Talk:Cyprus

The island of Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus

Cyprus

Cyprus from satellite
Geography
Location	Eastern Mediterranean Sea
Coordinates	35°7′N 33°24′E
Area	9.251 km2 (3.5718 sq mi)
Length	225 km (139.8 mi)
Width	90 km (56 mi)
Highest point	Olympus
Country
Republic of Cyprus
Turkish Republic of North Cyprus
Akrotiri and Dhekelia (United Kingdom)

I believe there should be two separate pages for these two titles. Similar to how when you search for Britain you get a page that shows various possibilities there should be such a page for Cyprus as well. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Like Finnish Wikipedia (fi:Kypros, fi:Kyproksen tasavalta) ? Takabeg (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Cyprus (Greek: Κύπρος, Kypros, Turkish: Kıbrıs) is an island in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. It is the third largest island in the Mediterranean and geographically belongs to Asia, but politically closely connected with European countries.

The island has been divided since 1974. The larger southern part is governed by the Republic of Cyprus. The northern part is under control of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Between northern and southern part there is a buffer zone known as "Green Line".

als:Zypern, als:Republik Zypere

frp:Ch·ipre, frp:Ch·ipre (payis)

az:Cənubi Kipr, az:Kipr Respublikası

bar:Zypern, ?

br:Kiprenez, br:Republik Kiprenez

bg:Кипър (остров), bg:Кипър

cv:Кипр утравĕ, cv:Кипр Республики

cs:Kypr (ostrov), cs:Kypr

de:Zypern, de:Republik Zypern

et:Küprose saar, et:Küpros

eo:Cyprus, eo:Kipro

fr:Chypre, fr:Chypre (pays)

lad:Kipre (ada), lad:Repuvlika Kipriyota

mg:Nosy ny Kipra, mg:Repoblikan'i Kipra

nn:Kypros, nn:Republikken Kypros

uz:Janubiy Kipr, uz:Qibris

pl:Cypr (wyspa), pl:Cypr

crh:Qıbrız, crh:Qıbrız Cumhuriyeti

ru:Кипр (остров), ru:Республика Кипр

sk:Cyprus (ostrov), sk:Cyprus

tr:Kıbrıs, tr:Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti

tk:Günorta Kipr, tk:Kipr Respublikasy

I think it's possible. I prefer the styles in German Wikipedia. Who will create Cyprus (island) (later we'd better change title to Cyprus) ? 13:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Something like that. Cyprus is the name of the island and when someone searches for it s/he should be able to get information about the geography and history of the island. While the page for Republic of Cyprus should give information the same it is done for any state. At the moment the history of the island is given as the history of Republic of Cyprus which is quite absurd. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the distinction between the History of the Republic and the history of the island? Basically it's two tiny military bases, and only after 1960. Hardly enough to warrant separate articles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunkdavis. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The history of the island goes back for 10+ centuries. The history of Republic of Cyprus starts in 1960 with it's own rich twists. The two are completely different. Republic of Cyprus page should be about Republic of Cyprus rather than the whole island. May I ask why we have a seperate article for Britain? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the distinction between the history of the Republic of Ireland and the island of Ireland. Their only difference is Northern Ireland, which was created in 20th century, so basically the same. This is also the case here. The republic does not have control over the whole island, the British bases are not parts of the republic, but they are parts of the island. --Seksen (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ireland is an other good example. There is the island of Ireland and there is the Republic of Ireland. Yet, when you search you get to the page for the island of Ireland. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

History extends beyond the founding of a political system. At any rate, Northern Ireland forms a far larger chunk of land then the British bases, and includes notable geography such as its giant loch. Its very different from two tiny military areas. I expect the situation in regard to the page names will change soon anyway, with the moratorium over... Anyway, the question to ask is this: What would an island article offer that this article doesn't? Nothing really. History would be the same (with the bases basically just hanging around), Demographics would (as the bases don't have a permanent foreign population), Geography basically would, Culture would, etc. Nothing new would help the reader. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked you an other question. Why does Britain has different articles? What you say is not true as well. An article for the island would give history, geography and demographics for the island of Cyprus. An article for the Republic of Cyprus would give history, geography and demographics for the state. There's two seperate entities existing on the island as well even though one considered illegal. At the moment, Republic of Cyprus article is unnecessarily long compared to other states that are older. I would like you to answer my question about Britain. Also, if in the future a two-state solution is realized on the island are you gonna be editing a new island page? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyhow you can start. Takabeg (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, what you said about the geography of Ireland is also true for Cyprus. The two bases also have notable geography, such as the salt lake and two capes in Akrotiri. I can see that if we have a separate article on the island, its geography section would be different from the republic. The bases have a permanent population of 7000 Cypriots living in them, and the total population is around 14000, which makes a difference. And the history sections of the articles of Ireland also have a similar problem, and it seems to be solved, see the articles of History of Ireland, History of the Republic of Ireland and History of Northern Ireland. And I should add that, on French Wiki for example, the history section of the republic starts from 1950s. --Seksen (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Chipmunkdavis makes some great points and I agree completely with him/her. The proposed artificial separation of the island with the country is just that: Artificial. It may be even POV. Cyprus from ancient times has been an island and a country; the history of both is inextricably linked. The latest manifestation of the historical Cyprus island-states is the Republic of Cyprus which forms an unbroken link with its past ancestors. So I completely disagree with splitting this article. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Article size, > 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided, > 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time). Takabeg (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Seksen makes great points about his/her comparison of Ireland and Cyprus. I agree with him fully. This "artificial" and possibly "POV" separation already seems to exists with Ireland and Britain.

Also, Takabeg, where do we check for the size of the article? What I did was to copy the article into a word file to see how long it is. It was longer than the page for Turkey and Greece. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to address points one by one. Forgive me if I miss any.

• By Britain I assume you mean Great Britain? If so there's a different article because the UK extends beyond the island of Great Britain, notably in Northern Ireland, which makes up a substantial chunk of the UK.
• A salt lake and a couple of capes is hardly comparable to the largest lake in the British Isles in terms of notability. I also highly call into question that this would make a significant difference to the article. Are those capes notable enough to mention in a summary style on geography? No, not really.
• Similar situation for history and demographics. A summary of the history of the island would look exactly the same as a summary of the history of the state. A few thousand people does not make any significant bump on an island of hundreds of thousands.
• A note on main articles: History of Ireland covers the history of the entire island, just as History of Cyprus does. History of the Republic of Ireland is a subarticle of the History of Ireland, covering the republic from just after the first world war onwards. We could just as easily have History of the Republic of Cyprus, covering independence onwards. Cyprus articles are not as developed however, with the closest we currently have being Modern history of Cyprus, which could easily be divided. I would fully support anyone trying to create an article on the history during the time of the republic. Geography of Ireland covers the whole island, so does Geography of Cyprus. I'm fairly sure we could include Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Demographics of Cyprus, especially as the civilian population are cypriots. Imagine separate articles for demographics of the island and of the state; there'd be almost no difference.
• As for the article being too long, I've mentioned that before. The article has a great excess of information. The solution is to summarise information on this page, not to split it. What were you going to split it to?
• As for a two-state Cyprus, in that case I'd fully support a separate island article. (Assuming current divisions) the state of Cyprus would only have around 2/3 of the land, etc. In that case the island would be much more comparable to Ireland. However, currently this article treats Northern Cyprus as part of the republic. I doubt there'd be any support for changing that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how UK extending beyond Britain grants an article of it's own. By arguing that Cyprus doesn't deserve a seperate article of it's own you're arguing that Britain doesn't deserve an article for itself either. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume again you mean Great Britain? Again, there's a much greater difference between the UK and Great Britain than there is between the state of Cyprus and the island of Cyprus. You're free to try and AFD Great Britain. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

For starters, your own wiki link lists the name Britain so you can drop trying to fix my use of the word Britain. Second, UK encompasses the Britain article in the same way RoC encompasses the Cyprus. Moreover, two states, one recognized and one not-recognized, exists on Cyprus. The article for TRNC already exists. So, the separation that you talk about on your last point above de facto exists both in life and in Wikipedia. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I was merely asking for a clarification, which I have now obtained. The UK covers more than Britain, Cyprus is practically coterminous with the island. As for the TRNC, information on the north of cyprus is included in the Cyprus article. Are you suggesting we remove it from here, and then create a new article for the whole island? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose proposal: there is no need to create two identical articles, since the island coincides with the political entity, like: Sri Lanka, Iceland, even Greenland and Cuba, which are also about the state and the island that bears same name.Alexikoua (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The situation of Cyprus is similar to Hispaniola (Dominican Republic, Haiti), Timor (East Timor, West Timor) etc. Takabeg (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but wrong, the illegally established and unrecognized entity TRNC can't be conisdered a legitimate state such as East Timor or Haiti.Alexikoua (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Why wrong ? Now I understand you focus on legitimacy. But I focus on whether the island is divided or not. Cyprus is also divided like Hispaniola and Timor. Takabeg (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

@Chipmonkdavis, the UK covering more than the island of Britain doesn't really mean anything. You haven't provided the reasoning for why there are separate articles that I asked. Simply saying the UK covers more is not enough. UK still covers all of the Britain and it would be equally expected for it to be under the article for UK if we go by your logic of course. Mention of life in TRNC is minimal as well. If the article covers all of the island then it should cover topics of the all of the island. What I suggest is quite clear.

@Alexikoua, no need to Oppose something where there is no formal proposal. Also, there is already an article for the island of Cuba that you mentioned. It's called Isla de la Juventud. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

@TheDarkLordSeth, if you want, you can create the article immediately. If we think the article show close resemblance to other articles, we'll use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Takabeg (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Creating a new article so as to potentially merge it with an existing article sounds like an experiment waiting to fail. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to make it a group effort rather than a one man job. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I was wondering about the same thing. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 08:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

@TheDarkLordSeth, Cyprus (island) was created. You can contribute to the article by editing. Hadi bakalım. Takabeg (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

How is that constructive Takabeg? You added an unnecessary category to Balkan Pact and now you have created an unnecessary article. @TheDarkLordSeth: Looks like two one man jobs.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I redirected it to Cyprus as a POV fork with no consensus. The current article has much more content and so the so-called new article is not needed. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

He also started the edit-warring. It looks like he is trying to defend his out-of consensus POV fork by ignoring consensus and WP:3RR and exhibiting tendentious editing. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

@ πraxis. Why did you think POV fork ? The article is not fork. Because that is new article. Why POV ? What kind of POV ? German, French wikipedias have that article. The article is neutral and natural. It's not necessary to get permission of users. I think your POV is not neutral. Takabeg (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If you cannot get my name straight I will not reply to you. Last time you called me "λogos" and I explained to you that was wrong. Is there a deficiency on your part I am supposed to be aware of? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I can understand your national sentiment on this issue. I estimate that some Greek users don't want the article Cyprus (island) to show and emphasize the Republic of Cyprus only "legitimate" political entity, and some Turkish users want to create the article to show the presence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. But political bias of both side prevent our efforts to make English Wikipedia normal and neutral encyclopedia. English Wikipedia must be as neutral as, at least German, French wikipedias. Takabeg (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You would have been credible if you acted within consensus but clearly you did not. It would also help to hide your POV better if you did not invite other users to edit your pseudo-article in Turkish: Hadi bakalım. I remind you this is the English Wikipedia. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

@Dr.K, re you calling it a POV fork just because it goes against what you wanted? It seems like that. There are 3 people here who expressed their opinion for creation of a separate article while two people are against it. Not that numbers mean anything but it's equally POV to call something POV just because it goes beyond what you wanted. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alexikoua, Chipmunk Davis and me do not add up to two, it is three. Second I was taking part in a discussion to reach consensus and I did not act unilaterally to impose any POV I may or may not have. Takabeg's POV however is obvious. He acted without any consensus to impose it. Just look at the introduction of the fork mentioning how the island is divided. He wants to highlight the Turkish POV. There is no issue here about what "I want". Please do not make this personal. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

And now that you started discussion on the fork's talkpage on how to improve the unneeded and against consensus fork, your own POV becomes clearer. At least please stop pretending that you are a policy-abiding and neutral observer. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Make that three, and expect many more. This is nothing than content forking. As far as the entire world minus turkey is concerned, the Republic of Cyprus and the island of Cyprus are coterminous. But this is not the Turkish wikipedia. The comparisons with Ireland are malarkey. Northern Ireland is an internationally recognized part of another state, not an unrecognized puppet-state created by an illegal application of military force. Takabeg is behaving in the manner of a tendentious editor by forging ahead with his nationalist POV behavior, even though he knows full well that there are many people opposed to what he is proposing. If this continues, I will report him. Enough already. Athenean (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Athenean, you are number four, not three. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to repeat that Takabeg is considered anti-Turkish on some users on Turkish Wikipedia, because of this or this, and I can add many other examples, so we should avoid calling him pro-Turkish - but he usually makes edits without waiting results of discussions, and that was also criticized there. By the way, I wonder if French Wikipedia also supports the illegal occupation and the puppet state, which are emphasized on English Wikipedia whenever there is a discussion. --Seksen (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus and the discussion to reach it is an important principle of Wikipedia. It appears that all these high concepts have been short-circuited in this case in favour of the approach of editing by coup. This edit-war-fuelled editorial grandstanding is ridiculous to say the least and ultimately damaging to the collaborative-editing principles of Wikipedia. It has to stop. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree that editing withouth waiting the consensus is wrong, and it should be avoided. But I can see that there is a continued emphasis on "puppet state", "illegal occupation" etc. whenever there is an opportunity, as if everyting except empasizing that is wrong and POV-pushing. --Seksen (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My POV is international POV. But most of users who are interested in this issue are national POV. Especially Greek chauvinism damages the neutrality of English Wikipedia. I hope they would ged rid of their own national POV and contribute to neutral encyclopedia, as soon as possible. Takabeg (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The expressions "puppet state" and "illegal occupation" are widely accepted in mainstream bibliography, but that's not exactly the issue here.Alexikoua (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said, numbers don't mean much. I don't think I needed to make a consensus to make a new article as well but I still did ask people to understand the case better. Being confrontational about an act that did not require consensus and calling it POV was quite unneccessary. I'd like to remind everyone that we're not having a pissing contest here. We're simply trying to make articles better and better inform Wiki readers. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This proposal makes perfect sense considering the Republic of Cyprus is only one of the political entities on the island currently in space and historically in time. Filanca (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to respond to this, and hopefully my point will get through:

• the UK covering more than the island of Britain doesn't really mean anything. You haven't provided the reasoning for why there are separate articles that I asked. Simply saying the UK covers more is not enough. UK still covers all of the Britain and it would be equally expected for it to be under the article for UK if we go by your logic of course. Mention of life in TRNC is minimal as well. If the article covers all of the island then it should cover topics of the all of the island. What I suggest is quite clear.

There are separate articles because the topic are quite different. There's an island, and a state which covers much more than just that island. Taking your perception of my argument to its final point, it would be like saying that I don't want a crete article because crete is part of greece. That would be dumb, and it's not my argument at all. Cyprus the state is almost exactly the same as Cyprus this island (unlike the UK), and there has not been one point in this discussion where that has been seriously challenged. As for the mention of life here and there, it is mentioned in some areas of the article. Feel free to suggest things to add, although at this point this article really needs things to cut.

As for the island being older than the state, true. However, the state currently is almost exactly the same as the island, and two separate articles would invariably be two almost identical articles. That would be pointless and unhelpful to the reader.

So, as I see it, some users want a separate island article to try and highlight the division of the island? Is that the basic argument? If so, then I disagree with that idea completely, in addition to the duplication opposition above. There is an almost unanimous official consensus among UN states that the Republic of Cyprus covers the whole island (bar the Brit bases), and (although I disagree with chucking the word around at every point) credit where credit is due, it is true that it has been officially described as an occupation by the international community. Do I think the current article is NPOV towards the Northern side? No, not completely. However, making a WP:Pointy article is the wrong way to go around fixing anything. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent points. I agree. Please also see my reply at Fastily's talk. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody really proposed to copy the same information on this article to the other and keep it that way. The intention was to make this article shorter (which is longer than that of Turkey and Greece) and give a more comprehensive information about the island rather than the state with half the control of the island. I raised the point initially when I searched for the island and got an article on a state instead. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you say half? Last time I looked 36.2 percent of the Republic of Cyprus was under Turkish occupation. But internationally, the government of the Republic of Cyprus, represents 100% of the island since no other "government" is recognised.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 23:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Making a new article won't magically make this page shorter. There are already a number of main pages information can be transferred to, and we can easily do that to shorten the article. The state is, for better or worse, officially almost exactly the same as the island. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What is this childishness about "shortening" the article? Is that what this is all about? That the article is longer than the article on Turkey and that some people find this intolerable? "My article is longer than yours"? How incredibly inane. In 4 years of editing wikipedia I have never encountered anything so childish and petty. We're supposed to be here to improve articles. Anyone who isn't, please let me know and I will see to it that you are shown the door. Athenean (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Chimpmunkdavis: I agree. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we can make satellite articles out of already existing sections in the article. You want "Geography"? create the "Geography of Cyprus" article, "Culture"? create the "Culture of Cyprus" article; You simply can't create a summary section for the whole article and call it an island. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

@Nipsonanomhmata, it's a figure of speech. There is no need to get nationalistic over such a use of that phrase... @Others, I'd like to invite all of you to calm down as your arguments are starting to get insulting and ignorant of what others say. If you're oppose the creation of an Cyprus(island) article then kindly state that and provide your reasoning in a civil manner. There is no need to turn this into a pissing contest. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:- Strong oppose, the island and the Republic of Cyprus [de jure] are one. The Republic of Cyprus is an island country, separating the article would be misleading to the audience.23x2 (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

@TheDarkLordSeth. Nationalistic? A little over one third is not one half. That has nothing to do with nationalism.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

But that's what a good nationalistic strategy is Nipsonanomhmata. Always under-represent the figures of your target and if you get caught at that call it a figure of speech. For additional effect call the guy who questioned you a nationalist. That should work; if challenged, call it a joke. But only in the end and only if you ran out of every other excuse. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

@Whoever put the infobox at the top of this para. Would you be kind enough to delete the infobox at the top of this para. When you edit on this talk page you feel like you are editing an article.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Otherwise it could be construed as an attempt at conditioning the reader. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I already explained that I simply used a figure of speech. Making further assumptions on my words is quite out of the line. I prefer to participate in a constructive discussion, not this... TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's move on and consider it a figure of speech shall we? Leave the infobox too, it's just an example, nothing wrong with that. Anyway, I've explained above why I object, and until Northern Cyprus becomes recognised as independent by the Republic of Cyprus my objections will probably stay. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

TRNC was never party to the discussion and reason for creating a Cyprus(island) article until you argued against it. So, it's irrelevant to base your argument over it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My argument against is not based on the TRNC, it is based on the massive duplication an island article would have. I wrote about the TRNC above because I mentioned the example infobox, which has the TRNC in it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Then your argument ignores what's been argued here all along. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That it would not be a duplication. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

But...it would be. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind... TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support The island and current political soveregins on it are different entities in space and time. Cyprus Republic is a comparatively recent event in the long history of Cyprus. It does not rule over all of the island, de facto there are three independent political entities (including the UK) plus the buffer zone beyond the control of Republic of Cyprus. Fusing those two concepts (that is, the island and one of the political entities ruled on a part of it at a certain time in history) in one article is not sensible. Filanca (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to me that a valid analogy can be made here with the existing, separate articles on Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo. The analogy is not perfect, but both the Kosovo situation and the Cyprus situation involve territories with long histories, inter-ethnic conflicts, and current political disputes over the legitimacy of controversial de facto governments with limited international recognition. Richwales (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Except the limited international recognition is non-existent for TRNC. We cannot gloss over this without going seriously into POV. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Turkey recognizing TRNC is limited international recognition. You can't deny that. That's a fact. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The only country in the world to do so and also the original invader. How convincing. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be convincing. It's simply a fact. Something we have to get over... TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you would like to tow Ankara's line and ignore the huge conflict of interest that the recognising nation is also the invader. But not when you try to build a mainstream encyclopedia and the rest of the globe does not agree with you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum. You can find some international forum and discuss the morality of it there but here and everywhere by definition TRNC has limited recognition. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't throw ridiculous and loud slogans at me. Not when I try to show you that the word "limited" is downright misleading when it is applied the way you want it to apply. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There are no slogans. Please calm down. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop the personal references. Throwing around WP:FORUM to experienced editors is sloganeering. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, experienced editors are not immune to such behaviors. Please calm down. You have expressed your opinion and chose to go against the simple definition of a term. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess you cannot stop the personal attacks. Again stop the personal comments. If you don't understand this you are unfit to continue this or any other discussion. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't attacked anyone personally. Please stop repeating the same argument. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo and Cyprus are two completely different cases. Historically, politically, diplomatically. The comparison is nonsensical. Apples and oranges. For what it's worth, I also think the split of Kosovo was a bad idea, and one that will in the future create far more problems than it solves. Athenean (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support! I think it is a more neutral way to go. I also added Akrotiri and Dhekelia because they also occupy part of the island. We could maybe add flags?

• Oppose Strong oppose (opposition to duplicating this article with an additional "island" article.) Chipmunkdavis and others are correct above.... any separation of the island from the country is artificial and probably WP:POV in light of how Sri Lanka, Iceland, many Caribbean, Pacific Ocean, and Indian Ocean island states are considered, etc....one and the same as the island. The two UK bases are inconsequential in size and historic scope and significance, and the N. Cyprus distinction has been around for 3 decades + and recognized by no authoritative body....so should be mentioned and covered by WP but, likewise, not "recognized."DLinth (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not for the TRNC, but its not neutral to give the article "Cyprus" to the Republic of Cyprus. It should be neutral even if we don't like the other guys, thats one of Wikipedias ideals, neutrality.--Gimelthedog (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality doesn't matter when the article is about Turks. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep denying this?

I take it that its editors agree that readers of the Cyprus article should not be exposed to this view of the island, due to its point of view, which could be seen as realistic - you know, maybe NPOV and helpful to casual browsers trying to get a look at the positions as they have existed for some time now? - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of the word "pretext"

I am disturbed by the statement (repeated in three different places in the current article text) that Turkey used its treaty guarantor status as a "pretext" to invade Cyprus. The word pretext strongly implies that deception is involved (indeed, some dictionary definitions explicitly define the word as involving deception or concealment). It may very possibly be true that Turkey had designs on northern Cyprus and used its status under the 1960 treaty as an excuse to hide their true motives, but IMO we need to find a more neutral way to describe the events — such as by citing sources supporting Turkey's claimed justifications on the one hand, and other sources denouncing Turkey's diplomatic talk as a smokescreen on the other. Simply saying (as the article does now) that Turkey used the treaty and/or the coup as a "pretext" for its actions, IMO, violates NPOV and is inappropriate. — Richwales (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, NPOV is a lost-cause in these articles. You're right in your NPOV concerns and there are a lot of other violations of NPOV as the article often behaves as Greek point of view is right and Turkish point of view is wrong. Wikipedia stops being an encyclopedia in such articles and becomes a tool for the majority that's louder. Thread on your own peril. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That it was a "pretext" (which is an assessment I agree with), is sourced to a top-notch source. And I'm sure I could find lots more if I searched. It's a widely held view, I don't think there is a NPOV problem. Athenean (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Danopoulos book, "Civil-Military Relations" (currently footnote #18)? I looked up this book online and expanded the quote to include the subsequent text, which does in fact call the coup "the pretext for the Turkish invasion". And yes, I definitely do agree that characterizing Turkey's assertions as a pretext is a widely held view that ought to be expressed per NPOV. But I'm still not sure that a single source (however high its quality) is enough to justify the unchallenged use of this hot-button term, and I'd like to hear what other people think about this. — Richwales (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the quote. "On July 15, 1974, the Greek junta, in cooperation with Greek military officers stationed on Cyprus and Greek Cypriot right-wing extremists, organized and executed a coup d'état aiming at overthrowing President Makarios and his government in order to unite Cyprus with Greece. The real aim, however, became the partition of Cyprus. The coup provided the pretext for the Turkish invasion on July 20, 1974." It implies that the aim of the junta was to divide Cyprus. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

@Richwales, are you suggesting that everyone believes that Turkey deceived to invade the island by saying that the term is unchallenged? That view is surely a widely held view among Greek or pro-Greek authors. Most people don't really bother to raise that idea simply because Turkey only intervened 11 years after the ethnic clashes peaked in 1963. Mentioning it as a view of particular authors should surely be present in the article but having it as if it's an accepted truth of the intervention is a clear violation of NPOV. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There are sources supporting the "pretext" viewpoint, but there are also sources which describe Turkey's actions more sympathetically. I believe the article is displaying bias if it simply says that Turkey used the situation as a pretext for invading Cyprus ­— just as it would be biased if it were to say that Turkey's motives were a purely altruistic response to Greece's aggression against the Turkish Cypriot minority. Neither of these views can be stated all by itself as if it were a neutral fact; NPOV requires that they both be acknowledged. — Richwales (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There is obviously no need to dramatize anything on Wikipedia. However, a claim of foul play should be reported as a claim rather than a fact unless it's proven and accepted or held as the majority view (it should be reported as a view and not a fact). What the article needs to point is that Turkey intervened in Cyprus through enacting the treaty of guarantor. The claims of deception can be pointed out later on. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, then, here's a possible change. In the third paragraph of the lead, change this: "Turkey used this as a pretext to invade the northern portion of the island. Turkish forces remained after a cease-fire, resulting in the partition of the island; an objective of Turkey since 1955." — to this: "In response, Turkey invaded the northern portion of the island. Turkish forces remained after a cease-fire, resulting in the partition of the island."

Two followup questions. First, is the claim that the 1974 attempted coup was part of a Greek goal to achieve enosis seriously disputed by any reliable sources, or is this accepted by everyone? And second, is the Danopoulos book (currently reference #18) still appropriate to use as a source in the third lead paragraph, even if the "pretext" language is removed from the lead? — Richwales (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I object to "in response", that seems to justify their invasion. I note that I have provided a reliable source about the wording "pretext" (and could find probably many more), while the editors disputing this haven't provided anything. What's next, "intervened" instead of "invaded"? Danopoulos is a 100% reliable source and of course is still appropriate. I don't see why he would all of a sudden stop being appropriate. I will try to find if there are any reliable sources disputing that the goal of the 1974 coup was enosis. Athenean (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In response wouldn't justify anything. They acted in response. Whether it was due to some premade plan, evil military ambition, or humanitarian desire, etc, their action was a response. As for intervention and invasion, as we have discussed, Turkey intervened by invading. Simple. Couldn't we just say "Following this Turkey invaded the northern portion of the island, and remained after a cease-fire resulting in the islands partition."? (although I think we should drop "the northern portion of" because its unnecessary prose).

@Richwales, the coup in 1974 was carried out by EOKA-B (which was an organization created with the purpose of enosis) and Cypriot National Guard following the orders from Greece. The Greek junta installed Nikos Sampson as the president who is referenced in saying "Had Turkey not intervened, I would not only have proclaimed Enosis but I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus as well." I have never seen anyone challenging these. On the other issue, I'm not knowledgeable enough about Danopoulos's book to say anything about it. What I'd propose is this: "In response, Turkey enacted Article IV of Treaty of Guarantee and invaded the island. Turkish forces remained after a cease-fire, resulting in the partition of the island." TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds okay, but I would suggest using "invoked" rather than "enacted" to show that it was Turkey's reasoning that it was justified under the treaty, rather than a general agreement (I doubt Greece at the time agreed that was right). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You're arguing for the right word for the wrong reasons. The word "invoke" is better because of it's definition. However, that doesn't mean "Turkey enacted" means others agreed at all. Though, others did agreed. Council of Europe did acknowledged Turkey's right to intervene in Resolution 573. Greek Supreme Court of Appeals did acknowledged the same thing in 1979 as well. So, I guess, it's safe to say that it's not even challenged by the Greek government itself. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Turkey wanted to invade and partition the island ever since 1955. That much is unambiguous (and solidly sourced, in contrast to all the OR above). In 1974, they finally had the pretext they wanted. Danopoulos is 100% reliable, in contrast to all the OR I am seeing above. As such, I much prefer the current wording. Athenean (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as you can't prove that that is in fact what Turkey have been planning since 1955 you can't have it as if it's a fact. So far it's only a claim that's neither backed by historical facts nor logic. It's an unproven claim. That's what it is. If it was indeed unambiguous as you claim it to be you'd be citing proof of it rather than some Greek author mentioning it and Turkey would indeed invade in 1963 where Turkish Cypriots were forced into only 3% of the island's land. Thus, the current wording violated NPOV. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Athenean on this one. You can't replace an generally accepted, unambiguous statement from a reliable source with OR. The complete series of events (invasion, occupation and creation of breakaway state) tell only one thing, that the operation's aim was not to restore the constitution (under which greeks and turks lived together), but to do exactly the opposite (to split the island). The word "pretext" is the best one to use and is backed by large number of neutral (not just greek) sources (see google books). Masri145 (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What OR? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That there's any disagreement on whether it was a "pretext" for the invasion and occupation. Why remove the word if we have so many sources that agree that it was a "pretext"? Masri145 (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

None of those sources, while the majority of them being from Greek authors, go beyond being a claim. You would be sourcing proof and not claims if it was such an obvious fact. The complete series of events do not tell only one thing as well. It tells a multitude of things; a conflict and a failure to resolve that conflict and etc. It defies logic to claim that only possibility is that Turkey have been trying to invade the island since 1955. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Another issue with the word pretext is that it expects a lot of knowledge from the reader to be understood properly. A background would be needed to represent an undercurrent that would lead to the course of action taken behind the guise of a pretext. I doubt a lead can provide this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no surfaced secret document from past Turkish government or army that backs up such a claim. The two simple points that Turkey did not invade in 1963 and that Turkey requested UK to act before they did in 1974 defies the logic behind the use of such a word anyway. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Block 12 AphroditeCyprus natural gas near Limassol Republic of Cyprus.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Block 12 AphroditeCyprus natural gas near Limassol Republic of Cyprus.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:University of Cyprus Theare Building in Nicosia by night Republic of Cyprus.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:University of Cyprus Theare Building in Nicosia by night Republic of Cyprus.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Crucial section missing: Flora and fauna

There badly needs to be a section on the native plant and animal life, and a {{Main}} link to the main article on that if there is one. If there isn't, there should be. I'd fail this as GA much less FA candidate on this basis alone, as the article is missing one of the most basic information sections needed for any major geographical location article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Population

Could someone please clarify the population as in the population of the Republic and the whole island (including the north)? And I think instead of directing the ethnic groups section to Greeks and Turks, it should be directed to Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.111.119 (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I was just looking for the population myself. I expected it to be in the infobox.DavidRF (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this information was just recently removed. (or changed in such as way as to break the template).DavidRF (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I reverted the good-faith edits which broke the template. Here is the link that the user was trying to update link. I'll leave it to smarter users to figure out how/if to incorporate information from that link into the template.DavidRF (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)