Talk:Northern Cyprus/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 19

"Officially Titles Itself" is not English

We have to rewrite this phrase: "which officially titles itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)". "Officially titles itself" is not good English, let alone anything that passes for native-sounding English. I understand that there is a segment of the editorship here who wants to deny the very existence of this state, but we have to come up with something much more English than this. I propose "called the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) in its constitution." That is much more natively English and it avoids the hew and cry that the Greeks have raised over the use of the word "officially". --Taivo (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The TRNC's constitution is (I assume) written in Turkish. Does the TRNC's constitution prescribe an English translation for the country's name? — Richwales (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
No, but it is standard practice in Wikipedia to translate the native terms, otherwise we would not have Republic of France, Russian Federation, People's Republic of China, etc. --Taivo (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the first line should actually be simply, "officially the Turkish..." and leave all that other stuff out. See Republic of Macedonia, where there is another state that has Greek opposition, especially to its name. The consensus there was that "officially" meant "constitutionally". The same should be the case here--"officially" should mean "constitutionally". However, in previous discussions, the Greek POV was pushed to mean that "officially" meant "internationally". Well, that definition fails at Republic of Macedonia, because the UN doesn't recognize that name, and the consensus compromise was that "officially" meant "constitutionally". That should be the case here as well. Let's simply write "officially" and be done with it since it means "constitutionally", not "internationally". --Taivo (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmm...yes, another typical turkish-POV insertion attempt by Taivo. The problem comes with the use of the word "official" in the first place. Its a bad word to use as it implies international status and recognition (i.e. that this is an official name that everybody accepts, recognises and uses widely without reservation). This is obviously not the case here. There simply isn't anything official about the name "TRNC" except on a piece of paper which only one country recognises as a constitution. The only "official" thing about northern Cyprus is that its "officially occupied territory" as per UN resolutions. Otherwise we should remove the word "officially" and simply say "which calls itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)". Masri145 (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
How about "which calls itself the" "with the self-appellation of" Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Dr.K. λogosπraxis 10:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
That's quite an accurate description. Masri145 (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
"Self-appellation" is better than "titles itself", but but still not as good as "official". "Official" in Wikipedia's sense does not imply international recognition or usage, but constitutional designation. You were are part of that whole discussion at Republic of Macedonia, Dr. K., so surely you remember that the consensus was that "official" meant only constitutional designation. See Republic of Macedonia (a recognized state without an internationally recognized, yet still "official" name). Another option would be "governed as" which is found at Transnistria, a state with even less international recognition than TRNC. I feel a bit more comfortable with "governed as" over "self-appellation" for some reason, don't know why. I also note that Masri thinks that attempts to correct foul English are attempts at inserting a "Turkish POV". Perhaps I will note that the next time I'm correcting my students' papers. --Taivo (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Officially doesn't imply anything international. Official titles, positions, etc. are defined by the entity that they belong to. That's all official would imply. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Precisely, Chipmunkdavis. "Officially" is still the best word here without the "titles itself". --Taivo (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not our fault if the Turkish-POV is in accord with International law. The TRNC has achieved Statehood and no one can assert the contrary. Yes, it's Statehood is not recognized by the majority of the International community. By analogy, you cannot call an apple an orange because one merely views or defines the apple as an orange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.241.156 (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Reworking the first sentence

The first sentence was a mess. I reworked it to provide a better flow: Names, self-declared status, location. This makes much more sense and I cleaned that god-awful "titles itself" which made absolutely no sense. "Official" is always the prerogative the state itself and not outside imprimatur. It is an independent issue from recognition. It also puts the issue of self-declared and location right next to the lack of international recognition and the claims of the Republic of Cyprus. --Taivo (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Masri, you need to have someone teach you the meaning of the word, "neutral". The POV wording you edited in was nothing more than a version that was rejected months ago. The first paragraph already states, neutrally, that TRNC is a self-declared state, that it's official name is TRNC ("calls itself" means exactly that that is its official name), and that the international community rejects its claims and considers it to be part of ROC. Your wording is nothing more than POV pushing (as all your edits have been). You keep wanting to disrupt the logical flow of the first sentence by insisting that your WP:POINTy wording gets moved forward. There is a logic to the ordering I put in, see if you can understand it: 1) NAME(s); 2) self-declared status; 3) location. This flows naturally into the next sentence which details the fact that 1) it is not accepted by the international community as a state, which 2) includes it in ROC (a mirror of the self-declared/location ordering in the preceding sentence). Pushing your POV further forward simply ruins a logical sequence for the sake of making sure everyone knows you have a Greek POV that wants to proclaim everything that Greece doesn't like first and foremost. Style, logical flow, and, above all, NEUTRALITY are the hallmarks of good Wikipedia writing. --Taivo (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
First of all you need to calm down, be really neutral and assume good faith. Your edit was highly POV and you took the initiative to make a controversial change that you know other editors won't agree. You're claiming that its bad english and rearranging the sentences to highlight your POV. I strongly disagree with your edits and I think its highly POV to push the disputed word "official" right in front especially when we've gone a long way to establish the current consensus. It simply isn't POV to say that its first and foremost a disputed region and then everything else. Indeed, the particular text is copied from Nicosia and it's Richwale's insertion. I think is the most neutral wording we can come up with; "a disputed breakaway region" is definately more neutral that "officially TRNC". Above you also agreed with "self-appellation", but of course you thought that "official" is better, so its probably our middle ground. So you say that my edit is POV. What exactly do you find POV? The fact that no-one calls it TRNC, or the fact that it's a disputed region? The flow is also neutral and appropriate for this article as its similar to Transnistria which has almost the same status as TRNC. Masri145 (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
1) "push the disputed word 'official' right in front". Wrong. The word "officially" is already there "right in front": "which titles itself officially...". My edit only removed the un-English "which titles itself".
2) You completely and totally ignore logical flow in your comments while I clearly and unambiguously described the reasoning behind the reordering. Putting all three names together before describing what those names mean is a basic level of logical development while separating those three names simply to push your POV closer to the front is ridiculous and childish.
3) "The fact that no one calls it TRNC" is irrelevant to calling it "official". Official name is not bestowed by the international community. The official name is bestowed by the constitution of the state. See Republic of Macedonia for a perfect example--the international community, such as the UN, has yet to "officially" recognize this name, but it is still the "official" name of the country because it is in the country's constitution.
4) Your edit is POV because a) it breaks up the logical flow (please actually read my repeated comments above): 1) Names, 2) Status, 3) Location. You propose: 1) Name (a); 2) Status; 3) Name (b); 4) Location. Your ordering is less logical because you, without any justification, want to separate the first two names of the state from the third by inserting the status between them. Previously, your only justification for this movement was to move the status further forward.
5) The international status of TRNC in my text is mentioned three times, in three different ways: a) "self-declared", b) "only Turkey recognizes", c) "considered part of Cyprus". Your POV edit replaces the clearer "self-declared" with the murkier repetition of "breakaway" and "self appelation" and repeats "disputed". In other words, you want to push the disputed status four times rather than the current three without adding a single drop of new information. The only reason you want to multiply the status information is to push your POV. In other words, you want to break the listing of TRNC's three names by inserting three comments about its status: "disputed", "breakaway", and "self-appellation". That is POV pushing.
You don't understand the meaning of WP:NPOV if you think that pushing three comments about TRNC's status in the middle of listing its three names is not POV. I have explained clearly why my wording is more logical (twice in succeeding comments above). But since you apparently have no problem with "self-appellation", then we can revert to my reordering and replace "officially" with "self-titled". That retains the logical flow of 1) Names, 2) Status, and 3) Location for the first sentence while addressing your unreasonable objection to "officially". --Taivo (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
There are two POV extremes at work in this article:
  • The Turkish POV: "Northern Cyprus is a separate and independent state rightfully declared by the people of Northern Cyprus to protect and defend themselves against Greek oppression and aggression."
  • The Greek POV: "The Turkish army, pushing aside the legal residents of the region, illegally established the Turkish puppet government of Northern Cyprus to suppress its rightful population."
NPOV is between those two extremes and Wikipedia must carefully guard itself against overplaying either aspect of the descriptions above. The problem with Masri's edits is that they consistently move the prior text in the Greek direction without real justification either in improving English grammar or improving logical flow. They are inflammatory duplications of information that is already neutrally presented nearby. Our text here must touch upon all the elements of both POVs and our lead must be balanced between the Turkish "normal state" POV and the Greek "illegal puppet" POV. Overplaying either aspect is against Wikipedia policy. In my proposed rewording (whether replacing "officially" with "self-titled" or not), the two POVs are balanced in the two sentences. The first sentence is mainly the Turkish POV (it's a self-declared state with its own name) and the second sentence is mainly the Greek POV (no one recognizes it as a state because it's an occupied part of Cyprus), although both are worded more neutrally than presented immediately above. Both sentences follow a logical flow: 1) Names, 2) Status from generally Turkish POV, 3) Location, 4) Status from generally Greek POV (1-3 in first sentence; 4 in second sentence). An alternative would be to switch Location and Status/Greek POV, but this might put the brief Location information further back than optimal for a quick reading. Why should the mainly Turkish POV precede the mainly Greek POV? Because the TRNC is a Turkish state and their "self-POV" should go first as the "home team". --Taivo (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Taivo, in all honesty, you're way too worried with logical flow at the point where you ignore the fact that this is not your usual case of any normal country, where your suggested logical flow would probably fit. The reason is that by saying 'officially TRNC' your are immediately taking a pro-turkish-POV in contrast with the international community POV that it is really 'officially Republic of Cyprus'. So immediately you have a conflict of opinion in the first sentence.
I like your breakdown of POVs so I'll follow the same principle. The greek and turkish POVs agree on only these things: 1)That the name "northern cyprus" can be generally used for this terittory, 2)that its a breakaway region (implied that its from the Republic of Cyprus), 3)that the status of this region is disputed and 4)That it comprises the northeastern portion of cyprus.
What they agree on must be highlighted at the beggining and what they disagree should follow next. So as you correctly highlighted above, the conflict in POVs isn't "state vs. disputed region" but "state vs. occupied terittory". So the fact that its called northern cyprus and that its a disputed breakaway region should not bother any side. With regards to mentioning that the name is "TRNC", this is something no-one officially accepts, except turkish-cypriots and turkey, so "self-appellation" or "titles itself" seems more valid. Considering the above, I have come up with some what I think is the most neutral wording we can have:
Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs), is a disputed breakway region in the northeastern part of the island of Cyprus. The self-declared state, which titles itself Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), is recognised only by Turkey, while the international community considers it occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus.
So here we have agreement in the first sentence and then a brief desription of the dispute (including the name 'TRNC') in the second sentence, with the turkish POV being first (because its the 'home team' as you say). Masri145 (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Nope. You continue to have the mistaken impression that "officially" means outside approval, but I have given you a very clear-cut example (at Republic of Macedonia) that outside approval has nothing to do with the word "official". So logic doesn't apply to this case since you have determined that it doesn't. Baloney. Logical flow always applies in Wikipedia. The constitutional name of Northern Cyprus should be side by side with the other names. To insert multiple clauses pushing a Greek POV in the middle of the list of names is POV and unacceptable. Your wording is not NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Primarily as a brainstorming proposal, here is a possible rewrite of the opening paragraph, modelled somewhat after the current opening material of the Abkhazia article:
Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs) is a disputed political entity located in the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus. Northern Cyprus considers itself an independent state, called the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti). Its independence is recognised only by Turkey, whereas the government of the Republic of Cyprus (which controls the rest of the island) considers the north to be a part of its own territory, illegally occupied by Turkey—a position shared by the international community in general.
My hope is that the above is a reasonably neutral, even-handed, factual description of the situation and gives appropriate recognition to both sides of the dispute. Does anyone consider this to be worth using as a starting point for further discussion, in hopes of breaking the logjam we're currently experiencing? — Richwales (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the above is poor in its wording. There's no point saying that Northern Cyprus considers itself an independent state called the TRNC, as they're the same thing. If we're talking about Northern Cyprus, we're talking about the TRNC. The disputed entity is the TRNC. Additionally, I see no need to change the first sentence to one which has less information that the current one. At the moment, we note that the TRNC "is a self-declared state" right off the bat, which already tells the reader that it considers itself a state and that it is disputed. In the end, Taivo is right. His rewrite was simply good prose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Chipmunkdavis. While an honest attempt at NPOV, it's still too heavy in the "North Cyprus really doesn't exist, but we'll pretend it does" POV. TRNC actually exists, it's not a group of people who think they are independent, they actually are independent, whether that independence is considered "legal" or not by the international community, they actually do control their own affairs and are not subject to the Republic of Cyprus. That's de facto independence and sovereignty. Richwales' version is too heavy on the legalities and too light on the realities. I still stand by my version. It's simple, NPOV, and has a logical flow: 1) Names, 2) Status, 3) Location; then 4) Legal issues, simply stated. --Taivo (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Chipmunkdavis and Taivo. Both POVs must be equally represented, but a lean toward the de facto position should be clear. Outback the koala (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I generally agree with Richwales's proposal. It's the most neutral wording we can come up with as its giving equal weight to both opinions while highlighting the dispute about this region. Taivo, you're mistaken in thinking that the turkish-cypriots are "actually independent". This is far from true. What kind of indpendence is it when no-one recognises that you're independent? What kind of independence is it when you cannot have your own foreign and economic policy? Is this the "realties" you are talking about? This has nothing to do with legalities, its a fact that their independence is extremely limited. So its not just a matter of recognition of independence. I feel the need to remind you again that we're not talking about any normal country which everyone accepts as independent. You keep making comparisons with countries like FYROM, where the dispute is simply about a name as compared to a dispute about sovereignty. The case of northern Cyprus has far more similarirites with Transnistria and Abkhazia which are un-recognised breakaway states and should be treated as such. The only minor change I'd like to make in Richwales' proposal is to change the "political entity" to "breakaway region", the reason being that the politics of this region are described in the next sentence. Masri145 (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course you agree with Rich's proposal, Masri, since your interest is in pretending that Northern Cyprus doesn't exist because no one else says it does. Read the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". You're the Bugblatter Beast of Trall. It believes that if you can't see it, it doesn't exist. You believe that if the international community pretends TRNC doesn't exist, then it doesn't. Do the people of TRNC follow the laws of ROC? No. Do the people of TRNC pay their taxes to ROC? No. Does the ROC police force patrol its streets and investigate its crimes? No. TRNC, like Somaliland and Abkhazia and South Ossetia and France and the US is independent because its people pledge their allegiance and give their service to no other power, especially not to the ROC. You confuse de jure independence, which has little practical effect on the people's lives, with de facto independence. The people of TRNC are independent because they say they are and act like they are--and no one has stopped them for 30 years. That's the measurement, not whether France or Vanuatu or Masri145 thinks they are independent or not. While he intended well, Rich's proposal is simply more of the "If we pretend TRNC doesn't exist, then it doesn't" wishful thinking and is not NPOV. And your Greek POV shines through crystal clear, Masri, when you actually link your arguments to "FYROM". Find the article labelled "FYROM" on Wikipedia. It doesn't exist. If you actually read my comments about the Republic of Macedonia, you will see that I never said its political situation was comparable to TRNC's, I said that its "name issue" was comparable to TRNC's. The Greek POV is that "Republic of Macedonia" isn't an official name because the international community, especially Greece, doesn't recognize it, while Wikipedia's position is that it is an official name because the country's constitution names it thus. Same with TRNC. Perhaps we need a new icon for Wikipedia names: "Approved by Greece". --Taivo (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Do the people of TRNC follow the laws of ROC? In fact yes. The vast majority of turkish cypriots are citizens of RoC, they have ids and passports, have the same rights and use all public services in RoC. Even trnc ministers have passports and ids [1]. Do the people of TRNC pay their taxes to ROC? No, but they do get all (in fact more) benefits from RoC and the EU as Greek-Cypriots do. Does the ROC police force patrol its streets and investigate its crimes? No because of the turkish occupation. When you grow up Taivo make sure you visit Cyprus, you're obviously too far away and too stubbornly biased to understand the situation. Richwales has presented the most neutral version so far, there's absolutely nothing supporting either side in his version. Masri145 (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Large numbers of Moldovans have Romanian passports, including leading politicians, do you consider Moldova less of a country for that? Keep in mind the difference between neutrality and political correctness. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I was only answering Taivo's questions. No this is not the main reason its less of a country. The main reason is because the world only recognises it as an occupied territory of RoC rather than a separate country. So however you put it, its not like Moldova, or USA or any other normal country. The fact that its ministers have RoC passports just shows how much recognition and international respect this puppet state has.Masri145 (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
No it doesn't. I've just shown you the situation you've given exists in a "normal country" as well. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The citizens of San Marino and Vatican City also have a variety of rights within Italy. Does that make these states less independent? The people of TRNC do not consider themselves to be part of ROC. They have declared independence. It doesn't matter what you think of them, Masri, or what your Greek POV insists must be true because you are blind to realities, they think they are independent and that is all that matters. --Taivo (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
You're comparing apples with oranges. Moldovans recognise Romania and Romania recognises Moldova. Romania doesn't occupy Moldova. No-one claims each others' terittory. The fact that Moldovan politicians have Romanian passports tells a completely different story than the fact that TRNC politicians (who publicly claim not to recognise RoC) have RoC passports. But its purely a matter of interpretation so I'll leave up to everyone to make their own conclusions. Masri145 (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
"I'll leave up to everyone to make their own conclusions." Wise decision, Masri, since your conclusion that "TRNC doesn't really exist because I don't want it to" isn't convincing anyone. --Taivo (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Lead

The previous discussion petered out with three editors favoring my reworking of the first sentences (me, Chipmunkdavis, and Outback), one editor opposed (Masri), and one editor rather neutral (RichWales). Masri has opposed every attempt at neutral wording, so I have implemented the change based on WP:CONSENSUS (""Consensus" on Wikipedia does not mean that decisions must be unanimous (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable)"). --Taivo (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the first line of the article and requires some broader consensus that that. As you know the only consensus we've reached on changes of this wording is this and this (regarding removal of "nominally indpependent"). These were achieved after many days of discussions that included many editors from all different POVs finally agreeing.
You now want to downgrade this high level of consensus that we reached and push your POV on this very sensitive part of the article, when you see that a number of other editors (incl. RichWales and myself) already oppose your wording. The use of the word "official" (in the way you want to use it) has been discussed previously and many other users (Dr. K and Athenean) have already rejected it and the consensus was "officially titles itself". And that's what you personally agreed to as well.
So since you agreed on the broad consensus you now need to stop your desperate attempts to push your POV and try to come up with something that is more acceptable to everyone that was previously involved. You know it can be made (we've already done it before), you just need to try a bit harder! Your proposed change is simply too pro-turkish for the many reasons mentioned in previous discussions. RichWales has come up with a wording proposal above which I think is the most neutral we've had so far and we should build on it. It is true that we haven't had many replies from the other editors who were involved in shaping this wording so we also need to get their opinions before making any changes. Masri145 (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
While Taivo attempts to push some mystery POV, the edit they made in question Masri in no way affects the presentation of either the Greek or Turkish POV. It as simply a grammatical fix. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you were involved in the discussions Chipmunkdavis on reaching the current consensus. We've had days of arguing how to use the word "official". There is a semantic difference between saying "officially titles itself TRNC" to "officially TRNC", the second implying that northern cyprus is officially the trnc, which is clearly the turkish-POV as opposed to the international community POV that northern Cyprus is officially occupied territory of the RoC. See the problem is that it's firstly a territory under dispute, which is what everyone agrees on, and then we can lay out all the different opinions. This is what Richwales suggestion did. If you see the discussions, the use of "officially titles itself" is already a consent from the "greek side". I don't find that "officially titles itself", its bad English.It's accurate and says what we want it to say without taking sides. Taivo seems to have a clear POV-pushing goal behind this edit. Masri145 (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I was definitely involved in the more recent parts, during which I read everything. Saying a country is officially titled by a long form doesn't imply any Turkish POV. That is what it is. As soon as we discuss Northern Cyprus, we are discussing the TRNC. Northern Cyprus is officially the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. If you want to talk completely about officialness, other countries don't even recognise that the entity of Northern Cyprus exists. There's no bickering about whether Northern Cyprus is officially titled this or this. There's two points of view: 1) There is no Northern Cyprus, in which case there are no names to bandy around 2) There is a Northern Cyprus, and that entity is titled the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. So since we already discuss Northern Cyprus as if it exists (which indeed every country does unofficially), then we must go with 2.
Additionally, neither the UN nor any international body makes any decisions on whether something is official or not. They could make statements on whether something is legal under international law or something similar, but that's it.
Purely semantically, when using the word official in English, it is taken as the viewpoint of the body that decided on the topic automatically. This is why countries will "recognise" something (or not), rather than declare that this is official themselves. They have no bearing on whether something is official, only whether it is official in their opinion (for example the USA or any country won't say that Burma isn't officially Myanmar, because it is. What they say instead is that they do not recognise the name, it is their official policy that they will continue to use Burma.)
Put simply, using "which officially titles itself" is simply bad English prose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
"Officially titles itself" is bad grammar, Masri, and means exactly the same thing as "Officially". That's exactly what "officially" means.
Read WP:CONSENSUS. We do not have to have unanimity if you stand alone objecting to things that all the other involved editors agree to. Only YOU thought this edit was not neutral. All the other editors involved considered it to be more neutral and both grammatically and prosaically sound. You are the one pushing your POV, as evidenced above when you did not call "Macedonia" by its name, but called it "FYROM".
And your claim that the discussion was not over is simply false. There had been no comment for a couple of weeks without any of the editors backing your objections to improving the grammar. That's a finished discussion. Your claims that other editors backed your objections to fixing the English grammar are simply false. When you object to writing proper English on the basis of your extreme anti-TRNC POV, and no one else backs you, then the demands of WP:CONSENSUS have been met for implementing the improvement of the English prose of this first sentence.
You need to read Chipmunkdavis' comments above very carefully, Masri, because you don't seem to understand the issue at all. Your POV is that Northern Cyprus doesn't exist and should not be discussed as it it does. Fine. That's your POV. But this issue is not about whether Northern Cyprus should or should not exist. It is simply, and solely, about the issue that the official name of Northern Cyprus is TRNC, whether you think the country actually exists or not. It's a naming issue, not an existence issue. Whether TRNC exists for you or not, it is called by three names--"Northern Cyprus", "North Cyprus" and its official name "TRNC". We can then talk about whether or not it exists in the eyes of the international community or not. You have gotten yourself so inflamed over the fact that this article even exists about a country that you think should not exist that you have failed to see the issue here. --Taivo (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
You're bringing up the same arguments over and over again. You simply don't have enough support here for your change. The current text is supported by a much larger majority. "Officially TRNC" is semantically different to "officially titles itself TRNC". Richwales still has the most neutral wording so far. Masri145 (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Masri, you are quite mistaken. You are alone in your contentions and you claim that I don't have support. That is a fantasy. All the other editors commenting in this discussion have said that my wording was more neutral. NONE have sided with your contention that an ungrammatical and stylistically awful wording is better. You simply have not read the comments and live in your POV world. RichWales's option was rejected by two other editors besides myself as not being more neutral. Only you, unabashedly entrenched in your Greek POV, refuse to compromise. Read the first sentence of WP:CONSENSUS. Unanimity is not necessary to meet the demands of WP:CONSENSUS when an editor like yourself is simply too entrenched in a POV to move. You are the one who has no new arguments. The "old" arguments were quite satisfactory to build a consensus. The wording you revert to is bad English. Period. You don't understand English if you think that "officially" means anything other than "officially titles itself". There is absolutely NO difference. You need to look up the meaning of "majority" if you think that you, by yourself, constitute one. --Taivo (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I am willing to accept the current wording per Taivo. I do not see a big enough difference between this wording and the alternative wording backed by Masri145 to justify an ongoing dispute. In particular, I do not see the use of "officially" in the opening sentence as being unduly biased in favour of Northern Cyprus's legitimacy; rather, I believe most readers will understand that this merely indicates what the TRNC uses as its formal self-designation. This might or might not be the best possible wording in my view, but I do believe it is a good enough wording that we should just let it go and move on. If Masri is simply not willing to accept this, I would recommend he bring the matter up at the WikiProject Cyprus talk page for further discussion, rather than continue what is likely to be seen by the Wikipedia community as an edit war in defiance of consensus (and thereby risk the very real possibility of being blocked or topic-banned). — Richwales (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Masri, it doesn't appear that there is any consensus for your most recent edit to the lead section. And it also doesn't appear that you took my suggestion to bring up the matter at the talk page for WikiProject Cyprus — so I guess I'll do that. — Richwales (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed user 23x2 also had some objections with Taivo's proposed text, so that makes 2 of us against the edit. So we either revert to the previous stable version or try to find a new consensus. The change I just made is along the lines you proposed above which I think its a good middle solution. Masri145 (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
No, Masri. The consensus was against you and in favor of the minor edits which I made to improve flow, style and grammaticality. Listen to RichWales. You are editing against consensus and simply pushing your POV. Just because an uninvolved editor, whose history of editing on this page is always to pointedly and disruptively push a Greek POV without any discussion, agrees with your disruptive POV pushing, doesn't change the fact that a solid consensus in favor of improving style, grammaticality, and logical flow disagreed with your continued insistence on pushing a Greek POV without regard to NPOV. If you actually bother to read, you will see that absolutely nothing was removed with my edit, the information was simply reordered to improve style. Everyone but you agrees on that issue. Your objections continue to be simply based on wanting to push your POV without any reasoning on why style, flow, and grammaticality should not be improved other than "you don't like it" and it doesn't push your POV enough. Indeed, 23x2's edit is even more pushing a Greek POV than your edits. "which is officially part of the Republic of Cyprus"? That's a meaning of "officially" that is completely unsupported by normal English usage and is nothing more than an inflammatory pushing of a Greek POV. --Taivo (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
There are already two out of five editors that disagree with your POV edit. The simple reason is that, you're claiming "grammatical" changes but you're distorting the meaning of the sentence by changing the way "official" is used. If its such as minor grammatical edit why are you arguing so strongly about it? Its obviously not. As much as you don't like hearing it and don't want to believe it, Northern Cyprus is officially part of RoC, under military occupation and a self-delcared illegal breakaway state. This is the mainstream view shared by all countried in the world except Turkey. You simply ignore this fact and keep pushing the small minority view that believes that "northern cyprus is officially the trnc". You do not have "solid consensus" or even any good sources to back your changes. What you have is only one person strongly in favour of your change, one slightly in favour and two which strongly disagree. This is far from consensus and is simply forcing POV. The version need to go back to established consensus and reworked again. Masri145 (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
You keep talking about ways that official implies something, but haven't provided any arguments about for it. This is just grammar. What sources do you want? A dictionary? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
You forget that you're talking about a disputed region which officially belongs to the RoC. Although they don't exercise full control over it because of the occupation they have the legal right to do so if they want. They are the only ones that maintain the legal right to authorize and to sign any international treaties with other countries. The officiality of the TRNC over northern cyprus is not recognised by anyone except Turkey. And this is the widely held view of the world, not mine. The trnc is simply a self-authorised body which currently exercises limited control in the occupied area. To say that this region is "officially trnc" and not "officially part of RoC" is the turkish fringe view. "Officially titles itself TRNC" although not the best option we've have, gives the situation more accurately. The problem starts from using the word "official" in in the first place. In reality neither TRNC nor ROC are able to exercise full control on this region to justify the use of the word "official". That's why I think Richwales proposal is as neutral as we can get, as it first highlights the dispute and then simply lays out the facts and opinions. Masri145 (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've tried "full name" in place of "officially." While I understand Masri's point, adding emphasis, which his revision does, is not consistent with NPOV, and using non-idiomatic language is certainly not ok. That being said, I don't know if "full name" will work; it looks a bit awkward (though not non-idiomatic). Jd2718 (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Semantic arguments are annoying. Thanks for the compromise attempt Jd2718, but it is slightly awkward. I reversed the order so we don't have to describe the status of the full title, ala Republic of China. Hopefully that sidesteps all this official this official that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Good to see some rethinking. I don't have a problem with Chipmunkdavis' attempt, however in that case - for consistency sake - shouldn't the article be renamed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (ala Republic of China)? Masri145 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Article's don't need to start exactly with their title. There's a pretty intensive discussion about the Republic of China pages at the moment, so they may move. Anyway, what happens to the ROC page is by the way, I used it as an example not as a beacon. Since Masri is happy with this, I hope Taivo agrees it is good grammar. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Chipmunkdavis, that option maintains the logical and orderly flow of ideas that I've been striving for: Names, description, controversy. I'm a little uncertain about the flow of the next three paragraphs: controversy 1, location, controversy 2. The description of the location should really be the second paragraph and the two controversy paragraphs kept together. That way the flow of paragraphs 2-4 matches the flow of the first sentence in describing TRNC first then discussing the controversy. This article should is not like Republic of China in the sense that the simple, common name--Northern Cyprus--is not ambiguous while the simple, common name of ROC--whether China or Taiwan--is. The full name is used to avoid ambiguity and for no other reason. TRNC doesn't have that problem so the article should remain "Northern Cyprus". --Taivo (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The rest of the lead does need fixing. We call it an occupied territory in the first paragraph, but don't explain why till the fourth. There's some idea that four references are needed for every statement (when a lead should theoretically need none). However, that's a new section if you wish. I hope this is closed for now then. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Note that the regular citation requirements still apply to the lead section — material that is challenged (or likely to be challenged), as well as quotations, should be supported by an inline citation even if they're in the lead. (See WP:LEADCITE.) However, since lead material is usually repeated in the body, it may not always be necessary to cite everything if the corresponding material (with cites) can easily be found elsewhere in the article. Given the controversial nature of this article, I really see no problem with including references in the lead, as long as they are duplicates of references occurring in the main body of the text.
I agree that the current wording of the opening sentence is a good workaround that allows us to avoid the hot-button word "officially". I'm slightly worried, though, that some style zealot may come along someday and insist (per an overly strict reading of WP:MOSBEGIN) that the first phrase of the opening must, by policy, match the name of the article. I don't feel this way myself, and I'm not saying we need to rename the article to "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (with "Northern Cyprus" as a redirect), but if we decide not to do this, we should be prepared to defend the current name.
I also agree with the concerns over the ordering of the paragraphs in the lead, and I would favour switching the second and third paragraphs (to put the location first and place the two "controversy" paragraphs adjacent to each other). — Richwales (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I also think the current version is an improvement, and also agree with switching the second and third paragraphs. Overall, I think the lede does a good job of being neutral for what is a controversial topic. That said, I have some minor concerns. One, while "Northern Cyprus" is quite common, "North Cyprus" isn't. Yet the current lede makes it seem like it is. Two, I don't think the Annan plan warrants mention in the lede. It is just one of many attempts to solve the dispute, and a dismal failure at that. Three, is it necessary (and sourced) to state that the 30k Turkish troops of the island meet with the approval by the Turkish Cypriots? The blanket phrasing is also problematic, as it makes it seem that it meets with the approval of all Turkish Cypriots, but I do know for a fact that there are dissenting voices (not that many, but still). Athenean (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
"North Cyprus" is there because, as I recall, there was a big discussion over the name of this article a couple of years ago with some editor insisting that the translation of TRNC should be "North" and not "Northern". Adding "North Cyprus" was the compromise as I recall, even though I agree with you, Athenean, that it's not at all common in English. --Taivo (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, if North Cyprus isn't that common it probably shouldn't be in the lead at all. I think Richwales that we can easily defind per MOSBEGIN, which explicitly regards "the article's subject", which in this case has more than one name. As for sources, while I don't have a problem with controversial information being sourced, I'm fairly sure it's not controversial that the TRNC is self-declared, or that it is only recognised by Turkey. I can understand why the occupied territory would be controversial, but it doesn't need three sources. The extremely summaried history probably doesn't need any sources, but the self-evident "This resulted in the partitioning of the island" has four. Few of these are in the main body.
@Athenean, the lead states the Turkish troops are approved by the government, not the people. I would think that's fairly uncontroversial. I too think switching the second and third paragraphs would be useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting a new paragraph as I have a few points to raise (summarizing the points raised above). First of all I agree with the switching of paragraphs. However the 3rd and 4th paragraphs still need improvement and neutralising, specifically in these 6 points:

  1. North Cyprus:I have some reservations about the use of North Cyprus. To start with this is controversial as it has connotations to a separate recognised state (like North Korea etc.). The greeks don't use that term at all (north or northern). Instead they use terms "psedo-state", "occupied cyprus". In english, Northern Cyprus is much more common than North Cyprus, because it refers mostly to a region than a state. Google books results for northern cyprus (146,000 results), north cyprus (37,500 results) and occupied part of Cyprus (17,300 results).
  2. coup d'etat, an attempt to annex the island to Greece: too general. By who? In the following statement we specify that the invasion was performed by Turkey. So likewise we need to specify that the coup d'etat was performed by the greek military junta (i.e. not Greece).
  3. This resulted in the partitioning of the island.... The coup d'etat didn't result in partitioning the island, but the invasion did. This statement makes the two events look the same. But it's not. In reality the partition is a direct result of the occupation and an indirect result of the coup d'etat. But the aim of the coup d'etat (according to the official line of the greek junta) was not to partition Cyprus but to unite it with Greece, whereas the goal of the invasion was exactly that, to partition the island. We must be a bit clearer on the message we give with this statement. I also don't think we need 4 references for this statement, as long as we agree on how to say it (one or two would be good),
  4. the resettlement of many of its inhabitants. again, this implies the resettlement was a result of the coup d'etat. Also the word "resettlement" is incredibly biased. Too kind on the consquences the invasion. The right word to use is refugees. The fact that Northern Cypus was home to 200,000 Greek-Cypriots who were forced to become refugees is important information and must be mentioned when talking about inhabitants. Who were they, why did they resettle, what happened to them, who are the current inhabitants?? As it is currently, this statement implies that the population resettled at thier own will because of the fighting, which is far from true. Once more we need to be very accurate in these summarized history descriptions.
  5. Attempts to reach a solution to the Cyprus dispute have been unsuccessful. In 2004, a fifth revision of the UN Annan Plan was accepted in a referendum by a majority of Turkish Cypriots, but rejected by a majority of Greek Cypriots. I'm with Athenean on this one, we shouldn't describe the Annan plan at this stage as its simply one of the many failed attempts to unite the island. The second statement can easily be replaced with an update on the current situation, that the two communities are currently in talks to agree a resolution based on the agreed framework which is the creation of a bi-zonal, bicommunal federation with political equality as defined in relevant UN Resolutions. This is the only thing that has been formally agreed between the two sides (sources can be found). The Annan plan is simply a part of history, another unsuccessful plan as every other plan that was presented.
  6. with its presence supported and approved by the local government. Athenean made a good point about this. Why do we feel the need to mention this? Is it not blatantly obvious that the army is approved by the TRNC as it's a commonly accepted fact that its a pupet state of Turkey? If its not, it probably needs clarifying (i.e. an addition that a number of local people disapprove its presence).

08:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

3 & 4) I disagree. The "clarification" that you are requesting is too tight a reading. In the sentence following the list of events, "this" refers to the whole list of events. Those events were a chain reaction--one event triggered the next, which triggered the next, which triggered the next. The end result of the chain was the partitioning and resettlement. It does not need "clarification" because the coup d'etat was the first element in the increasing separation of Greek and Turkish communities. "This" whole chain of events caused the partition and resettlement since each event caused the next event. --Taivo (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
"In the following statement we specify that the invasion was performed by Turkey. So likewise we need to specify that the coup d'etat was performed by the greek military junta (i.e. not Greece)" is an extremely POV statement. If you specify Greek military junta, why not specify Turkish military too? Greece is used in exactly the same way Turkey is, with the name of the state representing the actions of the state. It's short, simple, and understandable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
There's a big difference between using "Greece" and "Turkey" for that period. The Greek military junta was an unelected government that got power by force (by another coup d'etat in Greece in 1967). So their actions did not have the approval of the Greek people (especially after 7 years of oppression). For that reason, in history we make a distinction on how these terms are used. Greece and the Greek Junta are different. "Greece" is the common name for the 3rd Greek Republic (the current one) whereas "Junta" or "Greek Junta" or "Athens's Junta" or "Regime of the colonels" is the common name for the 1967-1974 military regime (to understand the difference see History of the Hellenic Republic). The big difference with using the term "Turkey invaded", is that the Turkish government at the time was a democratically elected government (more info at Turkish general election, 1973). Masri145 (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
It's common english to refer to the actions of a government, however they came to power and however popular they are, as the actions of a country. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to explain the sensitivities of this issue and your reply is that its common english? What's common english?? To ignore sensitivities and to freely use any term to suit our ignorance? Saying that the coup was performed by Greece is simply not acceptable wording. If you check all Cyprus related articles in wikipedia the most commonly used and acceptable wording is "the coup d'etat orchestrated by the greek military junta". Its used everywhere so I don't understand why this article should be any different? My initial point was that it's an important clarification that needs to be made since we're not saying who performed the coup. Do you really object to clarifying this?Masri145 (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Saying the coup was supported by Greece is just as acceptable as saying the invasion was supported by Turkey. It would definitely look strange if we specify the government of Greece at the time but not that of Turkey, so yes, I do think we should keep the focus on events in Cyprus rather than the political situation elsewhere. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok now you're just being stubborn. It is acceptable if you're ignorant. We don't want to support ignorance here. You've clearly not done enough research to understand the difference. There's a reason for using the term "Nazi Germany" instead of "Germany" when referring to the holocaust. We say "Nazi crimes" not "German crimes" for a reason.
Historians discuss German war crimes and German war guilt after the First World War. Nazi Germany is often, I would say usually, referred to as simply Germany if the historical period in question has been established.
Also, since the Nazis were democratically elected, surely that is an argument for naming Turkey's government? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
You're clearly too ignorant of the sensitivities of the issue and you don't know the subject well. Political correctness is there for a reason and there's no reason not following it in such cases. Being accurate with descriptions is essential in these cases. I won't argue with you anymore, I see where you stand. I'll just clarify what my proposal is. Replace with a coup d'état, an attempt to annex the island to Greece, and an invasion by Turkey in response with with a coup d'état by the greek military junta, an attempt to annex the island to Greece, and an invasion by Turkey in response.. Simple, clear, sourced and consistent with other Cyprus articles.Masri145 (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
That's a harsh claim. I like to think I know the subject well, and I'm definitely well aware of the sensitivities. I'm sure many would disagree wikipedia should be politically correct. The current wording is accurate, whether you like it or not. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
@Taivo: In fact the "first" event (according to the sentence) was the intercommunal violence but that didn't partition the island either. The current partition is purely a result of the invasion and continuous occupation. In fact none of the references provided say that "this resulted in partitioning the island". This is pure OR and must be removed. Masri145 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why we should withhold from our readers that the coup was sponsored by the junta in power in Greece at the time. No reason whatsoever, except maybe an overabundance of political correctness. I agree with Masri's above proposal. Also, the phrasing about the population dislocations on the island is problematic. These were exclusively due to the invasion, not anything that preceded it. Athenean (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Chipmunkdavis that in common English it doesn't matter whether a government is democratically elected or not. When that government performs actions in the name of the country, then "Greece" did something. This is standard usage. And you seem so particular about preventing Greeks from being offended, yet pushed offending Turks by supporting a wide variety of offensive and inflammatory accusations in the lead. Sorry, but you're crying crocodile tears and get no sympathy with the "offensive" argument. Come up with something else.
  • You seem to think that the invasion was unprovoked and not a natural consequence of other actions. Wrong. The invasion was the natural consequence of the attempt to annex Cyprus to Greece. I'm not blaming either Greece or Turkey for the partitioning, both sides share equal blame. The current wording is quite precise in referring to the chain of events as the cause of the partitioning. You cannot place all the blame on the Turkish invasion. The island could very well have been partitioned based on other ethnically-divisive events in response to the Greek push for unification. There was a chain of events here, that actually predates the coup d'etat, but was accelerated by it. Greeks and Turks share equal responsibility for the partition. That's what the current wording allows without overtly placing blame on either party. --Taivo (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
What is this nonsense about "offensive inflammatory accusations in the lede" and "crocodile tears"? All I'm saying is that there is no good reason to withhold the information about the Greek military junta in the lede. And you haven't provided a single reason why that information should be suppressed. It's just a question of informing our readers, nothing more. "Standard English usage" has nothing to do with it. Incidentally, we mention that the coup was instigated by the Greek military junta in the lede of Cyprus. "You cannot place all the blame on the Turkish invasion" is simply wrong and smacks of political correctness. There had been inter-ethnic violence on the island for years, yet no mass dislocations, until the invasion, and solely as a result of the invasion. "The island could very well have been partitioned based on other ethnically-divisive events in response to the Greek push for unification" is speculation and OR, which I won't comment on. Athenean (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I was responding more to Masri's comments than to yours, Athenean. Masri has been pushing rather pointed and inflammatory anti-Turkish suggestions during this discussion, not you, and the "crocodile tears" comment was for him. You have been much less vocal and much less antagonistic during this discussion. Sorry if my comments sounded like they are directed at you. However, I stand my opinion that it was not simply the Turkish invasion that was the cause of the partition. That may have been the last event in the chain of events, but just because it was the proximal event doesn't mean it should bear the entire burden of the cause leading to the effect. It was the entire chain of events that led to the partition and the current problems, not simply the Turkish invasion. To place the entire blame on the Turkish invasion is turning a blind eye to the events that precipitated that invasion. Wrongly calling something OR is simply trying to cast an official Wikipedia aspersion on the facts that you don't like. --Taivo (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, based on your above response, I assume that you don't object to mentioning that it was the junta that was behind the coup on Cyprus? However, your claim that "It was the entire chain of events that led to the partition and the current problems, not simply the Turkish invasion." is indeed OR, not a "fact" that I don't like. The invasion was the cause of the partition. No invasion, no partition. It goes like this: Intercommunal violence --> Coup --> Invasion --> Partition. We already mention that the invasion took place in response to the coup. Hence there is no need to mention again that partition was a result of the coup. The chain of events is amply illustrated by mentioning that the invasion took place after the coup. If you go back far enough, the cause for the coup was intercommunal violence, and the source of the intercommunal violence was the British divide-and-rule policy, and if you go back even further still, the Ottoman "millet" system. How far back does one go? But the immediate cause of partition was the invasion, not anything else. I think the structure we should adopt is something along the lines of: "Intercommunal violence led to a coup. The coup to an invasion. The invasion to partition." Athenean (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I think there's definitely room for some rewriting here. There was a chain of events, ending with a coup that led to the invasion which partitioned the island. Hopefully we all agree on that? Hoping to avoid a semantic difference, which is what I see between Taivo and Athenean, rather than a factual difference (for want of a better phrase). I think Athenean's structure is useful. Separate sentences for separate ideas should reduce any semantic debates. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I like the way it's worded now: "A led to B led to C. This led to D." It's actually ambiguous as to what "This" refers to. Grammatically, it can refer to either the chain as a whole (Turkish POV?) or to the last link of the chain (Greek POV?). That ambiguity can be very useful in a situation like this. If we try to specify the causal factor of the partition too specifically, then we run into the very issue that we're talking about--was it the chain that caused the partition or only the Turkish invasion? I think leaving the ambiguity in place can be to our benefit. --Taivo (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
What "ambiguity" and "specifying the causal factor" are you talking about? Ambiguity is bad when you know the cause. Forget the series of events for a second and just look at the things we know. The facts. We know for a fact that the island is currently partitioned. We know for a fact that this is not because the inhabitants chose it, but because the partition was imposed upon them. We know for a fact that the partition was imposed because of the invasion and continuous occupation by Turkey. That's one thing which describes the immediate cause of the current situtation.
Another thing is to start describing the historical factors behind Turkey's decision. Then you end up with conflicting views, Turks will say its because of the intercommunal violence and coup, Greeks will say Turkey always wanted to materialise thier expansionist plans and get a foothold in Cyprus, and the real reason was not the intercommunal violence (which was in fact 9 years before the invasion) and that the coup was simply used as a pretex. These are conflicting views about history. As it stands this sentence is leaning toward the Turkish view and provides unnecessary ambiguity about what the immediate cause of the partition is. Masri145 (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, as the sentence is chronological it's rather obvious the immediate cause was the invasion, as that is the last event in the list. Taivo's ambiguity is to what the root cause is. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
As per Taivo's comment: "A led to B led to C. This led to D." It's actually ambiguous as to what "This" refers to. I agree. Its ambiguous as to what caused D and I disagree that it should be ambiguous. Based on the facts that we know, the situation cannot be any more clearer. There's not a single argument to proove the contrary. The invasion is the immediate cause of the current partition. We all agree on this, but for some weird reason it's not explicitly mentioned but hidden somewhere in the interpretation of a series of events! Masri145 (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"We all agree on this" is rather an overstatement, Masri, and masks the point I'm making. The point that I'm making is that there is not a single cause for the partition. It is the culmination of a series of events, each leading inexorably to the next. Your Greek POV stresses that the Turks are completely at fault for the partition and the Greeks are innocent. An editor with a Turkish POV would argue that the Greek government of Cyprus was the cause and the Turkish occupation was simply a natural result of Greek actions to endanger the Turkish minority. That's the point that you're refusing to see. Leaving some ambiguity in the reference of "This" in the second sentence grammatically allows both interpretations to be reasonable. In other words, it is the most NPOV way of allowing either reader to see what he/she wants to see based on their particular POV. Your absolutist statements notwithstanding, this is not a cut and dried issue. Depending on whether one is looking at the immediate cause and effect (Greek POV) or the root cause and effect (Turkish POV), one can legitimately have either POV. When there is ambiguity in how two readers can view the cause of an event, then Wikipedia must reflect that ambiguity and represent both POVs. That's why the ambiguity is preferable in this case. Indeed, I can imagine many ways to express both POVs that are much more complicated than what we have here--a very simple, grammatically elegant ambiguity with the strategic placement of a list followed by "this" so that readers can make their own judgment on what the antecedent of "this" is. --Taivo (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to explicitly say "This was the immediate cause". This is already implied in the text, and any reader with a decent understanding on english will realise the invasion was the last step before partition. They will also know from other areas of the lead that the force involved in the invasion remains, enforcing the divide. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
There's absolutely no ambiguity on what the immediate reason of the partition is. I just explained that you're confusing two separate things, the immediate reason for the partition (which we all agree is the invasion) and the history behind the invasion. These are two completely different things. There's no debating about the first one. There's conflicting views about the second one. If you want to bundle them all toghether and have the reader guess why Turkey invaded you need to give all the important facts. So if I follow your logic its better to create more artificial ambiguity. I would say something like this "The British implemented a divide and rule policy in Cyprus promoting division, Turkey had expansionst plans about Cyprus in the 50's, there was intercommunal violence in the 60's, a coup d'etat and an invasion in 1974". Lets keep going back in history in that sentence to create more ambiguity, just tell me when it's good for you to stop...No, Chipmunkdavis I'm not suggesting to say "this was the immediate cause", this is my suggestion replace This resulted in the partitioning of the island with The invasion and occupation resulted in partitioning of the island. Masri145 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis and I are right, Masri, and you are simply pushing one particular interpretation of events and your POV. Chipmunkdavis is correct that we do not always have to specifically mention immediate causes. There is a list; the last item in the list is the invasion; that can easily be interpreted as the proximate cause and "this" can easily and grammatically refer to it. I am correct that there are different POVs on what the overall cause can be interpreted as and the ambiguity of "this" in the second sentence respects that variety of opinion. Wikipedia must respect NPOV and if there are possible differing opinions as to what caused the partition, then a healthy ambiguity in "this" respects that varying opinion. Pushing a singular Greek POV as you do ad nauseum is not to the benefit of Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
When you've come to a point to say "I'm correct" you know there's something wrong with your arguments. There are no conflicting views about why the island is currently partitioned. The invasion and occupation resulted in the division. The division is due to the invasion and occupation. No-one in the world says the opposite. Maybe the Turks will say "Turkey's peace operation divided the two sides island", but still they agree that its this operation that created the partition. What you're doing here is creating false ambiguity to hide the obvious reason for the partition. Masri145 (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Once again Masri, the current ambiguity Taivo advocates lies in giving ultimate responsibility. There is no ambiguity in the current text that Turkey's invasion was the final action that resulted in partition. None. We agree with the world. I'm not sure Taivo's idea is the best (although I do think blame should be left to the historians), but his argument has remained consistent the whole time. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis and Taivo don't even agree here. This is Taivo's position "I'm not blaming either Greece or Turkey for the partitioning, both sides share equal blame." This is Chipimunkdavis's position "...Turkey's invasion was the final action that resulted in partition. None. We agree with the world." You guys need to go figure out what your position is first and then come back here with your arguments. Athenean has agreed with my point that the way this is written creates unnecessary ambiguity. Masri145 (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
As Taivo will confirm, we actually both do agree on what happened. Taivo doesn't deny the invasion resulted in partition, I don't deny Greece may take some blame. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis is correct. We do agree--the final act was Turkey's invasion and Greece bears some blame for the runup to it. I haven't changed my tune at all, Masri. I think that the current wording, with its ambiguity as to the cause of the partitioning allows both for the interpretation of proximate cause the the interpretation of the chain of events as a cause. That's the purpose of a little ambiguity--to allow the reader to see both interpretations as valid. You continue to think that the only cause of the partitioning was the occupation and refuse to allow that Greece's actions carry some of the responsibility. The current wording allows a Greek nationalist such as yourself to see the Turkish occupation as the final link in the chain and therefore the only cause of the partition. But it also allows more neutral and balanced readers to see a chain of events progressing through Greek provocations until the Turkish occupation added critical mass and required the partition. --Taivo (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
You don't understand that there are more than one interpretations on what lead to the final act. Here's just two: 1)Intercommunal violence, coup to unite with greece, turkey invades, occupies and creates new state 2)British divide and rule stirs up intercommunal violence, Turkey's expansionist plans since 1950s, there's greek junta coup, Turkey uses as a pretext to invade. Both these series of events lead to the invasion which partitions the island. Your turkish nationalistic view insists on ONLY mentioning the first version and completely ommiting important detail. I'm not implying that the greeks have some blame about the end result. Instead what I'm proposing is simply to be explicit about 1)the final act that lead to the division and 2)the history behind it. The other events of history didn't aim to partition the island, whereas the invasion did and succeeded. This is not ambiguous! We've had enough with your distorted "ambiguity" logic, we have 2 editors supporting and 2 against my proposal. Please do not reply with the same rhetoric, let's hear some new opinions. Masri145 (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
That's right, Masri, you have not built a consensus for your proposed change. You still don't understand what I'm saying about the existing text, but your brute force insistence on pushing Greek POV is consistent at least. And since you don't apparently understand what the word "ambiguity" means or its value in an NPOV text, then I need say no more. --Taivo (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Chain of Events - Lede

History should roll forward. But in a single paragraph in the lede, it is okay to go in reverse. Partition and population transfer, after invasion, in response to coup threatening enosis. Follows a decade of intercommunal violence which began 3 years after independence from the British. The reader can clearly see the length of the chain. Some may even choose to blame the British, but that's not of concern. Jd2718 (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Embargo lifted or date for it to be lifted?

A recent spate of "fact" tags has queried the existence of an embargo against the TNRC held areas by the Cyprus government (and others?)

An embargo is exactly the thing that the user adding the fact tags has already used as an edit summary - perhaps they do not realise they have answered their own question? "Evidently there is no "embargo", these ports and airports are considered closed by the International community"

As the International Community is considering these ports closed it is a de facto embargo:

  • Embargo - [2]
  • 1: an order of a government prohibiting the departure of commercial ships from its ports
  • 2: a legal prohibition on commerce.

Can someone provide the necessary embargo details? I know there was been a move towards lifting in 2004 [3], but do not know how far things went ... Chaosdruid (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 23x2's edits. There is no "embargo" imposed on TRNC or Northern Cyprus. As far as I know no-one explicitly said you cannot trade with TRNC (or "Northern Cyprus"). The simple reason is because you cannot impose anything its a non-existent state. As far as the international trade and aviation bodies are concerned the ports and airports in the northern territory of the Republic of Cyprus are considered closed since 1974. Not TRNC's or Northern Cyprus's airports, but RoC's airports. RoC declared its own ports as closed because it simply could not have any control over them, not because of a foreign policy decision. The situation does not fit with the typical use of the word embargo which is when talking about imposing trade restrictions on another country (as in "arm's embargo on Iran", or "US embargo on Cuba" etc). That's why the word "embargo" is not commonly used to describe the situation in Cyprus but it is used to describe the situation in Iran and Cuba. I support 23x2's edits as they give balanced and sourced information and avoiding POV interpretations of the situation.Masri145 (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The facts do seem to be that there are/were/is embargo(s), agreeing with someone's edits does not make them correct. One thing I was previously unaware of - it appears there is a Turkish embargo of Cypriot vessels from Turkish ports ...
Other refs for embargo on TRNC [6], [7] and [8]
In a statement by the TRNC leader, Rauf Denktas said: "International mail, transportation and telecommunications to Turkish Cypriots has to be routed through Turkey and the U.N.-sanctioned embargo allows no bilateral or multilateral government aid nor official cultural or sporting links." CBS Business Library
So, if your own leader thought there was an embargo back in 2001, I am pretty sure he wasn't making it up.
The thing to do here is to try and find out what was there, when they finished and what still remains - even if there are embargoes which are ineffective or being ignored etc. Opining that they do not exist does not make them disappear. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
@Chaosdruid: The disagreement here is on what "embargo" actually means. Isnt embargo a diplomatic measure/sanction by a country or a group of countries imposed on a recipient country? If an "embargo" is "an order of a government prohibiting the departure of commercial ships from its own ports, then the wikipedia article on Embargo (the lead) is wrong because the wikipedia article defines "Embargo" as a diplomatic measure imposed by an imposing country, to another country. If your statement is correct then the wikipedia article on embargo needs to be amended. Good luck with that. You quoted Rauf Denktas. That is indeed the Turkish POV and it is ofcourse one sided. POV's are opinions. 23x2 (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
If a country closed it's own ports that is not an embargo, that is a "closing of borders" or a cessation of trade.
In the first definition I gave, 1 (above) is stopping ships departing/docking for/from certain countries or which carry certain goods (arms embargo on X = no weapons for country X)
TO assist in clarification, let me give a more complete definition from Oxford Dictionaries[9]
noun (plural embargoes)
1 an official ban on trade or other commercial activity with a particular country: an embargo on grain sales an arms embargo an official ban on any activity: there is a complete embargo on taking photographs in court
2 historical an order of a state forbidding foreign ships to enter, or any ships to leave, its ports:
an embargo laid by our Emperor upon all vessels whatsoever
verb (embargoes, embargoing, embargoed)
1 impose an official ban on (trade or a country or commodity):
all of these countries have been embargoed by the US
Google also has a page on the issue [10]
The Wikpedia article clearly states in the opening paragraph: "An embargo is the partial or complete prohibition of commerce and trade with a particular country, in order to isolate it".
Some embargoes were looking to be eased, such as reported here [11] in April 2004; however, the US Department of State still has Cyprus listed as embargoed [12] per ITAR 126.1.
The United Nations appears to still have an arms embargo to Cyprus, as per [13], though the recent security council SC/10486 [14] (14 December 2011) seems to be heading towards resolving the matters.
As for the closing of it's own ports, that was something mentioned by Masri145, who claimed that "RoC declared its own ports as closed", something which I suspect is not correct. RoC has continued trade with the rest of the world as far as I am aware.
I trust this helps understanding of the matter. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
@Chaosdruid: The Republic of Cyprus has declared the ports of Famagusta, Karavostasi and Kyrenia as closed for all vessels by decision of its council of ministers. These are the ports in the occupied area (ie. Northern Cyprus). Please see here for more information. This information is included in 23x2's edits. As you have correctly pointed out, a country closing its own ports does not qualify as an embargo so 23x2's edits are perfectly justified. There is no "embargo" imposed on TRNC, there is the RoC declaring its ports closed.Masri145 (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
And so that brings me to one of my main points - who's ports are they? Either the RoC have embargoed TRNC ports, or RoC have closed their own ports (which means they are not the TRNC's ports)
This means that if 23x2 is correct, they are not TRNC's ports Chaosdruid (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, lets see the facts. (X being RoC, Y being Turkey, Z being TRNC)

  1. A country X recognized internationally as sovereign is invaded by another country Y.
  2. The invader holds Country X's territory and proclaims a new country Z.
  3. The international community does not recognize new country Z, instead considers the territory to be under occupation.
  4. Country X says i can not control ports and airports in the occupied area so consider them closed.
  5. The international community concurs.
  6. New country Z says we have an "embargo" on our ports.

who's ports are they? 23x2 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you really think that was going to help solve anything on this discussion?
You also used the word "I" without saying which country "I" is.
Really - get a grip and work towards solving things, not making things worse ... There were/are arms embargoes, so try not to turn this into a pointless discussion about who invaded who and why they hit us first.
Just answer the question - who's ports are they? find concensus, and move on with our lives... Chaosdruid (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Chaosdruid, the TRNC has declared that these ports are its own ports and that they have been embargoed by RoC. These ports are not recognised by any country except Turkey. The international community, through the international aviation and maritime bodies considers that these ports belong to RoC. While these ports are are administered by TRNC staff they currently only trade with Turkey. There's no way you can argue (or provide reliable sources) that an "embargo" of any sort has been imposed on TRNC. We're not talking about consensus of opinions here, but we need reliable information. So far we've seen no reliable sources that support the current text. Instead all sources we've seen support 23x2 edits, so I can't see why we're still discussing. Masri145 (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
"the TRNC has declared ... that they have been embargoed by RoC." - Maybe we're still discussing because of things like your opening sentence? And the fact that there was a UN arms embargo. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The US arms embargo (not UN) on RoC has absolutely nothing to do with what the text in question is referring to (restricted flights and restricted trade through ports). You're mixing two separate things. The US arms embargo is only on legal Cyprus (Republic of Cyprus, legal representative of Cyprus as a whole). Legally speaking, one could argue that Turkey violates this embargo by maintaining US arms in Northern Cyprus which is officially internationally recognized as RoC, but again that's a completely different story. Back on the issue, the original text was reading:
Direct flights to Northern Cyprus and the trade traffic through the Northern Cypriot ports are restricted as part of the embargo on Northern Cypriot ports.
This is clearly not referring to the US arms embargo on RoC, so it was changed to a sourced text:
Direct flights to northern Cyprus ports and airports and the trade traffic through the northern Cypriot ports are restricted because Member States of both the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and the International Maritime Organization (IMO), consider these Cyprus ports and airports, closed as from the 3rd of October 1974, according to the order made by the Republic of Cyprus council of ministers and communicated to ICAO and IMO on the 12th of December 1974.
To end this pointless discussion, is there anything you oppose on this edit? If there is can you provide sources to prove the contrary? Masri145 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, it should have read UK arms embargo. British embargo against supplying Cyprus We have at least four embargos mentioned in total so far: UK, US, UN and Turkish/TRNC.
There is mention of two of the aiports here - [daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N94/125/13/IMG/N9412513.pdf UN security council] where it refers to a report of 1 July 1993 and resolution 889.
The simple fact is that the opening posts by yourself and 23x2 made it no reference to ports and airports only, nor that they were concerned with non-arms embargoes "There is no "embargo" imposed on TRNC or Northern Cyprus. As far as I know no-one explicitly said you cannot trade with TRNC (or "Northern Cyprus")" and "The disagreement here is on what "embargo" actually means."
"Legal Cyprus" is the whole of the island, the fact that Turkey invaded and occupied the northern TRNC part of the island, does not mean that RoC has given up sovereignity, thus - to the rest of the international community (IC) - any embargo on RoC would have been against the whole island, even that part occupied by the TRNC. Until recognition of the TRNC is given by the IC, the differences are settled and the island becomes unified, or some other such situation, the IC will always treat it as a whole in the legal sense of the term.
Most importantly, as regards myself in RL and editing here, I am a neutral editor. I do not appreciate being cast into an "us and them" scenario - just because I do not agree with a "Turkish" centric group, does not mean I support a "Greek" centric group. I have quite a few friends from both communities of Cyprus and the only thing I support is a unified and just Cyprus. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obviously there is not consensus for the change - respect the rules at least, observe WP:BRD, and try and propose things here to find consensus before riding roughshod over other editors and processes. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is it that you don't like with the proposed text? Masri145 (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Resettlement of Inhabitants?

I would like to comment on the following sentence contained in the third paragraph of the article: "This resulted in the partitioning of the island, the resettlement of many of its inhabitants, and a unilateral declaration of independence by the north in 1983". Behind those few words that I have underlined lies the real tragedy of the Cypriot people. The truth is that Turkey, having invaded Cyprus proceeded with ethnic cleansing of the area occupied by its forces. So, all Greek Cypriots, over 160 000, were forced out of their homes and properties and declared ALIENS in their own land. All Greek Cypriot property in the occupied territory has been usurbed for the settlement of Turks transported en masse from Anatolia. It is a step, in the process of annexing territories, most favourite with and "close to the hearts" of the Turkish state. One does not have to look far, either in terms of time or in terms of distance to verify this statement. The example of the Syrian district of Alexandretta alias Sanjak of Iskenderun, alias Republic of Hatay, is an eloquent example of the very same method followed by Turkey over the period 1923 to 1939 when the province was annexed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.228.112.194 (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV demands that we tread very carefully here in order to avoid taking either the Greek or Turkish side of this dispute. It might be possible to include a brief mention in the lead section of Turkish settlement in the north since partition, provided that it's kept as brief as possible (as is appropriate for the lead) and is substantiated via a reliable source (possibly this from Turkish invasion of Cyprus, though I'm somewhat concerned about its neutrality). But any extended denunciation of Turkish actions (such as what you wrote above) absolutely does not belong in the lead, and for that matter probably doesn't belong anywhere in this article at all — please note that the Turkish settlement issue is already discussed in the Turkish invasion of Cyprus article. — Richwales 06:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Fix grammar

The intro says "...the TRNC government, that the..." Proper grammar says that this situation, with the comma going beforehand, should get "which" instead of "that". 129.79.203.172 (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Micronations

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.

From what I can see Northern Cyprus seems to fit the definition of a micronation as it is a self declared nation with little or no international recognition, see the micronation article for more information. Seeing as this is quite a big edit, I think it would be a good idea to discuss this before working this fact into this article. UKWikiGuy (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Micronations are tiny areas declared that have zero impact on the area they're on, and are often personal pet projects of a person or group of people. They not only have zero recognition, but have nothing to recognise. Northern Cyprus is an unrecognised state, which actually has an impact in the world. CMD (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Northern Cyprus is not a micronation. Micronations are small, personal entities that have virtually no population other than the "liberator" and his or her family, virtually no territory, no international trade to speak of, and absolutely no international recognition or even diplomatic presence. You will often see tax evasion as one of the primary reasons for its "existence". Look at the word: micronation. That means "tiny". Northern Cyprus does not fit any of these definitions. Indeed, Northern Cyprus has more international recognition than Transnistria, for example. It has a larger land area than Andorra and San Marino combined. It has a larger population than Vatican City. It has a diplomatic presence in that it is in serious negotiations with other sovereign nations, namely the Republic of Cyprus. It engages in international trade. "Micronations" are "joke countries", not serious international entities. Sealand is a micronation, Northern Cyprus is not. --Taivo (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to insult small unrecognized entities. It's enough to simply say that Northern Cyprus is recognized, by Turkey. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

Census 2011

The result of this census is highly disputed in local (TRNC) media. I've added a source which describes the dispute. My edit only discribes the dispute as per NPOV and in exactly the same way it's done in Sudan. I don't understand Chipmunkdavis's insistence, who keeps reverting yet giving no convincing arguments for his reverts. Masri145 (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything is a question of degrees. I'm not familiar with this controversy. If the dispute is over a couple thousand, then it's trivial. If the dispute is of a greater magnitude then it might be worth footnoting (although putting "disputed" in the template may be a bit much). How many people are we talking about and how widespread is the dispute? Who conducted the disputed census? Who is disputing it? --Taivo (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Even if there was a dispute over how the census was carried out, the results of the census are the results of the census. It's presented in the infobox as information from a census, not as a be all and end all. It's a simple statistic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
True enough, but if there is a significant dispute over the results, then a footnote might be appropriate. Who conducted the census and what is the level of the dispute? I don't agree with a "diputed" tag on the number, but a footnote if the dispute is significant enough might be appropriate. We put footnotes on template information all the time (for references, disputes, clarifications, etc.). But if the dispute is just a tempest in a teapot, then a footnote wouldn't be appropriate. A handful of journalists with a disgruntled politician trying to drag up something to write about isn't worthy of a footnote. Demonstrations and government declarations is another level, however. --Taivo (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Taivo, we're talking about some serious controversy here. The census was carried out by the TRNC government. According to the prime minister (Irsen Kutcuk), he predicted the population to be 600,000. Mehmet Ali Talat (the ex-president and prime minister) had predicted 500,000. The days that followed, after having seen the way the census was conducted, nearly all local (turkish-cypriot) newspapers were expressing their concerns. Kibris (largest circulation) said the census was "controversial". Yeni Duzen, said "Only that much?", Afrika said it was a "fiasco", "Ortam" said "Who's going to believe this?", "Kibrisli" said "Every 2 people, they were counting 1". The real reason for all this controversy is that the authorities do not know (or won't tell) the real numbers as the main problem is the unknown number of turkish settlers. No-one knows their exact number, (estimates vary between hundreds of thousands). The majority of people in northern cyprus, know that the government is fixing these numbers (and that the census is pointless). From one hand they want to show there is a large population to have political gains in the ongoing negotiations with RoC, but on the other hand they don't want to say too much as it's going to reveal how many illegal settlers they have. According to RoC estimates (based on pre-1974 RoC data) the number of turkish cypriots is around 100,000-150,000. You can see how controversial this result is so a neutral footnote seems to be the most appropriate. Masri145 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Masri, can you give sources for your claims? Ortam is not a reliable source. For example, in this article, its cites rumours for its claims. It is a political newspaper, and it is actually reflecting the political view of the Communal Democracy Party (TDP, [15]). Afrika is indisputably politically aligned, for instance, see the third page in this issue, the column under the heading of "Afrika'dan mektup" (Letter from Afrika), or page 7, the column under the heading of "Gör Duy Konuş" (See, Hear, Speak). In page 7, under the heading of "Bizim Duvar" (Our Wall), it says "Besle gazeteciyi, örtsün bokunu" ("Feed the journalist, so that he can cover your excrement", however, "bok" is a very rude and insulting word to use). I do not know where the information about Küçük's estimate was obtained, but wherever it was, I predict they did not know how to spell his name. For Kıbrıs: search here the word "nüfus sayımı" (meaning census in Turkish), and set the "Tarih" parameter between "1 Ocak 2003" and "31 Aralık 2011". As a Turkish speaker, I can say that it is not the newspaper which calls the census "controversial" (it is a not aligned with any political view, by the way, that is way it has the largest circulation), but it is some political parties (Communal Democracy Party - TDP - and United Cyprus Party - BKP) and a labour union (KTAMS). I could not find any reliable source for Talat's words. --Seksen (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Seksen, these are not my claims. I'm not arguing that the result is incorrect. It might very well be correct. But it's a fact that the result is controversial. There are a large number of newspapers and political parties disagreeing with the result as your research also shows. In addition, the estimates that were given from all sides are no-where near that number. There is a controversy, the facts speak for themselves:
  • First, we have almost all turkish-cypriot newspapers (Kibris, Afrika, Yeni Duzen, Kibrisli and Ortam) saying the result is controversial or mentioning that there is controversy (whether politically aligned or not).
  • We have 2 parties (TDP and BKP) and a labour union (KTAMS) openly saying the result is a lie. If you read this article, you'll see that KTAMS says that the turnout in the last election in April 2009, was 373,000 people.
  • We have Talat and Kucuk claiming 500,000 and 600,000 respectively (this should be in Afrika 10/12/2011 - my source is a greek site which is simply citing Afrika and other turkish-cypriot newspapers, see this)
  • At the same time, to back Afrika's claim about the estimates given, we have Soyer (Republican Party - RTP), leader of the second-largest opposition party, saying that the government was reporting a population of 700,000 to Ankara so they can get more funding from Ankara (see this Kibris article)
  • On top of that we have the official RoC estimates that the turkish-cypriot population is 100,000 (excluding the settlers).
So based on all our sources how can you say that the result is not controversial? We've seen sources in English, in Turkish and Greek which say that the census result is controversial and that the controversy is not about a couple of thousand. This should mentioned in the same way it's mentioned in Sudan (...which by the way only has 1 english source!). Masri145 (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
It sounds to me, as an outsider, that there is enough confusion to warrant a footnote on the controversy listing the main differing views. --Taivo (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Taivo, I'm not sure if we should attempt to describe such a complicated issue in a footnote. I think a "(disputed)" and a couple of links to the articles is more appropriate in this case. Otherwise we would need to write something like this:
The census was conducted by the TRNC government. The result is disputed by many political parties (including the opposition), the majority of local press and the largest labour union. The governement is accused of deceit, as the turnout recorded in the April 2009 election was 373,161. The government is also accused of deliberately announcing false estimates to Turkey (700,000) before the census in order to secure more funding and of deliberately misconducting the census. According to local newspapers, many people say they have not been counted. It has also emerged that 8,000 officials employed to carry out the census failed to appear and had to be replaced by staff who were not properly trained to collect the data. According to official Republic of Cyprus pre-1974 population data, the number of native Turkish Cypriots today should not exceed 100,000. Masri145 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC).
The footnote seems quite adequate, but I disagree with the "disputed" tag on the number in the template. The footnote lays out the controversy quite adequately. You don't need to mention every single issue or opposition position. You've layed out the major ones that's all that's necessary. --Taivo (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
That footnote is ridiculous. If we're going to have a footnote (which I'm still not convinced we need), then it should be a note, not an essay on how shit the TRNC government is at census taking. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree, that's why I've narrowed it down. But I still think the "(disputed)" tag is necessary to make the point that this number should be taken with a large dose of scepticism. Usually footnotes give further explanatory information in case the reader needs it. What we have here is essentially a fictional number with a footnote, but the reader doesn't know that its fictional until they've read the footnote. The footnote gives further information on why its "(disputed)" as per Sudan.Masri145 (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Two things: 1) If the two of you agree to place "disputed", then I won't oppose it. 2) Fix the footnote. It should not be an artificial footnote as you've made it, it should be a real footnote that is clickable and links to the bottom of the page. If you have to reformat references to allow it, then so be it. It should be clickable. That will eliminate the problem of it looking identical to "km²". --Taivo (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
That's not a narrowed down footnote, it's 7 lines with 4 references. The infobox currently notes "2011 census - 294,906". If there are other estimates, I can see that it could be justifiable to include them. Having a bracketed disputed doesn't add much. Also, per Taivo, if it can't be clicky, it shouldn't be there (though the text at bottom can remain, albeit in a much reduced format). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Its the same footnote as "Turkish lira1". Non clickable. It's just superscript. That's how you add footnotes in Template:Infobox country I believe. See the examples. Masri145 (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
How does that affect its length and its lack of mention in the article text? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Masri, you create proper footnotes in templates the same way you create footnotes anywhere else--with the ref tag. It is not necessary that the footnote text appear in the template box itself. In fact, that's simply bad style. --Taivo (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind adding the footnote at the bottom of the page as long as we add the "(disputed)" tag as per Sudan. This was my original propsal. Otherwise we're not making a point about the controversy of this number and simply expect the reader to follow the reference to find out. This is clearly wrong and in contrast with WP:DUE. The controversy here is huge and deserves some weight in the infobox. Masri145 (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Considering how it's not even in the article text, I don't see how any infobox dueness can be currently argued. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Chipmunk. You really haven't demonstrated the "dueness" with appropriate text. If it's "due", it should be in the text. If it's not important enough to mention in the article text, it's not "due" enough for more than a footnote at the bottom of the page. --Taivo (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I've added in article text and infobox. I don't understand what you mean by demonstrating "dueness". This is essentially a fictional number as we've seen, and there's a huge dispute about it according to sources. The huge difference with the actual election turnout speaks for itself.Masri145 (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Just because you wait a few months and reinsert the same text doesn't make it any more relevant now than when it was first discussed. The arguments against this text are still valid. --Taivo (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Seksen's edit on 15th April was against the consensus which was there for many months. The reason for the change is uncacceptable since the text actually says the election number. Please do bother to read the sources next time you edit wikipedia.Masri145 (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to actually provide valid links to English language sources for your assertions. The first link is dead. Just because this edit was made on the 15th and you disagree doesn't mean that Seksen was wrong. Words like "widely" are subjective measurements and often peacock words that hide a POV. --Taivo (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that "widely" might be considered POV. I have no objections removing it, but the election turnout that Seksen questioned is simply in the source. Use Google translate. Masri145 (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Fine. I would not object to removing "widely" and leaving the turnout number. And you should know that Google translate is a piece of crap and not a reliable indicator when detail is required. --Taivo (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. Hope they don't watch. Masri145 (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
"Piece of crap" is probably extreme. All these machine translators can do is give a general idea of what a sentence or paragraph is about. They are incapable of giving detailed translations with any degree of reliability. They often give a couple words of English then a couple untranslated words followed by some gobbledygook in neither language and another word or two of English. I once saw a Polish to English translation that consisted of two English words at the beginning ("And then") followed by a paragraph of completely untranslated Polish. --Taivo (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, Google Translate is a piece of crap when it comes to Turkish. According to the the source, the turnout for the election was 161,373, not 373,161. "Nisan 2009 seçimlerinde 18 yaş üstü olan seçmen sayısının 161 bin 373 olduğu" tranlates "that in the elections of April 2009 the number of voters over 18 were 161,373". "161 bin 373" is "161 thousand 373", "one hundred and sixty one thousand three hundred and seventy three". 373,161 would be "373 bin 161". Google Translate does not work so well with Turkish as it uses suffixes excessively, so I do not recommend anyone to use it. It often gives unintended meanings. --Seksen (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Seksen. I'll keep that in mind when translating from turkish. I made some changes in the grammar. Masri145 (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I actually thought that you knew some Turkish as I remember seeing you citing Turkish texts which were quite difficult to reach :) Anyway, Bing Translate works better in some sentences, see [16] [17], although that may cause serious misunderstandings as well. I think if Google translate is not clear enough, the best things to do are to use Bing Translate as well and to compare with the text in Turkish. --Seksen (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_Cyprus/Archive_14&oldid=499847376"