Talk:Representative Office of Northern Cyprus to the United States

Legally cannot be described as a diplomatic mission

Legally the representative office in the United States is a commercial entity and the staff do not have diplomatic visas (they are using business visas). The commercial entity is passing itself off as a diplomatic mission. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note duplication

There is a Wikipedia page for: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office to the United States

and there is a Wikipedia page for: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office in New York

The same subject with different titles. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

IP31.153 just beat me to doing the necessary corrections. I think these comments are useful anyway:

Firstly, the result of the case was presented with what seems to be quotes from the court ruling, but without even mentioning the central fact that the case was dismissed. This gives a completely wrong picture of what the court actually said.

Secondly, the quotes were not from the court ruling, but from the comment in the "Courthouse News Service". This is absolutely a reliable source, but it is not part of the court ruling. When stating - with quotation marks - that the court "decided that '... Greek Cypriots cannot ...' " etc., pretending to cite from the court ruling, it is simply not true.

Thirdly, some words were highlighted with italics, but this is not done in any of the sources. The words "cannot claim here" and "not vulnerable" are not even used in the court ruling, only in the CNS comments (and the words "democratic republic" are actually put between quotation marks in the court ruling, albeit not in the CNS comments). The highlighting can only be considered as heavy POV-pushing.

All in all, the presentation was a gross misrepresentation of the court ruling. Regards! --T*U (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This has reached the level of trolling. Please see also my reply at talk:Northern Cyprus. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

And what is most worrisome about this, is that this SPA shows no signs of understanding of what he is being told. Observe his edit on Modern History of Cyprus on 14 October and his edit on the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office to the United States on 27 October, where he spams the largely identical text: In 13 October 2014, United States federal court ruled that "..Greek Cypriots cannot claim that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots....Although the United States does not recognize it as a state, the TRNC purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary...TRNC is not vulnerable to a lawsuit in Washington". despite being told by T*U on on his talkpage on the 15th of October that this text is a gross misrepresentation. In all my years here I have never witnessed such obtuse obstinacy, except by socks of Justice Forever. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm still repairing the damage he's done to quite a significant number of articles of villages and towns in Northern Cyprus. [1] (Here, he's changed the district in the RoC to Kyrenia, though Karavostasi is nowhere near there. And he's made sure there's no mention of the RoC in the lede.) I think I've been at it for a month now. But I digress. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is plain misinformation. Thank you IP editor for your corrections. Please let me know if you encounter any problems. I'll keep an eye on this in any case. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

T*U: "The words "cannot claim here" and "not vulnerable" are not even used in the court ruling, only in the CNS comments".

AF: Dear T*U, this does not change the fact that there are completely mutatis mutandis same expressions in this meaning in Court's decision:

P.4: "the Court concludes that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the TRNC"

"The Court finds that it cannot exercise either general or specific personal jurisdiction over TRNC."

"The Court also notes that it is unlikely the TRNC has the capacity to be sued for state law claims in the District of Columbia".

So, all in all, you distort the realities when it does not suit you. For example, the case was on "Cyprus dispute" article since 2011. But, when Greek Cypriots lost the case, you immediately removed the case from "Cyprus dispute" article! Is this your neutrality?Alexyflemming (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Very good: You have now quoted correctly from the court decision, showing that you understand that the decision was about jurisdiction. That does not, however, change the fact that your original suggested addition was misrepresenting the sources, bordering on plain dishonesty, by: 1) not mentioning that the case was dismissed; 2) using quotation marks to indicate that the court decision was quoted, when it was not; and 3) adding italics to a quote were no italics were used in the original. (And by the way, I did not remove the case from "Cyprus dispute".) --T*U (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 8 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed. Ran for 17 days. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office to the United States → Representative Office of Northern Cyprus to the United States – The extral official bearing "Turkish Republic of-" is too long, and I might take look at WP:CONCISE so, why not? BoyHayHay (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2022 (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.