Template talk:Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus

The Representative Offices of Northern Cyprus in the United States

Neither of the two representative offices of the "TRNC" are conducting "Foreign relations" in any diplomatic capacity with the United States or the United Nations. The two representative offices are a commercial entity. All the staff have business visas and none of them have diplomatic visas. They are purporting to represent "Foreign relations" that do not exist since no diplomatic conversations or relations are going on in any capacity between either of these offices and the United States or the United Nations. Therefore to include them on this template is misrepresenting what they are actually doing. To include them in this template passes off a diplomatic status that does not exist. There are no Foreign relations going on between Northern Cyprus and the United States or the United Nations. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This whole template is about relations that are conducted in other than the normal diplomatically recognised way. The first entry in that same template rubric, List of diplomatic missions of Northern Cyprus , states it quite clearly: all of them (except those in Turkey) are unrecognised, but that's just the way this state works. It's no different for List of diplomatic missions of the Republic of China. The TRNC offices in the US are within the scope of this template in just the same way as all the other entries are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Then the title of the template needs to be changed since the foreign relations are limited to "between Turkey and Northern Cyprus". There are no foreign relations. Northern Cyprus is an annexe of the Republic of Turkey. It is an occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus that is not conducting foreign relations with anywhere. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No. It's a de-facto state, and it does conduct some form of foreign relations, only not through the normal diplomatic channels. The fact that those offices exist is sufficient proof of it: if their host nations didn't wish to conduct this form of off-the-record quasi-diplomatic contact with the TNRC, they'd simply close them down, wouldn't they? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"De-facto" means that it is not a state. The representative offices are commercial entities that are not conducting foreign diplomatic relations anywhere outside of what is going on between Turkey and the northern part of Cyprus. Yes, they will be closed as a result of the pending Class Action. They will have to be closed because Turkey won't be able to afford to pay their staff as a result of the Class Action. There is no "off-the-record quasi-diplomatic contact with the TRNC". The opposite is true. It is on the record that there are no foreign diplomatic relations between northern Cyprus and the United States (ditto the United Nations). Therefore the title of this template must be changed and must exclude the words "foreign relations" because it is misleading and it is passing-off the "TRNC" as a "state" with "foreign relations" when neither the "state" or the "foreign relations" exist. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Robustness of the Template

The followings were changed without any consensus.
1. "Europe" was removed and instead of that " Foreign Relations" was put.
HOWEVER: The name of the template is "Foreign relations...", and hence numberings/bullets are just sub-headings of "Foreign relations...".
2. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) was removed.
HOWEVER: The Turkish Cypriot Representatives of PACE are elected IN THE ASSEMBLY OF NORTHERN CYPRUS! Hence, PACE is relevant.
3. The heading "Disputes" was removed and instead of that "Cyprus dispute" was put.
However: "Cyprus dispute" is not the only dispute in Foreign Relations of Northern Cyprus!
4. List of diplomatic missions of / in Northern Cyprus (Turkish embassy etc.) was removed.
HOWEVER: This shows an obvious bothersome for some about the existence of Representations of Northern Cyprus all over the world.
5. The Agreements (Zürich and London Agreement etc.) of the People of Northern Cyprus was removed.
HOWEVER: TRNC did not exist in a second in 1983. The people of 1983-TRNC are the same people of 1571-1983-Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus island.
The agreements are based on each other to some extent. Hence, must be protected.
6. Entities of Turkish Cypriots of Northern Cyprus were removed.
The entities clearly shows the process of current situation in Cyprus island, and a nice indicator.
7. "Coat of arms of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" was removed.
HOWEVER: In the template related with Northern Cyprus, the existence of the relevant symbols should be placed. In the "Foreign Relations of..." templates of France, Turkey, Greece, Germany etc. the "coat of arms of the country" are always put to the templates. In the template "Foreign Relations of Cyprus", "coat of arms" is missing. However, "existence/non-existence of coat of arms of Cyprus" is irrelevant with "existence/non-existence of coat of arms of Northern Cyprus". The absence of "coat of arms" in the template "Foreign relation of Cyprus" does not justify the same will apply to the template "Foreign relation of Northern Cyprus"!Alexyflemming (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Somehow you forgot to mention that the "robust" version of the template that Lfdder reverted were your own additions. After your bold edit and Lfedder's revert, the next step is not to readd your changes, but to discuss in order to create consensus for your changes. I will revert to the version before your changes, which looks good to me. That also means to reinsert the coat of arms, which seems to be standard in these templates. If you want to make changes to the structure and the content of the template, please propose your changes in talk page. --T*U (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Template was good enough before the meddlers meddled in. If we omit the standards of Wikipedia, we reach nowhere. The reverting is extended to the coat of arms. Hence, awayed from "good faith" edits. Those who chnaged the structure and the content of the template should have obtained consensus at first.

One other thing you miss is that you find illogical the template contain pre-1983 events. This is wrong. See Cyprus history for example. Almost none of the presentations of Cyprus history starts with 1960.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"The Template was good enough before the meddlers meddled in." The only "meddling" that has been done since 2013 is your additions, which have been reverted, so it is your edits we discuss. "The reverting is extended to the coat of arms." Yes, the CoA was removed by Lfdder, but I had reinstated it in my last edit. "Those who chnaged the structure and the content of the template should have obtained consensus at first." Yes, it you and only you, that have wanted to change the structure and the content since February 2013, and since other people have disagreed, it is now up to you to seek consensus for a change. --T*U (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of the vandalists insist not to obey the fairness of the Wikipedia platform. They want to delete everything related with Northern Cyprus. For example, 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration was offered to be deleted. The Wikipedia Admins rejected the requests. Those vandals did not obey the decisions of Wikipedia Administrators and hence regarded them as if they are animal. I struggled with them, and will struggle as well.Alexyflemming (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is removing the coat of arms not a 'good faith' edit? — Lfdder (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Because, in "Foreign Relations of ..." templates of other countries, the "Coat of Arms" are supplied in general. The country "Northern Cyprus" has a "Coat of Arms" and hence its deletion from the template is vandalism.Alexyflemming (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There's less holes in Swiss cheese. — Lfdder (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The number of items in Template:Foreign relations of Cyprus far exceeds that of Template:Foreign relations of Northern CyprusAlexyflemming (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Go on. — Lfdder (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The number of items in Template:Foreign relations of Cyprus: 33; The number of items in Template:Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus:19. The former one is far exceeds the latter!Alexyflemming (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Aaaaaand.... — Lfdder (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Template BEFORE The Edit		The Template AFTER The Edit
Europe	European Union Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)	Europe	Council of Europe (PACE) * European Union * Turkey
Disputes	Cyprus dispute Intercommunal violence Turkish invasion Refugees Annan Plan	Missions	List of diplomatic missions of / in Northern Cyprus
United Nations	Green Line Buffer zone Peacekeeping force	-	-
Missions	List of diplomatic missions of / in Northern Cyprus Turkish embassy	-	-
Agreements	Zürich and London Agreement (1959) Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots (1975) 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration	-	-
Entities and misc.	Provisional Turkish Cypriot Administration (1967) Turkish Federated State of Cyprus (1975) Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (1983) Turkish Cypriot State (2004) Turkish Cypriot diaspora	-	-

NOTE: BEFORE-version also includes "Coat of arms of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus".
Will you get relaxed and feel good if you delete EVERYTHING related with Northern Cyprus? Seems so!
If this is not vandalism, I will change my name! Alexyflemming (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I try to improve things in the way I see best. You see things differently. We disagree. That does not make me a vandal. See WP:NOTVANDALISM. — Lfdder (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If anyone suspects an editor of being a vandal the only option available is to report them at the administrators' noticeboard for vandalism. Any other use of the vandal epithet against a good-faith editor is an attempt at intimidation, in breach of the civility policy and the no personal attacks policy and will be reported. Further, comments such as:

Those vandals did not obey the decisions of Wikipedia Administrators and hence regarded them as if they are animal. I struggled with them, and will struggle as well.

are gross breaches of civility and betray a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Needless to say they have to stop. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the template?

For the moment the template is back to a version that has been relatively stable since it was created in 2008, minus the external link that should not be there per WP:Navbox (and besides was dead). This must be the starting point for any suggestions for additions, changes to the structure etc. (or removals, as the case may be). Please propose the changes in such a way that it is possible to discuss them separately. Even if I oppose most of the changes that has been suggested, I could support some of them. --T*U (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)