Talk:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 History 1.1 Length of sections 2 Recently created TRNC sub-articles 3 TRNC Article contains Factual Errors and is POV 4 Unprotected 5 TRNC occupied by Turkey? 6 Censored 7 Take a look at this! 8 Why don't you people grow up?

History

The history as you want it doesn't go far enough in explaining the Turkish presence on the island. The article didnt even mention how Turkish Cypriots appeared on the island, hence beginning from 1571. Also the reasons for the creation of the TRNC go far beyond 1974. As it was it was too simplified. --E.A 14:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't mention how Greeks appeared on the island either - perhaps we should go all the way back to the Bronze Age? This article is about the TRNC, not the whole history of Cyprus, on which we already have an article. Adam 14:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Theres no reason why the History section shouldn't have 3 extra paragraphs detailing events before 1974. The way you want is oversimplified and makes the usual assumption that TRNC came out of the blue in 1974 when Turkey invaded. --E.A 15:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

And the place to explain that is at History of Cyprus or perhaps Cyprus dispute. Articles need to be about what they are about. All historical events are linked to other historical events, but they can't all go in every article. Adam 00:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but i disagree, i dont see why pieces of information from those articles cannot be summed up and placed here for the reader. --E.A 09:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I just told you why: because this article is about the TRNC, an entity which has existed only since 1974. Of course that entity grew out of earlier Cypriot history, but that history can be found at the appropriate articles, and does not need to be repeated at this article. The whole point of an encyclopaedia is divide knowledge up into segments. If I go to Nazi Germany, I don't expect to find stuff about Charlemagne and the Hohenstauffens, although German history is just as much a continuous narrative as Cypriot history is. All that needs to be said at this article is that the TRNC was created in the wake of the Turkish invasion of 1974, and that readers can learn about that history at the relevant articles if they are interested. That is what an encyclopaedia should do. I will continue to delete irrelevant material from this article. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Stay on topic. Adam 09:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Length of sections

• Why does Greece contain information on Prehistory, Roman and Ottoman rule? Why does that article not start in 1829?. Why does Germany contain information on the Holy Roman Empire? Why does that no start in 1945? Israel has a wealth of information before 1947 on its history.
• In fact look at the History of Cyprus and you will see no mention of the history of its republic. Why dont you move those to the history of Cyprus?
• None of the material myself and Turkcyp posted are irrelevant or off topic, it is part of Turkish Cypriot history on the island. --E.A 10:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Surely you can see the difference between Greece and Germany on the one hand and this article on the other. They are articles about whole history of those countries. The equivalasnt article is Cyprus. This article is about a small section of Cypriot history. An equivalent article would be Weimar Republic, which should confine itself to the period 1918-33 and not wander all over German history.
• If History of Cyprus is inadequate, you should improve it. I am not working on that article.
• This is not an article about the "Turkish Cypriot history on the island." It is an article about the TRNC. You are welcome to write Turkish Cypriot history, but not at this article. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Adam 10:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If we were attempting to create a whole section on Turkish Cypriot history i would understand your point, but as it was there was 1 paragraph on how Turks came, 1 paragraph on how the Republic was created and 1 paragraph on how it broke down and TRNC was created. We were hardly 'wondering all over' Cyprus history were we? --E.A 11:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I will try one more time. This is an article with a precise topic: the TRNC, which was created in 1974. The circumstances of its creation (the Sampson coup and the Turkish invasion) are relevant and should be mentioned in a couple of sentences, but the previous history of the Cyprus dispute is not, let alone what happened during the Ottoman Empire. I will treat future edits accordingly. Adam 11:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Its this simple, i think the material is very relevant (and judging by Turkcyp contribution so does he) and will continue to reinstate it. Either we come to a compromise or we'll both waste our time, but i wont accept the complete removal of it. E.A 13:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You are free to waste your time if you wish. I have already explained several times why I won't accept this irrelevant material in this article, and I will revert it three times a day (so as to avoid the 3R rule) for the rest of the year if needs be. Adam 13:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Its a shame you will not adopt a more constructive attitude. I see no reason why a reader reading about the TRNC will not want to know how the Turks came, how the republic broke down and how the TRNC was created. If you want to carry on being stubborn go ahead. --E.A 13:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

If they want to read about those things they can read about them at the relevant articles. An encyclopaedia consists of articles on defined subjects. This article is about the TRNC. There are other articles on the history of Cyprus, to which this one should be linked. That's the whole point of an online encyclopaedia. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? If it is relevant for you to explain in this article how the Turks came to Cyprus, then it is equally relevant for me to explain how the Greeks got there, which takes us back to the Bronze Age. This is absurd, and your position is ridiculous. I have reverted you three times today, which is all I am allowed, but I will be back to revert you tomorrow, and the next day. Adam 13:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You will find that many articles on states summarise small parts of their history from their main history article. Considering this is an article about the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, that is why there is an explanation (1 paragraph!) on how the Turks came to the island, if people want to find out how Greeks came, then they can follow the links i placed at the bottom. Also to not include a short summary (only 2 paragraphs) on how the TRNC came about from the 1950/60/70's violence is absurd. If we had it your way readers would be hopping from article to article to find information which they may only want in a summarised form. --E.A 15:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

We can have a summary, but I agree with Adam that the overall length you have in mind is excessive and can be linked (it's a wiki, after all), and that duplication and un-topicality should be avoided. I'm sure some sort of compromise can be reached here. El_C 02:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to a one-para (three or four lines) summary, with links to the relevant articles. Adam 03:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable; I also note that the additions suffer from reduandancy which can be improved through concision. Pertinent material need not and should not be lost, better structuring and organization (including linking), and presentation can end up doing wonders. El_C 05:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Adam, I am afraid, your examples are irrelevant. Nazi Germany and Weimar Republic are both nonexistent at the moment, so they are merely steps in development of the current Germany. If someone is reading those articles it is safe to assume this person will read about the other steps and hence the motivation for including previuos history is very little, except for immediately preceding steps. For a state that exists now, it does make sense to have its history, in particular the history of its people on its land, in the same article. This is especially true for TRNC, since as E.A. many times pointed out, people may have an impression that the Turkish presence in the island started or became significant with the 1974 intervention. at0 04:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Then they should read the relevant articles, and this article should direct them to them. This article is about the TRNC and not the History of Cyprus. Adam 05:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you are not disputing the necessity of this information for a better understanding of the TRNC; so why don't we include this information directly until the article is edited to have links to provide the information which I am sure you can do very competently? at0 05:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Because this is not an article about the Ottoman Empire or the history of the Cyprus dispute. It is an article about the TRNC. I don't know how to explain it more simply. Adam 05:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the order in which the summaries are authored, links added, other pertinent material from these additions integrated into those, etc., isn't that key. So long as we agree on this as the approach to follow. El_C 05:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I have used my three reverts for today but I will be back at midnight. Adam 11:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Adam, there has been a change that makes one of your statements factually incorrect. Azerbaijan has now formally recognised the TRNC, and is about to start direct flights. This may even lead to more recognition from the wider international community. While this is noted in the 'Recent Developments' section, the introduction still states that only Turkey recognises the TRNC. HAL9001 11:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Where did you hear that? As far as I know, Azerbaijan only officially recognizes Northern Cyprus' Ercan airport as a legal port of entry, not the Government of the TRNC (regrettably). The only part of Azerbaijan that recognizes TRNC is Nakhichevan Autononomous Republic. The Government in Baku wants to recognize TRNC, but if it does so, then Nagorno-Karabakh would be recognized internationally in retaliation... Expatkiwi 22:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This story appears to be the source. It makes clear that Azerbaijan has not diplomatically recognised the TRNC, although it is moving in that direction. As Expatkiwi says, Azerbaijan has an almost identical problem with Nagorny-Karabakh, which is under Armenian occupation, so it has to think twice before antagonising Greece and Cyprus (and the EU) by recognising TRNC. When the article is unprotected this development can be noted. Adam 22:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Right, it does not appear to amount (yet) to formal diplomatic recognition. El_C 22:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Recently created TRNC sub-articles

Due to Truth Seeker's cogent observations, new pages dealing with specifics of TRNC politics have been created on Wikipedia by myself: Foreign Relations of TRNC, and Politics of Northern Cyprus. Expatkiwi 22:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC).

TRNC Article contains Factual Errors and is POV

• The article (Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus) reads like biased political commentary emphasizing and focusing on issues that have more to do with the Cyprus_dispute. For example: there is no section describing the People of the TRNC, but there is an entire section devoted to Property Issues (surely, this section should be in the Cyprus Dispute). The section on Communications and Transport has three paragraphs and each paragraph describes problems such as visa issues rather than giving facts and figures about airports, roads and so on. The History section is factually wrong (see below) and focuses on the non-recognition of the TRNC, rather than giving useful information on why and how the TRNC came into existence.

• It is factually wrong and misleading to say that quote- The independence of northern Cyprus was proclaimed in 1975 under the name Turkish Federated State of Northern Cyprus -unquote. In 1975 Northern Cyprus declared its federated status as part of the Republic of Cyprus. It did not declare its independence until 1983, and that was after years of failed negotiations with South Cyprus and the international community. The article continues quote- The name was changed to its present form on 15 November 1983 -unquote. This is misleading. It was a lot more than a name change. It was the creation of a newly declared independent political entity called the TRNC. The Turkish Federated State of Northern Cyprus was a different political entity. The article needs to be corrected.

• If the aim is to create a NPOV objective description of the TRNC, which describes its Geography, People, Economy and so on, then such an article must include a History section which helps us understand how and why the TRNC came into existence; and a People section that explains who the Turkish Cypriots are and where they came from.

--Truth_Seeker 15:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This article should not be protected, it should be deleted and re-written.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.217.102.162 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

There seems to be no substantive discussion here, so I've unprotected the article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

As you have surely discovered at Khmer Rouge, Tony, the reason there is no discussion here is that the article is protected. Now that you have unprotected it, the Greek and Turkish nationalists will come back and the edit wars will resume until the article is protected again. This is what happens at articles of this sort, which is why they should stay protected unless someone has a sensible edit to make. This is of course the fundemental structural problem with Wikipedia: hotly contested articles do not steadily get better and better through consensus, as wikitheory argues. They go round in an endless cycle of edit wars and protections. Adam 09:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

TRNC occupied by Turkey?

The TRNC is free democracy with a freely elected President and Prime Minister. The leaders of the TRNC operate independently of Turkey therefore the TRNC is NOT occupied by Turkey

If stationing 35,000 troops on the island (despite countless condemnatory UN Security Council resolutions demanding their withdrawal) isn't a military occupation, I don't know what is.--Theathenae 15:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

They are there to protect the borders and integrity of the TRNC. The Annan plan would have seen the eventual departure of the Turkish military forces; and the Turkish Military didn’t oppose or prevent it. --Son of the Tundra 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Your knowledge of recent Cypriot history appears rather deficient, I'm afraid. Denktaş and the generals opposed the Annan Plan from the beginning; the fact that Erdoğan and Talat endorsed it does not mean the generals would have done the same when it came to the nitty-gritty of actually putting it into practice.--Theathenae 18:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that Theathenae is promoting far-right Greek extremism. It makes no difference where its defence forces are. The UK has a similar number of prepared military reserves. Does that mean that it is occupied? REX 18:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Britain invaded and occupies the sovereign nation of Iraq, flouting international law in much the same way Turkey did in 1974.--Theathenae 09:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

So what? There are American troops in Greenland and Iceland. Does that mean that they are under millitary occupation? REX 09:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hear, Hear, Rex. --User:Expatkiwi 01:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no dispute that Turkish troops are present in northern Cyprus. Since everybody except Turkey recognises that territory as belonging to the Republic of Cyprus, and since the Republic of Cyprus does not want Turkish troops on its territory, it must follow that those troops are occupying northern Cyprus. The fact that the TRNC wants them there is not relevant, since it is not a recognised state. Adam 02:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Like heck it aint relevent! The TRNC exists, whether you like it or not, and since the people there want the protection of the Turkish military, pretending otherwise by saying that the state does not exist and that the Turkish Cypriot fears of a repeat of 1963-1974 are irrelevent is the height of blindness.

Well, you know what they say: "You can tell an Australian, but you can't tell him much!"

You want me to start with Kiwi jokes? Don't tempt me. Adam 04:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I've heard 'em all. Besides, I'm a Yank now, so you'll have to start using American Jokes instead. The Kiwi Yank 05:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, being a Yank you'd know all about "illigitimate" (in strong Kiwi twang) invasions and occupations, wouldn't you?--Theathenae 09:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that if you used your brains for a change and read you would see the following from the Hague Conventions of 1907. Specifically "Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State". The first two articles of that section state: Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. As far as I know, there have been free elections in TRNC, therefore they are the legitimate authority and they do not want the troops removes, hance there is no millitary occupation. REX 10:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The Turkish Cypriots would appear to disagree with you. They literally invited the Turkish troops when the extremist Makarions III decided to amend the constitution and violate the rights of the Turkish Cypriots. REX 12:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Even if what you say is true, the Turkish-Cypriots had no such authority to invite a foreign power to invade, whether under Cypriot or international law.--Theathenae 12:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Whereas the Greek junta spreading to Cyprus would have been no problem? REX 12:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. The fascists that ruled Greece at the time bear as much responsibility for the tragedy of Cyprus as the Turks. But they are long gone, while the Turks haven't budged an inch.--Theathenae 12:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that this case should be distinguished from millitary occupation and more closely aligned with a case of national independance. Don't the Turkish-Cypriots have the right to establish their own state with a little aid and manpowed support from a friendly country? I sounds quite like the Northern Ireland case. I minority wants to have its own country. At first, Northern Ireland had its own government (see list of Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland) but because of the violence it was later revoked. The Greeks are just angry with Turkey for beating them to annexing part or whole of Cyprus. REX 12:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

So you would support the Republic of Ireland invading and occupying 37% of Northern Ireland, then? After all, the Irish Catholic minority should have the right to live free of British Protestant rule.--Theathenae 12:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I would, yes. You know how much NI costs the rest of the UK every year. They need more money than they can bring in. Anyway, Éire tried, but failed. REX 13:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

So, are we agreeing that TRNC is not under millitary occupation? REX 13:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Censored

I agree with you, Rex. A Protection Force is not an Occupation Force. However, the Greek Cypriot propaganda machine has found too much fertile ground. Greek Cypriot atrocities are swept under the rug so that they can claim that they Greeks are the injured party. Well, at least thanks to the Annan Plan referendum, the Turkish Cypriots are starting to get more international sympathy..... User: Expatkiwi 14:51, 30 September 2005.

I'm afraid the United Nations, European Union, Council of Europe, as well as every single government in the world except that of Turkey, disagree with you. I also find it rather odd that you would "thank" the Annan Plan for anything if, as you claim, you are such a fervent supporter of the sanctity and independence of the "TRNC". You can either be in favour of Cypriot reunification, as provided for in the Annan Plan, or you can be a Turkish-Cypriot separatist, à la Rauf Denktaş. You cannot be both.--Theathenae 14:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you can. You may not believe this, but I do believe in reconciliation, but that's not going to happen here as long as either side think of themselves as Turk, or Greek, rather than CYPRIOT first. Cyprus can be the place to prove that both Turk and Greek can live together peacefully, and the Annan plan ideal was a step in the right direction. The rejection of the plan meant that reconciliation is out of the question, so that leaves the status quo. And if that is the case, then TRNC should not be kept isolated (after all, they were willing to give it a chance). User:Expatkiwi 15:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that the inhabitants of Cyprus should think of themselves as Cypriots first and form a unitary state free of foreign intervention, whether in the form of "guarantor powers", sovereign British bases, Greek airbases, 35,000 Turkish troops and heavy artillery, or tens of thousands of illegal settlers from Turkey. Promoting Turkish nationalism in the form of Rauf Denktaş-style ethnic separatism cannot possibly help towards this goal. Remember, it is the T in the "TRNC" that makes all the difference; when Denktaş and the generals established their statelet, they made sure there was a reference to the "motherland" in its title; the Republic of Cyprus has no such reference to Greece, for the simple reason that it is was founded as the common homeland of Greek and Turkish Cypriots. That is why Turkish-Cypriots can still obtain Republic of Cyprus (and now EU) passports, but not vice versa.--Theathenae 15:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only way that reconciliation can happen is if the following steps are taken:

A) Repudiation by the Greek Cypriots of Enosis in return for Turkish Cypriot repudiation of Takism.

B) A commitment from both sides to adhere faithfully to the letter and spirit of the Constitution of 1960 and pledge never to make constitutional ammendments to the detriment of either community.

C) Total redress of property issues on BOTH SIDES of the Green Line. Greek Cypriots get back their properties in the north in return for Turkish Cypriots getting back theirs in the south (and I mean the situation before 1963).

C) Turkish settlers that have children born on Cyprus as well as Turkish settlers who marry Cypriots should be exempted from threat of deportation.

D) Dropping of offical observances of Turkish and Greek national holidays and displays of either national flag (execpt at the respective embassies). Only Cypriot holidays to be commemorated. (and Cyprus dropping the Greek National Anthem in exchange for a neutral tune).

E) Replacing the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee with a document giving a third party nation the right to ensure the integrity of Cyprus. This means the total demilitarization of Cyprus (and the cession of the British bases)

F) Total separation of Church and State. The Orthrodox Church has influenced Greek Cypriot politics too much.

Is the above too much to ask for? By the way, I think of Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural speech in which he tried to reach out to the Southern U.SA. States. I've never heard Papadopoulos say anything similar to the Turkish Cypriots...

I agree with all of the above (except perhaps the need for a third-party nation acting as as yet another neo-colonial "guarantor power"), but your proposal is not what was in the Annan Plan. I also don't believe Papadopoulos is the demon many in the Turkish media and elsewhere like to portray him as. His main objection was to the restrictions on the Greek-Cypriots' right of return, a point on which you don't appear to disagree anyway.--Theathenae 17:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Just sweeping unwanted comments out of the way is not going to change the fact that the Cyprus issue is a very contentious one. Yes, I am pro-TRNC and I'm not ashamed to say it. The one thing I learned is that one can not sit on the fence on this issue: one has to take sides, and I made my decision after reading up on the Cyprus dispute very throughly.

You use the term 'invasion' while I prefer the term 'peace operation', though I try to be more neutral by using the term 'military intervention'. In mnaintaining neutral POV for Wikipedia, you have to be careful in selecting your words. You're not helping your cause by bombast.

I fail to see the need to sugarcoat what happened. The Yanks and Brits have no problem calling their own "freedom operation" in Iraq what it was: an invasion. Why should we? Unless, of course, you propose that the title of that article should be changed to "2003 peace and freedom operation/intervention in Iraq".--Theathenae 15:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If I had my way, I wouldn't 'sugar-coat' it either, but Wikipedia does have it's rules (kind of like a constitution, but since the Greek Cypriots treat the 1960 Constitution like <a href="toilet%20paper" onmouseover="window.status='toilet paper'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=; return true;">toilet paper</a>, maybe it's not so suprising that you want to do likewise here).

If the word invasion is good enough for 2003 invasion of Iraq, it is good enough for TRNC. You may believe the Turks are innocent of any wrongdoing on Cyprus, but you are wrong.--Theathenae 15:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't mistake me, matey! I know damn well that there are Turkish Cypriot extremists as well. TMT killed a lot of Greek Cypriots and compromise-minded Turkish Cypriots as well, but looking at both sides, a lot more Turkish Cypriots suffered than Greeek Cypriots between 1963 and 1974. User:Expatkiwi

And how about in the 31 years since? Have the Turkish-Cypriots fared that much better in their ethnically pure "paradise" that they felt the need to abandon Denktaş's puppet state for London and Australia en masse? Being an avid fan of the "TRNC", you should at least know that native Turkish-Cypriots are by now a minority in their own "state", outnumbered by Anatolian colonists sent by the "motherland" in the years since 1974.--Theathenae 17:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The intervention stopped the cycle of violence at least. True, the enclaved Greek Cypriots in the north do not have an easy time, but no country is perfect. I understand that the few Turkish Cypriots living in the south have their share of pain too.... User:Expatkiwi

My support of TRNC is base on one simple premise: self-determination is an inalienable right of man.

And yet, Turkish-Cypriots have been voting with their feet since 1974 against the failed policy of ethnic segregation and separatism you appear to support in the seductive name of "self-determination". Are the Turkish-Cypriots more Turkish or Cypriot? If the answer is the latter, then they should be prepared to surrender their "state" to a common Cypriot homeland, where nobody is constitutionally barred from living wherever the hell he wants on the mere basis of his or her ethnicity. Restricting people's freedom of movement is not permitted anywhere else in the European Union for any reason, and it should not be allowed in Cyprus either.--Theathenae 17:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to try and not be emotional in this debate. It's hard though because I see a minority fearing being overwhelmed by a majority that has a historical antipathy to them. That's why I have supported TRNC as a means to keep the Turkish Cypriots safe. You know, when I see a picture of President Tassos Papadopoulos, I only see a Hellene, not a Cypriot. I know that he wants to help the dispocessed Greek Cypriots get back what they lost, but has he ever made a promise to the dispocessed Turkish Cypriots to recover what they lost since 1963? As President of Cyprus, he has to represent all Cypriots, not just Greek Cypriots. That includes the Turkish Cypriots, Armenian Cypriots, and Maronite Cypriots. Given the intercommunial violence between 1963 and 1974, and the results of the partition since then, there seems little room for goodwill, but if Papadopoulos wants to be the president of the entire island nation, he is going to have to reach out to the Cypriots that are non-Greek. I really think he should try appealing directly to his 'disaffected fellow countrymen' in the North and try to assure them that he wants fairness for all. Assuring them that ALL land grievances will be resolved, permitting all of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of 1960, and trying to eliminate tensions by discouaging all forms of Greek and Turkish Nationalism. For starters, stop using the Greek National Hymn as the Cypriot Anthem, and have the communities stop celebrating Turkish and Greek holidays. Celebrate Cypriot holidays and come up with community emblems that are Cypriot first in nature. Invite Mehmet Ali Talat to take his constitutional position as the Vice-President of Cyprus and to guarantee to all Cypriots that the consitution is inviolate, and that either Enosis or Takism is not ever going to be considered. True, there has been a lot of lives lost since 1963, but people are going to have to move beyond that if any hope of an independent and truly representative Cyprus government of the people is to be realized. End of speechUser:Expatkiwi 19:16 30 September 2005.

That's strange; when I see him, I definitely see and hear a Cypriot. His looks, his accent, his demeanour are all quintessentially Cypriot. I have heard a few of his speeches in the original Greek and he has made overtures to the Turkish Cypriots in much the same way as you describe above. He also announced measures to make it easier for TCs to live and work in the free areas and to access Cypriot government services and official documents such as passports. These haven't been reported in the Turkish media of course, but that doesn't mean they aren't real. As for your proposal to invite Talat to take up the vice-presidency, the Republic of Cyprus has been been waiting for the Turkish Cypriots to return to their constitutional positions since 1963. The vacant Turkish-Cypriot seats in the House of Representatives have been reserved until such time as the TCs return. But you can't have it all your own way; if Talat wants to be Vice-President of Cyprus, he can't also be "President" of a separate "state" over which the Republic of Cyprus has no authority or control. As for Enosis, no political force in either Cyprus or Greece supports such a proposition. If Papadopoulos were disinclined to accept the Annan Plan, it was precisely because he was opposed to the very notion of the dissolution of the Republic of Cyprus. Taksim, on the other hand, still has many supporters among the Turkish Cypriots, and it is unfortunate that you appear to share those sentiments. You cannot denounce Taksim and support the "TRNC" at the same time. Still, I think most Turkish-Cypriots have already decided they want to be Cypriots first; it is up to Turkey to respect their wishes and withdraw from the island, and let the Cypriots forge their own destiny.--Theathenae 19:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Expatkiwi, take it from me, Theathenae is known for not being realistic. On Talk:Arvanites, Talk:Macedonian Slavs ,Talk:Megleno-Romanians he promotes POV without sources. Even if you have sources. Even if G*d himself were to tell him that he is wrong, he woudn't listen. REX 19:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm an atheist, thank "YAHWEH".--Theathenae 19:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

As long as the Greek Cypriots regard ANY Turkish presence on the island as a 'knife at their throat', then there won't be any trust, and that will never open the door to reconciliation. The proposed ammendments by Makarios to the conastitution and the resulting violence in '63 forced the Turkish Cypriots out of government and off their land. Unless there is a way to assure the Turkish Cypriots that such an event will not recur and that there is a place for them in a non-aligned and independent Cypriot state, then the island will stay partitioned. And in that case, the Turkish Cypriots should stop being embargoed. That strategy is not working either. User:Expatkiwi

I think the main obstacle to a solution is the Turkish occupation, which makes it impossible for the Greek-Cypriots to feel secure in their own homeland and which explains in large part their apprehensive attitude. The removal of Turkish troops would be a huge boost to mutual confidence on the island. All the Greek-Cypriots want is to be allowed back to their homes and their island to be one and whole again, not to exterminate the Turkish-Cypriot population as the nationalists on the other side would aver. No one seriously believes that the Turkish-Cypriots would be under any threat from "the Greeks" in the EU in the 21^st century, surely?--Theathenae 20:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

To show you how much this issue means to me, when there was a UN-sponsored competition to design new emblems for the proposed United Cyprus Republic, I decided to give it a try. In my designs, I tried to show a reconciliation between the Turkish Cypriot North and Greek Cypriot South coming together for a common purpose for Cyprus. I also tried to come up with flags representing both communities showing both cultural identity, yet a Cypriot central meaning (one thing in common both sides share is the 'K' - first letter in Cyprus in both languages). The arms were ammended accordingly. Maybe someday.... User:Expatkiwi

Hmmm.. the blue and the red seem to clash, and not only metaphorically. I personally see no reason to change the flag of the Republic of Cyprus. Did you know it was designed by a Turkish-Cypriot prior to independence in 1960?--Theathenae 21:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that the emblem is quite nice. That could have been used in the centre of the flag. Anyway, can anyone find a text of the TRNC's constitution. I have been searching Yahoo! and I can't find it anwhere. We could tell from that if it is under millitary occupation as constitutions always state how the mechanics of government work. If it says for example that laws in the TRNC are made by the Turkish parliament, what does that mean? If it says that it is a parliamentary democracy then we can assume that it is not under millitary occupation. REX 21:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head when you commented about the red and the blue clashing, but if Cyprus is to be united, then both communities are going to have to ignore their differences and come together in order to share that common path; red and blue combined. User:Expatkiwi

Indeed, what if a Federal Republic of Cyprus was established. Unity, but also segregation. That way, there would be no cat a and dog fights because we know that extremist elements exist in both camps, there are always troublemakers; so if they were seperated, fights would be infrequent. REX 23:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I am against unification. I dont think we can live together, too many Greek Cypriots still see Cyprus as their island and Turks as second class citizens. --A.Garnet 00:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

But Cyprus is their island. It is also the island of the Turkish-Cypriots, of course, even if they are a dwindling minority. I remember reading somewhere that despite the Turkish invasion and occupation and the establishment of a Greek-free Turkish "paradise" in the "North", there are only 88,000 native Turkish-Cypriots left on the island, as many thousands have voted with their feet and left Turkish-occupied Cyprus altogether. Indeed, as a result of Turkey's policy of colonisation and the arrival of tens of thousands of Anatolian colonists since 1974, the native Turkish-Cypriots have become a minority even within their own "state". That makes all the talk of Turkey "intervening" to protect the Turkish-Cypriots ring rather hollow.--Theathenae 07:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH ALARM! Both Greeks and Turkish Cypriots have an interest in that land and they both have a right to it. BOth ethnic group's rights should be protected and respected. There is no such thing like saying the Greeks are the majority, so they should be the ruling class!! Having a country with two nationalities is not uncommon, check Belgium. Only the extremist elements in these countries ever couse trouble. REX 08:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The Kurds form about the same proportion (20%) of the population of Turkey, yet the Turks wouldn't dream of dissolving the Republic of Turkey in favour of a loose confederation with wide Kurdish autonomy. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.--Theathenae 09:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The Turkish/Muslim minority of Greece would like recognition and more human rights, as would the Arvanites, Vlachs, Macedonians etc. Any yet Greece wouldn't dream of granting these concessions as they would mean thet Greece is no lnger 100% ethnically Greek. Talk about hypocrisy. REX 10:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm Greek - I know the meaning of the word. Do you?--Theathenae 10:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course. You know the New Testament phrase Ουαί υμίν Γραμματείς και Φαρισαίοι υποκριταί. It means essentially that the hypocrite requires everyone to, do as I say, not as I do. This is what Greece does. Complain about human rights in other countries while covering up what is going on in her own back yard. REX 10:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The appalling plight of the Kurds in Turkey is hardly comparable to any human rights situation in the EU, Greece included. As for your allegation of hypocrisy, I believe in unitary states, not states fragmented along ethnic lines. The Turks, on the other hand, are obsessed with the "unity" of the Turkish republic while demanding the fragmentation of the Republic of Cyprus. That is hypocrisy.--Theathenae 11:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course, don't get me wrong. The Turks have exhibited signs of hypocrisy as well. Personally, I believe that the Κυπριακό will never be solved until Cyprus is free from outside influence. Greek and Turkish troops included. REX 11:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. And because the Greek military presence on the island is negligible, it the Turks who continue to bear the main onus of responsibility for the division of Cyprus.--Theathenae 11:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but that doesn't stop the TRNC being a free Republic. You should check the Constitution of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. It is not under millitary occupation. It may be a ψευδοκράτος like the Republic of China, but it is not under millitary occupation as the Greek falsely claim by calling it τα κατεχόμενα. REX 11:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the basic tenets of international law. The territories occupied by Turkey are internationally recognised as belonging to the sovereign nation of Cyprus. And as the Republic of Cyprus opposes the presence of Turkish troops on its soil, this means that northern Cyprus is under Turkish military occupation. The establishment of the "TRNC", which has been deemed illegal by the UN Security Council, does not alter the status of northern Cyprus as an occupied territory under international law.--Theathenae 11:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well Δεαθήναι, why don't you make attacks on the Republic of China article who claims that they are a legitimate government, not a bunch of nationalists who illegally occupied an island and callit a country like the PRC claims. Double standards? REX 11:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The two situations are hardly comparable. The PRC/ROC situation is an internal Chinese matter, not an instance of invasion and occupation by a foreign power.--Theathenae 11:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Technically, Theathenae, the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee makes the UK, Greece, and Turkey part of Cyprus' internal affairs, which makes your argument not quite as black and white as you make it out to be. User:Expatkiwi

My argument is that of the United Nations Security Council as well as every country in the world except Turkey. And don't lecture me about the Treaty of Guarantee. It's the first thing I'd do away with, after it was trampled on and rendered null and void by Turkey's illegal 31-year occupation. Toilet paper, anyone?--Theathenae 20:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No doubt Theathenae would prefer it if the Turkish Cypriots were still living in the Enclaves, that they had to endure for over 10 years. Turkish intervention was welcomed; it freed us from the enclaves and the sub-human conditions we had to endure for over 10 years. The Greeks even have the audacity to suggest that the Turkish Cypriots preferred the enclaves; that they happily gave up there land and property to move into enclaves that were blockaded by the Greeks. --Son of the Tundra 22:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, spare us the melodrama. If life is so much better without having the Greeks contaminating the air you breathe, why have the Turkish-Cypriots abandoned your ethnically pure Turkish paradise in droves?--Theathenae 06:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Don’t try to wash over the issue. The existence of the Akritas_Plan and the fact that Turkish Cypriots lived in blockaded enclaves for over 10 years is a sad indictment of Greek Cypriot attitudes toward the Turkish Cypriots. The TCs were only freed from those enclaves when Turkey intervened under the Treaty of Guarantee.--Son of the Tundra 15:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And freed from the presence of Greeks too, hey? For all your allegations against the Greek-Cypriots and their suspected evil intentions, it is they who ended up being ethnically cleansed from northern Cyprus. Just as the Greeks before them were wiped out in Istanbul, Asia Minor and many other Turkish-controlled areas. The Cyprus dispute did not occur in a vacuum, and can properly be viewed only in the wider context of Greek-Turkish relations over the centuries.--Theathenae 16:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Whereas the Greeks can violate the rights of their minorities and that is OK. REX 18:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you support ethnic cleansing? Or only if the victims are Greek?--Theathenae 18:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack alarm! I don't support ethnic cleansing. You obviously do support it though. Tut tut tut! REX 19:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The Cyprus dispute did not occur in a vacuum, and can properly be viewed only in the wider context of Greek-Turkish relations over the centuries.--Theathenae 16:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The statement above by Theathenae betrays a deep-seated prejudice against Turks. Are we really supposed to consider the injustices against the Turkish Cypriots in such a context? I think not. The Turkish Cypriots cannot be blamed for the centuries of warfare between the Greeks and the Ottoman Turks. --Son of the Tundra 22:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at this!

here is the link and the text is below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia_%28region%29/archive

And, when you already got a part in this conversation, explain why Greece runned away 300000 Macedonians and 100000 Bulgarians from Greece during the last 50 years, people that are still not alowed to enter Greece? Why did you burn my grandfathers house and shoot at him? --I sterbinski 17:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Because I didn't like his face. What are you gonna do about it?--Theathenae 18:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

What??? Theathenae? Is that a response??? I am calling the admin to react on this. --Ivica83 19:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Please people, give attention to this this comment of Theathenae above. This is how we are treated by the Greeks. This is happening for centuries and it seems that no one cares. Nationalist like Theathenae and VMORO are the ones that are responsible of the assimilation texts here on Wikipedia and want to keep them....--I sterbinski 00:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you good people out there believe that you are actually trying to reason with Theathenae and that this person actually has editing rights? Theathenae must be banned.--Son of the Tundra 23:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you people grow up?

No wonder the international community is sick of this endless petty squabble between two sets of childish nationalist zealots over one small island. If I was Kofi Annan I would say "the UN is leaving in six months, so come to an agreement by then or I will leave you to massacre each other." At Wikipedia, I am sick of endless Greek-Turkish edit wars at this article. I will continue to revert all POV edits, no matter whose. Adam 02:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Theathenae doesn't seem to have heard of the right to self-determination which is guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Theathenae seems to think that what the Turkish Cypriots think is irrelevant and if they are being oppressed by a foreign nationalist government that they don't have the right to establish their own state (with or without foreign influence). This sounds like the Greek was of Independence. A minority is oppressed in its own land; the revolt and establish their own state. Another example of Theathenae's double standards. REX 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I see lots of double standards here. --Son of the Tundra 08:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)