Talk:Northern Cyprus: Difference between revisions

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

Comments

Rename?

There have been a few attempts to compare this article with those of South Ossetia and the like. However, a significant difference is overlooked - the article of South Ossetia is not at Republic of South Ossetia, the article on Nagorno-Karabakh is not at Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the article on Transnistria is not at Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic and so on. The only exception to this practice seems to be the Republic of China for the obvious reason that the short form of that title - China - is already taken (the short form is not Taiwan in case you are thinking of claiming that: the ROC claims a much larger territory than just Taiwan and even administrates more than just Taiwan; see the relevant article) - although I think it may be misleading to compare the ROC with "TRNC" and any of the above. I think that this article should be renamed to Northern Cyprus, it's something a Google test definitely supports [1][2]. Given that Khoi & co. like drawing comparisons with Abkhazia (note, not Abkhaz Republic), this should be right up their street.--Euthymios 08:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case, you should know that the most blatant reason why this article is titled TRNC is because of the very reason ROC is named as such, as you pointed out: The name Cyprus is taken. Therefore the title has to be clear enough to leave no space for any ambiguity. This is not at all similar to South Ossetia: The country laying claims to South Ossetia is not named "Ossetia", and, as such, there is not much room for ambiguity when the article is named "South Ossetia". However if the subject matter at hand was named "North Georgia", it would have been named "Ossetian Republic of North Georgia". So that sort of analogy is not valid for simple ambiguity reasons.. Baristarim 10:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse the name is taken. Cyprus is an island nation. Turkeys illegal puppet regime or in turkish POV "TRNC" should be under Cyprus and not as a separate article. Or if the need of a separate article exist the name should not be what it is now. I am pasting Teklenis argument above that seems to fall in place: "All the articles on de facto "states" on Wikipedia do not use the full name. We have Nagorno-Karabakh, not Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, we have South Ossetia, not Republic of South Ossetia, we have Transnistria, not Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic, etc. The only reason that the article on the republican Chinese government is at Republic of China and not China (the short form of the former) is because the China article is already taken. Taiwan, is the name of an island - it has nothing to do with anyone's perception of the claimed "statehood". Not to mention that the Taipei regime also governs on a de facto basis several other island, so "Taiwan" in itself is inaccurate". Aristovoul0s 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The same thing for Nagorno-Karabakh: If the subject matter was named "Western Azerbaijan", it would not have been simply labelled as such, but rather "Armenian Republic of Western Azerbaijan". It is always on a case by case basis to ensure that there is no room for ambiguity. That's all.. Baristarim 10:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Northern Cyprus" sounds more neutral and less biased. --Mardavich 10:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Biased towards what exactly? Is Republic of China also not biased in that case? The most blatant reason why it is titled TRNC is what I mentioned above.. Feel free to talk about the political status of the TRNC in the intro/body of the article however.. Baristarim 10:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus is not taken, it is a redirect; which makes your "argument" moot (ROC claims to be "China", "TRNC" does not claim to be "Cyprus" but only "north Cyprus"). Nagorno-Karabakh is not at Nagorno-Karabakh Republic - per the KISS principle, the most common name should be used and here we have the added benefit that it is shorter (and easier to enter into the address bar).--Euthymios 10:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I said that Cyprus was taken. Since the "other-side" carries the name as the party laying claims to it, there needs to be ample disambiguation: Nagorno-Karabakh doesn't include any reference to Azerbaijan in its name, nor does South Ossetia to Georgia.. Had South Ossetia been named North Georgia, the article would have been titled "Ossetian Republic of North Georgia". And for the argument about shorter name and all. I see your point, and, believe me, many Turkish Cypriots are not happy with such a long name either, but it's one of these things in life that we have to live with. :)) Baristarim 10:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, when I meant "taken", I meant it is "taken" in the real world, not in Wikipedia. :) Baristarim 10:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What does Cyprus have to do with anything? Short form of TRNC is not Cyprus, but northern Cyprus - the "northern" is more than sufficient disambiguation. It is physically impossible to move Republic of China to China because there is another article (not country claiming that name) already there - there is nothing at Northern Cyprus.--Euthymios 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, speaking of Turkish Cypriots, they don't want "TRNC" to exist at all - they favor reunification. Only Turkish chauvinists want "TRNC" to exist so as to have another entry in the so-called "Turkic states" family. Reunited Cyprus will essentially be Greek state with Turkish ethnic minority of 18% (smaller than in western Thrace where they are 29% (0.98% in all Greece) and smaller than the Kurds in Turkey who are 20% according to the The World Factbook - note the hypocrisy of the Turkish government in this area: only Turkish Cypriots have the right to self-determination, the much larger Kurdish community in Turkey does not).--Euthymios 11:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Whow, whow.. I really don't care what the Turkish Cypriots decide to with their future.. They can join Turkey, Cyprus or become independent - I really don't care either way, as long as that is what they want. I am not interested in dictating anyone what they should or shouldn't do with their lives. Secundo, funny that you should mention the referendum.. EXACTLY: It is the Turkish Cypriots that have been in favor of a lasting UN-approved peace, unlike decades of demonization of their intentions: Interesting side-note. Did you read what I wrote about the referendum in the section right before this one?? With this referendum, the south has "lost its right to sovereignty" over the north. That's a legal concept by the way. It was a UN approved referendum (As I pointed out earlier, UN is the epitome of intl law, and unless God himself is going to come in and decide for us, we will have to make do with it) and the rejection by the south clearly implies that it is the south that doesn't want the north. Well, in that case, the north has to find itself a stable situation sooner or later now, doesn't it? What I find really laughable is the hypocrisy of Papadapoulos: he campaigned for rejection, but he wants reunification now? What the hell was the referendum about then? As for any criticism of the referendum, see my comments about the UN and it being the best thing we have, even though it is not perfect like God, for example. North is no longer "illegal" under any standards, it has "unclear status", just like Kosovo. It is as simple as that, the "legality" of the invasion is a different issue than the current "legality" of the political structure in the north. The "non-recognition" doesn't imply in itself a "recognition of illegality", being mute is all that it is. And please don't steer the subject to different areas like Kurds in Turkey.. They have their respective talk pages, this is already a heated talk page by itself, so let's not add to needless tension.. :)) Baristarim 11:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Which propaganda magazine did you read all that it? A pan-island referendum with both ethnic communities had what effect exactly? You sure are funny - you can speculate all you want if it makes you feel better, but don't get upset when you wake up and realize that Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and everyone else are still recognizing the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the north.--Euthymios 11:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please calm. This is another speculation that all those countries recognize Republic of Cyprus. Please consider that all countries recognize the defacto situation of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.Please dont play with words.Regards.Must^TC 11:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Nhahahaha... It had a very important effect since the vote tallies were calculated seperately in two different territories, instead of getting one combined vote tally - in law, such differences are fundamental. As for the recognition by others: Primo, Kosovo nor Taiwan is recognized by other states either. And secundo, the only reason that those countries don't recognize TRNC is because of Turkey's accession process with the EU; Had Turkey been in the EU before the referendum, believe me, TRNC would have been recognized long ago, and hence the current political situation.. It doesn't take rocket science to see this.. :)) I talked about this in my previous post in the section above. And don't get upset when, one day, when you wake up and realize that TRNC has become so different from the south that it will never go back to the situation pre-1974, especially since it was the south that rejected a UN-APPROVED referendum (see again my comments about the UN being the epitome of intl law).. Right? :)) Baristarim 12:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about Baris??? The referendum was calculated differently for the two communities of the Republic of Cyprus NOT for two territories. Stop bending it like Beckham. Had Turkey been in the EU before the referendum you have no idea why the referendum took place do you? The one community of the two; the majority might i add; rejected a plan. The plan gave the option either to reject or accept a plan, for it was a suggestion by Annan. What is the essense of a vote if people can vote only in one way? Imagine now with the blessings of the USA, Kurds get a referendum for a federation with the Turkish republic instead of their demand providing for a veto vote in Turkey, and 50-50 representation. Will the turks vote yes or no to a such referendum? Aristovoul0s 17:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what a pity Mehmet Ali Talat doesn't agree with you - he wants reunification. Refer back to my previous post about the purpose of TRNC; feeding Turkish nationalism, you are proving my point live :-) Comparing "TRNC" to Kosovo or ROC is wishful thinking and you know it; in a few years, the Turkish occupation force will be more numerous that the civilians it is purportedly defending as such a large number of them will have immigrated. As for the UN approved referendum, its rejection on the basis of unproportionality (WTF? An ethnic minority of 18% having 50% of judicial positions or something like that!) had no effect whatsoever on the legal status of the separatist regime and no UN official or anyone else outside of Turkey has made any representation to that effect (I wonder why). Finally about Turkey in the EU? You'll have a long wait, see the links I posted here (especially the second one). If Turkey wants to join the EU, they'll have to fulfil certain treaty obligations with regards to the Rep. of Cyprus. As you like speculation, I wonder what effect those if implemented will have on the legal status of the separatist regime :-)))) --Euthymios 12:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, Mustafa, what a ghastly signature!--Euthymios 12:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Must is abbreviation of Mustafa. What feelings you have with my abb. Is possible to open a voting for my sign in TfS page also?.Is it prerequisition for membership of EU also?. Regards.Must^TC 17:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not engage in personal attacks Baristarim 01:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Many prerequisites for EU accession Mustafa? Initially i thought the Crescent would devour all the stars and not the other way round... or should we wait and see??.... Aristovoul0s 17:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you been reading my posts? I said I really don't care if TRNC joins Cyprus, Turkey or become independent, as long as that's what they want. I don't know who has been whispering to your ears that I am a Pan-Turkist or something, but please keep it cool and stop trollish comments. You really have no idea about me I suppose, so stop saying things like "you'll have a long wait".. I am not going to have a long wait, I already have three passports, so I ain't going to be waiting for no-one.. You should have said "Turkey will have a long wait" - don't make this personal. I don't even want to get into a discussion about the accession process (not that I can't), but I really don't want to go around in circles... Lastly, the reasons for which people voted against the referendum are not relevant, the end result was that it was rejected.. As simple as that.. Such 50-50 power-sharing arrangements exist in many bilingual countries, such as Belgium: The Flemish are much richer, but the Wallon have the same say in govt as they do. It is always a case by case basis. If you want the truth, it is just a question of power actually.. It is as simple as that - I am not saying this to take a particular position on how we got here, but history of human civilization shows us that things are not always so clear-cut as saying "TRNC is illegal". And thus my comment about how Turkey being in the EU before 2004 would have been relevant. Baristarim 01:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, except that the Walloons are close to half the population of Belgium. On the other hand, The Turkish Cypriots, and by that I mean those who did not come from Turkey as colonists after 1974, form barely ten per cent of the current population. A solution whereby the vote of a single Turkish Cypriot will be worth those of 8 or more Greek Cypriots is simply not workable in the long term. The rights of the minority Turkish Cypriots cannot take precedence over the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus and the citizens' right to have a functioning government. Even countries with extreme devolution like Spain do not give their minorities a veto over the authority of the central government.…·ΚέκρωΨ·… 13:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Very true - however the minorities in Spain dont have the History the the TC's have. If they'd have been subjected to the same persecution then perhaps that would be different. Adam777 21:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, they aren't quite analogous; minorities in Spain were subjected to much more severe persecution over a much longer period of time, more akin to the centuries-old oppression of the Greek Cypriots by the Turks during the Ottoman period. The Turkish Cypriots may like to present themselves as the perpetual victims, but things are never quite that simple. They were always dominant in Cypriot society until the Brits left. They then lost their dominant status to the newly-emancipated majority and interpreted that as persecution. They would've much preferred things to have continued as before, no doubt. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, you are perfectly correct. Because of oppression under the Ottoman empire the GCs had the perfect right to begin murdering women and kids (Im guessing you werent the debating team captain at 'Nationalistic Hatred University'). So when do we see the GCs start to murder British people in London in return for the years of British oppression...as that is the logical extension of your argument. Their 'status' wasnt what was seen as oppression..it was the killings that you revionists pretend never happened that did that. You may have been succesful in re-writing history inside Greece but the rest of the world...now thats a different story. As long as you keep insisting that the Greeks never did ANY wrong then your comments are laugable. (now its your turn to come back with the tit-for-tat arguments that five year olds use (well HEEEEEEEEEEEEE did it toooooooo). Adam777 13:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So why bother even responding to my posts if you've already decided that I'm a murderous hate-filled nationalist? Spare us the melodrama, please. All I'm saying is that other minorities have also suffered but that doesn't give them the automatic right to hijack the political process of the state they live in. You obviously believe the Turkish Cypriots deserve special treatment; I say they are a minority like any other, and their demand for political equality with the Greek Cypriots is unfair, unbalanced, and ultimately unworkable in the long run. That is why the Annan Plan failed, and why any similar proposal will have the same fate. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Im sure in those months and years leading up to the events of 74 the only thoughts on the TCs minds were 'Hmmm how do we hijack the political process'. They opbviously werent concered about the conditions in the enclaves that the UN described as inhuman or that irritating chance of being killed. Now of course Im familiar with the opinion that the TCs WANTED to go into the enclaves and live like refugees for the purpose of takism but I have an IQ higer than 4 so I dont buy that. If you want a united Cyprus under those terms you had better find a way to convince the TCs that you arent going to start killing them again (oh thats right they were all commiting suicide werent they). You have to earn their trust and frankly the ROC has done nothing on that score. You just arent going to be able to turn the clock back to January 1974, no matter how much you might want the target practice. Adam777 17:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we're all bloodthirsty savages whose only concern in life is to shoot Turks for fun. Well done. How inconvenient it must be for you then that the number of Greeks killed and displaced in the conflict is far above any number you can cough up for the Turkish side. But only the suffering of the Turks matters, of course, and it is only their trust that needs to be earnt. How silly of me to think otherwise. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Giving equal representation of an ethnic minority of 18% with the rest of the population is simply not feasible, not possible nor desirable in a democratic society. The actual TC population is even less, although in my opinion, the Turkish colonizers could be permitted to remain on the island providing the original Turkish Cypriots don't have a problem with that; I hear they fear turkification and can't even understand the Turkish language as it is spoken in Turkey and by the settlers from Turkey [3]. In my opinion, self-determination should apply to all peoples - if an 18% of the population of a country can claim 38% of that country's territory etc, then the Kurds in Turkey (who make up 20% of the population according to The World Factbook and have suffered worse and longer repression than the TCs) should be entitled to claim 42% of the territory of the Republic of Turkey, ethnically cleanse the non-Kurdish population as Turkey did to the Greek Cypriots, declare independence and then claim a 50/50 power share for reunification. Why do Turks (note, not the Turkish Cypriots who favor reunification) want an independent TRNC? It would only set a dangerous precedent (from their point of view).--Euthymios 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Some very good points. However the situation on the ground is a reality and how the Kurds in Turkey or the Basques in Spain or any other minority in similar situations differ is that they dont have a soverign nation that went to war supposedly for their interests. We could argue what 'should' happen and draw all manner of comparisons but the reality is that there are some 40,000 Turkish troops in Cyprus and the ROC's refusal to deal with the issue in any other way except completley on their terms isnt going to re-unify Cyprus. YOu could ask yourself if the ROC really want reunification but thats another debate. There simply isnt going to be a 'turn back the clock' solution. If you read the papers the EU and the US are tiring of the ROCs inflexible stance but until they have a vested interest in the issue they are content to let it simmer away in a corner unheeded. As galling as it must be to people who suffered from the 74 invasion a compromise will have to be met, and the ROC is showing no sign that it will do so. Its a stalemate and will continue to be until the issue becomes part of a wider problem. Turkey is showing signs that it has gained all it wants from EU access and may not even care about joining the union, Cyprus wants access to Turkish ports and the US and UK love the fact the island is mere miles from Lebanon. The only thing that will happen if a stalemate continues for another 32 years is that CYprus will somehow become more of a strategic need for the EU/US than it currently is and when that happens the TRNC will have a huge barginning chip. A two part federal solution with adequate financial compensation for the property owners and the re-patritization of many of the settlers is how I suspect a solution will come about. One thing is for sure, it will never be a whoe ROC with the TCs as a minority with little say ever again, and for that you can blame the Greek leaders of the past (and others) who brought this upon themselves. Adam777 20:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So what you're calling for in effect is the legitimisation of the Turkish invasion and occupation, deemed illegal by everyone except the Turks. Your message is clear: only minorities with powerful foreign allies are worthy of such special treatment. I suppose you would also welcome Turkish "intervention" on behalf of any of the other "oppressed" minorities living on territories coveted by the Turks: Western Thrace, Bulgaria, Iraq, etc. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeking a settlement (a REAL settlement not just Greek chest beating) is my point. The reason the UN and EU hasnt revisted the issue in any meaningful way before the Annan plan is that Cyprus doesnt matter much in the big picture of World affairs. You can scream about 1974 all you want, the world remembers the years from 1963 onwards and sees your hypocrisy. Cyprus brought partition on her own head by her actions and the world just doesnt care. My message is that here, in REALITY, minorities that have ALREADY TAKEN a slice out of the ROC and have been administering it for three decades do get special barganing powers. They TOOK THEM at the barrel of a gun. If you had oil it would be different, more of a Kuwait/Iraq scenario, you could have counted on the world then, but you dont have huge oil reserves do you. So if all you want is cyprus as it was in 1973 then you wont get it. Do you HONESTLY think the TCs are going to go back to that, oppression and persecution. You wouldnt do it so why should they. At the end of the day if you hadnt tried to kill them all then none of this would have happened - and the world knows that as well. Adam777 18:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words, the Turks should be rewarded for their violent thuggery, while the Greek Cypriots should be punished for lacking oil reserves. I think I get it now; thanks for clearing it up for me. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but all this is waaaaay off-topic. There's a twisted notion of cause/effect that is not recognized by anyone else apart from the oppressor. I'm adding fact tags in your comments to show you what I mean. Feel free to cite by WP:INDY sources, and respond in a new section below. Thank you. NikoSilver 15:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Cause & Effect, yes that is indeed what is in effect. I'm not going to waste time trying to reason with the unreasonable (hence why I dont edit cypriot articles and I wont address those citation needed tags, you can all deny what you want) but when people sound off and 'pretend' that there was NO Greek oppression towards the TCs during the 63-74 period then they are denying reality.....and you know thats true. fancy words dont wash the blood away. But you are correct this isnt the place.Adam777 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

After also saying that this isnt the place, I am leaving my comment:)... The world does not only remember the years from 1963 onwards, but also from 1955 onwards... If "causes and effects" are gonna be deemed as hypocritic, then, i guess will begin talking about hypocrisy (not from the Greeks' side) since 1071... Hectorian 22:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, and utterly off-topic: the Walloons currently form about one third of the total Belgian population. There are just under 3.4 million Walloons, against 6.2 million Flemish, although the numbers may vary slightly with different interpretations. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I meant the French Community of Belgium, which forms 42% of the population. My apologies for equating the two. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

To Adam777: I am sorry, probably you misunderstood. I am not denying such possibility. I am denying the recognition of this cause (oppression) to that effect (invasion) by independent sources. Even if we present facts about such oppression towards, TC's, you need to find an WP:INDY source that calls them 'adequate reason' (or something). Otherwise it is WP:OR (hence the {{fact}} tags above). NikoSilver 22:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the EOKA-B?

That should be clarified or linked or something --AW 19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Linked. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe it should say "The short-lived coup was carried out by supporters of EOKA-B, a Greek Cypriot nationalist organisation that fought for the expulsion of British troops..." --AW 19:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a little more than I think I can add while the page is protected. Keep it in mind and add it when protection is dropped. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --AW 20:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

NO!!! EOKA fought for the expulsion of the British troops, EOKA B' was behind the 1974 coup; it was the extreme manifestation of the left-right angagonism on the island. It was also quite anti Turkish Cypriot. Politis 19:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The intro reads like... not good

A de facto formed(?) state???!!! I would call this a de facto deformed intro, Indeed (WHAT in the name of... is the "Indeed" doing in the intro?. And this article shoulds always use the term "Legally invalid" instead of "Illegal" because this is the correct UN terminology. This article should also avoid referring to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as opposed to the Republic of Cyprus, and maps that show this should be removed. The correct way would be to say "The Area under Republic of Cyprus control", "The area under Greek Cypriot administration" etc. Globo 02:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

like, it is ... not good, ya know :)) Unless I have been drinking, I think I just saw "the area under RoC control.. Ya know, that's not good either, simply because it is not true :)) Did you want to say "the area not under control of RoC"? "Legally invalid" :)) this is not some sort of contract. It is a "de facto" formed state, that'a physical reality. This has no relation to "it" being "valid" or "legal", something can exist without being neccessarily "legal". In any case, I hope that there will be some sort of compromise sooner or later. Baristarim 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Baris, I think Globo meant Southern part when he said "under control of RoC" (hence the "etc"). Also, yes of course, I agree that something can exist without being neccessarily "legal". I think we don't seem to agree that this illegality (or illegal invalidity) is a trivial issue that doesn't need to be elaborated in the intro. My view is that this is the most notable and important issue about this entity, and since this view happens to match the views of all governments worldwide that won't "recognize" it (apart from the invader itself), plus all major international organizations (including the UN), I think it is POV to remove it. NikoSilver 12:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my bad.. For the intro.. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that its current status must be talked about in the intro. I wasn't around right before this page got protected, so I am just trying to feel my way around this.. But I definitely hear what you mean, the intro has to mention this in a concise way. Any suggestions (from anyone)? Baristarim 08:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss

• Problem that led to the protection of the article: Disputes over the intro to be used (choice of words, definitions and notions, length of the intro...)
• Additional potential dispute: Title of the article

• First of all, what should we mention, and second of all, how long should it be?
• Should we only mention its current status in the intro (it is de facto/de jure seperate/different/self-proclaimed whatever) or also give some background info (there was a coup, Turkey invaded etc) I think the best way to proceed with this would be word by word. Otherwise the page could be a battleground just for the choice of two words for years to come.. Baristarim 05:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. My opinion is that the intro must reflect primarily the contemporary international situation in due weight.

• On the one hand, we have the Turkish position (i.e. 73 million people, many of them non-Turks, but never mind) which is that the entity is legal and that the invasion was a 'peace action' to protect ethnic Turks who's rights were violated, therefore also legal.
• On the other hand, we have the entire rest of the world (6 billion or so), represented by all countries' governments (200 or so), and further represented by all major international organizations (notably UN, EU) that say that both the entity, and the invasion were 'legally invalid', no matter coups, or human rights violations or whatever (and if).

Note that I haven't even included the Greek/Cypriot much firmer position on the issue. Now the population ratio is 82:1, and the country ratio is 200:1. I'm thinking 3% of the intro for the Turkish position is quite generous. What do you say? NikoSilver 16:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I will try to dig up some suggestions or "prototypes" for the intros. I was thinking of looking how BBC or CNN referred to it, since they always give a nice little intro in every article that touches a sensitive subject :)) Let me see what I can come up with. And to everyone above who spent hours discussing who did what and why, as much as I respect your opinions, let's please try to come up with a solution to the problem that led to this article be protected :) Baristarim 08:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think we should be looking on WP:INDY academic works, and preferrably those of encyclopedic nature. That does not mean we have to disregard the news sites you mentioned. We just have to give preminence according to their reliability in due weight. NikoSilver 21:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have a short info, reflecting the position of the international community (remember that this is the english wikipedia). then, in a section named 'Background' (which is the current one) or 'Current status' (or maybe a new section under this name) we could explain in detail the position of the parties involved: Cyprus, TRNC, Turkey, Greece and, maybe, the UK-if we want to stick on international grounds and widely accepted views-as it has co-signed the Treaty of Guarantee-the order in which these views will be presented remains to be determined). Lastly, i would like to draw some attention (again), on the title of the article: most news agencies refer to TRNC as 'Nortehrn Cyprus', or, frequently, as the international community, refer (to the people of it of course) as the 'Turkish Cypriot community'. Correct me if i am wrong, but the usage of a state's full name appears only on state articles where there is a dispute over the name, e.g. PROC, ROC, Republic of Macedonia. since TRNC's sovereighty, legal existance etc, are disputed, having its constitutional name (a constitution noone else considers as valid) is POV. BTW, in similar articles (South Ossetia, Transnistria, etc) the full name appears only in the infobox. Hectorian 22:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Baris mentioned the news sites, here are some recent references:

• BBC UK: "self styled" TRNC, and always referring to RoC as simply Cyprus
• EuroNews "northern Cyprus - the pro-Turkish state that's not recognised by the international community", and always referring to RoC as simply Cyprus
• CNN "breakaway north Cyprus, a Turkish Cypriot enclave whose statehood is recognised only by Ankara." and of course also referring to RoC as simply Cyprus throughout the text.

Again, I have not included the Greek/Cypriot media, that describe the entity as "pseudo-state" (ψευδοκράτος). Please comment. NikoSilver 14:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody seems interested to talk. Taggged. NikoSilver 20:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Garnet your unilateral reversals are frowned upon by the wikipedia community. I have a legitimate concern and rationale about this title. I've cited sources, I've talked. I won't revert you just now, but I think an admin should take action about you immediately. NikoSilver 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Take action about me! What an admin should do is take action against Dirak for violating WP:Point, and you for supporting him. In all the years this article has been here, no one has ever added a pov-title tag. Dirak does it in a childish retalitiaon because i reverted his removal of the pov-title tag (which we all agreed upon) on PGC article. Anyway, this article will get locked again and you and your buddies will have succeeded in ruining another article. Well done. --A.Garnet 20:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Very convincing argumentation on the article name issue. Very WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF too. Garnet check the discussion right above you, right on the other section above that one, and right in the end of the last archive. You'll see you have not talked. Ever. All I see is a very well built case against the present name and you reverting all the time. NikoSilver 20:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm continuing this and responding to the residue of Garnet's PA below (the section started by FPaS). //Dirak 20:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Extremely Ambigous Background section

The start of the background section currently reads: "The TRNC was unilaterally established in 1983 nine years after a Greek Cypriot coup d'état. The short-lived coup was carried out by supporters of EOKA-B with backing from the ruling Greek military junta of 1967 to 1974. The ensuing Turkish invasion of Cyprus established this de facto political entity in Cyprus as a dependency of Turkey. The Turkish military maintain a strong presence in the TRNC to this day. Its immediate predecessor from 1975 to 1983 was the Turkish Federative State of North Cyprus; but the lead up to its establishment started in 1963 with the collapse of the Cypriot community into two antagonistic camps."

Some of that is simply so ambiguos its wrong. Recommendation:

"The TRNC was unilaterally established in 1983, nine years after the short-lived Greek Cypriot coup d'état, which was carried out by the supporters of the Greek-Cypriot EOKA-B organisation, with backing from the ruling military junta in Athens. The Turkish invasion of north Cyprus that followed the coup d'état, established in 1975 the Turkish Federative State of North Cyprus (the predeccesor to the TRNC), in the areas that came under the control of the Turkish forces. From the start, the break-away entity relied entirely on Turkey for its survival. The Turkish military maintain a strong presence in the TRNC to this day. Turkish Cypriot separatism had been evident since inter-communal strife started in 1960." Globo 22:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC); Globo's text re-edited by, Politis 19:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I ask Dipkarpaz and Korucam (2nd paragraph of Background section) to be changed to Rizokarpaso and Kormakitis respectively, Dipkarpaz is a redirect to Rizokarpaso and Korucam doesnt even have a redirect to the actual article, located at Kormakitis. Thanks Globo 06:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the change has already been made, plus the article has been unprotected. Thatcher131 02:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it has. Cute edit summary too. Sorry for assuming all of that was obvious and needn't be mentioned here. NikoSilver 14:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So many warnings :-)

Perhaps one warning about neutrality is enough... no? More important: the article is not very well written and a little confusing and, surely, that is not very fair on the Turkish Cypriots. Politis 20:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Guys, I want this article to be free for actual development of content, therefore I am reluctant to protect it again. Please everybody leave the field to people who are prepared to actually write an article here, as opposed to fighting about symbolisms. This is my last warning to all involved; when I said I'd block whoever restarted revert-warring, I meant it. And no, I'm not necessarily going to wait until you've counted to four. WP:3RR: Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Then the tag must stay (id est no more reverts). The POVness of the title has been discussed here and here and it has yet to be justified. Pretending to be deaf Garnet helps no one... this is a legitimate dispute based on facts and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. //Dirak 20:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have argued with you time and time again why undue weight does not apply to writing about a non-recognised state, especially in the past few days, so i have most certainly not been pretending to be deaf, i simply ignore arguing with people who are not willing to listen. What is your suggestion future? That i will be blocked for reverting someone who violated WP:Point? That the pov-title tag will now be a part of this article because there are more of them to revert than myself? --A.Garnet 21:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not WP:POINT, you can keep repeating that, but it won't become true. Let's deal with the concerns one by one. The turkishness and republicanness of this whatever-it-is are heavily disputed, so lets use the short name which doesn't mention them. It's wikipedia convention to use the short name anyway (I'm comparing with actual states for you this time, not like last time), we don't rename Russia to Russian Federation, United States to United States of America, United Kingdom to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland... everyone agrees that it's northern Cyprus, so let's stick to the common ground (which is also more common in a google test). //Dirak 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(after ec) Leave it on for the moment, I'd say - although I personally don't like it either. But I'd say it's really up to those people who want the tag to show us a way out. We can't have the tag forever. The tag is there to signal to the reader that there is a wish to move the article somewhere else. That makes sense only if there is a realistic chance that the article actually will be moved somewhere else eventually. Sometimes disagreements just deadlock and a status quo remains stable even if one group of editors are seriously unhappy with it. That's life. In such a case, we can't hold the article hostage with demonstrating that unhappiness in all eternity. So, my proposal is: Within the next two weeks, show us a way how you plan to actually garner consensus for an article move. If you don't get it now, you'll probably never get it. In that case, please just move on. And then, at the latest, the tag will go. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Future, i dont understand the sense in this. Despite you and politis showing your dislike, despite the totallydisputed tag, despite the violation of wp:point and the fact that there has never been a consensus for such a tag in all the years this article has been here, you still allow the editors to keep the tag. Surely it is the job of the disputing editors to make their case before they add the tag, and not after. --A.Garnet 22:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am tired of this nonsense of yours. The case has been made time and time again and is waiting reply. Yes, the tag is justified (more than at the genocide article because there is actually discussion here - I'd like to see FP's views applied there); get used to it. Repeating wp:point again and again even after you have been told this is not the case will not get you anywhere. Nor will personal attacks (I'm waiting for you to start calling people "nationalist" and "fascist" again). You are being very uncooperative. //Dirak 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

UN illegal

No one has yet provided any references that the UN considers the 'TRNC' to be 'illegal' (I am not aware of the UN using that term). Therefore, surely that comment has to go. Politis 22:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen the word "illegal", but UN Security Council Resolution 541 (1983) calls it "legally invalid", I don't know if you prefer that... //Dirak 22:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, generally UN's words are very carefully chosen, especially in UN Security Council resolutions. However, legally invalid sounds a bit awkward. Legally invalid means that it is neither legal nor illegal. Nhahahaha :)) So where does that leave us really? Baristarim 16:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer legally invalid it seems to carry more weight. //Dirak 17:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Legally invalid sounds illegal to me. Either way I cited 2 of many UN resolutions that refer to the issue. --magikthrill 18:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Magicthrill. Thanks for your additions. You might be interested to create an account. Read WHY! NikoSilver 19:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Already am. Forgot to sign up last time :) --magikthrill 13:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The other tag

Aside from the TRNC/NC issue, why is that tag up there? It is an honest question, I have not been following this article particularly closely unfortunately. Is it something specific or a complaint from a particular side? Baristarim 17:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, ask Aristovoulos (he added it I think). //Dirak 17:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Kurdistan?

For the benefit people who like comparing "TRNC" with Kurdistan: Kurdistan has its own Britannica article, "TRNC" does not. When we merge this article into the Cyprus article like Britannica does, then you may start comparing "TRNC" with Kurdistan. //Dirak 10:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is almost never used in non-Turkish texts without a qualifying term like "self-styled" or "self-declared", in the few instances it is used at all over periphrastic descriptions like "Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus" or "Turkish Cypriot state(let)". ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

'TRNC' has its own entry

Kekrops has a point. Just for the record, Northern Cyprus is treated as a separate entity by both the Economist Intelligence Unit and Jane's International (Sentinel). Both are highly respected country analyst publications and with global reach in government bodies and research institutes. However, they are available by subscription, but you can always try a search. The most common reference to the TRNC is Northern Cyprus, but no one doubts its separatness from the Republic of Cyprus, which has its roots in 1963 (how many of us were even born then?). Politis 11:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Even enthusiastically pro-Turkish publications like The Economist avoid the term, while the OIC recognises a "Turkish Cypriot State", not a "TRNC". ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So, if I am correct, a suggestion would be to re-direct the TRNC article to Northern Cyprus? This probably needs the understanding of our Turkish and Turkish Cypriot friends. The article would need to provide an honest protrait of NC and it must not consiste of an endless complaint that it is illegal. The north exists as a separate (if not independent) entity, irrespective of what the ROC says. So let us be patient and open to suggetions and hear our Turkish friends. Politis 11:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not the position of the Republic of Cyprus that the Turkish Cypriots should not have their own political entity. Isn't that what bi-zonal, bi-communal means? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly, not that straight forward. The RoC has been repeatedly blocking EU funds to the North, demanding that it controls any development funds to the North and control of all its exports. The bottom line is that the ROC does not want any changes. The current situation is to the full financial and political benefit of the south; any changes will have to be translated into clear profit for them. The people who are 'filling the pockets' of the south are the EU and especially Athens (which has enough financial problems without needing to be dictated to by the ROC). Politis 12:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Nicosia simply opposes any move that it sees as affording legitimacy to the separatist régime. At the end of the day, as a sovereign member of the EU it can use its veto as it sees fit. As for Greece's support, that has never been cited as a drain on the economy, nor has it ever been on anything like the scale of the Turkish subsidies received by the "TRNC" each year. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But is that morally correct? For over 40 years Turkish Cypriots have been excluded from the international community, from hosting international event and engaging in mutually beneficial ventures (at academic, financial, commercial or artistic levels). All the international seat are occupied by ROC representatives, all that experience and all those contacts are fed back into the ROC. Meanwhile, the North has been starved and handicaped. See [4]; but the situation in the north is far worse and the strangle hold of the ROC against the Turkish Cypriots could be compared to what the Turks are doing to the Greeks of Istanbul. Politis 12:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What Greeks of Istanbul? Are there any left? It was the Turkish Cypriots who sought partition at all costs, after all. They cannot blame the Republic of Cyprus for doing everything in its power to defend its sovereign interests. Every action... ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As for "moral correctness", perhaps your question should be directed to the Turks, who have maintained an illegal military occupation for 32 years and yet have the gall to present themselves today as the "victims". ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There are still native Greeks of Istanbul. They need our support as well as understanding from Ankara. As for Cyprus, the Turkish military presence has to end, but this presence cannot possibly excuse the selfish attitude of the ROC towards the North and its embargo that has strangled the it for over 30 years. Ta symferonda tis Kyprou einai, se megalo vathmo, anditheta kai propandos andagonistika apo auta tis Elladas kai tou Ellinismou. Politis 13:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)