Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish settlement

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. John Reaves (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish settlement

Turkish settlement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Simply a POV Fork of Cyprus dispute. The title of the article might be original research, the content contains two paragraphs about the property disputes in the Cyprus dispute, however not clear how they qualify under "Turkish settlement". Delete, and merge (if possible) any meaningful content to Cyprus dispute. Baristarim 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as nominator. Baristarim 01:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because it's a clear POV fork. The parent article has problems, too, but that's not for this discussion. YechielMan 02:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable subject that acquires a topic of its own. --Mardavich 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I invite any of the keep voters to point to the use of "Turkish settlement" in referring to the Cyprus dispute - otherwise it is nothing but original research. Baristarim 21:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The Turkish settlement is one of the top issues of the Cyprus dispute, but not only. I would go for a redirect to a subheading with the same title within the Cyprus dispute article, but until then... NikoSilver 12:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It might be notable, but it is a fork.. Baristarim 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I fail to see the POV of the title. Settlers and settlements do exist. And I do know that there is a series of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights vindicating Greek-Cypriot citizens having lost their property. And the fact that the government of the Republic of Cyprus accepts in the not-occupied territoty of Cyprus Turkish-Cypriots but not settlers who came to Cyprus later proves their existence.--Yannismarou 12:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• And when there is a recommendation by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe named Colonisation by Turkish settlers of the occupied part of Cyprus ... well ... I don't think that anybody here can question notability.
  

Let's see some of what this Recommendation says: "It is a well-established fact that the demographic structure of the island has been continuously modified since its de facto partition in 1974, as a result of the deliberate policies of the Turkish Cypriot administration and Turkey. Despite the lack of consensus on the exact figures, all parties concerned admit that Turkish nationals have since been systematically arriving in the northern part of the island. According to reliable estimates, their number currently totals 115 000." "The settlers come mainly from the region of Anatolia, one of the least developed regions of Turkey. Their customs and traditions differ significantly from those present in Cyprus. These differences are the main cause of the tensions and dissatisfaction of the indigenous Turkish Cypriot population, who tend to view the settlers as a foreign element" "In particular, the Assembly expresses its concern at the continuous outflow of the indigenous Turkish Cypriot population from the northern part of the island. Their number decreased from 118 000 in 1974 to an estimated 87 600 in 2001. In consequence, the settlers outnumber the indigenous Turkish Cypriot population in the northern part." "In the light of the information available, the Assembly cannot accept the claims that the majority of arriving Turkish nationals are seasonal workers or former inhabitants who had left the island before 1974. Therefore it condemns the policy of “naturalisation” designed to encourage new arrivals which was introduced by the Turkish Cypriot administration with the full support of the Government of Turkey."

I think that this very important political document could also prompt the further improvement of this notable article.--Yannismarou 12:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a WP:FORK - merge any meaningful content to Cyprus dispute. What is going on guys? Baristarim 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. If there can be a comprehensive page detailing Israeli Settlements, why not Turkish ones? Chesdovi 13:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Yannismarou. This TR POV pushing is outrageous; these settlements do exist, denying that would like denying the Chinese settlements in Tibet and the Israeli settlements in the West Bank etc. [due to edit conflict]: Thanks to Chesdovi for also raising the issue.--Domitius 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I can't think of a single non-politically motive for suggesting deletion. As Domitius said those events are factual, someone who wants to remove them can only have a biased agenda. Miskin 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the rhetoric to a minimum please and watch for NPA. "Israeli settlements" are commonly used in English by major news organizations. I invite any of the keep voters to point to the use of "Turkish settlement" in referring to the Cyprus dispute - otherwise it is nothing but original research and part of a lame pie-throwing contest; likes of which, I had thought, were over already between Turkish and Greek users. Baristarim 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Another political documents treating the issue of Turkish settlers: RESOLUTION 10.3.1988 of the European Parliament: "Expects the Foreign Ministers meeting in political cooperation simultaneously to put pressure on the Turkish government, which is linked to the EEC by an association agreement and is an applicant for membership, to draw up a precise timetable for the withdrawal of its troops, in accordance with the proposals made by the UN SecretaryGeneral, and that of the Turkish settlers ..."
• I would also like to remind everybody here that the issue of settlers was the main reason the Greek Cypriot side and the Republic of Cyprus rejected the Annan Plan. See this report by Associated Press.--Yannismarou 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Settlers" NOT "Turkish settlements" - WP:OR is clearly at issue for the title. It is not clear what the title implies, nor what its usage is. "Israeli settlements" are commonly used in English by major news organizations. I invite any of the keep voters to point to the use of "Turkish settlement" in referring to the Cyprus dispute - otherwise it is nothing but original research and part of a lame pie-throwing contest; likes of which, I had thought, were over already between Turkish and Greek users. Nobody is stopping anyone from developping the Cyprus dispute. Baristarim 21:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. This is a part of Cyprus dispute, i'd ask kindly that the editors do not introduce yet another pov ridden and controversial article which is covered somewhere else. --A.Garnet 14:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Obviously the resolutions above are also "POV ridden" and "contrversial". Well, after deleting the article, we'll also get rid of them.--Yannismarou 15:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to the state of this article. The sources can be applied somewhere else. --A.Garnet 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, then name me the "POV ridden" claims of the article. Although I believe that the resolutions I mentioned above are more harsh than the article itself towards the phainomenon of Turkish settlement.--Yannismarou 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The article first makes the claim that "Turkish settlements are communities established by Turkey", as if Turkey is somehow the Ottoman Empire passing a decree to establish overseas colonies. The use of word colonisation again portrays Turkey as orchestrating the movement of Turkish migrants. Turkey does not decide who goes to Cyprus, many Turks go to work over summer in the tourist season and return. Those who do stay are required to have a work permit. But this article does not seem concerned with these details, only in portraying Turkey in a certain light. Furthermore, the article says "such settlements currently exist..." as if this is a common phenomena regarding Turkey, when in fact this an aspect specifically related to the Cyprus problem. These are problems within a few lines, I dont expect this article to get better as it grows in size, but rather become another ugly Cyprus article. --A.Garnet 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Responses to your arguments:

• The settlers are coming from Turkey. Tyrkey allows them to settle in Northern Cyprus by allowing them to go there. If Turkey wanted to impede this phainomenon, it would have done it. Therefore, Turkey may not be Ottoman Empire, but it is a sovereign state tolerating this situation, and showing no will to reverse it. I thus believe that the verb "established" pictures with characteristic accuracy the present situation. After all, if it was not Turkey that "established" the settlement, then why are the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament asking Turkey, in particular, to resolve the problem. I'm afraid, Garnet, that once again your problem is not with the article, but with the clear and sound resolutions of European Organizations and with the publications of UN. And, unfortunately, I can't help with that problem.
• The noun "colonisation" is again a NPOV term, also used by the Parliamentary Assembly of the COuncil of Europe. Unless you think, of course, that the great majority of this Parliament, and, therefore, the great majority of the population of Europe are biased against Turkey in this particular issue. But again this is your personal belief and impression. Official documents matter, and official documents of international organization are crystal clear about the ongoing colonisation of occupied Cyprus by Turkey.
• I fail to understand your third point. It would be helpful if you could be a bit more clear and specific, so that I can give an accurate answer. Such settlements do exist in Northern Cyprus, their existence is confirmed by all the international organizations, and it is Turkey which is held responsible for their existence. What is exactly your problem here?--Yannismarou 09:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We do not base articles on parliamentary or any political resolution. This is an encylopedia, we create academic articles based on scholarly research. Resolutions are fine for expressing support for one point of view, but they should not be the basis of any article. To be honest though Yannis, I have given up caring, this article will stay, it will be poor and ugly like a lot of other Cyprus related articles and that will be that. --A.Garnet 10:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We search all available verifiable sources. That is why we also search news reports, which are not strictly part of what you call "scholarly research".--Yannismarou 11:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete pov fork ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Great idea for an article; needs expanding. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I would like to closing administrator to note that - of the keep votes (as of now) one is from the creator of the article (User:Chesdovi), and the rest from Greek users who have engaged on many occasions in edit-warring and disputes with Turkish users, me included. I really had thought that at least for the TR-GR users this was over, but I was wrong. Article's title is WP:OR, and a FORK - merge any meaningful content to Cyprus dispute and develop the content there - what is the big deal, really? Baristarim 21:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment So what are Turkish settlements, anywhere in Cyprus, where there is a Turkish flag? Then I don't think there are that many. deniz^T_C 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So, there is are no Turkish settlements anywhere but where the Turkish flag is flown? No Turkish settlements in Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Albania, or anywhere else, right? Carlossuarez46 23:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The picture on the page was some mosque with a Turkish flag (in Cyprus). I thought it was related to settlements, maybe it's not. So, then what are these settlements? In those Balkan countries we might have some "ghetto"s where Turkish people live and have lived for many hundred years (by the way, are they still called settlers?) Are the Turkish settlements in Cyprus ghettos of people from Turkey? I would rather guess that they would blend in, spread kinda uniformly among the 'original' Turkish Cypriots, not build some ghettos. Are they house by house, like any house owned by a settler is a settlement? What about the students? I think the first sentence of the article might be wrong, it should read "after the invasion" not "established by Turkey". I don't think Turkey established any ghettos there. deniz^T_C 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Settlements aren't necessarily inhabited by "settlers" in the sense of migrants. I assume you live in a settlement, which the United Nations uses to refer to any inhabited place. See the long discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) and its talk page. Since "Turkish" is both a nationality (you can have a Turkish passport and be of e.g. Greek, Armenian, Arab, Jewish, or Kurdish ethnicity) and an ethnicity (you can be ethnically Turkish and hold e.g., a Bosnian, Russian, or US passport), the use of Turkish to modify settlement in the context of Cyprus could well mean settlements in Cyprus inhabited by people of Turkish ethnicity or with Turkish passports. Based on the sources, these groups largely overlap anyway. Carlossuarez46 01:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I am sorry, but that would be our own interpretation as to what it means. Wikipedia transmits knowledge that exists: it is not a place to interpret information: No-one has been able to show where in the English language "Turkish settlement(s)" is used when referring to the Cyprus dispute, and especially not in the major news media - no such sources have been brought. Please see WP:OR - not to mention Fork issues with Cyprus dispute + Most common name policy. Baristarim 01:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, there is no need to have two separate POV names for the same territory. --FateClub 23:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but perhaps rename to Turkish settlement in Cyprus per the above and the deletionists seem to be pushing a POV. Carlossuarez46 23:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you explain how it is not a fork of Cyprus dispute and also produce any major news media release mentioning the expression "Turkish settlement"? "Israeli settlements" are regularly used by every news organization in the world, however this is not and poses WP:OR problems, on top of WP:fork.. And deletionists seem to pushing what POV precisely? (as of now) of the five delete votes, three were from non-Turks and two from Turks, am I missing something? Baristarim 01:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, do not redirect, it is too generic term. Pavel Vozenilek 06:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete;Must.^{T C} 07:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC).. Per nomination.
• Update. I expanded and cited the article. The first section needs the editing of editors with better sources to Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot sources, whom I invite to contribute. As far as the title is concerned, personally I believe that a renaming like the one proposed above by Carlossuarez46 (Turkish settlement in Cyprus or Turkish settlers in Cyprus) would be nice.--Yannismarou 12:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete see below Rename to Turkish settlers in Cyprus (if it's only about the new immigrants) or Redirect to TRNC (if 'settlers' before 1974 will also be included) or . Basically clarify the definition first. deniz^T_C 20:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pavel (term is too vague and ambiguous) and merge whatever information is relevant into the appropriate articles. Khorshid 04:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is a fact that settlements do exist in Northern Cyprus and by deleting this article would not chnage anything. It is very informtive about the topic. Although there might be some POV in the article it should be fixed, but not delete the whole article. ROOB323 09:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can be give me a name of these "settlements" in Northern Cyprus if they are such a fact? If you people are going to draw connotations with Israeli settlements i.e. the creation of new towns and villages to accomodate settlers, then i'd like to know their names. --A.Garnet 09:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Usurping the homes and properties of the Greek Cypriots negated the need for that, wouldn't you agree? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that's rhetoric and such interpretations will simply stay ours. Nearly all impartial voters have agreed that this article was a fork, and it still hasn't been shown where in the English language the term "Turkish settlement" has been used - I can easily do a Google search for "Israel settlements", or in any major news agency's web-site and get hundreds of thousands of hits. None of the keep voters still hasn't been able to show news releases et al where such an expression is used - let alone bring sources per WP:ATT that show or name any of these "Turkish settlement". The title has WP:OR problems, and the article is a WP:FORK of Cyprus dispute. I don't get what the big deal is really, no-one is saying that the content should be deleted. However, you surely must see the OR and Fork problems of this article? Baristarim 16:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Rhetoric? Interpretations? You're not seriously denying that settlers were brought in from Turkey to alter the island's demographic balance after 1974, and occupy properties whose title deeds belong to Greek Cypriots? I simply can't fathom why the Turkish editors are getting their knickers into a knot over such petty semantics. Turkish settlement doesn't have to refer to specific locations - although it could well do - it is an also an abstract noun referring to the indisputable act of bringing in those settlers in the first place. Simple English, really. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not denying or confirming anything, however please bring sources per WP:ATT that attest to such a usage in the English language, otherwise it is WP:OR. Baristarim 16:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That Turkish settlement has taken place on Cyprus? You're kidding me, right? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That "Turkish settlement" as a term is used in the English language like "Israeli settlements" (which was the first line of argument and analogy by the keep voters) - if not, what the term means will be OR since Turkish settlement can also refer to Turkish neighborhoods in Berlin etc. Can you please bring per WP:ATT sources that attest that a) The term "Turkish settlement" is used in the English language and b) moreover, that there is an overwhelming concensus in the English language usage that it refers to the Cyprus dispute. You say "Israeli settlements" to any English language speaker, and they will understand what you are referring to, however you say "Turkish settlement" and they will not understand what you are talking about. Come on, prove me wrong: Bring sources per WP:ATT that attest to such a usage in English, and especially in the news media et al. I am sorry Kekrops, but please do not continue this conversation unless you can address the issues raised. All impartial users have agreed that this was a fork, and you still haven't produced any of the sources I asked for above. Baristarim 17:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said, please do not assume bad faith Kekrops, I clearly said in my nom "merge if possible any content to Cyprus dispute" - nobody is asking for it to be "wiped off the face of the planet". I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Baristarim 17:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you can't understand the difference between a concrete and an abstract noun, that's your problem. The term is used almost ubiquitously in English, as attested by the sources provided on this page which you have dismissed. If you're denying that Turkish settlers/settlement is used in English, you must be getting pretty desperate. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Turkish settlement" is not used in English, definitely not when referring to the Cyprus dispute, then prove me wrong and bring me sources attesting to its usage in BBC, CNN et al reports - however you can easily find sources saying "Israeli settlements". I definitely know the difference between nouns, however WP:ATT clearly says that our knowledge is irrelevant. That usage has to be out there. Baristarim 17:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It already is out there. Yet again, you're trying to deny the undeniable. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? The search results at the BBC News website returns a whopping ZERO hits [1] And when searched not as a single term, it returns a whopping 26 hits, all referring to the "political settlement" [2]. I wonder who is "denying the undeniable". Even though I am Turkish, my primary language is English and I am telling you that the term "Turkish settlement" is not used in the English language. Btw, pls cut down on the straw man and rhetoric, it is not helpful to the debate. Baristarim 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

However, there are results for "Israeli settlement" [3] and "Israeli settlements" [4]. So I rest my case :) Baristarim 17:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If the article wants to discuss the composition of North Cyprus in terms of mainland Turks and their integration into Cyprus then that should be done under Demographics of Cyprus. That imo is the most npov way of doing it. --A.Garnet 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment For the benefit of those who cannot or will not understand that Turkish settlement means precisely the same thing as Turkish settlers, the only difference being that the former is an abstract noun denoting the latter which is a concrete noun, here is a Turkish source which has been quoted by Turkish editors on numerous occasions and which uses the term in all possible permutations: http://cyprus-conflict.net/volkan.htm. Enjoy. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  BBC News carries much more weight when it comes to establishing English usage than cyprus-conflict.net/volkan.htm. And BBC has never used it [5]. Give it up Kekrops, there is no way that you can prove that "Turkish settlement" is used in the English language, not the least when referring to the Cyprus dispute. Your claim that they mean the same thing is your own opinion, I respect that, but WP:ATT says that our opinions are not relevant - there has to be an established usage in the English language. I have brought extremely authoritive sources that attest that there is no such usage (see above). volkan.htm is not the same. Plus this article has WP:FORK issues on top of WP:OR, merge the content, what is the big deal? Baristarim 17:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  Nor has CNN. "Turkish%20settlement" - your persistence is astonishing Kekrops! :) There is no way that you can prove that "Turkish settlement" is not OR. Should I dig up more authoritive sources? Baristarim 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  Your persistence in failing to understand simple English grammar is what is truly astonishing here. If you seriously think your point is proven by a BBC or CNN site search, I rest my case. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  It is proven per WP:ATT that there is no such usage (since it was the first line of defense and analogy coming from the creator of the article and most of keep voters, that "Turkish settlement" was akin to "Israeli settlements" - which has been proven wrong by established English usage using WP:ATT). Plus this article still has Fork issues on top of OR. Merge it to Cyprus dispute.. Baristarim 18:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  If you really can't stomach the term Turkish settlement, you might like to consider instead Turkish colonisation, as per the Council of Europe document provided by User:Yannismarou. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  It is not a question of stomaching, it is a question of OR, NPOV and undue weight. All of this is covered under "Cyprus dispute" - nobody is stopping from including anything in that article, but that is the article suited for all that information. Thus, the Fork issue. Baristarim 18:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  The same could be said for Garnet's attempt to create a Cypriot Civil War article. Your concern for the sanctity of WP:FORK was not as ardent in that case, unfortunately. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You want to tell me what exactly is FORK about covering the disintegration of Cyprus before 74? --A.Garnet 18:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I will, once you tell me what is "fork" about covering the process by which an ethnically pure Turkish "state" was established in the north of Cyprus, namely by means of the expulsion of the Greek population and the massive influx of settlers from Turkey, or Turkish settlement if you will. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was not in Wikipedia when that article was created, so I don't know the story. Baristarim 18:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The story, Baris, is that the article I created was an attempt to plug a huge gap in the coverage of Cyprus related articles in that no detailed explanation was given of intercommunal violence from 63-74 which disintegrated the Republic. The issue in this article however, which barely adresses it, can be found in Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, Cypriot refugees, Cyprus, and Cyprus dispute. --A.Garnet 18:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The word settlement has two quite distinct meanings: (1) a community consisting of a number of dwellings; (2) the process of settling, as the result of migration. The title of the article is accordingly ambiguous. The disputed article as well as the present discussion appear to confuse the two meanings, whether accidentally or not. As defined in the lead of the article, the meaning is unambiguously (1), but in a curiously restricted sense. It is as if we were to have an article "Italian house" starting "An Italian house is a house built by Italians during World War I." Are settlements of Turks in Kos or Bulgaria then not Turkish settlements? Settlements of Turks on Cyprus have existed since the 16th century. In the remainder of the article, the meaning gradually shifts to (2). Although many Turks may have settled on the island after the partition, and the Republic of Turkey has not discouraged this, these migrants did not form new settlements, and no evidence is presented in the article that any communities were established by Turkey in Cyprus after the partition, nor do the cited sources support this contention. Thus, following the restricted definition of the lead, there are no Turkish settlements. The definition in the lead can be relaxed, of course, to refer to any Turkish communities, including those in existence on Cyprus at the time of the EOKA coup, but that defeats the whole purpose of the article, which would have to be completely rewritten to accommodate the new definition.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not at all versed on this subject, but your comment that "these migrants did not form new settlements" seems to be contradicted by a letter printed in the IHT: "Hundreds of illegal settlements have been established in occupied areas"Chesdovi 12:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Chesdovi, those are the letters of readers, you are aware of that, right? Please give the link to the article itself, if it is mentioned there. But you might be right a little bit, once I posted a comment on a Kurdish newspaper (?) website (I don't remember the website now, I found it through Yahoo! Alerts quite a while ago, it was the English version, I bookmarked it but then removed bookmark after like a week), they were bashing Erdoğan for a comment he made, in a few minutes the website was filled with anti-Turkish comments, I wrote something like Talabani said about the same thing, but my comment was not published, even though many other Turkey-bashing ones were published after that. So, having a comment there might reflect the opinion of the journalist as well, but that might be true only for that Kurdish website. deniz^T_C 15:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that there is another opinion and of course the letter carries no weight! (Where is a list of "new" Turkish settlements on the web? Why are the Israeli ones so well documented?!!) Chesdovi 16:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as WP:ATT states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Where is the reliable source for the statements in the lead?  --Lambiam^Talk 18:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Chesdovi, your opinion is more valuable to me than that reader's opinion is. I changed my vote to delete only, as the current lead claims things with no support and then the article deals with something else, apparently the article won't get better. I am worried it will be anything goes — anytime the editor feels like it. Now we even have the Turkish settle-ment, act of settling. deniz^T_C 21:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename if necessary. - Gilgamesh 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. So many settlers in the occupied area of Cyprus that outnumber the Turkish Cypriots Aristovoul0s 15:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Lambiam. On reading the title I honestly had never even considered the possibility of the concrete as opposed to the abstract meaning of "settlement", but as Lambiam rightly points out, the article thoroughly mixes the two up. In its present form it is ill-defined and muddled, and as such not a suitable sub-article for the main Cyprus conflict article - hence, it is a fork. Come back and write a new article on "Turkish settlement on Cyprus" (abstract!) when you've well thought out what the topic and its relation to the superordinate articles is going to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.