Talk:Cyprus/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Lock
Admins, please open the article to edits. Life is not only about recognising the divided status of Cyprus. As far as I can see there are no disruptive users (sic) nor edit wars (sic) around here. --E4024 (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Of course we can keep "new" and IP users out of this page for some time. --E4024 (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Human rights - Edit request
A user recently cleaned human rights and militarization issues from the article. However, the fact that we like Greek Cyprus so much does not change the fact that there is human rights criticism against the Greek Cypriot Administration of South Cyprus. See here the news of Council of Europe criticism of the said Administration, at the Greek Cypriot newspaper [http://www.cyprus-mail.com/central-prisons/council-europe-concerned-over-central-prisons/20121206 Cyprus Mail. I am not writing myself about the human rights situation in South Cyprus, its militarization (within the Top 10 of the world) or its bankrupt and corrupt economy because am not prepared to be reverted by one of a group of biassed POV warriors each time I may write on any of those issues. I request impartial editors from outside the area -who are not intimidated by those nationalist warriors or not yet bored of this part of the world- to contribute to these issues in the article so that it may reflect better the real situation in the country. --E4024 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Again the same rants against your fellow editors and about the militarisation of that tiny island, especially after the invasion by Turkey. I'm sure it would be preferred by Ankara and its military complex if Cyprus remained unarmed but what can you do. That's life. Even the Davids of today's world can try to defend themselves from the invading and partitioning Goliaths. And what do you think this tiny island, with a population less than that of many cities in Turkey, is going to do with its alleged "militarisation" which you try so hard to advertise? Invade Turkey? Reverse the effects of operation Attila? Please let us know. I mean propaganda can go so far. But you must also use logic and common sense if you want to make it credible and you appear to fail on the latter parts. As far as human rights show me a country in the world where prison overcrowding is not a problem. I'm sure if I cared to look I would find a lot more stuff about Turkey in this department including torture etc. As for the corrupt economy what can I say. Are you sure this is the only country with corruption in its economy? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I served in Cyprus during the period before and after the Turkish INTERVENTION, and I know for a fact that the Akrita plan is still alive and well, dusted off from time to time, updated on a basis of "If Turkey departs then we can enforce it again." Their is a saying "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts." How very very true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.57.102 (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
History of the Island
The Hitory section is clearly biased. while the fact of Hellenisation starting in the 11th century BCE is undeniable the nature of the process is questionable.
The Island was in fact settled long before the claimed arrival of Mycenaeans and was very well connected with eg Egypt and Ugarit. For the article to ignore the prehellenic settlement in this way reflects bias.
Indeed the Myceneaen settlement theory is itself increasingly untenable. The latest reseach see www.albany.edu/Jennings_thesis.doc suggests that the hellenisation of Cyprus did not involve Mycenaeans but occured under Dorians as elements of Mycenaean civilisation are lacking indded many elemsnts attributable to the Mycenaeans have no parralles in the Aegean Homeland of the Mycenaeans. see eg Leriou http://www.stanford.edu/dept/archaeology/journal/newdraft/leriou/paper.pdf Indeed as jennings seems to show the common foundation myths involving heros of the Trojan ware are probably incorrect as the main hellenistion probabaly occured from about 1050 BC which was about 150 years after the likely date of the Trojan war.
some Genetic evidence likewise suggests a 5000 year plus stability in MtDnA see ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/inco2/docs/coe_3rd_agm_annex_3_aphrodite.pdf which is supportive of a conquest event probbaly by male warrior bands posited by Jennings.
supporttheuderdog@cytanet.com.cy 10/1/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.153.96.16 (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
-I whole-heartedly agree. I do think there was probably some migration onto the Island of Cypress by Mycenaeans, the main Mycenaen population was probably reserved to merchant enclaves. Anyway, we're talking about 400 years of darkness between the Mycenaens and later Dorian migrations (whom we know actually migrated and settled), so there's a lot of time for Cypress to gain it's Greek character, and beyond that, 900 years until Alexendar washes everything Hellenism. I've been reading every article on Mycenae I could find for the last 10 years, so I was surprised when Wikipidea had norrowed it down to two waves of Mycenaen migration.170.173.0.16 (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Another anomaly
The insistance on having Cyprus (island) and Republic of Cyprus as one, gives strange results like people born in the Ottoman Empire (Cyprus island) or under British occupation (See infobox of this article as an example: Alparslan Türkeş) appear in WP as if they were born in the "Republic of Cyprus" while that republic was only established during my own lifetime. Please give up nationalist resistance and join the neutral editors on splitting the article. --E4024 (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please stop with your pro-two-state propaganda attempts. Kupraios (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Flag
What is going on with the flag? User "Aight 2009" has changed it claiming it to be the official one, but I cannot find this information anywhere. The Cyprus government website uses a flag similar to that which was previously shown, however the olive branches at the bottom do appear to have changed since the previous version, but this new version uploaded is imprecise, such as the colouring. I propose reverting to the previous version of the flag until a correct and precise version of the current flag is created, does anyone disagree? Kupraios (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlock the article // About splitting the article
Please unlock the article if you want to call yourself's democrats.
If you want to split the article there is no problem at all. Just make sure you give emphasize to the fact that this island has been Hellenized (Greek) the last 34 centuries! The island of Cyprus has been Hellenized by Achaean/Mycenaeans from the 14th century B.C. (most Achaean's come between 13th-11th century B.C.), and another Greek tribe, the Dorian's come at 11th century B.C. The island of Cyprus has been Hellenized much earlier than other Greek territories like Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, Ionian islands, Dodecanese, Ionia (Asia Minor), Attalea, Cappadocia, Karamania, Pontus and Constantinople.
The only other settlers of Cyprus were the Phoenicians who lived only in the city of Kition between 8th-3th century B.C When the Macedonians of Plolemaos gained control of the island, all Phoenicians returned to there metropolis in what is today Lebanon.
All occupators eventually left Cyprus with the exception of the so called Turkish Cypriots, who illegally settle in Cyprus after 1571. When the British empire bought Cyprus, the Turkish population started to leave (they new that they were not the native legal population of the island) and going back to turkey, but the English stooped them. The English wanted some Turkish population in Cyprus so that the autochthonus (natives) Greeks could not demand Enosis (unification with the Greek state).
There are thousands of sources that proves that this island has been Greek the last 34 centuries. The Turkish ethnic groub (Seljuks and Ottomans) arrived at what is now eastern Turkey at 1071 (battle of Matjicert). The Greeks were leaving in Asia Minor (Turkey) 2000 years before the Turks. The Greeks were leaving in Cyprus, the island of the Greek goddess Aphrodite 3000 years before the Turks! I dare you to split the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.152.9.101 (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
ETHNIC GROUPS: GREEKS AND TURKS
It is embarrassing and simultaneously a Greek Cypriot leftist propaganda to say that the ethnic groups of Cyprus are Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. There is no “Greek Cypriot” ethnic group, just Greek! Greek Cypriots are the ethnically Greek population of Cyprus. There is no ελληνοκυπριακό έθνος, μόνο ελληνικό! Until 2011 everything was okay. In this page, where it says ethnic groups it said 77% Greeks, 18% Turks, 5% others. Suddenly you changed it. In Switzerland there are Germans, French and Italians. There is no German Swiss ethnic group, just German. You know I am 100% right but you will do nothing about it, because this page is controlled by leftist-communist Greek Cypriots who wants to create an ethnogenesis, a new “Cypriot” ethnic group. The same thing happened in Montenegro (they are Serbians), Moldova (Romanians), Austria (Germans), Wallonia (French), Flanders (Dutch) etc. Democracy is dying with your actions but Cypriot Hellenism will not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.152.9.101 (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Census of the Republic of Cyprus, page 5: http://www.cystat.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/9A05409282DFB0A4C2257998003E5F80/$file/Census2011-HHQST-EN-010611.pdf?OpenElement --Lfdder (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Population
Should we not be clear whether we are reporting the population of the entire island or the "southern" part of the island? The population of the "northern" portion is quite clear. We have an obligation to be clear to our readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.42.178 (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
CIA world factbook
The CIA world factbook is a recognised reliable source used in many country articles on Wikipedia. It is unacceptable and against widespread consensus to remove it from this article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you're gonna swear by the World Factbook, you should--at least--be consistent. The ethnic groups listed on there are "Greek" and "Turkish". I do not consider the World Factbook to be a reliable source at any rate. Really, "unacceptable"? Looks like everyone's got a knack for big words around here. --Lfdder (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am not "swearing" by anything. Please look at the usage of this resource on Wikipedia. It speaks for itself. As far as the naming of the ethnic groups, as "Greek" and "Cypriot" their self-appellation is Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot so it improves accuracy to call them by what they call themselves and it minimises confusion viz. emigrants or settlers from Greece or Turkey. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Tracked this split down to be from the 1960 census so I've taken the % out. — Lfdder (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Republic of Cyprus
Is it proper to call "Kypriaki Dimokratia" Republic of Cyprus? The right translation is "Cypriot Republic" just like the official name of Greece: Hellenic Republic and not Republic of Hellas or Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.109.216 (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Unreferenced addition
A new editor made an unreferenced addition to the article, replacing the text "the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and recognised only by Turkey" with
"the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and recognised not only by Turkey but China,North Kore,Nepal,Russia & 56 Muslims Countries in the world Mauritania,Maldives,Western Sahara,Somalia ,Turkey ,Iran ,Algeria ,Afghanistan ,Yemen ,Tunisia ,Oman ,Comoros ,Djibouti ,Morocco ,Iraq ,Libya ,Pakistan ,Saudi Arabia ,Tajikistan ,Jordan ,Qatar ,Senegal ,Azerbaijan ,Egypt ,Mali ,Niger ,Gambia ,Uzbekistan ,Turkmenistan ,Indonesia ,Bangladesh ,Syria ,Guinea ,Kuwait ,Bahrain ,Palestine ,Kyrgyzstan ,United Arab Emirates ,Lebanon ,Albania ,Brunei ,Sudan ,Malaysia ,Sierra Leone ,Burkina Faso ,Chad ,Nigeria ,Eritrea ,Ethiopia ,Kazakhstan".
The edit was, rightly, reverted. However I note that there is no reference for recognition by Turkey alone, and suggest one be added forthwith if that statement is still correct; this confirms the statement but dates from 2005, so may be out of date. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
"WHO EVER WROTE THE ABOVE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE LIVES IN MARS OR IN HIS OWN WORLD"
WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH.........THE TURKISH OCCUPIED PART OF CYPRUS NO WAY IS RECOGNISED BY ANY OTHER COUNTRY THEN TURKEY (WELL MAY BE NOT LOL)...IF THATS THE CASE WHY IS IT THAT NO AIRLINES AROUND THE WORLD FLY DIRECT TO THAT PART OF CYPRUS??? ONLY TURKISH AIRLINES GO THERE AND CANT GO DIRECT THEY STOP IN TURKEY....AND WHY IS IT THAT THE SO CALLED "The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" DOES MOT HAVE ITS OWN CURRENCY?????...
THIS IS THE REPORT FROM THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CONFIRMING THAT THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE SO CALLED"Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" IS RECOGNISED ONLY BY TURKEY (WELL ITS NOT CLEAR IF TURKEY DOES)BUT NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TRADES WITH THEM OTHER THEN VIA TURKEY SO....READ THE FOLLOWING,
Directorate-General External Policies Policy Department Turkey and the problem of the recognition of Cyprus NOTE Abstract: This note reviews the current situation on the issue of recognition of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey and makes an assessent of likely future developments. The note is intended for European Parliament Members of the EP delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee. ExPo/B/PolDep/Note/2005_16 20 Janvier 2005 NT/553930EN 2 PE 350.445 This note was requested by the European Parliament's Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee for its meeting on 23/24 February 2005. This paper is published in the following languages: English (original). Author: Anthony COMFORT DG3, Policy Department SCH 06B014, Luxembourg E-mail: acomfort@europarl.eu.int Manuscript completed in January 2005. Copies can be obtained through: E-mail: brose@europarl.eu.int Brussels, European Parliament, [20.01.2005]. The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. NT/553930EN 3 PE 350.445 Turkey and the problem of the recognition of Cyprus On Friday 17 December 2004 at the EU summit meeting in Brussels, the European Council agreed to open membership negotiations with Turkey on 3 October 2005. The principal obstacle to be overcome in the course of negotiations leading up to this decision concerned the recognition by Turkey of the Republic of Cyprus. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is said to have initially threatened to walk out of the negotiations when the EU asked him to initial immediately a protocol to update Turkey's 1963 association agreement with the EU (known as the Ankara agreement) and to extend it to cover the EU's 10 new member states, including Cyprus. Eventually Mr Erdogan agreed to sign this protocol before 3 October 2005 and on that basis Heads of State and Government for the 25 existing Member States agreed to open negotiations for accession. For many observers, the signature of the protocol would amount to a de facto recognition of Cyprus, or at least a 'normalisation' of relations between Turkey and Cyprus, but the interpretation of recognition was rejected both by Prime Minister Erdogan and by Foreign Secretary Gul of Turkey in the following days. Background The Republic of Cyprus is the only internationally-recognised state on the island. The socalled "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (or "TRNC") is recognised only by Turkey. Negotiations for the accession of Cyprus to the EU were conducted exclusively with the government of the Republic of Cyprus, although a delegation of Turkish Cypriots was invited by Presdient Cklerides to participate in the negotiations (an offer rejected by Mr Denktash); the enlargement of the EU that resulted is considered by the EU and its Member States as applying to the whole island. While the northern part of the island must be acknowledged as part of the Union, in fact its government since 1974 has not been in the hands of the Greek Cypriot-controlled Republic. The acquis communautaire is therefore suspended in the north. Under the terms of the 1960 constitution of Cyprus, agreed and implemented following the process of decolonisation of the island, Turkey considered that it (and the other two guarantor powers - Greece and the UK) possessed a right to "intervene"1; they made use of this right by 1 The accompanying treaty of guarantee, which was signed at the same time as the constitution of Cyprus in London on 19 February 1959 and which concerns the role of the "guarantor powers", states in Article 3 that: "In the event of any breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, the United Kingdom, and Turkey undertake to consult together, with a view to making representations, or taking the necessary steps to ensure observance of those provisions. In so far as common or concerted action may prove impossible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs established by the present Treaty." NT/553930EN 4 PE 350.445 sending soldiers in 1974 to protect the Turkish-speaking minority on the island. This intervention resulted in the division of the island which has continued to this day. The 35 to 40 000 Turkish soldiers which are currently stationed in Cyprus are considered by the government of the Republic as an occupying force. It is widely believed that recognition for the Republic by Turkey would lead to the general acceptance of the illegality of the presence of these troops on the island and thus substantially weaken the arguments advanced by Turkey for maintaining its military presence. It would also imply a "de-recognition" by Turkey for the "TRNC". It is for this reason that Mr Erdogan reacted so strongly in Brussels and has so far refused to sign the protocol or acknowledge the Republic of Cyprus as the true government of the whole island. The Turkish government ceased to recognise the Republic of Cyprus at the time of its intervention because it felt that this state and government wrongly claimed responsibility for the whole island and could no longer be said to represent the Turkish Cypriot minority. The Turkish position is that recognition can only be made in the circumstance of a general agreement on the status of the island, that is a solution to the 'Cyprus problem', such as that proposed last year in the context of the Annan Plan. This Plan was put to a referendum on 24 April 2004 in both Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities, but was accepted only by the Turkish Cypriots. Greek Cypriots voted against by a margin of 3 to 1, following a negative judgement on the negotiations led by the United Nations from President Tassos Papadopoulos. The reaction in Turkey to those aspects of the decision to open accession negotiations which concern Cyprus was negative in some quarters. But the government of Mr Erdogan has still been able to claim a significant political victory and has emerged stronger from this deal. Opening negotiations on EU accession is the anchor of his plans to modernise Turkey and the outcome of the Brussels summit has been broadly welcomed in the Turkish press. Assessment At the outcome of the negotiations on 18 December 2004, the Dutch Prime Minister (Jan Peter Balkenende) who was in the chair, stated that the agreement stopped short of a full recognition. He said: "It is not what you can call a formal legal recognition but it is a step that can lead to progress in this field". Mr Papadopoulos did not formally veto the decision to open negotiations, as was his right, but he did voice his disappointment and denied that the agreement by Turkey amounted to the offical recognition which his government had considered to be a pre-requisite to opening neogitations for Turkish accession. He nevertheless pronounced himself to be 'satisfied' with the outcome and stated that it was necessary to be 'realistic' in regard to the current impossibility of opening formal diplomatic relations between Turkey and Cyprus. Despite the negative assessments of several participants it seems evident that Turkey has acknowledged that negotiations for its own accession must be conducted with all twenty-five existing Member States, including Cyprus, and that therefore some acknowledgement of the government of the Republic of Cyprus is necessary. It is evident that the illogicality of the situation has been finessed; all sides assume tacitly that there must be not only the first step of signature by Turkey of the Ankara Agreement before October 2005 but also a final resolution of the Cyprus problem before negotiations can be completed and the outcome ratified by all Member States as well as Turkey. It is evident that Cyprus cannot be expected NT/553930EN 5 PE 350.445 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.25.119 (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
About the formatting of the IPA for Cyprus
I noticed that the English IPA for Cyprus has two alternatives, in the same IPA tag. As a result, the comma between the two alternative pronunciations is between two vertical bars, thus parsed and displayed as a secondary stress, making look like a single segment, while it's two different segments. To fix that, I used one IPA tag for each English pronunciation, leaving the comma out of any tag, so it's displayed as a comma, not a secondary stress. My change was reverted, and I don't understand the rationale behind that. Having it in a single tag causes problems. For the sake of clarity, I strongly suggest that it becomes accepted to use two tags, one for each possible pronunciation, with the comma not in any tag, so that it's displayed as a comma, not secondary stress. I will not attempt to change it again since people keep reverting it. So let's talk about it. Is there any reason it gets back reverted to a single IPA tag? --Meidei (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Coordinate error
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for UTM Zone36 North
—182.72.231.186 (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what correction you want made. Are you referring to this sort of UTM zone? If so, I can't find any mention at all of such a zone in the article (and Cyprus is in zone 36S, as this map shows). The coordinates (of Cyprus and Nicosia) present in the article appear to be correct, though I've tweaked the coordinates of Nicosia a bit. For now, I'm going to close this request; but if you can be more explicit about what you think needs to be corrected in the article, please post a new message below, including the {{geodata-check}} template, and someone will attempt to deal with your concern. Deor (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Latin Cypriots
Latin Cypriots, save for being Catholic, identify as Greek Cypriot. It's a bit of a stretch to claim that they're a separate ethnic group. Also, this isn't an edit that should be marked as minor. 31.153.94.214 (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
United States Federal Court also Kicked Greek Cypriots
USA Federal Court decision on Cyprus must be placed to Cyprus' article.:
United States Federal Court: "..Greek Cypriots cannot claim that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots....Although the United States does not recognize it as a state, the TRNC purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary...TRNC is not vulnerable to a lawsuit in Washington". Source.Alexyflemming (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Requested move: Republic of Cyprus (03.03.2014)
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. This proposed move has been listed nearly a week and no one except the nominator is arguing in favor the proposed move. There may be some support for splitting the article into separate ones, but there is no real consensus to do so and can be discussed in another forum (non-admin closure) Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- The following text was the original "rationale" from User:Alexyflemming. It was removed by same user 9 March. In order to keep the history of this discussion intact, I asked the user to reinstate it, but this was ignored. I'll leave it to the user to decide if the text shall be standing as it is or if it shall be stricken out. Removing it is not an option. --T*U (talk)
Summary of Rationale for the proposed page name change. (For Extensive Reasoning, Please Visit the Discussion):
1. Fair Approach, Neutrality, Objectivity
2. Robust and Fair Titling
3. Almost closed to objections
4. Google Search
5. Harmony and Consistency of Wikipedia can be reached only with Correct Context: Correct and Fair Usage in other Wiki Languages (Reaching Consistency with Other Foreign Wiki Pages)
6. The Consistency and Harmony of Titlings-in-Other-Languages in Software Programming in Wikipedia and Wiki-Syntax: Not only now but also for the one day in future, the importance of the "consistency and harmony" will be better understood for at least software programming approach of Wikipedia.
7. "Cyprus" redirects to "Republic of Cyprus"; "Republic of Cyprus" redirects to "Cyprus" in various places of Wikipedia wrongly.Alexyflemming (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- The following text was added when the above text was removed. --T*U (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Summary of Rationale for the proposed page name change. (For Extensive Reasoning, Please Visit the Discussion): (UPDATED)
"Cyprus" is the "island" in general context and the common name of the island (for 13000 years!). When the context is the context of countries, "Republic of Cyprus" may be shorthened/abbreviated as "Cyprus". As long as the context mentioned and covered is clear to make a separation between "Island of Cyprus" and "Republic of Cyprus"; for the things related with "Republic of Cyprus", "Cypriot/Cyprus" may be used to refer the country.
"General" context is much bigger than the "countries" context. Outside of the context of "countries", "Cyprus" is not the common name of the state ("Republic of Cyprus"), but the common name of the "island". In universal naming standards, the "GENERAL" context is much bigger than and far overrides the "COUNTRIES" context. In universal naming standards, the bigger entity always takes the name. The entity "island of Cyprus" is much bigger than the entity "Republic of Cyprus".
Alexyflemming (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
"Cyprus" is the common name of the "island" ("Island of Cyprus" and "Republic of Cyprus" are not coterminous):
"Cyprus" is NOT the common name of the "country (Republic of Cyprus)" in "general" context: |
|---|
|
A. History: B. Art: C. Culture: D. Geography: E. Sport: There are Organizations and Federations outside the framework of "Republic of Cyprus", and the "Cyprus" in that organizations clearly does not refer to RoC. F. People: G. Weather: |
Rationale for the proposed page name change:
1. Fair Approach, Neutrality, Objectivity:
The reasons why "Republic of Ireland" is placed as "Republic of Ireland" instead of "Ireland" are mutatis mutandis same and valid with "Republic of Cyprus"
In Wikipedia, "Republic of Ireland" is not addressed as "Ireland", but "Republic of Ireland". The reasoning and philosphy behind this addressing are mutandis mutandis valid for "Republic of Cyprus" and "Cyprus (island)" as well.
The common parlance of "Cyprus" usually refers to island of Cyprus generally. Referring to the "island of Cyprus" with "the country Rep. of Cyprus" with 6 districts (Kyrenia, Famagusta, Nicosia, Paphos, Limassol, Larnaca) instead of the "island of Cyprus" is definitely leading myriad misconceptions and miscomprehensions. (referring wrongly to country Rep. of Cyprus instead of the true citation of island of Cyprus).
Cyprus is the common name for the island, which has a much longer history than the state. Cyprus means so many different things to so many different people. The island is the broader usage. It is not at all clear that Cyprus refers to the country more than the island. It is generally best with a name like that to refer to the more general entity. "Republic of Cyprus" is a recognised disambiguator for the country.
"Cyprus" has been used for the island for much longer than the modern state, by more than several thousand years. There really a need to move the article on the state to "Republic of Cyprus".
NGrams:
Cyprus (from 1900 to 1959) (before "Republic of Cyprus" have born)
Cypriot (from 1900 to 1959) (before "Republic of Cyprus" have born)
2. Robust and Fair Titling:
Titling "Republic of Cyprus" as "Republic of Cyprus" is robust, fair, and ethical. The current titling sends all the "Cyprus", "Cypriot" mentionings to "Republic of Cyprus", which is definitely wrong.
Wikipedia guidelines and policies (disambiguation guidelines (WP:DABCONCEPT and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC)), and current usages promote this re-titling.
When someone talks about the culture, history, geography, sport, people, and so on, of "Cyprus", they mean not the "country Rep. of Cyprus".
3. Almost closed to objections:
The usage of "Cyprus" for "Republic of Cyprus" has definitely includes many bias/conditioning in it. On the other hand, the usage of "Republic of Cyprus" for "Republic of Cyprus" includes no bias/conditioning and removes any such.
4. Google Search:
"Cyprus": 92,700,000 results
https://www.google.com.tr/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=mEoUU-vHMamh8wfX64CADg#q=Cyprus
"Cyprus" without "Republic of Cyprus": 1,290,000 results
https://www.google.com.tr/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=mEoUU-vHMamh8wfX64CADg#q=Cyprus++-%22Republic+of+Cyprus%22
5. Harmony and Consistency of Wikipedia can be reached only with Correct Context: Correct and Fair Usage in other Wiki Languages (Reaching Consistency with Other Foreign Wiki Pages):
Cyprus As "Island", not "State":
| LANGUAGE WIKI | ISLAND of Cyprus | REPUBLIC of Cyprus |
|---|---|---|
| Alemannish Wiki | Zypern | Republik Zypern |
| QirimTatarish Wiki | Kiprenez | Republik Kiprenez |
| FRENCH WIKI | CHYPRE | CHYPRE (PAYS) |
| GERMAN WIKI | ZYPERN | REPUBLIK ZYPERN |
| Magyar Wiki | Ciprus | Ciprusi Koztarsasag |
| SIMPLE ENGLISH WIKI | CYPRUS | REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS |
| Suomi Wiki | Kypros | Kyproksen tasavalta |
| Turkish Wiki | Kibris | Kibris Cumhuriyeti |
| Turkmence Wiki | Kipr | Kipr Respublikasy |
| Zeeuws Wiki | Cyprus | ... |
Languages with Ambiguation Wiki Pages:
Azerbaijani Wiki:
Cyprus (Ambiguation Page): https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kipr
Republic of Cyprus: https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kipr_Respublikas%C4%B1
Island of Cyprus: https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kipr_(ada) (Kipr_ada means Cyprus_(island))
Balarussian Wiki:
Republic of Cyprus: https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%8D%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%9A%D1%96%D0%BF%D1%80 (Respublica Kipr)
Island of Cyprus: https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%9E_%D0%9A%D1%96%D0%BF%D1%80 (Vostrai Kipr)
Cavashla Wiki:
https://cv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%80 (Kipr)
6. The Consistency and Harmony of Titlings-in-Other-Languages in Software Programming in Wikipedia and Wiki-Syntax:
Not only now but also for the one day in future, the importance of the "consistency and harmony" will be better understood for at least software programming approach of Wikipedia.
7. "Republic of Cyprus" redirects to "Cyprus" in various places of Wikipedia:
This is injection of bias/conditioning. Nothing else. See the degree of injection of bias/conditioning: Even Cyprus_(island) redirects to Cyprus(as Republic of Cyprus). Wikipedia is the PEDIA of the whole world, not the sole world of Helens. The Helens prevented the creation of even the "Cyprus (island)" article. This is completely injustice.
Note: Please specify all your pro-con arguements below the move request so that no troubles exists with the original move request. Alexyflemming (talk) 11:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems reasonable to me to follow the Ireland model -- in having a separate article for the island w/ its geography and whatever else. I think it is very hard to come to any sort of concrete conclusion about the manner in which the word's used most often, so for the sake of neutrality, I'm leaning towards support (though Cyprus (country) might be a better destination). It may have been better to have an RfC before the RM. — Lfdder (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- No. I disagree, this subject has been repeatedly discussed in the past, please see the archives. To me the above request perfectly aligns with a very strong Turkish POV, the official Turkish view one may find in Turkish sources. At its core lays the political aim of creating the environment for political recognition for TRNC on the Turkish occupied northern part of the Republic of Cyprus. What the international community sees as a nation state and Turkey sees as non existent. The island and the Republic of Cyprus are one 23x2 φ 13:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- "this subject has been repeatedly discussed in the past": When? Proof? The consensus (if ever reached) holds to continue?
- "...request perfectly aligns with a very strong Turkish POV": does it? See Alemannish Wiki, QirimTatarish Wiki, FRENCH WIKI, GERMAN WIKI, Magyar Wiki, SIMPLE ENGLISH WIKI, Suomi Wiki, Zeeuws Wiki. Are Merkel's Germany, FormerSarkozy's French, aligning themselves with Turkish POV? In none of these wikis, "Republic of Cyprus" was titled as "Cyprus". Instead, the fair and true usage is on the arena:"Republik Zypern", "Republik Kiprenez", "Chypre (pays)", "Republik Zypern", "Ciprusi Koztarsasag", "Republic of Cyprus", "Kyproksen tasavalta", are being used for "Republic of Cyprus" in different language Wikipedia world.
- "...the political aim of creating the environment for political recognition for TRNC on the Turkish occupied northern part of the Republic of Cyprus...": Nope, Does the entitling "Republic of Cyprus" as "Republic of Cyprus" create any unfair environment, or prevent any unfair environment? Is the request that "the calling "cat" as a "cat"" POV?
- What the international community sees as a nation state: Really? The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) chooses Greek Cypriot representatives from the Assembly of Republic of Cyprus and Turkish Cypriot representatives from the Assembly of Northern Cyprus, neither the country nor the assembly of which is not recognized by "Republic of Cyprus".
- The "island Cyprus" and the "Republic of Cyprus" are existent: It is not discussed here. What is discussed is the "island Cyprus" and the "Republic of Cyprus" are existent, but different ENTITIES. The former is bigger than the latter. Currently, the bigger one was embedded in the smaller one!Alexyflemming (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just to the point about other Wikis: Not very important anyway, but there are currently 29 Wikis with two different articles
, 200 with only oneof the 200 Wikis that have an article. Also: PACE does not "choose ... representatives from the Assembly of Northern Cyprus". --T*U (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just to the point about other Wikis: Not very important anyway, but there are currently 29 Wikis with two different articles
- "this subject has been repeatedly discussed in the past": When? Proof? The consensus (if ever reached) holds to continue?
- Oppose but split; there is no reason in the world that we should not have an article of the island of Cyprus a la Ireland or Geography of Cuba (which Cuba (island) redirects to), etc. And it should be clearer (like in Western Sahara) which parts of the island the Republic claims as well as what it actually controls. Nevertheless, the region is not as important a topic as the country that covers most of it; see Canada as compared to Geography of Canada and compare page views. Red Slash 16:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Strong oppose This move request is a perennial issue. This time it is requested by Alexyflemming who is basically a Northern Cyprus SPA and he is using it to get his way on other discussions he had recently, especially at Talk:Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus where he is desperately trying, using massive amounts of synthesis and original research, to separate the term "Cyprus" from that of "RoC". I also advise Alexyflemming not to attack the ethnicity of the Greek editors as he has done above:
Wikipedia is the PEDIA of the whole world, not the sole world of Helens.
This is the silliest and most offensive approach to editing. It is also facile, bigoted and nonsensical because it ignores the many non-Greek editors who have opposed repeatedly this move. The most recent move request was from January 2013 where it was established unequivocally that the vast majority of reliable sources of any country refer to the republic simply as Cyprus. Below is a sample of the many sources which refer to RoC as "Cyprus", copy and pasted from last year's discussion which is archived:
Thirty one sources using "Cyprus" as coterminous with the RoC
|
|---|
|
Another example to use as reference when the article gets unprotected: Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Here are some more:
and:
|
Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Red Slash: No need to split. The article Geography of Cyprus already exists. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, cool! Then Cyprus (island) clearly should redirect there, right? Red Slash 17:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- The idea is that the island and the republic are coterminous. Unlike Ireland, which is legally separated, the separation of Cyprus is not recognised internationally. Cyprus is recognised as an island and as republic and the reliable sources make no distinction between the two. In the case of Cuba, it could also redirect to Cuba itself. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I still don't see why we've got to conflate the island w/ its present political entity. They're coterminous in space, but not in time. — Lfdder (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Historically, the island and the island nation of Cyprus have been considered to be the same. The republic is just the latest point in time and is still considered to be the same as the island and it is recognised as such by the reliable sources which don't make any such distinction and use the term Cyprus to refer to the republic, thus making it the common name of the republic. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing it is the common name for the Republic (as it is for the island!), but making a distinction btn the island and the state is not altogether pointless. I think that maybe there should be a Cyprus (island) article, irrespective of whatever happens to this one. — Lfdder (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nope! Historically, in Cyprus island, there were more than one nations/identities at a time for the last millennium: "Catholics+Orthodox Christians", "Greek Cypriots+Turkish Cypriots", etc. Hence, the word "the island nation of Cyprus" is almost nil (other than to some politicians) till now, and definitely would be so in future! See 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration FIRST ARTICLE: "....Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, respecting democratic principles, human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as each other’s distinct identity...". Your island "nation" of Cyprus has always more than one distinct identities, and therefore have not become "one nation" throughout the history.
- island nation comedy: When one mentions a certain people as a nation, there appears at least one dominant character (religion, ethnicity, language, culture, etc.) in that people. What is the religion, ethnicity, language, culture of this "the" island "nation" pre-1571 and post 1571? Forget experts even beginners know that there is no "the" "nation" in Cyprus island. Pre-1571 it was "CatholicChristian/OrthodoxChristian", "Frankish&Italian/GreekCypriot", "Latin/Greek", "Latin/Helen"; post-1571 it was "Islam/OrthodoxChristian", "Turk/Greek", "Turkish/Greek", "Turk/Helen". There occurred lots of conflicts, struggles and wars for the last millenium within the people of Cyprus island since the people of Cyprus island is not a "nation". Notice, in the 7th reasoning I wrote: "Wikipedia is the PEDIA of the whole world, not the sole world of Helens". This "the" island "nation" injection of bias/pre-conditioning is rather a merit of a politician, not a fair Wikipedian. Such edits are normal and can be tolerable in Helenpedia, but not in honest, neutral and fair-approached Wikipedia. By the way, the "island nation" seen in your 31-points is the "island nation" of "Republic of Cyprus", not "island nation" of "island of Cyprus" since there is no such.Alexyflemming (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please leave your attempts at ethnic baiting and your odious original research. From the US Department of State website:
COUNTRY DESCRIPTION: Cyprus is an island nation in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Since 1974, Cyprus has been divided between a government-controlled area, comprising the southern two-thirds of the island, and a northern third administered by Turkish Cypriots. The United States does not recognize the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,” nor does any country other than Turkey. Facilities for tourism in Cyprus are highly developed. Cyprus joined the European Union in 2004. Read the Department of State’s Background Notes on Cyprus for additional information.
- It is clear: Cyprus is an island nation. Note the sentence: Cyprus joined the European Union in 2004 No "Republic", no "Island", just "Cyprus". Period. Are we going to second-guess the United States Department of State?
- From the Cyprus country profile on BBC:
Soon afterwards the EU invited Cyprus to become a member.
- Please leave your attempts at ethnic baiting and your odious original research. From the US Department of State website:
- Note the sentence: EU invited Cyprus to become a member. No "Republic", no "Island", just "Cyprus". Period. Are we going to second-guess the BBC?
- I have more:
- From the European Union Cyprus Year of EU entry:
Cyprus: 2004 Capital city: Nicosia Total area: 9 250 km² Population: 0.8 million Currency: Member of the eurozone since 2008 (€) Schengen area: Not a member of Schengen
- Note the entry name: Cyprus. No "Republic", no "Island", just "Cyprus". Period. Are we going to second-guess the European Union?
- Another example:
.<ref name="MeltonBaumann2010">{{cite book|author1=J. Gordon Melton|author2=Martin Baumann|title=Religions of the World, Second Edition: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=v2yiyLLOj88C&pg=PA842|accessdate=27 December 2012|date=21 September 2010|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=978-1-59884-204-3|pages=842–|quotation=Cyprus, an island nation in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, was home to one of the oldest civilizations in the Mediterranean Basin. Today, its 3,600 square miles of land are inhabited by 793,000 people, the great majority of Greek ...}}</ref>
- Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- What you miss (intentionally or not) is that you disregard the very fact that, in all of your examples, the context is the "CONTEXT of the COUNTRY (RoC)": "COUNTRY DESCRIPTION:...."; "Cyprus country profile on BBC:"; The link of your 3rd source: http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/cyprus/index_en.htm " Did you notice the word "Countries" in the link?
- What you miss (intentionally or not) is that you disregard the very fact that, in all of your examples, the context is the "CONTEXT of the COUNTRY (RoC)": "COUNTRY DESCRIPTION:...."; "Cyprus country profile on BBC:"; The link of your 3rd source: http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/cyprus/index_en.htm " Did you notice the word "Countries" in the link?
- The similar examples are found when "Republic of Ireland" is frequently cited as "Ireland", even in the very sources you cited:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles BBC mentions "Republic of Ireland" as "Ireland". "Country profile: Ireland", "Country profile: Cyprus", "Timeline: Ireland", "Timeline: Cyprus" are all in the same source you cited.
- The similar examples are found when "Republic of Ireland" is frequently cited as "Ireland", even in the very sources you cited:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles BBC mentions "Republic of Ireland" as "Ireland". "Country profile: Ireland", "Country profile: Cyprus", "Timeline: Ireland", "Timeline: Cyprus" are all in the same source you cited.
- There are billions of contexts independent of "Republic of Cyprus" (country)! In "Cyprus/Cypriot" issue, the "Republic of Cyprus/Of Republic of Cyprus" is THE SUBSET OF "island of Cyprus".
- There are billions of contexts independent of "Republic of Cyprus" (country)! In "Cyprus/Cypriot" issue, the "Republic of Cyprus/Of Republic of Cyprus" is THE SUBSET OF "island of Cyprus".
- As an expert, I want to redirect you to Makarios (1st President of Rep. of Cyprus, you know):
- This way, Makarios (1st President of Rep. of Cyprus) emphasized the absence of "the" "nation" of Cyprus island!:
- Makarios:"Donkeys: the only true Cypriots on Cyprus"
- Makarios: "Donkeys: the only true Cypriots on Cyprus"
- Makarios:"There's only one living Cypriot in Cyprus and that is the Cypriot donkey"
Alexyflemming (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- As an expert, I want to redirect you to Makarios (1st President of Rep. of Cyprus, you know):
- "Republic of Cyprus" is not considered to be the same as "Island of Cyprus". 1st of all, in 6% of the island, RoC has no sovereignty (both de jure+de facto: SBAs+UNFCYP Buffer Zone). 2nd, for the remaining 94%, RoC has no de facto control. The 37% of island got some sort of status, independent of RoC.Alexyflemming (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Island of Cyprus" and "Republic of Cyprus" are not coterminous not only "in time" but also "in space": In 6% of the Island, the "Republic of Cyprus" has no sovereignity/jurisdiction. See UK's "3% Sovereign Base Area" and UN's "3% UNFICYP Buffer Zone". Aside from this, for the remaining 94%, the RoC has no de facto sovereignity/control in 37%. Hence, RoC has only control in "57% (de facto+de jure)+37%(some de jure)". Hence, the case of Jamaica is completely different from RoC. Jamaica has 100% control, not only de jure but also de facto. Alexyflemming (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- True about the SBAs, but the buffer zone isn't another state or another state's. — Lfdder (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- True for "Republic of Cyprus (RoC)" as well (i.e. True for "Buffer Zone" as well). RoC has no sovereignity/jurisdiction over UN Buffer Zone. UNFICYP governs Buffer Zone, not RoC:
- True for "Republic of Cyprus (RoC)" as well (i.e. True for "Buffer Zone" as well). RoC has no sovereignity/jurisdiction over UN Buffer Zone. UNFICYP governs Buffer Zone, not RoC:
- 1. RoC cannot raise any RoC flag in UN Buffer Zone in Cyprus island.
- 2. UNFICYP lists RoC's unlawful actions, warns RoC and prevents RoC's actions in UN Buffer Zone in Cyprus island.
- "...where UNFICYP is responsible for the conduct of law enforcement..." and "...UNFICYP issued a press statement reminding hunters that hunting in the buffer zone was not allowed..."
- 3. No RoC police, official, authority can enter "Buffer Zone" without the permission of UNFICYP.Alexyflemming (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- The "Island of Cyprus" and "Republic of Cyprus" are not coterminous:
Thirty seven sources using "Cyprus" as NOT-COTERMINOUS with the RoC (More than those of Dr.K.)
"Cyprus" is the common name of the "island": |
|---|
|
A. History: B. Art: C. Culture: D. Geography: E. Sport: There are Organizations and Federations outside the framework of "Republic of Cyprus", and the "Cyprus" in that organizations clearly does not refer to RoC. F. People: G. Weather: |
- So, there are millions of reliable sources that make distinction between the two (the island and the country).
- Legal Separation: The absence of legal separation in the framework of United Nations does not mean no legal separation existed elsewhere.
- a. Just like Ireland, the laws of the entities in the island (Republic of Cyprus, Northern Cyprus) are regarded as legal in the area they govern:
- In July 2013, ECtHR stated that "...notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus, the adoption by the authorities of the "TRNC" of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention".ECHR Decision 02.07.2013, App. nos. 9130/09 and 9143/09; Pavlides v. Turkey; Georgakis v. Turkey
- b. According to ECtHR decisions, All of the citizens of Rep. of Cyprus without any exception has to apply to the institutions of the entity in the North part of Cyprus before applying ECtHR. That is to say, the laws of authorities of the state in North part of Cyprus is "domestic remedy" according to ECtHR.
- c. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: The representatives from the Cyprus island: Greek Cypriot Representatives of PACE are elected in the Assembly of "Republic of Cyprus", Turkish Cypriot Representatives of PACE are elected in the Assembly of "Northern Cyprus".
- Turkish Cypriot representators of PACE chosen in the Assembly of Northern Cyprus: 2005-2007: CTP Özdil Nami; UBP Huseyin Ozgurgun; 27.01.2011 CTP Mehmet Caglar; UBP Ahmet Eti;04.12.2013 CTP Mehmet Caglar, UBP Tahsin Ertugruloglu.
- d. Different procedures apply to the Passports of Republic of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus. The Official Website of United Kingdom Border Agency:
- Procedure for Passports of Republic of Cyprus: https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa/y/cyprus
- Procedure for Passports of Northern Cyprus: https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa/y/cyprus-north/transit/no
- As for the personal attack: Being an "expert on Northern Cyprus" does not make me "Northern Cyprus SPA". Alexyflemming (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Legal Separation: The absence of legal separation in the framework of United Nations does not mean no legal separation existed elsewhere.
- Oppose. I suppose we have to live with this regular repetition of the same debate. Now a move is suggested, but I expect the proposer actually means a split, with separate articles about the island and the Rep.? I oppose both move and split. There is no need for two separate articles about the same. There are not two articles about the state Jamaica and the island Jamaica, is there (just an example). Ireland is a different case, since the Rep. and the island are not the same area. --T*U (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Island of Jamaica is a redirect to Geography of Jamaica, which discusses the physical location on which you find the country of Jamaica. We have a similar situation in several other articles. Red Slash 22:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, yes! And we already have the article Geography of Cyprus, so that gives even less reason to make a separate article about the island. --T*U (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Split the island and its history should be separated from the two modern countries currently occupying the island. Until they are reunified, "Cyprus" island and history, should be the primary topic. Peacekeeping in Cyprus refers to the island. Most news items I see are about the island and the conflict between the two sides, not the one particular country. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Answer to T*U: As the proposer, I actually want fair, correct, neutral approach: The bigger entity almost always take the name in Wikipedia. In Cyprus, "Island of Cyprus" is bigger than "Republic of Cyprus" historically, culturally, demographically, ...lly,...lly, etc.. Hence, "Cyprus" must be allocated to "Island of Cyprus", not to "Republic of Cyprus". In other languages of Wikipedia, this fair, correct, neutral approach is adopted (as has to be!): Alemannish Wiki (for the country: Republik Zypern was used), QirimTatarish Wiki (for the country: Republik Kiprenez was used); FRENCH WIKI (for the country: Chypre (pays) was used); GERMAN WIKI (for the country: Republik Zypern was used); Magyar Wiki (for the country: Ciprusi Koztarsasag was used); SIMPLE ENGLISH WIKI (for the country:Republic of Cyprus); Suomi Wiki (for the country: Kyproksen tasavalta was used)
- "Island of Cyprus" and "Republic of Cyprus" are two separate articles and they are not about the same thing.
- The case of Rep. of Cyprus is similar not to Jamaica but to Rep. of Ireland:
- a. Area Control: Jamaica controls 100% of its area (de facto+de jure). Rep. of Ireland controls less than 100%(de facto+de jure) of the island. In 6% of the Cyprus Island, the "Republic of Cyprus" has no sovereignity/jurisdiction. See UK's "3% Sovereign Base Area" and UN's "3% UNFICYP Buffer Zone". Aside from this, for the remaining 94%, the RoC has no de facto sovereignity/control in 37%. Hence, RoC has only control in "57% (de facto+de jure)+37%(some de jure)".
- b. Identity: There is one nation/identity in Jamaica (Jamaicans). In Ireland island, two nations/identities appear (Catolics+Protestans, defining themselves having separate identity). In Cyprus island, two nations/identities appear (Greek Cypriots+Turkish Cypriots, defining themselves having separate identity). Alexyflemming (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment to Alexyflemming's 37 sources: A quick check proves that those sources do not say what they are claimed to say. No.1 talks about the island Cyprus and its capital Nicosia. Islands do not have capitals, but states have, so the island Cyprus is equalled to the state RoC in this source. No.2 gives the timeline of the island Cyprus, and if you click on to the fact file, the Cyprus profile gives the "Full name: Republic of Cyprus", so the island Cyprus is clearly equalled to the state RoC in this source. Even No.3, a NorthCyprus source states that Cyprus is "theoretically independent". Islands are not independent, states are, so Cyprus is equalled to the "theoretical" state even her. If all the other sources are of the same kind, they do not prove what they are claimed to prove. On the contrary, they could be added to Dr.K.'s list of 31.
- Another thing: Could you please, please, please not edit your new answers into old posts and please try to keep indentations etc., so that it is possible to follow the threads without other people having to clean up after you. --T*U (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- TU-nor, check the sources not "quickly" but "carefully":
- As for See No.1 and carefully read No.1 once again
- As for See No.1 and carefully read No.1 once again
- "Cyprus" has stood at one of the geographical"-->Island
- "it" was the birthplace of the Ancient Greek goddess"-->Island
- Cyprus came under the rule of the Byzantine Empire-->Island
- For the next 1,500 years, Cyprus remained-->Island
- Cypriot legend claims the Greek goddess of love-->Island/People
- During the Arab-Byzantine wars between the 7th and 11th century, Cyprus was-->Island
- to the mid-20th century as Cyprus fell variously to Richard I of England-->Island
- What's Cyprus' connection to wine and the crusades-->Island
- Cyprus in the 20th century-->Island
- By the time Cyprus came under British administration in 1878-->Island
- TU-nor, check the sources not "quickly" but "carefully":
- When it comes to "since 1960"
- In July 1974, the Greek military junta backed a coup d'etat in Cyprus--> Island/Republic not clear.
- Cyprus has existed as a de-facto divided country --> Republic
- The increased frequency of intersection of "Cyprus" with "Republic of Cyprus" is only for the last 50 years. "Cyprus" was/is/willbe "Cyprus" for 11,000 years, long before "Republic of Cyprus" was founded in 1960.Alexyflemming (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- "backed a coup d'etat in Cyprus", "Cyprus has existed as a de-facto divided country" This is exactly the point: Cyprus is used for the island, Cyprus is used for the republic. The common name of the republic is "Cyprus", as you yourself shows: "Island/Republic not clear". --T*U (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Island/Republic is not clear in only 1 place, but on the other hand, in 10/12 places of the article, "Cyprus" refers "crystal clearly" to the "island" instead of "republic". Hence, focusing on 1/12 while omitting 10/12 does not help us to reach a sound and robust conclusion.
- Island/Republic is not clear in only 1 place, but on the other hand, in 10/12 places of the article, "Cyprus" refers "crystal clearly" to the "island" instead of "republic". Hence, focusing on 1/12 while omitting 10/12 does not help us to reach a sound and robust conclusion.
- "backed a coup d'etat in Cyprus", "Cyprus has existed as a de-facto divided country" This is exactly the point: Cyprus is used for the island, Cyprus is used for the republic. The common name of the republic is "Cyprus", as you yourself shows: "Island/Republic not clear". --T*U (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- When it comes to "since 1960"
- As for No.2; "The Timeline" is independent of "Rep. of Cyprus" and takes the developments in Cyprus(island) before "Rep. of Cyprus" was founded. As for the other thing, the context of Timeline and Country-Fact-Profile are not the same. To reach the Fact File, one must first click: Profile: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17217956 ,then click to Cyprus Profile Facts: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17219244 . Reaching the "Republic of Cyprus" from Cyprus via clickings to here and there is normal. One can reach the "Cyprus(island)" from clicking to here and there from "Republic of Cyprus" as well.Alexyflemming (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- As for No.3;
- A Brief History of Cyprus-->Island
- Cyprus, the third largest island-->Island
- Even today, while theoretically independent, the Greeks, Turks, Europe and the USA all try to extend their influence over the island.--> Northern Cyprus is also theoretically independent besides "Rep. of Cyprus". Hence, the mentioning of "theoretically independent" does go to not only "Rep. of Cyprus", but also "Turkish Rep. of N. Cyprus"
- Cyprus has had many names-->Island
- During the Early Bronze Age the first towns and economic centres developed in Cyprus-->Island
- The destruction of the Hyksos Kingdom and the revival of Egypt as the leading power in the eastern Mediterranean created for Cyprus-->Island
- The transition to the Iron Age was for Cyprus, as for Greece, a dark age-->Island
- The colonisers arrived in Cyprus from Tyre in the 9th century BC-->Island
- In the 8th century BC, Cyprus was-->Island
- Cypriot cities-->Island
- The uprising of the coastal towns of Asia Minor against the Persians in 499 BC led to a polarisation in Cyprus-->Island
- The Delian League, an association of Greek City States set up by Athens to regain territory lost to the Persians, saw Cyprus important both strategically-->Island
- authority throughout Cyprus, the Persians intervened-->Island
- As for No.3;
- Hence, all in all, 12/13 of the "Cyprus" mentioning crstal clearly refers to "island", not to "Republic of Cyprus". 1/13 of the "Cyprus" mentioning refers to "Republic of Cyprus + Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" together.
- Hence, TU-nor, please, please, please, ..., please,
- No.1 10/12 of the "Cyprus" mentioning crstal clearly refers to "island"
- No.3 12/13 of the "Cyprus" mentioning crstal clearly refers to "island"
- Please, do not be so selective to take "Cyprus" as "Republic of Cyprus"Alexyflemming (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are completely missing the point. Nobody denies that Cyprus is the common name of the island. But it is also the common name of the state, as your souces clearly shows. From your No.2: "Cyprus gains independence", "Copenhagen invites Cyprus", "Cyprus is one of 10 new states to join the EU", just as examples. Cyprus island, Cyprus state, one article Cyprus. --T*U (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, "Cyprus" is the common name of the island since 11,000BC (for 13,000 years)! Yes, "Cyprus" is frequently used for the state "Republic of Cyprus". There are many reasons for this. The abreviations are frequently used for the countries; i.e. "Austria" instead of "Republic of Austria". There is no problem as long as shortening the name of country does not cause any problem.
- In the case of "Republic of Cyprus" (founded in 1960), it is problematic just as "Republic of Ireland" (founded in 1916). The very reasons for "Republic of Ireland" is not abreviated as "Ireland" in Wikipedia are mutatis mutandis valid and same for "Republic of Cyprus" (Notice, in French, German, Simple English Wikipedia, "Cyprus" is island, not "Republic of Cyprus"). As for Jamaica-Cyprus similarity, "Rep. of Cyprus" is on the side of "Rep. of Ireland" rather than Jamaica.
- As for No.2,
- "1960: Cyprus gains independence", "2002: Copenhagen invites Cyprus", "2004:Cyprus is one of 10 new states to join the EU".
- ALL of these key events are after 1960 (After the foundation of Rep. of Cyprus). The "Cyprus" citation is to the "Republic of Cyprus". But, this is just due to the context of the text. There are many post-1960 contexts that The "Cyprus" citation is to the island as well.
- In No.2, there are key events before 1960:
- "1914:Cyprus annexed by Britain, after more than 300 years of Ottoman rule. Britain had occupied the island in 1878, although it remained nominally under Ottoman sovereignty.
- "1925: Becomes crown colony"
- In ALL of pre-1960 key events, the "Cyprus" citation is to the island.
- You are completely missing the point. Nobody denies that Cyprus is the common name of the island. But it is also the common name of the state, as your souces clearly shows. From your No.2: "Cyprus gains independence", "Copenhagen invites Cyprus", "Cyprus is one of 10 new states to join the EU", just as examples. Cyprus island, Cyprus state, one article Cyprus. --T*U (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hence, TU-nor, please, please, please, ..., please,
- There are many places that omittance of "Republic of" in RoC does not make any problem. However, there are many places as well that sending the mentioning of "Cyprus" to "Republic of Cyprus" is completely erroneous (this is valid for both pre-1960 and post-1960 period). There are 92 millions of "Cyprus" mentionings in Google. One cannot project ALL "Cyprus" mentionings (11,000BC-2014) to "Republic of Cyprus"(1960-2014). One cannot project ALL "History, People, Music, Culture, Sports, ..." (11,000BC-2014) to "Republic of Cyprus"(1960-2014).Alexyflemming (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have stricken out user Alexyflemming's last edit. It is inappropriate to enter new arguments into old posts that have been answered and discussed further. If there are new points to add, they must presented as new points, not as parts of older arguments. --T*U (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- After the extremeley heavy reaction from User:Alexyflemming I unstrike the sentence and try another approach. The point is to separate the addition of 8 March from the original post time stamped 4 March to preserve some sort of order to the chronology for the benefit of people trying to read this discussion. It is difficult enough as it is. --T*U (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have stricken out user Alexyflemming's last edit. It is inappropriate to enter new arguments into old posts that have been answered and discussed further. If there are new points to add, they must presented as new points, not as parts of older arguments. --T*U (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it is not I who have proposed moving "Cyprus" article to "Republic of Cyprus". --T*U (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nope! You misunderstand. What I mean is that:Currently, in English Wikipedia (as opposite to Simple English Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, ...), the "Republic of Cyprus" was coded as "Cyprus" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CYPRUS). This coding enforces ALL "Cyprus Island"-related things to be handled as if it is related with "Republic of Cyprus". And, this coding enforces the adjective "CyprIOT" to be equal to "OF Republic of Cyprus". This is wrong. There are many mentionings of "Cyprus"-related things in Wikipedia with NO relation to "Republic of Cyprus". There are many usages of "Cypriot" in Wikipedia and elsewhere that the usages do not have any relation to "Republic of Cyprus". Hence, just as "Simple English, French, German,..." Wikipedia, "Republic of Cyprus" must be coded as "Republic of Cyprus". Alexyflemming (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- The demonym would still be Cypriot even if we were to move the article. — Lfdder (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- As long as the context mentioned and covered is clear to make a separation between "Island of Cyprus" and "Republic of Cyprus", one can use "Cypriot" to refer to the things related with "Republic of Cyprus".
- As long as the context mentioned and covered is clear to make a separation between "Island of Cyprus" and "Republic of Cyprus", one can use "Cypriot" to refer to the things related with "Republic of Cyprus".
- What is objected is not the usage of "Cypriot/Cyprus" for "Republic of Cyprus". What is objected is:
- the restricting the usage "Cypriot/Cyprus" to solely to "Republic of Cyprus";
- the equalizing "Cypriot/Cyprus" with "Of Republic of Cyprus/Republic of Cyprus";
- the projecting the (11,000BC-2014) to (1960-2014) incorrectly;
- the (intentional or not) omitting the difference between (11,000BC-2014; island) to (1960-2014; republic).
- There are many places that omittance of "Republic of" in RoC does not make any problem. However, there are many places as well that sending the mentioning of "Cyprus" to "Republic of Cyprus" is completely erroneous (this is valid for both pre-1960 and post-1960 period). There are 92 millions of "Cyprus" mentionings in Google. One cannot project ALL "Cyprus" mentionings (11,000BC-2014) to "Republic of Cyprus"(1960-2014). One cannot project ALL "History, People, Music, Culture, Sports, ..." (11,000BC-2014) to "Republic of Cyprus"(1960-2014).Alexyflemming (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- In English, the PRIMARY USAGE of "Cyprus" belongs to "island", not to "state". Cyprus is an abbreviation of "Republic of Cyprus"; but, "Cyprus" is "Cyprus" for the island. Even when the Republic's history is covered, with the frequent mentionings and citations to 100s/1000s years before 1960, what is covered (in the context when RoC is covered) is mainly the history of "island", not of "state". There are billions of contexts, completely independent of RoC. These "billions" of contexts may be well covered and referred with the correct baselining (Wiki-coding):"Cyprus" for "island of Cyprus", "Republic of Cyprus" for "Republic of Cyprus", just as it is in "Simple English, French, German Wiki,..".Alexyflemming (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody is 'restricting the usage "Cypriot/Cyprus" to solely to "Republic of Cyprus"'. On the contrary, the article uses Cyprus for the island and Cyprus for the republic. Nobody is 'equalizing "Cypriot/Cyprus" with "Of Republic of Cyprus/Republic of Cyprus"' for other periods than the republic. Nobody is 'projecting the (11,000BC-2014) to (1960-2014)'. The article has the full history of the island, including the history of the republic. Nobody is 'omitting the difference between (11,000BC-2014; island) to (1960-2014; republic', so if you find anything in the article that says that the republic was created before 1960 or similar errors, then correct them.
- The argument about other Wikipedias is not really important, but since you keep harping at it, I will explain: There are 171 Wikis that have only one article about Cyprus island and republic (including the Zeelandic you claim supports your case). There are 29 that have separate articles for the island and the republic. Of these 29 there are 10 that have the equivalent of "Cyprus" for the island and the equivalent of "Republic of Cyprus" or "Cyprus (state)" or similar for the republic. French and Hungarian are not among these, contrary to your claim. Furthermore there are 8 that have two separate articles where none of them use only "Cyprus". (It is among these we find French and Hungarian.) The last 11 have "Cyprus" for the republic and "Cyprus (island)", "Geography of Cyprus" or similar for the island. Against you claim, Belarussian is among these. All in all there are 182 Wikis with only one article or with "Cyprus" for the republic, 10 with "Cyprus" for the island and 8 "neutral". So could we now put this "harmony and consistency" argument of yours down, please. Especially since you seem to argue from false or imprecise "facts". --T*U (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- In English, the PRIMARY USAGE of "Cyprus" belongs to "island", not to "state". Cyprus is an abbreviation of "Republic of Cyprus"; but, "Cyprus" is "Cyprus" for the island. Even when the Republic's history is covered, with the frequent mentionings and citations to 100s/1000s years before 1960, what is covered (in the context when RoC is covered) is mainly the history of "island", not of "state". There are billions of contexts, completely independent of RoC. These "billions" of contexts may be well covered and referred with the correct baselining (Wiki-coding):"Cyprus" for "island of Cyprus", "Republic of Cyprus" for "Republic of Cyprus", just as it is in "Simple English, French, German Wiki,..".Alexyflemming (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- You say "The article has the full history of the island, including the history of the republic". That is it. full history of the island, not the republic. "Fullness is peculiar to island, not to the republic. History of "the republic" is only a proper subset of history of the island. 50 years is only a proper subset of 13000 years ((11000BC-2014)>(1960-2014)) just as in the case of "Ireland", ((7000BC-2014)>(1922-2014)).
- You say "if you find anything in the article that says that the republic was created before 1960 or similar errors, then correct them". What I mean by "equating" is not this kind of error. The error you referred in your this sentence is the syntax-error-kind; what I want to emphasize is not that kind of syntax error, but logical-error-kind.
- Nope! My arguement about mixed soup of "titlings" of the same entities in various languaged Wikipedia is important. In programming, one of the most desired things is the existence of a robust pattern. See once more and more and more... to French and Hungarian Wiki. See the Fairness/Ethic/Honor. French and Hungarian Wiki very supports my reasoning:
- You say "The article has the full history of the island, including the history of the republic". That is it. full history of the island, not the republic. "Fullness is peculiar to island, not to the republic. History of "the republic" is only a proper subset of history of the island. 50 years is only a proper subset of 13000 years ((11000BC-2014)>(1960-2014)) just as in the case of "Ireland", ((7000BC-2014)>(1922-2014)).
- English of French Wiki (GoogleTranslate):
- Cyprus may refer to:
- ...Cyprus, an island in the Mediterranean Sea;
- ........Cyprus, a Roman province;
- ........Cyprus, a theme of the Byzantine Empire (965-1191);
- ........the Kingdom of Cyprus , a part of the kingdom of East Latin states (1192-1489);
- ........the British colony of Cyprus (1878-1960);
- ........the Republic of Cyprus , which occupies a republic de jure the entire island of the same name but de facto the southern part;
- ........the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus , a self-proclaimed largely unrecognized by the international community and located in the northern part of Cyprus State;
- the cyprus an agreement perfumery.
- English of French Wiki (GoogleTranslate):
- The first thing in referring "Cyprus" is the island. The entities established on the island are indentated. That is to say, "proper subsetness" is provided via indentation.
- The first thing in referring "Cyprus" is the island. The entities established on the island are indentated. That is to say, "proper subsetness" is provided via indentation.
- English of Hungarian Wiki (GoogleTranslate):
- Cyprus (disambiguation)
- ....Cyprus , the Mediterranean's third largest island of the Republic of Cyprus (or one third of the territory of the internationally unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) and two UK sovereign base, is located on Akrotiri
- ....Republic of Cyprus, the European Union Member States, de jure majority of the island, but in fact the southern two-thirds of which 82% of the Greek population, 18% of Turkish language
- ....Northern Cyprus, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus northern third of the island of Cyprus, the de jure Republic of Cyprus occupied by Turkey in the area of de facto one militarily, economically and demographically independent space Turkish population
- Flora
- ...Cyprus animals (Cupressaceae), the shape of the order of one of the pine family worldwide
- Sport
- ....Cyprus Rally (Cyprus Rally) is a rally on the island of Cyprus
- English of Hungarian Wiki (GoogleTranslate):
- So, the fairness I mentioned do also exist in Hungarian Wiki. The Disambiguation page honorously gives the first reference to "island" (which is bigger entity than RoC), then RoC (which is bigger entity than TRNC). Notice, here I am not discussing the recognition/nonrecognition. The place of this is not the disambiguation pages.
- So, the fairness I mentioned do also exist in Hungarian Wiki. The Disambiguation page honorously gives the first reference to "island" (which is bigger entity than RoC), then RoC (which is bigger entity than TRNC). Notice, here I am not discussing the recognition/nonrecognition. The place of this is not the disambiguation pages.
- When starting the (English Wiki) article "Cyprus" with "Cyprus, officially the Republic of Cyprus, is..." and putting a very large tag (depicting Republic's flag, info, etc.) to the right of the page what is equated is the "Cyprus=Republic", not "Cyprus=Island". Alexyflemming (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- What I refuted, was your false claim (in the table above) that the French and Hungarian Wiki use "Chypre" and "Ciprus" as article names for articles about "Island of Cyprus". They do not. They use "Chypre (île)" and "Ciprus (sziget)", respectively. And even counting these and the other "neutrals", there are still 18 against 182. --T*U (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK then, let me analyze "French Wiki" and "Hungarian Wiki" once more for you.
- "French Wiki": As long as "Cyprus" is wanted to be interested, almost nobody concerns with "perfume" trademark "Cyprus" in the last line. That context is completely irrelevant to the things in discussion here. Forgetting that perfumery, looking at the very first infos: "Cyprus may refer to: Cyprus, an island in the Mediterranean Sea" is the "Number 1" info in French Wiki. The other entities that are made subordinate to "Cyprus" via indentation are just the proper subset entities of the entity "Cyprus island". Hence, in essence, the CHYPRE French article, is article of the "Cyprus island".
- "Hungarian Wiki": A "disambiguation" page is allocated for "Cyprus". The order of the items in this disambiguation page is "island", "Rep.of Cyprus", "Northern Cyprus". Again and again, The very first mentioning of "Cyprus" goes to the "island" as it must be so! Hence, again, fairness/ethic/honor is observed in Hungarian Wiki as well.
- OK then, let me analyze "French Wiki" and "Hungarian Wiki" once more for you.
- What I refuted, was your false claim (in the table above) that the French and Hungarian Wiki use "Chypre" and "Ciprus" as article names for articles about "Island of Cyprus". They do not. They use "Chypre (île)" and "Ciprus (sziget)", respectively. And even counting these and the other "neutrals", there are still 18 against 182. --T*U (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- When starting the (English Wiki) article "Cyprus" with "Cyprus, officially the Republic of Cyprus, is..." and putting a very large tag (depicting Republic's flag, info, etc.) to the right of the page what is equated is the "Cyprus=Republic", not "Cyprus=Island". Alexyflemming (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- In French Wiki, look once more to Chypre (île). In this page, "Pays (Countries)" are listed as "Chypre"(Cyprus) "Chypre du Nord"(Northern Cyprus), "Royaume-Uni"(United Kingdom). That is to say, "Republic of Cyprus" was shorthened as "Cyprus". Nobody objects to this in the context of "countries". But pay attention, when you come over "Cyprus", "Cyprus(pays)"(Cyprus(country)) is seen, and the "Republic of Cyprus" is coded and covered as "Chypre (pays)" (Cyprus(country)) in French wiki. The objection is the allocation of "Cyprus" to "Republic of Cyprus" in "general" context, not the allocation in "country" context.
- In French Wiki, look once more to Chypre (île). In this page, "Pays (Countries)" are listed as "Chypre"(Cyprus) "Chypre du Nord"(Northern Cyprus), "Royaume-Uni"(United Kingdom). That is to say, "Republic of Cyprus" was shorthened as "Cyprus". Nobody objects to this in the context of "countries". But pay attention, when you come over "Cyprus", "Cyprus(pays)"(Cyprus(country)) is seen, and the "Republic of Cyprus" is coded and covered as "Chypre (pays)" (Cyprus(country)) in French wiki. The objection is the allocation of "Cyprus" to "Republic of Cyprus" in "general" context, not the allocation in "country" context.
- One other equally important thing that I want to emphasize is that although the coverage of the "Cyprus" in French/Hungarian/Similar Wiki languages is fair/ethical/honorous, but not "nice, beautiful". That is to say, when one wants to reach and see the "Cyprus" article in Wiki, that one would most probably want to obtain "enough" knowledge of "Cyprus" (i.e. enough knowledge of island; enough knowledge of History, enough knowledge of RoC; enough knowledge of other entities) without clicking somewhere else once more (if that enoughness is enough to him/her). Hence, the coverage style of "Cyprus" that is similar to "Ireland" would definitely be "nice, beautiful" besides "fair/ethical/honorous". Please see the coverage of "Ireland" in English-Wikipedia, especially please see the "Contents". That is what I want to say:
- Contents
- 1 History
- 1.1 Prehistoric Ireland; 1.2 Emergence of Celtic Ireland; 1.3 Late antiquity and early medieval times; 1.4 Norman and English invasions; 1.5 The Kingdom of Ireland; 1.6 Union with Great Britain; 1.7 Partition
- 2 Politics
- 2.1 Republic of Ireland; 2.2 Northern Ireland; 2.3 All-island institutions
- 3 Economy
- 3.1 Energy
- 4 Geography
- 4.1 Places of interest
- 5 Flora and fauna
- 5.1 Impact of agriculture
- 6 Demography
- 6.1 Divisions and settlements; 6.2 Migration; 6.3 Languages
- 7 Culture
- 7.1 Art; 7.2 Science; 7.3 Sports; 7.4 Food and drink
- 8 See also
- 9 Notes
- 10 References
- 11 Bibliography
- 12 External linksAlexyflemming (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- One other equally important thing that I want to emphasize is that although the coverage of the "Cyprus" in French/Hungarian/Similar Wiki languages is fair/ethical/honorous, but not "nice, beautiful". That is to say, when one wants to reach and see the "Cyprus" article in Wiki, that one would most probably want to obtain "enough" knowledge of "Cyprus" (i.e. enough knowledge of island; enough knowledge of History, enough knowledge of RoC; enough knowledge of other entities) without clicking somewhere else once more (if that enoughness is enough to him/her). Hence, the coverage style of "Cyprus" that is similar to "Ireland" would definitely be "nice, beautiful" besides "fair/ethical/honorous". Please see the coverage of "Ireland" in English-Wikipedia, especially please see the "Contents". That is what I want to say:
- Oppose Split: Cyprus(island) and Cyprus(Republic) are two terms that usually go together. The Republic of Cyprus is almost always referred to as Cyprus. A look at the last such split request should be enough. KalJohnson (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- The "island of Cyprus" is almost always referred to as "Cyprus" as well. The entity (island) gave the name "Cyprus" to "Republic of Cyprus"; not the other way around. The name of "Cyprus" (island) does not come from "Republic of Cyprus".Alexyflemming (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion about the RoC being continuous with the island has been repeatedly discussed including comments about the British bases, North Cyprus etc. The UK government used to pay rent to the Republic of Cyprus for having the bases but after the war they stopped doing so. Furthermore, the bases are only for military purposes and the laws of the Republic of Cyprus apply to most of the area. The very idea behind the bases agreements was that it won't be yet another British colony but just bases. Finally, the north is also considered part of the Republic of Cyprus by the UN and likewise the buffer zone is considered as territory of the Republic of Cyprus that has been temporarily handed over to the UN for maintaining peace. These reasons are enough for me to still strongly oppose the move KalJohnson (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Strong oppose move/oppose split per WP:COMMONNAME and per KalJohnson. The example of Ireland is inappropriate here. When Northern Ireland is internationally recognized as a part of the UK and therefore Ireland and Republic of Ireland covers different territories, Northern Cyprus is recognized as a part of the Republic of Cyprus (except by one country) and therefore Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus covers the same territory. Beagel (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONNAME:Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.
- WP:COMMONNAME:Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.
- "Cyprus" is the common name of the island (having 13000 years history); even the opposers of this move accept this reality: T*U(TU-nor): "Nobody denies that Cyprus is the common name of the island. But it is also the common name of the state". Cyprus being the "common name" of the "state"(having only 50 years old) is valid only in the context of countries. There are billions of contexts independent of the country ("Republic of Cyprus")! In general context, "Cyprus" is the common name of the island.
- General context is much bigger than the 'countries context. Outside of the context of countries, "Cyprus" is not the common name of the state ("Republic of Cyprus"), but the common name of the island. In universal naming standards, the GENERAL context much bigger than and far overrides the COUNTRIES context. In universal naming standards, the bigger entity always takes the name. The entity "island of Cyprus" is much bigger than the entity "Republic of Cyprus".
- "Cyprus" is the common name of the island (having 13000 years history); even the opposers of this move accept this reality: T*U(TU-nor): "Nobody denies that Cyprus is the common name of the island. But it is also the common name of the state". Cyprus being the "common name" of the "state"(having only 50 years old) is valid only in the context of countries. There are billions of contexts independent of the country ("Republic of Cyprus")! In general context, "Cyprus" is the common name of the island.
"Cyprus" is the common name of the "island" ("Island of Cyprus" and "Republic of Cyprus" are not coterminous):
"Cyprus" is NOT the common name of the "country (Republic of Cyprus)" in "general" context: |
|---|
|
A. History: B. Art: C. Culture: D. Geography: E. Sport: There are Organizations and Federations outside the framework of "Republic of Cyprus", and the "Cyprus" in that organizations clearly does not refer to RoC. F. People: G. Weather: |
- Ireland/Rep.ofIreland/Northern Ireland: What is discussed is not the politics of the entities, but rather the very existence of entities (covering different territories; whether de jure or not) and its parlance in English. Hence, Simple English Wiki, French Wiki, German Wiki, ... all allocates "Cyprus" to the "island", and uses equivalents of "Republic of Cyprus" for "Republic of Cyprus". In your sentence "Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus covers the same territory", the very first "Cyprus" refers to the "island"!
- Not only time but also space are not equivalent: "Cyprus island" = "Rep. of Cyprus (57% de jure+de facto)+(37%some de jure)"+"Northern Cyprus(37% de facto+some de jure)"+"SOVEREIGN Base Areas of United Kingdom 3%"+"United Nations Buffer Zone 3%". Hence, space equivalence is not true as well.Alexyflemming (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Inappropriate Blatant Meddling in the Proofs of the Request "Cyprus->Republic of Cyprus"
In 7th reasoning I wrote: See the degree of injection of bias/conditioning: Even "Cyprus (island)" redirects to "Cyprus" (as Republic of Cyprus).
03.03.2014 14:16 The move request ("Cyprus->Republic of Cyprus") was made (the "Primary Meaning" of "Cyprus" belongs to "island", not "state")
03.03.2014 18:04 The redirection "Cyprus (island)-->Cyprus" (as the REPUBLIC) was changed to the redirect "Cyprus (island)-->Geography of Cyprus" (GEOGRAPHY)
The move "Cyprus (island)-->Geography of Cyprus" only reduces the degree of bias/conditioning to some extent, but there still remains very big bias/conditioning elsewhere. "Cyprus (island)" is more than "geography"! Culture, People, Sport, etc..Hence, "Cyprus (island)" must be coded as "Cyprus" (as in Simple English, French, German, ...etc. Wikipedia).
The performed redirect "Cyprus (island)-->Geography of Cyprus" that is connected indirectly with the move request "Cyprus-->Republic of Cyprus" justifies the very rightness of the latter.Alexyflemming (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- What's your argument here, exactly? It must've flown over my head. — Lfdder (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- "if the first trimming of a shirt is mis-buttoned up then the others are mis-buttoned up as well.". "Names" are always attributed to the biggest related entities. In the case of Cyprus, "Rep. of Cyprus" is the subset of "island of Cyprus"; a proper subset! Forget Cyprus, take any entity (independent of country context) you are assigned. What do you do? You normally assign the "name" to the biggest related entity. Then, you take related subordinate entities to extend the topic. In Cyprus, the true coverage should be like that
- Cyprus (as island)
- -History
- -Politics
- -Geography
- -etc.
- "Rep. of Cyprus" is the subset of "Politics of Cyprus (island)" which is the subset of Cyprus (island).
- "if the first trimming of a shirt is mis-buttoned up then the others are mis-buttoned up as well.". "Names" are always attributed to the biggest related entities. In the case of Cyprus, "Rep. of Cyprus" is the subset of "island of Cyprus"; a proper subset! Forget Cyprus, take any entity (independent of country context) you are assigned. What do you do? You normally assign the "name" to the biggest related entity. Then, you take related subordinate entities to extend the topic. In Cyprus, the true coverage should be like that
- See the coverage of Ireland in Wikipedia:
- Ireland
- 1 History;
- 1.1 Prehistoric Ireland; 1.2 Emergence of Celtic Ireland; 1.3 Late antiquity and early medieval times; 1.4 Norman and English invasions; ::1.5 The Kingdom of Ireland; 1.6 Union with Great Britain; 1.7 Partition
- 2 Politics
- 2.1 Republic of Ireland; 2.2 Northern Ireland; 2.3 All-island institutions
- 3 Economy
- 3.1 Energy
- 4 Geography
- 4.1 Places of interest
- 5 Flora and fauna
- 5.1 Impact of agriculture
- 6 Demography
- 6.1 Divisions and settlements; 6.2 Migration; 6.3 Languages
- 7 Culture
- 7.1 Art; 7.2 Science; 7.3 Sports; 7.4 Food and drink
- See the coverage of Ireland in Wikipedia:
- This (The coverage-style of Ireland) is "the way of the mind" as long as "no bias/conditioning of politics is mixed to Wikipedia".
- That is to say, normal human brain/mind does not redirect "Cyprus (island)-->Geography of Cyprus". Please, do not misunderstand. What did you do (the removing of the bias/conditioning) was fair in your action; you tried to correct the errors of others to some extent. But, be sure that your step does not correct the giant referral and other subsequent errors (stemmed from mis-buttonning up of the very first trimming) in the contexts discussed in Wikipedia and elsewhere. Alexyflemming (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- This (The coverage-style of Ireland) is "the way of the mind" as long as "no bias/conditioning of politics is mixed to Wikipedia".
Inappropriate Blatant Meddling in the Defense of Reasonability of the Arguments of the Request "Cyprus->Republic of Cyprus"
TU-nor have stricken out my edit:
(((In European Countries Biologist Association, for example, since there existed possibility of confusion (North Cyprus and Republic of Cyprus are 2 different members there), ECBA did not make such shorthening of "Republic of Cyprus" to "Cyprus".)))
with the pretext "It is inappropriate to enter new arguments into old posts that have been answered and discussed further. If there are new points to add, they must presented as new points, not as parts of older arguments.".:
I did not enter any new arguments to my old post. I gave an example for the very same argument of the old post. I will not use that example elsewhere for any new argument. Again, if TU-nor still cannot catch the argument, let me summarize it again:
"Cyprus" is the "island" in general context and the common name of the island (for 13000 years!). When the context is the context of countries, "Republic of Cyprus" may be shorthened/abbreviated as "Cyprus". As long as the context mentioned and covered is clear to make a separation between "Island of Cyprus" and "Republic of Cyprus"; for the things related with "Republic of Cyprus", "Cypriot/Cyprus" may be used to refer the country.
On the other hand, even in the case of the context of countries, when there is a possibility of confusion, it is up to the Authority whether to use "Cyprus/Cypriot" for "Republic of Cyprus" or not: Nobody can object to use or not to use of "Cyprus" for "Republic of Cyprus" in such confusionary situations in the context of countries. For example, when the member "countries" are listed, "European Countries of Biologist Association" (ECBA) opted to use "Republic of Cyprus" for "Republic of Cypus", and "North Cyprus" for "Northern Cyprus". The abbreviation "Cyprus" was not used for "Republic of Cyprus".
I oppose the stricking out of my defence.Alexyflemming (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks you very much TU-nor (T*U) for unstricking out my edit since you cared my sensitivity.Alexyflemming (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The Comment on the conclusion of the Move Request ("Cyprus" to "Republic of Cyprus")
- Non-admin user Hot Stop deleted my "UPDATED" rationale unintentionally (by deleting closing "cob" tag) while closing the discussion. I re-put the "cob" tag. I added the "div" tags to integrate "cot"-"cob" tags. It would be best to close this kind of syntax-full discussions by rather an syntax-experienced Admins.
- "Non-admins should be cautious when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved.": During closure, the discussions were still vital and continueing. The "move request" should not be finalized at this stage. The move request was still on the "Current Discussions" part.. At least, the ending of only 1 week should have been waited.
- In the closing remark of non-admin ("The result of the move request was: not moved. This proposed move has been listed nearly a week and no one except the nominator is arguing in favor the proposed move. There may be some support for splitting the article into separate ones, but there is no real consensus to do so and can be discussed in another forum"), look at the "no one except the nominator" phrase. Notice:
| “ | Wikipedia is not the "head count": The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. | ” |
"12 Angry Men - Henry Fonda - 1957" is just what I want to say! Even only "1" suffices!
- Such an important "move request" should have been closed by more satisfactory reasoning and should have been closed by a capable Wiki-admin!Alexyflemming (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. Change is needed. The reality is the island named Cyprus is divided between 3 polities, my country's armed forces don't control the border between nothing. The Republic of Cyprus's article should not be treated as covering the entire island, and the entire island should have an article covering relevant topics (history, demography, politics), and that article should be titled relevantly (such as 'Cyprus (Island)' or 'Island of Cyprus'). Comparably, because Taiwan isn't a recognised state doesn't mean its article should be centred around an island that's part of the PRC. That would be stupid. The bias shown by editors here is immense. A proper discussion on this issue is desperately needed. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 18:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Rob. I disagree. The soveregn bases by the treaty of establishment have no political identity. This has also been explicitly reiterated on 15th of January 2014 where additionally most of the area of the bases has been decided to be administered by Cyprus. I would therefore oppose move68.168.96.205 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Akrotiri and Dhekeliaare a dependent territory of the UK, not part of the Republic of Cyprus. Treaty of Establishment states 'The territory of the Republic of Cyprus shall compromise of the Island of Cyprus together with the islands lying off its coast, with the exception of the two areas defined in Annex A to this treaty, which shall remain under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom'. Nonetheless, the de facto independent state of Northern Cyprus, occupying 3,000 km2 of island, is far more significant. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Erroneous Closing of the Move Request
The closing non-admin Hot Stop: "no one except the nominator is arguing in favor the proposed move".
On the other hand; Those who supported the move BEFORE the closure of the non-admin: Alexyflemming, Lfdder, 70.50.151.11.
Those who supported the move AFTER the closure of the non-admin: Rob.
In such a serious move request, tough it is a fact that Wikipedia is not the "head count": The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority, even the counting of the pro votes is erroneous.Alexyflemming (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- There's a huge lack of NPOV across Cypriot related articles. I suggest first creating an article at Island of Cyprus which recognises that Northern Cyprus actually exists as a autonomous polity. Thoughts? Rob (talk | contribs) 15:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- ...which recognizes Northern Cyprus actually exists as a "limited recognized" or "partially recognized" entity is better since these are the WP namings.Alexyflemming (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've started a draft based off this article: Draft:Island of Cyprus. Rob984 (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- ...which recognizes Northern Cyprus actually exists as a "limited recognized" or "partially recognized" entity is better since these are the WP namings.Alexyflemming (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think it is an unnecessary POV fork which does not even have proper GFDL attribution. This article includes ample details about the division and about Northern Cypprus. There is also an article on Northern Cyprus
which recognises that Northern Cyprus actually exists as a autonomous polity.
- in addition to this one. Per NPOV, we don't need to highlight this further with this misattributed new POV-fork. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think it is an unnecessary POV fork which does not even have proper GFDL attribution. This article includes ample details about the division and about Northern Cypprus. There is also an article on Northern Cyprus
- No. It's recognising the de facto situation on the island. Northern Cyprus is administered independently of the Republic of Cyprus. How can you cover neutrally the de facto political make-up of the entire island on an article about the Republic of Cyprus? You can't. It's impossible. Additionally, there's sovereign British territory covering part of the island of Cyprus not claimed by the Republic of Cyprus. You've got to be kidding me if you think this article conforms to NPOV. Seriously? Rob984 (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
No. It's recognising the de facto situation on the island.
: This is incorrect. This article gives an overview of the situation and the articles on Northern Cyprus and History of Cyprus cover the topic in detail.How can you cover neutrally the de facto political make-up of the entire island on an article about the Republic of Cyprus? You can't. It's impossible. Additionally, there's sovereign British territory covering part of the island of Cyprus not claimed by the Republic of Cyprus.
: Yes, you can. There are articles on Northern Cyprus, History of Cyprus, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Geography of Cyprus etc. which cover these topics per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, in addition to their coverage in this article. These exact points have been covered before multiple times and there are in the archives where you can look them up.Additionally, there's sovereign British territory covering part of the island of Cyprus not claimed by the Republic of Cyprus.
: Incorrect. Cyprus claims the area of the bases and in fact the British used to pay rent for them, at the rate of 12 million pounds sterling annually. In addition at the beginning of the EU presidency of Cyprus, the president of Cyprus gave the inaugural speech of the EU presidency at the base area where he entered without asking the British for permission and specifically mentioned Cyprus' claim to the base area and the symbolism of using the bases as the ground for the inaugural speech. These exact points has been covered in the archives.You've got to be kidding me if you think this article conforms to NPOV.
: Please consult the policy on avoiding personal comments. You have created a POV-fork and personal attacks will not deter me from saying so. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)- Dr. K.:"
How can you cover neutrally the de facto political make-up of the entire island on an article about the Republic of Cyprus? You can't. It's impossible.
". Dear Dr. K., one can cover every topic from neutral point of view. This is valid for Northern Cyprus-related articles and Cyprus-dispute-related articles as well. Look how United Nations covered it neutrally: - United Nations's standard way of currently handling the issue is from neutral point of view always:
- United Nations' Official WebsiteUNFICYP Mandate: "...Following the hostilities of 1974, ..."
- United Nations' Official WebsiteUNFICYP Background: "Since the events of 1974, ..."
- But, if one sticks to nationalism, etc. then it is impossible to handle the issues from neutral point of view. For example, you, Dr. K. mentioned "island nation of Cyprus" though Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots are completely different nations. To your information, Turkish Cypriots have been living in Cyprus island for 500 years. The number of mixed marriages between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots is less than 5 in 500 years! Turkish Cypriots' race, religion, language etc. are completely different than those of Greek Cypriots.. So, you are saying "impossible", and bombard POV views on Cyprus-dispute related articles.
- Alexyflemming (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dr. K.:"
So, 150.000 or 180.000 Greek Cypriots evicted from their homes?
In first paragraph it writes: "The intercommunal violence and subsequent Turkish invasion led to the displacement of over 150,000 Greek Cypriots[19][20] and 50,000 Turkish Cypriots,[21] and the establishment of a separate Turkish Cypriots political entity in the north.". Further down it writes: "International pressure led to a ceasefire, and by then 37% of the island had been taken over by the Turks and 180,000 Greek-Cypriots had been evicted from their homes in the north. At the same time, around 50,000 Turkish Cypriots moved to the areas under the control of the Turkish Forces and settled in the properties of the displaced Greek Cypriots." I wonder which claim is the true one? This is kinda confusing me. 30.000 its a lot of difference to just ignore it. --SilentResident (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- SilentResident, you will find sources stating over 150 to 200 thousand, the exact number of refugees depending on the methodology used to define the refugees. There are various parameters which different sources take into account thereby arriving at different numbers. For instance one may or may not be counting the wife in a family, if the wife prior to the invasion was from a city which is still free, versus the husband who's home is under occupation by Turks from Anatolia. So the numbers vary, and i think it is rational. The extend of the damage being 1/3 of the population roughly of the time. Why is it of such importance if it is 160, 170 or 210 thousands? What changes? If you are thinking of a way to calculate the amount due from Turkey for loss of use of property, then bare in mind that a families children and grant children even if they never lived in their fathers and grandfathers properties they are considered refugees also. 23x2 φ 14:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- In this case couldn't be better for the article's all paragraphs to write "150.000-180.000" rather than a plain "150.000" in one paragraph and "180.000" in another? ^_^ --SilentResident (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody was evicted. They simply escaped or chose to go south. We have not done any good until now, believing the Greek's lies... --217.86.137.20 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Eviction" is just completely very big lie of some fanatic Greek Cypriots:
- After the hostilities in 1974, population transfers were made in accordance with the Voluntary Population Exchange Agreement (02.08.1975) between Turkish and Greek Cypriots (Third Vienna Agreement) under the auspices of United Nations; the Orthodox Greek Cypriots in Rizokarpaso, Agios Andronikos and Agia Triada and Catholic Maronite Cypriots in Asomatos, Karpasia and Kormakitis agreed to live under Turkish Cypriot administration and stayed in the north and Turkish Cypriots in Limassol agreed to live under Greek Cypriot administration and stayed in the south of the Cyprus island.
- If all of the Greek Cypriots had chosen to stay in north of Cyprus, then all of them have been living in north of Cyprus just as the ones who chose to stay in north of Cyprus and are still living in north of Cyprus!
- "Eviction" is just completely very big lie of some fanatic Greek Cypriots:
- Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots have NO right to return back after 40 years they chose their side in 1975!:
- 1. United States Federal Court decision (09.10.2014):"..Greek Cypriots cannot claim that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots....Although the United States does not recognize it as a state, the TRNC purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary...TRNC is not vulnerable to a lawsuit in Washington". Source.
- 2. (Note that before USA Federal Court kicked Greek Cypriots, European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) already kicked Greek Cypriots and decided that the places that Greek Cypriots left are no more their homes.
- See ECtHR's related decisions ((Tasos Asproftas: [Application no. 16079/90] ve Marianna Petrakidou [Application no. 16081/90])):
- http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"fulltext":["Asproftas"],"documentcollectionid2":["CASELAW"],"itemid":["001-98684"]}
- http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"fulltext":["Petrakidou"],"documentcollectionid2":["CASELAW"],"itemid":["001-98688"]}
Alexyflemming (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Article on agriculture is missing
I would like to point out the missing article on agriculture in cyprus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.212.13.37 (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
References moved from the article
These sources were used to support a sentence in the article, but did not actually contain supporting quotations. I am moving them here for future reference and to prevent any loss of precious effort, and also as they may be required later in the future. --GGT (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- European Consortium for Church-State Research. Conference (2007). Churches and Other Religious Organisations as Legal Persons: Proceedings of the 17th Meeting of the European Consortium for Church and State Research, Höör (Sweden), 17-20 November 2005. Peeters Publishers. p. 50. ISBN 978-90-429-1858-0.
There is little data concerning recognition of the 'legal status' of religions in the occupied territories, since any acts of the 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' are not recognized by either the Republic of Cyprus or the international community.
- Quigley. The Statehood of Palestine. Cambridge University Press. p. 164. ISBN 978-1-139-49124-2.
The international community found this declaration invalid, on the ground that Turkey had occupied territory belonging to Cyprus and that the putative state was therefore an infringement on Cypriot sovereignty.
- Nathalie Tocci (January 2004). EU Accession Dynamics and Conflict Resolution: Catalysing Peace Or Consolidating Partition in Cyprus?. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-7546-4310-4.
The occupied territory included 70 percent of the island's economic potential with over 50 percent of the industrial ... In addition, since partition Turkey encouraged mainland immigration to northern Cyprus. ... The international community, excluding Turkey, condemned the unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) as a.
- Dr Anders Wivel; Robert Steinmetz (28 March 2013). Small States in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-4094-9958-9.
To this day, it remains unrecognised by the international community, except by Turkey
- Peter Neville (22 March 2013). Historical Dictionary of British Foreign Policy. Scarecrow Press. p. 293. ISBN 978-0-8108-7371-1.
...Ecevit ordered the army to occupy the Turkish area on 20 July 1974. It became the Republic of Northern Cyprus, but Britain, like the rest of the international community, except Turkey, refused to extend diplomatic recognition to the enclave. British efforts to secure Turkey's removal from its surrogate territory after 1974 failed.
- The removed references support the following sentence:
The international community considers the northern part of the island as territory of the Republic of Cyprus illegally occupied by Turkish forces.
- I think these references, as shown by the quotes, clearly support this sentence. Therefore, I have reinstated them. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I apparently got quite stuck on the fact that they do not support the word "illegally" - after working on Cyprus-related articles for some time, one just starts taking "considered as occupied territory" as a basic fact that does not require five citations. Thanks for your improvement there and sorry to take your time! I guess I should take a break after work at times :) --GGT (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- The removed references support the following sentence:
- By the way, thanks for your constructive approach there, I truly appreciate it. A few little things: I cannot see how the word "landing" masks POV. The word "landing" does not automatically legitimize an action or vice versa, as is the case with the word "invasion" (in parallel to the Invasion of Normandy and the Normandy landings). I would say that calling what happened on 20 July a territorial invasion would be too misleading for the introduction, since it was merely a landing and a battle with rather insignificant occupation of territory. Of course, its general appellation should be reflected, but I think that is conveyed strongly enough by saying "invading present-day Northern Cyprus a month later" or something along those lines. Maybe it would be OK to say "the landing of Turkish troops on the northern shore and the beginning of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, which led to the capture of the present-day territory of Northern Cyprus a month later..." or something like that?
- I also fail to see how "in response to", a statement supported by multiple reliable sources is POV. It does not necessarily exclude the historical background of the event all the way back to taksim. We could say that Austria-Hungary declared what would be the First World War in response to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria without any implication of omission of long-term causes of the war. --GGT (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I believe I'm the one who introduced the term "landing"; I concur with GGT. The purpose was to make the distinction between: the inconclusive initial invasion; the ceasefire that was brokered; and the August offensive, which established the present-day border. Alakzi (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I personally think that an invasion is an invasion. The early moments of an invasion are still part of the invasion. Having said that, I think that "landing" is ok as long as it is made clear that it was an invasion that was going on, at the early stages or whatever stage. As far as "in response to", I think the term "precipitated", which is cited, is more apt, because it invokes the pre-existing conflict, which is historically more relevant, rather than a simple reaction which "response" denotes. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I can't speak for GGT, but I wasn't attempting to refute that it was an invasion. I agree with "precipitated". Alakzi (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Alakzi, perhaps I need to brush up on my disclaimers. At no time I meant to imply that you or GGT were attempting to refute or even obscure the invasion and I am sorry if it came out that way. In fact, that is why I said above that using the word "landing" is ok as long as the context is clear that an invasion was going on. I haven't checked your edit, neither do I care to, because I know it was perfectly fine. GGT's proposal which ties the landing with the invasion is also ok with me. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I can't speak for GGT, but I wasn't attempting to refute that it was an invasion. I agree with "precipitated". Alakzi (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I personally think that an invasion is an invasion. The early moments of an invasion are still part of the invasion. Having said that, I think that "landing" is ok as long as it is made clear that it was an invasion that was going on, at the early stages or whatever stage. As far as "in response to", I think the term "precipitated", which is cited, is more apt, because it invokes the pre-existing conflict, which is historically more relevant, rather than a simple reaction which "response" denotes. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I believe I'm the one who introduced the term "landing"; I concur with GGT. The purpose was to make the distinction between: the inconclusive initial invasion; the ceasefire that was brokered; and the August offensive, which established the present-day border. Alakzi (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have edited the article in accordance with the proposal above. Please feel free to paraphrase it in any way. --GGT (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The latest edits are not ok with me. "This action precipitated" is highly POV, as this wording essentially casts Turkey as having no choice but to invade and is thus an attempt at justifying the invasion. This is "blaming the victim" and is unacceptable. As we all know, and three high quality sources back this up (and were subsequently removed from the article), invasion and partition were turkish objectives since even before independence. Far preferable to just say "Five days later, Turkey invaded the island...". Linking the coup to the invasion is POV, and if we are going to do that, then we should mention that invasion and partition were premeditated by the turkish side since the 50s [1]. There is also too much detail for the lede. There is no need to distinguish between the first and second invasions in the lede. If we are going to go into this level of detail, then we should also mention that the turkish invasion occurred after the coup failed and the restoration of constitutional order. My preference is to keep the lede as simple as possible and go into more detail in the body text. "Fell through" is also a colloquialism that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Athenean (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't see how "precipitated" is POV. As I explained above, "precipitated" means that the events acted as a catalyst for Turkey's actions. These actions were planned long before the Greek coup and the coup "precipitated" those actions, which happens to be historically accurate. However, you can propose an alternative if you disagree, especially since the disagreement seems to be strong. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ceasefires don't "fail"; we might say that it collapsed - if "fall through" is deemed colloquial - or that it was breached, if one side is said to be at fault in the literature. Alakzi (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
A matter of pictures
Athenean, could you please explain your reasons for the continued removal of a valuable photo from 1963 within the bounds of civility? I cannot see any explanation on why it is considered to be irrelevant, or what calls for its removal. A comparison with a photo of Greek Cypriot POWs in 1974, which is very valuable but cannot be used here for copyright purposes, is simply not acceptable grounds. --GGT (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Very simply, the article suffers from too many pictures as it is, and this particular one adds absolutely nothing to the article. Athenean (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would personally say that the number of pictures in the article is not disturbing, not least the history section, which is the one that is least packed by pictures (in comparison to the culture and demographics sections, of course). I would say that the photo certainly adds much to the section. The events of 1963-64 are discussed in detail in the article, and the resulting displacement and civilian loss is elaborated upon. Given this, I do not see how actually illustrating this displacement and civilian loss, which was a crucial point in the island's modern history, adds nothing to the article. It is akin to illustrating the British takeover of the island with the hoisting of the flag. Certainly, it adds much more than the photo of the 1931 demonstrations, which is not even briefly discussed in the article (indeed, the Greek Cypriot struggle for enosis appears to be largely missing). Again, the photo of the summit of the foreign ministers is completely unrelated to the history of the island (it is more about foreign relations and thus fit for the politics section), but remains there. I do not doubt your good intentions even though I do not agree with their validity, but even if they were valid, the choice of this photo to be removed seems like a rather odd one to me. --GGT (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- There is a fundamental imbalance here. We are showing the readers of this article turkish victims of the violence, but not Greek victims. This is probably fine as far as you are concerned, but it is a violation of NPOV. As we all know, a picture is worth a thousand words. Therefore, since you feel that such pictures actually add something to the article, we should re-add the picture of the Greek Cypriot POWs. Either both pics, or none. You can't have it both ways. And please don't waste everyone's time, including yours, with wikilawyering about "fair use". The POW pic does fall under fair use, as it "certainly adds much to the section. The events of 1974 are discussed in detail in the article, and the missing 1,500 Greek Cypriots are elaborated upon in the article. Given this, I do not see how actually illustrating the missing from the invasion, which was a crucial point in the island's modern history, does not add anything to the article", to use your own words so to speak. Athenean (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- The uploader claimed the photo to be his own on Commons, which is quite doubtful. It's been - quite rightly - removed from the article by Alexikoua, so this argument is now moot (doubtless, Athenean will correct me on my colloquial use of "moot" ;-)). Alakzi (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- The uploader Hasmens also happens to be indef-blocked for serial copyvios and the image search from tineye.com has yielded sites where the image may have been copied from. I'll inform Diannaa. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've nominated the file for deletion on Commons, but I would say that it may as well be deleted speedily. --GGT (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Great work GGT. I tend to avoid Commons, after they tried to call my factory-certified and reputable-jeweler-bought Rolex a fake, so your work came right on time for me to avoid bothering Diannaa. I was typing a message to her but I stopped after I saw your comment. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've nominated the file for deletion on Commons, but I would say that it may as well be deleted speedily. --GGT (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- The uploader Hasmens also happens to be indef-blocked for serial copyvios and the image search from tineye.com has yielded sites where the image may have been copied from. I'll inform Diannaa. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Culture of Cyprus
There are a lot in common in the cultures of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, despite what the article is saying.Ron1978 (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)
Report by UNSG
The quote from the report of the Secretary General that blames Turkish Cypriots alone for a lack of cooperation appears to me as an obvious example of cherry picking. Firstly, the source is a report by the Republic of Cyprus. It appears that this quote has been used over and over by the Republic of Cyprus in several publications and debates, but there is no evidence of independent, reliable, unbiased sources using it or in any way agreeing with its implications to describe the political situation in Cyprus in the 1960s.
This in the report in this question. Note that in the source, the quote has been made without any further remarks regarding its circumstance. The report is clearly accusatory against both sides, at places it accuses the Republic of Cyprus of undertaking activities that are deemed provocative by the Turkish Cypriots. To quote further down in the very same section: "Short of a
further change in outlook on the part of the Government
and of the Turkish Cypriot leadership, or of substantial
progress toward a political settlement, there is little
likelihood that a return to normal conditions in the
administrative, judicial, economic and related fields can
be brought much closer in the immediate future."
"The Turkish Cypriot population has continued
to be subject to hardships of various kinds, some of them
onerous. These include restrictions on the freedom of
movement of civilians, economic restrictions, the availability
of some essential public services, and the
sufferings of refugees."
Such an important issue should not have to be evidenced by one quotation only anyway, especially in a country article, with should be in a summary style. The report by Republic of Cyprus that we use in order to cite the quotation is a primary source, which, at the best of the times, is not preferable to use, and the fact that it is one of the parties of the conflict that actually wrote the report completely nullifies its suitability as a source. Quoting an article from the report: "Turkey, in furtherance to its designs, based on territorial aggrandisement, instigated the Turkish Cypriot leadership to resort to insurrection against the state, thus forcing the Turkish Cypriot members of the executive, legislature, judiciary and the civil service to withdraw from their posts, and created military enclaves in Nicosia and other parts of the island." - seems to be a usual piece of propaganda in the Cypriot mutiny vs genocide attempt debate.
Of course, the quotation in question is indeed from a report by the UN Secretary General. But what we should be doing, IMHO, is sifting through reliable secondary sources that have well-balanced accounts and writing as accurately as possible. This is quite the opposite; the Republic of Cyprus has sifted through numerous reports by the Secretary General in the 1960s, found a single quotation that puts the blame perfectly on the Turkish Cypriot side from a long report placing blame and responsibility on both sides, and manipulatively used it as a tool to demonstrate that Turkish Cypriots segregated themselves. By reproducing this, the obvious implication is that the Turkish Cypriots segregated themselves in the 1960s with no obstruction whatsoever in the Greek Cypriot side, which runs counter to the mainstream unbiased literature on the subject e.g. James Ker-Lindsay.
As such, I am removing the quotation from the article, and apologizing to Dr.K. to not expressing myself clearly and justifying my assertion of cherry picking when removing the quotation. I would more than welcome if such a claim is supplanted by academic, independent resources and re-added to the article, but still find the inclusion of such a long quote in a country article inappropriate due to a lack of precedents in high-quality country articles. --GGT (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Enosis and taksim
Firstly, I kindly request all historical claims below to be sourced by WP:RS for a healthy discussion. [inappropriate message removed by author]
I propose that the point of the debate, the sentence about enosis and taksim, be written as follows, at least as an intermediate solution while the discussion is in progress:
In the 1950s, taksim (partition) was pursued by Turkish Cypriots and enosis (union with Greece) by Greek Cypriots, and supported by Turkey and Greece respectively.
or that we simply revert back to this version, which is perfectly acceptable:
The partition of Cyprus and creation of a Turkish state in the north became a policy of Turkey and Turkish Cypriot leaders in the 1950s; while since the 19th century,[11][12] the Greek Cypriot population and its Orthodox church had been pursuing union with Greece, which became a Greek national policy in the 1950s.
Dr.K., I believe that I have not made myself clear. Does Ozkan explicitly state that Turkish Cypriot leaders actively pursued outright annexation to Turkey? Currently, the article only states that this was the view of Menderes, and as such, the claim that Turkish Cypriot leaders turned to taksim after advocating annexation ("a policy of Turkish Cypriot leaders and Turkey in the 1950s, after a brief period of advocating annexation of Cyprus to Turkey") stands unsourced. Moreover, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, and there is no justification for the current state where a claim not elaborated upon in the article is in the lead.
Enosis and taksim are both policies with many background aspects. To reduce taksim to a product of Turkish irredentism in the lead, while not talking about Megali Idea, seems like an obvious WP:UNDUE to me. Dr.K., apologies that I was not quick enough with my recent additions, they edit conflicted with your last revert. The idea that Turkey briefly advocated outright annexation is obviously correct and deserves elaboration in the history section, but this policy is not really elaborated upon in the books of usual sources for the Cyprus dispute: Ker-Lindsay, Hoffmeister, Mirbagheri, Trimikliniotis, Papadakis, Faustmann, Isachenko. The fact that such crucial literature fails to describe the relevance of this idea is an indication that this brief policy did not have lasting effects on the Cyprus dispute and is too much detail for the lead, especially if Megali Idea, an idea whose importance is supported by Ker-Lindsay, Mirbagheri and more, is dismissed as insufficient. After all, the Church of Cyprus indeed had the pursuit of Megali Idea in mind (per the article) while supporting EOKA, while Turkey never really went after outright annexation, but instead focused on getting the northern third for herself.
Giving so much attention to this detail also requires that the initial pro-British policy of the Turkish Cypriots, which is again supported by the aforementioned sources and actually had relevance in reality in the 1950s, and the idea of self-determination and Crete syndrome being mentioned in the lead. The self-determination idea also applies for enosis. If enosis is too complex for merely Megali Idea to be mentioned in the lead, so is enosis for only Turkish irredentism to be mentioned.
--GGT (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- First can you please remove your preemptive warning about personal attacks? I don't think warning fellow editors this way is part of AGF and makes discussion uncomfortable. Second, you have no reason to warn me because I have never attacked you personally. Somehow I cannot access Ozkan's text so I cannot verify what he writes on page 199 at the moment. But the fact that Menders advocated "reunification" with the motherland is rather certain. Also quote from Ozcan: "Upon realising the fact that the Turkish Cypriot population was only 20% of the islanders made annexation unfeasible, the national policy was changed to favour partition." That means that the national policy was annexation or reunification prior to that realisation. That the other sources do not elaborate on it is not really an argument that it was not an important factor influencing the Turkish attitudes toward Cyprus. Megali idea, the influence of Crete etc. are peripheral issues which will hopelessly clutter the intro with pointy detail. The main factors here are taksim and enosis while their associated influences are secondary. We don't have to make the lead a mess of historical details, at least not more of a mess than it already is. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I apologize if my message created such a misconception, I have always valued your constructive and kind approach and by no means have ever thought or implied that you engaged in personal attacks.
- I do not see how an argument is established or supported that Megali Idea, Crete and self-determination were peripheral issues. This especially holds true for self-determination, any ideological discourse on taksim or enosis will make extensive elaboration on how they are justified by the right to self-determination ("Mücadelemizin Görkemli Günleri" by Fazıl Küçük talks at length about this, as well as Crete). The sources in the article also establish a clear causal relationship between the aforementioned factors and the Turkish Cypriot policy of taksim, I do not see how the initial Turkish policy being aimed at outright annexation imply that these are peripheral issues that do not merit equal weight, or why the source by Ozkan is preferred over other literature in terms of the importance of background details.
- While we have a myriad of sources establishing an initial T/C support for Britain and that taksim was adopted in response to enosis (emphatically by T/Cs alone, no denial of Turkish expansionism), I am not adding these currently to prevent a citation overload. If requested, I am more than happy to provide a number of sources. Given this, I do not see how the pro-British policy of the Turkish Cypriots is less important than a brief policy by Turkey.
- The national policy of Turkey is not synonymous with the communal policy of Turkish Cypriots, the two are completely different things in meaning. The quote by no means implies that Turkish Cypriot leaders advocated outright annexation, and such an assertion requires the assumption of a puppet relationship between Turkey and T/C leaders, which is I believe WP:OR. I am afraid that the claim still currently stands unsourced.
- --GGT (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, Dr.K., would you object to just a mention of both policies with no other implications as in my first proposal, which helps keep the lead concise? --GGT (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
(unindent) The original version "The partition of Cyprus..." is fine with me, as long as we make it clear the Greek Cypriots were the majority population. Athenean (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Athenean isn't it stated in the demographics section? kazekagetr 20:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your constructive approaches, I have made the edit along the lines of my second proposal, only additionally clarifying that the Greek Cypriots were a majority. --GGT (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- After seeing your edit, I think it was better the way it was. No need to remove information. Athenean (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- The "information" that was removed was unsourced to begin with. Turkey did have a policy of outright annexation for some time, but the source by no means supports that the Turkish Cypriots did and it in fact contradicts the information in the article regarding the T/C leadership. T/Cs did chant "Cyprus is Turkish" as a matter of fact but that does not imply a policy of annexation. In case of a reversal I will tag the statement accordingly.
- I also believe that the way it was constituted a case of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Even if the information was true and was perfectly sourced, the lead is not supposed to contain all correct information, it is supposed to be a summary. The article United States does not elaborate on the disputes between the British and the American in the lead for example, but just mentions that there were disputes, so I cannot comprehend why the same would be opposed in the case of Cyprus. And if there is background for enosis, then there should be background for taksim as well, and the neutrality of the previous version was thus disputable IMHO.
- If no compromise or consensus is reached, I believe that while having an RfC, we should revert back to the stable version concerning the statement about taksim and enosis, which was before the edits of the last month. That implies the complete removal of the statement.
- --GGT (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)