Talk:Northern Cyprus

Guidelines for editing the TRNC article

• Units in metric should be spelled out with the converted English units abbreviated in parentheses per Manual of Style.
• Please use the correct WP:CITE format when adding references. If you are not sure what citation format is appropriate, please see WP:CITE for a list of available citation templates.

Archives

Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 03:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Archives: Archive 1 - Archived on August 3, 2005 Archive 2 - Archived on October 5, 2005 Archive 3 - Archived on October 23, 2006 Archive 4 - Archived on November 4, 2006 Archive 5 - Archived on November 22, 2006 Archive 6 - Archived on December 31, 2006 Archive 7 - Archived on October 23, 2007 Archive 8 - Archived on May 16, 2009 Archive 9 - Archived on July 14, 2009

Recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus domestic institutions by the European Court of Human Rights

On Friday March 5th 2010, the European Court of Human rights (ECHR) held in Demopoulos and 7 others vs Turkey, that the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) is a valid domestic remedy for providing compensation and/or restitution to former Greek Cypriot land or property owners. Hence, recognising the jurisdiction of the TRNC domestic institutions.

The case follows the 1989 cases of Protopapas and others concerning the arrests in the Ayios Kassianos area where the ECHR did not consider the arrest, detention, trial and sentence of Greek Cypriots as illegal by the TRNC courts, thus recognising the jurisdiction of TRNC judicial courts.

Name issue

That is not a republic recognized by the U.N. It should change to "Northern Cyprus" since it is misleading for people that do not really know the whole story. And North Cyprus is misleading too since there is not a South Cyprus (it like having North Korea without a South Korea) Alaskaris (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The intro clearly explains the name situation. And as for your leap of logic in the second point, discuss that with the people of West Virginia. —C.Fred (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was North Cyprus and not Northern Cyprus (since North Cyprus does not designate a geographical area). Alaskaris (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone here know how the Greek Cypriots refer to the Turkish-held portion of the island? Webbbbbbber (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We, Greek Cypriots, refer to the turkish-held portion of the island as "the occupied area". That is the only term Greek Cypriots use to refer to the Turkish-held portion of the island. Therefore, this article should not be called "Northern Cyprus". If it should, then a place in Sri Lanka should be called RTT(Republic of the Tamil Tigers). Webbbbbber, please do verify my statements as the name(and content) of this article are misleading and must be edited in some way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.26.206 (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, this has been resolved and is not something to be dredged up again, particularly as there has been improper methods used by many sockpuppets with a strong non-neutral point of view on this 'issue'. It's all there straight away in the article and the reader can decide for themselves. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if improper methods have been used. That does not mean I cannot converse about the matter. So do not use pointless statements just to back up your ideas. It IS an issue. There is no "Northern Cyprus". If you want to believe there is a "Northern Cyprus" please tell us where you back up your beliefs. I also asked Webbbbbbber to verify my statements.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casbyhouse (talk • contribs) 10:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is another sad example of mobs determining "correct" and "true" names. There is no "Northern" in the Turkish translation, only North. More importantly, Northern refers, in normal and proper English to a "region" of a single political entity. North, on the other hand refers, in COMMON USAGE, to a seperate political entity, as in North Korea. That IS the common English usage. This charade should end here, there must be an authorized editor out there who can see through this etno-nationalistic name distortion game the extremists play here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.156.90 (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The determining factor for naming this article needs to be which name is most commonly used in English when people are referring to the TRNC. As far as I'm aware, that would be "Northern Cyprus" — driven, I assume, by the English translation of the TRNC's name which has been universally used since the region's 1983 UDI. I will concede that the common English translation of Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti is probably flawed, but such is life. I also agree that some people prefer the name "North Cyprus" — and that this name should be (and indeed already is) acknowledged in the article — and note too that "North Cyprus" already works as an alias redirecting to the article — but I, for one, have not seen anything approaching a clear majority popular usage in English which would favour "North Cyprus" as the primary name.

Additionally, I agree that there is a customary connotation of "Northern" (vs. Southern) meaning a region and "North" (vs. South) meaning a separate entity — probably meaning, I assume, that Turks and Turkish Cypriots will tend to prefer "North", whereas Greeks and Greek Cypriots are likely to favour "Northern" — but in my opinion, this isn't enough all by itself to drive the choice of name for the article in the absence of actual evidence that "North Cyprus" is the natural first choice of English speakers and writers as a name for the TRNC.

Just so there will be no misunderstanding, by the way, I am intentionally not considering the sock-puppet incident of a few weeks ago as meaning anything, one way or the other. Also, I personally have neither Greek, Turkish, nor any sort of Cypriot connections or sympathies, so I don't have any vested interest in any particular name (other than whatever is most commonly used in English at the present time).

I will also mention again that, some time back, I suggested renaming the article "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", with "Northern Cyprus" to be changed (along with "North Cyprus") into an alias redirecting to the full name of the political entity. This, I thought (and still think), would be a reasonable compromise — probably equally distasteful to everyone (!) — but no one (on either side, or in the middle) seemed very interested in this proposal at the time, and sadly, I rather doubt the idea will be any better received now. Richwales (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Northern Cyprus" is not ambiguous and Wikipedia policy (WP:NAME and WP:NCON) specifically deprecates using long form names when the common English usage is unambiguous and widely recognized. So "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is not supported by Wikipedia policy in preference to Northern Cyprus, which is the common English name. (Taivo (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

I apologize but I cannot see the reason in using the "common" name,even if there is one. To name this article. Does wikipedia offer common knowledge in a more archived manner???? When people have doubt they simply visit wikipedia and check to see the truth. Naming this article "Northern Cyprus" is ridiculous. Visitors would definetely ascertain that such an entity exists when it does not, by simply reading the title of this article. I fail to see why people are still debating this subject. Just use the word "occupied" in the article and you have it. Would anyone care to state that the nortern part of Cyprus is not occupied? Sadly, I am starting to see wikipedia as an authority failing to control certain very important matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casbyhouse (talk • contribs) 09:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand Taivo's comment above and do think it has merit. WP:NAME#Controversial names says, for example: "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another" (emphasis in the original) — and I think it would be instructive to compare the current dispute with questions over the proper naming of the article on Macedonia. On the other hand, a too rigid adherence to the concept of preferring short, commonly used and widely recognized names might dictate renaming the article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to "Mormon Church". It was precisely for the purpose of avoiding a choice between two apparently equally controversial names that I suggested avoiding both of them by using the official name (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) — and although I'm not proposing this on a casual whim, I do still think it's worth considering as an alternative to prolonged arguing and possible edit-warring. Richwales (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A big problem is the extensive use of socks to evade a ban that advocate a strong opinion on this topic. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between Northern Cyprus and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and even Macedonia. There is only one "Northern Cyprus" and it is completely unambiguous in meaning as it is the common English term for just the de facto sovereign state and nothing else. The discussion about "Macedonia" is that there are some minor meanings of the word that conflict in limited circumstances with the name of the sovereign state. There are also about a dozen different "Mormon" churches, of which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is only one, albeit the largest one. Compare "Congo"--there are two countries with that as their common English name, so it is important to disambiguate them. There is no conflict with "Northern Cyprus"--there is only one of them and nothing else is called that. Thus, there is no Wikipedia policy which supports using the long name over the commonly used short one. According to WP:NCON taking political and emotional considerations into account is strictly excluded. Only common English usage prevails and long forms are used only when there is a question of ambiguity. (Taivo (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

While I agree that we've seen a lot of sockpuppetry lately, I am not prepared to summarily dismiss everyone advocating either view, simply because some people are so recklessly zealous that they are willing to break the rules and do whatever they think is necessary to make their position prevail. If we see more sockpuppetry, evasions of bans, etc., I'm confident we'll be able to deal with such, but such misbehaviour should not be allowed to influence legitimate discussion here.

The situation with Macedonia is, in fact, more involved than stated above. There has been a long-standing controversy between one group which insists "Macedonia" is perfectly legitimate as a name for a sovereign state (part of the former Yugoslavia), and another group which feels intimidated and insulted by the use of that name by said state. Since editors advocating these two positions simply could not see eye to eye, the Macedonia article naming question eventually required Wikipedia's arbitration committee to impose a solution. I believe it would be worthwhile for everyone to read this ArbCom ruling and carefully consider how the concepts dealt with therein might constitute helpful guidance for us here.

In hopes of improving Wikipedia, I would propose that we should look further for reliable English-language sources which refer to the region/state in question by the name "Northern Cyprus" (standing alone, not simply as a portion of the larger phrase "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus"), and cite such sources at the first use of this name in the lede of the article. Similarly, reliable English-language sources referring to this entity by the name "North Cyprus" (and not simply as a proposed alternative translation of "Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti") should be sought out and cited where this name is mentioned in the lede. The more we can concentrate on looking for (and discussing the worth of) specific sources for both names, the less likely we are to stay bogged down in general arguments which are doomed to get us nowhere. If constructive efforts along these lines prove fruitless, I would support taking the naming question to ArbCom (by analogy to what was done with the Macedonia article) rather than have us continue to be plagued by an endless stream of usage bickering and edit wars. Richwales (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

About Macedonia, that is exactly why it is not relevant here. The only relevant question here is "What is the most common English usage?" (since there is no ambiguity with any other entity possible). Don't clutter the article page with needless references to usage. If you truly want to survey printed sources, then do it here. (Taivo (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

References

Collapsed content of a discussion regarding edits by a sock of a banned user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. NOTE: The above material (posted by User:Nilpotencial) appears to pertain to Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus, not the main Northern Cyprus article. Richwales (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Since Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus is locked to be edited, I put this issue here. Please notice that there is a clear vandalism: Wiki users must not upgrade or downgrade the status of North Cyprus. "Deleting the international organization (and links to the members pages of these international pages) to which North Cyprus is a member" is clearly DOWNGRADING. Notice that this vandalism is done by a Wiki admin Peripitus. This wiki admin blocked lots of Wiki users from North Cyprus: An apparent misuse of the Administrative privileges. Nilpotencial (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus has been semi-protected, and you presumably can't edit it because your account is too new and/or not yet established by a sufficent number of edits. If you believe an admin has abused his/her privileges to vandalize an article, bring it up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI), not here. If you're going to pursue this, by the way, you should also be prepared to defend yourself against allegations (mentioned in the revision history of Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus) claiming that you are a sockpuppet of the banned user VivaNorthCyprus — an accusation which, if true, would trump any other issues you might want to raise. Richwales (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Note that User:Nilpotencial cannot reply as I've blocked the account as the latest of our North Cyprus friend - Peripitus (Talk) 12:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Action looks good, I was planning on doing the same. No user, and especially banned users (as they shouldn't be editing at all), should attack others' (ie Peripitus and Passportguy) contributions by calling them vandals. Nja247 12:29, 14 July 2009 (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.

Salamis illegal excavations

The ancient site of Salamis is being excavated by archaeologists from the University of Ankara. Many Turkish and just about all foreign archaeologists are deplore this because it contravenes UNESCO agreements and because the excavation standards are poor. Relevant information welcome... Politis (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What is this got to do with Wikipedia? Maybe they should have turned into a parking lot the way it has been done in the South? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.229.112.98 (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither Greek Cypriots or the Cypriot Government ever vandalized any monument in the non-occupied part. This is a true lie and I dare you to prove otherwise. The Republic of Cyprus is a globally recognized state, whose actions are observed by the UN and there was never an incident such as the one you claim. On the contrary the Turkish invaders have vandalized many sites of historical and religious importance. Some of them are Salamis, the cemetery of Morphou and several other churces, sites, cemeteries and so on. The next time I visit these sites I will upload the photographs of the results of your actions so you can be convinced.213.7.180.33 (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A true lie? I think that's too post-modern for Wikipedia.. ;) sephia karta | di mi 16:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Illegal

Book : Kollektive Nichtanerkennung illegaler Staaten. Grundlagen und Rechtsfolgen einer international koordinierten Sanktion, dargestellt am Beispiel der T ü rkischen Republik Nord-Zypern [Collective Non-recognition of Illegal States. Legal Foundations and Consequences of an Internationally Co-ordinated Sanction with Particular Reference to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus] (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.162.51 (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Country categories

Since this area is only recognized as an independent country by Turkey, it should not be listed in the "country" categories. (Taivo (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

The "Southwest Asian countries" category currently includes Abkhazia and South Ossetia, whose claim to official status is hardly better than that of Northern Cyprus. Richwales (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Rich here. Nja²⁴⁷ 05:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Taivo here. Perhaps we need a 'contested countries' or 'non-UN countries' section or something similarPolitis (talk)

Perhaps we need to rethink whether Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be included in these categories as well. (Taivo (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

Quite a few existing category lists are for "countries and territories". Transnistria, for example, is listed in several such categories. Not sure if this will help, since some will argue that "territory" is no good as a generic term and has to mean only a dependency of a sovereign state. Richwales (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if Transnistria is treated like Greenland, that's better than having to include Sealand because it's a self-declared independent state. (Taivo (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

I agree with Taivo here. I don't think Abkhazia and Ossetia should have country categories either. After all, how many reliable English-language sources refer to places like Abkhazia and Northern Cyprus as "countries"? They are almost always referred to as "breakaway territories" or "unrecognized states" or something like that, almost never as "countries". The label "country" to me implies widespread acceptance and recognition, a well-established entity, not one who's status is the subject of dispute. Then, we also have the example of Kosovo, which is recognized by over 60 states being, referred to as "a disputed territory" in wikipedia because there is a longstanding consensus among editors that that is the most NPOV solution (after pages & pages of discussion). To describe Kosovo as a "country" would be an endorsement of the Albanian POV, to describe it as a "province" would be an endorsement of the Serbian POV. Same goes here. Northern Cyprus (and Abkhazia and Ossetia) are only "countries" depending on who you ask. Turkish Cypriots and Abkhazians will refer to them as countries, but Greek Cypriots and Georgians would certainly not. Hence, to refer to them as countries is an automatic endorsement of one side's POV. The most neutral thing therefore is to remove the country categories and only keep the "disputed states" or "unrecognized states" type categories. --Athenean (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

But neither Abkhazia nor SO are referred to as countries in the intros of those articles. Categories are different thing. What category structure do you propose? Alæxis_¿question? 17:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Kosovo, etc. should be in the category of "Disputed states", not in the categories of "Countries of Europe", etc. When dividing Europe up (for the purpose of making lists in atlases and textbooks, for example), these disputed regions are virtually never included in English-language sources. They are virtually always included in the recognized territory to which they belong. The reasoning behind this is simple--these states are not (yet) permanent and their final status is still the subject of negotiation or battle. (Taivo (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

I am in complete agreement with Taivo's reasoning and categorization scheme. I couldn't have said it better myself. --Athenean (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I could come up with a different line of reasoning: the actions of atlasses etc. reflect the official POV of the countries they are published in. I am quite sure Turkish atlasses will show Northern Turkey as an independent country, and Turkish sources will call it a 'country'. Of course most English language publications are from a select few countries, but that does not mean that we should adopt the inherent bias in these publications. My personal opinion is that in matters like categories, Wikipedia should be flexible, and should e.g. categorise Northern Cyprus both in Category:Countries of Europe, because general recognition aside, there is nothing that distinguishes Northern Cyprus from Burundi, and in Category:Cyprus, because in certain aspects it is a sub-topic thereof. Another matter is that it would be helpful for readers to have a category 'Territories with contested status' which would also include Northern Cyprus.sephia karta | di mi 15:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Sephia, you are wrong about the use of sources in Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia specifically relies first and foremost on common English usage. That is the driving force behind most decisions in the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia specifically relies on reliable English sources first and foreign sources only second. Usage in the English-speaking world is that disputed entities like Northern Cyprus, Kosovo, South Ossetia, etc. are not given equal status with countries that have near-universal recognition in the the world community. Northern Cyprus should not be afforded equal status within the world's countries until its long-term fate is determined through a final agreement. In the Turkish Wikipedia, you can list Northern Cyprus as a separate country, but this is the English Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC))

Well, each Wikipedia has their own rules, but it would be very sad indeed if Wikipedias follow the POV of the countries where their languages are spoken. I really hope you're not advocating that. Indeed, I quote from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view: "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia". You link to WP:RS under the cover of 'reliable English sources', but English isn't even mentioned in that guideline - quite disingenious. I know of no other guideline for that matter that attributes greater authority to English sources.sephia karta | di mi 07:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You repeatedly mention "POV", but you are advocating that Wikipedia follow here a POV yourself--the Turkish one. Turkey is the only country in the entire world that treats Northern Cyprus as a separate country. The entire rest of the world treats it as a part of Cyprus and leaves its future status subject to negotiation. I thought that I had read the "English source" at WP:RS, but I guess it is elsewhere--no intent to be disingenuous, just a bad memory. But English is still the primary language of this Wikipedia, thus English "POV" will always prevail even subtly--there is no such thing as "pure NPOV". The usage of the vast majority of English-language sources is that Northern Cyprus is not treated as a separate country, but as a part of Cyprus. Indeed, if you look at the vast majority of non-English sources, you will see the same usage--Northern Cyprus is not a separate country, but a disputed region whose permanent status is subject to a future agreement. Turkey's position is a fringe position. We acknowledge that fringe position by listing Northern Cyprus as a disputed region, but we acknowledge that it is, indeed, a fringe position by not affording Northern Cyprus full "diplomatic recognition" in the pages of Wikipedia. It is a disputed region, not a sovereign nation. (Taivo (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

Move without discussion

This page should never have been moved from "Northern Cyprus" without discussion and the gaining of a consensus first. I have notified an admin to keep an eye on this. If you want to move this, then you should place a request for move template here and discuss it first. If the community comes to a consensus that it should be moved, then it can be moved. Until then, leave it at "Northern Cyprus". (Taivo (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

Turkis Republic of Norhtern Cyprus is my country

It is not a region. There is no such a region in Cyprus Island. So even it is recognized or not it is a country. It is enough to be recognized even by one country. And we are. So it should be Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.Maverick16 (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses common English names for places. Read WP:NCON. The common English name for Northern Cyprus is "Northern Cyprus". If you feel strongly about the name then initiate a Page move request and present your evidence that common English usage is something else. The Wikipedia community will then decide whether the evidence supports a change in the article's name or not. (Taivo (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

Naming dispute

• Name of the article must be official name: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Because it is not only an area, it is a country. --.dsm. 20:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What sources do you have to show that Northern Cyprus is not used as the common name of the country? The naming conventions say to use the common name. See also United Kingdom instead of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles on countries in Wikipedia do not use official names, but common English names. Thus, it is Hungary and not "Republic of Hungary", France and not "Republic of France", etc. (Taivo (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

There are some countries exceptional.. TRNC is one of them. You should put name as Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. As it is on China title.. There are two countries Republic of China and People's Republic of China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China Maverick16 (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If China is the appropriate analogue, then what is the other country that has split off of the geographic and cultural region known as Northern Cyprus? —C.Fred (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

China, like Congo, is exceptional because there would be two countries named "China" without the official title in the article. There is only one Northern Cyprus and no one is confused. (Taivo (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

Look from another perspective. There is an article which named Principality of Sealand. But this "country"'s common name is Sealand (it can be confused so we can name it "Sealand (country)"). So, we can't say TRNC Northern Cyprus as an encyclopedic name.--Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Get over it, guys. The common English name of Northern Cyprus is "Northern Cyprus". It's not ambiguous and it doesn't conflict with anything else that is named "Northern Cyprus". That's the end of the affair. We mention the official name in the first sentence, but the article is named after the common English name. And what encyclopedia lists France under Republique Francaise? None. The "encyclopedic" name is the name that most people are going to use in looking up information. Look at the criteria at WP:NCON and look at the archive for the most recent article move request at Talk:Kiev for an example of the kind of evidence you have to amass to prove that "Northern Cyprus" is not the most common name. Then if you think you have enough evidence, follow Wikipedia policy and submit a move request and see if the community agrees with you to move the article. (Taivo (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

I completely agree with Taivo et al. Apart from that though, I don't quite understand the motivation here. Certain comments make me believe you are supportive of Northern Cyprus, and yet, you would rather have it be grouped together with the Principality of Sealand than with France? As a friend of mine would say, "Dude..!!". sephia karta | di mi 00:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• This refers that it is a turkish country! That is why there should be written as Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The original name is like this.. Whenever It is written northern cyprus.. it is The north part of the island. It doesnt refer to any country. This is a consciously made propoganda by Greeks. United kingdom refers that it is a kingdom.. We are not just a republic. We are Turkish Republic.

These are the examples: Dominican Republic,Republic of China, Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ireland and Republic of Ireland (Northern Ireland Is not a country; it is a state. TRNC is not a state.), Czech Republic.. You see, these countries are using their original name.. This is also an exception and should be used original name. We are different from Republic of Cyprus. Oguzhan620 (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me reiterate. Please read WP:NCON. It is very, very clear--Wikipedia uses the common names in English of countries unless there is ambiguity. The Dominican Republic and the Czech Republic are always called that in English--those are their common English names. Republic of China/People's Republic of China are both called "China" in common English usage, so it is required to use the official names in order to disambiguate them. The same is true of the two Congos--Democratic Republic of Congo and Republic of Congo--we have to use the full names in order to disambiguate them because both are called "Congo" in common English usage. Republic of Ireland is not even its official name, but Wikipedia uses that to distinguish it from Ireland, the name of the island. Republic of Macedonia is used for Macedonia to distinguish it from the Greek region of the same name. Northern Cyprus does not fit any of these exceptions. 1) It's common English name is "Northern Cyprus" so citing the Dominican Republic is a false analogy and 2) there are no other places called "Northern Cyprus" to confuse it with so citing your other examples are false analogies. Your arguments are wrong based on Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia doesn't care if you think that "Northern Cyprus" is "Greek policy" or not, just as Wikipedia doesn't care that Greeks are offended because we don't use "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" instead of "Republic of Macedonia". Wikipedia doesn't care about politics. The only measure is common English usage when names are not ambiguous. (Taivo (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

Turkish Cyprus is accepted but not Northern Cyprus Maverick16 (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Accepted by whom? "Northern Cyprus" is the common usage of the English-speaking world. You'll have to prove otherwise. Since this is the English Wikipedia, it's the opinion of English speakers that matters. You can call it "Turkish" in the Turkish Wikipedia if that's what Turkish speakers prefer. (Taivo (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

• The article says "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" or "TRNC" and the title says "Northern Cyprus". They're incompatible. Which is true? I think, if the article says "TRNC", the title should say "TRNC". If the title says "Northern Cyprus", the article should say "Northern Cyprus".--Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've made the article consistent to match Wikipedia policy (WP:NCON). (Taivo (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

It's now OK, but at the beginning of the article it says Northern Cyprus or Northern Cyprus (Turkish:Kuzey Kıbrıs).--Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's a change I'm against. The article's title is the common name, but the first mention in the intro should be the formal name. By way of two examples:

• The article Bill Clinton begins, "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III, August 19, 1946) was the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001."
• The article United Kingdom begins, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or as Britain) is a sovereign state located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe."

Based on that example, if the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is the full, formal name, that's the one that should be mentioned first. However, I can't find this codified in the MOS, so if the change has consensus here and avoids the naming fuss, I support the presentation that opens with "Northern Cyprus..." —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Country articles tend to be the opposite, namely, common name first and official name second. Compare France, Uruguay, Hungary, Russia, and Brazil, for example. This even works when the article title is, for one reason or another, a formal title, as at Republic of Macedonia. There are some exceptions like Thailand (where the common name isn't even mentioned) and Mexico, but the pattern of common name/official name seems to be more common. In the case of Belarus the official name isn't even mentioned in the first sentence, but only in the template. At Uruguay, the official name is only found in the Spanish term and is not translated into English. Official names have a much more tenuous existence in the country articles than the more robust common names. But I'm not going to mortgage the house on the order of names in the first sentence here. (Taivo (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

• Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention (1933), states that:

"The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states".

Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention also declares that "statehood is independent of recognition by other states".

The European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee also found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority and that it was independent of being recognised by other States.

The "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" satisfies all the abovementioned requirments of Statehood and hence is therefore a "State", a person of international law under the Montevideo Convention (A binding International Treaty). Albeit, unrecognized by the majority of the International Community of Sovereign States, this does not mean that the TRNC is not a person of International Law, that is that it is not a "State". The TRNC is a State under International Law (albeit, a unrecognized one) and hence must be refered to by it's Constitutional name: Kuzey Kibris Turkiye Cumhurriyeti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.209.236 (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

northern Cyprus is the Cypriot territory occupied by turks and the name should remain as it is. It should not be changed to "Turkish republic..." of anything. northern cyprus is not a country.

All of which may be true, except for the last sentence "The TRNC is a State under International Law (albeit, a unrecognized one) and hence must be refered to by it's Constitutional name: Kuzey Kibris Turkiye Cumhurriyeti.". First of all, Wikipedia is not under any obligation whatsoever, and second of all, it does not in general refer to countries by their constitutional name. France, not Republic of France or République française. In this way, Northern Cyprus is no different from other countries, which should please you.sephia karta | di mi 17:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the IP's point unless it is insisting on the use of the constitutional name. Sephia, you are right, Wikipedia treats Northern Cyprus just like it treats every other sovereign state with one exception--its name is italicized in certain lists because it is not generally recognized. But other than the italics and a somewhat mandatory footnote about its status, it is treated like other states--its commonly used English name is used as the article's title and in the text of the article. Wikipedia is not bound by the dictates of any government's decree or international organization's mandate. (Taivo (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

Your correct "Wikipedia is not bound by the dictates of any government's decree or international organization's mandate" but it is bound by reality if it wants to be a respected source of information. In the alternative it will simply be a compilation of satire. --122.148.209.236 (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, I suppose you are referring to me. There is a problem with the intro as it is. The article states "officially called the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" Thats a strong turkish point of view. Why? Because, de jure, = ("officially") the area that comprises northern Cyprus, is the area of the Republic of Cyprus occuppied by turkish troops in violation of the treaty of guarantee. Unofficially, (i.e. de facto) the area calls itself as TRNC. The encyclopedia is not bound by the dictates of any government's decree or international organization's mandate, yes, at the same time though, you need references to include something, you can not write an article at will, or as turkish friends & co feel it should be written. What does officially mean ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.162.51 (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's why I preferred the wording "formally" over "officially": it doesn't have Wikipedia pronouncing on the "officialness" of NC. The remainder of the article does provide ample coverage into the nature and status of NC, so it still comes down to one word choice at the top of the article. If you feel the change will make that much difference, I'll make it, though. —C.Fred (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

IP, you work under the misconception that "official" refers to extra-territorial recognition. It does not. "Official" means the name that is the "legal" name used by the government itself for itself. Thus the official name of France is the name that the government of France uses to refer to itself. The official name of Northern Cyprus is Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus whether anyone else in the world recognizes it as an independent sovereign nation or not. It is the country's self-designation. Thus "official" is perfectly appropriate here since the country's government refers to itself as such, even though everyone else wants it to be part of Cyprus. "Official" doesn't mean "UN", it means "self-identification". (Taivo (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

In 1983 the Turkish Cypriot community universally and unilaterally declared it's independence from the Republic of Cyprus through the following declaration:

"Our Assembly,

- Representing the free will of the Turkish Cypriot People; - Believing that all human beings, who are born free and equal, should live in freedom and equality;

- Having declared, in its belief, the right of the Turkish Cypriot People to self-determination, by its Resolution of 17 June 1983;

- Rejecting discrimination between human beings on grounds of race, national origin, language, religion or any other grounds; and rejecting, also, all forms of colonialism, racism, oppression and domination;

- Expressing the hope that peace and stability will prevail and that freedom and human rights will flourish not only in Cyprus, but also in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East and the World at large;

- Believing that the two Peoples in Cyprus each has the right to live and govern itself in its own territory in peace and security, and has the right to preserve its own national identity.

- Firmly adhering to the view that these two Peoples, who are destined to co- exist side by side on the island, can and must find peaceful, just and durable solutions to the differences between them, through negotiations on the basis of equality;

- Firmly convinced that the proclamation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus will not hinder but facilitate the re-establishment of the partnership between the two Peoples within a federal framework and will also facilitate the settlement of the problems between them;

- Earnestly hoping that negotiations will be carried out, on the basis of equality and under the auspices of the UN Secretary General, with a view to resolving, in a peaceful and conciliatory manner, all the outstanding issues between the two Peoples, and convinced that the proposed Summit Meeting would be useful in this regard;

And ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE TURKISH CYPRIOT PEOPLE, Approves the establishment of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and the Declaration of Independence.

Expressing the legitimate and irrepressible will of the Turkish Cypriot People... WE HEREBY DECLARE BEFORE THE WORLD AND BEFORE HISTORY THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS AS AN INDEPENDENT STATE.

On this historic day, we reiterate our gratitude to our Martyrs, who sacrificed their lives in order that the Turkish Cypriot people may never again be subjected to servitude under foreign domination and may live in dignity and freedom. May God's mercy be upon our Martyrs"

If the world believes in democracy, equality and the rule of law then it should recognize the political will of the Turkish Cypriot peoples. Just like it has recognized the political will of the people living in Kosovo etc. The double standards, and hypocritic application of International treaties to the Turkish Cypriot peoples is unacceptable. Furthermore, it does not affect in any way shape or form the right of the Turkish Cypriot people to self-determination. Hence, it is illogical to discuss the legitimacy of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus on this site. There are facts which need to be accepted and these facts need to be incorporated on Wikipaedia without bias or subjectivity. The fact remains that the TRNC is a State under International Law, independent of recognition by other States. One cannot simply state that another human being is not a human being just because he or she does not recognise that person as being a human being. The same applies to States.

The term "Northern Cyprus" refers to and denotes a geographic location within the island of Cyprus. Whereas the contents of the Wikipaedia entry which is the subject of this discussion is about the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" as a State (whether recognized or unrecognized), a person of International Law. The article should either be named "Turkish Cypriot State" or by the States constitutional name, "The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" or "TRNC". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.209.236 (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus is not just a geographic denotation, it also refers to the Turkish Cypriot State, and it is the most common way to describe the Turkish Cypriot State in English. That's the intended meaning here.sephia karta | di mi 16:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hooray for the people of Northern Cyprus. (Taivo (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

human rights

homosexuality was legalised in 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Northern_Cyprus 77.181.10.59 (talk) —The preceding comment was added on 10:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC).

Moving against consensus

The consensus to keep the article here at Northern Cyprus has been demonstrated over and over. Do not move without initiating a Request for Move and gaining consensus. (Taivo (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

Reverts and re-edits

Hi all

It seems that there are three users (or one with 3 IP adresses) who keep readding or reverting the page to include text which was removed due to excessive peacocking and non-neutral POV

THe text is non-neutral and includes a sentence which is OR (unless it can be referenced)

Please stop reverting the page until discussed here or a report for 3RR and edit warring will be made.

thanksChaosdruid (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Chaosdruid that the edits being posted by the IP are too POV and unsourced. (Taivo (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

As the IPs keep changing, a block may be ineffective so I've requested that this page is semi-protected to encourage to discuss things on the talk page. Nev1 (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

POV commentary

Hi again

You just deleted my commentary and called it POV lol OK, weel on this one I am pretty sure that the North is dependent on Turkey.

Can you tell me how it is not so ? (all flights etc had to go through Turkey and the north is still lacking major ports) Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not whether Northern Cyprus is economically dependent on Turkey, but whether it is a de facto independent state, which it is. Many countries are economically dependent on other countries (e.g., Lesotho, Swaziland, Andorra, San Marino, etc.), some more than others. But that doesn't affect their independence in a strict sense. Northern Cyprus is de facto independent. If Turkey claimed it as part of its own territory, that would be another matter, but since Turkey recognizes it as an independent state, then its economic dependence is immaterial to the statement that it is de facto independent. (Taivo (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Saying that Northern Cyprus is "de facto independent" seems very appropriate to me. Note that the term de facto implies that, although a governmental institution exists, its right to exist is not accepted by all (see De facto#Politics) — which is clearly the case here. It is true, as I understand, that some do consider Northern Cyprus to be a puppet state, controlled entirely by Turkey and "independent" in name and form only — but in order to report such a claim anywhere in this article, it would absolutely need to be clearly phrased as being one position amongst many (not presented as a settled fact), and it would be essential to back it up with reliable sources. For example, it might be possible to say something like "The government of the Republic of Cyprus, which claims sovereignty over the entire island, considers Northern Cyprus to be a puppet state controlled by Turkey." — again, with sources — preferably (per WP:PSTS) secondary sources reporting something to this effect that the RoC government has said. We definitely can not simply say that Northern Cyprus is a puppet state, no matter how many sources can be found that agree with this; that would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV's mandate to give even-handed attention to all significant sides of an issue. Richwales (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But northern Cyprus is not just economically dependent on Turkey, it is dependent politically, diplomatically, and militarily. The extent to the with the northern Cypriot leadership can make independent political decisions from the government in Ankara is debatable. However, I do agree that such a claim needs a source, and I will try to look for one. Athenean (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Understood. As for a source (or sources), please remember that we should try to find secondary sources if at all possible. For example, a news story from the BBC News, reporting that so-and-so from the government of the Republic of Cyprus has accused the de-facto government in the north of being a puppet of Turkey, is preferable to an item on the RoC's own web site denouncing the north as being a puppet of Turkey. (See WP:PSTS.) Also, any such claim must be reported by us as a claim put forth by some parties — not as a settled or self-evident fact — because this is an issue on which significant disagreement does exist, and WP policy (WP:NPOV) is quite clear that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Writing in an unbiased manner about a subject you yourself have strong feelings about can be extremely difficult, of course, but we absolutely need to do it here. Apologies for wasting the reading time of people who I'm sure already understand the above, but it needs to be reiterated for the benefit of some who may not fully understand (or accept) the vital importance of neutral writing in Wikipedia. Richwales (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I know what I'm doing :) Athenean (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that this is just POV pushing, so your wording needs to be very careful. Sorry, Athenean, but I'm suspicious whenever Greek editors start writing about Northern Cyprus, Turkey, or their neighbors in the Balkans. Follow Richwales' advice very carefully about how to present this. (Taivo (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

And forgive me for pointing this out if it's unnecessary, but WP:NPOVD (an essay, to be sure, not an official policy) recommends that the term "POV pushing" should be used with great care (if indeed at all). I agree there are a lot of sensitivities and hurt feelings about Northern Cyprus and other topics — we (myself certainly included) have probably all run across articles where we strongly believe one position is right and the others are totally and unjustifiably wrong — but we need to learn how to approach the material in an even-handed manner, fair to all sides (even sides we don't believe deserve fairness!), as long as they are reliably sourced and not obviously wacko fringe positions — or, if this is simply not possible for us to do this with a given subject, it might be better to leave it alone and work instead on improving some of the zillions of other pages where we don't have the same intense biases. Richwales (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to add that Freedom House classifies Northern Cyprus as 'Free', it gets a higher rating than Turkey itself, which is deemed to be just 'Partially Free'. What this means is that while it is true that in many very real ways, Northern Cyprus is dependent on Turkey, it is certainly not the case that it is a puppet state. sephia karta | dimmi 10:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And our job as Wikipedia editors, in a case like this, is not to figure out which position is the truth and conclude (even with the best possible reasoning) that Northern Cyprus either is or is not a Turkish puppet state. We need to report all significant, verifiable views on the subject — together with the corresponding reliable sources reporting each view — and leave any ultimate decision-making to the reader. I would strongly recommend that everyone working on this page — especially anyone who has a strongly held position and whose blood boils whenever they are exposed to propaganda from the other side — should carefully read (or re-read) WP:NPOV and think of ways to implement this policy here. Again, apologies to those editors who already understand this and are already trying to write in this fashion. Richwales (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverting with reason

I reverted 'officially' and 'de facto' because the sources indicated either did not support these terms or were too flimsy and seemed one offs. I understand 'officially' as being the wider international reference for North Cyprus. In fact not even the state itslef uses it in international fora or trade exibitions, it uses North Cyprus. As for 'de facto', the source simply does not support this term, a term I myself first introduced a while ago. Furthermore, the level of control from Ankara simply negates its 'de facto' independence. Certainly it is virtually 'independent' from the official Republic of Cyprus but its modus vivendi on the international scene negates any usage of that term. Politis (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus functions as a de facto independent state. It's not the only independent state in the world that has a "big brother", but we don't evaluate each case on whether or not the level of influence reaches X level or not. What is X level for control? Unless the state says, "We're a unit of Turkey", then it must be fairly treated as independent. How many states does the U.S. exert control over? Or Russia? We cannot get into an evaluation contest here. Northern Cyprus is a de facto independent state. France does not recognize itself as "Republic of France" in international fora or trade exhibitions either. It's known as "France". Official names are not common names. (Taivo (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

I think you are confusing the phrase "officially known as". You seem to be thinking that it means "other countries know it officially as", which is silly because only one other country recognizes it. It actually means "it calls itself officially". Perhaps the wording can be tweaked if that is the confusion. (Taivo (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

In usage, "virtual" and "de facto" mean the same thing--true in all cases except legally. "De facto", however, is the standard usage when it comes to dealing with states. "Virtual" sounds highly POV to my ear while "de facto" sounds more neutral. (Taivo (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

OK, I leave it to your better judgement, i will not revert anything. Politis (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, I'm concerned by your most recent revert. I understand your position regarding the terms "officially" and "de facto" — but you also reverted two interwiki changes and, in the course of reinstating the older version of the lede, you deleted two sources that may be worth keeping. If you feel these actions are necessary, they should at least be acknowledged in an edit summary. And although I realize this article deals with an inherently controversial topic, the fact that more than one person seems to object to the word "officially" may mean that a different word might be more generally acceptable. I hope we can keep on discussing the matter here, rather than just have back-and-forth reverts. Richwales (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for your edits getting swept up in the reverts. Sometimes it's nearly impossible to surgically revert something and keep the good stuff. However, as you know, this article is subject to heavy POV-pushing vandalism from anonymous IPs. I suspect that the anonymous IP is pushing a Greek POV that is suspicious, especially taking de jure and changing it to "self-proclaimed". It doesn't feel right. (Taivo (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

How would people feel about changing "officially" to "formally" — i.e., "known formally as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)"? I think that would express the intended meaning without getting us into a tangle over whether widespread international recognition is being implied. Richwales (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "formally". In the CIA Fact Book they use the phrase "conventional long form", but that's pretty unwieldy. (Taivo (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

@Taivo, nice work.Politis (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

President

Derviş Eroğlu became new president. M.Ali Talat is no longer president.--88.254.76.245 (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)