 | Software: Computing Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
The neutrality of this article should be disputed.
The reader should be able to see that the neutrality is disputed, directly. Thanks Aristovoulos
- I added a tag. Can you explain specifically what is disputed about this article? —Khoikhoi 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually both the neutrality and Factual accuracy should be disputed. For all the points in the discussion page, plus
How can TRNC be a break away state if the only state on the island of Cyprus is the Republic of Cyprus
The Republic of Cyprus, member of the E.U. U.N and many other international organizations. ARTICLE 1 APPENDIX A, DRAFT TREATY CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS. specifically states that the Republic of Cyprus has territorial integrity and sovereinghty over the whole of the island. The reason why the page should be disputed is because just referring to "TRNC" conflicts with the draft treaty of establishment of a U.N. E.U what have you member= the Republic of Cyprus. "TRNC" is a matter of opinion not a verifiable fact. "TRNC" is an abbreviation, one of the words is "republic" and since there only can be one Republic on the island of Cyprus dictated by the internationally accepted Constitution and draft treaty.
Cia Factbook states
conventional long form: Republic of Cyprus conventional short form: Cyprus (see how both tie together) note: the Turkish Cypriot community (north Cyprus) refers to itself as the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (TRNC)
The entire island entered the EU on 1 May 2004, although the EU acquis - the body of common rights and obligations - applies only to the areas under direct Republic of Cyprus control, and is suspended in the areas administered by Turkish Cypriots.
If the Republic of Cyprus according to the constitution has territorial integrity over the whole island, then why "is a break-away de facto state in the northern third of the island of Cyprus" That is misinformation not verifiable. It should be "is a break away self proclaimed state in the northern third of the Republic of Cyprus".
A;so how is this verifiable ? "but its emergence dates to 1963 with the collapse of Cypriot community into two antagonistic camps". The emergence of what? it is in conflict with the below: In 1983, the Turkish-held area declared itself the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus," but it is recognized only by Turkey. (Cia Factbook)-although CIA factbooks neutrality should also be disputed.
I could go on my friend but i dont think i have to, you do understand by now... please put a tag for the factual accuracy as well.
Thanks
Aristovoulos
- Thats a crock. The TRNC may not be recognised outside of Turkey but it IS a verifiable fact. If you dont belive it exists then go to Cyprus and walk North until you hit the border. The fact that you are using semantics to say 'well its not legal so it doesnt exist' is nonsense and adds to the POV of this article. You can spout off Eu directives all you like, however there is a large piece of Cyprus that has been annexed by Turkey and still is to this day. The international community refers to that part of Cyprus is refered to (in the majority of the world) as the TRNC, illegal...yes it is....real...yes it is. So lets leave this childishness out of Wikipedia and produce a decent article. Adam777 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Baseless factual accuracy tag removed, POV remains. Take care --Xasf 09:38, 16 August 2006 (GMT+3)
Hi Adam.
If you walk North in Cyprus you will hit (as described by the UN) a buffer zone or (at times) a green line not a boarder, POV by yourself here. TRNC has the word Republic. The meaning of "Republic" encompasses a legal entity at the very least. If it is illegal then TRNC can not be used as a verifiable fact but as a POV, Adam.
The reader must be aware right from the beggining that TRNC passports, ids etc are not legal documents, no international recognized court will be able to rule for a trial if accused by TRNC official for a crime with or without grounds. The abbreviation TRNC creates confusion to the reader because the existance of the word Republic creates credibility to an illegality.
Factual accuracy disputed tag should be placed to establish NPOV of the whole article.
thanks
dogeatDOG
- All aspects of non-recognition you mentioned and more is throughly explained in the article, hence there is no attempt to "deceive" the readers on that matter. That being said, I'd like to refer you to the de facto article to gain a better understanding about international politics before dismissing facts simply because they are not de jure. And facts (as in factual accuracy) are what we are interested here in Wikipedia.
- Oh, and a friendly reminder: Turkish courts are internationally recognized and they will sentence you for crimes committed in the TRNC. ;) Take care --Xasf 14:46, 16 August 2006 (GMT+3)
Your reminder is a factual inacuracy. What do Turkish courts have to do with the self proclaimed TRNC. The republic of Cyprus is the only recognized legal entity on the island of Cyprus that may exert legal force against a person or an entity. A Fact is the defacto division of the Republic of Cyprus by the Turkish Invasion. That is A European Citizen TRNC can not arrest anyone on any ground since it is an illegal sub I did not mention Turkish courts. Mentioned TRNC. The article claims TRNC (Republic) a break away-succession state. That is a blatant POV and a factual innacuracy. same as Aristovoulos I request this be shown by a dispute tag. Isnt there anyone with an open mind to comprehend that Wikipedia through this post is giving credibility to an illegality. it is as if I decide to create a state in my neighborhood by occuping with the aid of arms all the neighborhood and then self proclaim Republic.
All aspects of non-recognition you mentioned and more are throughly explained in the article. Ok what is the problem to add a dispute tag re factual Inacuracies? It seems to me that the whole article is a dispute.
Isnt there anyone not obviously Pro Turk to say something in Wikipedia. thanks dogeatDOG
- Hi Dog. If you sign your comments with four tildes then your id will appear by your posts, plus if you ident your posts by using colons then the conversation will be easier for everyone to follow. Right then....does the TRNC exist? Yes it does. Is it called the TRNC by the vasy majority of the world's governments...yes it is. That reason (and ONLY that reason) is why the article is called what it is called. When you say 'pro turk' you are wrong. We are trying to be NEUTRAL okay. Blatant edits that push either the Turkish or Greek point of view get edited. Im sure you feel very strongly on this subject and if you want to debate the technicalities of the situation in Northern Cyrpus then there are many forums on the web you can use to do so. However Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such we dont push your chosen point of view, we push the neutral one. If you disagree with specific items then this page is the place to discuss them. Start a new heading for the items you find non neutral. However multiple editors such as myself watch this page and if you do push unreasonable POV your edits will be reverted. I hope we can reach a concensus together and work towards a decent and neutral POV article. Thanks Adam777 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Clearly the pro-Greece element on Wikipedia has a problem with the TRNC. I am pro-Commonwealth, so I have a problem with TRNC existing - but friends it DOES EXIST. Whether it be "legal" or not, whether it should exist in the EU or not, all that is irrelevant - it is there. Yes I want to see the whole of the island of Cyprus in one sovereign nation - but the island of Cyprus is far from that. The Greek areas have joined the EU, the Turkish areas have not (hopefully this can be sorted out before Turkey joins the EU - if not theres going to lots of fun for everyone!), what about the British sovereign bases - they too are on the island of Cyprus but outwith the Cypriot administration. Whether we like it or not TRNC is a political entity and is deserving of an unbiased page on Wikipedia Rhyddfrydol 21:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- I really dont understand why you people are even bothering trying to discuss whether "TRNC" exists or not. TRNC is just an idea put into the heads of some very stupid people that have no identity, no history and no future and try to fit into this world by killing and occupying with the use of arms land that does not belong to them. Saying that you ... dont know what you are exist doesnt change the fact that noone likes you or want you around. So if you exist good for you. But the rest of the world would be better off without you.
Neither an outsider nor an insider
There are clear problems in making this article 'neutral'. The central issue seems to be between those who view the 'TRNC' as a bona fide state, and those who view it as an illegal and pariah state. Neither of these definitions are really accurate. It is undeniable that it negotiates on its own behalf and that its elected leadership is received and interacts with leaders and officials of other states, including EU and US. It is also undeniable that it is not recognised; there is an international trade embargo against it and it cannot host official international conferences and events. Also, some aspects of its legal system is outside the international mainstream. But it does have a presence and a dynamic. Surely we can find ways of expressing its real status. Politis 12:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Marios Polycarpou says: The TRNC is a chunk of land in the North of Cyprus, totaling 37% of the entire island, held captive by Turkey since July 1974. Technically the “Green Line” that separates this portion of land from the remainder of Cyprus is the actual ceasefire line that marked the end of hostilities of the Turkish invasion. The name “TRNC” is the label given to this captive land by Turkey in a failed political attempt to separate it from the rest of Cyprus and create an independent state.
I really dont understand why you people are even bothering trying to discuss whether "TRNC" exists or not. TRNC is just an idea put into the heads of some very stupid people that have no identity, no history and no future and try to fit into this world by killing and occupying with the use of arms land that does not belong to them. Saying that you ... dont know what you are exist doesnt change the fact that noone likes you or want you around. So if you exist good for you. But the rest of the world would be better off without you.
- I see no inherent problem in making the article neutral.
- Let us remember that there is not just a difference between de jure and de facto, but there is a difference between a state existing and a state being recognized, at least under declarative theory of statehood (as opposed to the constitutive theory of statehood). BUT, I think this debate is irrelevant. There are two state-like entities on the island of Cyprus. One is the Republic of Cyprus, an internationally-recognized state. The other is the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, a state-like entity that is recognized as a sovereign state only by the Republic of Turkey. Svyatoslav 16:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I couldnt agree more, and its nice to see some sense on the issue. Don't hold your breath. Adam777 17:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
What does the Security Council state on this issue?
Deplores the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus Considers the declaration referred to above as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal;
Calls for the urgent and effective implementation of its resolutions 365 (1974) and 367 (1975);
Calls upon all States not to recognize any Cypriot state other than the Republic of Cyprus;
(Res. 541 (1983) of 18.11.83, oper. paras. 1,2,3,7)
Calls once more on all states to respect the sovereignty, independence,territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus and urgently requests them, as well as the parties concerned, to refrain from any action which might prejudice that sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment, as well as from any attempt at partition of the island or its unification with any other country; (Resol.367 (1975) of 12.3.1975 oper. paras. l,4,5,6,7)
Please pay special attention to the phrasing. Not a single line on TRNC. why do people here state that TRNC is called as such by all of the world? What makes people here think they know better than the U.N. and the Security Council. The whole world i would add is very careful to be politicaly correct and refer not as TRNC but as Turkish Cypriot authorities and the Republic of Cyprus.
This article's Factual accuracy should be disputed.
- The alternative is for the TRNC to in fact be referred to as a terrorist-controlled region that has historically acted in a peaceful manner save toward their main rival, the Republic of Cyprus, since the Republic of Cyprus has de jure control of the region, and de facto lack of control. Which do you think would lead to more headaches on the international political scene? --Chr.K. 18:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Aristovoulos
- I see once again that the notion of a de facto state has failed to be grasped by certain individuals. What information you provide is nothing more than redundancy confirming the lack of de jure recognition of TRNC throughout the world and is clearly poised to introduce bias. A de facto state is by its very nature already self-claimed, but it's a step too far to call it an occupation of another state right away.
- The same goes with the challenge of the very name of TRNC. Just a quick Google search revealed that the TRNC is mentioned in various international sources, including but not limited to:
- US Department of State
- US Library of Congress Research Center
- EU Robert Schuman Foundation
- Encyclopædia Britannica
- Further investigation is apt to reveal many more examples, but trying to prove the obvious gets boring quickly.
- I was going to propose reverting your edits on the grounds that your reasoning was not sound, your allegations at factual accuracy dispute were unfounded and that your contribution overall was unconstructive and biased, but I see that it is already done.
- Please try to dig the issue and related topics deeper before your next edit wave. Take care --Xasf 23:30, 16 August 2006 (GMT+3)
Personally, I think he's a bot. I don't think he can hear you. Zazaban 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Xasf and Zazaban. Go play play station or nitendo. Whatever you feel like. Leave politics to the security Council you Turks. If you insist read once again the following and dont give me your pathetic attempt to minimize the illegality of the Turkish protectarato by playing with "de facto" and "De-jure". If it is as you claim the security council would call it a defacto state ==but it does NOT==. The Security Council Calls once more on all states to ==respect the sovereignty==, independence,territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus and urgently requests them, as well as the parties concerned, to refrain from any action which might prejudice that sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment, as well as from any attempt at partition of the island or its unification with any other country; By the Treaty that the Republic of Cyprus has been created the territory of the Republic Of Cyprus is the whole island, and once more (maybe you skip reading it the first time because maybe it suits you ==The Security Council Calls once more on all states to ==respect the sovereignty==, independence,territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus and urgently requests them, as well as the parties concerned, to refrain from any action which might prejudice that sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment, as well as from any attempt at partition of the island or its unification with any other country== No zazazan whatever you nick is, i am not a bot, and not in Greece either if you really want to know. --Aristovoulos 12:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- And please leave reality to reality, not the UN Security Council. They can make as many proclamations, pronouncements, and calls to tea and crackers as they like, and that doesn't bring a speck of land in northern Cyprus under the Cyprian Republic's control. I apologize if this sounds antagonistic; it is hoped to get the other side's attention. The Northern Cyprus region is NOT controlled by the Republic of Cyprus as of 5 September 2006. --Chr.K. 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
legally invalid "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus"
Some issues in the article must be corrected. The UN security council has called the the TRNC, I quote from security council resolution 550 (1984) ;legally invalid "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". As this stance is very clear and no official adjustments or changes have been made this must be stated in the article as is. The United Nations consider the TRNC to be legally invalid. The TRNC is generally represented by the embassy of the Republic of Turkey in most countries, thus it does not always act on its own behalf. The article loves the words "De Facto State". De Facto is a expression that means "in fact" or "in practice". As the TRNC is significantly different to a "in fact" state, this wording must be incorrect. The TRNC is an area that is "protected" or occupied by foreign troops (whichever you like), it is not economically self sufficient, it is not self sufficient population wise as half of its population is made up of foreigners (mainland Turks) and it is not recognised to be a state by all the countries in the world but one. You can't even send letters to the TRNC, and the "official" government homepage is a .com one (for gods sake). And by most people it is simply known as Northern Cyprus. It consequently cannot act in the same way as a indepent state. And in many of the sources where it is named as such, it is called the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (in the CIA country profile it is called this, and yes, it is the country profile of the Republic of Cyprus) Thus, to conclude, it cannot be referred to as a de facto state. It must be referred to, if it is necessary to define it in this way, as something to the likes of "de facto protectorate of Turkey". In practise, it is.
Globo 05:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- From de facto :
- "When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates what happens in practice (which may or may not be legal).
- (...)
- A de facto government is one that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof.
- (...)
- The de facto boundaries of a country are defined by the area that its government is actually able to enforce its laws in, and to defend against encroachments by other countries that may also claim the same territory de jure."
- And you are claiming that the TRNC is not a de facto country based on.. what exactly? International postal service or getting a "gov" level ___domain name are all related to de jure status. Heavy foreign aid and/or intervention also does not render the identity of a country invalid; if that was indeed the case the number of countries in the world would drop drastically.
- The thing is, TRNC has it's own government system which gets to say what is to be done within it's claimed borders and sees to it that it is carried out. They have public education and health care and police force and all the other essential institutions of a country in place. As for Turkey, think of it like what the USA was to it's allies in the Cold War era: They are the big guys with the power and they usually get what they want in your neighbourhood (in TRNC) but that does not make you a protectorate right away.
- There seems to be a tendency to start with what seems to be a good analysis and then suddenly jump to conclusions (and wrong ones at that) around here. Let's avoid that, shall we? Take care --Xasf 09:04, 17 August 2006 (GMT+3)
Notice I didnt get rid of any references to de facto. I knew that the other side sould very well be argued in that respect. It's just that the article is overflowing with references to de facto and de jure. I think that either something is, or it is not. Is the TRNC a state? No? Well then that should be in the article. De facto in this context sounds alot like "kind of... I don't really know myself", and De Jure sounds a lot like "I'm a confused wikipedian pretending to be a lawyer". You get my point? Thankyou :-) Globo 07:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I wish international relations and politics were that simple, I really do :) But whether TRNC is a country or not depends on the paradigm; if you take it "by the book" (which would be the UN Charter in this case) no, it is not a country as long as it's not recognized by UN. But get in a Turkish Airlines (or Cyprus Turkish Airlines) plane and travel to Nicosia (Lefkoşa) and you will find yourself in a country called TRNC without leaving any doubt of its existence. So it "in fact" is a country, but not so "by the book". And that's what all this fuss about de jure and de facto is all about actually :) Take care --Xasf 10:52, 17 August 2006 (GMT+3)
Factual Inacuracy
I have reverted the tag change by Daniel.Bryant (who failed to discus it anywhere on this page). I assume we are back to the 'Well the TRNC doesnt exist becuase it isnt legal' argument, not that it's much of an argument. Once again editors please be reminded that the legal standing of the TRNC is discussed in the article. No facts are in dispute, just semantics, and poor ones at that. Lets all grow up please. Adam777 10:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Adam you turk?
- Xasf definately is. say so dudes.. Let the reader know why you insist of spreading yuour propaganda. WHat your motives are.
--Aristovoulos 12:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Aristovoulos could you please sign your comments with four tildes and indent them (I have done this for you). I am maintaining what I see as a neutral POV on this article. It seems you disagree, if so then you will need to request mediation as I am convinced your edits are highly POV and you are ignoring certain realities in order to push your point in the article. Also please assume good faith, your accusations of bias are not appreciated. You have had the issue (the definition of de facto) explained to you several times now in detail. If you have any questions about the concept please feel free to ask. Adam777 11:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes i could. Stop reverting my posts. Yes i demand mediation. Not another Turk though. If you do not comprehend what Security Council has repeatedly stated, ask i shall explain. -- I strongly believe that this arictles Factual accuracy must be disputed. That is all. If it is i will let any Turk post whatever they were taught as history. 3Ε.Aristovoulos 11:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please can you desist with the personal attacks. Why must you assume that as I disagree with your POV that I am Turkish? I am in fact Welsh, I just want to keep the article neutral, which I honesty think your edits are not doing. I have requested an informal mediation to hopefully settle this sillyness. Until then I will desist for editing the article, it would be nice if you did the same. Adam777 12:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Will do --Aristovoulos 12:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The neutral point of view The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
It seems to me that statements such as "so called" or "claimed to be" should be all over this page, since we have conflicting views. Instead posts are being reverted.
As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. Instead 3-4 people here are deleting claiming POV without proving why it is POV. Prove it then revert.
There is no De facto Turkish state either in Cyprus. Prove it. I have google and googled... De facto partition but no de facto state.
--Aristovoulos 12:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. Look I am going to let the arbitrator sort this out when they get round to it. It is my position that there is a de facto Turkish state in Northern Cyprus. You have had the definition of de facto presented to you in detail and you either cant or wont accept it. Edits that added phrases such as 'So Called' or 'Claimed to be' could be taken as weasel words and we have already covered those. In the meantime perhaps you would like to try to describe in your own neutral language what the Turkish presence in Northern Cyprus is if is isnt a de facto Turkish state. Adam777 16:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal: How to describe the entity in Northern Cyprus
Hello everyone, I am from the Mediation Cabal and am here to lend a hand. I would ask that everyone please direct any future debate about what to call the organization in northern Cyprus be conducted in this section of the talk page. It seems that the side represented by users such as Adam777 is relatively content with the current status of the article. I am not sure, however, what specific changes users such as Aristovoulos want to make. So, those of you dissatisfied with referring to the Turkish organization in northern Cyprus as a "de facto government," please answer this question: If you could make any changes to how the Turkish organization in northern Cyprus is referred to in this article, what would they be? I ask that you list specific changes and that the answers to this question not be debated. Once I have some input, I will attempt to bring the two sides together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LawrenceTrevallion (talk • contribs)
Sorry about that folks. I did some editing on this comment and forgot to sign it the second time apparently. Thanks for catching that! LawrenceTrevallion 04:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi LawrenceTrevallion, kindly consider the following
1.The Factual Accuracy of this Article to be disputed by a tag.
2.The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) or Turkish Cypriot State (Turkish: Kıbrıs Türk Devleti) is a break-away state in the northern third of the island of Cyprus.
Should be changed to
3.“The administration of the Turkish force/authorities on the Republic of Cyprus” is self proclaimed as (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) or Turkish Cypriot State (Turkish: Kıbrıs Türk Devleti) located in the northern third of the Republic Of Cyprus.
3. A tag showing that the article is Highly Controversial.
Following, please find actual U.N Security Council proclamation that calls “TRNC” as “Turkish Cypriot Authorities” and not “defacto State” or “de facto Republic”. On 18 November 1983, in response to the proclamation of the establishment of the "TRNC", the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 541 (1983) which provides, where relevant, as follows: "The Security Council ... 1. Deplores the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus; 2. Considers the declaration ... as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal; ...
We have reached to this mediation because of disputes towards the factual accuracies of the article and of course semantics because in politics semantics dictate facts.
Factual accuracies because we are dealing with a political and of course highly controversial issue where the use of language is critical for it dictates and separates facts and truths from statements that deviate from truth. I call as a reference to this articles dispute the resolutions drafted by the internationally recognized accepted and respected mediation organization. The United Nations and the Security Council. Please note thatin politics there is no such place as “entity in Northern Cyprus” the United Nations refrain from using such statements because not being True-Facts. It is deemed as a false argument not a fact. No reference like that is made by the Security Council, the mediator of mediators. In politics there only exists the Republic of Cyprus. Fact. Wikipedia has allowed the creation of a defacto political article “Turkish Republic of the Northern Cyprus” then the article should be using politically correct, true- language.
“The Security Council resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984), both of which purported to pronounce unlawful and invalid the 1983 declaration of independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ("the TRNC") and called upon States not to recognize the TRNC”. If the declaration of Independence is Invalid then there is no such “Republic” and states must refrain for calling it that.
Moreover The Cyprus Constitution of 1960
Article 185 provided that the territory of the Republic of Cyprus is "one and indivisible". It also excluded "the integral or partial union of Cyprus with any other State or the separatist independence". If the territory of the Republic of Cyprus is indivisible then defacto (In reality or fact) and dejure (By right; according to law) there can not be any other “Republic” on the island of Cyprus. “Republic” ipso facto entails a legal entity a “government”. In this case the self proclaimed “TRNC” is an “authority” defacto. “Evident from international practice and resolutions of various international bodies that international community does not regard "TRNC" as State under international law and that Republic of Cyprus remains sole legitimate Government of Cyprus” Judgment delivered by a Grand Chamber European Court of Human Rights Cour Europeenee Des Droits De L’Homme.
All of the article is in high contrast with the United Nations and the Security Council not to mention the European Court of Human Rights and a way to settle this is for the factual accuracy of this article be Disputed by the use of a tag. Otherwise the whole article needs to be changed so as to come in line with the status that the Security Council and the United Nations attribute to the self-proclaimed “TRNC”.
I trust my case is clear. If not I can expand. Thanks --Aristovoulos 08:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- So much for not debating. I will lastly add (and I will not contribute again unless asked) that. I agree that in the selective information displayed above the UN does not call the TRNC a de facto state. However I would caution that the ommission of those words does not consitute a rebuttel of their accuracy. To aid my position I would ask everyone involved to read the wikipedia article on de facto. Then go to google and search for 'TRNC de facto' (22,800 hits) and then search for 'The administration of the Turkish force/authorities on the Republic of Cyprus' (21 hits). I appreciate that both distinctions are arguably correct in the case of the TRNC, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it isnt a collection of the minutes of the UN security council. Thats all I have to say. Adam777 14:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
After Adam's point please allow me to add the following: Adam or anyone else please provide evidence were the Security Council calls the Turkish Autjorities as "de facto state or Republic". Adam calls it ommision as of "a mistake resulting from neglect" perhaps, however there is only evidence that the Security Council deliberately refrain from using such statements. What does a google search prove? So much for encyclopedian accuracy. Debating de facto TRNC and claiming 28000 hits without actual seeing the hits. Excluding wikipedia and TRNC's proclaimed "official websites" on a google search that has "de facto TRNC" the vast majority of the remaining hits have the two words on somewhere in the web page and not the two words together as a sentence. If google searching is a way to prove encyclopedian accuracy try a google search with "Turkish Authorities" instead 8,880,000 hits. Or better yet since we have reached an agreement for its illegality try a google search with key words TRNC Legal 76,400 hits. --Aristovoulos 15:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Im sorry but this is now getting tiresome. The UN security council, to the best of my knowledge, doesnt get to name the autonomus regions of the world. All I am saying is that the lack of a specific naming convention by the security council (which seems to be my opponents ONLY argument) does NOT CONSTITUTE the denial of existance of a DE FACTO TURKISH STATE in Northern Cyprus by the EXACT definition of the term DE FACTO. I appreciate that being Greek you dont like this and any resonable viewing of your many POV edits on Wikipedia in the few weeks you have had an account clearly show your bias but please can you just stop being so (sorry for the ad hominem attack but words fail me right now) childish and realise that you are in the extreme minority here. Adam777 19:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Please someone who words dont fail him. The only international organization responsible for providing exact definitions and status to an authority/state is the Security Council. At least can we agree on that. You have failed to address multiple issues that i have posted and bring evidence where the UN call the Turkish Administration authorities as de facto state. Yet you insist it is by definition ok. Then you state that i am Biased. To me it is clear that 1, This article's Factual accuaracy must be disputed and the reader must be able to see that tag. 2. A tag must clearly state that this article is highly contoversial. Only argument? Thanks 3E--Aristovoulos 19:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- What Adam777 is trying to say is that Wikipedia defines nations not by the UN Security Council, but by the name the entities themselves use. So it's "Republic of China," not "Taiwan Province, China," and likewise, "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus," not "Turkish-occupied entity in the northern third of the Republic of Cyprus" or equivalent. I believe that's what he was trying to say in that garbled bunch of words.
- By the way, I'm a neutral party. And in case ethnic disparities come my way, I'm Chinese, not Turkish or Greek or Cypriot. Cheers to all, physicq210 19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have a tendency to write as I talk. So my garbled written words take on a majesty of enounciation when uttered out loud (but after a really nice bottle of merlot then these things happen) :). I will once again refrain from adding comments as I believe my position is clear. Aristovouls has an absolute right to his opinion but not to his own facts. This is a very controversial topic and I do appreciate that. However I honestly and truly believe that any reasonable assesment of the history of this article, my edits and his edits will establish who is trying to push POV here. Of course if my position is judged incorrect then I will abide by that. Adam777 19:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
We have reached to this mediation because of disputes towards the factual accuracies of the article and of course semantics because in politics semantics dictate facts. Wikipedia has allowed the creation of a defacto political article “Turkish Republic of the Northern Cyprus” then the article should be using politically correct language.
Following is a synopsis of the semantics used by my opponent:
It is my position that there is a de facto Turkish state in Northern Cyprus.. describe in your own neutral language what the Turkish presence in Northern Cyprus is if is isnt a de facto Turkish state. Adam777 16:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC).
I have replied: No reference like that is made by the Security Council. The Security Council “Deplores the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus; 2. Considers the declaration ... as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal; ... Article 185 provided that the territory of the Republic of Cyprus is "one and indivisible". The only evidence present is that the Security Council deliberately refrains from calling the Turkish Authorities “de facto state”.
I agree that in the selective information displayed above the UN does not call the TRNC a de facto state. Then go to google and search for 'TRNC de facto' (22,800 hits) Adam777 14:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Adam or anyone else please provide evidence were the Security Council calls the Turkish Autjorities as "de facto state or Republic". What does a google search prove? since we have reached an agreement for its illegality try a google search with key words TRNC Legal 76,400 hits.
The UN security council, to the best of my knowledge, doesnt get to name the autonomus regions of the world. Adam777 19:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC) autonomous=political independent? definitely not the case.
The only international organization responsible for providing exact definitions and status to an authority/state is the Security Council.
I honestly and truly believe that any reasonable assesment of the history of this article, my edits and his edits will establish who is trying to push POV here. Adam777 19:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the third time Adam deviates from the subject. Although I am the only one to quote references it is the second time I am called biased with no grounds other than Adams truly and honest belief. Will establish who is trying to push POV here.
I Trust my case is clear and therefore request that
1 The Factual Accuracy of this Article to be disputed by a tag. 2.The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) or Turkish Cypriot State (Turkish: Kıbrıs Türk Devleti) is a break-away state in the northern third of the island of Cyprus,
Should be changed to
3.“The administration of the Turkish authorities on the Republic of Cyprus” is self proclaimed as (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) or Turkish Cypriot State (Turkish: Kıbrıs Türk Devleti) located in the northern third of the Republic Of Cyprus.
4. A tag showing that the article is Highly Controversial. I think we have agreed on that if no one else objects.
Thanks --Aristovoulos 21:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldnt mind a glass of that merlot now if there is any left...
- Hahaha...Im glad we can both keep our sense of humour over our disagreement. Adam777 21:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ofcourse. --Aristovoulos 21:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, people have been busy on here over that last question. :)
Okay, here are my opinions on the subject:
1.) Aristovoulos, I agree with adding a sentence in a similar vein as to what you suggested. How about these two: The name, the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) was self-declared, and while it possesses a government and infrastructure, it is not recognized by the United Nations, nor will most countries recognize its independent existence. It is located in the north of what the U.N. regonizes as the Republic of Cyprus.? Does anyone disagree with adding these sentences to the first paragraph of the article?
2.) Aristovoulos I assume you wish to add the factual dispute tag because of the phrase "de facto government." I think we can all agree that an organization which acts like a government is operating in northern Cyprus. It is not sanctioned by the UN, but that is noted in the article. The phrase "de facto government" does express its illegality. While the UN may not use those exact words, the TRNC does operate as a government, but a break-away one, hence the "de facto." The phrase conveys that the Republic of Cyprus is not in control of the area, but that the legality of this government is not recognized. Thus, I do not see any problem with using the phrase in this article and I do not think the factual accuracy tag is necessary.
This mediation is not official. If anyone has any qualms with my thoughts you are welcome to voice them here and I will attempt to address them. LawrenceTrevallion 21:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think both points 1 and 2 are perfectly valid. I hope we can reach a concensus on this. Adam777 22:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- You know, i see absoloutely nothing wrong with how it was written before. The TRNC is a defacto state in the northern third of Cyprus, recognised only by Turkey - that is all that has to be mentioned. We are only going to end up with an elaborate and over detailed explanation to appease an extreme view of how the TRNC should be conveyed. The same happened to the Republic of Macedonia after Greek users insisted on entering detail upon detail to appease their nationalist views. --A.Garnet 13:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear LawrenceTrevallion,
Thank you for your opinions on the subject, I am happy you have agreed with adding a sentence in a similar vein as to what the Security Council would suggest and I defend.
Please allow me to bring the following to your attention: For your point 1. If the only international organization responsible for providing exact definitions and status to an authority/state is the Security Council, then Wikipedia should support that!! and not any other definition that an author/editor may use. Otherwise wikipedia should state that it does not auspices the UN or its practices/rulings. Kindly note that the only recognized international organization responsible for providing status to an authority is the UN Security Council and it has deemed TRNC as “legally invalid and called for its withdrawal”.And deliberately refrains to call the Turkish Cypriot Community de facto State-government.
Therefore, in order to be politically correct, the article should refrain from using “de facto government/state” or even TRNC without noting the status given by the UN. I.e. “legally invalid TRNC” or “Self Declared” TRNC”.
In line with what has been said so far: The name, the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) was self-declared. The UN considers TRNC as legally invalid and calls for the withdrawal. It possesses an administration and infrastructure, located in the north of the Republic of Cyprus.
Or
The name, the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) was self-declared. The UN considers TRNC as legally invalid and calls for the withdrawal. It possesses an administration and infrastructure, located in the north of the Republic of Cyprus. The de jure Republic of Cyprus can not exert its authority over its northern third, because of the Turkish forces.
The reader understands that an authority that calls itself “Republic” illegally exists in the north of the Republic of Cyprus. The status is provided by the UN the mediator responsible for providing status. I trust the reason why I am providing this counteroffer is understood otherwise I can elaborate.
Additionally, I have proved my case with the issue of calling “ TRNC” a de facto state repeatedly because it was at the top of article, not because it is the only argument. Below I summarize points taken from the article that are highly controversial and factually inaccurate.
Its immediate predecessor from 1975 to 1983 was the Turkish Federative State of North Cyprus; but the leadup to its establishment started in 1963 with the collapse of the Cypriot community into two antagonistic camps.
Highly controversial, factual accuracy disputed. How can the author prove the above? TMT was stating “Cyprus is Turkish” due to the Turkish belief that "the British did not hold their part of the bargain" (Cyprus was leased to the British by the Ottomans) " but The British annexed and declared Cyprus as a British Colony while Cyprus should have been returned to the Ottoman Turks as early as 1913". The leadup to its establishment may well have started in 1913 when the British annexed Cyprus and broke the leasing agreement with the Ottomans.
“It can be considered a de facto state but with restricted outlets and international rights outside its borders”. I think there is no need I should dwell on that unless necessary. No, it can not be considered a de facto state. Who says so? With restricted outlets and international rights outside its border? What does this imply?
“Since the Annan plan referendum the UN has voiced its disappointment to the government of the Republic of Cyprus for the rejection of the plan, and refrained from referring to pre-Annan Plan resolutions[citation needed]”.
Blatant Factual Inaccuracy highly POV. What does this mean? And how can the author prove refrained from referring to pre-Annan Plan resolutions
Resolutions are issued every year. Did the author read them? Here as evidence the 2006 issue Titled "S/RES/1687 (2006) The situation in Cyprus" in the center of the page. http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions06.htm
On page 2 1. Reaffirms all its relevant resolutions on Cyprus….'
“The TRNC is also increasingly treated as a separate entity by major country analysts such as Economist Intelligence Unit and Jane's Intelligence”. Factual accuracy disputed. An attempt to "recognition" by the author. How can the author prove this? (increasingly treated)
“The TRNC has a population of about 200,000…. “
The article keeps referring to the “TRNC” a self proclamation-illegal. The Security Council refrains from calling the Turkish Authorities that. Turkish Authorities should take its place. Or if TRNC has to be kept then another word is required. Either “illegal”, or “self proclaimed”. Otherwise Wikipedia gives a different status to an illegal entity as dictated by the Security Council. Please read the link to the latest resolution by the UN and see whether TRNC is mentioned. Irrespective of whether the illegality is mentioned somewhere in the article, TRNC is de facto higly controversial statement.
History? I remember posting the Thirteen amendments. Why where my posts reverted? No justification, of any kind. Someone just reverted them. Since the article makes the argument that
“Tensions increased when Makarios proposed thirteen amendments to the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus” and that “Turkish Cypriots were opposed to the proposal since it re-classfied their status as a minority”
Who says it "reclassified their status"? That at least needs to be proved with the posting of the thirteen amendments. Then again the article should also provide the Thirteen amendments to the reader so that the reader can make up his/her own conclusion. As it is right now it is Highly Controversial. and the factual accuracy of the statement is disputed.
The United Nations considers the TRNC to be legally invalid[2] in its resolutions, but in practice treats the North's elected leadership as bona fide negotiators for the Turkish Cypriot community.
Then, under the Pictures in the History section instead of "bona fide negotiator for the Turkish Cypriots" the reader sees "Founder President" and "President". The Security Council never has refered to "bona fide negotiator" Dektash and Talat as "Presidents". Please prove that factual inacuracy. Carefully read the above 2 lines. TRNC illegal but in practice .. in practice what? not illegal? or illegal TRNC and the Turkish Cypriot community has a negotiator in good faith... Controversial at the very least.
The whole article is in high contrast with the United Nations and the Security Council not to mention the European Court of Human Rights with multiple factual inaccuracies and a way to settle this is for the factual accuracy of this article be Disputed by the use of a tag.
If required i shall expand. I request that:
1The Factual Accuracy of this Article to be disputed by a tag.
2A tag showing that the article is Highly Controversial as agreed.
3. The name, the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) was self-declared. The UN considers TRNC as legally invalid and calls for the withdrawal. It possesses an administration and infrastructure, located in the north of the Republic of Cyprus. The de jure Republic of Cyprus can not exert its authority over its northern third, because of the Turkish forces. --Aristovoulos 18:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I need to point out that I was called in here simply to mediate how the TRNC should be referenced. Aristovoulos, you pointed out several comments which you thought were inaccurate or were pure opinion in the article. I would suggest you discuss those comments under a different heading of the talk page.
Now, Aristovoulos has expressed a dissatisfaction with the use of "de facto state". So, I will ask this question: What other phrase or noun would you use? As an example, I cite the first sentence of this article:
The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) or Turkish Cypriot State (Turkish: Kıbrıs Türk Devleti) is a de facto break-away state in the northern third of the island of Cyprus.
Aristovoulos, and anyone else who wishes, please tell me what phrase you would use, in this sentence, to replace "de facto break-away state."
If you disagree with someone's answer to this question, please voice your concerns. LawrenceTrevallion 20:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Lawrence,
Now, Aristovoulos has expressed a dissatisfaction with the use of "de facto state". So, I will ask this question: What other phrase or noun would you use? As an example, I cite the first sentence of this article: Not only with that. What about all the rest?
Under this title you had specifically asked:
"If you could make any changes to how the Turkish organization in northern Cyprus is referred to in this article, what would they be?" LawrenceTrevallion 04:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The name, the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) was self-declared. The UN considers TRNC as legally invalid and calls for the withdrawal. It possesses an administration and infrastructure, located in the north of the Republic of Cyprus. The de jure Republic of Cyprus can not exert its authority over its northern third, because of the Turkish forces.
At the beginning of the mediation i had stated:
We have reached to this mediation because of disputes towards the factual accuracies of the article and of course semantics...
Why am i asked to discuss these comments under a different heading of the talk page?
Adam agreed to a "controversial tag".
If noone disagrees then we should start with that. Then the Factual accuracy tag; "Aristovoulos I assume you wish to add the factual dispute tag because of the phrase "de facto government."
And i replied
Additionally, I have proved my case with the issue of calling “ TRNC” a de facto state repeatedly because it was at the top of article, not because it is the only argument. I additionaly summarized points taken from the article that are highly controversial and factually inaccurate.--
Thereforel if no one disagrees and proves the contrary it could only be just if
1The Factual Accuracy of this Article to be disputed by a tag.
2A tag showing that the article is Highly Controversial as agreed.
3. The first 2-3 lines are changed to The name, the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) was self-declared. The UN considers TRNC as legally invalid and calls for the withdrawal. It possesses an administration and infrastructure, located in the north of the Republic of Cyprus. The de jure Republic of Cyprus can not exert its authority over its northern third, because of the Turkish forces. Aristovoulos 21:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
When I previously commented about your requested factual accuracy template, I did not realize it was over other issues. My mediation was requested only to help resolve the dispute about what to call the TRNC. Some of the concerns I saw in your (Aristovoulos) August 21st post related to other aspects of the article. That is not the purpose of my mediation.
If no one has an objection to that sentence being added, I suppose it can be. (Adam777, since you requested my mediation, I would like to here input from you on that, as well as anyone else.) However, the phrase "de facto" is used in other places in the article. (The TRNC is called a "de facto state" in the second paragraph.) Aristovoulos, if you are comfortable with that, then let them stay. If not, we can discuss it since I believe the phrase is perfectly legitimate. LawrenceTrevallion 03:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Here is my position in black and white. The TRNC is, by the very definition of the term 'de facto' a de facto entity that illegally occupys part of the republic of cyprus. Not one single word of that statement is disputed in the article. However the emphasis to refute the TRNC's status as de facto in the opening paragraph of the article is purely an effort to push a POV emphasis by someone that sympathyses strongly with the Greek side of the issue. We mention the illegal occupation and the fact that the TRNC isnt recognised anywhere except Turkey in the article quite early on. However this apparently isnt enough for some editors and they wish to make sure that with every mention of the TRNC we emphasise its illegality. That is just pushing POV lets be honest, and to be frank this discussion is almost academic as any POV edits on this article will quickly be reverted as there are quite a few editors watching and doing a decent job. Adam777 13:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Although Adam can not provide evidence describing Turkish Cypriots self declaration as "de facto entity" by the Security Council; he insists mentioning that "it is such" by the very definition, and that all the sources which i have provided as evidence according to Adam they are Greek affiliated or as he stated by someone that sympathyses strongly with the Greek side of the issue. Adam please try to understand that the Security Council is not a Greek Organization. More than 200 countries are members and delegate authority to its practices. In fact Turkey is a member of the UN since 24 Oct. 1945. How can you claim POV pushing when someone is merely writing what the Security Council has stated? Do YOU indirectly accuse the UN for not being Neutral and Objective? Yes; not only the "de facto TRNC" phrase is refuted by the evidence you have been provided; but also the abbreviation "TRNC".
Please take some time to read them once again. I asked you and everyone here repeadetly, and ask you once again to bring forth a single document of the Security Council that refers to the "Turkish Forces and the Turkish Cypriot Community" as "TRNC". Yet Wikipedia is full with "TRNC". Not "de facto TRNC" but "TRNC". Why? Why not with the name that the Security Council uses? Where did you see this before and you support it with such persistence? In a resolution?
and to be frank this discussion is almost academic as any POV edits on this article will quickly be reverted as there are quite a few editors watching and doing a decent job.Adam777 13:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This academic issue i did not understand. You mean we have been discussing not in secret but in a talk page for some time now, and assuming we reach an agreement and we edit the article an editor will come by; reverting without discussing and still this editor will be doing a decent job?
Adam with all due respect i consider your arguments as insufficient. You have been saying the same thing "de facto by definition is ok" without providing evidence. You have accused myself as biased with sole ground your "truly and honest belief" although i am the only one to provide references. Then you have indirectly accused the Security Council for "sympathysing strongly with the Greek side of the issue" once again with no evidence other than your personal opinion.
We mention the illegal occupation and the fact that the TRNC isnt recognised anywhere except Turkey in the article quite early on. However this apparently isnt enough for some editors and they wish to make sure that with every mention of the TRNC we emphasise its illegality.
To your claim "emphasing repeatedly TRNCs illegality" is wrong??. Why may i ask? Why is it wrong? To numerous issues you have failed to respond however to this specific one I demand an answer.
Why is it wrong?--Aristovoulos 16:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- The UN Security council DOESNT get to declare a nation as de facto. That is the ENTIRE POINT. The TRNC is a de facto entity BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF THE TERM. Im getting very tired of your refusal to concede this. As for emphasising the illegality of the TRNC, it is covered in the first few sentences of the article. I dont think it needs to be added on multiple occasions, what is the point of such repitition? Now go look up the definition of DE FACTO will you. Adam777 17:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you agree that "The UN Security council DOES get to declare a nation as "de Jure"? --Aristovoulos 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, clearly the issue is still ongoing. Let us try this. Would both of you be willing to put the issue of using "de facto" to a vote? If we put it to a vote, I would ask that both of you consider it binding regardless of the outcome. Please let me know. If both agree, I shall put the poll up. LawrenceTrevallion 20:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I agree to adhere to the results of a vote. Adam777
Here I will not dispute the legality or illegality of the state. I will only discuss the using of sources. What I will say below involves the use of sources by Aristovoulos. Please do not be offended by the following comments
I am not saying that the UN is not a good source of information about countries. However, the UN is not the only source for information about countries. As a member of Wikiproject Countries, I often refer to the US State Department website and the CIA factbook, among other reputable sites, for information.
This may be controversial, but the United Nations may actually not be the best source of information. The United Nations, like any other international organization, is, tragically, influenced by politics. Take for example, Taiwan, or the Republic of China. Due to pressure from the People's Republic of China, the United Nations is allowed to refer to Taiwan only as "Taiwan, Province of China." As you can see, Wikipedia has an article about the Taiwanese government titled "Republic of China," not "Taiwan, Province of China" or "Chinese Taipei." Wikipedia also has articles on Abkhazia, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, and other de facto independent or quasi-independent "sovereign" entities. Information about these entities cannot be taken from the United Nations as these entities are, like the TRNC, declared "illegal." If Wikipedia can only use information presented by the United Nations, Wikipedia would not have articles on the above-mentioned nations and the TRNC.
I respect Aristovoulos's edits and discussion in good faith, as he is only trying to better the encyclopedia with his unique knowledge and experiences. Please do not take these comments out of context or consider them offensive to Aristovoulos, as doing to would be assuming bad faith. Sorry for the rant. --physicq210 17:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Adam777, your arguments are something else, my friend! Really! You came to your conclusions by searching on Google and counting the hits? No kiddin'? Go search 'miserable failure' and hit the 'i feel lucky' button and see what you get! Dear Aristovoulos, please stop arguing my friend. Those who know, just know... Let the rest sleep in their ignorance. Why bother? Just pay a visit in Turkey and go see the country's landmarks. There are no other landmarks but the remains of the Greek history they once tried to destroy! So much for the Turkish culture! From their prophet to Cyprus their only culture is wars and slaughter. --Sixten66
Okay, Aristovoulos proposed changing the introduction. After discussing it with Adam777, I think the issue can be put to a vote. One thing must be agreed upon first: both Adam777 and Aristovoulos must agree to be bound by the decision of the vote, no matter who wins. Adam777 has agreed to it on my talk page, however, I would like both of you to do so on this page as a matter of record. Also, Aristovoulos, I assume you want the introduction changed to what you put on my talk page. If not, please submit a new copy. After all of this is done, I will place the poll. LawrenceTrevallion 01:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, Adam777 told me that he did not want informal mediation any longer, so I will step aside. LawrenceTrevallion 14:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Factual Accuracy Disputed
Dear LawrenceTrevallion,
Thank you for your opinions on the subject, I am happy you have agreed with adding a sentence in a similar vein as to what the Security Council would suggest and I defend.
Please allow me to bring the following to your attention: For your point 1. If the only international organization responsible for providing exact definitions and status to an authority/state is the Security Council, then Wikipedia should support that!! and not any other definition that an author/editor may use. Otherwise wikipedia should state that it does not auspices the UN or its practices/rulings. Kindly note that the only recognized international organization responsible for providing status to an authority is the UN Security Council and it has deemed TRNC as “legally invalid and called for its withdrawal”.And deliberately refrains to call the Turkish Cypriot Community de facto State-government.
Therefore, in order to be politically correct, the article should refrain from using “de facto government/state” or even TRNC without noting the status given by the UN. I.e. “legally invalid TRNC” or “Self Declared” TRNC”.
In line with what has been said so far: The name, the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) was self-declared. The UN considers TRNC as legally invalid and calls for the withdrawal. It possesses an administration and infrastructure, located in the north of the Republic of Cyprus.
Or
The name, the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) was self-declared. The UN considers TRNC as legally invalid and calls for the withdrawal. It possesses an administration and infrastructure, located in the north of the Republic of Cyprus. The de jure Republic of Cyprus can not exert its authority over its northern third, because of the Turkish forces.
The reader understands that an authority that calls itself “Republic” illegally exists in the north of the Republic of Cyprus. The status is provided by the UN the mediator responsible for providing status. I trust the reason why I am providing this counteroffer is understood otherwise I can elaborate.
Additionally, I have proved my case with the issue of calling “ TRNC” a de facto state repeatedly because it was at the top of article, not because it is the only argument. Below I summarize points taken from the article that are highly controversial and factually inaccurate.
Its immediate predecessor from 1975 to 1983 was the Turkish Federative State of North Cyprus; but the leadup to its establishment started in 1963 with the collapse of the Cypriot community into two antagonistic camps.
Highly controversial, factual accuracy disputed. How can the author prove the above? TMT was stating “Cyprus is Turkish” due to the Turkish belief that "the British did not hold their part of the bargain" (Cyprus was leased to the British by the Ottomans) " but The British annexed and declared Cyprus as a British Colony while Cyprus should have been returned to the Ottoman Turks as early as 1913". The leadup to its establishment may well have started in 1913 when the British annexed Cyprus and broke the leasing agreement with the Ottomans.
“It can be considered a de facto state but with restricted outlets and international rights outside its borders”. I think there is no need I should dwell on that unless necessary. No, it can not be considered a de facto state. Who says so? With restricted outlets and international rights outside its border? What does this imply?
“Since the Annan plan referendum the UN has voiced its disappointment to the government of the Republic of Cyprus for the rejection of the plan, and refrained from referring to pre-Annan Plan resolutions[citation needed]”.
Blatant Factual Inaccuracy highly POV. What does this mean? And how can the author prove refrained from referring to pre-Annan Plan resolutions
Resolutions are issued every year. Did the author read them? Here as evidence the 2006 issue Titled "S/RES/1687 (2006) The situation in Cyprus" in the center of the page. http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions06.htm
On page 2 1. Reaffirms all its relevant resolutions on Cyprus….'
“The TRNC is also increasingly treated as a separate entity by major country analysts such as Economist Intelligence Unit and Jane's Intelligence”. Factual accuracy disputed. An attempt to "recognition" by the author. How can the author prove this? (increasingly treated)
“The TRNC has a population of about 200,000…. “
The article keeps referring to the “TRNC” a self proclamation-illegal. The Security Council refrains from calling the Turkish Authorities that. Turkish Authorities should take its place. Or if TRNC has to be kept then another word is required. Either “illegal”, or “self proclaimed”. Otherwise Wikipedia gives a different status to an illegal entity as dictated by the Security Council. Please read the link to the latest resolution by the UN and see whether TRNC is mentioned. Irrespective of whether the illegality is mentioned somewhere in the article, TRNC is de facto higly controversial statement.
History? I remember posting the Thirteen amendments. Why where my posts reverted? No justification, of any kind. Someone just reverted them. Since the article makes the argument that
“Tensions increased when Makarios proposed thirteen amendments to the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus” and that “Turkish Cypriots were opposed to the proposal since it re-classfied their status as a minority”
Who says it "reclassified their status"? That at least needs to be proved with the posting of the thirteen amendments. Then again the article should also provide the Thirteen amendments to the reader so that the reader can make up his/her own conclusion. As it is right now it is Highly Controversial. and the factual accuracy of the statement is disputed.
The United Nations considers the TRNC to be legally invalid[2] in its resolutions, but in practice treats the North's elected leadership as bona fide negotiators for the Turkish Cypriot community.
Then, under the Pictures in the History section instead of "bona fide negotiator for the Turkish Cypriots" the reader sees "Founder President" and "President". The Security Council never has refered to "bona fide negotiator" Dektash and Talat as "Presidents". Please prove that factual inacuracy. Carefully read the above 2 lines. TRNC illegal but in practice .. in practice what? not illegal? or illegal TRNC and the Turkish Cypriot community has a negotiator in good faith... Controversial at the very least.
The whole article is in high contrast with the United Nations and the Security Council not to mention the European Court of Human Rights with multiple factual inaccuracies and a way to settle this is for the factual accuracy of this article be Disputed by the use of a tag.
If required i shall expand. I request that:
1The Factual Accuracy of this Article to be disputed by a tag.
2A tag showing that the article is Highly Controversial as agreed.
3. The name, the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) was self-declared. The UN considers TRNC as legally invalid and calls for the withdrawal. It possesses an administration and infrastructure, located in the north of the Republic of Cyprus. The de jure Republic of Cyprus can not exert its authority over its northern third, because of the Turkish forces. --Aristovoulos 18:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Here you go I have done that for you. 80.250.128.5 10:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Regards dogeatDOG
Thanks--Aristovoulos 17:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Template Error
Does anyone else get the template error on the article page? Adam777 17:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Adam, Now it seems to be ok although it states "The template below has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do". ???? Can anyone advise?
Adam would you agree that the actual "thirteen amendments" need to be uploaded in the relevant part of the article? --Aristovoulos 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thats a lot of information. I would think it would be better to put it on Wikisource and link to it from the main article. Adam777 19:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
UN as a source
- Aristovoulos, here are the reasons why I reverted you:
- Scare quotes in this case are POV. Compare to having them around "Operation Iraqi Freedom".
- Your changes appear to be controversial and unilaterial. They were also uncited.
- Intro as of now looks like this website. Should I use the info from here for the history section?
- —Khoikhoi 19:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If i understand correctly, once again i am politely accused of being biased. Dear Khoikhoi, please go through the discussion on top. As the intro is now it is derived directly from the Security Council Resolutions on the Cyprus issue and not from either this thisor this here. You should use information from a neutral source such as this as I did.--Aristovoulos 19:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Aristovoulos, the UN is not some mystical bias-less organization. It can be very biased in cases, just as Israel. Here's my question to you: is it NPOV to put scare quotes around TRNC, and adding a quote from a specifc organization in the intro? For example, I could go to the Nagorno-Karabakh article and add the following to the intro:
- According to the CIA World Factbook, "Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan". [1]
- But the more neutral term in that case it control, not occupation. I'm not saying it's the same case here, I just don't think the UN information belongs in the intro. —Khoikhoi 19:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Aristovoulos, please read my entry above. It might clear away some confusion. --physicq210 19:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both Physicq210 and Khoikhoi for your thoughts. Please keep in mind that UN and CIA although both are organizations differ drastically and substantialy. The first as the Name implies has ~200 member countries that as i noted above all have a saying including both Turkey and Greece. The CIA factbook on the otherhand is a reliable source on statistical matters, but it is also a US government publications and reflects US diplomatic usage. Which organization would be "bias-less organization" internationaly respected and recognized to resolve global disputes. The Cia Factbook or The UN? If the argument here is between the two, i would advocate that the UN Security Council is much closer to neutrality merely due its organizational structure (mind if i add organizational objectives?). Why would someone equate the two? --Aristovoulos 20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- However, the argument is not choosing between the two. We need not use only the UN or only the CIA factbook as a source for information. This is an encyclopedia, a collection of all knowledge, not a mirror of the UN agenda (or else Israel will be depicted as an evil, sadistic state worthy of annihilation). Why not use both the CIA factbook and the UN? Instead of having to choose between the two, why not have both? --physicq210 21:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
“This is an encyclopedia, a collection of all knowledge, not a mirror of one" side.
Very true I agree with that, If a collection of all knowledge is required then the article should also include knowledge derived from all countries of the world who have a saying on the issue and not only the CIA – (US government publications) . The best way to include all knowledge is through a consensus reached by multiple countries on global issues. This is reached through voting that takes place in the UN agenda. A conglomeration of multiple sides input. Not just the US. Otherwise we need to retrieve information from specific countries that would like to offer an input such as Turkish, British Greek and what have you Information offices and create subheadings as to what each country states. Once again the structure of the Security Council is such that multiple countries have input on a dispute and not just one country’s diplomatic stance or foreign policy. If to that balance (UN) and consensus we add as equivalent information from a specific country’s diplomatic stance then the exact equilibrium we need to establish is distorted because we are equating a consensus of multiple countries with the governmental publication of one country. Right? --Aristovoulos 21:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- The UN, unlike the often-portrayed paradise of peace, is far from perfect. The UN your argument portrays is, yes, the UN, but without the dirty side. The UN is often, if not always, biased toward one side of another, and the "consensus" you mention often is composed of multiple nations with an agenda.
- Now you may say that I'm anti-UN. No, I'm not, especially when I'm from the city where the UN Charter was signed. However, my view is that the UN, much like anything else, has biases that can only be balanced by external sources. Also, a reliance on a single source may give the impression of a soapbox to readers and editors alike. --physicq210 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not discrediting your source. I'm jsut trying to point out that other sources are also viable and reputable, and hence are allowed to be used. --physicq210 21:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
"The UN is often, if not always, biased toward one side of another, and the "consensus" you mention often is composed of multiple nations with an agenda".
https://www.cia.gov/cia/information/mission.html
Vision
We will provide knowledge and take action to ensure the national security of the United States and the preservation of American life and ideals.
Mission
We are the eyes and ears of the nation and at times its hidden hand. We accomplish this mission by: Collecting intelligence that matters. Providing relevant, timely, and objective all-source analysis. Conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve United States policy objectives.
Values In pursuit of our country's interests, we put Nation before Agency, Agency before unit, and all before self. What we do matters. Our success depends on our ability to act with total discretion and an ability to protect sources and methods. We provide objective, unbiased information and analysis. (internaly but national interest externaly) Our mission requires complete personal integrity and personal courage, physical and intellectual. We accomplish things others cannot, often at great risk. When the stakes are highest and the dangers greatest, we are there and there first. We stand by one another and behind one another. Service, sacrifice, flexibility, teamwork, and quiet patriotism are our hallmarks.
That sounds terrible biased. Have a look at the following
"Most of us have heard about United Nations peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance. But the many other ways the UN affects all our lives are not always so well known. This booklet takes a look at the United Nations — how it is set up and what it does — to illustrate how it works to make the world a better place for all people.
The United Nations is central to global efforts to solve problems that challenge humanity. Cooperating in this effort are more than 30 affiliated organizations, known together as the UN system. Day in and day out, the UN and its family of organizations work to promote respect for human rights, protect the environment, fight disease and reduce poverty".
http://www.un.org/Overview/uninbrief/
If the United Nations are "more often than not biased" then what would that make the CIA that indirectly states "we are biased" in its ??Values?? Whom will you watch out for POV?
Once again physicq210 decisions on diputes in the United Nations are reached through voting that takes place in the UN agenda. A conglomeration of multiple sides input. Not just the US. Why would you assume that CIA can "balance UN biased?" How? --Aristovoulos 22:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that the CIA isn't biased. I never said that. I'm only saying that you cannot exclude reputable sources in Wikipedia in favor of only one. The UN is not the only source for information. This is the point I'm trying to drive across. --physicq210 22:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. The Cia is a reputable source for 2 major things 1.statistical information and 2. Promoting national Interests globaly. On the otherhand the UN not as good source for statistical information but the MOST Respected Reputable and Recognizable and TRUSTED organization (due to its structure and objectives) for Peace and Conflict Resolution issues globally. We may use CIA factbook for statistical info but not for political issues since it promotes its National interests.
May i add the following (citing my sources) http://www.un.org/Overview/uninbrief/chapter1_intro.html
When States become Members of the United Nations, they agree to accept the obligations of the UN Charter, an international treaty that sets out basic principles of international relations. According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.
The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. It does, however, provide the means to help resolve international conflicts and formulate policies on matters affecting all of us. At the UN, all the Member States — large and small, rich and poor, with differing political views and social systems — have a voice and a vote in this process.
In political disputes there can be no equating of the two. --Aristovoulos 22:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have it on the authority of the internationally recognized sovereign nation of the Islamic Republic of Iran that the Holocaust never happened. Politically, this means there is dispute as to the legitimaticy of claiming the Holocaust to be a historical event, correct? --Chr.K. 18:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I have it on the authority of the internationally recognized sovereign nation of the Islamic Republic of Iran that the Holocaust never happened. Politically, this means there is dispute as to the legitimaticy of claiming the Holocaust to be a historical event, correct? What this has to do with anything is the answer to an issue mentioned earlier: de jure is by law; the Republic of Cyprus has de jure control of the entire island; de facto is by practice; in reality, the Republic of Cyprus does not have control over the entire island; the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is what the other side, not recognized by any nation other than Turkey, calls itself. If they called themselves the Dragon-Head Clan of Northern Cyprus, the article's acronym would be DHCNC. --Chr.K. 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The intro
I've also noticed that the intro is essentially repeating itself over and over and over and over again. Mind cleaning it up? --physicq210 22:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, can I convert the infobox to the {{Infobox Country}} template? I want to get approval first before I make such a drastic change. --physicq210 22:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Aristovoulos, don't worry about the "country" name part of the template. Many subnational or unrecognized entities have it, like Bermuda, Republic of China, Monserrat, etc. --physicq210 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
What dont you like? Your suggestion i mean --Aristovoulos 22:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- You mean the intro or the infobox? --physicq210 22:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Intro... why does it repeat itself?
- Well, it's more of the entire article requiring cleanup. Unfortunately, because of this (strangely civil, I've seen dirtier ones) dispute, any major change may be controversial. --physicq210 22:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- But I'm still asking for approval to change the infobox. More for aesthetic appeal than anything else, as the current TRNC infobox has been depreciated. --physicq210 22:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you want to see the infobox, look here. --physicq210 00:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Looks great! I don't think adding it would be a problem, it's the text that's disputed. —Khoikhoi 00:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
"Merhaba A.Garnet. Nasılsınız? In case you haven't noticed already, there's a dispute over at the TRNC article. The latest issue is that Aristovoulos changed the intro today from this:
The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) or Turkish Cypriot State (Turkish: Kıbrıs Türk Devleti) is a de facto break-away state in the northern third of the island of Cyprus. to this:
The "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) was self-declared. The UN considers "TRNC" as legally invalid and calls for the withdrawal. It possesses an administration and infrastructure, located in the North third of the Republic of Cyprus. The de jure Republic of Cyprus can not exert its authority over its northern third, because of the Turkish forces. See any problem? ;-) Perhaps you could join-in on the discussion, it would be nice to hear from a Turkish Cypriot. Thanks.—Khoikhoi 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Merhaba to you too Khoikoi,
Please Provide arguments before you revert Aristovoulos 16:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that a turkish cypriot would feel the same as a greek cypriot. It was turkey who segregated the greek cypriots and the turkish cypriots but i agree it would be nice to hear from one Slogankid 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why should other provide arguements before reverting when you havent waited for a concesus to be reached before making your edits. Thats not the way things work here. Aristovoulous you are in the minority on this one and are simply pushing the article to a POV position by your edits. The intro of the article was concise, neutral and accurate. Adam777 17:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I have proved repeatedly that the article is not concise, neutral or accurate. Please read all that has been said.--Aristovoulos 18:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- We still need to reach a concensus. Your only point is that as the UN Security council doesnt refer to the TRNC as a de facto state so therefore it isnt a de facto state. When any 'reasonable' viewing of the actual definition of the term clearly shows that the TRNC is a de facto state, albeit an illegal one. The arbitration reached that view already but you just refuse to adhere to that. You are splitting hairs in an attempt to push a pro greek pov. I have no problem with illustrating the illegality of the TRNC in the intro however you seem to want to use multiple words when in fact calling the TRNC a 'de facto illegal state in the north of the republic of cyprus' will suffice. Adam777 19:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Adam, Please answer the following. Do you agree that "The UN Security council DOES get to declare a nation as "de Jure"? Or better yet which international organization can declare a government "De Jure" --Aristovoulos 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
When in fact calling the TRNC a 'de facto illegal state in the north of the republic of cyprus' will suffice.Adam777
And please explain why the two differ so much and you claim that it is a Greek POV when it is a "copy-paste" from the Security Council?
The "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" was self-declared. The UN considers TRNC as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal. It possesses an administration and infrastructure, located in the north of the Republic of Cyprus. The de jure Republic of Cyprus can not exert its authority over its northern third, because of the Turkish forces.
Pease read them both and explain.Aristovoulos 19:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Not my only, there are lots, this is the one that we have been discussing for some time now "point is that as the UN Security council doesnt refer to the TRNC as a de facto state so therefore it isnt a de facto state". NO that is NOT my point. My point is "The UN Security council doesnt refer to the TRNC as a de facto state so therefore it shouldnt be called that". My point is that if it is to be called (i mean) de facto or not is not up to me or you to decide but to the organization that would declare one "de jure".
- No it isnt up to the Security Council to decide if the TRNC is de facto or not. The simple fact that the TRNC exists as an illegal state makes it de facto. I dont know how clearer I can be about this but if you bothered to read the definition of de facto then you would see this. THis is my last communication with you on this issue. You are plainly wrong and I am tired of debating the obvious with you. I have agreed to adhere to the results of a vote on this whilst you just apout off your tired and incorrect arguments. You are wrong! Adam777
- Aristovoulos, what exactly is wrong with my message to A.Garnet? I simply asked him to check out the discussion, not revert anything, or harm anyone. I don't see what the big deal is. Kolay gelsin... —Khoikhoi 06:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Adam you did not answer this''
When in fact calling the TRNC a 'de facto illegal state in the north of the republic of cyprus' will suffice.Adam777 And please explain why(Q1) the two differ so much and you claim that it is a Greek POV when it is a "copy-paste" from the Security Council?
The "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" was self-declared. The UN considers TRNC as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal. It possesses an administration and infrastructure, located in the north of the Republic of Cyprus. The de jure Republic of Cyprus can not exert its authority over its northern third, because of the Turkish forces.
The first one being your own approach the second being tha approach of the Security Councul/international law/200 member Countries. No it isnt up to the Security Council to decide if the TRNC is de facto or not. Adam777 the opposite of de facto (in practice (either legally or not) is de jure (by law). So far your passion has brought you that you are not recognizing the legality the United Nations gives to a Country.What does it do then? Its a football team made up of lawyers specialised in International Football law and from time to time do conflict resolution in basket ball. I am sorry, if that is what you passionately believe there is nothing i can do to change that; other than ask you to do some reading before you accuse others of being biased and wrong.
You are plainly wrong and I am tired of debating the obvious with you.Adam777 that is what the Roman Catholic Church was saying to Copernicus and Galileo.
Please dont forget to answer Q1 above..Aristovoulos 16:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- The United Nations cannot define anything that de facto exists. It can only define what de jure exists, or should exist. --physicq210 18:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Adam777, you are so enjoyable! What do you mean by stating that Aristovoulos is a minority? So was Galilei!... --Sixten66
- Lean to comprehend what you read, its an important skill.Adam777 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh and while you are at it look up Wikipedia:sock_puppetry you naughty boy. Adam777 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Adam777, you came yet to one more wrong conclusion! You think that Aristovoulos and Sixten66 is the same person? How sad! I'm by no way connected to Aristovoulos. Yesterday I received a mail from him (having read my posts) and that was the first and only time I ever had a contact with him... I have entered my full and real contact information when registering (yesterday) to Wikipedia, so please feel free to check!
- Yesterday was the first time I ever visited this discussion as a result of Sunday's Turkish Formula 1 GP trophy presentation, where Mr. Talat was faulty pronounced 'President of TRNC', which really upset me... So I visited Wikipedia (which I consider a reliable source of information) to read and quote (to a F1 related forum) some information about TRNC.
- My opinion on matters like the TRNC is that people would live in perfect harmony without borders. And that goes for the rest of the world, not just Cyprus. As you may (or may not) know, Cypriots (Turkish and Greek) lived in that harmony, after their independence from the English, under one flag, sharing common interests, falling in love, enjoying their island, until the Turkish state took by force the north part of the island.
- But then again, I'm so tired of explaining such obvious things to people who don't wish to understand... I won't go on trying to convince you that the sea is full of salty water with more examples... If you could understand that'd be fine; in any other case you can have your own opinion which is still respected.
- Greetings! --Sixten66
I started to feel sick of all twaddle that why not you Cypriots do not accpet the existence of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. There is a land on the Northern Cyprus called by this name. Although it is indicated in a message above, the mails you send to Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is recieved. There is an airport located in the middle of Turkish Republic of Northern Cypru, and as if it is not a legal country why that pitty South Cyprus can not defy against those "invaders"? Because Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is about to known legally by US also by many world countries and this forces Greek to alter many's mind bad.
This is a encyclopedia called Wikipedia and there a lot of people around the world accessing here to get info about any kind they need. This part could be one of them. And all you ill-mannered challengers, what to offer to those of people? Not omit you can that there is a part of country, they deserve to hear a bit of truth... Shadow_Shooter 28.08.2006, 11.56PM (GMT+2)
Adam in case you havent notice its your answer i am waiting for. Otherwise i consider that you have no arguments. Lawrence please consider the same also. Adam please answer the question because we need to settle this.. Thanks Aristovoulos 17:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- You can consider anything you want to. However I am waiting for a vote as has been suggested during the arbitration. I have answered your repetitive points many times, yet you just ignore that so as I stated before I am not going to bother to waste my time debating with you. Oh and your sockpuppet/meatpuppet isnt allowed to vote according to wikipedia rules. Adam777 19:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Adam777, you're unbelievable! Not only you choose to ignore (or fail to understand) my previous post, where I explain that I'm not a sockpuppet (or whatever you like to call it), although I invited you to check my ID (I believe Wikipedia moderators would be happy to help you on this one), but you also state that I'm not allowed to vote! Thank you for letting everybody know your ideas on democracy, freedom of speech and vote. Should we suppose that all posts that agree with your ideas are sockpuppets of yours? Because that's what you imply just because I support Aristovoulos' thesis! But I am not surprised. I understand that you interpret rules (Wikipedia's rules in this case) within the limits of your conception. I will not try to prove that I'm not an elephant.
- I suppose your way of thinking indicates the reason for your beliefs. Your way of thinking shows that you prefer to silence other people's opinion in order to establish yours. And that's exactly the case with the 'TRNC' matter as well. In a similar case on the same subject, in another forum, one of the members had the maturity to apologize for his comments after reading some history, but I suppose this is not the case with you (reading and understanding history, I mean).
- However, I think that all this is getting too personal an it doesn't really help on the 'TRNC' discussion. Please, feel free to contact me via e-mail (you can do that from my Wikipedia user page) if you wish to.
- Finally, I would like to apologize to Aristovoulos for raising such a misunderstanding from Adam. Sixten66 11:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- They say that ignorance is bliss, tell me Sixten is that true in your case. You admit yourself that you opened your wikipedia account at the request of Aristovolous. You then proceed on your very first post to jump into a dispute in process. If you are a different person from Aristovolus then that makes you a 'meatpuppet'. Please read up on WIKIPEDIA RULES, users that open accounts to assist other users in a dispute/vote ARE NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE. Those arent MY rules as you, I and aristovolus dont get to set any rules, those are the terms and conditions that YOU AGREED TO when you opened your account. If you bothered (and this goes for Aristovolus as well) to learn how Wikipedia works then maybe you wouldnt make such a fool of yourself by accusing other editors of trying to impose THEIR restrictions on others when in fact these are terms and conditions set down by wikipedia.
- Take care and do read up on the rules, it will save you from making such silly comments. Adam777 13:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Adam777, I NEVER admitted I opened my account at the request of Aristovoulos! I don't know the man! I already stated that I opened my account while searching for information on 'TRNC' (as you may - or may have not - noticed on my previous posts). But I won't bother anymore... Yes, my dear friend, ignorance IS bliss, but not in my case... Sorry...
- Aristovoulos is right, this is getting childish...
- For the sake of information, I quote a few paragraphs from http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns17372.html as I suppose you didn't bother to visit the site
- "Cyprus was a British colony from 1913 until 1960 when the island was granted independence after Greek and Turkish Cypriots agreed on a constitution, which excluded the possibility of partition, as well as of a union with Greece. Violence between the two communities began soon afterwards and in 1965 the United Nations sent peacekeeping troops to the island. In 1974 Archbishop Makarios, the leader of Cyprus since independence, was overthrown in a Greek-inspired military coup. Turkey then invaded the northern part of the island, claiming that it was protecting the Turkish minority, although this was in violation of the UN Charter and the treaties that had established Cyprus as an independent republic in 1960. This led the UN General Assembly to adopt Resolution 3212 calling for Turkey to withdraw, a move that was backed up by a UN Security Council Resolution 365.
- Turkey ignored these and began to import settlers in the occupied territory to alter the ethnic make-up of the area, which is considered a war crime under the terms of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. In 1983 the Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash declared the northern part of the island independent, naming it the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". This resulted in Resolution 541 of the UN Security Council which declared this action to be "legally invalid" and called for its withdrawal and for implementation of its previous resolutions. It called on all other UN members not to recognise the entity. The Commonwealth Summit Conference in New Delhi condemned the declaration of independence and pledged their renewed support for the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus.
- No country other than Turkey recognizes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus."
- No, my friends, I won't recognize war criminals as an indipendent 'democracy'!
- Adam777, you can accuse me on copyright laws on copying the above paragraphs from www.grandprix.com
- 'Nough said! Sixten66 22:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear friends, there is a little piece of history on grandprix.com which unfortunatelly cannot copy to this page as it would be a copyright violation. However, the URL is http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns17372.html Sixten66 19:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Once again Adam777 you accuse myself with no evidence. Prove your accusation or apologize. Isn’t there someone that can stop his childishness? Dear friends a poll will not prove anything. Statistically we will be gathering information (votes) from a sample(voters) that may NOT understand the ipso facto political essence of this dispute. I reassure you that a poll had been set up by the Security Council and member states to identify whether “TRNC’s” declaration is legal and hence how the Turkish Cypriot Community and Turkish Forces are referred to. Adam has NOT answered the question I asked a week ago which was a substantial one. (why his intro and mine differ all that much).
(a)…to want to use multiple words when in fact calling the TRNC a 'de facto illegal state in the north of the republic of cyprus' will suffice. Adam777 19:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
(b) The "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" was self-declared. The UN considers TRNC as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal. It possesses an administration and infrastructure, located in the north of the Republic of Cyprus. The de jure Republic of Cyprus can not exert its authority over its northern third, because of the Turkish forces. .Aristovoulos 19:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Adam777 has being doing the same tactic since the beginning of the debate. When he has no evidenve he stops communicating, changes the subject accusing myself of being biased. Now there is a new accusation. I am 2 people in this talk page...
Since Adam777 has nothing to say I expect others to raise arguments as to why the articles intro should not be changed to (b) above. Please before posting arguments make sure that they have not been answered in the talk page above. --Aristovoulos 16:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
ok, Then i assume the intro can be edited. If someone wants to share a thought please do so.Aristovoulos 15:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well you assume wrong. Maybe when you take the time to learn how wikipedia works you might be able to work within the rules to contribute. As long as you make assumptions and ignore arbitrators decisions then people are going to revert your edits. How about we adhere to wikipeida rules and request a binding arbitration? Adam777 04:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
WHAT? I ignore what? I am here to debate while you have withdrawn. Have you or have you NOT withdrawn from the debate? Please explain??? And since there were no objections i thought that a consensus was reached.
Where do you stand? What is your argument that you want to take to a binding arbitration? Your intro suggestion and mine?
I am pasting LawrenceTrevallion comment below saying you have withdrawn.
Well, Adam777 told me that he did not want informal mediation any longer, so I will step aside. LawrenceTrevallion 14:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I cannot step in if Adam777 withdraws from the debate as I am not part of the formal mediation process here. My mediation is non-binding, nor do I have an official role in the Wikipedia administration. LawrenceTrevallion 15:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I am also pasting part of your comment re your withdrawal below:
You know what I think Ive changed my mind. Im going to pull back from that article and stop editing for a spell as its taking up too much of my time on wikipedia.Adam777 11:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Waiting for your replyAristovoulos 11:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- >>And since there were no objections i thought that a consensus was reached. <<< That isnt the case is it. I have pulled back from editing as that is part of Wikipedias policy about resolving disputes, which I have been following. I suggest that if you want to re-write the intro to include information that is included in the rest of the article and therefore make the intro a political statement as opposed to the intro to an article that you get a formal mediation to agree with you first. If not it will just be a back and fore edit war. Lets go to a formal mediation and get this settled. Adam777 11:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Adam please let me know whether your below pasted comment is still your argument word for word: when in fact calling the TRNC a 'de facto illegal state in the north of the republic of cyprus' will suffice. Adam777 19:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Aristovoulos 18:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Five Finger Mountain Legends
Should these "Five Finger Mountain Legends" be on the main TRNC article, next to sections such as Politics and Economy? Seems oddly enough. --Húsönd 15:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Cleaning up the article
Any editors willing to give me a hand cleaning up the article? I suggest we work from top down. Aristovoulos 16:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- are you wanting to clean up the article so that is pro-Greek or so that it is neither pro-Greek nor pro-Turkish? Rhyddfrydol 22:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Addendum to read
http://www.turkishweekly.net/articles.php?id=144
Greek Game Playing
Most of what i have read on this page constitutes Greek game playing and wank fantasies - most interesting of which is the laughable idea that the clock can be turned back to pre-1974 and all subsequent residents can be forced out. I refer you to this Usenet post about Cuban exiles and their chances of modern Cubans surrendering property - Greek Cypriots have about the same chance of forcing things back to 1974 - a snowflake in hell's. PMA 06:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that was a laughable comment... But aggressive and offensive POVs can be found everywhere, so, i am not surprised at all... Hectorian 09:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well a personal attack but no answer to my very valid point about the stupidity of certain Greek fantasies. PMA 10:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It may seem like greek fantasies to you and am not surprised. Never expected anything else from a bloody turk.
- I'm Irish/English not Turkish - oh and by the way some of my best friends are Greek and Turkish-Australian PMA 12:10, 3 October 2006
Then you must have really looked into the Cyprus problem in order to be expressing such an opinion and reaching that conclusion. Let me just ask you this. I ve been leaving in England for six years. I legally bought a piece of land. With your way of thinking am allowed to create a new country in that piece of land with its own rules and regulations and the english can say nothing about it.
- No that's not what i said - i merely pointed out how i felt that the stated dreams of restoring the pre-1974 status quo are just that - dreams. PMA 15:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What really cracks me up is the Turkish chauvinist view that the Turkish authorities will get away with their breaches of the Geneva conventions by colonizing the (illegally) occupied territory, expelling the ethnic Greeks etc. Thankfully, civilized Europe (or rather the European courts) think differently: Turkey was required to pay compensation to Ms Loizidou (in the case Loizidou v Turkey) back in 1998. The clock may not be turned back (and there's not much evidence that this is what people want), but Turkey will have to cough up some serious cash for their various unconscionable doings. --Tzekai 15:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Of course and i agree with you - i just was kind of stunned by some of the turn back the clock extremists i've seen. I am hardly a "Turkish chauvinist" - I am an Australian of Irish and English descent - convict on my mother's side and freedman on my father's. I have nothing but the deepest respect for both Greece and Turkey - and indeed Germany and Poland - even when i've had to deal with ǜber-nationalists and idelologists in articles related to their particular issues. PMA 17:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Since you insist that the Greeks have no chance of reclaiming their property back, I can only conclude that you have purchaced a nice piece of property in occupied Cyprus. If you have bought stolen property, you should be ashamed of yourself and not try to convince the rightful owner to forget his/her property. Q43 08:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry no i haven't - please stop sounding like a Cuban plantation owner. PMA 07:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Since you're from Australia, then you should try with some examples from that part of the world. Anyway, here there is the law of the land registry office and we shall abide by it. Q43 16:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Since you insist that the Greeks have no chance of reclaiming their property back, I can only conclude that you have purchaced a nice piece of property in occupied Cyprus. If you have bought stolen property, you should be ashamed of yourself and not try to convince the rightful owner to forget his/her property. Q43 08:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Dont remove the tag
This article is highly biased with factual errors Aristovoul0s 21:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Why the edit war over the name TRNC
Guys, why are you in an edit war over the name TRNC?, thats a little silly. It ISNT called 'Northern Cyprus' by the world it is refered to as the TRNC. If it wasnt then we wouldnt have this article would we. Can the nationalists stop the nonsense and refer to the flag, president etc as 'TRNC'.
And BEFORE I get 4000 pages of UN legalesse sent my way I would remind people of wikipedias rules on names...the most common and usual useage gets used, look it up as Im not going to spend any more time on this sillyness. Its an article on the TRNC so lets call it the TRNC, just like the majority of the world does. Adam777 23:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Page protected
I've protected the article. First settle your disagreements by discussing them civilly on this talk page. Edit warring doesn't benefit the article, or wikipedia in general. Readers have a right to expect a stable article, they shouldn't have to flipflop between two different articles every five minutes. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 13:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've also hidden two sections from direct view. The first is
- "The TRNC is also increasingly treated{{fact}} as a separate entity by major country analysts such as Economist Intelligence Unit and Jane's Intelligence."
- This wasn't referenced per Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Where does the EIU treat the TRNC as a separate entity? Where does Jane's Intelligence treat the TRNC as a separate entity? Please provide those sources. Don't expect readers to either take your word for it or go on a search of their own.
- The other section I've hidden was:
- "Greek Cypriot forces,under the control of Nikos Sampson started a planned pogrom and ethnic cleansing on Turkish Cypriots. Many thousands was dead, many Turkish woman was killed after raped, Many hundreds of houses fired and destroyed, Crops in fields was fired, also cows/sheeps killed."
- Not only was this unreferenced, it was also written in horrible English. Please, we're an English-language wikipedia. At least make sure that the grammar, the spelling and the choice of words for what you write are correct. "Fired", for instance, means "to lose a job." I don't think many crops lost their jobs in this act. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 11:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Whilst you are right to protect the page and remove the above paragraph (I wonder if he was talking about Cops in fields losing their jobs :) ), I'm curious about your removal of the 'ECI/Janes Intelligence' comment. It is one of a half dozen 'citation needed' comments in the article, all the comments but one having a pro-TRNC slant (kind of POV tagging there). So why just remove that one? Particulary when the article has a disputed tag in place? The article could do with quite a few more citation needed tags however that is bound to cause an edit war/revert war Adam777 13:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- The user Aristovoul0s put the "totally disputed" tag without discussing the issue first at the talk/discussion page. If there exists a factual inaccuracy, this should be proven first with providing reliable sources. Furthermore, the edit war between the users Aristovoul0s, Mustafa Akalp, Tekleni, Hectorian, Aecis and E104421 ended up in such a way that the article turned out to be a "totally disputed" one. The article may not reflect NPOV but "POV" is quite different than "Factual Inaccuracy". The way of blocking the page with the "totally disputed" tag is not a civil way either. The SysOps should also have NPOV and try to compromise rather than intervening with the "totally disputed" and "protected" tags in favor of POV. E104421 14:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I was not and am not in any way involved in this edit war. I would appreciate it if you would strike my name from that list. I have never before edited this page, I have never made substantial content edits to the article (I once changed the target for a link, that's all). I am here as an admin dealing with an edit war. I refuse to be drawn into a conflict that other users have. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 16:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- To illustrate that, I will list all my edits to this article here:
- [2] - Subject of the article bolded.
- [3] - Link edited. The article is called Prime Minister of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, to which Prime Minister of Northern Cyprus is a redirect. If the title isn't even shown (the link is displayed as "Prime Minister"), then why all the fuss about linking to a redirect? Why not link directly to the article?
- [4] - Unsourced statement hidden from direct view (not removed) per Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- [5] - Page protected
- [6] - Protected tag
- [7] - Grammatically utterly incorrect section hidden from direct view.
- None of these edits constitute an involvement, either direct or implicit, in this edit war. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 17:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- The user Aristovoul0s put the "totally disputed" tag without discussing the issue first at the talk/discussion page. If there exists a factual inaccuracy, this should be proven first with providing reliable sources. Furthermore, the edit war between the users Aristovoul0s, Mustafa Akalp, Tekleni, Hectorian, Aecis and E104421 ended up in such a way that the article turned out to be a "totally disputed" one. The article may not reflect NPOV but "POV" is quite different than "Factual Inaccuracy". The way of blocking the page with the "totally disputed" tag is not a civil way either. The SysOps should also have NPOV and try to compromise rather than intervening with the "totally disputed" and "protected" tags in favor of POV. E104421 14:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Aecis mentioned this page protection and the accusations of involvement on WP:ANI, and, having reviewed the recent edits, I've determined that any accusations that Aecis is involved are nonsense. Please focus on resolving the dispute, not trying to involve uninvolved parties in it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Aceis, you still havent answered why you removed the Janes Intelligence information that was marked with a citation needed tag. There are MULTIPLE statement in this article that have that tag, most of which are added to statements that are sympathetic to the Turkish Cypriot position. There are many other instances that should have citation needed tags added however when it comes to Cyprus there is a huge amount of Greek nationalism on wikipedia and I dont want to cause a massive edit/revert war on all the cyrpus articles (which I can guarantee you will happen). So why did you remove that one statement? Adam777 22:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- This is just a guess, but the phrase "major country analysts" really doesn't mean anything in English. Sure the Economist Intelligence Unit & Jane's Intelligence may use certain terms, but in the end, they're journalists & their use of language doesn't necessarily indicate a de facto or de jure situation, because journalists are more concerned about making deadlines & avoiding language that clearly leaves them open to suits for libel. And since you mention that there are numerous "citation needed" tags in this article, why don't you take the time to either find the needed citations to remove these tags -- either for or against the facts they assert -- instead of complaining about this one item? -- llywrch 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- My question (that you seemed to either ignore or not comprehend) was why one specific taged piece of content had been removed, it was a civil question aimed at the person that removed the phrase. Aceis has been good enough to mention the comment and Im asking what his (or her) logic was. There is perhaps a specific difference with the statement in question (that has been in the article for some time) that I am not seeing and it seemed like a good idea to ask. Thank you for taking the time to Guess at Aceis's motives, can you read palms as well? Adam777 00:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Aecis mentioned that his major criteria for hiding edits -- if you look in the source, you'll see that the passage is still there -- was coherence. As I said quite civilly, the phrase "major country analysts" means nothing in English. And as for your question, no I do not read palms -- but I can read hostility in a response. I suggest you dial down your emotions on this article, otherwise I don't see the protection being lifted otherwise. -- llywrch 16:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oh puh-leeze and there was noooooooo hostility in your response to me was there. You sir are a hypocrite. If you hadnt had replied to a question that wasnt even directed at you with your own hostile language (why dont you take the time yadda yadda yadda) you would not have elicited any hostility from me. You can have the last word on this little spat as I shall not be wasting any more time on your babble unless it is specific to an article on wikipedia. Diolch yn fawr bachgen. Adam777 21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Answering Aecis, you never mentioned in your comments why you kept the "totally disputed" tag which is set by one of the users of edit war and removed others. In addition, you never compared the versions before the conflict arised. Typing errors and poor english is not the main point of the unfortunate edit war. The conflict arised just because of the POV push. However, as i stated above "factual inaccuracy" and "POV" are quite different issues. If you want to compromise, please review all the versions prior to the POV war. I added your name just because of your preferences about the tags as i mentioned above. It would be fair to place "NPOV" and "citation needed" tags rather than the "totally disputed" one. I also advise the SysOp "A Man In Black" to review not only the recent versions but also the ones prior to the POV fork. I'm not trying to accuse anybody, but you should also ask yourself why the users Aristovoul0s, Tekleni and Hectorian are not commenting here? In my opinion, this is just because the conflict ended up with a "totally disputed" Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus article. E104421 07:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am always commenting, E104421, when i am asked or when i find something important or when there is need to clarify something... So, since u wondered about the 'totally disputed' tag, have in mind that: typos, poor english, 7 requests for citations (had the article not been protected, i would may ask for more), extensive POV pushing (search for non Greeks as well, if u do not mind...), even the article's title, the extremely nationalistic external links, the useless template 'Turkic-speaking nations' (which includes both the legitimate state, Cyprus and TRNC-in an attempt to show what?!, may i ask?... A template that was also in Crimea, for no reason at all, and i just removed it from there). The article needs to be re-written, to be cleaned of POV, clarify statements and clean up links. till then, the tag has every reason to remain. Regards Hectorian 08:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I will briefly answer one point E104421 has raised. I will respond to the rest later today or tomorrow, depending on the time I've got. I've kept the totallydisputed tag in place, because that's the way the article was as I came across it. I haven't sought for a compromise between the disputed versions, because that is not up to me. I'm not a judge, I'm not King Solomon. It is up to those involved in the edit war to find some common ground and to work out the differences you've got. And so far, you (plural) have done nothing of the sort. It's alright to ask me questions about why I did what, but remember that this talk page is about the article, not about me. Try to focus on discussing the content of this article. If you want to ask me questions, I suggest we continue that discussion on my user talk page. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 10:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- The factual inaccuracy and POV are different issues. If someone objects something (especially the factual accuracy is concerned), this should be discussed and clarified in the talk/discussion page first. Unfortunately, all the editors caused the debate failed to do so. I already checked the other versions, the article needs NPOV and reliable sources. However, Hectorian's objections on poor english, typing errors, links, templates are all minor issues that can be corrected very easily without any debate (i'm agree with you on all of these issues). On the other hand, I do not think that these minor issues necessitate the protection of the article. Furthermore, i do not like Hectorian's comments, manner, in the edit summary such as "read my edit summary again: capitals was not the only reason...source your edits and reword them, unless u wanna get this page locked..". You're threatening the editors with the page protection (to the favorite "totally disputed" version, of course). Threatening behaviours such as "do not ..., otherwise the page will be protected ..." (Hectorian's) or "stop...or you may be blocked from further editing" (Tekleni's comment in my talk page) initiated the edit conflict. They never commented on the talk/discussion page about their concerns but try to force users to stop countering their arguments. I'm strongly agree with the user Adam777 that "there is a huge amount of greek nationalism on wikipedia especially on the cyprus issue". Whenever someone adds something countering their arguments, the debate starts. In my opinion, the protection was unnecessary, but even in such a case, it would be fair to protect the version prior to the conflict. E104421 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Answering Aecis, nobody expects you to make a judgement but to be fair. You not only protected the article but also edited it. If you had protected it immediately without any change or reverted to a version prior to the conflict, nobody would object to you. However, you involved in the issue, kept the "totally disputed" tag, removed the others. E104421 12:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- This is getting surreal... Search the article's history and your own edits prior to my edit summary that u did not like... U had kept adding capitals in order to emphasize your POV. i had reverted u a bit before that, asking u to try again without POV-pushing. I am not that new in Wikipedia and i know that revert- edit-wars lead on 'article protection'. i am not an admin, so as to be able to lock articles, so i did not threaten u. most of the times i post comments concerning my edits, but, honestly, i do not think that i have to comment especially when i am reverting POV. apropos, the one making the changes should comment, and that's not me. as for the "huge ammount of greek nationalism... especially here"..., i am letting the readers to judge. Hectorian 12:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
As i stated in my edit summary the capitals were a mistake writen by user 220.240.8.182 first at 01:56, on 25 September 2006 and not my POV push. I tried to add the removed sentences back but edit conflict happened when i pressed the save page button, when i pressed again it saved the unedited version. This was a mistake, i said before in the edit summary, check the history page (edit summaries). You said "you are not that new in Wikipedia" but forgetting the basic principle to assume good will. If i had a time to check the article, i would have removed those capitals. Instead of discussing the issue via talk/discussion page you erased all that parts, then i removed the capitals and restored the parts. After all i decided to quit for a while and when i checked the article again next day, it turned out to be "totally disputed" one. For the threatening, you need not to be an administrator..., what i disagree is your manner.E104421 13:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
E104421, I've said it before, User:A Man In Black confirmed it, and I'll say it again: I was not and am not involved in this edit war in any way, shape or form. Nothing you say constitutes any involvement whatsoever. You may disagree with my actions, that's all good, but that doesn't make me involved. I'm still willing to answer questions, but I will not have my impartiality questioned. And that is the last thing I will say of the allegations. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 14:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- The User:A Man In Black confirmed that he reviewed the recent edits only, anyway, i want this edit/discussion debate to end very quickly. The main actors of the debate User:Aristovoul0s, User:Mustafa Akalp, and User:Tekleni did not replied upto now. Actually, we {Hectorian and E104421) did not involved in the final part on 7 October 2006 which led to the "totally disputed" protection. I think if the article is reverted to the version prior to the dispute and then protected, we'd have a chance to discuss the issues more effectively, cause users would also see more neutral version and may contribute here without wasting time on the current POV version. Regards, E104421 16:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Unprotection?
Does anyone else think that it's time to get this article unprotected?--Tekleni 11:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- I, as the protector, won't unprotect the article. You haven't started discussing the differences of opinion on this article, which to me indicates that the edit war will simply flare up once the article is unprotected. You need to find some form of consensus first. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 11:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- IMO, issues such as these cannot be solved be protecting the page and requiring people to "talk" (about what?). As far as I' concerned, unsourced POV, e.g. the following edits by User:Mustafa_Akalp, which he inserted several times, ought be reverted on sight:
- Adding: Greek Cypriot forces,under the control of Nikos Sampson started a planned pogrom and ethnic cleansing on Turkish Cypriots. Many thousands was dead, many Turkish woman was killed after raped, Many hundreds of houses fired and destroyed, Crops in fields was fired, also cows/sheeps killed.
- Removing: In retaliation for the closure order, Turkey denied entry to Turkish territorial waters to Cypriot-flagged ships, despite the signing of the EU Customs Union Protocol. The EU has demanded the lifting of the Turkish ban on Cypriot shipping and aviation and the recognition of the Republic of Cyprus as preconditions of Turkey's EU accession.
- Likewise, Turkish users should do the same for Greek POV. I think Hectorian has pretty much covered the objections above. The article is a mess now, and needs editing. Bickering over a tag won't solve anything.--Tekleni 11:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- IMO, issues such as these cannot be solved be protecting the page and requiring people to "talk" (about what?). As far as I' concerned, unsourced POV, e.g. the following edits by User:Mustafa_Akalp, which he inserted several times, ought be reverted on sight:
- Editor Tekleni is now adding POV edits to the intro of the Cyprus article, his position that it is biased to refer to the TRNC as the TRNC is now being incorporated into that article. Adam777 16:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think his position is not that it is biased to refer to TRNC as TRNC, but rather that the article name must not be TRNC, or that it should be merged with Republic of Cyprus. See below section for reasoning and sources. •NikoSilver• 17:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
POV article
I think this article is Turkish POV anyway, so I support the totally disputed tag. It gives too much weight to the Turkish position. Check the introduction for example:
- The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (...) is a de facto break-away state whose statehood is recognized only by Turkey.
That is POV as it implies that the TRNC is a state in the first place. The position of everyone outside Turkey is clear; the introduction should read something like TRNC is the name given by the secessionist regime set up on a militarily occupied by Turkey northern part of the Republic of Cyprus to the territory it claims to administer. There are 192 states in the UN, out of which only 1 recognizes the TRNC - that is 0,52%. How come that POV gets so much weight which is totally out of proportion to its acceptance. I must conclude it is a violation of the NPOV policy, and specifically WP:NPOV#Undue weight. How about the article's title, is that not also POV? I hadn't really seriously considered addressing this issue before as I didn't want to have to put up with the Turkish outcry which would certainly ensure, but now as we're required to discuss all issues, let's get down to business.--Tekleni 11:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- How about renaming this article to Northern Cyprus, a more neutral title?--Tekleni 11:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- And Republic of China to Taiwan? Forget it. --A.Garnet 12:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- You forget it... Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Transnistria. I see no "republic"...--Tekleni 13:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- And lets be clear here. TRNC is not a POV. Its a defacto reality on the island of Cyprus. If you fly to Larnaca, walk north, you will end up in the TRNC. It has a government, a flag and borders. No one disputes the existence of the TRNC, they only dispute its legitimacy. If we said the TRNC is legitimate, that would be a POV, but saying the TRNC exists, and writing a article on it is not POV (nor is it suggesting legitimacy). I'm sure none of what i write here will make the slightest bit of difference to you, but who knows, maybe you will see sense. --A.Garnet 12:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- No it is not. All that's a de facto reality on Cyprus is the fact that the northern part is occupied by Turkey. Why not rename the article to Ta Katehomena (The Occupied [Territories]), which is what Greeks call it - the presence of foreign occupations forces is a reality, no? Northern Cyprus is about as acceptable as Egypt is - after all, their official name is The Arab Republic of Egypt.--Tekleni 13:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Tekleni, disputes like these are the reason why I won't unprotect the article. Now they are being held at the talk page, but the moment the article is unprotected, the dispute will move to the article, and the edit war will start all over again. I don't care who's right and who's wrong, I don't care who's guilty and who's innocent. Such actions are detrimental to wikipedia and can never be justified, regardless of the cause. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- All the articles on de facto "states" on Wikipedia do not use the full name. We have Nagorno-Karabakh, not Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, we have South Ossetia, not Republic of South Ossetia, we have Transnistria, not Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic, etc. The only reason that the article on the republican Chinese government is at Republic of China and not China (the short form of the former) is because the China article is already taken. Taiwan, is the name of an island - it has nothing to do with anyone's perception of the claimed "statehood". Not to mention that the Taipei regime also governs on a de facto basis several other island, so "Taiwan" in itself is inaccurate.--Tekleni 13:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- In any case the intro is a bit too short.. On the other hand I agree with Alf that it would only be POV if we said that TRNC was legitimate, but the simple acknowledgement of an existing physical reality is not POV. As for other articles you mentioned, I actually think the opposite, ALL of them should include their names with republic X, seriously. It could be later described in the articles if the country is legitimate or not. Anyone with an IQ of more than 70 will be able to understand if that country is recognized under international law, and why so. Baristarim 17:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- As for Ta Katehomena.. :)) Did u know in the newspapers of Arab countries Israel is referred to as "Occupied Palestine" (in most Arab countries all the time)? In fact in some places it is illegal to state otherwise. :)) When u consider that there have been UN resolutions and many legal cases that have referred to the expulsion of Palestinians and all, that is also a legitimate way of putting it. The only difference is "argument from authority" - ie recognition by other states. In science such "argument from authority" cannot be considered as evidence, see my post 'a scientific and academic take on the issue' on PGG talk page. OTOH all those arguments can be mentioned in the article itself. TRNC is a reality (the name and the administration), however feel free to argue why it is illegitimate or against international law in the body of the article.. Baristarim 17:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Either that or we can just rename the page to a more neutral title (Northern Cyprus comes to mind).--Tekleni 20:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm strongly against renaming this article. There exits Turkish Republic of Nortern Cyprus and there is no POV with its existance. Greek side does not reconize it but Turkish side recognize it. There are many articles in wikipedia that are related with disputed issues. If you want to make a disputed article neutral, first try to state your counter arguments in the talk/discussion page, then try to balance the article by providing information based on reliable sources. Trying to rename or delete the articles which do not reflect your POV is not a reasonable way but just a kind of vandalism. E104421 13:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- You haven't got a clue what's going on, do you?--Tekleni 08:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm trying to be out of the dispute cause i'm getting bored of making the same arguments in similar articles. The major reference sources use the name Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus why not wikipedia? E104421 11:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- How about one reason being that Britannica doesn't have a separate article (search), but rather includes it as a sub-section in the article for the Republic of Cyprus? i.e. it has the following tree: Cyprus > History > The Republic of Cyprus > Establishment of an independent Turkish state (notice the name of the sub-section and its position under The Republic of Cyprus!) •NikoSilver• 17:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- True, in the sense that, as far as international law is concerned, TRNC is considered a part of Republic of Cyprus, and that by everyone except Turkey. It is natural that Britannica follows that logic. That is not POV to state that, since it is true.. however that is not exactly relevant to the title issue coz it concerns the legal status of TRNC, which should be talked about in the intro. But let's accept that there is not a clear-cut guideline on Wiki about the naming of such 'states' (Republic of China vs. Nagorno Karabakh).. Personally I am in favor of using the full names (for all similar articles) since they are disputed territories and their 'official' names have much more significance than ordinary states (Republic of France to France), and as such all of them should have their full names and their status should be talked about in the body.. But since there is no clear guideline about these specific cases as I said, u know where that gets us?? It is up to us to slug it out case by case :))) That seems to be so for all other similar articles in any case :) Hmm.. I can see clouds in the sky :)) But I still think that any reader with an ordinary IQ will understand, by reading the intro, that TRNC is a de-facto breakaway state (or de jure part of RoC, as u wish, but the idea for an ordinary person is there) Baristarim 00:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, a general comment (not refering especially to Baris): why the turkish users insist so much in including the word 'turkish' in articles that can stand without it, following similar other articles (e.g. in the case of TRNC), or in articles that do not have to do exclussively with the turks (e.g. 'Muslim minority of Greece') or in articles were such a name is unheard and unhistoric (e.g. 'Turkish Republic of Western Thrace'!)? if this article will be renamed into 'Northern Cyprus', it will still be for the same internationally unrecognised entity, u know... The example of the 'Republic of China' and the 'People's Rep. of China' is not a good one... Firstly, cause Taiwan was not set up by another state, not invaded (under any pretext), it spans in the same period of time with PRoChina (and for almost 3 decades was considered the "real" China), it is recognised by many more nations than TRNC, was a UN member, etc etc. TRNC falls in the category of Transnistria, Abhazia, etc. Not to mention that the formal title is pov, and adopted for wellknown reasons... u know, the official POV of the turkish government: that there is also a "Greek Republic of Southern Cyprus"... something unacceptable by the international community... Hectorian 07:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- And how about one more reason being (apart from Britannica above) that also Columbia, doesn't have a separate article for TRNC (search), but includes a reference within the text of the article for Cyprus? •NikoSilver• 10:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Gee! Encarta too! (search) Click the first reference to see that it is within the Cyprus article. Those biased independent, verifiable, reliable sources that I've cited are cooperating in a conspiratory cabal against the creation of a separate article named as TRNC in Wikipedia; an encyclopedia which aims to protect the global NPOV from the malicious Greek and Cypriot POV-pushing users!! •NikoSilver• 10:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Formal Mediation may be a good idea
Just my two cents. There are POV edits on both sides occuring and as more editors with a pre-disposed opinion join the debate the possibility of reaching an agreement seems to be less and less. Issues from this disagreement are now finding their way onto other Cypriot related articles. I suggest that the issue of the TRNC article being or not being part of the Cyprus article be taken to a formal mediation whose findings will be binding. In addition it seems like a good opportunity to sort out if we call the TRNC the TRNC or 'Occupied Cyprus' or whatever else is the term du jour. Any thoughts people? Adam777 17:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)