Talk:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.
← Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →


Contents

Dont remove the tag

This article is highly biased with factual errors Aristovoul0s 21:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why the edit war over the name TRNC

Guys, why are you in an edit war over the name TRNC?, thats a little silly. It ISNT called 'Northern Cyprus' by the world it is refered to as the TRNC. If it wasnt then we wouldnt have this article would we. Can the nationalists stop the nonsense and refer to the flag, president etc as 'TRNC'.

And BEFORE I get 4000 pages of UN legalesse sent my way I would remind people of wikipedias rules on names...the most common and usual useage gets used, look it up as Im not going to spend any more time on this sillyness. Its an article on the TRNC so lets call it the TRNC, just like the majority of the world does. Adam777 23:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected the article. First settle your disagreements by discussing them civilly on this talk page. Edit warring doesn't benefit the article, or wikipedia in general. Readers have a right to expect a stable article, they shouldn't have to flipflop between two different articles every five minutes. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 13:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also hidden two sections from direct view. The first is
"The TRNC is also increasingly treated{{fact}} as a separate entity by major country analysts such as Economist Intelligence Unit and Jane's Intelligence."
This wasn't referenced per Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Where does the EIU treat the TRNC as a separate entity? Where does Jane's Intelligence treat the TRNC as a separate entity? Please provide those sources. Don't expect readers to either take your word for it or go on a search of their own.
The other section I've hidden was:
"Greek Cypriot forces,under the control of Nikos Sampson started a planned pogrom and ethnic cleansing on Turkish Cypriots. Many thousands was dead, many Turkish woman was killed after raped, Many hundreds of houses fired and destroyed, Crops in fields was fired, also cows/sheeps killed."
Not only was this unreferenced, it was also written in horrible English. Please, we're an English-language wikipedia. At least make sure that the grammar, the spelling and the choice of words for what you write are correct. "Fired", for instance, means "to lose a job." I don't think many crops lost their jobs in this act. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 11:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Whilst you are right to protect the page and remove the above paragraph (I wonder if he was talking about Cops in fields losing their jobs :) ), I'm curious about your removal of the 'ECI/Janes Intelligence' comment. It is one of a half dozen 'citation needed' comments in the article, all the comments but one having a pro-TRNC slant (kind of POV tagging there). So why just remove that one? Particulary when the article has a disputed tag in place? The article could do with quite a few more citation needed tags however that is bound to cause an edit war/revert war Adam777 13:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The user Aristovoul0s put the "totally disputed" tag without discussing the issue first at the talk/discussion page. If there exists a factual inaccuracy, this should be proven first with providing reliable sources. Furthermore, the edit war between the users Aristovoul0s, Mustafa Akalp, Tekleni, Hectorian, Aecis and E104421 ended up in such a way that the article turned out to be a "totally disputed" one. The article may not reflect NPOV but "POV" is quite different than "Factual Inaccuracy". The way of blocking the page with the "totally disputed" tag is not a civil way either. The SysOps should also have NPOV and try to compromise rather than intervening with the "totally disputed" and "protected" tags in favor of POV. E104421 14:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I was not and am not in any way involved in this edit war. I would appreciate it if you would strike my name from that list. I have never before edited this page, I have never made substantial content edits to the article (I once changed the target for a link, that's all). I am here as an admin dealing with an edit war. I refuse to be drawn into a conflict that other users have. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 16:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
To illustrate that, I will list all my edits to this article here:
[1] - Subject of the article bolded.
[2] - Link edited. The article is called Prime Minister of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, to which Prime Minister of Northern Cyprus is a redirect. If the title isn't even shown (the link is displayed as "Prime Minister"), then why all the fuss about linking to a redirect? Why not link directly to the article?
[3] - Unsourced statement hidden from direct view (not removed) per Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
[4] - Page protected
[5] - Protected tag
[6] - Grammatically utterly incorrect section hidden from direct view.
None of these edits constitute an involvement, either direct or implicit, in this edit war. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 17:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Aecis mentioned this page protection and the accusations of involvement on WP:ANI, and, having reviewed the recent edits, I've determined that any accusations that Aecis is involved are nonsense. Please focus on resolving the dispute, not trying to involve uninvolved parties in it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


Aceis, you still havent answered why you removed the Janes Intelligence information that was marked with a citation needed tag. There are MULTIPLE statement in this article that have that tag, most of which are added to statements that are sympathetic to the Turkish Cypriot position. There are many other instances that should have citation needed tags added however when it comes to Cyprus there is a huge amount of Greek nationalism on wikipedia and I dont want to cause a massive edit/revert war on all the cyrpus articles (which I can guarantee you will happen). So why did you remove that one statement? Adam777 22:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
This is just a guess, but the phrase "major country analysts" really doesn't mean anything in English. Sure the Economist Intelligence Unit & Jane's Intelligence may use certain terms, but in the end, they're journalists & their use of language doesn't necessarily indicate a de facto or de jure situation, because journalists are more concerned about making deadlines & avoiding language that clearly leaves them open to suits for libel. And since you mention that there are numerous "citation needed" tags in this article, why don't you take the time to either find the needed citations to remove these tags -- either for or against the facts they assert -- instead of complaining about this one item? -- llywrch 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


My question (that you seemed to either ignore or not comprehend) was why one specific taged piece of content had been removed, it was a civil question aimed at the person that removed the phrase. Aceis has been good enough to mention the comment and Im asking what his (or her) logic was. There is perhaps a specific difference with the statement in question (that has been in the article for some time) that I am not seeing and it seemed like a good idea to ask. Thank you for taking the time to Guess at Aceis's motives, can you read palms as well? Adam777 00:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Aecis mentioned that his major criteria for hiding edits -- if you look in the source, you'll see that the passage is still there -- was coherence. As I said quite civilly, the phrase "major country analysts" means nothing in English. And as for your question, no I do not read palms -- but I can read hostility in a response. I suggest you dial down your emotions on this article, otherwise I don't see the protection being lifted otherwise. -- llywrch 16:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh puh-leeze and there was noooooooo hostility in your response to me was there. You sir are a hypocrite. If you hadnt had replied to a question that wasnt even directed at you with your own hostile language (why dont you take the time yadda yadda yadda) you would not have elicited any hostility from me. You can have the last word on this little spat as I shall not be wasting any more time on your babble unless it is specific to an article on wikipedia. Diolch yn fawr bachgen. Adam777 21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Answering Aecis, you never mentioned in your comments why you kept the "totally disputed" tag which is set by one of the users of edit war and removed others. In addition, you never compared the versions before the conflict arised. Typing errors and poor english is not the main point of the unfortunate edit war. The conflict arised just because of the POV push. However, as i stated above "factual inaccuracy" and "POV" are quite different issues. If you want to compromise, please review all the versions prior to the POV war. I added your name just because of your preferences about the tags as i mentioned above. It would be fair to place "NPOV" and "citation needed" tags rather than the "totally disputed" one. I also advise the SysOp "A Man In Black" to review not only the recent versions but also the ones prior to the POV fork. I'm not trying to accuse anybody, but you should also ask yourself why the users Aristovoul0s, Tekleni and Hectorian are not commenting here? In my opinion, this is just because the conflict ended up with a "totally disputed" Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus article. E104421 07:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I am always commenting, E104421, when i am asked or when i find something important or when there is need to clarify something... So, since u wondered about the 'totally disputed' tag, have in mind that: typos, poor english, 7 requests for citations (had the article not been protected, i would may ask for more), extensive POV pushing (search for non Greeks as well, if u do not mind...), even the article's title, the extremely nationalistic external links, the useless template 'Turkic-speaking nations' (which includes both the legitimate state, Cyprus and TRNC-in an attempt to show what?!, may i ask?... A template that was also in Crimea, for no reason at all, and i just removed it from there). The article needs to be re-written, to be cleaned of POV, clarify statements and clean up links. till then, the tag has every reason to remain. Regards Hectorian 08:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I will briefly answer one point E104421 has raised. I will respond to the rest later today or tomorrow, depending on the time I've got. I've kept the totallydisputed tag in place, because that's the way the article was as I came across it. I haven't sought for a compromise between the disputed versions, because that is not up to me. I'm not a judge, I'm not King Solomon. It is up to those involved in the edit war to find some common ground and to work out the differences you've got. And so far, you (plural) have done nothing of the sort. It's alright to ask me questions about why I did what, but remember that this talk page is about the article, not about me. Try to focus on discussing the content of this article. If you want to ask me questions, I suggest we continue that discussion on my user talk page. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 10:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The factual inaccuracy and POV are different issues. If someone objects something (especially the factual accuracy is concerned), this should be discussed and clarified in the talk/discussion page first. Unfortunately, all the editors caused the debate failed to do so. I already checked the other versions, the article needs NPOV and reliable sources. However, Hectorian's objections on poor english, typing errors, links, templates are all minor issues that can be corrected very easily without any debate (i'm agree with you on all of these issues). On the other hand, I do not think that these minor issues necessitate the protection of the article. Furthermore, i do not like Hectorian's comments, manner, in the edit summary such as "read my edit summary again: capitals was not the only reason...source your edits and reword them, unless u wanna get this page locked..". You're threatening the editors with the page protection (to the favorite "totally disputed" version, of course). Threatening behaviours such as "do not ..., otherwise the page will be protected ..." (Hectorian's) or "stop...or you may be blocked from further editing" (Tekleni's comment in my talk page) initiated the edit conflict. They never commented on the talk/discussion page about their concerns but try to force users to stop countering their arguments. I'm strongly agree with the user Adam777 that "there is a huge amount of greek nationalism on wikipedia especially on the cyprus issue". Whenever someone adds something countering their arguments, the debate starts. In my opinion, the protection was unnecessary, but even in such a case, it would be fair to protect the version prior to the conflict. E104421 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Answering Aecis, nobody expects you to make a judgement but to be fair. You not only protected the article but also edited it. If you had protected it immediately without any change or reverted to a version prior to the conflict, nobody would object to you. However, you involved in the issue, kept the "totally disputed" tag, removed the others. E104421 12:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This is getting surreal... Search the article's history and your own edits prior to my edit summary that u did not like... U had kept adding capitals in order to emphasize your POV. i had reverted u a bit before that, asking u to try again without POV-pushing. I am not that new in Wikipedia and i know that revert- edit-wars lead on 'article protection'. i am not an admin, so as to be able to lock articles, so i did not threaten u. most of the times i post comments concerning my edits, but, honestly, i do not think that i have to comment especially when i am reverting POV. apropos, the one making the changes should comment, and that's not me. as for the "huge ammount of greek nationalism... especially here"..., i am letting the readers to judge. Hectorian 12:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As i stated in my edit summary the capitals were a mistake writen by user 220.240.8.182 first at 01:56, on 25 September 2006 and not my POV push. I tried to add the removed sentences back but edit conflict happened when i pressed the save page button, when i pressed again it saved the unedited version. This was a mistake, i said before in the edit summary, check the history page (edit summaries). You said "you are not that new in Wikipedia" but forgetting the basic principle to assume good will. If i had a time to check the article, i would have removed those capitals. Instead of discussing the issue via talk/discussion page you erased all that parts, then i removed the capitals and restored the parts. After all i decided to quit for a while and when i checked the article again next day, it turned out to be "totally disputed" one. For the threatening, you need not to be an administrator..., what i disagree is your manner.E104421 13:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

E104421, I've said it before, User:A Man In Black confirmed it, and I'll say it again: I was not and am not involved in this edit war in any way, shape or form. Nothing you say constitutes any involvement whatsoever. You may disagree with my actions, that's all good, but that doesn't make me involved. I'm still willing to answer questions, but I will not have my impartiality questioned. And that is the last thing I will say of the allegations. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 14:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The User:A Man In Black confirmed that he reviewed the recent edits only, anyway, i want this edit/discussion debate to end very quickly. The main actors of the debate User:Aristovoul0s, User:Mustafa Akalp, and User:Tekleni did not replied upto now. Actually, we {Hectorian and E104421) did not involved in the final part on 7 October 2006 which led to the "totally disputed" protection. I think if the article is reverted to the version prior to the dispute and then protected, we'd have a chance to discuss the issues more effectively, cause users would also see more neutral version and may contribute here without wasting time on the current POV version. Regards, E104421 16:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Does anyone else think that it's time to get this article unprotected?--Tekleni 11:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I, as the protector, won't unprotect the article. You haven't started discussing the differences of opinion on this article, which to me indicates that the edit war will simply flare up once the article is unprotected. You need to find some form of consensus first. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 11:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
IMO, issues such as these cannot be solved be protecting the page and requiring people to "talk" (about what?). As far as I' concerned, unsourced POV, e.g. the following edits by User:Mustafa_Akalp, which he inserted several times, ought be reverted on sight:
  • Adding: Greek Cypriot forces,under the control of Nikos Sampson started a planned pogrom and ethnic cleansing on Turkish Cypriots. Many thousands was dead, many Turkish woman was killed after raped, Many hundreds of houses fired and destroyed, Crops in fields was fired, also cows/sheeps killed.
  • Removing: In retaliation for the closure order, Turkey denied entry to Turkish territorial waters to Cypriot-flagged ships, despite the signing of the EU Customs Union Protocol. The EU has demanded the lifting of the Turkish ban on Cypriot shipping and aviation and the recognition of the Republic of Cyprus as preconditions of Turkey's EU accession.
Likewise, Turkish users should do the same for Greek POV. I think Hectorian has pretty much covered the objections above. The article is a mess now, and needs editing. Bickering over a tag won't solve anything.--Tekleni 11:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Editor Tekleni is now adding POV edits to the intro of the Cyprus article, his position that it is biased to refer to the TRNC as the TRNC is now being incorporated into that article. Adam777 16:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I think his position is not that it is biased to refer to TRNC as TRNC, but rather that the article name must not be TRNC, or that it should be merged with Republic of Cyprus. See below section for reasoning and sources. •NikoSilver• 17:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

POV article

I think this article is Turkish POV anyway, so I support the totally disputed tag. It gives too much weight to the Turkish position. Check the introduction for example:

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (...) is a de facto break-away state whose statehood is recognized only by Turkey.

That is POV as it implies that the TRNC is a state in the first place. The position of everyone outside Turkey is clear; the introduction should read something like TRNC is the name given by the secessionist regime set up on a militarily occupied by Turkey northern part of the Republic of Cyprus to the territory it claims to administer. There are 192 states in the UN, out of which only 1 recognizes the TRNC - that is 0,52%. How come that POV gets so much weight which is totally out of proportion to its acceptance. I must conclude it is a violation of the NPOV policy, and specifically WP:NPOV#Undue weight. How about the article's title, is that not also POV? I hadn't really seriously considered addressing this issue before as I didn't want to have to put up with the Turkish outcry which would certainly ensure, but now as we're required to discuss all issues, let's get down to business.--Tekleni 11:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

How about renaming this article to Northern Cyprus, a more neutral title?--Tekleni 11:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
And Republic of China to Taiwan? Forget it. --A.Garnet 12:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You forget it... Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Transnistria. I see no "republic"...--Tekleni 13:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
And lets be clear here. TRNC is not a POV. Its a defacto reality on the island of Cyprus. If you fly to Larnaca, walk north, you will end up in the TRNC. It has a government, a flag and borders. No one disputes the existence of the TRNC, they only dispute its legitimacy. If we said the TRNC is legitimate, that would be a POV, but saying the TRNC exists, and writing a article on it is not POV (nor is it suggesting legitimacy). I'm sure none of what i write here will make the slightest bit of difference to you, but who knows, maybe you will see sense. --A.Garnet 12:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No it is not. All that's a de facto reality on Cyprus is the fact that the northern part is occupied by Turkey. Why not rename the article to Ta Katehomena (The Occupied [Territories]), which is what Greeks call it - the presence of foreign occupations forces is a reality, no? Northern Cyprus is about as acceptable as Egypt is - after all, their official name is The Arab Republic of Egypt.--Tekleni 13:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Tekleni, disputes like these are the reason why I won't unprotect the article. Now they are being held at the talk page, but the moment the article is unprotected, the dispute will move to the article, and the edit war will start all over again. I don't care who's right and who's wrong, I don't care who's guilty and who's innocent. Such actions are detrimental to wikipedia and can never be justified, regardless of the cause. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

All the articles on de facto "states" on Wikipedia do not use the full name. We have Nagorno-Karabakh, not Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, we have South Ossetia, not Republic of South Ossetia, we have Transnistria, not Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic, etc. The only reason that the article on the republican Chinese government is at Republic of China and not China (the short form of the former) is because the China article is already taken. Taiwan, is the name of an island - it has nothing to do with anyone's perception of the claimed "statehood". Not to mention that the Taipei regime also governs on a de facto basis several other island, so "Taiwan" in itself is inaccurate.--Tekleni 13:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
In any case the intro is a bit too short.. On the other hand I agree with Alf that it would only be POV if we said that TRNC was legitimate, but the simple acknowledgement of an existing physical reality is not POV. As for other articles you mentioned, I actually think the opposite, ALL of them should include their names with republic X, seriously. It could be later described in the articles if the country is legitimate or not. Anyone with an IQ of more than 70 will be able to understand if that country is recognized under international law, and why so. Baristarim 17:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
As for Ta Katehomena.. :)) Did u know in the newspapers of Arab countries Israel is referred to as "Occupied Palestine" (in most Arab countries all the time)? In fact in some places it is illegal to state otherwise. :)) When u consider that there have been UN resolutions and many legal cases that have referred to the expulsion of Palestinians and all, that is also a legitimate way of putting it. The only difference is "argument from authority" - ie recognition by other states. In science such "argument from authority" cannot be considered as evidence, see my post 'a scientific and academic take on the issue' on PGG talk page. OTOH all those arguments can be mentioned in the article itself. TRNC is a reality (the name and the administration), however feel free to argue why it is illegitimate or against international law in the body of the article.. Baristarim 17:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Either that or we can just rename the page to a more neutral title (Northern Cyprus comes to mind).--Tekleni 20:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm strongly against renaming this article. There exits Turkish Republic of Nortern Cyprus and there is no POV with its existance. Greek side does not reconize it but Turkish side recognize it. There are many articles in wikipedia that are related with disputed issues. If you want to make a disputed article neutral, first try to state your counter arguments in the talk/discussion page, then try to balance the article by providing information based on reliable sources. Trying to rename or delete the articles which do not reflect your POV is not a reasonable way but just a kind of vandalism. E104421 13:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You haven't got a clue what's going on, do you?--Tekleni 08:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to be out of the dispute cause i'm getting bored of making the same arguments in similar articles. The major reference sources use the name Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus why not wikipedia? E104421 11:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How about one reason being that Britannica doesn't have a separate article (search), but rather includes it as a sub-section in the article for the Republic of Cyprus? i.e. it has the following tree: Cyprus > History > The Republic of Cyprus > Establishment of an independent Turkish state (notice the name of the sub-section and its position under The Republic of Cyprus!) •NikoSilver• 17:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
True, in the sense that, as far as international law is concerned, TRNC is considered a part of Republic of Cyprus, and that by everyone except Turkey. It is natural that Britannica follows that logic. That is not POV to state that, since it is true.. however that is not exactly relevant to the title issue coz it concerns the legal status of TRNC, which should be talked about in the intro. But let's accept that there is not a clear-cut guideline on Wiki about the naming of such 'states' (Republic of China vs. Nagorno Karabakh).. Personally I am in favor of using the full names (for all similar articles) since they are disputed territories and their 'official' names have much more significance than ordinary states (Republic of France to France), and as such all of them should have their full names and their status should be talked about in the body.. But since there is no clear guideline about these specific cases as I said, u know where that gets us?? It is up to us to slug it out case by case :))) That seems to be so for all other similar articles in any case :) Hmm.. I can see clouds in the sky :)) But I still think that any reader with an ordinary IQ will understand, by reading the intro, that TRNC is a de-facto breakaway state (or de jure part of RoC, as u wish, but the idea for an ordinary person is there) Baristarim 00:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, a general comment (not refering especially to Baris): why the turkish users insist so much in including the word 'turkish' in articles that can stand without it, following similar other articles (e.g. in the case of TRNC), or in articles that do not have to do exclussively with the turks (e.g. 'Muslim minority of Greece') or in articles were such a name is unheard and unhistoric (e.g. 'Turkish Republic of Western Thrace'!)? if this article will be renamed into 'Northern Cyprus', it will still be for the same internationally unrecognised entity, u know... The example of the 'Republic of China' and the 'People's Rep. of China' is not a good one... Firstly, cause Taiwan was not set up by another state, not invaded (under any pretext), it spans in the same period of time with PRoChina (and for almost 3 decades was considered the "real" China), it is recognised by many more nations than TRNC, was a UN member, etc etc. TRNC falls in the category of Transnistria, Abhazia, etc. Not to mention that the formal title is pov, and adopted for wellknown reasons... u know, the official POV of the turkish government: that there is also a "Greek Republic of Southern Cyprus"... something unacceptable by the international community... Hectorian 07:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And how about one more reason being (apart from Britannica above) that also Columbia, doesn't have a separate article for TRNC (search), but includes a reference within the text of the article for Cyprus? •NikoSilver• 10:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Gee! Encarta too! (search) Click the first reference to see that it is within the Cyprus article. Those biased independent, verifiable, reliable sources that I've cited are cooperating in a conspiratory cabal against the creation of a separate article named as TRNC in Wikipedia; an encyclopedia which aims to protect the global NPOV from the malicious Greek and Cypriot POV-pushing users!! •NikoSilver• 10:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Formal Mediation Arbitration may be a good idea

Just my two cents. There are POV edits on both sides occuring and as more editors with a pre-disposed opinion join the debate the possibility of reaching an agreement seems to be less and less. Issues from this disagreement are now finding their way onto other Cypriot related articles. I suggest that the issue of the TRNC article being or not being part of the Cyprus article be taken to a formal mediation whose findings will be binding. In addition it seems like a good opportunity to sort out if we call the TRNC the TRNC or 'Occupied Cyprus' or whatever else is the term du jour. Any thoughts people? Adam777 17:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Are these "editors with pre-disposed opinions" supposed to exclude you? :-) Actually it is the disputing side that will have to do that, and it probably will. Finally, you skipped one step in dispute resolution. •NikoSilver• 22:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Nope..I have pulled back from editing as per dispute guidelines:-) - a new admin shouldnt need to be reminded to assume good faith. As far as I can see the issue has followed all the relevant guidelines, including an informal mediation which preceeded the last edit war. The findings of the mediation were ignored by one of the parties so I disengaged and offered a formal mediation (on the subject of the name of the TRNC). Lets be 100% honest here, the opposing viewpoints have dug in and little short of a formal mediation arbitration is going to resolve issues. Adam777 13:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
That would skip two steps in dispute resolution. I am anxious we start climbing that ladder too, but I would suggest you allow the initiative to the side which actually disputes something against the present status quo. •NikoSilver• 15:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well I would disagree its two steps but I can see why you would say that. Anywhoo I dont actually have an issue with the staus quo. When Aristovouls and I were in one of our usual disagreements I did suggest arbitration (after a failed infomal mediation) but that was on a slightly different (but still relevant) issue. If the people that want to move the article under cyprus wish to go that route then IMHO thats the better option. As the edit wars are tiresome and dont lead to any concensus. IMO this article has already gone to an informal mediation on the subject of the name of the TRNC, however that centered more on the de facto status than the actual name (though the name was a part of the mediation). So I am of the opinion that the process start AFTER the informal mediation stage - but that if of course just my opinion. Oh and congrats on the admin status. Adam777 15:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What admin status? •NikoSilver• 20:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought you'd just got admin status....I guess it was somebody else. Adam777 14:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Darn! I should have let you still think that to gain respect!! :-) •NikoSilver• 14:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia

  • There are many articles in Wikipedia that do not have any correspondence in any encylopedia. The content of Wikipedia should not be restricted to Britannica or Columbia content. Wikipedia is not bound by the same constraints as a paper encyclopedia or even most online encyclopedias. For this reason, there is no reason to exclude "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" from Wikipedia. Even in Britannica and Columbia, the name "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is used to label the Turkish state. E104421 22:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • See straw man. The point is not if it is included or not. The point is how it is included (within Cyprus, and below Republic of Cyprus). Plus those encyclopedias are not paper too. Finally, take a peek on WP:SUMMARY#Avoidance of POV forks and WP:POVFORK. •NikoSilver• 22:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is your opinion. Why do not we have Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as a separate article? You are excluding the other possibility counter to yours. By the way, try to be civil at first, before judging other's comments. You are claiming only yours are NPOV and opponents are POV forks. See Straw man. E104421 23:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it is the opinion of Britannica, of Columbia, of Encarta, of the UN, of EU, of all countries in the world apart from 1: the invader. Your 'civility' comment is absolutely irrelevant to my previous post. On the other hand, incivility is trying to push your POV to everybody else on earth (maybe the Martians too). Incivility is also twisting the other party's argument into easily refutable crap. •NikoSilver• 23:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What about the other Wiki-Articles that do not have any correspondence in any other encylopedia? Would you consider them as POV? Even in the Britannica, Columbia, UN, and EU, the name "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is used. Could you guarantee that Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus would stay unrecognized forever? E104421 00:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you have any argument that entails citational qualifications? •NikoSilver• 00:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course, first answer my questions? E104421 00:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. What exactly are you guys fighting about right now? It's a bit difficult for the outsider to find out what exactly the competing options are here. Is it simply about a move question between Northern Cyprus and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not ready to respond to that yet, FP. We're just discussing to see where that leads. Adam777 proposed mediation on something he didn't define. I'll work on it, discuss, and through that discussion, a proposal may emerge. Given the 3 academic sources above, I think there is a lot to talk about the present state of affairs in this article. Your contribution in this discussion will be highly appreciated. •NikoSilver• 10:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
On something I didnt define? Please re-read my entry where it said 'I suggest that the issue of the TRNC article being part of the cyprus article be taken to a formal mediation'. I believe that is very clear and defined. Adam777 13:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood what mediation actually is. They don't listen to both sides and then enforce what seems most reasonable to them. That is the impression you gave me - especially when you used the word "binding".--Tekleni 13:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just gonna butt in here, since I have this watchlisted for some reason. Mediation on Wikipedia is strictly informal. You could get a mediator, but that mediator would just be a user trying to help sort out the dispute, not someone with the power to enforce a decision. We don't do proper binding mediation on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


My apologies I am using the term mediation where I mean arbitration. Adam777 13:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No such thign as binding arbitration on Wikipedia, either. The Arbcom only handles disciplinary issues, not content issues. Informal mediation is pretty much it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont read the arbitration guidelines as saying that. So when they say they expect people to adhere to their decision they arent talking about content issues? Adam777 15:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

From experience, they reject content issues. They just deal with disciplinary or other conduct issues, that's all. (Occasionally they also deal with policy, but that's much rarer, and also wouldn't be relevant to this.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus-forum.org

The link has been removed as spam per our external link guideline. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 13:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Greek name for TRNC?

I seriously doubt whether the Greek Name for the "TRNC" recently added to the articles intro is relevant. Greek does not have any legal status in the TRNC, adding a Greek name for it makes it look like Greek is an official language of the TRNC or similar. And I doubt whether any Greek would actually refer to Northern Cyprus as the "TRNC", I think it is more likely that this Greek name was created by the Turkish authorities of the TRNC, wishing it was used.Globo 04:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

I appreciate the willingness to be bold, but I don't recall there being any consensus to remove the infobox and revamp the intro like that. Let's try to work collaboratively instead. Khoikhoi 18:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can also propose to remove the infobox here, and then we can decide on it... Khoikhoi 18:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - maybe I want to far with the infobox (considering that even Sealand and the Kingdom of Lovely) have infoboxes ;-) Everyone happy now?--Tekleni 18:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really. You removed the dispute tag (added by Aristovoul0s) without any explanation, and added scare quotes around TRNC, President, etc.--which you know are POV. Also you added the UN info in the intro, which is something that caused a great deal of debate here, and isn't agreed upon by all editors. Besides that, I am happy. Khoikhoi 19:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll readd the tag. On the scare quotes issue, you always say that is POV but I don't see how. As for the UN info., where has it been discussed? Even so, it's censorship to remove it.--Tekleni 19:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's like saying "Operation Iraqi Freedom". From my perspective it makes sense to have the scare quotes because I know the war has caused so much terror and destruction. However, from my government's perspective it is a valid, legitimate term. That's why it's POV. As for the UN info, see Archive 4. It's not really censorship because I wasn't planning to erase it entirely, I just don't think it's appropriate for the intro. Perhaps some other part of the article. Khoikhoi 23:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It read some good yes

I just started to read though the article, as I do with multiple articles on occasion as many times edits will leave an article with less than desirable grammar.

People...try reading the first SENTENCE of the 'Background' section. That has to be one of the longest sentences known to man. However Im sure that any edits I make will be reverted and fourty instances of the word 'ILLEGAL' added as well as a good thousand words of UN babble.

So Im going to post my changes here and you can spit acid at them from afar, that way the article doesnt see-saw back and forth.

My edits are meant to make that paragraph easier to read, conform to certain basic English grammar and add clarity where it is lacking.

It currently reads.....

The TRNC was unilaterally proclaimed in 1983, nine years after the Greek Cypriot coup d'etat that was carried out by supporters of EOKA-B with backing from the Greek military junta of 1967-1974, and the ensuing Turkish invasion of Cyprus, which established the new de facto entity on Cyprus as a dependency of Turkey and whose military maintain a strong presence in the TRNC to this day.

I propose....


The TRNC was unilaterally established in 1983 nine years after a Greek Cypriot Coup d’etat. The short lived Coup was carried out by supporters of EOKA-B with backing from the ruling Greek military Junta which controlled Greece from 1967 to 1974. The ensuing Turkish invasion of Cyprus established a new de facto political entity in Cyprus which is a dependency of Turkey. The Turkish military maintain a strong presence in the TRNC to this day.


Right then.... 'Short lived' becuase the coup only lasted a few days. A casual reader would infer the coup lasted indefinately. 'ruling Military Junta'.... a lot of people wouldnt be aware what a JUnta is so a little clarification is added. 'from 1967 to 1974'.... removed the '-' that doesnt belong in an written piece. 'The ensuing.... to show the timeline 'de facto political entity'.... a 'de facto' entity could be anything, a 'de facto political entity' shows what was established

Not everybody is as familiar with the details of Cyprus as those that post here (and we could argue about those people as well but thats besides the point), therefore some clarification is needed. Frankly it reads very poorly at the moment. Adam777 18:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I Support that change. In fact, I will implement it and see what happens. Globo 05:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriot man at the opening of the mass grave containing the bodies of the former Turkish inhabitants of the village of Sandallar in Northern Cyprus (TRNC today). Source: "The Voice of Blood", book and film by Antonis Angastiniotis.
Turkish Cypriot man at the opening of the mass grave containing the bodies of the former Turkish inhabitants of the village of Sandallar in Northern Cyprus (TRNC today). Source: "The Voice of Blood", book and film by Antonis Angastiniotis.
The fact is that TRNC is an illegal and invalid political entity, as confirmed by UN. TRNC is no different than Afghanistan was under Taliban. We should state the truth and not try to sugarcoat it. Khorshid 00:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Then we should do the same for all unrecognized country articles. Why make an exception for the TRNC? And who says the UN is the sole factor in determining an entities' status? Khoikhoi 00:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Because only ONE country (Turkey) recognises this thing. Turkey is also guilty of atrocities against the Greek Cypriot populations, similar to Taliban atrocity against non-Pashtuns. And I agree for all unrecognised countries that are in similar situations we should coolly state the facts. Khorshid 00:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
And the Greeks didn't commit atrocities against the Turks? And what does that even have to do with the status of the TRNC? Khoikhoi 00:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Whatever atrocity Greeks commit has no showing on the legitimacy of Republic of Cyprus just as Serbian atrocity against Bosnians has no bearing on legitimacy of Serbia. But TRNC is illegimate, condemned by UN and not recognised by any country except Turkey. That says alot dont you think??? Khorshid 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
If we are going to discuss atrocities, let's discuss the Turkish atrocities (and let's focus on the scale, please let's focus on the scale). Greece was not convicted by the European Court of Human Rights for her conduct on Cyprus, Turkey was (see Loizidou v Turkey). This tells us a lot...--Euthymios 00:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste my time talking with a bunch of anti-TRNCers. Khoikhoi 00:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thats not nice. Please assume good faith. Please see WP:V - my points are 100% valid and conform to WP guidelines and policy. Khorshid 00:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother assuming good faith with someone that wants to say the TRNC is illegal in the intro. Khoikhoi 00:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Khoi, and I'm not going to waste my time talking to a pro-TRNC, UN-defiant, world-defiant and 'the will of the indigenous inhabitants of northern Cyprus (most of them favor dissolution of the "TRNC")'-defiant-er ;-) --Euthymios 00:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You forgot "anti-Romanian". Khoikhoi 00:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

ENOUGH. Personal attacks stop here. Discuss article content, not editor's ethnicities. Please. --210physicq (c) 00:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Just for the record (so as to avoid the success of straw man arguments), we don't want to say it is illegal. We want to say everyone but Turkey says it's illegal. There's a difference.--Euthymios 00:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Who is "we"? Khoikhoi 00:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Rumlar (they/we have been doing it for over two decades).--Euthymios 00:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do these Rumlar get the final call in what the lead is going to be? Khoikhoi 00:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not on Wikipedia, but per WP:NPOV they do get a say in what goes on. Something *you* seem to be trying to deny them. From that policy also follows that you don't get the final say either (in case you didn't know).--Euthymios 01:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speaking of denial, you can say that the TRNC doesn't exist, but as soon as you walk north and get stopped at the border, do you wonder why? Khoikhoi 01:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Military occupation of part of a pre-existing sovereign state. I don't get it though - if I want to walk into the Pentagon I also get stopped. No one is addressing the issue of it's existence - I am advocating giving proportionate weight to the worldwide (save Turkey) view on the subject.--Euthymios 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The Pentagon never declared itself independent. Khoikhoi 01:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Nor was it militarily occupied by Turkey.--Euthymios 01:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Anyway, you're evading the issue - why should Wikipedia not give proportionate weight to the worldwide (save Turkey) view on the subject?--Euthymios 01:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, compare the TRNC intro to what we have in other articles about unrecognized states (or "separatist regimes", as you call them). Khoikhoi 01:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What about them?--Euthymios 01:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead

Why was my lead always being reverted. It was not that bad:

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti, KKTC) is how the separatist regime currently governing the northern part of the Republic of Cyprus on a de facto basis currently styles itself. It is recognised only by Turkey and is considered "legally invalid" by the United Nations.

Reasons for removing it were "I don't like it" and "it's aggressive POV". Well, as this regime came into being due to Turkish chauvinist aggression, it should be right at home here. How many times do I have to say it? Legitimizing this regime amounts to a breach of WP:NPOV#Undue weight; even all (save Turkey) of the so-called "Turkic states" don't recognize it.--Euthymios 00:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The words 'Separatist regime' are designed to portray the TRNC as a military dictatorhip akin to North Korea or Mynamar as opposed to a representitive democracy. The furor in this article is almost always ONLY about the intro, becuase people want to colour a readers perception of the subject matter from the first sentence. The prior entry which stated where the TRNC is and how the UN views the de juerre authority of the ROC over the area was accurate, concise and neutral, but of course for some people thats not enough and you know who you are. I think the question SHOULD be why dont people want an accurate, neutral and concise intro to the article. However I also dont care a great deal, this article is spending more time locked than unlocked which keeps it in a fair state of accuracy and out of the clutches of extremist hate-mongers. Adam777 02:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly my point! It is an illegal entity. Khorshid 00:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I have an idea! How about the following:
The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus does not exist, because I refuse to recognize it.
Khoikhoi 00:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
See straw man. As everyone but Turkey does not recognize it, censoring that fact from the lead in an attempt to imply legitimacy is a breach of WP:NPOV as I'm sure you're well aware.--Euthymios 00:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, it's better to have it somewhere lower down in the article. Khoikhoi 00:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The mainstream view does not go in the lead, but a minority view does? Interesting approach... is it consistent with WP:NPOV#Undue weight though? Big question...--Euthymios 01:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I just think it's unecessary to say it's illegal in the intro; because that's not the most important thing about the TRNC. Khoikhoi 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Point out where in my proposal the word "illegal" appears.--Euthymios 01:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC) (I'm logging out for today now; don't expect an immediate response)
Here. Khoikhoi 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it. The word "illegal", are you sure?--Euthymios 01:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I never said it was the exact word. Khoikhoi 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
My version says it's considered illegal by the UN, not it is illegal.--Euthymios 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
My point all along is that we don't have to follow the UN on everything, which is why I think it's appropriate to say what the UN thinks in the intro. Khoikhoi 01:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Because it is the mainstream view. Why should it not be there - it's the most relevant thing about the heavily questioned status of this "entity"?--Euthymios 01:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that it's an important enough fact to belong in the intro. Khoikhoi 01:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The mainstream view is not important enough for the lead?--Euthymios 01:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
There are many mainstream views on the TRNC. Should we include them all? Khoikhoi 01:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Many mainstream views? Conflicting? Isn't that an oxymoron? Why don't you tell me a few of them?--Euthymios 08:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK enough is enough. UN is consensus organisation like WP. OK? UN says TRNC is "legally invalid". Every nation agrees except Turkey! That is 100% fact and 100% NPOV. What is the problem???? Khorshid 01:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

See censorship and propaganda.--Euthymios 01:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that we have to follow the UN on everything. It's not like they're completely unbiased on all subjects. Khoikhoi 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

They are more unbiased than the Turkish government.--Euthymios 01:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
international recognition is not the only way to determine if a country is sovereign or not. Khoikhoi 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Says who? Again, I'm not addressing that issue - I'm advocating giving proportionate weight to the worldwide (save Turkey) view on the subject. Wikipedia doesn't take sides, something you should know well by now.--Euthymios 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Says the Wikipedia article on sovereign states. Indeed. Khoikhoi 01:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You did not respond to my other observations, why?--Euthymios 08:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What is this you are agreeing with John Bolton now??? Khorshid 01:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Who the hell is he? Khoikhoi 01:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
He is anti-UN neocon just like his boss, Mr. George W. Bush. Khorshid 01:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah. I never said I was anti-UN. Khoikhoi 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
OK here is the NPOV fact: UN is consensus organisation like WP. You are here on WP so you agree with consensus. That is NPOV entity right there. So UN member nations agree that TRNC is illegal entity. What say you now??? If you disagree with that you should leave WP because this is also consensus organisation. =P Khorshid 01:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
UN POV does not = NPOV. Khoikhoi 01:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That claim is not NPOV. How do you come to this conclusion?? Khorshid 01:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Giving proportionate weight to each view = NPOV, see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. And Turkish gov. POV certainly does not = NPOV.--Euthymios 01:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Compare to the UN view on Israel, for example. Khoikhoi 01:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong with UN view on Israel?? You mean issue of Occupied Terroritories?? Whole world, even US, agrees that Israel should leave Palestinian lands, so yes that is NPOV. But that is different issue which we should not discuss here. Khorshid 01:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't even talking about that. Khoikhoi 01:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What about it, Khoikhoi?--Euthymios 01:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
We've gone off on a tangent, let me give another example: The UN describes the Armenian control of Nagorno-Karabakh was "occupation", but on Wikipedia we use the word "control" because it is more NPOV. This is proof that we don't have to follow the UN on everything. Khoikhoi 01:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

TRNC is not some sort of philosophical or mathematical proposition. It exists phsyically, therefore it is notable, as A. Garnet so correctly put long ago. It is there, its political status is a different issue. As for the intro.. You know, some of the propositions that have been put forward are very un-encyclopedic and inflammatory. The political status of TRNC and its history is talked about vastly in the body of the article already. And let's not forget that it was the SAME UN that held a referendum in TRNC in 2004 SEPERATELY THAN THE ONE IN THE SOUTH as such, it overrides a 1983 resolution, since such act of holding a referendum is a statement of the recognition of TRNC as a seperate political entity. It is as simple as that. To claim as illegal a land in which the United Nations held a referendum is a live-in-the-past attitude. The invasion could have been illegal, but it has been more then 30 years since then, and what matters is if TRNC is a seperate political entity today. And the fact that UN held a seperate referendum is, at least, a recognition by the so-called party of its character as a seperate political structure and entity. UN never held a referendum in Nagorno-Karabakh or Chechnya. Baristarim 01:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

UN held a seperate referendum, which implies that TRNC is a political entity capable of taking care of itself and deciding its future. Its dependance on Turkey is not relevant, since many other "sovereign" states such as the Vatican, Liechtestein etc are ten times more dependent on other countries than TRNC. UN has not held a seperate referendum in Nagorno-Karabakh nor South Ossetia, which implies that UN is still not convinced of their "adequate seperateness" from the side laying claims on them. I don't want to get into a debate about neither of these territories, but just know that the UN referendum in 2004 has had huge implications in the legal world, even though it was rejected by the South. In fact, as a lawyer, I can tell you that TRNC has much more right to declare its independence today since, by rejecting the referendum, it can be easily argued that the other side is refusing the de-facto reality that has developed in the last thiry years pertaining to the development of a seperate political entity in the north, and therefore, has lost its right to claim it. Mark my words, what I just said is much more valid legally than "i refuse to recognize TRNC because it is illegal". Whether you agree with the argument about the south losing its claims on the north is not the same thing, I am just giving you a legal run-down of the current situation. Baristarim 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason that TRNC is still in this situation is because of accession negotiations of Turkey with the EU. If Turkey were already a member of the EU, TRNC would be perfectly justified to declare its outright independence from a legal point of view since the other side rejected a UN APPROVED referendum (UN is the epitome of international law, so unless God himself is going to come in and decide for us, we have to make do with it). And the south knows that its only chance of stopping that is trying to get concessions from Turkey during its accession negotiations, since, believe me when I say this, TRNC is definitely entitled, under international law, to declare its independence since the rejection of the referendum by the south under the concept of "loss of right to sovereignty" over a specific territory, the same principal that will give Kosovo its independence later this year. So please keep things in context. Since 2004, TRNC is no longer "illegal", but it has "unclear status". Baristarim 02:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(this is not an answer to Baris, but to the whole discussion-u never know... these days, u can easily be misunderstoond...). After reading all the discussion, i am highly disappointed... An attempt to legitimize or to hide the world's view of the TRNC from the article is just a pathetic and "weird" try... Are some users here trying to present TRNC as a valid and de facto state, instead of noting that it is an illegal, separatist regime with 25% of its population being foreign soldiers, which no single state in the world (apart from Turkey) recognises it, incompatible with the UN and the Geneva conventions? sorry, but this is unencyclopedic, unhistoric and indeed, povish and propagandistic! During the endless discussions in the talks of Tenedos and Imbros, i thought not to "heat bloods" by adding in the lead that these islands are de jure autonomous, legally valid, in accordance with international treaties, protection of minorities charters, and that have been suffered blatant violations of treaties, racism, propagandistic fullfillments of of "Pan-" goals, violations of human rights, of freedom of religion, of ethnic cleansing, etc etc. I am not an admin, thus i cannot change the intro of this article now that it has been protected... But i can change the intro of these two articles of Northern Aegean... Not as a 'revenge' for this, but as edits in perfect (de facto-de jure) accordance with this one... I wonder who will be hypocritic enough to revert me... Hectorian 04:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Try to be logical instead of acting emotional about it. Khoikhoi 04:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
@ Hectorian: All I was trying to say was that some intro proposals were a bit too much inflammatory. Nothing stops us from discussing the political status of the island.. As for the two islands, if please feel free to talk about their political status under Lausanne, but just don't make it inflammatory by saying "the islands suffered from ethnic cleansing". You very well know that such ethnic issues are not clear-cut. In any case, I don't want to talk about these two islands, we can do it in their respective talk pages. But everyone should keep in mind what I said about the UN holding a referendum in Turkey overriding 1983 resolutions. I really don't want to get into a discussion why and how we got to this point, who invaded who and so on, but don't forget that that UN referendum is the latest reference point for the status of the TRNC under international law. That's all I am saying.. If the island was invaded illegally 32 years ago, pls talk about it in its history section. The intro should be about its current status. Its current status is not "TRNC is illegal", or in any case, not that simple. I am just trying to say that potentially-inflammatory stuff about the past belongs under the history section, not the intro. Baristarim 05:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
@Khoikhoi: I am perfectly logical. If illegal will be excluded from this article, legal and de jure will be inserted in the articles i've said. Perfect harmony, no dispute with treaties, UN, etc. so, noone will have any single "right" (save propaganda and pov, that's why the "...") to revert me. and if anyone wants examples, here is one: Abkhazia... , which is de jure an autonomous republic of Georgia, ...but which proclaimed independence after a war in the early 1990s. Although it is not recognized internationally as a separate nation, Abkhazia remains largely de facto independent. in the case of TRNC, the current intro is ridiculously short(!), without even mentioning foreign troops..., as if it is anything like Aceh or Tamil Eelam! and the fact that it is internationally illegal. noone is allowed to insert in the article only what fullfills one's POV. the differences should be explained in the intro, without leading the readers to believe what he believes. UN documents and resolutions exist, the EU and USA stance is clear, the stance of the whole world (apart from Turkey) is clear, so, hiding it from the intro and presenting a conservative position that reflects the turkish pov, is unacceptable for me. Hectorian 04:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That's bullshit. Why don't we apply the same standards to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, Tamil Eelam, and Transnistria? Why should we make an exception JUST for the TRNC? Khoikhoi 05:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I really don't want to get into a small dispute over wording, but it would be legitimate to mention that it is not recognized as a seperate country in the intro. I just think that the "illegal" aspect of the 1974 invasion, or the controversy over its current political status should be talked about in another section, not the intro. There we can talk about the background, the recognition issue and the referendum etc. The statement "TRNC is illegal" simplifies the problem way too much. The UN holding a seperate referendum in the north shows that it is not simply an "illegal thing" and that the UN recognizes that there is a functioning legal and political structure in the north, and that it is democratic enough for the UN to be holding a referendum there. This overrides the 1983 resolution. That's all. Baristarim 05:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
To Baris: first, it is not just history, but it is still present (i live in the same world, u know). it is not a case of legitimising what the turkish government have said after every single case: id est let begone, be gone; the problem is real and present. secondly, about the comment on "ethnic cleansing on Imbros and Tenedos", the articles of the Lausanne Treaty and the present situation of the minority and the turkish laws on them are more than clear (i can open discussion there, if i will be forced to... why de facto is more valid than de jure? only one's pov could consider the former more valid than the later...). The status of TRNC should be explained in the intro: who says it is legal, who says it is not, who invaded and whose troops are there. To Khoikhoi: is that really bullshit? who invaded in Transnistria, in Tamil Eelam or in Somaliland? who recognises them? (their invador? if there was any, but there wasn't...). how many UN resolutions concerning Aceh exist? if we don't have to follow the UN on everything, i suppose that u do not have to follow the same format for each of these articles... Hectorian 05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying that the UN shit doesn't belong in the intro. Khoikhoi 05:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Reply to last comment by Baristarim: the referendum was adressed to the Turkish-Cypriot community, not to a supposed Turkish Cypriot state. this by no means legalises TRNC. the embargo has not been revoked, TRNC takes part in no int. org. (in the Islamic conference it is not recognised as sovereign), bla bla bla... So, i can't understand what are u saying here. the int. laws are clear, and TRNC is legally invalid... Khoikhoi, if i were u, i would not call what the UN say as "shit"... Hectorian 05:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
.... Khoikhoi 05:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/u/r/Talk%7ETurkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus_Archive_5_a66e.html"