Talk:Cyprus/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Future Work

This section is designed to discuss the future work of the article.

We should seek to extend the Culture section to include a new subsection regarding the traditional clothing worn in Cyprus, given that there was a distinctive dress amongst men and women, such as the Vraka. Indeed, these are no longer worn except for dance performances and celebrations of Cyprus' history, but I think it's worth including if possible. This new section may be titled as 'Folk Costume' to relate to the following article: Folk costume.

Illegible text

For the image of Cyprus's administrative divisions, part of the text for the Famagusta district is obscured by a white-text-on-white-background issue. I suggest changing the text to blue like was done with the Kyrenia and Larnaca districts in the same image.

Republic of Cyprus member ICMP

The Republic of Cyprus is a State Party to the International Commission om Missing Persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.215.56.150 (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Content addition; correction

Under 'etymology' you have completely ignored the fact that Cyprus is referenced in Homer's Iliad exactly with its current name "Kύπρος". See Λ 21 of Iliad as well as the "Κινύρα" tradition and stanzas Ε 330, 422, 458, 768 και 873. Also, in Οdyssee, in stanzas Δ 83, Θ 363, Ρ 442 and 448. Also, the name "Κύπρις" is referenced as a surname of goddess Aphrodite.

You also state (under 'demographics') that "the state's official name in Greek literally translates to 'Cypriot Republic' in English ...". This is not correct because "Republic" does NOT literally translate to "Δημοκρατία". As a matter of fact, by it's political definition, a republic is NOT a democracy. 149.75.163.37 (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2023

Remove turkish spellings of Cyprus. 77.100.216.134 (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: "It is located north of Egypt, east of Greece, south of Turkey" Don't you read what the article say? ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Sock puppet edit

Please revert edits made by sock user of shingling334. The account was created on simple English Wikipedia under the name John Goodman1987. 46.106.223.59 (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2023

Change "alligned" to "aligned" (typo) 2601:1C2:4480:5370:F30B:ACD:E68F:E480 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn't Cyprus WEST of the Levant?

Isn't it? HardBart (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That was a recent addition, I have reverted it pending discussion, especially as the lead has undergone some back and forth recently. CMD (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The user made an error most likely. ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Republic of Cyprus is the whole island

Technically the recognised Republic of Cyprus includes the whole island according to the UN. This is why Turkey does not recognise the Republic of Cyprus as an entity. 149.7.52.11 (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Another possible etymology of the name Cyprus

Boris Hlebec argues in his paper "The Origin of Cuprum, Bakar and Var", BULLETIN OF THE GEORGIAN NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, vol. 8, no. 1, 2014, p.132-141 (http://www.science.org.ge/old/moambe/8-1/Hlebec.pdf), that the epithets Kypris and Cypria for Aphrodite and Venus could be derived from the Etruscan Cupra, a name for the Anatolian mother goddess Cybele. Para175 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

History and geology

Looking at the history section I’m surprised that not a letter is dedicated to the pre-human history of Cyprus. I mean, there is not even a basic explanation of how the island came to exist? Looking at a map, it looks like it could have been a part of what is now known as Turkey and broke of and drifted south due plate tectonics. There really should be some information with regards to the formation of the island. Tvx1 21:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

help

Please revert edits done by Jason8394 sockpuppet of shingling334. 94.79.81.6 (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: no idea who the sockpuppet is. M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Every republic is self-declared

unless it is occupied by a foreign power. L.Willms (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead

Ghadj6, I have reverted the lead to the version before your extensive edits as per WP:BRD. I certainly think these were not an improvement. The statement “the lead has been there for some time” is not correct, the edits were in the last few months, with major edits on the 4th of October; they were quite major so require substantial time to evaluate, and not a lot of interested people have been watching. I have been involved in discussions re this lead since 2011 and the previous version had a lot of consensus building behind it. Instead of trying to overwhelm and force through massive controversial changes to the lead, please state your proposed changes sentence-by-sentence. We can then discuss. GGT (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's examine the changes in the lead.

1. "Cyprus, officially the Republic of Cyprus, is an island country situated in the Mediterranean Sea."

I don't see why we'd have any disagreements here, it's the first line and we get a clear general indication of location. Consider in the article for Malta "located in the Mediterranean Sea" and in the article for Jamaica "situated in the Caribbean Sea"

2. "It lies between the continental mainlands of Europe and Asia."

This is further explanation of where the island is geographically. Consider for example in the article for Iceland "between North America and Europe". It is better than the previous "geographically in Western Asia", firstly because, as Cyprus is an island it's better to describe its actual maritime location than link it to mainland geographic areas, and secondly because literature is split on whether the island should be included in Western Asia, Southern Europe, Southeastern Europe etc. I've even seen sources describing it as transcontinental, whereas the new line is an undisputed geographical observation. I consider this to be vastly superior and more encyclopedic, and I would understand if you wanted to add Africa too, as the island is very often quoted to be "in the crossroads" of the three continents.

3. "It shares a land border with the British Overseas Territory of Akrotiri and Dhekelia"

This is the only official *border* of the Republic of Cyprus according to international law (treaties, UN). I see no issues here.

4. "Since the Turkish invasion of 1974, Cyprus exerts no de-facto control of its northeasternmost territory, which is administered by the internationally disputed state of Northern Cyprus, and considered by the United Nations to be under the illegal occupation of Turkish troops."

Brief historical placement, clear geographical indication of where the TRNC is, mention to its limited recognition, and mention of the international consensus(UN) of the political situation. This is all factual and supported by 3 sources. I understand that you might consider "illegal" to be strong language and I'm willing to work with you on the wording. Otherwise, let me hear what issues you have with this. We could mention Turkey as the single country recognizing the TRNC as well, if you think that it provides a more neutral POV presenting both sides (these being Turkey and the TRNC, versus Cyprus and the international community; the UN).

5. "Nicosia serves as Cyprus' capital and largest city, followed by Limassol."

I see no reason why Limassol shouldn't be mentioned, a plethora of country articles mention the second largest city.

=> Overall, the first paragraph is in an improvement in my eyes. It's factual, easy to read, follows the style of other country articles better, shows clear geographic location with the most broadly accepted terms, and provides some more information on the political situation. Someone researching Cyprus could read this paragraph and have a well rounded and clear idea of what it is, where it is, and what the gist of the CyProb is.

5. "Cyprus boasts a very ancient history"

It does, a source supports this as well, and it's better to include a brief introductory sentence when discussing the history of the island.

6. "The island's most prominent Neolithic settlement is Khirokitia, notable for being proof of the existence of structured societies residing in fortified villages and practicing communal farming."

This is consistent with the previous sentence, as ruins of the Hellenistic period don't flow as well with talking about the earliest human activity on the island. Of course I would not be opposed in mentioning said ruins later in the paragraph to keep the timeline more orderly, if you want.

7. "leaving a lasting impact on its culture, language, and architecture"

This is all true and supported by a source. I don't see why it wouldn't be a good addition.

8. "To this day, the majority of Cypriots identify as ethnic Greeks, and Cyprus is the only country, aside from Greece, where Modern Greek is an official language."

This is further explanation on the previous sentence about the impact of Greek settlement on the island, is perfectly factual, and I believe uses neutral language.

10. The entirety of the next paragraph provides more historical context and it does so with simpler language than what was there before. Please let me know of any specific issues you might have with this and we can look into it.

11. "Under Ottoman rule, Cyprus saw economic and cultural decline"

There's a source supporting this, but I can see why this could be interpreted by some as supporting certain POV's. Please let me know what your suggestion is.

12. "along with the emergence of Greek nationalism following the Greek War of Independence in 1821, and the establishment of an ethnically Turkish community on the island"

These two statements are both factual, I don't see why you'd have any issues with them.

13. "Following a war of independence"

The previous "following nationalist violence" was very dodgy wording, and in my eyes it was flirting with promoting certain POV's. Such insurrections that lead to independence are often called "wars of independence" in wikipedia articles, keeping it consistent. I haven't seen anywhere the term that was previously used describing similar armed campaigns. All "wars of independence" are inherently nationalistic, and I see no reason why Cyprus should be the one exception to the uniform way of wording these.

Let me know if I've missed any changes, and please comment your opinion on these.

Of course, other editors please chime in with your thoughts as well. Ghadj6 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. A few of these are OK, most are not. As you will appreciate it will take me time to do it justice and get back, but please trust that I will. We can then at least implement the bits that are OK to begin with. GGT (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Still on my agenda to get back to this, just have been busier than expected. Apologies for the delay. GGT (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ghadj6 Cyprus is primarily an island in the Mediteŕanean, close to the southern coast of Anatolia. This long before any modern (i.e. capitalist) states came into existence. L.Willms (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I trust that you will, no pressure. Since it's now been almost a month and a half since the original disagreement, and no one else has raised any arguments, I'll go ahead to revert the article. When you find the time, get back so we can discuss this :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghadj6 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't. I'm not convinced many people are actively watching the edits on the article carefully. As I said before, your edits are so overwhelming in their scope that when you do try to break them down the result is a WP:WALLOFTEXT that does take a while to reply to.

Here comes my response:

1. This would not be an issue.
2. Entirely incorrect. Technically it is between the mainlands of Asia and Africa, if anything.
3. The article is about the island and the republic technically. The sentence doesn't make sense as "Cyprus" doesn't share a border with the bases (they are in Cyprus!), the republic does. Unnecessarily confusing, and also not needed for the first paragraph.
4. This is not an improvement on the current way of introducing the political situation. There is no need to repeat the idea about the legitimacy of the TRNC in such great length in multiple places. I think the way in which you're arguing here is quite disingenuous with a good measure of straw man arguments ("We could mention Turkey as the single country recognizing the TRNC as well" -> the current lead already mentions this!). I therefore don't intend to engage deeply with the nitty-gritty of your argument, especially given the massive wall of text here.
5. Mentioning Limassol is a matter of subjective preference. I don't have a strong feeling on this one but don't think it's entirely necessary. (also 5. but related to ancient history) This is WP:PEACOCK nonsense, most places in the region do.
6. I'm not opposed to mentioning Khirokitia there but not to the depth you're proposing. Although seeing that the lead is already too long, we should perhaps be removing references to individual settlements altogether.
7. Again WP:PEACOCK nonsense.
8. The ethnic makeup of the country is already discussed later, so this is redundant (not to mention politically charged)... Also it's the only country apart from Turkey where Turkish is the official language!
9. There is no point nine...
10. Not really, it's not. It contains even more wordy WP:PEACOCK-type stuff: "the Church of Cyprus was established as a religious institution firmly rooted in tradition"... reads like an ad for the church!
11. A very shallow and biased take at the Ottoman rule, typical of colonialist British works and current Greek Cypriot propaganda texts. It does occasionally make its way to the works of unsuspecting modern scholars working on unrelated aspects of Cypriot scholarship. You won't find such a statement in the works of those specialising in Ottoman Cyprus such as Ronald Jennings and Netice Yildiz. Perhaps the article on Ottoman Cyprus can offer you a more balanced take.
12. Not an improvement on the current wording, and reverses the chronological nature of the current paragraph.
13. The EOKA conflict is not widely referred to as a "war of independence" in reputable scholarship, and insisting on such partisan language really does not make a good impression for you.

There are pretty insidious changes on the rest of the text which you've not even addressed in the changes to the lead. One of the most egregious is the introduction of the typical Greek Cypriot POV line: "the withdrawal of Turkish Cypriots from political and other state institutions". This comes despite the history section of the article underneath explaining (based on the work of Ker-Lindsay) why neither this nor the usual Turkish Cypriot lines don't reflect reality. The wording it replaces ("brought the end of Turkish Cypriot representation in the republic") was very delicately worded to maintain neutrality here.

I'm not claiming the lead I've restored is perfect and there are improvements to be made. But you're taking a sledgehammer to it, and it's not for the better. I really don't intend to back-and-forth with you on this as this is taking up a lot of time. Please don't make such extensive edits without trying to establish consensus first. Failure to stop would amount to disruptive editing, particularly seeing that your edits do seem to focus almost exclusively on the lead section of this article. GGT (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

"I really don't intend to back-and-forth with you on this as this is taking up a lot of time"

Are you serious? Unwillingness to engage with the process of establishing consensus from your part is intellectually disingenuous, if you're going to give me a hard time for not establishing consensus.

This conversation right here *is* the process of establishing consensus, and each time I made a change to the lead it was specifically you who had a problem with it and kept reverting said change; no other editor ever intervened at large. Thus, if you're going to act all high and mighty, I'm sorry but that means you're willingly removing yourself from the process. I'm clearly eager to engage with you in good faith and I'm critically considering all the disagreements you listed, but I expect this to be reciprocated.

Also, keeping the good faith here, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that your last sentence isn't an attempt at shaking your fists at me, but merely a flawed interpretation of the guidelines. Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, and it's well established that it's not synonymous with disruptive editing. Edit warring is also not disruptive editing, and your SPA allegations surely sound a lot like an attempt at biting the newcomer.

You mentioned the BRD cycle in the beginning of our public correspondence, only for you to now declare you don't intend to discuss, but to just revert revert revert. This isn't how we make articles better, and as I've previously said, I'm willing to talk it out with you and refine these additions to bring them to a mutually acceptable standard. If you're indeed not willing to do so, as you've stated, please stop vandalizing the article. If you are though, let's put this sidetracking behind and start back-and-forthing with each other on this, until consensus is reached.

Either way, I'll get back to it and comment on your counter-points soon. I understand you might not have a lot of free time, so as before, I'm giving you the change to take your time with it. I hope we can engage in productive discussion.

And p.s, apologies for messing up the numbering:) Ghadj6 (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)