use the full names in order to disambiguate them because both are called "Congo" in common English usage. Republic of Ireland is not even its official name, but Wikipedia uses that to distinguish it from Ireland, the name of the island. Republic of Macedonia is used for Macedonia to distinguish it from the Greek region of the same name. Northern Cyprus does not fit any of these exceptions. 1) It's common English name is "Northern Cyprus" so citing the Dominican Republic is a false analogy and 2) there are no other places called "Northern Cyprus" to confuse it with so citing your other examples are false analogies. Your arguments are wrong based on Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia doesn't care if you think that "Northern Cyprus" is "Greek policy" or not, just as Wikipedia doesn't care that Greeks are offended because we don't use "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" instead of "Republic of Macedonia". Wikipedia doesn't care about politics. The only measure is common English usage when names are not ambiguous. (Taivo (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC))
Accepted by whom? "Northern Cyprus" is the common usage of the English-speaking world. You'll have to prove otherwise. Since this is the English Wikipedia, it's the opinion of English speakers that matters. You can call it "Turkish" in the Turkish Wikipedia if that's what Turkish speakers prefer. (Taivo (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC))
The article says "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" or "TRNC" and the title says "Northern Cyprus". They're incompatible. Which is true? I think, if the article says "TRNC", the title should say "TRNC". If the title says "Northern Cyprus", the article should say "Northern Cyprus".--Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that's a change I'm against. The article's title is the common name, but the first mention in the intro should be the formal name. By way of two examples:
The article Bill Clinton begins, "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III, August 19, 1946) was the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001."
The article United Kingdom begins, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or as Britain) is a sovereign state located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe."
Based on that example, if the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is the full, formal name, that's the one that should be mentioned first. However, I can't find this codified in the MOS, so if the change has consensus here and avoids the naming fuss, I support the presentation that opens with "Northern Cyprus..." —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Country articles tend to be the opposite, namely, common name first and official name second. Compare France, Uruguay, Hungary, Russia, and Brazil, for example. This even works when the article title is, for one reason or another, a formal title, as at Republic of Macedonia. There are some exceptions like Thailand (where the common name isn't even mentioned) and Mexico, but the pattern of common name/official name seems to be more common. In the case of Belarus the official name isn't even mentioned in the first sentence, but only in the template. At Uruguay, the official name is only found in the Spanish term and is not translated into English. Official names have a much more tenuous existence in the country articles than the more robust common names. But I'm not going to mortgage the house on the order of names in the first sentence here. (Taivo (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention (1933), states that:
"The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states".
Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention also declares that "statehood is independent of recognition by other states".
The European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee also found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority and that it was independent of being recognised by other States.
The "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" satisfies all the abovementioned requirments of Statehood and hence is therefore a "State", a person of international law under the Montevideo Convention (A binding International Treaty). Albeit, unrecognized by the majority of the International Community of Sovereign States, this does not mean that the TRNC is not a person of International Law, that is that it is not a "State". The TRNC is a State under International Law (albeit, a unrecognized one) and hence must be refered to by it's Constitutional name: Kuzey Kibris Turkiye Cumhurriyeti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.209.236 (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
northern Cyprus is the Cypriot territory occupied by turks and the name should remain as it is. It should not be changed to "Turkish republic..." of anything. northern cyprus is not a country.
All of which may be true, except for the last sentence "The TRNC is a State under International Law (albeit, a unrecognized one) and hence must be refered to by it's Constitutional name: Kuzey Kibris Turkiye Cumhurriyeti.". First of all, Wikipedia is not under any obligation whatsoever, and second of all, it does not in general refer to countries by their constitutional name. France, not Republic of France or République française. In this way, Northern Cyprus is no different from other countries, which should please you.sephia karta | di mi17:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the IP's point unless it is insisting on the use of the constitutional name. Sephia, you are right, Wikipedia treats Northern Cyprus just like it treats every other sovereign state with one exception--its name is italicized in certain lists because it is not generally recognized. But other than the italics and a somewhat mandatory footnote about its status, it is treated like other states--its commonly used English name is used as the article's title and in the text of the article. Wikipedia is not bound by the dictates of any government's decree or international organization's mandate. (Taivo (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC))
Your correct "Wikipedia is not bound by the dictates of any government's decree or international organization's mandate" but it is bound by reality if it wants to be a respected source of information. In the alternative it will simply be a compilation of satire. --122.148.209.236 (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Taivo, I suppose you are referring to me. There is a problem with the intro as it is. The article states "officially called the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" Thats a strong turkish point of view. Why? Because, de jure, = ("officially") the area that comprises northern Cyprus, is the area of the Republic of Cyprus occuppied by turkish troops in violation of the treaty of guarantee. Unofficially, (i.e. de facto) the area calls itself as TRNC. The encyclopedia is not bound by the dictates of any government's decree or international organization's mandate, yes, at the same time though, you need references to include something, you can not write an article at will, or as turkish friends & co feel it should be written. What does officially mean ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.162.51 (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
That's why I preferred the wording "formally" over "officially": it doesn't have Wikipedia pronouncing on the "officialness" of NC. The remainder of the article does provide ample coverage into the nature and status of NC, so it still comes down to one word choice at the top of the article. If you feel the change will make that much difference, I'll make it, though. —C.Fred (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
IP, you work under the misconception that "official" refers to extra-territorial recognition. It does not. "Official" means the name that is the "legal" name used by the government itself for itself. Thus the official name of France is the name that the government of France uses to refer to itself. The official name of Northern Cyprus is Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus whether anyone else in the world recognizes it as an independent sovereign nation or not. It is the country's self-designation. Thus "official" is perfectly appropriate here since the country's government refers to itself as such, even though everyone else wants it to be part of Cyprus. "Official" doesn't mean "UN", it means "self-identification". (Taivo (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC))
In 1983 the Turkish Cypriot community universally and unilaterally declared it's independence from the Republic of Cyprus through the following declaration:
"Our Assembly,
- Representing the free will of the Turkish Cypriot People; - Believing that all human beings, who are born free and equal, should live in freedom and equality;
- Having declared, in its belief, the right of the Turkish Cypriot People to self-determination, by its Resolution of 17 June 1983;
- Rejecting discrimination between human beings on grounds of race, national origin, language, religion or any other grounds; and rejecting, also, all forms of colonialism, racism, oppression and domination;
- Expressing the hope that peace and stability will prevail and that freedom and human rights will flourish not only in Cyprus, but also in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East and the World at large;
- Believing that the two Peoples in Cyprus each has the right to live and govern itself in its own territory in peace and security, and has the right to preserve its own national identity.
- Firmly adhering to the view that these two Peoples, who are destined to co- exist side by side on the island, can and must find peaceful, just and durable solutions to the differences between them, through negotiations on the basis of equality;
- Firmly convinced that the proclamation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus will not hinder but facilitate the re-establishment of the partnership between the two Peoples within a federal framework and will also facilitate the settlement of the problems between them;
- Earnestly hoping that negotiations will be carried out, on the basis of equality and under the auspices of the UN Secretary General, with a view to resolving, in a peaceful and conciliatory manner, all the outstanding issues between the two Peoples, and convinced that the proposed Summit Meeting would be useful in this regard;
And ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE TURKISH CYPRIOT PEOPLE, Approves the establishment of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and the Declaration of Independence.
Expressing the legitimate and irrepressible will of the Turkish Cypriot People... WE HEREBY DECLARE BEFORE THE WORLD AND BEFORE HISTORY THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS AS AN INDEPENDENT STATE.
On this historic day, we reiterate our gratitude to our Martyrs, who sacrificed their lives in order that the Turkish Cypriot people may never again be subjected to servitude under foreign domination and may live in dignity and freedom. May God's mercy be upon our Martyrs"
If the world believes in democracy, equality and the rule of law then it should recognize the political will of the Turkish Cypriot peoples. Just like it has recognized the political will of the people living in Kosovo etc. The double standards, and hypocritic application of International treaties to the Turkish Cypriot peoples is unacceptable. Furthermore, it does not affect in any way shape or form the right of the Turkish Cypriot people to self-determination. Hence, it is illogical to discuss the legitimacy of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus on this site. There are facts which need to be accepted and these facts need to be incorporated on Wikipaedia without bias or subjectivity. The fact remains that the TRNC is a State under International Law, independent of recognition by other States. One cannot simply state that another human being is not a human being just because he or she does not recognise that person as being a human being. The same applies to States.
The term "Northern Cyprus" refers to and denotes a geographic location within the island of Cyprus. Whereas the contents of the Wikipaedia entry which is the subject of this discussion is about the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" as a State (whether recognized or unrecognized), a person of International Law. The article should either be named "Turkish Cypriot State" or by the States constitutional name, "The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" or "TRNC". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.209.236 (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Northern Cyprus is not just a geographic denotation, it also refers to the Turkish Cypriot State, and it is the most common way to describe the Turkish Cypriot State in English. That's the intended meaning here.sephia karta | di mi16:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi all
It seems that there are three users (or one with 3 IP adresses) who keep readding or reverting the page to include text which was removed due to excessive peacocking and non-neutral POV
THe text is non-neutral and includes a sentence which is OR (unless it can be referenced)
Please stop reverting the page until discussed here or a report for 3RR and edit warring will be made.
As the IPs keep changing, a block may be ineffective so I've requested that this page is semi-protected to encourage to discuss things on the talk page. Nev1 (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
POV commentary
Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Hi again
You just deleted my commentary and called it POV lol
OK, weel on this one I am pretty sure that the North is dependent on Turkey.
Can you tell me how it is not so ? (all flights etc had to go through Turkey and the north is still lacking major ports)
Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The issue is not whether Northern Cyprus is economically dependent on Turkey, but whether it is a de facto independent state, which it is. Many countries are economically dependent on other countries (e.g., Lesotho, Swaziland, Andorra, San Marino, etc.), some more than others. But that doesn't affect their independence in a strict sense. Northern Cyprus is de facto independent. If Turkey claimed it as part of its own territory, that would be another matter, but since Turkey recognizes it as an independent state, then its economic dependence is immaterial to the statement that it is de facto independent. (Taivo (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
Saying that Northern Cyprus is "de facto independent" seems very appropriate to me. Note that the term de facto implies that, although a governmental institution exists, its right to exist is not accepted by all (see De facto#Politics) — which is clearly the case here. It is true, as I understand, that some do consider Northern Cyprus to be a puppet state, controlled entirely by Turkey and "independent" in name and form only — but in order to report such a claim anywhere in this article, it would absolutely need to be clearly phrased as being one position amongst many (not presented as a settled fact), and it would be essential to back it up with reliable sources. For example, it might be possible to say something like "The government of the Republic of Cyprus, which claims sovereignty over the entire island, considers Northern Cyprus to be a puppet state controlled by Turkey." — again, with sources — preferably (per WP:PSTS) secondary sources reporting something to this effect that the RoC government has said. We definitely can not simply say that Northern Cyprus is a puppet state, no matter how many sources can be found that agree with this; that would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV's mandate to give even-handed attention to all significant sides of an issue. Richwales (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
But northern Cyprus is not just economically dependent on Turkey, it is dependent politically, diplomatically, and militarily. The extent to the with the northern Cypriot leadership can make independent political decisions from the government in Ankara is debatable. However, I do agree that such a claim needs a source, and I will try to look for one. Athenean (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Understood. As for a source (or sources), please remember that we should try to find secondary sources if at all possible. For example, a news story from the BBC News, reporting that so-and-so from the government of the Republic of Cyprus has accused the de-facto government in the north of being a puppet of Turkey, is preferable to an item on the RoC's own web site denouncing the north as being a puppet of Turkey. (See WP:PSTS.) Also, any such claim must be reported by us as a claim put forth by some parties — not as a settled or self-evident fact — because this is an issue on which significant disagreement does exist, and WP policy (WP:NPOV) is quite clear that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Writing in an unbiased manner about a subject you yourself have strong feelings about can be extremely difficult, of course, but we absolutely need to do it here. Apologies for wasting the reading time of people who I'm sure already understand the above, but it needs to be reiterated for the benefit of some who may not fully understand (or accept) the vital importance of neutral writing in Wikipedia. Richwales (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm still concerned that this is just POV pushing, so your wording needs to be very careful. Sorry, Athenean, but I'm suspicious whenever Greek editors start writing about Northern Cyprus, Turkey, or their neighbors in the Balkans. Follow Richwales' advice very carefully about how to present this. (Taivo (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
And forgive me for pointing this out if it's unnecessary, but WP:NPOVD (an essay, to be sure, not an official policy) recommends that the term "POV pushing" should be used with great care (if indeed at all). I agree there are a lot of sensitivities and hurt feelings about Northern Cyprus and other topics — we (myself certainly included) have probably all run across articles where we strongly believe one position is right and the others are totally and unjustifiably wrong — but we need to learn how to approach the material in an even-handed manner, fair to all sides (even sides we don't believe deserve fairness!), as long as they are reliably sourced and not obviously wacko fringe positions — or, if this is simply not possible for us to do this with a given subject, it might be better to leave it alone and work instead on improving some of the zillions of other pages where we don't have the same intense biases. Richwales (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to add that Freedom House classifies Northern Cyprus as 'Free', it gets a higher rating than Turkey itself, which is deemed to be just 'Partially Free'. What this means is that while it is true that in many very real ways, Northern Cyprus is dependent on Turkey, it is certainly not the case that it is a puppet state. sephia karta | dimmi10:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
And our job as Wikipedia editors, in a case like this, is not to figure out which position is the truth and conclude (even with the best possible reasoning) that Northern Cyprus either is or is not a Turkish puppet state. We need to report all significant, verifiable views on the subject — together with the corresponding reliable sources reporting each view — and leave any ultimate decision-making to the reader. I would strongly recommend that everyone working on this page — especially anyone who has a strongly held position and whose blood boils whenever they are exposed to propaganda from the other side — should carefully read (or re-read) WP:NPOV and think of ways to implement this policy here. Again, apologies to those editors who already understand this and are already trying to write in this fashion. Richwales (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Reverting with reason
Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
I reverted 'officially' and 'de facto' because the sources indicated either did not support these terms or were too flimsy and seemed one offs. I understand 'officially' as being the wider international reference for North Cyprus. In fact not even the state itslef uses it in international fora or trade exibitions, it uses North Cyprus. As for 'de facto', the source simply does not support this term, a term I myself first introduced a while ago. Furthermore, the level of control from Ankara simply negates its 'de facto' independence. Certainly it is virtually 'independent' from the official Republic of Cyprus but its modus vivendi on the international scene negates any usage of that term. Politis (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Northern Cyprus functions as a de facto independent state. It's not the only independent state in the world that has a "big brother", but we don't evaluate each case on whether or not the level of influence reaches X level or not. What is X level for control? Unless the state says, "We're a unit of Turkey", then it must be fairly treated as independent. How many states does the U.S. exert control over? Or Russia? We cannot get into an evaluation contest here. Northern Cyprus is a de facto independent state. France does not recognize itself as "Republic of France" in international fora or trade exhibitions either. It's known as "France". Official names are not common names. (Taivo (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC))
I think you are confusing the phrase "officially known as". You seem to be thinking that it means "other countries know it officially as", which is silly because only one other country recognizes it. It actually means "it calls itself officially". Perhaps the wording can be tweaked if that is the confusion. (Taivo (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC))
In usage, "virtual" and "de facto" mean the same thing--true in all cases except legally. "De facto", however, is the standard usage when it comes to dealing with states. "Virtual" sounds highly POV to my ear while "de facto" sounds more neutral. (Taivo (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC))
Taivo, I'm concerned by your most recent revert. I understand your position regarding the terms "officially" and "de facto" — but you also reverted two interwiki changes and, in the course of reinstating the older version of the lede, you deleted two sources that may be worth keeping. If you feel these actions are necessary, they should at least be acknowledged in an edit summary. And although I realize this article deals with an inherently controversial topic, the fact that more than one person seems to object to the word "officially" may mean that a different word might be more generally acceptable. I hope we can keep on discussing the matter here, rather than just have back-and-forth reverts. Richwales (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for your edits getting swept up in the reverts. Sometimes it's nearly impossible to surgically revert something and keep the good stuff. However, as you know, this article is subject to heavy POV-pushing vandalism from anonymous IPs. I suspect that the anonymous IP is pushing a Greek POV that is suspicious, especially taking de jure and changing it to "self-proclaimed". It doesn't feel right. (Taivo (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
How would people feel about changing "officially" to "formally" — i.e., "known formally as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)"? I think that would express the intended meaning without getting us into a tangle over whether widespread international recognition is being implied. Richwales (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with "formally". In the CIA Fact Book they use the phrase "conventional long form", but that's pretty unwieldy. (Taivo (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The opening paragraph is not objective and we are really wondering if we should raise this concern to more official sources on the Web. You are only stating the Turkish POV and this should not be promoted as an acceptable practice for a wikipedia page. You need to clearly state and clarify the following:
1. "Northern Cyprus" is not a legitimate naming convention.
2. Include the exact labels used by the official Republic of Cyprus to refer to the area (as the "Turkish Occupied Area of Cyprus" in English and "Κατεχώμενη Περιοχή Κύπρου" or "Τουρκοκρατούμενη Περιοχή Κύπρου" or "Κατεχώμενα" in Greek). There is far more legitimacy in these naming conventions than what you currently have as "Northern Cyprus".
Fortunately, Wikipedia ignores both the Greek and the Turkish nationalist POVs and supports neutral text as far as possible. The present text is quite neutral (thanks to the two editors who worked on it). If you want to promote a Greek POV, then please find a good blogging site and blog to your heart's content. (Taivo (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC))
I take issue with your claim that the opening (lede) section of the article is "only stating the Turkish POV". On the contrary, the current text seems to indicate very clearly that the existence of the TRNC, while an objective and verifiable fact, is at the same time extremely controversial. It says that the TRNC occupies a disputed breakaway territory; that the Republic of Cyprus rejects the TRNC's legitimacy and claims sovereignty over its territory; that it is diplomatically recognized only by Turkey and shunned by the rest of the international community; and that the Turkish military presence in the territory controlled de facto by the TRNC has been denounced by the UN as an illegal occupying force. The article does not say in so many words that the TRNC is illegal, but this is as it should be, since Wikipedia's commitment to maintaining a neutral point of view demands that we limit ourselves to the reporting of verifiable facts and (quoting WP:NPOV) "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". You may feel the current text is endorsing the Turkish POV, but I assume many pro-Turkish readers are probably just as upset at the current text as you are (because, to them, it will seem to be giving undue favour to the Greek POV). As for the exact terminology used by the Republic of Cyprus to refer to the territory claimed and occupied by the TRNC, I would certainly see nothing wrong in including that material, as long as the resulting text says something like "the government of the Republic of Cyprus refers to the north as the 'Turkish Occupied Area of Cyprus'" in order to preserve overall neutrality in the article and refrain from making a value judgment in WP's name. Richwales (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I've made some changes to the opening (lede) section to make the Greek Cypriot position on the (il)legitimacy of the TRNC clearer (in case it wasn't already more than adequately obvious). Some will doubtlessly object that this still isn't enough — that nothing short of proclaiming the wrongness of the TRNC as an undisputed, indisputable fact can possibly suffice — but that is a line which (in keeping with WP:NPOV) neither I nor most other editors here are going to suggest crossing. Richwales (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Recognition of the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) by the European Court of Human Rights
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On Friday March 5th 2010, the European Court of Human rights (ECHR) held in Demopoulos and 7 others vs Turkey, that the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) of the Turkish Republic is a valid domestic remedy for providing compensation and/or restitution to Greek Cypriot land or property owners.
The case follows the 1989 cases of Protopapas and others concerning the arrests in the Ayios Kassianos area where the ECHR did not consider the arrest, detention, trial and sentence of Greek Cypriots as illegal by the Turkish courts, thus recognising the jurisdiction of Turkish judicial courts.
Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
The de facto state was created by the illegal occupation of Turkish troops after the invasion in 1974. This is justified by numerous UN Conventions and it is is for these reasons that the UN refuses to recognise this pseudo-state. Furthermore, the the European Court of Human rights (ECHR) decision on Friday March 5th 2010 DID not as mentioned above recognise the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) as a judicial mechanism of the pseudo-state of the Turkish occupied areas, but as a judicial mechanism of Turkey. Go to the ECHR's webside and read it yourselves.
Therefore the terms mentioned in this website are false. The legal name for this territory as mentioned in current negotiations under the guidance of the UN and accepted FROM BOTH NEGOTIATING PARTIES is: Area which is de facto not controlled by the Republic of Cyprus. The names given here are not accepted nor mentioned in any legislative context, especially not by the ECHR as it was implied.
It is shameful to discover that after centuries of civilization some people in this forum which are not directly affected by this painful tragedy taking place in Cyprus, still apply the Laws of Roman Cannons.
Gentlemen, the human species has evolved since the middle ages; no one can self-proclaim a state with the sole argument of baring arms. It is a shame to see a website such as wikipedia allowing the legitimisation of such illegal terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.132.203 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Acknowledging the fact that the "TRNC" exists is not the same as approving or endorsing this fact. Our responsibility is to report the verifiable fact of the TRNC's existence, and to describe the controversy over its existence in a balanced and neutral fashion. Richwales (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I should additionally say that calling this article "Northern Cyprus" is not the same as endorsing or advocating this name as the proper, official designation for the disputed territory claimed de jure by the Republic of Cyprus but controlled de facto by the TRNC. As you will hopefully have noticed already, we've spent a lot of time here discussing the name, and my understanding of the consensus has been that we need to use the name by which this region is most commonly known in English. Renaming the article to "Area which is de facto not controlled by the Republic of Cyprus", or "Turkish occupied area of Cyprus", would probably require the high muckamucks of Wikipedia to change long-standing policies in a way they have so far shown no interest in doing. Richwales (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Richwales by accepting the existance of the so called Northern Cyprus you are accepting the illegal occupation of Cyprus by Turkish troops, the presence of which still prevents the efforts of reaching a solution in Cyprus. Recognition is acceptance. It is with great sorrow that it is shown yet again that some people still effect the Laws of Roman Cannons without really having an answer to anything and simply stating a POV simply because they can.... by the way, the word Κατεχώμενη IS spelled like that.... go through the trouble to at least check before stating your POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.132.203 (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
It is generally considered inappropriate to delete someone else's comments on an article's talk page. Please read (or re-read) WP:TPO to understand the limited circumstances in which editing someone else's comments on a talk page is acceptable. I have reinstated my earlier comments. Also, please note that I was not the person who questioned the proper spelling of that Greek word; I wouldn't be in any position to do such a thing, since I don't speak Greek (or, for that matter, Turkish). Richwales (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid you keep misspelling "Κατεχώμενη". The correct spelling of the word is: "Κατεχόμενη". Check the Cypriot department of antiquities' website: here and a few others diff, diff, diff, diff. Also despite telling us to use the dictionary please take the time to see a dictionary here: Dictionary results for Κατεχόμενη while the dictionary yields no results for "Κατεχώμενη" here. Dr.K.λogosπraxis16:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Our concern is not the choice between "κατεχώμενη" or "κατεχόμενη", although I do agree that the latter is indeed the correct one, used by the Babiniotis lexicon as well. Good to see that you have actually found some good sources to reference the correct label for the illegally occupied area of Cyprus. Let's put them to good use then :) I would like to think that the Wikipedia community does the best of its effort to stay clear of publishing political propaganda and misleading information. The existence of a page displaying material that promotes the self-proclaimed republic of northern Cyprus, a "republic" that violates the human rights of every legal citizen of Cyprus, is an effort in the opposite direction. Let us hope that we can hopefully fix what has not been damaged permanently! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.236.163 (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Demands to rename this article or massively revise its content in such a way as to suggest that only the Greek side of the dispute has any validity are extremely unlikely to get anywhere. As far as I have been able to tell, the overwhelming consensus here (except for hard-line Greek and Turkish nationalists) is that there is a genuine ongoing dispute, that there really are at least two sides to the issue, and that informed people of good will can honestly and sincerely disagree as to which (if either) side has a better claim to the truth. I will say, one more time, whether you choose to believe it or not, that acknowledging the factual existence of the Turkish Cypriot entity in the northern portion of a partitioned island of Cyprus does not mean that Wikipedia is formally taking the "Turkish side" or officially endorsing the TRNC as a desirable permanent solution to the problem. The only appropriate thing for us to do is to work on this article in keeping with the NPOV policy, which says that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Please do not mistake my insistence on holding to NPOV as constituting wilful blindness to the grievances on both sides of the Cyprus dispute. I am not Cypriot, Greek, or Turkish, and I do not personally feel any vested interest in any side of this conflict: I only hope, possibly against hope, that everyone on Cyprus can somehow find a way to live happily together. Richwales (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Very nice of you to claim such a liberal character. I have no arguments to the opposite, as I cannot directly link you to all the claimed misbeliefs of this article. But do you mean to tell me that a Wikipedia page concerning the island of Cyprus that does not even have A SINGLE Greek translation (but yet provides translations in Turkish) adheres to the NPOV policy? You are underestimating our common sense here. At least spare us the bare minimum level of intelligence needed to just breath (it is enough to also see through this propaganda)! I think, and I am not alone, that whoever is responsible for the contents of this page is definitely not in the Neutral mood of writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.128.149 (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I added "self-proclaimed" and "occupied" in the lede along with a citation from Britannica. I think that's as far as we can go and still keep the article lede within recognised encyclopedic parameters. IMO, following Encyclopaedia Britannica is a reasonable compromise, again for the lede. I cannot speak for the rest of the article because I have not read it. Dr.K.λogosπraxis22:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
President of Cyprus
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We can't be sure who is responsible for the contents of this page, and what sort of political and ethnic background he/she supports, but the page is packed with biased information in favor of the Turkish community. First of all, you are attaching a wrong label to an area of Cyprus that belongs to the Republic of Cyprus, but just happens to be in the aftermath of the unfortunate event of the illegal occupation by Turkey. and if that is not enough, you are also stating that the founder and former president of this area (an area that is still part of the Republic of Cyprus, only wrongfully proclaimed by Turkey and the Turkish-Cypriot community as an individual state) is someone named Rauf Denktaş. Who gives you the authority to make such an erroneous claim and then restrict others from correcting your POV? No country has ever recognized this person as a founder and president of any sort, of any Cypriot grounds. More so, until the illegal invasion by Turkey the land was managed without interference by the official Republic of Cyprus of 1960. You should make it clear therefore that first president was Makarios III and place his picture somewhere on the page. Also, the word "founder" is a very disputable concept, so I would advice to remove it altogether as a start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.236.163 (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Walking the Thin Line
Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
I reverted Dr. K's edit because it was just pushing the Greek POV a little too much. It was a well-intentioned edit with a reference, but that doesn't make it NPOV. We walk a very thin line here between the Greek POV and the Turkish POV. Right now, the lead is balanced rather thinly between them. I actually tend to think it's a bit too far on the Greek side of the line, but the other two non-aligned editors who have worked on it (Rich and Will) think it is good. But Dr K's edit was just too much and teetered over the edge. The lead already says multiple times that TRNC is a self-declared state with a Turkish occupation force. It doesn't need two more nails in that plank--it becomes Greek overkill at that point. (Taivo (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC))
Hi Taivo. It's been such a long time since we last met. It is too bad that we meet under edit-warring circumstances. I do not accept that my edit, accompanied by an eminently reliable source does not qualify as an NPOV edit. In fact undoing a well cited fact such as the one I added is called something else usually. But I will not revert your (wrong) reversion of my edit because I am not interested in edit wars, especially on an edit-war ravaged page such as this. However I added a tag to the claim that this entity is formally known as TRNC. We need a citation for this because the Britannica reference I provided and you erased clearly mentioned it was a unilateral naming of an occupied territory. I am also sure the vast majority of countries which do not recognise this place do not call it TRNC. So we need to know who exactly calls this place formally TRNC. Otherwise we can use the Britannica reference and call it what it actually is; an exercise in self-appellation. Dr.K.λogosπraxis02:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I would certainly welcome something in the lede drawing a bit more attention to the circumstances leading up to the creation of the TRNC. The partitioning of the island and its people didn't happen without warning out of the clear blue, after all. It wouldn't be appropriate to cram the intro with all the details about the generations-long tension between the Greek and Turkish sides in Cyprus, the Turkish Cypriot worries over the intentions of the 1967-1974 military dictatorship in Greece, and the long-standing threats by Turkey to intervene militarily in response to any attempt by Greece to forcibly incorporate Cyprus (which is eventually what happened in 1974). But at least another sentence to help the reader understand a little more about what precipitated the present mess would help. I assume this will probably enrage the current group of critics, but it's clear that they won't be satisfied in any case by anything we're at liberty to do. Any thoughts from anyone on what we could add to the lede to balance it just a bit? Richwales (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Possibly rewriting the first paragraph to read something like this? "Northern Cyprus . . . is a de facto state located in a disputed breakaway territory constituting the northern portion of the island of Cyprus. Long-standing tensions between the ethnic Greek and Turkish Cypriot populations — culminating in 1974 with a coup d'état, an attempt to annex the island to Greece, and a military intervention by Turkey in response — resulted in a partitioning of the island and its inhabitants, and a subsequent unilateral declaration of independence by the north in 1983. The breakaway state has received diplomatic recognition only from Turkey, upon which it is dependent for economic, political and military support. The Greek Cypriot south (the Republic of Cyprus) rejects the legitimacy of the Northern Cyprus government, considers the TRNC to be a Turkish puppet state, and claims de jure sovereignty over the entire island — a position supported by the rest of the international community apart from Turkey, including the United Nations and the European Union."Richwales (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Richwales, personally, I think the lead is well-balanced exactly as it stands. It's got both Greeks and Turks a little perturbed so that is usually a good sign of balance. It's an appropriate summary blend of Greek and Turkish concerns. Dr. K., we've talked about "formally" before on this page and it's quite clear to me that "formally" means its own formal self-designation (just like "Republic of Macedonia")--it's the name in the constitution (which immediately follows "formally"). If you insist on a reference, then I'm sure the constitutional reference can be provided by one of the Turkish Cypriot editors who watch this page (or else it is found later in this article). Here's the problem with your insistence on EB:
The article needs to say A B C D E.
Greek POV says that it's all self-proclaimed.
Turkish POV says that it's a sovereign state.
Encyclopedia Z says "self-proclaimed A B C D sovereign E"; Encyclopedia Y says "A self-proclaimed B C sovereign D E"; Encyclopedia X says "A B self-proclaimed C D E" (we eliminate this one for being POV); Encyclopedia W says "A sovereign B C self-proclaimed D E"; Encyclopedia V says "sovereign A B C D self-proclaimed E". Encyclopedias Z Y W V are all NPOV and reliable sources, but they all place the "self-proclaimed" and "sovereign" modifiers in different places.
Using your reasoning then it would be possible to write a Wikipedia article that says "self-proclaimed A self-proclaimed B self-proclaimed C self-proclaimed D self-proclaimed E" and all be quite reliably referenced. But by picking and choosing which source to cite with each fact you have made a very biased presentation of Greek POV. The same goes for the Turkish POV if we pick and choose which sources to cite with "sovereign" before each fact. That's why I reverted your "self-proclaimed" in the beginning--because it is very clearly stated through the lead paragraph that Greek POV is X and Turkish POV is Y. We don't need to belabor the point endlessly with each statement even though each statement could be reliably sourced in either direction. We have to judge NPOV on the basis of the entire lead paragraph. (Taivo (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC))
Taivo, please; no need for a lesson in combinatorics. These are undisputed facts: The northern part of the island is occupied and the name is self-proclaimed. There will not be a self-respecting encyclopedia that would say otherwise. I understand the idea of an overkill by unduly repeating these facts but the facts, by themselves (i.e. the occupation and the self-naming), are just that: factual and correct and not Greek POV. Dr.K.λogosπraxis03:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
But the lead clearly and unequivocally states that the northern part of the island is occupied and self-proclaimed (as a whole, not just the name) and none of the non-aligned editors are disputing those facts. You could get into the "self-proclaimed" game and state that every single fact about Northern Cyprus is "self-proclaimed", but that is not useful for NPOV. The lead is unequivocal in stating that the state is self-proclaimed and only recognized by Turkey. We don't need to get into the hyperstatement just so that every single sentence declares it. (Taivo (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC))
I do not see where the lede states that the state is self-proclaimed. As far as your last remark about every single sentence declaring the self-proclaimed status, it was completely unnecessary because I just stated above that I do not support an overkill; this means I do not wish to overstate facts. But I am still looking at the lede to find out where the "self-proclamation" hides. Dr.K.λogosπraxis03:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Second sentence: "Northern Cyprus declared its independence in 1983." That's "self-proclaimed". There is no other definition of "self-proclaimed". The U.S. is "self-proclaimed" as well. It means that it declared itself independent. The only difference between the U.S. and Northern Cyprus, is that everyone else (eventually) said, "OK, U.S., we'll agree with you". It doesn't change the "self-proclaimed" aspect at all. If everyone likes RichWales most recent version, it's also very clearly stated. (Taivo (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC))
Well, this is the problem but I simply don't wish to be drawn into the semantics of this mess. I'll just say that "self-proclaimed" sounds less appealing or heroic than "declaring independence" and thus, IMO, it would fit the circumstances much better if we said so explicitly. But it seems the local editors have decided otherwise and I can see the writing on the wall as well as anyone. And this, by the way, is the reason why I rarely get involved in these types of disputes because the arguments back and forth are so utterly predictable as well as intractable and it really makes no sense to participate in them. The only reason I got involved this time is because I started reverting the POV edits of the Greek side. But when I tried my hand at balancing the article I was accused of Greek-POV. I can assure you, I can live without this nonsense. Dr.K.λogosπraxis04:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Saying "unilateral declaration of independence" (as I proposed above) would help emphasize the one-sidedness of it. Yes, I know declarations of independence are generally unilateral by definition, but it still belongs here IMO. Richwales (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
"'self-proclaimed sounds less appealing or heroic". Sorry, Dr. K, but there is no more neutral way to state that a country declared its independence than to say they declared their independence. Yes, it's "self-proclaimed" (as was the U.S. declaration). It's almost always "unilateral" (as was the U.S. declaration). The British felt about the American declaration the same way that the Greeks feel about the Northern Cypriot declaration. A unilateral declaration of independence is always two-sided--those who support and those who oppose. There isn't anything inherently "heroic" about the statement "Northern Cyprus declared its independence". "Northern Cyprus threw off the yoke of its oppressors" is heroic. "Northern Cyprus illegally established its own government" is anti-heroic. "Northern Cyprus declared its independence" is neither--it is the neutral statement of fact, neither an endorsement nor a condemnation. "Unilateral" is fine--it's a neutral descriptor. (And, Dr. K, you should know from previous experience that I'm not a "local editor". I am non-aligned and have probably reverted more Turkish POV here than Greek POV.) (Taivo (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC))
Disputed territory; puppet state; divided capital
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
It is appropriate to refer to the north as a "disputed" breakaway territory, since there are multiple conflicting claims (by the TRNC and by the Republic of Cyprus) to this same piece of land.
It is reasonable to talk about the formation of the TRNC "dividing the island's capital city Nicosia (Lefkoşa)", not only because Nicosia was (and, in some people's view, still is) the capital of the once (and possibly future) united Cyprus, but also because the TRNC uses its portion of the now-divided city as its own capital.
I don't believe anyone is seriously questioning that the RoC government considers the TRNC to be a Turkish puppet state. Saying such a thing does not mean Wikipedia is authoritatively claiming the TRNC is a Turkish puppet state, only that this is the view of the Greek Cypriot government (which is precisely what the text is saying). I think it's reasonable to keep this item in the lede, though I would certainly be in favour of finding a specific source (preferably a non-Greek, non-Turkish source from outside Cyprus) to substantiate it.
I agree with the second and third of your points, Richwales, and I reworded the text to be clearer about the second point. The first point, however, is really a tempest in a teapot because the text was unnecessary. The sentence placed Northern Cyprus in a geographical area of the island--the northern part, but the disputed section was simply extraneous, unnecessary verbage that interfered with the primary point of the sentence--that Northern Cyprus is on the northern part of the island of Cyprus. All that stuff about disputed territory is irrelevant to the point of the sentence so I just deleted it. The sentence is much more natural now. The sovereignty of the state is the disputed part; neither the boundaries (which are clearly delineated with a UN buffer zone) nor general location of Northern Cyprus are disputed. But, as I said, the whole issue isn't relevant as to the geographical location of Northern Cyprus--in the northern third of the island of Cyprus. (Taivo (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC))
I guess I'm OK with taking out the "disputed breakaway territory" language, but only because the last sentence of the opening paragraph indicates that the Republic of Cyprus government objects to the existence of the TRNC and claims sovereignty over the entire island (thus making it clear that there are conflicting claims to this piece of real estate).
I'm also generally OK with the rewritten part of the third paragraph dealing with the UN buffer zone and the division of Nicosia, except that I think it would be better to reword the part saying the buffer zone "stretches between Northern Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus". Greek Cypriots are sure to object to the implication of this wording that the "Republic of Cyprus" constitutes only the southern part of the island — a rejection, I assume they would say, of their claim to the entire island, and an endorsement of the post-1974 "facts on the ground". Perhaps we could instead say that the buffer zone "stretches between Northern Cyprus and the rest of the island"; or "separates the territory claimed by Northern Cyprus from the rest of the island"; or "separates the Turkish and Greek Cypriot populations". Thoughts on this? Richwales (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
"Rest of the island" works well for me. It doesn't endorse anything. I actually considered the problems with "N.Cyprus and Cyprus", but couldn't think of a better wording at the time. I don't think we need to say "territory claimed by" because we've already had a paragraph and a half worth of "claims" discussed. At a certain point it just becomes tedious to the reader. I also like the Turkish and Greek Cypriot variant, but we haven't mentioned the "Cypriots" much at all in the preceding paragraphs, so it might be a bit new for a reader to have to figure out who the different "Cypriots" are at this point. (Taivo (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC))
Cantenbury
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I agree. I've fixed this typo, and I also added a source for the item in question. A request to the anonymous (IP address) editor or editors — please remember to sign your talk page postings by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. This guideline applies to IP editors as well as those who are using accounts. Richwales (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
and the rest of the island
Latest comment: 14 years ago42 comments7 people in discussion
This phrasing is a consensus phrasing that all have agreed to. It should not be changed since any phraseology with "Republic of Cyprus" involved makes the passage sound like the ROC agrees to the division of the island (which it doesn't). "Northern Cyprus and the rest of the island" is the most neutral phrasing without making an overly complicated set of qualifiers that would reduce the readability of the sentence to near zero. (Taivo (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC))
A: "A buffer zone under the control of the United Nations stretches between Northern Cyprus and the rest of the island" vs.
B: "A buffer zone under the control of the United Nations stretches between the de facto territories of Northern Cyprus and Republic of Cyprus"
B is more DEPICTIVE. Also, implies that "North Cyprus's territory is not de jure" and "Republic of Cyprus claims the territory of Northern Cyprus". İlknur sevtapli (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
No, B is not more "depictive", it is more POV. The Republic of Cyprus claims all of the island and does not accept the buffer zone as a valid demarkation, either de jure or de facto. The most accurate and least POV description is A, "between Northern Cyprus and the rest of the island". That way we don't make any claims of either de facto or de jure about the Republic of Cyprus' involvement (the ROC POV) and yet we state the de facto existence of Northern Cyprus (the NC POV). It is the most neutral of the wordings and was discussed above. The current wording of the article is the result of a consensus that was built among several non-aligned editors. Do not change it unless you can build a consensus here on the Talk Page. For the record, I disagree with your edit and consider it to be more POV than the current wording "Northern Cyprus and the rest of the island". (Taivo (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC))
DE FACTO means the real situation, the living situation, the current reality. "A buffer zone under the control of the United Nations stretches between the de facto territories of Northern Cyprus and Republic of Cyprus" is DE FACTO fact. If you do not consider it like that, what is the DE FACTO situation according to you? Also, there is no consensus on "the rest of the island" since this phrase changed by many editors previously. İlknur sevtapli (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Taivo. I think I understand İlknur's concern here, and I recognize that no matter what wording we use, some people will be unhappy. But we need to navigate a middle ground and remain adamantly neutral on questions such as whether the TRNC ought to exist or not, whether the Green Line is an international boundary or just a cease-fire buffer zone, whether the Turkish invasion of 1974 was an unjustified attack or an understandable response to Greek and Greek Cypriot provocation, etc., etc. I support "between Northern Cyprus and the rest of the island" for now — I feel its meaning is very clear (and neutral with respect to the strong disagreements on this subject) — and even though this wording may be equally unacceptable to committed parties on both sides of the conflict, I believe that this is what should remain until and unless a genuine consensus can be built (here, on the talk page) for something else. I do not see myself as an advocate of either side of the Cyprus conflict, and I believe the opening (lede) section of an article should be as succinct as possible while still touching on the main points and remaining balanced. If some editors feel that biased apologists (or dupes) are enforcing truly inappropriate and unfairly biased language here under colour of a pseudo-consensus, I would encourage you to use the various established mechanisms in the Wikipedia community to bring new, thus-far uninvolved, and neutral (or at least open-minded) talent into the discussion. Richwales (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Taivo (wrote above): "The Republic of Cyprus claims all of the island and does not accept the buffer zone as a de facto valid demarkation.". What ROC accepts CANNOT CHANGE the "DE FACTO" of the world and time. There can be only one DE FACTO at a given time/place. And, something DE FACTO is NOT a POV, but the reality, the living fact. İlknur sevtapli (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
As the sentence currently stands, "between Northern Cyprus and the rest of the island" is 100% accurate and is a valid neutral statement--reflecting Northern Cyprus' desire to be granted de facto status and the Republic's desire to be considered the government (both de facto and de jure) of the whole island. That is the definition of NPOV. The majority of editors here, especially the non-aligned editors, are comfortable with that wording. If you want to make a request for comment, then do so. --Taivo (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
1. "A buffer zone under the control of the United Nations stretches BETWEEN NORTHERN CYPRUS AND THE REST OF THE ISLAND" is NOT 100% accurate: When this sentence is written like that, it is clear that "THE REST OF THE ISLAND = UK SOVEREIGN BASE AREAS + DE FACTO TERRITORY OF REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS" is meant. However, THERE IS NO BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN NORTHERN CYPRUS AND UK SOVEREIGN BASE AREAS!. Look at the map of the Cyprus island. 2. You have written "Northern Cyprus' desire to be granted de facto status". You do NOT know the MEANING OF DE FACTO! "Northern Cyprus' does NOT desire to be granted de facto status. Because, Northern Cyprus is already a DE FACTO republic. What "Northern Cyprus' DOES desire is to be granted DE JURE status! İlknur sevtapli (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
@İlknur sevtapli... I am glad you are using the talk page. Please avoid lengthy explanations in the edit summary space, that is why we have the talk page. Thanks. Politis (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
@Politis.... You are right. The edit summaries must be short. Cyprus Issue is very very very difficult to explain with few and simple words unfortunately. Even the politicians are trying to solve it since 1963. I will try to make it as short as possible. İlknur sevtapli (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
THERE IS NO BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN NORTH CYPRUS AND UK SOVEREIGN BASE AREA (DIKELIA). The phrase "the rest of the island" includes "UK SBA" and gives MIS-info that THERE IS BUFFER ZONE BTW NC & UK SBA.) <The truth: "THERE IS NO BUFFER ZONE BTW NC & UK SBA Dikelia. Look at any map of Cyprus island. Google Earth immediately shows what I said!">. The Wiki-user Tavio distorted the TRUTH, and said also there is a consensus. The consensus he mentioned is HIS PSEUDO-CONSENSUS JUST AS RICHWALES INDICATED. İlknur sevtapli (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Richwales said no such thing. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "I agree with Taivo"? You have been reported for edit warring.--Taivo (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Richwales: "...enforcing truly inappropriate and unfairly biased language here under colour of a pseudo-consensus..". Richwales said. You even say Richwales is LIER. Don't accuse me. Look and read what Richwales said above. You, Taivo, CANNOT CHANGE THE TRUTH. Even in the map of Cyprus island in the Wiki-Page of Northern Cyprus, one (except you) can see that THERE IS NO BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN NORTH CYPRUS AND UK SOVEREIGN BASE AREA (DIKELIA). Will you BAN THE GOOGLE EARTH AND OTHER MAPS? Continue, continue, ...İlknur sevtapli (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that you reread that sentence. He wasn't talking about me, but how you might feel if. His first comment was absolutely definitive: "I agree with Taivo". He was saying later that if you feel that no consensus has been reached, then you should seek other comments from non-aligned editors. Richwales has changed your text back to "rest of the island" just as I have. Don't manipulate his words just for your own benefit. (Taivo (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC))
I am not going to further contribute to your POV edit war. That does not mean that I agree with your edit. Your edit is POV and the previous wording was NPOV. If you don't like it, then you can seek comments from other editors. (Taivo (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC))
Taivio: “A buffer zone under the control of the United Nations stretches between Northern Cyprus and the rest of the island”
MEANS
“A buffer zone under the control of the United Nations stretches between Northern Cyprus and <YOUR ENTITY + UK SOVEREIGN BASE AREAS Dikelia and Akrotiri>”
WHICH IS SUB-EQUIVALENT TO
“A buffer zone under the control of the United Nations stretches between Northern Cyprus and <UK SOVEREIGN BASE AREA Dikelia>”
WHICH IS NOT THE TRUTH:
The above is via simple LOGIC. I wonder what you think to above the arguement. If you make a plausible explaination, I will immediately remove my edit in the article. İlknur sevtapli (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
You completely fail to understand the nature of Wikipedia and the consensus process. First, the consensus process means that when the majority of editors agree on a point, then the dissenting editor must either relent or change the minds of the other editors BEFORE inserting your own disputed text into the article. Richwales and I agree that "and the rest of the island" is the best wording. You have changed neither of our minds, so you must change your wording until you change our minds. Second, Wikipedia runs on a neutral point of view. We cannot endorse either the POV of Northern Cyprus (your POV that the buffer zone separates two states, whether de facto or de jure), nor the POV of the Republic of Cyprus (that the buffer zone just surrounds a part of the island that is rightfully theirs and does not separate two states). Your wording, "between Northern Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus" is an endorsement of the Northern Cyprus POV that there are two states here. That goes against the ROC POV and is objectionable. A Republic of Cyprus POV might word it "the buffer zone divides the Republic of Cyprus into Turkish-controlled areas and Greek-controlled areas", making no note of Northern Cyprus. Thus, in "between Northern Cyprus and the rest of the island", we have a neutral statement that 1) recognizes Northern Cyprus in a de facto manner, but 2) does not imply that the Republic of Cyprus consists only of the part of the island that is not Turkish controlled. Wikipedia MUST take into account BOTH POVs, not just one or the other. Your version is strongly Northern Cyprus oriented and is unacceptable for NPOV purposes. Revert it back to "the rest of the island" because that is the most neutral wording and fulfills the requirements of Wikipedia. Your wikilawyering about the British bases is rather slim reasoning to violate Wikipedia's strict NPOV policies. --Taivo (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
My 17 May 2010 18:55 edit: “…streches between DE FACTO TERRITORIES OF NORTHERN CYPRUS AND REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS”. This does NOT violate any of your points: 1) recognizes Northern Cyprus in a de facto manner 2) does not imply that the Republic of Cyprus consists only of the part of the island that is not Turkish controlled. i.e. does NOT say UN Buffer Zone streches between Northern Cyprus and "DE JURE" ROC and thereby keeps the claim of ROC over Northern Cyprus. Somebody (not me) deleted the phrase "DE FACTO TERRITORIES", and wrote "…streches between NORTHERN CYPRUS AND REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS". This violated your 2nd POV consideration. If the phrase DE FACTO is better understood by the sides, and if the phrase “DE FACTO TERRITORIES” added, then clearly this will better depict the situation. You can also add the claim of ROC over Northern Cyprus after this sentence in the article. That is no problem for the sides. İlknur sevtapli (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: Your sockpuppetry claim when you lack justification of your edits is not fair. Should I look at your IP and say "You are sockpuppet" when I am disproven? Is this fair? Clearly, there is NO UN Buffer Zone between NORTH CYPRUS AND UK SBA Dikelia. And, your edit clearly implies "there IS a UN Buffer Zone between NORTH CYPRUS AND UK SBA Dikelia". Distorting the issue to the sockpuppetry is not fair behaviour, according to me. 83.66.22.10 (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, you didn't read my comment about Wikipedia practice and policy. That is the justification for Richwales and my position, which is the consensus opinion of the non-aligned editors (you are not non-aligned). The evidence is clear that you might be a sockpuppet of Justice Forever. An admin will investigate. If you are not a sockpuppet, then you will be cleared. If you are a sockpuppet then you will be indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC))
Taivo (your edit implies): "There IS a UN Buffer Zone between Northern Cyprus and UK SBA Dikelia"; Me: "There is NO UN Buffer Zone between Northern Cyprus and UK SBA Dikelia". There can be only one TRUTH about this. Do not you think so? Also, again, cheating the game of Wikipedia is not a fair behavior. Continueing to cheat whenever disproven is not ethical, at least for me. İlknur sevtapli (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
There's no "cheating" and this isn't a "game". The unequivocal evidence points to the possibility that you are a sockpuppet of User:Justice Forever. There's no debating the circumstantial evidence. Do you have counterevidence that the IP you are using hasn't pointed to Justice Forever? No, you don't. --Taivo (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
There have now been three different editors who have reverted your edits. When will you get the point that the text "Northern Cyprus and the rest of the island" is the best, most neutral version? --Taivo (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Look at my logic through my edits. (One sample is above for you!). I do NOT believe one can have the same logic as me, whoever s/he is, juticeforever or someone else. Also, you accuse me everyday with a different violation: [1]. 17.05.2010: You accused me WP:3RR, 18.05.2010: Sockpuppetry, 19.05.2010: Tomorrow, by what, will you accuse me? İlknur sevtapli (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The most important principle of Wikipedia is of consensus. You have violated that principle multiple times now, Ilknur. Three different editors have changed your text back to "and the rest of the island". It doesn't matter whether you think you are right or not, the rest of us prefer the wording "and the rest of the island". In the end, consensus will win out because that is the way that Wikipedia operates. (Taivo (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC))
Taivo (wrote above): ... It doesn't matter whether you think you are right or not, the ... = It doesn't matter whether you give the CORRECT INFO.
Taivio: "A buffer zone under the control of the United Nations stretches between Northern Cyprus and the rest of the island"
MEANS
"A buffer zone under the control of the United Nations stretches between Northern Cyprus and <ENTITY + UK SOVEREIGN BASE AREAS Dikelia and Akrotiri>"
WHICH IS SUB-EQUIVALENT TO
"A buffer zone under the control of the United Nations stretches between Northern Cyprus and <UK SOVEREIGN BASE AREA Dikelia>"
Dr. K. wrote in the edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by İlknur sevtapli; Clearly WP:UNDUE. Cyprus is a legal, contiguous state. You cannot undo that on SMALL TECHNICALITIES. And please stop the shouting.. "
The UN Buffer Zone is NOT a CONTIGUOUS region. There is NO Buffer Zone between NORTH CYPRUS and UK SBA Dikelia. Is this a SMALL TECHNICALITY??? İlknur sevtapli (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
No one is taking seriously your argument that the British base somehow proves that "rest of the island" is inaccurate. It is a clear case of WP:UNDUE. The consensus of editors is against your argument. You may think it's logical, but we think it is trivial. You can shout all you want, but you're guilty of edit warring and may be guilty of sock puppetry. An admin will look at the report of your edit warring that I filed and might either block or ban you for your misbehavior. We'll see what happens. But even if nothing happens, the consensus of opinion is against you and the text "and the rest of the island" will resurface as the preferred one. --Taivo (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Dr. K. saw the incorrectness of "and the rest of the island" and qualified the situation as "SMALL TECHNICALITY". This means and the rest of the island CLEARLY VIOLATES THE REALITY, FACT, TRUTH THAT There is NO BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN NORTHERN CYPRUS AND UK SBA Dikelia. This violation (and wrong info) may be small thing for him, but very important for many. WIKIPEDIA CANNOT INCLUDE WRONG INFOS!. İlknur sevtapli (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
"A buffer zone under the control of the United Nations stretches between Northern Cyprus and the rest of the island" indicates BUFFER ZONE IS IN THE SOUTH OF NORTH CYPRUS AND IT IS CONTIGOUS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE ISLAND. This is false. See the map.İlknur sevtapli (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of the introductory (lede) section of an article is to provide a concise, general summary. It may not (and generally will not) be possible to achieve utterly 100%, nit-picking precision when attempting to summarize an involved, complex subject in one or two sentences. I believe we are all open to good-faith discussion regarding the best way to describe the UN buffer zone, but such discussion needs to be calm, reasoned, constructive, and not only neutral, but seen to be neutral. Until new wording of this sort has been agreed by a genuine consensus, I believe "between Northern Cyprus and the rest of the island" should stay, and I would suggest that persistent attempts to change that wording in defiance of the existing consensus are unlikely to be seen as indicative of good-faith editing practices. Richwales (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree and I add that giving such prominence to the minutiae of the two bases is a prime example of WP:UNDUE and WP:POINT. Further to use the extraterritoriality of the bases to claim that the host country is not a contiguous state is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH at its worst. Dr.K.λogosπraxis17:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry it had to be done, but I agree 100% that persistent tendentious editing with no intention of working toward consensus is not acceptable, and evasion of bans via sockpuppetry is especially not acceptable. Sadly, this sort of activity does more harm than good to the banned user's cause, because it prejudices honest editors' views against the person's viewpoint, and it also casts a cloud of suspicion over legitimate editors who might feel the banned user's positions (if not his/her methods) have some merit. Richwales (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
While I deeply respect your sensitivity to the issues involved and your desire to be even-handed I don't think that anyone's cause is relevant here. The mere presence of a cause, is a cause for alarm (please forgive the pun). In an encyclopedia there is no place for causes, for obvious reasons. As far as the banned user's views having merit, it depends on how far one wishes to go to account for every square centimetre of Cyprus' area. And that, in itself, is indicative of how unduly preoccupied this, now banned, user was with such minutiae, clearly falling under WP:UNDUE and not belonging in the WP:LEDE. Dr.K.λogosπraxis19:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear or sloppy in my phrasing. I was referring to the banned editor's "pro-Turkish" viewpoint in general. The specific issue of his/her picking nits over a precise, legalistic description of the Green Line in the lede was just plain silly to the point of being disruptive (IMO) — but I do believe it's appropriate to make sure that both pro-Turkish and pro-Greek views are fairly acknowledged and given due weight. And I think we're doing that in this article's lede now. There will surely be ardent nationalists on both sides who will insist that anything that doesn't agree 100% with their POV is horribly biased the other way, but we obviously can't (and shouldn't) go along with their demands. Richwales (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you. In a situation as historically involved and complicated as this no one can really be completely happy with any proposed version. Dr.K.λogosπraxis20:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
