Talk:Northern Cyprus

Guidelines for editing the TRNC article

• Units in metric should be spelled out with the converted English units abbreviated in parentheses per Manual of Style.
• Only external links pertaining to TRNC as a whole, or official government of TRNC links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles.
• Please use the correct WP:CITE format when adding references. If you are not sure what citation format is appropriate, please see WP:CITE for a list of available citation templates.

Archives

Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 03:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Archives: Archive 1 - Archived on August 3, 2005 Archive 2 - Archived on October 5, 2005 Archive 3 - Archived on October 23, 2006 Archive 4 - Archived on November 4, 2006 Archive 5 - Archived on November 22, 2006 Archive 6 - Archived on December 31, 2006

Comments

FAO Dirak

You added the tag once before, and it was removed after consultation with Fut: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus&diff=94672477&oldid=94609618 I assume you were one of those consulted, i guess it will be easy to check. Also, please dont vandalise the article anonymously. --A.Garnet 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• No comment... if you think the anon is me (which you probably don't), feel free to request an IP check. As for Fut's views, why don't we put them into practice universally. He doesn't think highly of perpetual tags as I'm sure you're aware. //Dirak 22:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So did you consult with Fut in the removing the tag last time or not? (and yes i do believe the anon was you). --A.Garnet 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

He didn't talk to me. Funny however how you don't respect the sanctity of tags here though. The title is disputed as can be seen by the lengthy discussions in the archives and on this very page. As a fan of tagging disputed articles (indefinitely if necessary), what is your problem here? As for the anon, beyond saying "it was not me", there's nothing more I can do; you can draw your own conclusions. //Dirak 23:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what exactly is the dispute? There is a self proclaimed state calling itself TRNC, and this is the article about it. If this article will ever be renamed Northern Cyprus, then the Cyprus article must be moved to Rebuplic of Cyprus, and Cyprus article focus only on the geographical area called Cyprus. If not, the distinction is neccessary. Baristarim 23:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You lost me... //Dirak 23:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, other country examples do not provide the correct analogy. There is no breakaway country calling itself the "Italian Republic of Southern France". If there were, then the France article would have to be moved to Republic of France. But since there is no such conflict, then there is no problem naming the country article simply "France". With Cyprus, there is a problem: there are to two distinct entities who claim the same geographical name. Good analogy is this: China, People's Republic of China and Republic of China. Are the common rules of logic so rare to come by these days? :) If anything, Cyprus article should be renamed Republic of Cyprus. Baristarim 23:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please reread WP:NPOV#Undue weight. As far as everyone is concerned Cyprus = Rep. of Cyprus. Why again are we supposed to be giving so much weight to the turkish POV? //Dirak 23:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What 'sanctity' of tags means i dont know. Tag on PGC article was added by consensus, the tag here was added to make a point by you and even that was removed by consensus again. I am happy to have a pov tag until all the neutrality issues are sorted, but i will oppose tags being thrown in to make a point, and turning Wikipedia into some worthless tit for tat game. Well done on the George Bush article btw, very serious of you. I await your new username with anticipation. --A.Garnet 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See ad hominem. //Dirak 23:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as anyone is concerned China = People's Republic of China. Why are we giving so much weight to the Taiwanese POV? I will tell you why: because this is an encyclopedia, not the local coffee house. Seems that the Chinese are smarter than us. Not surprising, really. PRC is FA. (Struck my earlier comment about China being FA and RC GA, I must have been thinking of another article, RC was in GA two weeks ago, I wonder what happened - but they are still in better shape than Cyprus articles) Go figure. And we are here discussing such a stupid thing. Yeah Dirak, putting that tag up there is going to change everything, right? The whole TRNC will become part of Cyprus again!!! Whatever, people should take a page out of the book of the Chinese. Seriously. Correct solution: Three articles for "Cyprus", "Republic of Cyprus" and "TRNC". If people can't see that, than I wonder if people are in Wikipedia to actually contribute or simply turn Wikipedia into a political showcase. Baristarim 23:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The (republican/nationalist/...) Chinese are indeed smarter than you. That's how Britannica has a Taiwan article [1] but no TRNC article, but includes it in the Cyprus article. I agree with you, this is an encyclopedia - would you mind if I added {{merge|Cyprus}} to this article as well? //Dirak 23:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to that. NikoSilver 23:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course you would, shall we conduct a straw poll also? --A.Garnet 23:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And Garnet scores again! //Goalie 23:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha, because there is no seperate entity in the north of the island. See the last sentence of my last post Dirak. I was not talking about Taiwan. Maybe you should learn how to read: I said Republic of China. Taiwan is an article about the geography of the island. Do your homework first. Yeah, talk about ad hominems, you should also watch your language.Baristarim 23:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretty bad damage control :-D The Britannica article says Official name: Chung-hua Min-kuo (Republic of China) and includes the Republic of China flag etc. Britannica also prefers the short names!!! What is the short name of "TRNC"? What would Britannica (a real encyclopedia) do? //Dirak 23:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you apply for a job at Brittanica then. I heard there were some good jobs, not for editing articles though :) I was talking about Wikipedia where they are two different articles. If you do not like Wikipedia and prefer Brittanica, you can go there. Nobody is holding a gun to your head u know. Baristarim 23:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

<Duh>Maybe, because Taiwan has 24 states recognizing it (among other differences)?</Duh> NikoSilver 23:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Turks like comparing "TRNC" with Taiwan. Don't ask me why, as far as I can see, it is incomparable. //Dirak 23:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wonder what you can and cannot see: If you are still seeing this issue as "Turks" and "Greeks", I wonder in which age you are living in. And Nikos, yes. I had forgotten about states like Vanuatu, Marshall Islands, Bermuda recognizing RC. Still undue weight my friend: 21 out of 220~ is definitely undue weight. But the Chinese are smart enough to see that there actually is an entity there that styles itself as such, and instead of treating Wikipedia like a alt. or Myspace group, they are actually working to improve their articles. The same cannot be said here, unfortunately. Whatever, the joke is not on me or Alf here. Again: four articles exist: China and Taiwan for geographical regions, and People's Republic of China and Republic of China for political entities. Now, unless you are claiming that we are smarter than the Chinese, then the problem is here, not there. Baristarim 23:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Karıştırıyorsun Bay Barış. Undue weight again; which (independent) sources indicate that you can compare the Cyprus situation with the China situation?? Britannica has an article for both the communist government and one for the republican government of China. Why don't they have an article on the TRNC? Why don't any English language encyclopedias (Encarta, Hutchinson...)? As I once said, comparing Cyprus with China is wishful thinking... //Dirak 23:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Tabi canim, boyle giderse butun Kibris'i fethedeceksin - sakin durayim deme!! :) Wishful thinking, whatever... Kimse burada herhangi bir ulkeyi fethetmeye çalismiyor. Adam gibi katkida bulunacaksan bulun. Sahte soykirim sayfalari yazmakla olmuyor bu isler canim benim. Sen bu yollardan giderken biz geri donuyorduk... Baristarim 00:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict: You neither responded on (a) the other encyclopedias contradictory examples, nor on the (b) "other differences" I said, like maybe TECRO and TECO offices, etc. And don't forget (c) that 24 (even small) states is really far better than ZERO EVER. As I said, I feel there are differences, and I dispute the logic behind the name of this article. NikoSilver 00:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes us Turks like comparing TRNC with Taiwan, makes more sense than comparing Pontian Greek "genocide" with TRNC though eh? With regards to the title, undue weight does not apply to countries recognised or not. So you can keep trying to draw a parallel between international recognition and academic opinion, bu the comparison is entirely void, it is like chalk and cheese. TRNC is not a view, it is a defacto reality. We can have views about the TRNC, its formation, its history, but the TRNC itself is not a view in itself. Northern Cyprus is a geographical expression, this article about the self-declared entity of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, therein lies the logic behind this article. --A.Garnet 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the entity ITSELF is not a view, but a fact. The NAME of the entity, however, could well range from "Katechomena" (Greek for "Occupied [lands]") to whatever it styles itself. I don't see why we should prefer how it styles itself to how e.g. proper legit Cyprus refers to its de jure part... (or the rest of the whole world, you know, as in: everyone else!) NikoSilver 00:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the whole thing. This is an encylopedia, not the UN security council. On this encylopedia, the Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Cyprus are two equal and notable topics. How many countries recognises each is about significant as turd on a shoe. Take a leaf out Brittanicas book:

"Provision of separate data does not imply recognition of either state's claims but is necessitated by the lack of unified data." http://www.britannica.com/nations/Cyprus

We do not take sides, what you consider "proper legit Cyprus" is your pov. Do not try and push it on others. --A.Garnet 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and for this reason nowhere does Wikipedia state that TRNC is illegal (another score by Garnet). However, the title of this article nevertheless is POV (in favor of the minority POV). The title dispute is not over the legitimacy of the regime (or its existence), but over whether the title endorses the "turkishness" and "republicanness" of it, and why this case merits using the full name of the entity and not the conventional short one as is the norm on Wikipedia unless there are special circumstances. Britannica also does so (even more than Wikipedia). //Dirak 22:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense. The Britannica article even uses the full term Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus under the official names of Cyprus. Are they endorsing a Turkishness and Republicanness too? --A.Garnet 22:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a special circumstance, and it has nothing do with politics per se. There are two entities who claim the word "Cyprus" in their official names. That is not the same thing with Nagorno-Karabakh for example. NK is claimed by Azerbaijan, not Republic of Nagorno Karabakh. If NK was "Armenian Republic of NK", and Azerbaijan was "Republic of NK", then both those articles would have to be moved. That's why the case is similar to China. When I was making the comparison, I was not making a political comparison at all. The question is one of syntax. When the "official" entity and the "breakaway" entities carry different names, then there is no problem. As I said before, if Corsica was a breakaway state and called itself the "Italian Republic of Southern France", then "France" article will have to be moved to Republic of France. That's why there are four different articles for China; it is not because of political reasons. That's why I was giving the example of China. We should have three different articles: Cyprus, RoC and this one. Baristarim 22:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Quite the contrary, the article on the Republic of Cyprus (Cyprus) is neutral because it is not using a disputed name (Turkey doesn't recognize a "Republic of Cyprus"), it is just using the most common name in English (Google speaking). This article uses both a disputed name, and a less common name in English (how many English language sources do you know which call it TRNC outright?). I have no particular problem with renaming the Cyprus article on the condition that this article is renamed as well. //Dirak 22:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Republic of China is also disputed, if I may add. The most common name for People's Republic of China is also simply China. Nearly all news sources simply say "China". As I pointed out, there is a special circumstance that you asked: there are two entities who claim the same name in their official names. That's a very unique case. What is the point of renaming Cyprus it this will be named Northern Cyprus? In fact, even better, we can do like the Chinese: let's have four articles: "Cyprus" and "Northern" Cyprus for the geography, and "RoC" and "TRNC" for the entities. And you might want to cut down on WP:POINT edits, btw. Don't be creating any more fake genocide articles :)) Just a question: Do you actually do work on Wikipedia (you know, contribute positively (add something)), or are you simply here to just hang around and WP:POINT?

Baris, I have been on Wikipedia since 2004 with a variety of usernames and have contributed more content than you've most likely ever read. Dismissing any edit you don't like as POINTy also won’t get you anywhere. As I say above, comparing Cyprus with China is wishful thinking on your part. All English language encyclopedias (all I can find at least) treat the China issue very differently from the Cyprus issue (presumably for historical reasons). Additionally, the name Republic of China is not that disputed; in fact, they would likely face an invasion by the PRC if they changed it! Finally, do you accept my proposal (rename both to non-disputed titles)? If you really like drawing parallels with other articles and removing tags that way, remember the PGG article. Would you object if I did the same thing as you are doing now? //Dirak 23:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why you had to change your usernames, that's all :) Baristarim 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I like variety :) You have encountered many of my reincarnations (last one was User:Euthymios) and changes are no secret. If you think I'm trying to hide something, then you must think that this certainly is the wrong way. //Dirak 23:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I was just wondering out loud :) In that case, it might be better to move the user page so that you can see its history, just my two cents. Baristarim 23:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Tag

Is there some particular reason why Garnet keeps removing the POV title tag? This is a fully explained dispute. If you want the other tag as well, feel free to add both, but the title should remain until the dispute is resolved. //Dirak 22:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Read my last post above.Baristarim 22:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, and you didn't explain why the tag was removed. //Dirak 22:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was it removed? a)you added it without consensus to make a wp:point. b)you agreed to remove by consensus in which you consulted with Fut. c)This article has nothing to do with pontian greek "genocide", so do no try and link the two as some kind of market stall tag bargaining. --A.Garnet 22:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A) There is no consensus to keep a tag at the PGG article (you assuption of POINT is a violation of WP:AGF), B) any agreement no longer stands as the tag is still there [2], C) say that to yourself. //Dirak 23:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dirak, you have a lof of nerve to accuse others of vandalism. After your latest wave of WP:POINT edits and blatant disruption, after the one that followed the creation of bogus POINT articles and their speedy AfDs, I had to take a look at your contribution list (go tell admins if you like), and I noticed that even the VandalBOT is reverting you [3]. Really be careful, if such disruptive behavior continues, there will be an ArbCom if need be. I don't know what you have to do, but I would take a chill pill if I were you. If you are actually going to conribute to Wikipedia, then stay; if not, I wonder what you are doing here. Baristarim 23:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Threats (=attempted intimidation) are not allowed. I'm beginning to interpret all these POINT accusations as personal attacks too (come on, this title dispute has been going on for months, that accusation is nothing more than an ad hominem). The "agreement" Garnet appeals to was an understanding of a tag ceasefire (=both sides), and if there is realistic prospect of change, the tags will not be there forever. Unfortunately, it seems that all this is a case of gullible me assuming that the "opposition" in both disputes would act in good faith. //Dirak 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No threats, I am just letting you know of something that will happen. That's all. I don't do edits that are reverted by the VANDALBOT. By POINT, I was referring to KG and its more than unusual AfD, as well as your very recent tag of POV for the Turkish diaspora article. Baristarim 23:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Is or is not the Turkish diaspora article sourced? You can't go around claiming millions of Turks live everywhere without it being disputed! The thing speaks for itself. As for KG, it was sourced and my humble creation has expanded significantly. I have explained how it is not a POINT case but the natural course of events time and time again. Let me refresh your memory: when one does research on Turkey and Genocide, you find lots of interesting things! I just wove a few of them into an article and there is nothing wrong with that. Trying to delegitimize everything I do by appealing to my vandalbot experiment or claiming POINT is nothing more that cases of this and this. Common logical fallacies. //Dirak 23:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalbot experiment?? Do you experiment with vandalism? :) Well, in any case, Turkish diaspora article is sourced, sources are there if you take a look. Most numbers have a ref right next to it, ones that don't have a citation tag. Nearly all those numbers are sourced ismi sabit degil bey.Baristarim 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have a question: isn't "Northern Cyprus" the conventional short name for the TRNC? Khoikhoi 00:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to suggest that there can be a conventional name for an unconventional entity? :-) NikoSilver 00:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

For the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic there is. :-) Khoikhoi 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The "entity" is treated as a sub-article (or paragraph) of Republic of Cyprus (aka Cyprus) in all other encyclopedias online (check bottom of this thread for links). I'd also like opinions on this draft I made for WP:VPP. NikoSilver 00:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, TRNC is the conventional short form. Northern Cyprus is a geographic expression, this article concerns the defacto state of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. --A.Garnet 23:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

But there is another problem with simple syntax and language here that is being overlooked, and it is more important. Don't forget that two entities claiming the same name in their official names is extremely rare. Nagorno Karabakh, Transnisteria, South Ossetia are not the same since their "claiming" entities carry a different name. I gave examples of this somewher above. That's why I am giving an example of China. It doesn't have to do with the partial political recognition/non-recognition of Taiwan/RC. Moreover, if there was a different geographic name for Northern Cyprus, such as "Turkland" etc, then there wouldn't be a problem with having two articles, one for Cyprus and one for "Turkland". The problem is there is no such name. They both carry the same geographical name. Baristarim 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... I don't buy that... one claims to be "Cyprus" (all of it) and the other merely claims to be "northern Cyprus" (the north part of the island). If they both claimed to be Cyprus, it would be called the "Turkish Republic of Cyprus". This contrasts with the China situation where both regimes claim the whole of their own and their opponent regime's territory. If "TRNC" is the short form of "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", how is "Nagorno-Karabakh" the short form of the "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" (what about "NKR")? Sockul 18:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. The finer point is that the Republic of Cyprus also claims Northern Cyprus via its official name. There are no other examples other than TRNC/Cyprus and RoChina/PRC where two entities/breakaway states/whatever use the name of a geographical region in their names in a way that puts them, syntax wise, in direct confrontation. NG is claimed by Azerbaijan, an entity that doesn't incorporate the NG name in its official name. If Azerbaijan was called "The Republic of Nagorno Karabakh", then the current article of Nagorno-Karabakh would have to be moved to NGR, or some other name. Baristarim 18:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Citizenship" and "worker--A.Garnet 22:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)s" (?)

"Workers" (also why not eg. "farmers" or "entrepreneurs"?) is a subset of "settlers". Citizenship is a de jure term, so we say "citizenship" (with quotes) to illustrate the non-de jureness [sic]. NikoSilver 13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, settlers is a more general term and therefore covers both workers with temporary intentions and people who intent to really "settle", as in make a new land their home for the rest of their foreseeable future. Considering the context of this specific issue, I'd like to point that "settlers" are apt to be considered as a body of people who are the result of a deliberate attempt to populate the land with Turkish people. While I'm not going to question the existence of such a thing right now, not all of those settlers were there with the intention of settling and I feel that we shall reflect that difference. I think it would be more of a commonground and appropriate if we use both "settlers and workers", what do you say?

And as for the term "citizenship" being strictly de jure, here is the definition right from Wikipedia: "Citizenship is membership in a political community (originally a city or town but now usually a country) and carries with it rights to political participation; a person having such membership is a citizen." Whether or not TRNC is recognized as a de jure country, their citizens are the member of that political community and this membership grants them rights to political participation in that community, making them citizens (without the quotation marks).

Now I'm going to show the decency of waiting for a response for some time before making any more changes to the article, a practice that I hope will be generally adapted in the future. Take care --Xasf 16:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your WP:AGF.

Workers: I actually felt the exactly opposite way than you: I felt that the term "workers" aimed to justify the existence of all those settling (regardless work status). I have no doubt that there are people indeed settling for work (although we need citation for the exact numbers, and I really don't know if the citation could fall within WP:RS, given the status of the entity). Moreover, I really don't understand what type of excuse for settling employment per se may be. However, I have no problem accepting "settlers and workers", but I think it would be a pleonasm (much like "Greeks and Athenians"). I hope we can find better terminology for that, but feel free to add your proposal in the meantime. NikoSilver 01:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship: This is much more complicated and we all know that. For all I know, the TCs have two citizenships. They have citizenship for RoC, and citizenship for TRNC. Right or wrong, the latter citizenship is recognized only by their entity, while the first citizenship is recognized by the whole rest world. Now if we have to show that this citizenship is something claimed unilaterally by one entity, what do we do? If you feel the quotes are not appropriate, I suggest we expand the word citizenship to illustrate this conflict of jurisdiction, and mention the other citizenship in question (RoC's) as well. NikoSilver 01:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, I'm changing "settlers" to "workers and settlers", and I'm removing the quotation marks from "citizenship" while adding a tag that it needs further clarification. I think this works for everybody for now and we can collectively fine-tune it in time. Take care--Xasf 12:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Xasf you are quite correct. Incidently this is an issue that isnt even up for debate (or is that "debate') as scare quotes are NOT ALLOWED under wikipedia policy. Nico I'm dissappointed to see you endorsing the use of scare quotes. Adam777 18:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:WTA#So-called, supposed, alleged, purported suggests that Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications. I thought it was a usual practice, having seen it around probably too much. See my comment above for a solution that includes that. Thanks for your constructive criticism, Adam. NikoSilver 01:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No harm done and in the grand scheme of things it isnt a biggie. It wasn't constructive criticism, more like me throwing my toys out of the pram again, as usual I could have worded things better. Adam777 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No Niko, you cannot enter the TRNC without a work permit. Those who marry a Cypriot or remain for a number of years may become naturalised Cypriots, but we cannot presume their sole intention is to "settle" as the term settlers would imply. Just as in Germany, the Turks were and are still referred to as guest workers, despite their settled status. As for citizenship being a "dejure" term, i really dont know where you make these statements from. There is no prerequisite to be part of an internationally recognised state to be deemed a citizen of a political community, in fact i would like you to provide me with one source which proves otherwise. --A.Garnet 22:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What about using "immigrants"? Baristarim 01:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised at the diagreement over 'settler'. After 1975, thousands of Anatolian Turks were shipped in to northern Cyprus and settled in the properties of departed Greek Cypriots. Those people had no means of 'emigrating' since they were too poor, that is why they are called settlers. I was never aware that the term could provide disagreement and never encoutered disagreement amongst TC people. Would appreciate it, just out of curiosity, if Baristarim and Garnet exanded and backed their objection (if, indeed, they are objecting). Politis 19:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not even sure what the dispute is. Why can't we call them immigrants? Most of them are not permanent-settlers, some of them are there to go to collegs, some for seasonal work etc etc. Immigrant covers all types of migration. "Settler" sounds kind of like the settlers of America. I am not even sure how many stayed, how many would like to stay there forever, how many are there only for a couple of years etc. On a sidenote, emigration is actually done by mostly poor people. Even in the States, Mexicans aren't called "settlers" - they are called immigrants. That's why I asked why we can't use the word immigrant. Immigrant covers both short-term and long-term migration, as well as economic, political, cultural etc migration. Baristarim 19:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The number of people who voted on the Anan Plan provides us with the most reliable figures. I have never heard the term immigrants used with regard to the north (any references, even if they are in Turkish?). The Mexican and German case is quite different. Most Mexicans are either legal or, most often, illegal immigrants. They were not shipped by the Mexican government into the US... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Politis (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

We are not talking about sheep :) You can't just ship people to some place else. Nobody put a gun to their heads, encouragement is a different thing. In any case, there is also the problem that Cyprus considers practically every single immigrant as a "settler", even those who moved there after finding a job there or after a marriage etc. Moreover, nobody is putting a gun to the heads of those settlers to continue to stay there :) Baristarim 21:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

While Turkey and TRNC do not deny this policy of encouraging Turkish immigration, it is justified on the grounds that (a) the demographic 'tilt' towards the Greek Cypriots needed to be redressed, and (b) Turkish Cypriots have been emigrating to Europe in order to find better opportunities since the international embargo on Northern Cyprus has made the economic situation there difficult. Line 17 i believe [4] . Immigrants were brought to cyprus expatkiwi says (Turkish Pov look at the comment when the edit was done) to redress the demographic tilt... I kind of believe him/her. Oh by the way happy new year to all of you. 2873 after the first OlympiadAristovoul0s 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick note "[Mr MERCAN (Turkey). There are two reports on the agenda that relate to the rights of Greek Cypriots and minorities living in the northern part of Cyprus, and the colonisation by Turkish settlers of the occupied part of Cyprus".http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/ul_kom/akpm/orta/konus_haz2003.htm .gov.tr ?? whats going on? Aristovoul0s 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I find this argument above quite compelling, and would request the Turkish users' response on the issue, before I remove the irrelevant subset referring to "workers". Employment is not more of an excuse than any other reason for settling either way. NikoSilver 23:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The rest of that page indicates that Mr. Mercan is referring to a third-party report prepared by foreign researchers, and his wording may simply be reflecting those found in that reports (which are described as "containing facts but also in need of a major revision"). I think it would be better to aim at correctly clarifying the whole settler/worker/immigrant issue by locating sources to get some specifics about the Turkish population coming from mainland Turkey rather than go "word hunting" through the internet. Take care--Xasf 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to recapitulate, we have immigrants, gastarbeiter, settlers...? It seems unfortunate that, due to its isolation, very little is known about Northern Cyprus and much misunderstanding is generated. (On a personal note: Since April 2004, the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community seems, in a crazy sort of way, as tragic as the isolation of the Istanbul Greeks). Politis 00:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Greeks of Istanbul have valid passports - they can go to any country they want, either for tourism or work, as long as they have a visa just like other Turkish citizens - It is also hard for many Turks to get a visa too. They do not have to route their flights from Greece either. Plus they live in a city that has a population greater than many countries in the EU, a city which has every single organization/building/institution that would be needed to run even a country, economically, culturally and socially. They are not isolated :) Baristarim 09:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Baris Turkish Cypriots are not isolated either. They are citizens of the Republic of Cyprus and can go in any European Country or elsewhere they wish to. Heres a note directly from the EU : "In light of Protocol 10 of the Accession Treaty 2003 Cyprus as a whole entered the EU, whereas the acquis is suspended in the northern part of the island (“areas not under effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus”). This means inter alia that these areas are outside the customs and fiscal territory of the EU. The suspension has territorial effect, but does not concern the personal rights of Turkish Cypriots as EU citizens, as they are considered as citizens of the Member State Republic of Cyprus"[5].

But the issue at hand is slightly different, as Xasf mentioned above we have Mr. Mercan referring to a third-party report prepared by foreign researchers (third party...) referring to colonisation by Turkish settlers... Who can dick up those reports and see whether the reports have been reviewed?  :) Aristovoul0s 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Nhahaha :) You can't tell people what country they are a citizen of aristos. If they choose to, then fine - if not then we have to respect that as well. You should also read some opinions about the legal ramifications about the rejection of the referendum by the Greek Cypriots, by the way. In the future, it can easily be considered as a case of "loss of right to sovereignty"

EU doesn't make international law by the way. It is an entity just like others. Let me give you an example, legally, why all those statements of the European Union that you quoted is nothing but hypocricy, bullshit and political manouevring that has absolutely no legal basis:

• There are various schools of thoughts as to how a "state" is formed:
  • constitutive theory,
  • declarative theory,
• Constitutive theory is outdated, and is not accepted as a criteria as far as the creation of a state is concerned. And most importantly, it is not codified in international law.
• Declarative theory has at least one incidence of being subject to a international treaty: Montevideo Convention
  • A state is this: " territory+people on that territory+an entity who disposes the right of "legitimate force" (as a legal term) and whose de-facto authority extends over that territory and people on that territory" - recognition is not necessary.[6] Recognition only concerns third parties that would like/not like to enter into relations with that state.
• EU hasn't signed it; however, in one of its committees, it has adopted this resolution in line with the spirit of that convention:

the state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty" and that "the effects of recognition by other states are purely declaratory

[7] - (Check that link as to why it can be easily considered that Cyprus has lost its right to sovereignty over the north; thank that Turkey is trying to enter the EU, otherwise TRNC would have made stronger moves to become a truly independent state - I will actually try to find legal opinions about this as well)

• Therefore, that EU declaration contradicts the findings of one of its own commisions on Yugoslavia, ergo - it is nothing but a scrap of political toilet paper written just to pay lip service to Papadopoulos. Again, EU doesn't mean jack s..., it is a political entity that doesn't have the capacity to make international law. Just because it considers the citizens of TRNC as citizens of RoC doesn't make it so.

Don't make me dig up more legal stuff, I argue about law enough in my real life :) However, now that this issue is getting heated up again, I will try to dig a lot more legal and academic sources as to why we will never have "illegal" or something else in the intro. I will also try to prepare a section on the international status of TRNC with regards to intl law. UN resolutions from 25 years ago don't mean anything in the light of the developments of since then. Baristarim 19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This one also gives a nice summary of the TRNC/Turkey subject [8], as well as basic principals of international statehood recognition (it refers to "it" as Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus btw)

• Moreover, TRNC was never declared to be illegal - its declaration of independence was considered to be "legally invalid" - there is a great difference. Therefore, as a state, it has a right to grant citizenship to whoever it sees fit.

• TRNC, legally, is an "unrecognized state" - it is not "illegal" nor is it "pseudo" or I don't know what. Even though the international law doesn't allow the creation of internationally recognized states except in two cases (which do not cover the case of TRNC), a third case could also be applied: the recent jurisprudence established by the report on Kosovo by the UN that establishes the criteria for the "loss of right to sovereignty" can easily be applied to TRNC - armed conflict followed by the seccession in the aftermath of foreign armed intervention to stop the conflict (which Turkey had a legitimate legal right to do per its guarantor powers). As I said, Cyprus should be thankful that Turkey is trying to enter the EU, otherwise there would be no chance in hell that TRNC would not become a independent state one day. TRNC has a much stronger case than some people think actually. Just my two cents :) Baristarim 19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Baristarim, you gave us a few POV stuff, but what's a bit of POV between friends :-?. Now this is what you gave us (based on the links you provided):

The 1991 Badinter Arbitration Committee gave an opinion. That was all.

As for the Montevideo Convention and the entry in the encyclopaedia britannica[9], we read that, "International law has been quite adamant in proclaiming the sanctity of post-World War II national borders, and in censuring attempts at secession in instances such as Katanga, Biafara and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus".

Finally, you said that the TRNC "has a right to grant citizenship", but which countries accept those documents for legal entry for the purposes of tourism, business or work, into their territory? If there are any (other than Turkey), they should appear in the main article.

As for the EU being hypocritical, etc... people who live in glass houses should not throw stones (this applies also to the ROC authorities). The EU does not make international laws, but it certainly sets its own laws, criteria and standards and by which other entities have to abide. The ROC is seriously abusing this state of affairs to the detriment of the Turkish Chypriots, but it is its right to do so :-( Politis 20:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

lol.. How can we get along without some POV? :) The thing I am trying to point is that TRNC is a state, it has seceded, its declaration of independence has been considered as "legally invalid" since it doesn't conform to the criteria established in intl law for the intl recognition of states, however - as a state, it still retains the state prerogatives. The EU declaration on the citizenship of TRNC "citizens" cannot be considered as an authority because in the eyes of the TRNC, those people are its citizens. The point is, EU is not even a state and therefore can't decide who is whose citizen. It has a right to consider them as not being "valid" for itself - however not illegal. Recognition only implies a willingness to deal/not deal with a state and is not required for a state to be sovereign. It just is if it is - a state by definition is sovereign over a defined people living on a defined territory. The article is attaching too much importance to the opinion of the international community IMO.

In any case, I need to find some better references specific to the TRNC's current situation in its relationship to Cyprus. Some of my comments were not directly related to the article in the sense that the legal status of TRNC is still a theoratical one that is open to a big variety of interpretations. The new jurisprudence of Kosovo is also important, but again it is also fuzzy in what exactly it would be imply for TRNC.

However, there needs to be a distinction between the legality of Turkey's actions and those of the TRNC. Even if Turkey's military presence is disputed, that only concerns Turkey, not TRNC as an entity since they are two different states.

ROC of course has the right to act as it sees fit, can say nothing about that.

I will try to get back to this later, I am just too tired :) Baristarim 20:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Things aren't as clear-cut as that, of course. In fact, the legal confusion has served the Turkish Cypriots well. They want their Cypriot citizenship and EU passports issued by the Republic of Cyprus, but at the same time will not abandon their separatist project in the north. At some point, they're going to have to decide what is more important to them. Those who place the sanctity of the "TRNC" and their Turkishness über Alles should be stripped of their Cypriot citizenship, and with it, the right to move freely in Europe. They can't have it both ways. Possessing the "citizenship" of the "TRNC" is a direct denial of the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you will the find the majority of Turkish Cypriots were more than willing to dissolve the TRNC in favour of a United Cyprus via the Annan plan. If anyone wants its both ways it is the Greek Cypriot administration. They want to avoid any United Nations peace settlement and at the same time demand Turkish Cypriots abandon their state and join them. As for violating the sovereignty of the RoC, Makarios did that in 63 with his 13 amendments, Grivas did that when he attacked Turkish Cypriots villages in 64, Greece did that when she sent 20,000 soldiers in 64 against Turkish Cypriots and military junta did that again in 74 when they tried to annex the island. So please excuse Turkish Cypriots if we hesistate to accept the sovereignty of Greek Cypriots over us. --A.Garnet 12:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody bring out the violins... Meanwhile, in the here and now, supporting the continued existence of the "TRNC" while at the same time applying for a Cypriot passport in order to reap the benefits of EU accession (to which Turkish Cypriots did not contribute one iota) is hypocrisy, pure and simple. The citizenship of any state entails certain responsibilities towards that state, not just rights. I would have more respect for Turkish Cypriots if they boycotted the Republic of Cyprus entirely, rejecting the "Greek" passports, electricity and pensions still handed out to them freely despite their openly hostile attitude towards the evil gavurlar. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Turkish Cypriots voted for reunification, that is the majority of them do not support the continued existence of the TRNC in its current state, if a referendum cannot prove that you i dont know what can. 2. Citizenship is a two way affair, loyalty derives from the ability of the state to look after its citizens interests. Between 63-74 the RoC looked after only Greek Cypriot interests, and under the leadership of Tassos Papadopolous, it is effectively a Greek state. 3. You do not provide free electricity, we pay for it. 4. Do not confuse the fanaticism harboured by Greek and Greek Cypriots against Turks to be reciprocal. The Turkish Cypriot curriculum has even abandoned the Cyprus conflict as part of its history, the south however continues to teach the same hate filled propopanda.--A.Garnet 17:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriots voted for a plan which heavily favoured their interests to the detriment of those of the Greek Cypriots. The result would have been very different if the plan ordered the immediate and total withdrawal of the Turkish occupation forces and the unhindered right of return for Greek refugees. If the Republic of Cyprus is "effectively a Greek state", why do you continue to seek the benefits of Cypriot citizenship? Perhaps it isn't Greek enough, if Turks are still travelling to Europe with "Greek" passports. I don't see how the "Greek Administration of Southern Cyprus" is any more Greek now than it was under Clerides. Finally, the Republic of Cyprus has provided electricity to the occupied territories for decades and not received a cent in compensation. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well now i know the scope of your knowledge on Cyprus probably stretches to reading Simerini online. Turkish Cypriots have paid millions of dollars to the South for use of their electricity. Luckily when i was in Cyprus over the New Year four new generators were delivered to the TRNC from Finland, so Tassos can keep his "free" electricity. --A.Garnet 19:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the few thousand Turkish Cypriots who have gained a roc passport, what do you expect? Turkish Cypriots want the benefits of EU membership and they have been denied them by the Greek Cypriot who were effectively given a blank cheque to vote how they wanted on the referendum. We did not have such a luxury. For TC's now, especially the youth, gaining a roc passport is the only means of improving their lfie. This is the thing with you people, we vote for reunification it means nothing, we force Denktas to resign it means nothing, we bring in Talat and Papadopolous does not even meet him for two years! We become roc citizens and we are called hypocrites. What do you people want, blood? Finally, on the Annan plan, please spare the garbage fed by the nationalists. This plan didnt fall from the sky, Papadopolous put his pen to paper the entire way, that is why when he suddenly announced to Greek Cypriots to reject the plan, the EU enlargement commisioner said he felt cheated by Tassos. Like it or not, Annan plan is going to be the basis of any solution, and in that solution there will be two states, because that is what GC's have agreed on for the past 30 years. There will be no unhindered right of return, if you want that then do expect to be taken seriosly about reaching a solution. --A.Garnet 19:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice. You all forgot to mention that the Annan plan in its wisdom foresaw that 18% of the population should hold 50% of the government. No wonder why the rest 80% or so (GCs) flunked it (and why the TCs accepted it)... NikoSilver 21:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

More distorted nonsense. Senate would be 50/50 yes, but Chamber of deputies would allow for 75% GC makeup and Presidential Council 4 GC and 2 TC representatives. Senate would ensure no community pass law detrimental to the other, but Chamber of Deputies would reflect numerical majority. --A.Garnet 21:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. NikoSilver 22:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You also forgot the Supreme court. Check why the 50-50 in both Senate and Supreme court is bad here. NikoSilver 22:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to your content as distorted nonsense. What on earth does "The majority becomes minority in important decision centers" mean on the Annan plan article? The supreme could court would vote by simple majority, if there is a deadlock, a panel of non-Cypriot judges would have the final say. What is wrong with this? You are also forgetting Niko, that the 1960 roc was found on the basis of equal partnership between GC and TC, not on one of numerical majority and this will be reflected in any solution. --A.Garnet 22:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How is this compatible with that:

Many Greek Cypriots opposed the plan as it meant endorsing a confederal state with a weak central government and considerable local autonomy, rather than the pre-1974 status quo ante of Greek Cypriot majority rule over a minority Turkish population. It would also have left Greeks dispossessed of their homes in 1974 without financial redress or the return of their property. The plan would have cemented the division of Cyprus into two political entities and safeguarded the presence of settlers from mainland Turkey, both of which were felt to be illegitimate and unfair outcomes. Any solution other than a return to the status quo ante was deemed unacceptable by many Greek Cypriots, and opinion polls conducted over the entire period of the negotiations from start to finish had always shown around 80% opposition to the proposals.

Status quo ante appears to be different there. I think we need sources here... NikoSilver 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It maybe be somehow irrelevant, but a panel of non-Cypriot judges had the final say in another case... Asking all the time neutral judges, but never implement their verdicts, doesn't seem logical to me. Hectorian 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly Hectorian, your right that is quite irrelevant. I dont see what Turkey asks from the ECHR has to do with the 1960 Republic of Cyprus constitution. Niko, what is written in that article is wrong, or deliberately chooses to leave out important clarifications. The 1960 roc was was unitary, one state one government, but it was founded on a principle of equal partnership. That is why Fazil Kucuk and Makarios signed the treaty of Zurich in 1959, that is why TC was always Vice President and had important veto, that is why all institutions of the state were divided on Turkish/Greek ethnic lines on 70/30 ratio, why Greek and Turkish were official language, why each community had own communal chambers etc etc. It was as David Hanny wrote (and since you want a source) "best be described as bi-communal but unitary state" (hannay, cyprus: search for solution, p.28). That is why from the 1970's onwards the Greek Cypriot administration agreed that a Bizonal, Bicommunal, Federated state (BBF) would be the solution to the Cyprus problem, abandoning any chance of full right of return for refugees, or a return to the status quo.

There was never, and never will be simple majority rule without safeguards for the Turkish Cypriot community. The violence of the 60's and 70's appropriately demonstrates why. That is why i dont like clever dick remarks on the Annan plan by people who have a vague knowledge of what happened in Cyprus and what is happening today. --A.Garnet 00:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your insistence that Greeks should be the only people whose freedom of movement is permanently restricted in the European Union in the 21st century, on the basis of their ethnicity alone, is the main obstacle to a solution. Why should Greeks accept a plan that restricts their right to return to their own homes? As for the poor Turkish Cypriots not having the "luxury" of rejecting the citizenship of a state they detest, I say they would garner more respect if they suffered a bit for their racist ideology of ethnic purity. I would start by stripping you of your Cypriot passport; being a Turk is more important to you, after all, so perhaps it's time you start travelling on your Turkish "passport" and see how far you get. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 02:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Garnet, when i was posting my comment i was thinking that it is somehow irrelevant... But after searching and reading a bit, i realized that it is not that irrelevant after all... The Loizidou case is linked with the Greek Cypriot rejection of the Annan Plan. Isn't that right that, had the GCs votes for 'yes', this case and all similar cases that would ever arise, would be outlawed, both in Cyprus and the EU? wouldn't a positive vote to that undemocratic plan never give them the chance to claim back their properties and to return to their homeland? the "plan" gave full return rights for the TCs, but not for the GCs... is this democratic? as for your newly-coined sense of "democracy" (id est giving to the 18% of the population equal electoral and governmental power with the 78%, with 2 federal states and 50-50 chamber members), how about that: would ever Turkey accept to share power with the Kurds? they form the 15% of Turkey, so, let them elect the 50% of the members of the Turkish parliament, and let the PM of Turkey be Kurd, since the President, head of state, shall be Turk - if parliamentary-presidential democracies mix things up, lets change the Turkish political system into the later, since the Annan Plan also wanted to change the Cypriot political system... Really, have u seen any country in the world that changes its president every 2.5 years and that in official meetings the presidents of its subnational entities should be both present? lol It would be laughable is the chancellors of the 16 German Landers would travel all together for an EU summit:). do not ask to be done for Cyprus things that have no chance to succeed in any other country... Do me a favor and see, if u can, the history of the Annan plans, from the first till the last (which, according to the agreement made in the beginning, should not be modified, but presented to the Cypriots to vote in a referendum). U will see that each new was worst (for the GCs) than the previous. After all, the GC people voted for no, and noone can blame then for the fact that they did not like it... The best someone can do is to understand why they didn't like it. I can understand why the TCs voted for yes, and, perhaps, if they did not have 40,000 troops over them, they would had made further steps towards a solution. Hectorian 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See Belgium and Switzerland - democracy doesn't mean the rule of the jungle; seemingly "anti-democratic" measures can be taken to assure the democracy in the long run. They are particularly common in small states. Frankly, it would be much simpler and save everyone a whole lot of headache if both Greece and Turkey directly annexed the Greek and Turkish parts of it respectively :) Again, that's my personal opinion, I just don't like the idea of small or micro states. Btw, Turkey already had presidents of Kurdish descent, the analogy is not correct. Nobody is stopping Kurds in Turkey from running from office, traveling, working, having a valid passport etc. Don't forget that Turks in France can't run for political office without being proficient in French either. Turkey is not the big daddy of -ification you know :) Baristarim 07:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And there are Turkish nationalists who think Turkey should annex Greece for the same reason; that argument can hardly be taken seriously. The Cypriots have come to take pride in their distinct statehood, whatever their ethnic loyalties. Their democratic right to live in their own state and to vote any way they see fit in a referendum, however powerful its international sponsors, must be respected by all. 2004 was the first time the Cypriots' opinion about their own future was ever taken into account, after centuries of bullying by outsiders. Good on them for finally giving those outsiders the proverbial middle finger. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 07:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

lol. It was not a serious comment to begin with - I was just musing :) It is true that Cyprus has been kicked around like a football by lots of great powers. Britain did it share of kicking around too back in the day, but their kicking was not only confined to Cyprus, unfortunately. What can you do? I definetely agree that they should decide what they want to with their future though. Baristarim 07:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And that's what they're doing, at long last. The withdrawal of all foreign forces would certainly help the process. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 07:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Baris, I know about Belgium and Switzerland and I had the later in mind when posting "2.5 years presidency", but the examples are not the best... These states have 1 president/1 king and 1 PM each. It is only Verhofstadt who represents Belgium in meetings with other leaders. The seats of the members of the Belgian Chamber of People's Representatives are proportional to the provinces' population (and currently the members are 88 Dutch-speaking and 62 French-speaking, almost the same as the 60%-40% respectively of the population strength of each); same thing happens in the Belgian Senate. also, for at least the past 35 years, the Belgian PM is always Dutch-speaking (not cause of any stupid law, but cause of simple democratic procedures). On the other hand, Switzerland is a direct democracy and its Federal Council is not divided along ethnic, linguistic or religious lines, but simply according to people's vote. Small state or microstate or whatever, Cyprus should not be treated differently than the other countries. I know that Turkey had Presidents of Kurdish ancestry (Inonu and Ozal are those i can remember), but none of them ever dared to speak Kurdish in the parliament or to say that is not a Turk (note: not to say that is not a Turkish citizen). To my knowledge, the Kurds of Turkey have all rights, as long as they do not say they are Kurds, as long as they do not claim autonomy or independence, linguistic or minority rights... My comparison above was completely different in its base:). Neither in France nor in any other country can anyone run for President or PM without proficiency in the official language (and some states have limitation laws, e.g. there can never be a Catholic PM in Britain, and the Greek President must always be Orthodox). But the Annan Plan had no chance to be accepted, and it is a shame that the word canton was used in it. I think that the annexation of the two parts by Greece and Turkey, that u said above, had been proposed in the past, but also could never be accepted... IMO, if Cypriots want to be independent, they should be. if other states would also be willing to lose some of their territory and their population to be deprived of its property in its own land, this would be fine; but still, in that case, Turkey should annex the 18%, not the 37%! and the British bases should get the hell out of there, since the only thing they guarantee is the eternal british involvement in the Middle East... Hectorian 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop 'cleansing' the article, argument (usually) works best

Will the anonymous, User: 213.149.169.173, please, please stop 'cleansing' the article; that is no way to erase anyting on wikipedia. Thanks. Politis 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him/her for 31 hours. Khoikhoi 19:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The ethnic %

I read resently that about 1.0% of all North Cipriots and 1.5% South Cipriots were ether British (ex-pats), Malties and/or Italians. --Lilidor 17:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

TRNC without any ""

For those interested in including this information, 3 members of of the British parliament Politis 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC):

House Of Commons (UK parliament)

MISS YONCA SENYIGIT - 07-01-17

18:12:06

Sir Nicholas Winterton [MP] Ann Winterton [MP] Ben Chapman [MP] * 3

:That this House warmly welcomes the appointment of Miss Yonca Senyigit as the London Representative of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, and wishes her every success in her new appointment; and in particular wishes her success in securing the lifting of restrictions on trade and communications with Northern Cyprus, mindful that on 18th May 2004, the UK Prime Minister said `I think it is important... that we end the isolation of Northern Cyprus... that means lifting the embargoes in respect of trade and in respect of air travel' and mindful of the UN Secretary-General's opinion that the Turkish Cypriot vote (for the Annan Plan) has undone any rationale for pressuring and isolating that community.

It was a good article for about 3 days

For a few days this article read very well and was as close to balanced and neutral as its ever been since the Nationalists got hold of it. Since then we have Aristovoulus claiming that Makatrios's changes to the constitution were the maintain order (man I dont know WHAT you are smoking) and the arrival of a new Sock Puppet Thurium (or something)...a new user with a two day old account that jumps straight into the Hellenic arguments and adds 'Turkish sources say' to make this article, once again, not worthy of being on Wikipedia. Disgusting behavior all around from those two users. I would edit things but I have better things to do than lower myself to their level. Adam777 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I made the edit anyway...disgraceful behavior people, so which one of you is the sock puppet? Adam777 01:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thulium is a sockpuppet

Can an admin look at the IP information for user Thulium. In 2 days this user has jumped immediately into specific controversial articles (TRNC, Pontian Genocide) and shown a sophisticated knowledge of the ongoing disputes and a knowledge of the use of Wikipedia that a new user would not have in such a short time. The offending accounts should be blocked. Adam777 11:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam, nothing of what you mention above is an offence per WP:SOCK, unless the user uses two accounts simultaneously. Any user has the right to vanish and re-appear. Do you have such evidence? NikoSilver 12:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ermm yeah... As far as I see he doesn't claim anything. He is just suspicious and just asks for a check Ombudsee 12:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have no problem in a checkuser, but IMO "Thulium is a sockpuppet" and this edit summary don't exactly go along with "he doesn't claim anything". NikoSilver 13:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the "user" use two accounts simultaneously though? We wont know until a check has taken place. It is very unlikely that a user with a two day old account just stumbled into the articles he has taken it upon himself to add NPOV edits into. An IP check would give more information. Adam777 14:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that CheckUser is not for fishing. If you say that "he is probably someone else and I would like to find out who that is", your request for CheckUser will in all likelihood be rejected. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I would disagree that it is fishing as the user in question has chosen a very specific list of articles being used to promote a nationalist agenda with certain editors. I could throw names out there but those would be 'best guesses' on my part and nothing more. Providing the user restrains from POV edits then no harm no foul I suppose. Adam777 14:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be fishing, because you would not provide the name of the account against which to check Thulium. Also please read the criteria for CheckUser. There are six cases in which a CheckUser may be requested:

1. "blatant vandalism and attack accounts" - A content dispute is not vandalism

2. "Evasion of bans or other remedies issued by the arbitration committee" - The ArbCom case has not dealt with this article, or any of its users afaik

3. "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism" - See 1.

4. "Vote fraud for a closed vote where the possible sockpuppet votes affect the outcome" - No AFD has occurred.

5. "3RR violation using socks" - No users have been blocked for 3RR over this article recently.

6. "Evasion of community-based bans or blocks" - No users involved in this article have been banned or blocked.

Aecis^Brievenbus 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

History

I think history section is not well-written. Especially the intro of it. I think it should be written in a language that can appeal also to the people that are not familiar with it. It lacks the basic info and even a simple chronology about the events, but directly starts from the middle of a debate-like structure. Ombudsee 12:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I see our rabid hellenic nationalists were not happy with the article as it was an had to keep pushing their hate filled agenda. That intro to the history section is a joke as is any claim that Makarios was acting for TC best interests when he attempted to usurp the constitution. Honestly I don't know how some of you can function with so much hatred to contend with. Adam777 14:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam777 is a sockpuppet

Can an admin look at the IP information for user Adam777. In 2 days this user has jumped immediately into specific controversial articles (TRNC) and shown a sophisticated knowledge of the ongoing disputes and a knowledge of the use of Wikipedia that a new user would not have in such a short time. He also falsifies sources and represses the origin of the falsified sources (e.g. he hides the fact that a particular source is Turkish and says it says something the source never said, e.g. something about Qatar when the source in question doesn't even mention Qatar). The offending accounts should be blocked. Thulium 12:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: Adam777 has been with us since February 2006, and first edited this article in July 2006. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I had been suspecting that what I regarded as Adam's strong pro-Turkish POV, which was manifested numerous times IMO (numerous diffs on request), was a strong indication that he may be a sockpuppet too. I cannot back this up right now, and I am not accusing anyone. However, on the present content dispute, I have to agree with Thulium. The {{failed verification}} tag is more than appropriate, and the claim inside the article must definitely reflect that it derives from Turkish sources. NikoSilver 13:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, even the Greek media have reported that some Muslim countries such as Azerbaijan and Pakistan have been making noises towards recognition. Who cares, really? It would hardly confer any more legitimacy on the pseudostate in the eyes of the "international community". Let them eat cake. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point Kekrops. The interpretation that these moves constitute "gestures towards recognition" is Turkish-POV. Mentioning the visits etc themselves is NPOV, but claiming that they are "steps" or "gestures" or "indications" towards recognition is an entirely different approach, which I am sure that WP:INDY sources do not exactly endorse. NikoSilver 13:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Uhm... I guess I'll be the mediator once more :) Well my personal opinion is to remove it completely from the article, since it sounds more like a press comment than a solid fact. But I read the article in Today's Zaman and except that it doesn't say anything about Qatar, it mentions about Pakistan and Gambia. I think we can remove Qatar and the facts tag if we don't get rid of that completely. Regards, Ombudsee 13:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, unless of course a reliable source can be presented that backs up the (currently WP:OR) interpretation that those visits are "gestures towards recognition". Qatar and whatever other visits/exchanges of gifts/welcome parties are minor IMO. NikoSilver 13:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with a removal. The original entry was changed to 'Turkish Sources' from 'Sources' which is NPOV in my mind. As for me being a sockpuppet Nico, get a life pal, look though my edit summaries. My issue with on this article is with rabid greek nationalists (or indeed nationalists of any origin) distorting reality. If I'm a sockpuppet then I've been around for quite some time and my puppetry is being used to make NPOV edits on a variety of subjects well removed from Turkish/Greek conflicts in Cyprus. Niko I used to hold you in high regard but you seem to let the more rabid of your peers influence your judgement. Adam777 14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please check the tense that I used in my previous comment. Pardon me for my sincerity in admitting that. As for "what I regarded as pro-Turkish POV", I will refrain from posting the diffs here because I really don't see any good in proving my point. You remeber of course older misunderstandings we had (such as this one), when you yourself later admitted that you were in the wrong. NikoSilver 14:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The tense used in that sentence is very vague with that sentence construct, however I realise that your very good English is a second language and I can see with the benefit of your clarification what you say your point was.

I'd honestly like someone to point out my 'Turkish POV' which seems to equate to disagreeing with some of the rabid and openly anti-turkish editors on Wikipedia. I've spent many years in Greece and have always been shocked at the level of hatred that many of your countrymen display towards your neighbor to the south. I've spent less time in Turkey and have not seen that hatred reciprocated in such a commonplace way. Thats why I took it upon myself to stem some of the more ludicrous assertions that end up on these articles whilst maintaining the core truths. Disagreeing with the likes of Aristovulous who claims that the TCs went WILLINGLY into enclacves, where they lived like animals according to the UN, simply to obtain Takism isnt taking an Anti-Greek POV in my mind....its more akin to showing a child the error of his ways. Some horrible attrocities occured in Cyprus instigated by both sides, and for one side, three decades later, to continue to contrive, lie, distort and manipulate language to try to diminish or obscure their own crimes against humanity is deeply offensive to me. So those are my motives for what it is worth. I have nothing against Greece but I have a lot against Greek Nationalists that think its okay to lie about crimes against humanity. Adam777 15:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Some horrible attrocities occured in Cyprus instigated by both sides, and for one side, three decades later, to continue to contrive, lie, distort and manipulate language to try to diminish or obscure their own crimes against humanity is deeply offensive to me.

I wonder which side that "one side" is? It's probably the more experienced side, after all, contriving, lying, distorting and manipulating language to try to diminish or obscure the Armenian Genocide makes you a veteran of that kind of spin. Doing the same to the mediocre by comparison Turkish doings to the Greek Cypriots must be like a day at the park. Thulium 16:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Adam, from your posts on this page, it seems you are harbouring more hatred inside you than all Greeks put together. Thulium 16:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see, so because I disagree with your position then I must be Turkish. How very predictable of you. I didn't work with you sailing from Piraeus by any chance did I, I seem to recognise that argument. Adam777 16:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I said you are Turkish many times, didn't I? Tell you what, why don't you quote a passage where I call you Turkish (assuming such a thing exists)? You really should carefully read what you are answering to before answering. It saves you from looking like a fool. Thulium 17:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"after all, contriving, lying, distorting and manipulating language to try to diminish or obscure the Armenian Genocide makes you a veteran of that kind of spin." I guess if you wernt talking to me then you might need to learn how to use the word 'you' in conversation.....now what were you saying about looking foolish? :) Adam777 17:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, yet wrong. The "you" refers to that "one side"; perhaps it would have been clearer to say "...makes one a veteran...". Thulium 18:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know is Adam777 is Turkish, but his comment above is not something that i would call "balanced", as he might liked it to be... Been in Greece and seen much hate from fellow Greek countrymen against Turkey, but been in Turkey and saw nothing comparable against Greece? I suppose actions speak for themselves: Istanbul pogrom, bomb attacks against the Ecumenical Patriarchate, labour battalions of the Constantinopilitan Greeks during WWII, expulsion of the (supposedly) protected Greek minority from Istanbul, Imbros and Tenedos, casus belli, etc. who made all these, Adam777? the Greeks? or maybe were/are these some sort of acts of friendship and love? Hectorian 17:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't change the subject please, Turkey has enough blood on its hands but that doesnt make Greek actions in Cyprus any less repugnant. Oh thats right they didnt happen did they. Listen its been fun but I have better things to do, Im sure I'll drop by again soon and see how reality differs from this article yet again. Adam777 17:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the Turkish actions on Cyprus? Oops, I forgot, we are not allowed to talk about it (we may get imprisoned or murdered for "insulting Turkishness")! More Greeks suffered and died as a result of Turkish thuggery on Cyprus than vice-versa. Remember that. Thulium 18:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Enough. Wikipedia is a respectable and serious project, not a chatroom. Verbal attacks and soapboxing won't get you any further, and certainly do nothing to improve the article. If you have something to say, do so rationally, calmly and civilly. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Drawing conclusions?

How is that supposed to be drawing a conclusion for the readers? It's a piece of accurate information regarding the source. Are you saying that if I loaded a set of dubious claims backed up with Greek sources they would be readily accepted as WP:INDY and WP:RS like this one was? I don't get it! Thulium 16:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already qualified by "reportedly". By stating "Turkish sources" you are insinuating that they are biased. The link can be clicked on to see what the source is (and it is noted as Zaman in the footnote as well, with a link to that paper's article). No need to pound it into the head of the reader—presumably they can read for themselves. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying I can load "a set of dubious claims backed up with Greek sources they would be readily accepted as WP:INDY and WP:RS like this one was" (quoting my first post in this section)? Thulium 18:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how dubious these claims are. They're actually fairly weak as it is currently worded. If your claim is obviously dubious, then obviously it won't be considered a reliable source. However, if it is simply a question of weight to be given to the claim, and the claim is from a generally acceptable source (such as a major daily newspaper which is the case here), and you make it clear that it is a report and not a fact, and the subject is actually relevant, then there may be a place for it in the article. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to work something out in the text to reflect what I mean above. Visits can, or cannot be considered as "steps towards recognition" depending on how you want to see them. Thanks for the general cleanup Oz! Feel free to reword my text. NikoSilver 21:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Arguably" works fine with me. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My intention was to move the dispute from the fact that the visits indeed took place (which is indisputable no matter how partizan the source), to those visits being a gesture towards recognition or not. Hence, I replaced reportedly with arguably. NikoSilver 22:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but are we talking about whether a visit of an official of a state equals recognition? Sorry, (again), but are we serious?! could we also include the fact that Rauf Denktas could not and cannot visit the UK (or any other EU state), cause he may have the fate of Augusto Pinochet? this constitutes absolute non-recognition and comparison with dictatorship for the TRNC. To me, this is more important for the Cyprus issue than the visit of an official of Gambia in the TRNC... Hectorian 00:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Discuss changes

I see that we're on the verge of a new edit/revert war, with two "competing" versions of the intro text. Let's stop the war before it starts. Please use this talk page to discuss the intro, instead of reverting back and forth between two different versions. We are here to serve the reader, and the reader is entitled to a stable article. Readers should never have to expect to flipflop from one version to another in a matter of minutes. Please use this talk page to discuss any changes. Continuing in reverting each other will result in me full-protecting the article. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There are actually three versions. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am an outsider, I have no interest in TRNC, on either side what so ever, but I want a better wiki-pedia that helps the reader. Please keep this current version:

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) (KKTC) is a de facto independent republic located in northern Cyprus within the internationally recognised borders of the Republic of Cyprus.

The rest is open for debate, but there is nothing factually incorrect in this initial opening sentence, and it is neutral to either side Pernambuco 23:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

During our debate with Aristovoul0s I've found out that the main problem is with 'de-facto independence'. The compromise I proposed is to add the phrase 'Turkey exercises strong infliuence over the TRNC and supports it financially and diplomatically' (well, something like that) to the first paragraph. Alaexis 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

An informal mediation was entered into some months ago on the subject of 'De facto' and the decision was that 'De Facto' was the correct term to use here. Aristovolus, who is currently banned, keeps pushing on that issue even long after the mediation ruled against him. If you want to pander to a disruptive banned editor go ahead. Adam777 05:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

He is blocked for 48h for breaking WP:3RR. Rightfully, I might add, but that doesn't make him a disruptive banned editor (unless of course he persists in breaking the rules). NikoSilver 13:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the original wording of "de facto state" accordingly. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 06:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of the resistance to De Facto comes from a lack of understanding of the term. It does 'sound' like it refers to a legally valid concept when the opposite is actually the case. Perhaps the initial use of the term 'de facto' could link to the Wikipedia definition of the term and we could link to the list of unrecognized nations elsewhere in the first few sentences. Just a thought. Adam777 16:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The repeated insertion of the word "independent" in the lead is becoming tiresome. The reason why Turkey is the only country to "recognise" the "TRNC" is because the rest of the world rightly views it as nothing more than the territory occupied by Turkey since it invaded in 1974. While the fact that the Republic of Cyprus exercises no control over it is indisputable, its "independence" from Turkey is POV, and a minority view at that. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of argument how independent one state is from another, especially in this era of globalisation. Turkey provides economic and military aid, but Turkish Cypriot citizens elect their own leaders and parliament and look after their own administrative affairs. Relations between the TRNC and Turkey are treated like those between Turkey and any other state. In this respect the TRNC is a defacto independent state. --A.Garnet 17:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)