Talk:Cyprus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Cyprus, or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on its quality.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Cyprus as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese language Wikipedia.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Western Asia,
a WikiProject related to the countries of Western Asia.
Archive
Archives

Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 05:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Archives:

Contents

[edit] Comments

[edit] Comment

[edit] BC --> BCE change

This article was recently changed from consistently using BC for years to using BCE. I was unaware of any discussion on this and note that the editor who did doesn't usually edit this article. Is there consensus for such a change? If not I'll change it back. --Siobhan Hansa 14:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate Articles

I know this has probably been discussed before but can we not have an article for the island and then two different ones for the seperate state?Someone write below and tell me what they think of my proposal.

I agree. Dermo69 12:33, 19 November 2006

I don't agree. All information about Cyprus should be collected together.

I don't know. If you are suggesting something like Cyprus, Republic of Cyprus and TRNC, I can see the logic behind it, however I can also see many problems that can come along with such a seperation, the most prominent being huge debate that will follow on what would be in each of these articles. If you are trying to address concerns for different aspects of Cyprus, such seperate articles already exist, such as History of Cyprus, Geography of Cyprus etc. What do you mean by a seperate article for the island and for the country(ies)? Can you elaborate on what would be included under these articles? Baristarim 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE JOIN THE GROUP: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cyprus. It will serve to unify these aspects as regards to Cyprus in all matters. There is much work to be done!!!
(UNFanatic 01:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Church attendance

Is there a reference on this? From my past experience ordinary Sunday church attendance is a tiny fraction of e.g. attendance of the Christmas service. And what are the numbers on church attendance in countries like Poland or indeed Britain? Mavros 20:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality regarding politics

As a neutral observer, it seems to me that the description of the Greek/Turkish conflict under the "Politics" heading is quite anti-Turkish and pro-Greek in its stance. It condemns the military intervention of Turkey quite clearly and repeatedly but does not comment in a similar way on the Greek coup. To me, this severely compromises the neutrality of this article.

MrNancy 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well then why don't you try making it more neutral? //Dirak 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This was MrNancy's first edit to Wikipedia. Vizjim 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
MrNancy is correct, and for an article relating to the history of a ongoing and important problem in the European Union it has numerous features that belie an NPOV standpoint. This article should be tagged to say that it has NPOV problems in the hopes of attracting people to come fix its POV. It is barely a B-level article, and well below the standard for such an article that I expect here. It is a Top level EU related article.
SubcomOvashins and SubcomandanteOvashinsky, who made sequential (unsigned) edits to this page, have both made no other contributions to Wikiepedia. Vizjim 07:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It is more than being biased it is written in a prejudiced manner. As Foucault has stated "How can history have a truth, when truth has a history?" If the article is so obviously against neutrality, how has it not been modified till this time? This is a serious political issue and a disregard to Turkish people.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ipok (talk • contribs) 01:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] About Percentages

The population of TRNC is 264,172 which is dominantly Turkish. The claimed population of the Cyprus Republic is 704,301 which also includes this population. 264,172 / 704,301 = 0.375 which means 37,5 % of the population is Turkish. Even if we assume, the claim of 704,301 includes the southern part only, it results in a Turkish Percentage of 264,172 / (704,301 + 264,172) =~ 28 % of the population. How in the world this can be calculated as 18%? I think there has been an intented miscalculation to decrease the Turkish Population. Therefore I am correcting the ratios.--Ogulsev 10:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Errr because in 1974 the turkish cypriots only composed 18%. Thats when the invasion took place. The fact that since then several Turks have been illegally imported to the occuppied north should not make a difference as they do not belong there! Demetris 27Jan2007. Am thus recorrectin the %ges

[edit] Possible split?

What would people think of splitting this article between Cyprus (the island) and the Republic of Cyprus (regime/government/state)? Kind of like China and People's Republic of China for example. I am only suggesting this since the geographical region also carries the same name as the country as well, which is quite peculiar as far as many countries are concerned. Italy/Italian penisula, Spain/Iberian peninsula, Turkey/Anatolia articles exist, but with Cyprus that's not the case. And maybe the history section should be tightened up as well, it is too long. Since Republic of Cyprus is the official govt for the whole island, there is no problem with basing the sections on that premise (geography etc). I know that it is a long hard slog to get Cyprus-related articles in encyclopedic order, however such a split might help with dividing up what is political and not-political about Cyprus (geography, history (before the 60s :)), climate etc)I was just perusing through China articles, and they seemed to have done a good job organizing them. So, what do people think? Baristarim 18:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This proposal was aired before, but never seriously. Back then I hadn't checked similar articles, but now that I have taken a look, such an organization seems possible. Baristarim 18:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Response To...

Any weasel wording like "claimed to be", or "cited to be" (which, incidentally, is poor grammar verging on the incomprehensible) when it comes to the invasion should be deleted. The invasion was a response to the coup. Whether Turkey had larger intentions is irrelevant - the invasion could not and would not have happened without the coup. Any attempt to insinuate otherwise is bias. Vizjim 13:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"citing it as a response" is very good English (excuse my wrong edit summary) and the one who claims something is the one who has to be mentioned as the one who said it, not to create the illusion that this is a global-POV per WP:WTA#So-called, supposed, alleged, purported that you cited exactly:
Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable—at the very least the person who said it! Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications.
I am writing who was doing the doubting that the coup was acting to the detriment of the TCs in particular (rather to all Cypriots in general).
However, if you find others who have said that the coup was a reason for Turkey to respond with an invasion, you are free to include them too. Your persistence in view of my good faith comment that "claim to be" sounded WP:WEASEL and should be replaced, borders WP:POINT, so I suggest you stop. NikoSilver 15:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Turkish Cypriots are not mentioned in the sentence. Please answer this simple question: is there anyone claiming that the invasion would have happened without the coup having taken place?
Assuming that there is no such claim, then any phrase like "claiming to be", "citing it as a response" etc, is by definition a weasel phrase designed to throw doubt on the historical fact. No assumption of bad faith is involved, just of POV thinking.
In the context, "citing it" is not good English. They are not citing the invasion, they are citing the coup. Vizjim 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to prove the non-existence of a third-party assertion that the invasion was a response to the coup. You have to prove the existence of such an assertion by specific third parties (and then we can add those too). As for the English, I really don't care, as long as you can find a way to reflect that Turkey says/thinks/considers/affirms/declares/states the invasion was a response to the coup. As simple and as NPOV as that! NikoSilver 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is weasel wording Nikos. Turkey invaded in response to a coup, whether it had invasions plans before or not are inconsequential, it was the coup which triggered it. It is like saying Britain "claims" to have declared war on Germany after it invaded Poland. Or the US "claims" to have joined the Allies after Pearl Harbour. Whatever the strategic or political value of such actions there was an obvious trigger. --A.Garnet 23:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Just in case you want a source: "The Greek Cypriot coup d'etat in July 1974 triggered off a series of events that profoundly altered the parameters of the Cyprus problem...Within days the Turks invaded Cyprus." Hannay p.6

[edit] Serious npov issues

I guess it is to be expected from an article involving the Cyprus problem. Some examples:

  • 1) Italicising TRNC
  • 2) Constant reference to any action from the North as "illegal" i.e. "their families flew into the illegal Tymbou airport", "have participated in trips through this illegal entry point.", "Illegal excavation is a frequent occurrence", "the illegal authorities in occupied Cyprus", "It is estimated that about 160,000 settlers from Turkey have been illegally established", "The Turkish Cypriot administration has allowed the illegal sale of real estate", "Turkish Cypriots in the illegally occupied North", "In the meantime Turkey illegally imported Turkish colonists" (colonists!)
  • 3) Highly politically charged statements: "The ongoing and systematic destruction by Turkey of Cypriot cultural heritage in the occupied area of Cyprus is part of a pre-planned policy aimed at eradicating and destroying all trace of the 9,000 years of Cypriot history and civilization, and at transforming occupied Cyprus into just another Turkish province, through a systematic process of Turkification." or "These settlers were given citizenship and the right to vote, in an attempt to undermine the position of the Turkish-Cypriot community, so that it might lend its support to the occupation regime." or "the ratio of Turks to Turkish-Cypriots in occupied Cyprus is about 2 to 1. This is a tragic irony" Needless to say all unsourced and unencylopedic statements.
  • 4) Factually incorrect statements: "Turkey invaded Cyprus, despite the fact that the coup had been quashed before the arrival of Turkish paratroopers" - Sorry, but utter rubbish used to remove any justification of Turkey intervening. The coup died after Turkey invaded, (and so did the junta in Greece!)
  • 5) "Papadopoulos had a reputation as a hard-liner on reunification and based his stance on international law and human rights" oh please, and Klerides was a criminal i suppose?
  • 6) "In considering the outcome it is interesting to note that whilst the Turkish settlers (who make up the majority in the occupied north) were allowed to vote" - more pov pushing (no credible source to suggest they are majority - and i dont mean roc press office statistics)
  • 7) "The most vital reason for the sudden increase of the per capita income of the Turkish Cypriot economy was the conditional “opening” of the borders" - factual innacuracy. It is a construction boom which has generated increased earnings. Cross border trading is minimal.
  • 8) No mention of TC refugee figures.
  • 9) No mention of appropriated TC properties and land.
  • 10) More unreferenced claims: "Turkish forces killed several thousand Greek Cypriots captured in the occupied areas"

This is just a quick glance. This article shouldnt be the place to make political accusations, this is it how reads at the moment. For that reasons i'm going to put a totally disputed tag i.e. neutrality and factualy accuracy disputed. --A.Garnet 00:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To aid discussion, I've numbered your points.
  • 1) The TRNC is not recognised as a state by anyone other than Turkey, and most observers agree that it has limited autonomy thus limiting even its claims to de facto nationhood. (See for example [1]: soveriegn nations do not consult foreign armies about such decisions).
  • 2) The TRNC is a militarily occupied area. The invasion has been near-universally condemned as illegal. Resolutions by bodies such as the EU, UN, European Court of Human Rights, etc, all decrying the occupation and the subsequent establishment of a dependent quasi-state (see above) by the invading force, remain in place and have not been challenged. Recent realpolitik decisions to open direct channels of communication do not run counter to these decisions. It is possible that in future the TRNC will gain recognition, but for the moment it remains an illegal occupation of sovereign territory under international law. Thus virtually every action with an effect on the fabric of Cyprus (its demography, archaeological sites, land ownership etc) is indeed illegal.
  • 3) Agree entirely: these statements are Greek Cypriot POV-pushing and should be removed.
  • 4) Agree entirely: the Makarios government had not been re-established and the coup was still in effect. More Greek Cypriot POV-pushing.
  • 5) Not sure what your point is: if it's that the second half of the sentence should be removed, again, I agree. Any attempt to re-instate the sentence should only be allowed if serious sources are appended.
  • 6) I don't understand why demographic information from the government of Cyprus is not acceptable to you. If you can produce credible sources stating that the majority of people in the TRNC are indeed Cyprus-born and Turkish Cypriot by ancestry, then that should go in as an opposing point of view. But I think you'll have difficulty. I can't find it at the moment (apologies), but I think even the UN stated that Turkish-born settlers were in the majority, during the referendum.
  • 7) Cross-border trade may be minimal, but there has been an influx of money from the South since border restrictions were relaxed. Greek Cypriots gambling in the North have poured millions into the economy (through taxes on casinos). Thousands of Turkish Cypriots work in the Republic and bring their wages back. This should be reflected in the article. Moreover, the contruction boom is also influenced by the relaxation of border controls: developers see a chance of the north opening up and move in. None of this is POV-driven as far as I can see.
  • 8) Stick them in! Unless they've been removed, you can hardly say this is a POV issue.
  • 9) Stick them in! Unless they've been removed, you can hardly say this is a POV issue. Actually, in this case, I'll try and put something in over the next few days.
  • 10) The European Human Rights Commission report of 1977 upheld charges that Turkish soldiers, post-invasion, were "guilty of widespread murder, rape, looting, inhuman treatment, siezure and wanton destruction of property and enforced explusion". BBC news report, 18/01/77. Maybe this should go in until a source for the word "thousands" can be found.
  • 11) I'm surprised you didn't pick up on this. The section "Post-independence" seems to make no reference to the several genocidal massacres of Turkish Cypriot villagers that took place in the period 1959-1974. The current unearthing of these graves provides ever more evidence of the darker side that's completely excluded from this paragraph. Vizjim 15:10, 18 January 2007

(UTC)

Thank you for your constructive replies Vizjim. Why do i oppose the term illegal? It is a political statement, used primarily by Greek Cypriot to discredit the TRNC. This however, is an encyclopedia, we do not choose which state is more legitimate, nor do we attempt to portray one state as more rightful than the other. The only place i have seen TRNC italicised is in this article, i have not seen any Wikipedia policy which says non-recognised states must be italicised, it is only a way of pov pushing that one state is more legitimate than the other, when in fact Wikipedia must treat both the RoC and TRNC without bias. No court has ever declared the TRNC illegal, nor the Turkish intervention for that matter. There have been political statements denouncing its creation, but certainly no judgement that the TRNC is illegal in its entirety. Not only that, but again, it is simple encyclopedic style that you do not attempt to portary one state as more legitimate than the other. We can say for example "their families flew into the Ercan airport, a port of entry not recognised by the Cypriot government" - but we cannot say "they flew into the illegal port", illegal according to whom? Turkish Cypriots and Turkey certainly do not see it as illegal. My point is these statments smack of pov, they can all be worded in a far more neutral manner.
Regarding Papadopolous, my point of dispute was that he bases "his stance on international law and human rights". Is the article suggesting Clerdies did not base his stance on international law and human rights, or that Turkish Cypriots are opposed to international and human rights? Again, another needless political statement. On the census figures, i do not accept GC statistics to be credible no, no more than i would expect you to find TC statistics credible on their own. It is a political dispute, all figures are distorted (as any third party writer on the Cyprus problem will tell you). But basically i agree with you, both figures have to be included, but GC statistics alone are not neutral (and we must also state where these statistics came from i.e. According to GC statistics...whilst TC's own figures state etc).
On the TC economy we need reliable sources. It was not pov i was concerned about but factual accuracy. As far as i'm aware, cross border trading is minimal, the number of TC workers in the South is still relatively small. The real boom to the economy however came in wake of the Annan plan and the construction boom which followed. Like i said we need to find sources on this. On the actions committed by Turkish soldiers, i dont deny innocent GC's were killed, but the way the article showed it is that thousands were massacred implying some sort of organised massacre of GC civilians. As for massacre of TC's, i already wrote some time ago that Turkish Cypriot villages were massacred in reprisal for Turkish army landing, though i did not use the word genocidal. I hope editors realise i'm not sticking in the totallydisputed tag for fun, there are serious issues with how this article is written. I will try to edit it when i have more time. Thanks, --A.Garnet 18:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but for the moment I'll only pick you up on one point. "This... is an encyclopedia, we do not choose which state is more legitimate." Exactly. The TRNC is not recognised as a state by any country other than Turkey. It is not a state. Any attempt to describe it as a state by Wikipedia is pushing a Turkish POV that is not supported by the rest of the world. Hence, "illegal state". Other terms that could be used would be "occupied area", "colonised area" and maybe "Turkish military-controlled area", but "illegal state" gets the point over without stressing it overmuch.
  • "Turkish Cypriots and Turkey certainly do not see it as illegal." No, but everyone else in the world does, hence any attempt to remove the "illegal" descriptors is POV-pushing.
  • "it is simple encyclopedic style that you do not attempt to portary one state as more legitimate than the other"... unless, as in this case, one state is internationally recognised as more legitimate than the other. Vizjim 06:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Following this discussion with interest. I take it that there is no serious objection to removing the following statement from the article:

The ongoing and systematic destruction by Turkey of Cypriot cultural heritage in the occupied area of Cyprus is part of a pre-planned policy aimed at eradicating and destroying all trace of the 9,000 years of Cypriot history and civilization, and at transforming occupied Cyprus into just another Turkish province, through a systematic process of Turkification.

To my mind this is most obvious and inflammatory of the POV passages. I flagged it for citation a few days ago, but frankly I can't imagine what sort of citation, outside of rank conspiracy theory, would support such a statement. --Javits2000 10:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Vizjim, but i've had this argument ten fold on Wikipedia. The TRNC is a state, its existence does not rest on international recognition, nor is international recognition a prerequisite to function as a state. No state can be deemed "illegal" and if you object I would ask you provide a source where an international court of law has declared otherwise. There may be illegal acts within that state in the eyes of international law i.e. the flow of migrant workers, or the sale of pre-74 GC property, but this does entitle you to say the "illegal TRNC".
Also, i would like to see a source whereby the rest of the world considers the TRNC illegal. If you are suggesting a lack of diplomatic relations implies this then you are wrong. I do not see people refer to "illegal Taiwan" for instance. Finally, I found your suggestion of "colonised area" completely offensive and utterly derogatory to Cypriots and naturalised Cypriots in the North of the island. These are the kinds of terms i would like the article to go away from, it is needlessly politicising the issue when most of these sentences can be written in a fare more encyclopedic manner. --A.Garnet 17:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


I am sorry A.Garnet but as a neutral and fair minded person i feel i have to intervene in this dispute against you. You are totally and absolutely incorrect to say that a states status as a 'legal' state does not rest on international recognition. It absolutely does. that is the very definition of a legitimate state. Why do you think every separatist or seccessionists goverments first act is to try and secure international recognition? why do you think that places such as Biafra, Croatia or East Timor devoted so much of their energy to trying to secure foreign recognition of their declarations of independence. A state is only a state when other nations recognise its lawful authority and sovereignty over a particular area. Without that recognition, it is only an area of military control, pending resolution of its status. Without international recognition, no one is under legal obligation to respect its borders, abide by its laws, accept its control of waters for 12 miles around its coast and so on. without the rcognition of the UN, or at least a large number of substantial states, it has no legal status, and hence is 'illegal'. A state that already exists cannot be declared 'illegal' because of its actions, as you say; but a state that has not yet been recognised, and which was created in a manner that the international community judges to be unlawful or inappropriate, can have legal recognition withheld, and hence will remain illegal until that staus is given. I hope this deals with some of your points. Mattlav 17:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above point; you say that you would like to see a place where the internatonal community has declared that turkish cyprus is illegal; well, it is cited in this very article. The UN responded immediately to the turkish invasion by declaring it illegal, and the proclamation of a separate turkish state as illegal. That resolution still stands. The only thing that could have changed that, or removed its authoirty, would have been if the recently proposed federation between north and south had been successful, and had been ratified and recognised by the UN General Assembly. However, as the federation was rejected in a referendum (by the greek cypriots) it has not taken place and therefore northern cyprus remains in legal limbo. If you need any further evidence of this; why do you think it is that southern cyprus is now part of the EU, while the northern part is not? It is because the EU does not recognise the northern part as a legal entity, and hence it connot have membership.Mattlav 18:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments Mattlav. The area of international law governing statehood is complex, and your opinion above is merely one interpretation of what is necessary to be considered a state. Let me quote a Brittanica article on international law and statehood: "According to the “declaratory” theory of recognition, which is supported by international practice, the act of recognition signifies no more than the acceptance of an already-existing factual situation—i.e., conformity with the criteria of statehood. The “constitutive” theory, in contrast, contends that the act of recognition itself actually creates the state." [[2]]. You clearly have opted for the latter constitutive theory, whilst i have stated the former i.e. the TRNC is a defacto state in existence and a reality on the island, recognition would only confirm this state, but not create it.
Also, I believe you and Vizjim are underestimating the significance of even one state recognising the TRNC. I found this passage quite important, "a political community only constitutes a state for purposes of international law, in as much as other states, through recognition and through entering into internal relations with that political community, permit it to participate in areas governed by international law. Vis-a-vis, Turkey, but no one else, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, is a state. Diplomatic exchanges between these two states, as far as they - but no one else - are concerned, are governed by rules of international law. There are, therefore, states in the international law sense with a greater or lesser degree of recognition" [[3]].
Both these sources would directly counter your assertion that "Without that recognition, it is only an area of military control, pending resolution of its status." What i am trying to say is that usage of the term "illegal TRNC" is divisive and above all political. It is the kind of term an encyclopedia should try to avoid. --A.Garnet 18:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A. Garnet - serious question. Is Sealand a state? Vizjim 19:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That is a political and legal question Vizjim, one i'm not qualified as an editor of an online encyclopedia to answer, by that same token i can ask you is Taiwan a state? My only point from the beginning of this debate was that referring to the TRNC and its institutions as illegal at every mention is not good encyclopedic practice. All we have to do is say the UN declared its UDI legally invalid and refer to its non-recognised status except by Turkey. That is enough, but to keep saying "illegal TRNC", "illegal airport", "illegal excavations" is an unnecessary and aggresive way of pov pushing. --A.Garnet 19:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Taiwan is recognised by more than one country. Wikipedia style is a very shaky ground to make any argument on. Vizjim 11:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Where in international law does it say how many countries must recognise a political community before it can be deemed a state? If you read my sources above you will realise there is no clear cut definition, there are simply "states in the international law sense with a greater or lesser degree of recognition". --A.Garnet 12:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Common sense would dictate that the recognition of at least one country NOT directly and militarily involved in the territory would be an absolute minimum. Vizjim 13:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Common sense is a very shaky ground to make an argument on Vizjim. My common sense tells me there are two distinct states on the island. That is why the OIC recognises the TRNC as the Turkish Cypriot State, why the British foreign minister met Talat in his Presidential Office, why Talat was invited to Pakistan in his official role as President of the TRNC, why Talat is recognised even by the United Nations Peace Process as the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community. This is what common sense is to me. --A.Garnet 14:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Common sense also allows us to detect people who don't directly answer our points, and to assume that their minds are closed to argument. Do please feel free to have the last word, but I think I'll leave this for others to pick up. Vizjim 15:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Come off it Vizjim, i have argued your points, I have provided you with academic sources. You have not replied to any of these, merely dismissed everything on the basis of "common sense". How can you accuse me of not being open to argument? --A.Garnet 15:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Vizjim, i see Garnet is trying to convince you that Homer was a turk, and that Troy belongs in Turkish history... common sense!!! It is in turkish text books!!! Aristovoul0s 16:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Perilously close to breaking the rules, but "heh" all the same. Vizjim 05:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute Warning Sign

I have moved the dispute warning sign away from the head of the article, and to the start of the paragraphs which i believe are disputed or have problems. Most of this article is very good, and does not deserve to be slandered because of a few stupid things written at the end. Hopefully putting the sign here will give people a better understanding of what the problems are and make it clear where the dsisputes lie.Mattlav 18:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute stub

Please offer your comments here Template talk:Cyprus-stub Aristovoul0s 17:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Universities and educational establishments

I think the TRNC universities should be restored to the article. Not being recognised by the EU is no reason to censor their existence, though the dubious utility of the qualifications they hand out could be noted. Also, why single out private secondary schools? Surely these should be split off into a sub-article, Schools of Cyprus? Vizjim 11:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Island nation

I honestly can't fathom the kerfuffle over the "island nation" terminology. Cyprus is an island and it is also an internationally recognised sovereign nation, is it not? Even the Turkish Cypriots have acknowledged that a united Cyprus is the ultimate aim of any solution to the Cyprus dispute and that the "TRNC" is by extension a temporary arrangement until the Greeks smarten up and accept the Annan Plan, so what's the beef? The size of the British bases on Cyprus relative to the US base at Guantánamo cannot be a serious argument, surely. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote from the linked article, "Some island countries share their islands with other countries", so there is no need for this argument at all. Vizjim 05:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European Union

Isn't this technically in Asia?? --SunStar Nettalk 15:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

mmmmm, I'd suspect that question alone is hard enough to answer, but as to being in the EU, geographically it doesn't have to be literally part of europe for member states to agree to it being part of the EU - but without getting out a map and just guessing - isn't it right on the edge of the eurasian plate? --Streaky 23:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
it's part of Europe. I have a National Geographic Magazine's Europe map hanging right here before my eyes. It's in all other books and geographical dictionaries. ISasha 10:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is where ever you define the Europe/Asia borders to be, which is quite lame of a debate (like as if Asia is inferior or something?). Many geographers adopt different definitions and different borders for these two adjacent continents. Cyprus being an island makes things even more vague. I'm sure we could reflect that trivial issue neutrally within the article with proper wording. NikoSilver 13:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes by anon

Anon 85.102.134.194 (talk • contribs) made the following changes:

  • deleted "the Anatolian peninsula (Asia Minor) or modern-day [Turkey]"
  • moved a picture awkwardly in the beginning, leaving a huge blank space on the left
  • moved {{npov-section}} to the beginning of the article without specifying what he/she disputes.

I'm reverting all changes. NikoSilver 13:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar change

I have a question. I wanted to change the grammar of a sentence to make it more clear. The change got reverted, and I don't really understand why. The sentence as originally worded said 'This concern was highlighted by the UK's Telegraph Newspaper in 2006 when the wife of Britain's prime minister, Cherie Blair, touched a diplomatic nerve;'. As currently worded, the grammar does not make it clear that 'Cherie Blair' is the wife. It sounds like 'Cherie Blair' is the prime minister. I changed the sentence to say 'This concern was highlighted by the UK's Telegraph Newspaper in 2006 when Cherie Blair, the wife of Britain's prime minister, touched a diplomatic nerve;' I know that this change is a very minor point, and I am not overly concerned about this particular sentence. However, this is my first attempt at editing something on Wikipedia, and my edit was not accepted, so I am wondering what edits will be accepted? Khollings 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That was my error Khollings. Apologies. I'm inserting your sentence. It's the fact that I was first using a watchlist tool that I didn't know that it cuts off part of the edited preview! I thought you had deleted something. Please do not let this discourage your future editing! NikoSilver 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Khollings 22:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this page totaly smells racism

i think wiki should prepare itself this kind of disputed issues.we can clearly see that this page edited by some nationalists. I could understand that greek cypriots want to defend their case it is normal thing but no one have lux to change realty. i can hear the empty boos already —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilybaeum (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Serious npov issues

First off I am very new to posting anything on wikipedia so please forgive me if I am not following conventions I should know about.

I should also say I am part Cypriot (Turkish) and currently live in northern Cyprus.

I wish to add to the discussion re lack of NPOV in this article and specifically to the "Post-independence" section where it reads

"In November 1963, Archbishop Makarios, the first President of the Republic of Cyprus, proposed thirteen Amendments to the constitution in his desire to improve the situation, amendments not involving any radical changes but designed rather to remove some of the more obvious causes of friction."

I can not see how anyone with a NPOV could say that the proposed ammendments did not make 'any radical changes'. One has only to read the proposed ammendments to see that they radicaly and fundamentaly changed the whole basis of the agreements that created the Republic of Cyprus. In my humble view the statement that these amendments did not involve 'any radical changes' is not just a NPOV issue but actually just factualy incorrect.

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/www.cyprus-conflict.net/13_points.html

It is also my view that stating as fact that Makarios's intention in these ammedments was merely to 'remove causes of friction' is itself a contentious and baised statement. Certainly this was the claim of Makarios but there is much well documented evidence that his real intent was far from this and it can not be in dispute that the result was far from this.

Having started I also have to say something about the following part as well

"Unable to reach a solution, the government of the Republic of Cyprus brought the matter before the UN."

Actually Britain was the first to make a call on the UN security council to convene a meeting to discuss the unfolding crisis in Cyprus in a tactical move to get in before Makarios did. A more serious failing of the above description however is the idea that the UN action and subsequent miltary intervention was concerned with wrangling over the Cyprus consitution and that they got involved simply because the Republic of Cyprus wanted them to resolve the issue of the Cypriot consitution. The reason why the UN became involved was not to settle a dispute over the Cypriot consitution, for which it had no mandate to get involed in any case, but in fact to deal with the threat to regional peace and stability that the intercommunal violence in Cyprus threatend. So the above is in my humble view factualy incorrect - it was Britian that first called on the UN security council to meet , closely followed by Makarios government and the purpose of the UN meeting and involvment was not to settle issues on the consitution of Cyprus but in fact to try and stop the intercommunal fighting that threatend regional peace and stability. You do not send a peace keeping force to a place to resolve a dispute over the constitution.

Erolz 14:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Hi - why not change the article, adding sources for each of your claims? The big problem with that section of this article is that loads of nationalists with strongly pro-Greek(/Cypriot) POV have created it without adding sources for many of their claims. Then loads of nationalists with pro-Turkish(/Cypriot) POV have altered it, again without adding sources. The resultant mass is currently a poorly-written article that clearly breaks the POV rules (I'm pretty much pro-Greek, and yet the NPOV issue is obvious even to me) and yet can't be changed because nobody, including me, seems bothered to actually do any research. Since you have sources for your claims, why not add them in? If someone else disagrees, it will then be up to them to find authoritative sources that contradict your source. In short, why not get involved as opposed to complaining uselessly here? Vizjim 14:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the reply Vizjim. Why do I not just change the article? The main reason is that I do not feel qualifed to do so to be honest - not in my html editing skills, my knowledge of wikipedia editing in general nor in my general english skills. What I can and will do is try and provide sound reason logic and referances as to where and why I think the article can be improved. Maybe in time I will feel confident enough to edit a main page and not just particpate via the discussion sections but right now I do not. As for sources for my claims, as far as describing the proposed ammendments as not containing any 'radical' changes, I with respect do not know what more needs to be provided but the ammedments themselves and the application of common sense. I aready provided a link to the ammendments themselves and I just do not see how anyone could make the claim that they contained no radical changes that is currently the text on the main page. As far as Makarios' intent there is no source that can prove his intent. There is however the undeniable fact that whatever his intent the result was the direct opposite of that claimed to have been his intent on the main page. As for the claim that it was the British that first called on the UN security council to convene and consider the crisis unfolding in Cyprus I will try and find some hard sources to support this claim. As for the claim that the purpose of the UN deliberations on and subsequent intervention in Cyprus was not about 'resolving consitutional issues' at the request of the RoC government (the Makarios government) as the main article implies, again I am at a loss to know what source could be provided other than the actual resolution passed by the Security Council (S/RES/186(1964)) and the application of common sense. This resolution makes no mention of consitutional issues at all or resolving them. What it does mention is the threat to international peace and security that the intercommunal fighting in Cyprus represented and the need to place a UN force in Cyprus "in the interest of preserving international peace and security, to use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of fighting and, as necessary, to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order and a return to normal conditions;". None of this is apparent in the main page description as it currently exits, implying as it does that UN involvment in Cyprus was about resoving a constituional dispute at the request of the Makarios government. These misrepresentations of reality that exits today on the main page are not about a lack of sources but about a designed attempt to spin the reality of what occured and why it occured in this period. At least as far as I can see.Erolz 04:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources re the involvment of the UN in Cyprus in 1964

In the above discussion I said I would try and provide some hard sources re impled inaccuracies in the main article section "Post-independence" and specifically the claim that "Unable to reach a solution [to the consitutional ammedments proposed by Makarios], the government of the Republic of Cyprus brought the matter before the UN."

Below is a link to a UN document on a UN website that details the sequence of discussion on this subsequent resolution. The document is in pdf format and the relevant section starts on (pdf) page 18, where first the resolution is listed and then the discussion leading upto this resolution

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/repertoire/64-65_08.pdf

In summary of the above document

Britian spoke first at this meeting, refering to its letter of the 15th Febuary to the Security Council detailing the serious deterioration of internal secruity in Cyprus and serious acts of violence in intercommunal fighting.

The RoC spoke second reffering to its letter, also of the 15th Febuary, to the Security Council in which it raised a complaint against Turkey, alledeging that Turkey was perparing for an imminent and obvious invasion fo Cyprus.

My point here is that is that the current description on the main page of who made recourse to the UN over the Cyprus situation and why they made that recourse is simply factualy inacurate. Both the UK and the RoC both made calls on the UN to become involved in the situation not just the RoC as the main page currently state. Neither of the countries did so in order for the UN to resolve the dispute over Makarios' proposed ammendments to the consitution as the main page implies and nor would the UN have a madate for such a role in any case. Both countries brought the matter to the UN under the UN's mandate of maintaing international peace and stability yet there is no mention of this in the main page description. The UK did so re the issue of the break down of internal security in Cyprus and the intercommunal violence that was occuring there and the RoC on the issue of allegations of Turkish preperations for an invasion against Cyprus. These were the submissions made to the UN that lead finaly to resolution 186.Erolz 05:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] major rewrite of the 1st 1/2 of Post-independence section

Ok I went ahead and boldy made my first edit od wikipedia main page. I believe this latest version is more factualy correct and less POV laden the the old one, but of course would welcome input and improvements from others. Erolz 04:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islands of Turkey/Greece???

I noticed that Cyprus article is included in the "islands of Turkey" and "islands of Greece" categories. Though the situation is disputed, neither Turkey nor greece has annexed the island by any means. so I think links to these categories should be removed. Kerem Özcan 15:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, how did that POV slip though :) I've removed them.--Domitius 15:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Will someone please tell me, in the opening paragraph, in nice simple short words, whether this is an indepedent country, or a territory of Greece/Turkey, or something else. Cos I is confused, and after reading the opening paragraph I is still confused, and I has got an IQ of about 160 and a very good geographical knowledge of the world. I can see axes being grinded left, right and centre there, without telling mewhat I want to know. God help anyone else reading it! Bards 18:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It is an island nation, i.e. an independent country. Says so there in the first sentence or so. The legal issues surrounding the occupation and UDI of one third of the island do make things a bit more complex, but they are all sort of explained through the rest of the article. Vizjim 20:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
(Reply to Bards)Hahaha :D I see your confusion. Actually the answer of your question can vary depending on whom you are asking it to. It is a "terrorist/freedom fighter" kind of thing. (No analogy, just wanted to say that it is impossible to give an opinion without some level of POV mixing in it.) So I guess I won't be able to provide you with the "one-sentence-explanation" that you asked for, and I believe nobody else also can do it. The situation is too complex to do it anyways. The best is to read articles such as Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Turkish invasion of Cyprus and Cyprus dispute besides Cyprus article. And then you should read also beyond wikipedia too... Well, what can I say, welcome to the club :) But to warn you, once you step in, there's no way out :) Regards, Kerem Özcan 21:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 ;) So why is it divided into a Greek part and a Turkish part, instead of a Cypriot (natives) part and a Turkish (invaded) part? What claims do the Greeks have over this island? Bards 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way - I am posing the question, because I think it needs answering in the opening paragraph. I realise it may be dificult to simplify the problem, if you are on the inside looking out; but if you can summarise it before going into detail, you'll have a better article (imo). It shouldn't be necessary to read the entire article to get an overview. Bards 22:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, So I try it with as little POV as possible and with simpler words :). See Cyprus used to be a Hellenic Island until Ottoman army conquered it 1570. Usually the policy of the Ottoman Empire was to intervene as little as possible to the demographics&culture of the newly conqured lands, rather than surprassing them. (That's why the former Ottoman nations still speak their language and preserve the religion - compare it to the South America under spanish rule) But Ottoman empire thought that the island was in a strategic location, so lumped a bunch of Turkish settlers there to "turkify" the island, changing the demographics. Then you might say that the Ottomans "sold" the island to the British for their support against Russians in late 1800s. In mid fifties there was an IRA like militant organisation (called EOKA) that tried merge Cyprus the Greece. But for some reason, UK wouldn't allow that, claming that the rights of the Turkish people in the island should be preserved, and a seperate Cyprus state was found (1960) in the guarantorship of three nations (Greece, Turkey, UK it is), thus allowing UK to have military bases in the island ;)
So that might be where my POV comes in :) After the independence, things worked fine for a while, until Greece military government supported a coup in Cyprus (1974), abolishing the rights of the Turkish population. Thus Turkey, as a guarantor state, invaded the island until a solution was found. After no constructive steps towards reunification were taken from both sides for 9 years, Turkey granted indepence to the northern part of the island; and thus the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) found, a state that is recognized only by Turkey.
A unified Cyprus plan offered by Kofi Annan was taken to the referendum in 2004, which is approved by the Turkish cypriot side, yet rejected by the greek cypriots, keeping the island divided.
So; answer to your question. Now all the maps on the world, show the island wholly as unified republic of Cyprus. Except the ones that are in Turkey which shows it as two seperate countries. Republic of Cyprus government policy rejects recognition of TRNC of any kind and any means, and that is what's causing the intro in the Wikipedia to look like that. You may take your part in trying to clarify it in the beginning, but I guess it won't stay there long. (No offense anybody)
I'll be willing to answer your further questions on this subject as much as I can. And since your user page says you are Celtic, when you have time I would like to hear your point of view regarding Iron Lady and the situation around her time in the office (I am serious about it by the way. But please make it dummy proof :) )
Regards; Kerem Özcan 00:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Mrs Margaret Thatcher, also known as The Iron Lady, became the United Kingdom's first female prime minister in 1979. She was a conservative PM, and applied Keynsian Theory (?) to the nation's economy, to streamline government and improve its domestic and international competitiveness. With the advantage of landslides victories winning 3 terms in office, and her authoritarian style, she was able to push through a number of very unpopular measures, such as the Poll Tax, the closure of unprofitable coal mines (after the "winter of discontent", with its frequent miner strikes), and ... Eventually these generated sufficient bad feeling amongst the proles (oops) to set forces in motion which removed her from office in a famously unceremonious and sudden leadership vote in 1992(?). She was replaced by John Major. Also, she was a stupid cow who thought she could run an entire country using small-town grocery-shop economics (oops, POV creeping in there) ;) erm.
How's that? (I'll have to go look at the article now, to see what guff they've written, haha). Bards 01:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So anyway - does this mean that part of Cyprus is an island of Turkey, according to Turkey, but not according to the rest of the world? (Is it the *whole* world, or are there other countries who recognise the TRNC?). I propose a rewrite of the intro, involving (a) simplification of things by removing details to create a digestable overview, and (b) removal of parentheses wherepossible, to make it more readable -

The Republic of Cyprus (Greek: Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία, Kypriakí Dhimokratía; Turkish: Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti) is an island nation in the Mediterranean Sea, south of Turkey. It is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea. It is divided into two political zones, commonly known as the Greek and Turkish Districts (?). The Greek part, to the south, is inhabited mainly by native Cypriots of ancient Greek descent. The Turkish part, to the north, is the result of an invasion by Turkey in 1974, and has been settled by Turkish people. On Turkish maps, the Turkish part is shown as a separate country named the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

(NB: failure to explain the above is a POVpush, imo - refusing to accept the facts of history and the current state of the island.).

This should go into the political section -

The Republic of Cyprus is divided into six districts[1]:

And move the rest into the 'History' section, again - simplified - as an introduction.

More, non-disputable facts of a general nature could be added to the intro as a 2nd paragraph.

Bards 01:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. See the island is not seen as "part of Turkey" or "part of Greece" by anybody. But according to the Turkey there's another country in the north of Cyprus. And the Turkish population there is not due to the 1974 invasion (or intervention as Turkey calls it) of Turkey. But rather because of the 1570 conquest of ottoman empire. Back in the day all of the island was populated with Turks and Greeks together as the Turkish Cypriots being the biggest minority. Bu after 1974, almost all of the Greeks were gradually forced to the south, and the Turkish to the north.
About your offer to change the intro as such. Try it. Actually I had the exact same complain in the TRNC page. There is (and thre will be) always some kind of wording that somebody doesn't like and it turns in to an edit war. But go ahead, give it a shot. Maybe you'll come up with a better wording. Regards, Kerem Özcan 06:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem with your suggested rewrite is that it is factually incorrect. Nobody refers to "Greek and Turkish Districts". The TRNC is, depending on where you sit and what your point of view is, "A government", "A separatist regime", "An enclave", "An area illegally occupied by foreign troops". All of these descriptions are true for someone. The United Nations do not formally recognise the TRNC, which supports the last description, especially given their condemnation of the invasion. The EU governments also do not recognise it, but they have been negotiating for direct trade to be opened up with the TRNC state, which suggests they are treating it as an enclave. The TRNC itself voted for reunification under the Annan Plan, which would seem to obviate the "separatist" descriptor, but at the same time accept their description by Turkey as a separate country, which would suggest a government. And there are other complexities that I haven´t even gone into yet! To do justice to this incredibly complex problem of international law while not offending either the Turkish Cypriots (who suffered horrible things in the 1960s when the island was a single republic, and still suffer under international sanctions today) or Greek Cypriots (who suffered horrible things under Ottoman and British occupation, and again during the Turkish invasion) is complex and probably impossible. I continue to strongly urge anyone altering this article to describe any aspect of the politics of the island to research the topic first, and to always add external resources. Vizjim 07:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've done some reading. I would still like to improve the intro, to make it more digestible and easier to read. My proposal now is to separate the intro into - a description of the current state of the island (para 1), an explanation of the alternate country names (para 2); and an outline of the history which has brought about this situation (para 3) -

Cyprus (Greek: Κύπρος, Kýpros; Turkish: Kıbrıs) is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea, located south of Turkey. It is divided into two political zones. The south is inhabited mainly by Cypriots of ancient Greek descent. The north is inhabited mainly by Cypriots of Turkish descent. A buffer zone between them is controlled by United Nations forces. The south also contains two Sovereign Base Areas controlled by the British.

Officially the island is a single island nation, the Republic of Cyprus (Greek: Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία, Kypriakí Dhimokratía; Turkish: Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti). However, the Turkish invasion of the northern part of the island resulted, in 1983, in their declaration of a new country, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. This is not universally recognised, but during the upheaval, most of the Turkish Cypriots moved to the north, and most of the Greek Cypriots to the south, creating a de facto partition.

(optional 3rd para giving an overview of the history fo the conflict)

This situation is the result of over a hundred years of conflict between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, polarised by the British influence into a major cultural rift. The island was originally settled by Greeks around 1600BC, and later invaded by Turkey around 1570AD. The two cultures seem to have lived harmoniously for the most part. However, in 1878 the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) gave control of the island to Britain in exchange for military aid, setting into motion a long chain of troublesome events. In 1913, the British formally annexed Cyprus, and in 1925 declared it a Crown Colony. Reactions to British rule generated a militant movement amongst the Greek Cypriots for reunification with Greece (known as enosis), which led to continued anti-Turkish feeling during the 20th century - including a revolution in 1931, continued riots, the formation of the partisan guerrilla army EOKA, and a near-collapse into civil war in the late 1950s. The conflict was temporarily resolved in 1960 by the creation of a new island nation, the Republic of Cyprus, which was free of control from Greece, Britain and Turkey. However, the appointment of pro-enosis prime minister Makarios, and his inability to resolve the cultural differences, resulted in 1963 in the collapse of his government, and fighting throughout the island which continued through the 1960s. In 1974 a new leader of the EOKA set enosis as his top priority, and Turkey, wishing to provide its people with a stable homeland, responded by invading the north of the island. In 1983 they declared the north as a new country, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Since then, a series of peace talks and unification plans have been proposed and rejected, and the island remains in a state of political limbo.

Bards 01:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. 3rd para. I'm tempted to add, after the 1960 bit, "The new nation should have restored the island's earlier harmony between the Greeks and the Turks living together as Cypriots. But the idea of enosis had acquired a cultural momentum, and continued to cause problems. The appointment of...". But suspect that may be inflamatory (and POV ish) to today's enosis supporters, and may only result in edit wars (doh!). Bards 01:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bards I have a couple of suggestions on the first two paragraphs as below
Cyprus (Greek: Κύπρος, Kýpros; Turkish: Kıbrıs) is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea, located south of Turkey. It is divided into two political zones. The south is inhabited mainly by Cypriots of Greek cultural descent and the north by Cypriots of Turkish cultural descent. A buffer zone between them is controlled by United Nations forces. The south also contains two Sovereign Base Areas controlled by the British.
Officially the island is a single island nation, the Republic of Cyprus (Greek: Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία, Kypriakí Dhimokratía; Turkish: Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti). However, the Turkish invasion of the northern part of the island in 1974 resulted, in 1983, in the declaration of a seperate independant state by the Turkish Cypriot community, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. This entity is recognised as a legitimate state only by Turkey. The events of 1974 resulted in wholesale movement of Greek Cypriot populations from the North of the island to the South and the reverse movement of Turkish Cypriots from the South to the North creating the de facto partition that exists today.
Basically I personally prefer the term 'cultural descendant' - because basically Greek and Turkish Cypriots geneticaly are closer to each other than they are to either Greek or Turkish populations respectively. We are not geneticaly seperate but culturaly so. I have also tweaked the 2nd paragraph a bit.
As for the third I see quite aa few problems with it to be frank and I am not sure of the necessity for it at all in the introduction. I do not have the time right now to suggest improvments to it but will try to do so soon. In any case thanks for your efforts to get this article improved Erolz 02:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Erolz, that looks good to me. I'll let this sit here for a day or two, and if no one jumps up and screams, and I'll change it and see what happens ;) Bards 13:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

All of these talks are between the greeks and the turks.... what about the cypriots??!!! The ottoman empire took all of greece and every island, they also took all of northern africa, it doesnt mean that they should all be part of turkey. Before the cypriots wanted independance there was no such thing as a greek or turkish cypriot, the brits came up with it to try and stop the island from joining with greece. My point is that there are no greek cypriots who can claim that they have no turkish blood and there are no (legitimate) turkish cypriots that can claim that they have no greek blood. This island is its own, It has a mixture of greek, italian, french, english and turkish culture. Cypriot greek is very different to that spoken in athens. There was once a kingdom of cyprus that did very well and even had its own tiny empire, so why dont we just leave cyprus to the cypriots eh? Ge0rg10

It seems that a whole bunch of people are now pre-emptively modifying the intro, trying to correct the POVcreep and inserting phrases from this discussion, thus stalling my plan to overhaul it. I'll let them get on with it for the moment! Bards 08:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with this now. It is possible for a novice to read the intro, and get a good basic grasp of the situation. Thanks for the good advice. Bards 12:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also satisfied with the current intro: its concise, yet comprehensive (e.g., importantly summarising the de facto partition). Thanks! Corticopia 12:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually I also agree that it looks really much more clear this way. Just one thing. I think TRNC shouldn't be labeled as "seperatist" since it was the Turkish cypriots who voted in favor of the reunion referendum in 2004. I was going to write "a de facto sovereign state" but it is also said like that in the following sentence, and I couldn't think of any other wording. Would one of the native english speakers help? Thanks, and regards, Kerem Özcan 14:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Merely removing 'separatist' may suffice, if at all; any other word changes are discouraged. And including that word shouldn't be problematic anyway, since a number of countries may also have separatist movements -- Canada (Quebec) most readily comes to mind -- and the TRNC (by its very presence) remains a separate entity despite the referendum. however, the TRNC is not a "de facto sovereign state" (and this assertion would have to be sourced, anyway), since one of the key criteria for statehood (Westphalia) is a territory's ability to establish relations with other states. Only Turkey has recognised the TRNC, with others disregarding it, not having acknowledged it, etc. Anyhow, the links for TRNC etc. should tell a reader all they need to know, without overloading the introduction. Corticopia 14:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
My two pence worth is that seperatist shoud be removed - it implies to the average reader that continued seperation is the offical policy of the TRNC - which is not the case. As for a referance for the TRNC as a de facto state there is one here http://www.britannica.com/nations/Cyprus but personaly I also accept this can be considered misleading. Certainly the echr in its rulings to date considers the trnc as de facto a part of turkey for example. The TRNC does have realtions with other states and indeed with the EU , it's just they do not recognise it as a legitimate state. Erolz 18:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The Britannica reference is interesting -- thanks. However, note that it merely notes de facto state, with no implication about the TRNC's sovereignty. I cannot say whether the TRNC is truly that, and changes in the article lead saying that may be misleading -- I would limit or remove any such notations from the intro and keep it simple. Corticopia 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Given recent edits, at this juncture, it is important to include the entire footnote for the Cyprus entry in Britannica (emphasis mine):
  • Two de facto states currently exist on the island of Cyprus: the Republic of Cyprus (ROC), predominantly Greek in character, occupying the southern two-thirds of the island, which is the original and still the internationally recognized de jure government of the whole island; and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), proclaimed unilaterally Nov. 15, 1983, on territory originally secured for the Turkish Cypriot population by the July 20, 1974, intervention of Turkey. Only Turkey recognizes the TRNC, and the two ethnic communities have failed to reestablish a single state....
While the TRNC may be a legal entity under Turkish law, it has no de jure ("in law") standing internationally and it is incorrect to say or imply otherwise. De facto means "in fact", and the island is -- in actuality -- subdivided into four potions. Based on this alone, the current introduction is sufficient and attempts to imbalance it without added discussion or consensus will be corrected. Thanks. Corticopia 13:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree above. I would have no problems calling TRNC seperatist, but most of the turkish cypriots, (and also the party in power) is for one state solution according to last referendum. What I understand from a seperatist state is like Chechen Republic of Ichkeria or NKR. Regards, Kerem Özcan 21:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The demographics section

There is a problem with the demogrpahics section, which has long been an area of propaganda re the Cyprus issue. However as the section stands atm we have it saying that "about 150,000 Turks from Anatolia were transferred or decided to settle in the north" and then a referance to here http://www.observercyprus.com/observer/NewsDetails.aspx?id=1180 that contradicts the earlier figure of 150,000 mainland turks. I am not sure how to fix this problem but it is certainly inconsistent. Maybe we need to say that the number of settlers introduced into north cyprus by the TRNC is highly disputed by both sides ? Erolz 19:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • That news story seems inherently contradictory - its figures don't really add up, unless 100,000+ people in the TRNC have at least 1 parent born neither in Cyprus or Turkey. Vizjim 06:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The figures do add up , it the way the article is written that is confusing. Another repot on the figures is here http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=30725&archive=1 . Basically there were 256k people in the north on the day of census. Of this 256k, 178k were trnc citizens and 77k were temporary visitors. Of the 178k that were citizens, 120k have two cypriot parents, 12k have onbe cypriot parent and 46k have no cypriot parent. Of the 46k, 30k were born outside cyprus and 16k were themeselves born in Cyprus. The wiki article currently states " about 150,000 Turks from Anatolia were transferred or decided to settle in the north." and "The TRNC has granted citizenship to these immigrants:". Yet according to the census quoted this figure is actually 46,000 (42,500 if u just counting TRNC citizens with no cypriot parents thast came orginally from Turkey) not 150,000 (those with neither parent cypriot AND with TRNC citizenship). Of the 46,000 with no cypriot parent 42,500 are from mainland Turkey (the rest being TRNC citizens with no cypriot parents from other countries). I think we have to recognise that the number of mainland Turkish people who have been given TRNC citizenship has always been a disputed figure and used as propaganda. The wiki article as it stands at the moment merely presents a figure of 'about 150,000' (with no source for this btw) and then sources an article that reports on the latest TRNC census that shows this gigure to 42,000. I really think we need to find a way to make all this clear in the demographics section here, if we are to maintain as NPOV appraoch as possible. Erolz 08:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Give me a couple of days to get my maths head on :) Vizjim 04:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraphs

Look, the opening paragraphs simply do not need to describe the multitudinous legal ramifications of the TRNC's pariah status, the Republic's recognised control etc etc et bloody c. That's why they were so confused and gave such a bad picture of the island before. Just a brief note of the de facto state of things (which is, by the way, why it says "de facto" in the paragraph above the list of areas), and on to the main article.

I disagree. If you want to dumb things down to such an extent, go to http://simple.wikipedia.org. There is nothing that complicated in stating that the Republic of Cyprus is internationally recognised as the legitimate authority of the whole island, and that the "TRNC" is recognised only by Turkey. These are fundamental parameters of the island's division that shouldn't be buried in obscurity further down the article. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
but that Turkish military action in Cyprus was precipitated by the Athens backed coup in Cyprus should be burried in obscurity futher down the article? Erolz 08:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. The Republic is indeed internationally recognised as the legitimate authority of the whole island, but at the same time the TRNC exists. The de facto situation is generally recognised, and the intricacies can be explained in their proper context. Vizjim 09:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section

I think it is time the history section was split off into a separate article. It is ridiculously long and overly complex for this article. What do others think? Vizjim 04:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if it needs to be split off or left here but what is needed is something about the period 64-74. The post independence section jumps from UN troops arriving in 64 to coup and Turkish military action in 74 with nothing about the period 64-74 (which in fact has 2 distinct parts 64-68 and 68 -74). At the end of the day the situation in Cyprus toaday and it's historical roots IS complicated Erolz 08:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
There's Cypriot Civil War, which for me is a model of what should happen with the rest of the history sections - split off into better articles with a bare-bones brief summary in the main article. Cyprus is a lot more than the sum of its various invasions, more even than the result of the Cyprus Problem, and this article buries that fact. Vizjim 09:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/y/p/Talk%7ECyprus_2821.html"