Talk:Human rights in Northern Cyprus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Titles and order[edit]

This article focuses on human rights in Northern Cyprus, which are generally respected. It should not be emphasized in the article that Turkey violates human rights etc. This article should not turn into an Anti-Turkist article, and the last thing I want for this article is to be tagged. It should not also be emphasized that there are lots of violations in the country. But the violations should of course be listed, although it should always be remembered that human rights are generally respected. And the important thing is the violations rather than who is responsible. There cannot be a large section called "Responsibility of Turkey" at the very first place because of just one sentence. And since ECHR decided that all human rights violations were committed by Turkey, all the violations can be placed in such a section. Wikipedia does not discuss legitimacy, and one quote by the ECHR is not enough to create such a section. What about the US, the UK, the UN? --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You created the section called Responsibility and all the content was Republic of Turkey related. There's nothing to discuss here unless you want to go in to the detail of all the human rights that Turkey has violated. Moreover, the buck cannot be passed to an external entity because human rights in the Republic of Turkey and the occupation of the Republic of Turkey are both responsibility of the Republic of Turkey (as per European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations too). What about the US, the UK, and the UN? They have all committed more human rights violations than any country that I can think of.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 16:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I created it, but with the purpose of discussing who was responsible. If you look carefully, you will see that it is not called "Responsibility of Turkey". I hoped for different sources to be found, stating that T/Cs or Turkey or somebody else was responsible, but my aim was not to create such a section. "Responsibility of Turkey" and "resposibility" in general have different meanings. Turkey might be responsible for the operation, but not violations after it, unless many independent sources say so. Then we may agree on all sources in this article are unreliable because they belong to someone who has violated human rights, hasn't the European states ever violated them? --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse the Republic of Turkey is responsible. 30,000 Turkish soldiers maintain the status quo. The Republic of Turkey funds Northern Cyprus which has never funded its own way. The buck stops at Ankara.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 18:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right to vote[edit]

However, it remains that the displaced persons of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, who are the legal owners of the vast majority of land and property in Northern Cyprus as ruled by the European Court of Human Rights, are prevented from returning to their homes.

How can this statement be related with the democracy in a country. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2009, the Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation highlighted:

"Greek Cypriots and Maronite residents [of Northern Cyprus] are prohibited from participating in Turkish Cypriot "national" elections."[1]  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 17:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This does not clarify the issue on displaced persons, I am removing it since neither of the sources contain that claim. It is all about minorities. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks! --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly stated and referenced that Greek Cypriot residents do not have the right to vote in Northern Cyprus. The European Court of Human Rights clearly states (and it is referenced) that the displaced are the legitimate owners of the vast majority of land and property in northern Cyprus. The vast majority of the displaced were and are Greek Cypriots who are not allowed to vote as residents or to live in their homes.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 17:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of owners are not citizens of the TRNC. I do not talk about minorities, I can see that minorities are mentioned. Can you quote where it says that the owners cannot vote in Northern Cyprus and it is a human rights violation? It is still OR, leave alone NPOV. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Greek Cypriots and Maronite residents [of Northern Cyprus]" are the current residents in that case. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the displaced owners of the vast majority of the land and property in Northern Cyprus are Greek Cypriots and the current legitimate owners (and therefore are also currently the legal residents).  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 17:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Current owner does not mean current resident. It is unclear anyway, and the statement where it says ECHR has not ruled that the displaced persons were not allowed to vote and this was another human rights violation is clearly OR. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make a difference in any case. Even if they were there they could not vote despite being the legal owners and residents.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 18:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No because they were not citizens. Citizens can vote, not necessarily landowners. So, additional sources are neede to prove that it is a human rights violation. And anyway, Turkish Cypriots have no access to their properties in the Republic-controlled areas and they do not vote. But this does not mean that the election are not free and fair. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were citizens before they were forced out of their homes. The Republic of Cyprus has always allowed the Turkish Cypriots to return to their homes through due process. Unlike Northern Cyprus which forbids the return of any Greek Cypriot to land or property that they own. Moreover, the Turkish Cypriots who still hold Republic of Cyprus passports remain citizens of the Republic of Cyprus and residents do have the right to vote. Unlike Northern Cyprus.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 20:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were not citizens of Northern Cyprus ever. Before they were displaced, a state called the TRNC did not exist. And Turkish Cypriots can hold passports of the RoC because the RoC claims that they are citizens, with the claim that it is still the same Republic of Cy. But Northen Cyprus is the Turkish Cypriot state and it is very natural for them to not to be citizens. Additionally, Turkish Cypriots are not in the voter lists, since they are not included in the rate which showas how much of the country voted. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were citizens of northern Cyprus. Then Turkey came in pushed them out of their homes and renamed it and now some people call it "Northern Cyprus". That is hypocrisy of the highest order.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 18:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The International Association for the Protection of Human Rights in Cyprus[edit]

I have doubts about whether the The International Association for the Protection of Human Rights in Cyprus is neutral. It says, "The International Association for the Protection of Human Rights in Cyprus was established in 1987 by several well – known Cypriot lawyers and jurists, under the presidency of the then Deputy Advocate – General, Loukis Loucaides." As Cypriot means Greek Cypriot here, this associaton barely looks the issue from a Greek POV. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I have replaced the reference with an alternative that you should be happy with, although there is nothing wrong with using the international organisation.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 19:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for it. However, it is not international, it is claimed to be international. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it were only to involve the Cypriot diaspora it would still be international.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 11:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right to life[edit]

Every murder violates the right to life. And every country has mudered someone in some point in their history. But is there a section called "right to life" in Human rights in the United States or Human rights in North Korea? No! But this does not mean they have never violated it. The point in not having a section called "right to life" is that if you say that "the right to life is generally respected", it makes no sense because it should be generally respected if there is someone living in the country. Four, five or whatever number of murders there are, unless there is a massacre, such a section title is inconvenient. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The murders were committed either by members of the Turkish army but in one notable case by the Environment Minister of Turkey and in another notable case by the Grey Wolves (including a former employee of the Turkish Secret Service). These are high profile murders. Kakoulli was murdered whilst gathering snails and drifted in to the Buffer Zone and was shot on site for gathering snails. I have listed, thus far, five murders. This is not insignificant. The "Right to life" is the most significant human right. This section has every right to be in this article. These murders were committed by staff employed by the Republic of Turkey in what you claim is an independent "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" state. Any murders that have happened in Korea since the Korean war have not been committed by the Chinese (they have been committed by the North Koreans). As such, these murders are even more significant, because they show that the Republic of Turkey is literally calling the shots in northern Cyprus. Moreover, the examples that I have listed thus far are well referenced and I can dig up many more if needed.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 11:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DUE[edit]

There is an obvious WP:DUE violation here. Although most reports say that human rights are generally respected, most sections just contain violations, which are more likely to be individual cases and see this: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. This article obvliously does noy do that, it lists violations in all the sections. Therefore, I am tagging the article. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see a WP:DUE violation since the citations do not represent viewpoints. The vast majority of citations are from reliable sources of judgments made either at the European Court of Human Rights or in formal reports by the United Nations. Nor can I see "individual cases". For example, five cases of murder by representatives of the Republic of Turkey do not reflect an "individual case". It clearly represents a systemic failure in the care and attention required by the representatives of the Republic of Turkey. No POV is presented in the text and certainly no non-neutral or biased sources are used. If you believe that the article is not neutral then you need to provide references from reliable sources to represent the balance that you are seeking. But this article is about human rights in Northern Cyprus. Northern Cyprus is globally renowned for its failure in human rights. It is unlikely that your perception of "neutrality" will ever be satisfied.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 16:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am ignoring the unsourced comments in your comment which cannot be sourced ever (e.g. "Northern Cyprus is globally renowned for its failure in human rights." - obviously this statement has nothing true in it). The biased sections are Freedom from discrimination, Freedom from torture, Freedom of movement, Right to life, Right to property, Rights of displaced persons, The Enclaved, The Missing and Other issues. The missing actually have no relation with the TRNC, since they have been missing since 1974, before the TRNC was established. Some, like "Right to life" are never likely to be neutral because of their titles unless they are put under a section like "violations". Most reports say that human rights are generally respected, but the article obviously contradicts it, and thus the article is strongly against DUE. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is clear that "most reports" that you have highlighted have failed to evaluate Northern Cyprus correctly. For example, you wanted to highlight how wonderful it was that there was a Primary School in Rizokarpaso for Greek-Cypriot children. So I started the "Right to Education" section that shows that the authorities in Northern Cyprus have never stopped trying to make this primary school fail and have never stopped victimizing members of the community who try to use it. The Northern Cyprus will not be satisfied until there are no Greek-Cypriot primary schools north of the green line.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 16:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They have not failed. You claim that they have failed because you do not want to believe in what they have said. Please stop trying to eliminate such reliable sources. Your comments like this will just be ignored. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to "believe it". I have provided reliable sources/references that say otherwise.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 17:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of them is an old report, mostly about 1974 and the other only says that there are violations. Although both of them say that there are violations, they do not talk about the general situation. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The enclaved were not just victimized in 1974. They have been systematically victimized ever since. The 1994 references explains that the enclaved were made to do non-voluntary labor up to and including 1994 and the government of Northern Cyprus was directly responsible for this forced labor. You can't push that back to 1974. What you need to do is find a reference that says when the forced labor stopped (if it has stopped).  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 17:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is generalistic. You have not given one single example of POV within the article as it currently stands (if there were you would have deleted it already). Please be specific. Cite one and preferably two sentences with a POV. Bearing in mind that all citations are well referenced and cannot be descibed as POV. If you cannot then I will remove the tag.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 12:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The case here is WP:DUE. The negative stuff in this article is certainly too much. As the policy states, they should be in proportion with the reality (the reality is not what you think). The article is filled up with individual cases - generally. If there is a special template for WP:DUE, feel free to replace it. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One single example of a sentence with POV please or I will remove the tag. You have no case.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 12:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said here, the case here is not the sentences. It is the overweight of the violations in the article. WP:DUE is something else, and if you remove the tag, it will be unjustified. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot cite one example of one sentence that has a POV then you have placed the POV tag in error. I am removing the tag because you have no reasonable explanation for placing it.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 15:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before the sentences do not have a POV, but the article is not proportional, so the article itself is against WP:DUE. I doubt you read and understand what I say. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging that the WP:DUE tag was not appropriate.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 16:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced tag[edit]

  • Changed the tag with the more appropriate unbalanced template, and added the "quote farm" tag, since it really looks like a quote farm - quotations have been overused. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "unbalanced" template is no more appropriate than the POV template. You have failed to cite one single example of POV that might "unbalance" the article. All the citations in this article are from excellent sources and there is no POV. Until you can provide evidence of POV you cannot claim that this article is "unbalanced" in its POV.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 16:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you do not understand what I mean. The case here is WP:DUE. Please read the link. The content is obviously not proportional, and not balanced. Until you understand what I mean, I will keep reverting the unjustified tag removals. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. As most reliable sources state that human rights are generally respected, the violations should not fill up the article, and this article is a very good example of this. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are using your own POV to claim that some sources are more reliable than others. All of the sources in this article are reliable. Please cite one example of a source that is not.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 17:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, still you are not understanding me. Most sources do not talk about human rights in general, but they talk about indivudual violations or about a certain right. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, how is a generic quote about human rights a more reliable source than a quote about a specific right that has been violated? All of these rights have been violated repeatedly. There are no one-off individual violations. Moreover, how is a generic quote about human rights in a specific year better than specific quotes about specific rights on specific dates? There is no reasonable argument to tag this article as unbalanced or having POV. Particularly when everything is sourced from reliable sources.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 18:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources in the article list violations, except some which talk about the general situation on human rights. Of course a generic quote is much better, since it gives us an idea about the general situation, and also considers violations. I could fill up the article Apollo program with quotes so that it would look like as they never happened, and they were just a lie of the US government. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think that the generic quotes are superior. I disagree with you. They miss the mark by a wide-margin. It is not possible to support an article with such inaccurate general perceptions. I have no doubt that you could find quotes to make the Apollo program look as though it never happened. But you are not going to get away with that on this article.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 21:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean US Department of State is inaccurate? Generic quotes give an idea about the general situation, as I have said. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These generic quotes are focussed on single years. But you quote them as though they are good for the years between 1974 and 2011. You are quoting them out of context.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 12:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If no significant violation happened in 2001, this is enough to say that human rights are generally respected. If they were not, it would not say that they were. And anyway, the thing here is actually from 1983 to 2011, and moreover, the article should be about the recent situtation, most likely after mid-1990s. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot exclude the period between 1974 and 1983 just because the Republic of Turkey decided to call the occupied territory "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". It is not recognised by any other country. Your suggestion is a POV restricted to the sphere-of-influence of the Republic of Turkey. Wikipedia is not part of the Republic of Turkey or its territories. Not yet at least. Are you suggesting that I create a new article called the "Human rights of the occupied northern part of Cyprus"? How else could that be segregated. Quite happy to create a new article called the Human rights of the occupied northern part of Cyprus. Moreover, there is nothing in this article that is not the direct responsibility of the puppet-regime in the occupied territory that is called "Northern Cyprus" on Wikipedia.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 16:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can exclude the period between February 1975 because that was when a Turkish Cypriot state - Turkish Federated State of Cyprus - was declared on the island for the first time, and I keep telling that if much information is added about the period before mid-90s, the article can be tagged as outdated. The so-called "puppet regime" thing will not help you to promote your ideas, unfortunately. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 23:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological order[edit]

This is turning to a mess of propaganda. You just try to delete or take down the positive things, in order to promote your ideas. And you have the ridiculous claim of chronological order for this. Do you really expect anyone to believe in these?

"This article is in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, earliest events first, to avoid POV-based rearrangement of information. There are many reports by international organisations that make annual general reports about human rights over each calendar year. These one year reports do not represent or summarise an accurate historical record of Human rights in Northern Cyprus. It is therefore not acceptable to pass-off the latest one year report as a summary of all the Human Rights issues in Northern Cyprus since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. This article is meant to include the Human Rights record from 1974 and not from when the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was founded."

It is your opinion about the yearly reports. I myself think they are very useful. You have no right to put you personal opinion on an article. Wikipedia needs being kept up to date. Recent events are more important than the history. If you always put the oldest first, and ignore the improvements from that time, that will be an obvious POV-pushing. It is like putting historical population of a country before its current population. --Seksen (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you have no right to place a general remark from an annual report on human rights that bears no resemblance to the historical record of human rights in a POV-based manner.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 13:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you have no right to eliminate reliable sources with such claims. The generic situation is obviously positive. --Seksen (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not deleted any reliable sources. All I have done is placed them in chronological order. The historical record is not positive.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 13:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have just placed the latest reliable sources which are positive in the last place. The chronological order thing is a ridiculous way to justify this. --Seksen (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are in chronological order. You have been placing them in a POV-based manner for best effect (and not in chronological order). I have escalated this issue. Somebody else will settle this.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 13:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Use of the CERD report and language of the article[edit]

There is no consensus on the question. This may be due to the small number of responses to the RFC. It may be necessary to redo this RFC and publicise it to a wider selection of editors. AlbinoFerret 21:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should content based entirely on the 1994 CERD report be included in the article? --GGT (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The CERD report that has been extensively used in the section for the enclaved is an official report submitted by the Republic of Cyprus. This is a clear case of a conflict of interest, meticulous care should be taken in Cyprus-related articles to avoid such resources as both sides have fabricated atrocities/human rights violations. Upon evaluation of the report, my anticipation of bias was confirmed; for example, while the issues about the Greek-Cypriot displaced persons are discussed, while displaced Turkish Cypriots are not even mentioned. The claims in the article, such as forced labor imposed on the enclaved, appear to be entirely unsubstantiated: I have found no reference to such incidents in any other reports, independent articles or resources or even news articles. They only appear in this report and propaganda websites. Considering that the Cypriot govt has no access to these areas, significant questions regarding the methodology used to produce the claims in the report also surface. I believe it would be fair to consider the report an unreliable source at this point, and am removing claims referenced with it, which I believe should only be re-inserted if independent confirmation is found.

Another issue that I have observed is the language used in the article: "In January 2009, the Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation (TCHRF), acknowledged that..." While the TCHRF is a bona fide foundation, its resources and research capabilities are very limited and many of its "reports" cited in the article are general statements, unsubstantiated by specific/widespread incidents. While it is an independent resource, I think at this point its claims should not be presented as solid facts and the language used should reflect that.

--GGT (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, as explained above, has now been submitted for an RfC. Just to emphasize, the RoC is a party that is directly involved in the Cypriot issue and it will naturally be in its interests to denounce the human rights situation in the north through unrealistic claims, and a large section of the article is based on a report by the RoC. For further evidence, please read above. Such issues are also inherent in Turkish Cypriot governmental reports, which I have seen to claim purported desecration of religious sites without any confirmation. --GGT (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are we quoting directly from the RoC report? Or are we quoting from a UN or EU report on the report? This is not made clear in the article. Alakzi (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point. We have to find out where these quotations come from. In any case we can find the actual UN and EU reports and quote from them. Also the RfC statement must be neutral for the RfC to be valid. I suggest a short and neutral statement be made, otherwise this RfC is invalid. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for the above reminder, apologies for my unfamiliarity with the system :) This is the archived link of the report cited. Quoting from the text, "[t]he present document contains the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth periodic reports which were due on 5 January 1990, 1992 and 1994 respectively", and it should be noted that this is an addendum to the consideration of the report (i.e. not the report on the report itself), namely, it is the "state party report". From this I think it would be reasonable to conclude that the report by the Republic of Cyprus is being cited. --GGT (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Overview of the Human Rights Situation in North Cyprus Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation
  • Include with independent comment. We should include views if they are worth note, but we should also include sourced views on those views to keep it neutral. We should not give any party undue weight. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which I would say is the case here as the major portions are basically based on the official reports of a party with a conflict of interest. How about summarizing the report's claims in a paragraph without major quotations/passages? However, it should be noted that these are not "views" on facts or events, but rather unsubstantiated claims, possibly misinforming reports with no verification. --GGT (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights in Northern Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Human rights in Northern Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Human rights in Northern Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_Northern_Cyprus&oldid=1207666676"