Jump to content

Talk:Cyprus

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.144.83.215 (talk) at 02:29, 22 January 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:FAOL

Archive: Talk:Cyprus/Archive 1


Article structure

Can I invite comment on whether we should restructure this article? Here are the reasons for my suggestion:

  • at the moment, nearly every section finishes up talking about the Cyprus dispute;
  • Sections are repetitious, especially in relation to the events of 1974;
  • The sections 'political division' and 'reunification' would be better placed after or within the 'politics' section;
  • There is hardly anything geographical in the 'Geography' section (which is followed by another summation of the Cyprus dispute);
  • The order of sections is illogical; can I suggest:
  1. Name and position
  2. Geography
  3. History
  4. Politics (including Political Division and Reunification)
  5. Economics
  6. ff. Demographics, Education, Misc, Ext Links (as presently).

Can I call for people to vote here on whether they agree that there should be some restructuring? If there is agreement, I will first make amendments to structure only, and we can then discuss how best to deal with duplication of information and instances of POV.

Comments please? Peeper 16:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - there's much more to Cyprus than the repetition of the dispute - I also was thinking of writing a separate article of the Troodos Mountains when I have the time, but I'm all for your suggestion! Ramallite (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, once we have improved the structure, I would like to suggest we tighten up on description of the Cyprus issue which should more properly be replaced by links to the Cyprus dispute article. Peeper 16:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!I have now restructured the article in what I think is a much more logical way. I think we should now move on to pruning out all the repetition, and replacing all the blah about the Cyprus Dispute with links to Cyprus dispute. In the meantime, please go ahead and add some material about Troodos, Ramallite! And as ever, comments from other users welcome. Peeper 09:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good! Better then having the Cyprus dispute as the first thing when you scrool down. One minor quirk with the new structuring. On monitors that use a resolution higher then 1024x, where it should show the beginning of the History section, it scrolls up to the right of the satellite image of Cyprus so it's hidding from you when you look for it even though it's right infront of you. I dont really know what to do to fix that so someone mess around with it till they get it right if possible. Anyways, good job!
Thanks! Yes, I thought there were going to be problems with the satellite image, it did funny things to me too but I'll keep tinkering. I'm now going to start slicing out the repetitive chunks of narrative and redirecting instead to Cyprus dispute. Looks like we're getting somewhere! Peeper 10:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the article to the structure we have agreed here, and will endeavour to check that all further minor and sensible amendments are returned. Please ensure that all major amendments are discussed on this page. This article is about Cyprus, not the Cyprus dispute - they are not the same thing!. I'm happy for the article to be overhauled if there is consensus, but there's not point returning to an old version which harps on about the dispute in every section and contains flagrant POV like even the most fervent Greece-lovers! Thanks. Peeper 08:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A few more amdnments and edits to the structure made, including cordoning off 'post-independence' which should ultimately be the only section containing material about the Cyprus dispute. However, I am putting out a request for users to contribute more information to the 'Post-Classical and Modern Cyprus' section which is pretty sparse. And as usual any thought on this article are welcomed. Peeper 09:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

REASONS FOR REJECTION

Stop taking this down, I know Turks love to flush things down their seemingly ever vacous memory hole but I will continue to put it back in as it is relevant to WHY Greek Cypriots rejected the plan. NickThePatrioticGreekWhoKillsTurksAndTheirFamilies

Then put it in the Annan Plan article. But keep it NPOV (your signature is not encouraging) --Henrygb 4 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)
You English..... You think you have a right to rule the world, take your damn base off our island along with the rest of your uncultured dregs that you call 'soldiers'.
Oh, grow up. At least British soldiers don't wear pom-poms on their boots. There are two 'damn bases', which one do you want, or do you want both of them? Rauf Denktas recently said that if the Makarios had handled the enosis issue differently and safeguarded Turkish cultural rights, Turks would have accepted enosis.
Are you racist against Greeks? You certainly sound like it. No, British soldiers don't wear 'pom poms' as you call them, because English don't have any culture, I mean, honestly, the fact you have to adopt 'fish and chips' as a facet of English culture highlights this perfectly. How would you like it if some country established 'Sovereign Bases' in England, paying no rent to cypriot government and occupying 2% of the island? Would you like this one?
So let me get this straight, then. The argument is about Greeks who kill Turks and the fact that Greek soldiers wear pompoms on their boots? Oh, and the fact that the British soldiers serve their Queen and country by doing time on military bases in Cyprus to protect and keep the peace... and DON'T have pompoms on their boots, right? If "NickThePatrioticLoser" who has a racist signature still exists, I hope it is as a permanent fixture in a graveyard. And if all you can do is argue about pompoms on someone's boots, then soldier - it's time for you to go home and quaff some good English ale.

I am an American - that being said, I already have judgmental eyes and thoughts against me. But the way I see it, the way that history has deemed as FACT - is that GREEKS started to slaughter TURKS on the island. Turks - rightfully so - sent their soldiers in to rescue their people, and they decided to set up shop for a while. A long while. I don't blame them. I truly believe that if the Turks and Brits withdrew their militaries that the Greeks would resort to killing, again. It's weird how "Old Europe" doesn't go around starting wars anymore (much to the demise of my own President) - maybe they've learned their lesson. Maybe not. Or maybe we shouldn't bicker about an island anymore. Maybe - just maybe - we can learn to live with one another and accept our differences. Or maybe we should just cut the island in half and divy it up to each side, call it even. I've been to Turkey, it's a beautiful place. I'd love to visit Athens and the Aegean one day as well - it is probably just as beautiful. Maybe one day the history books will state how we had such difficulty with each other, yet learned to finally have peace... this coming from a soldier who has been in the US Army for 18 years! Rarelibra 9JAN2005

You are a soldier, a dog of war, you understand nothing of power politics. You are welcome to come to Athena, but rest assured, my fellow Hellenes do not like people who come to our country and espouse anti-Greek views. You are clearly a proud American, but I am a proud Greek, and I will be DAMNED if the anti-Greeks are going to get the better of us. I bet you love good old FYROM and Albania as well. Yep, Americans love shitty pseudostates with no grounding in History (so they have to steal it off others), they would be easier to control than a strong Greece and Serbia. Make no mistake though, your reign is coming to an end, sooner or later we'll drive you and the British Murderers off the island, and we'll run the Greek Muslims (so called 'Turkish Cypriots') into the Sea.

An event mentioned in this article is an August 16 selected anniversary

An event mentioned in this article is an October 1 selected anniversary.

POV statement?

"What is often left out is that Turkish Cypriots where forced out of parliament in 1963 and the constitution illegally changed by the Greek Cypriots. This confined the Turkish community to 3% of the island and 103 Turkish villages where forcibly evacuated. Turkish Cypriots had limited freedom of movement between 1963-1974, with countless casualties for those daring to move out of Turkish controlled territory. Cyprus joining the EU is in violation of the 1960 constitution which did not permit Cyprus to join an economic organisation unless both Turkey and Greece already belong to it. Successfully Greek proproganda skirts over these issues and have convinced the world that these events did not occur."

This is pretty much as POV as a statement can be.Opinions are divided about the events presented here.This is obviously the Turkish Cypriot POV(one of them,anyway).Shouldn't this be divided in a "Greek Cypriot/Turkish Cypriot Points of view" like similar articles?

Also,

"Successfully Greek proproganda skirts over these issues and have convinced the world that these events did not occur."

This is seriously not the kind of wording a wikipedia article is supposed to have.An encyclopedia is supposed to inform, no to accuse. --Jsone42 16:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another note, these events are covered in much more depth and clarity in other articles, there's no reason for them to be presented here, much less in this way.--Jsone42 16:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, however I prefer no material be removed, can some one reword it in a neutral tone? So that it porints out the claim but not accuse? --Cool Cat My Talk 10:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Material requires revision

What is often left out is that Turkish Cypriots where forced out of parliament in 1963 and the constitution illegally changed by the Greek Cypriots. This confined the Turkish community to 3% of the island and 103 Turkish villages where forcibly evacuated. Turkish Cypriots had limited freedom of movement between 1963-1974, with countless casualties for those daring to move out of Turkish controlled territory. Cyprus joining the EU is in violation of the 1960 constitution which did not permit Cyprus to join an economic organisation unless both Turkey and Greece already belong to it. Successfully Greek proproganda skirts over these issues and have convinced the world that these events did not occur.

--Cool Cat My Talk 09:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not a history article, I suggest just mentioning something on the lines of "after 1963 the turkish cypriot community does not participate in the government" and point to a cyprus dispute article for the details. Mavros 02:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On a side note, I don't know who put the etymology of Cyprus up, or where they got it but it's wrong and I'm going to ammend it. The Copper part is probably right so I'll leave that in, but it makes it seem that Cyprus got it's name from the word Copper, which is false. "Cyprus- from Gk. Kypros "land of cypress trees," eastern Mediterranean island famous in ancient times as the birthplace of Aphrodite and for erotic worship rituals offered to her there; hence Cyprian (adj.) "licentious, lewd" (1599); applied 18c.-19c. to prostitutes." [b]Source:[/b] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Cyprus --HawkeyE 17:44, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

The etymology of the name comes from copper. the natural ore close to the surface oxidizes for that distinctive orange tint to many of the buildings created with cypriot stone. The latin word for copper is Cupros (hence Cu on the table of elements). Cupros- Kupros- Kibris- Cyprus. The name does not have to do with cypress trees. Plus I don't see the connection you made from cypress trees to prostitution.

Population info

Population - Total (June 2004) Ranked 155th

775,927 3

3 Of which 771,657 is in the south and 323,657 in the north

These numbers are obviously wrong!

So fix it, its wiki! We need your sources for the numbers though. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was just a typo (either intentional or not). It's not easy though to get the right information. Most probably the total US est. (775,927) includes also turkish cypriots. The most recent Census was in 2001 and showed 689,565 inhabitants (TRNC excluded). But I don't know of any reliable source regarding the TRNC population. So, I would only add the Census data if no better idea appears. -- Phiniki 21:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Infobox Country

Updated to use template. Some data (GDP, for example) needs updating; complex due to political situation. Removed northern flag; it's inappropriate here; CIA doesn't have population broken down. Parameter check welcome. — Davenbelle 01:53, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Updated population est. and Census (cited the statistical service). --phiniki 10:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have updated the Demographics of Cyprus page here on Wikipedia. I will change it here too when I have some free time.

Is the president, Tassos Papadopoulos, a colonel? Because I don't think he is.

I also don't think so, it must be a joke; in any case, in the news (e.g. PIO) he is addressed as "Mr. Papadopoulos". Removed.
Joke, or deliberate action :-( Many (including myself) may not agree with his political views, but that's no reason to attack him like that. He is, after all an elected president.
Mr. Papadopoulos has never been part of any army (including the Greek-Cypriot National guard). He is a lawyer by profession and the director of a large-ish international law office in Nicosia. The reference "colonel Papadopoulos" is probably a sad attempt to associate him with colonel George Papadopoulos who headed the junta that (illegitimately) ruled Greece between 1967 and 1974. --Pantelis Panayiotou 16:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Country

To clear some confusion... Cyprus belongs to the Eurasian Tectonic plate (more detail: USGS), not the Arabian (ie. according to Physical Geography, it's either Europe or Asia). Considering Human Geography, there is no doubt Cyprus is Europian (Europian language, culture, heritage, etc.). Is there more convincing needed between the Asia/Europe camp?

It's an asian country geographically. 209.90.162.13 23:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not only Asian, but geographically Middle Eastern.--Gramaic 03:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Cyprus. Cyprus is only the name of the island, it can not be used to refer to a state as there are two seperate states on the island of Cyprus although one of them is not recognised by some countries.

If you're talking about the Turkish controlled part of Cyprus, the only country in the world who recognises the TRNC is Turkey itself.--Gramaic 01:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus cannot be concidered Asian because it belongs to Europe [culture, race (Greek, British), language etc]. The island was united under the name of Cyprus with Hellenic (Greek), Turkish and British population until 1974 when Turkey invided. Turkey occupied a big part of the island and declared a new state, recognized only by Turkey itself! The part which remained free brings the name of the former free state, Cyprus. This is logical and acccepted by all nations as well as international organizations (UN, EU, etc). Petros The Greek

True. Cyrpus does belong to Europe right now, but it is still geographically in the Middle East.--Gramaic 02:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is geographically into Asia. But Asia and Europe are geographical definitions, so it should be considered to be in Asia. --Andrelvis 19:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

213.149.188.164 Edits

I'm adding a cleanup tag based on the latest round of edits added by 214.149.188.164 (and a few other things I noticed). Some of this appears to be lifted from http://allfreeessays.com/student/Cyprus_History_Of_Conflict.html but just reworded a bit. I'm not going to edit this as I don't really have much knowledge about Cyprus, but here are the problems I have with the history section:

  • "The people early learned to work..." - poorly worded English; revised
  • "The Mycenæan civilization of the West seems to have reached the island around 1600 B.C." - Based on archeological evidence? If so, it should be stated that way. The phrase "...seems to have reached" is too vague.
  • "The Greek and Phœnician settlements belong to the Iron Age." - Probably could be better stated as "the Greeks and Phœnicians settled Cyprus during the Iron Age." Current wording seems to indicate that the "Iron Age" owns those settlements.
  • "Around 1200 B.C. we observe the massive arrival of the Mycenaean Greeks as permanent settlers to Cyprus, a process that started and lasted for more than a century." - Who is "we"? Should be stated 3rd person. Also "started and lasted for more than a century" is poorly worded. Maybe rephrase the sentence as, "Around 1200 B.C., the Mycenaean Greeks began to permanantly settle Cypress; a process that lasted for more than a century."
  • "This migration is remembered in many sagas rehearsing..." - Not the right usage for "rehearsing"; consider revising to "concerning".
  • "...their advanced technology" - Can you cite a source for this?
  • "When the Ionian Greeks revolted against Persia (499 BC) the Cypriots except for Amathus..." - Who is Amanthus? This is the first mention of him in the article, yet it is never explained who he is, or why he did not wish to revolt against Persia. Either explain who he is and why he is important, or remove the reference. Also, who did the Cypriots join? The Ionian Greeks or the Persians? It's not clear from the section as written.
  • "They won despite Ionian help." - Who won? It's not clear at all from this statement who won the conflict. Was it the Cypriots, the Ionians, or the Persians? At this point I'm not even sure who was fighting?
  • "After the Persian defeat, the Greeks mounted various expeditions against Cyprus in order to liberate it from the Persian yoke, but all their efforts bore only temporary results." - So the Persians lost, but retained control of Cyprus and were the target of Greek efforts to liberate Cyprus? This is all very unclear. It should be clearly defined who "won the war" of the Greek revolt against Persia in a military sense and who retained control of Cyprus when all was said and done.
  • "No doubt the most important event that occurred in Roman Cyprus is the visit by Apostles Paul and Barnabas having with them St Mark..." - Should probably be worded "the Apostles Paul and Barnabas accompanied by St. Mark..."Isotope23 16:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amathus

http://www.limassolmunicipal.com.cy/amathus/main-e.html


Removing Tags

I'm going to go ahead and remove the totally disputed and cleanup tags. The cleanup tag was added by Isotope23 in concern over the 214.149.188.164 edits, which users have cleaned up since. The totally disputed tag was added by 68.192.101.165 with no reasons or input for what he would like cleaned up.

Controversial tag

I added a controversial tag to this page for apparent reasons, but sorry for the other stuff... i'll state the reason next time... btw, can anyone create an account?

History of Cyprus

I wonder why the British part of the "ownership" of Cyprus is so truncated? As part of that history - being stationed as a British soldier on the island between 1954-58 - it seemed to me that what was happening was very much part of the scheme of things, not least because it brought to head the business of enosis. I should be grateful to know why it seems to be omitted - is it part of the controversy surrounding the whole thing? And again - should we not be including stuff about the antiquities on the island - mosaics etc? Or are we too wrapped up in politics? Peter Shearan 19:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a few external links that are either not informative, linking to a site selling material/goods/property and/or having a 'anti-greek pro-turkish' outlook. I very much would like to remove rentcyprusvillas also, and if anyone finds the information they have posted as copy pasted from any other site, please go ahead and replace the links. I'm surprised that such 'anti-greek' propaganda links were left up for as long as they were.

Instead of overloading the links section in the front page, maybe their should be a completely different page with links and a description. For example, the recent discovery of the perfume and wine factories in cyprus. All the best of the web's links that give information about this can be provided on that page, with any other 'informative' and non-commercial links added to that page.

edit: I've removed the controversial tag on this page. We shouldn't always feel that our editing is biased to one side. If it belongs in this page, stick to the facts and it wont be controversial. Any controversies belong in the cyprus dispute page where the POV thrives. Come on people, sooner or later these two communities are going to have to come closer together. Their is no reason to instigate and promote hate. Cyprus can be a model community for all the other communities once the two ethnic groups reconcile and the politicians decide to work together instead of against each other.--Kakonator 09:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I'm trying to support the schism, I myself rather be called a Cypriot than a hyphenated one (e.g. Greek/Turkish-Cypriot), but as some people have exampled above, it still is a controversial subject. Even though this article probably has no effect on current Greek/Turish-Cypriot relations, I'll try your idea, and as long as everyone keep the flaming at a minimum, I won't re-add the tag.

J.W. Hasan, 03:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV statement - suggested amendment

In 1967 a military junta took over the Greek government and enosis went out of favour - even the most fervent Greece-lovers didn't want union with such a repressive regime

I'm not going to get heavily engaged in assessing this whole article, but this sentence stood out for me as needing attention - it's lazy history and poorly expressed, and smacks of bias. 'Even the most fervent Greece-lovers'?! Unless anybody objects, I will amend this to be a bit more balanced and thorough, on the following grounds:

  • the term 'Greece-lovers' is immature, simplistic and possibly meant to be insulting
  • Enosis did not suddenly go 'out of favour' as a result of the 1967 coup. In fact, Makarios's foreign policy had clearly stalled on the issue since 1960. The only substantial political change on the Enosis issue caused by the 1967 coup was that, if anything, the Greek colonels were impatient with Makarios's failure to deliver Enosis and were now prepared to take radical measures to unite Cyprus with Greece.

Comments? (Please be civil - my aim is to be historically balanced and authoritative, not to rub people up the wrong way or cause an edit war..!). Peeper 09:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No response either way - amendment made. Peeper 15:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 70.151.110.126

A couple things that should be discussed. First, their was an edit by 70.151.110.126 on the 17th of August that switched 'Turkish' to 'Greek' [1] concerning the Reunification article. I don't know if his edit is legit or not, since all his other edits are Turkish based. I have my doubts and am asking others who know better to please comment whether it was an honest edit or changing facts.

Secondly, their seems to be an issue with wanting to put TRNC information to correspond with the ROC article. I am not here choosing sides and waving my flag to prove a point. I simply wish for the Cyprus wiki page to be as historically accurate as possible, which means that their's space for only the truth.

Concerning your edits: Ymnos.. or whatever is not the anthem of Cyprus, maybe in the south After thinking about this, is their an OFFICIAL national anthem for the ROC or not? Since the ROC is supposed to be the government for ALL people on the island, despite that most Turk-Cypriots are in the north, is it a person to person preference of what they choose to be the national anthem?

Greek cypriots rejected the Annan Plan, they cannot represent the whole island, therefore you have to specify Mehmet Ali Talat You make it seem as something it is not. I don't have to specify anything. I and everyone else is not here to put opinions in. The way things are, ROC president is Papadopoulos. Maybe after the reunification, we can update the pages with info concerning Turkish-Cypriots holding political positions, but till that day comes, and hopefully soon, why promote the ethnic conflict?--Kakonator 05:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Facts: Greek Cypriots rejected the Anann Plan. Greek Cypriots -in order to accomplish Enosis- started to kill Turkish Cypriots (See http://www.kibris.gen.tr/english/massacres/index.html). Turkey had to protect Turkish people and his rights on the island; and rescued Turkish people and secured his rights on the island in 1974. Now, the current situation is: There are independent actual physical governments on the north and south. They are speaking different languages (Turkish and Greek), they different flags, anthems, etc. Although Europe, Greece and Greek Cypriots try to deceive that there is one (Greek) Cyprus, Turkey and TRNC clearly stated that they will 'not' waive their rights on the island. The Annan Plan -although it was favoring Greeks- was rejected only by Greeks because they dont want unification: they want the whole island, and they want it cleared from Turks; and in doing so the only thing they'll get is shit. You can tile the whole internet with "Greek Cyprus, Ymnes... the anthem, Papadopulos the president" to satisfy your ego. But if you want to write about the truth, you'll have to see TRNC. TanrI Turk'u Korusun!

This is not the forum for historical discussions, but the "fact" remains that the world community recognizes ROC and not TRNC. If you insist on placing the names of the national anthem and the president of TNRC, there is Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus for that. If you want to place them here, they go *after* the Greek names, not before. And your analysis of the rejection of the Anan plan is plain wrong: there are at least two main reasons that the Greeks rejected the plan: 1- You cannot have peace with a foreign army still occupying the territory. We have tried this in Palestine and it failed. The Anan plan did not provide for Turkish withdrawal, and that was unacceptable. 2- The Anan plan did not adequately address the property of Greek Cypriots that are still in the Turkish occupied areas. Turkish Cypriots are not foreigners, but the Turkish army is a foreign occupying power, and the property of all Cypriots must be respected. So the Greek Cypriots were correct in rejecting a plan that does not end the occupation of the Island and reclaim their rightful property. The ROC freely gives EU citizenship to TNRC Cypriot Turks (but not Turkish settlers), so you can hardly claim that Greeks want Cyprus cleared from Turks (well, Turkey Turks yes, but not Cypriot Turks). Ramallite (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the Turkish soldiers are the only guarantee that Turkey/Cyprus Turks will see the sun the next morning. They are there for a 'reason' which you do not want to understand and do not want people to realize. Your president Papadopulos is a pure terrorist who killed Turkish Cyriots with his own hands. Rauf Denktas, for instance, was a lawyer. Mehmet Ali Talat is an engineer. That is how Greeks evaluate the situation. Also this is an encyclopedia, not UN or EU. Not diplomatics or politics but the truth matters here. The sentence "If you want to place them here, they go *after* the Greek names, not before" clearly proves that you are a blind-minded conservative racist. Turkey, in addition to UK and Greece, is the only country that has 'legal' rights on the island. Turkish soldiers are 'not' foreign forces. Turkey is not 'any' country for Cyprus. Turkish Cypriots had properties on the south side as well. Why are you not mentioning it? But their properties are all gone now. South Cyprus is giving EU membership to some Turkish Cypriots in order to introduce social separation and classification in TRNC. But South Cyprus prevents touristic agencies to pass and carry tourists to the north side. is it not correct?? And yes, Greeks do desire a pure Hellenistic Cyprus more than anything, there is no point arguing this. Turkey is willing to withdraw his soldiers -in parallel with Greek soldiers- only when there is a just equal representations of Turkish Cyriots politically, sociallly, physically, economically. And Greeks should give up their Enonsis plans and their cleaning policy of the island.


"you are a blind-minded conservative racist" - Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks, so please refrain from attacking. The reason the Greek goes first only has to do with the fact that ROC is the internationally recognized government and represents the majority of the population, usually majority comes first. Second, I do not deny that both sides committed ugly acts in the 60s and 70s, but this is 2005 and you cannot continue to assume that this is still true. Greek citizens have free access to the north during the daytime hours through the Ledra Palace Checkpoint, and thousands from the south have visited the north, and I don't believe any Greek Cypriot has gone and killed a Turkish Cypriot. Third, I was only mentioning reasons for Greek rejection of the Anan plan, and was not denying that there is Turkish Cypriot property in the South, it just wasn't a part of the context. Fourth, ROC gives citizenship to ALL Cypriots, Greek or Turkish. But if one is NOT a *Cypriot*, but a Turkish settler, then by international law they cannot get citizenship, as Turkey is violating the Geneva conventions about settling civilians in occupied lands, just like Israel. Fifth, I agree that both Turkish and Greek soldiers must go home, but I don't believe the Turkish army intends to leave in good faith. The Turks did not fulfill their obligations of "returning the status quo" when they invaded in 1974, otherwise the island would not be divided. Fifth, Papadopolous is not "my" president, I am not from Cyprus, I am from Palestine, and my interest in Cyprus is from the outside, but I have a very good idea of what *occupation* is. Ramallite (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramallite, sorry if it seems I'm repeating much of what you said. I meant to submit the post earlier but became distracted, and when I came back to finish, you already posted. I very much appreciate your comments though. --Kakonator 04:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The year is 2005, not 1974. Their is no reason for the Turkish army to be on the island. The goal of the invasion was to stop the coup. Did they not do that? They did. The Greek government collapsed immediately after the invasion, along with Sampson in Cyprus. But the problem is that they pushed onwards again during the second stage of the invasion. That is where todays problem lies. Not with the July 20 invasion, but with the August territorial expansion of Turkey. If they toppled the coup, why must a foreign army reside in Cyprus? Why couldn't Turkey simply retrieve her troops with British troops holding the peace? Do you really want us to believe that they are there to protect the Turkish Cypriots? They are doing more harm then good by keeping them isolated from the world.
I love how Turkish politics can twist the story around. You throw around the word genocide as if it means nothing, but when someone puts the words genocide, Turkish, Armenian together, lawyers are amassed to denounce the source. Tying intercommunal fighting with genocide are propaganda tools for Turkish newspapers. I hear no mention of such genocide coming from your politicians because their is no basis. Your sentence of "Also this is an encyclopedia, not UN or EU" is absolutely correct. That means calling people blind-minded racists are completely inappropriate since the user was making a honest suggestion on contributing to the encyclopedia. Again, I am not trying to promote ethnic conflict among the Cypriots. If you are fanatic, please do not come here waving your flag, whether their is a cross or a moon and a star on it. If you do respond, please talk to us as equals, and you shall receive a response from me and hopefully others with respect. --Kakonator 02:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me repeat again so that you can "understand". Turkey is not "any" country for Cyprus. Turkey has "legal" rights on the island. Turkish forces are "not" foreign forces. If you have any problem with that, I am so sorry; That will stay as is. Secondly, during 60s and 70s both sides did "not" committed ugly acts: This is very very important. "The Greeks" started to kill the Turkish people on the island, and they killed many many innocent Turkish people, children, women, men. They were slaughtered like cows in a butchery. Why were they killed?? Because Greeks were/are burning with desires of pure Hellenistic Cyprus, West Anatolia, Aegean sea region. Turkish soldiers will stay on the island "as long as" there are any kind of threats for Turkish people and the Republic of Turkey. If you are unable to understand what I am talking about now, you are either retarded or biased. About the date, I am perfectly aware that it is the year 2005, and it has never been more urgent and important than today to "protect" your country and your rights. "During 1990s" SERBIAN BASTARDS killed thousands of innocent Bosnian muslims. And what did Europe do??? Nothing!!! Oh, I am sorry, Europe did somethings, yes. They provided weapons to serbians, and tought them WHAT TO DO AND HOW TO KILL!. And "Greek fighters" killed innocent muslims in Bosnia!! They went there to fight and kill muslims!! This is how they think about non-christians, and especially muslims, and Turks. So dont tell me about what year it is fucking bastards! It is perfectly and easily POSSIBLE that Greeks will and want to kill muslims and Turks this very day!!

I'm not going to launch into the debate, except to say that I agree with you Ramallite and Kakonator, and that I am very saddened by the venomous and ill-considered tone of the responses from 70.151*. 70.151, you may have to accept that the consensus is against you; that is the way Wikipedia works. Whether or not you choose to believe that we are reasonable people or racists out to get you is up to you - the interpretation is solely yours. Be sensible. Peeper 09:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning "Greeks brutally killing Turks" statements, and to get history right:

1. Between 1957 and 1974, tense relations between the two communities led to several sad events such as assassinations, mass executions, etc. committed by both sides. Total number of people killed was a few hundred from either side. From what I know, the number of Greek-Cypriots killed is somewhat larger than the number of Turkish-Cypriots, but that can be explained by their larger population.
2. Typical examples of mass executions of Greek-Cypriots by Turkish-Cypriots include the Kionelli massacre of 1957, and the mass execution at Lysi in 1974.
3. There are also 1586 Greek-Cypriots who are listed as missing persons since 1974. Also, approx. 260 Turkish-Cypriots since 1963.
4. After 1974 (during the 80s and 90s) the Turkish army killed 7 Greek-Cypriot solders and 3 Greek-Cypriot civilians in the buffer zone. There was also 1 Turkish-Cypriot civilian killed by the G-C National Guard during the same period.
5. Tassos Papadopoulos was a member of EOKA during his youth. EOKA was formed in 1955 to "liberate" Cyprus from the British and achieve union with Greece. It was dissolved after the independence of 1960. Rauf Denktash was a member of the TMT. The TMT was founded in 1957 to "protect" Turkish-Cypriots from the Greek-Cypriots. I think it was dissolved some time after 1974.
6. The above figures come from my personal studies of recent Cyprus history and are supported by facts as far as I can tell. Please feel free to correct me :-) --Pantelis Panayiotou 16:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Infobox footnotes

I've just fixed a number of syntax problems in the infobox (mostly missing '|' characters at end of line). Doing so, I noticed multiple footnote references without corresponding text. Someone with more knowledge than me of the article should fix these. (nb: i deleted footnote '4' from the area datapoint as it was breaking the infobox syntax.) Ferg2k 00:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

population in the north

I'm not sure where the figure for 323,657 people in the Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus came from. According to the estimates of the ROC, the population in the north is approx. 230000. About 65000 of them are Turkish-Cypriots (people born in Cyprus by Cypriot parents), 40000 are Turkish soldiers, and the rest are settlers from Turkey (or their children; the Republic does not recognize people born in Cyprus with Turkish parents as Cypriots). --Pantelis Panayiotou 16:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus is a country for Cypriots. Greece and Turkey should just stay the fuck away.

Turkey has been interfering in Cyprus' affairs for far too long. The British Commonwealth is known to have condemned Turkey's illegal occupation of northern Cyprus, as have both the United Nations & the European Union. - (Aidan Work 01:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Etymology of Cyprus

It is possible that name "Cyprus" is related with the names

  1. "Cabirians" (or preciously, Cabeiroi, or else Cabiri), a people who was appearing in Mycenean Greece
  2. Caphtor (or Kafthor, or Kaftor, or Keftiu), a people who is mentioned in Bible.
  3. Cythera (or Kythira), an island between Crete and Laconia, Peloponnesos.
  4. Cebriones, an Trojan, who was a son of Priam (according to Homer). Rationalistically, most of "sons" of Priamus must have been, simply, his allies.

Caphtor is the land of the Biblical Caphtorim (Egyptian Keftiu, Mari Kaptara), said in Gen. 10 to descend from Ham's son Mizraim (Egypt). It has been, etymologically, linked to Cyprus while other suggestions identify it variously as Crete, and the nearby coasts of Southestern Asia Minor (i.e the posterior Caria). By some accounts, both islands, Cyprus and Crete, together were known as "the isles of the Caphtorim", and perhaps of significance is the fact that the earliest Minoan script used on Crete seems to have been hieroglyphics. [ From the Wikipedian article, Keftiu ].

Note: In Crete, according to Homer (Odessey), there was four peoples and one of them, Cydonians (or Cydones), a people who lived in western Crete, in Cydonia (modern Chania).

These, perhaps, were "Keftiu", who migrated to Crete from Cyprus.

--IonnKorr 21:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The name 'Cyprus' is derived from the Cypriot Greek 'Kypros', which means 'copper', which was the main export in ancient times. An ox-hide-shaped copper bar is depicted on the 1955 & 1956 5 Mils coin. The Cypriot Millennium commemorative coin is also an ox-hide shape. - (Aidan Work 01:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Enosis referendum

I removed "Following the independence of Cyprus from the UK, the Greek Cypriots held three referendums on the issue of whether they wanted to be annexed by Greece. On all three occasions there was a vote in favour of annexation but Greece had agreed not to merge with Cyprus under the terms of the independence treaty and Greek Prime Minister Konstantinos Karamanlis did not seek to do so. " As far as I know there was no referendum on Enosis after the one organised by the church in 1950 Mavros 00:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Order

The last paragraph in Post-Classical and Modern Cyprus seems oddly out of place.

Sovereign Base Areas.

There are 2 Sovereign Base Areas - Akrotiri Sovereign Base Area & Dhekelia Sovereign Base Area. As they are not part of the Republic of Cyprus, they have their own constitutional status, which is guaranteed under the terms of the 1959 Independence Agreement. - (Aidan Work 01:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Liberate from the Persian Yoke

After their defeat, the Greeks mounted various expeditions in order to liberate Cyprus from the Persian yoke, but all their efforts bore only temporary results. This sentence sounds Greek POV. To make it NPOV I propose the following change: After their defeat, Greeks had many unsuccessful attempts to take Cyprus back from the Persians.

Not that accurate, the aim was to make the cypriot city states independent of Persia, not subordinate them to "the Greeks" (which were not a single state but an alliance of city states).Mavros 10:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish layman's POV

This is the Turkish layman's point of view:

Turkish point of view is that with 1974 coup staged in Cyprus by EOKA-B terrorist organization with approval of Greece's Junta regime leader Ioannides, the treaty that defines the entity 'Republic of Cyprus' had been broken. The signatories became warring factions and a new treaty was necessary to define the new entity. (EOKA article has a section for EOKA-B in which it is described as: EOKA-B was a Greek Cypriot fascist pro-enosis paramilitary organisation formed in 1971 that was supported by the ruling Greek junta which came to power in 1967, overthrowing the legitimate Greek government of George Papandreou.)

Turkey has been pressing for a new treaty and a constitution for Cyprus in which she has been seeking a bizonal confederation of two equal states made up of two distinct societies. Turks remain adamant about the fact that all diplomatic attemps of Turkey before and after the invasion had fallen into deaf ears. The day before the invasion, a big part of the Turkish Cabinet hopped in a plane to London to force the British government to use their Guarantor status and take an action agaist the coup in Cyprus otherwise a Turkish military action was imminent. A very bold move considering the turn of the events could have lead to an all out war between Greece and Turkey and if their plane crashed a governmentless Turkey could have found herself in war. The Turks demanded the removal of Nicos Sampson and the Greek officers from the National Guard and a binding guarantee of Cypriot independence. Turkish demands were rejected and the military action was taken on July 20, 1974.

Turks have a hard time to understand the point repeatedly made about the illegitimacy of second military operation that defined the current borders of "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" while landing on the island granted as legitimate. (This is also the UN's position.) The Turkish point is that this is exactly what they meant when they warned the British about the military action. Even after the Turkish troops landed in the island the British acted like nothing has happened. Only when the Turkish troops came close to the British military bases, the British government seemed somewhat motivated to take action. A war is suppposed to end with a truce, an agreement and a treaty and a political solution. This has not happened for 32 years and the war has not officially ended to this day.

The Turkish POV is that for all practical purposes the document defining the creation of the 'Republic of Cyprus' and the entity it defines has been dead for 32 years. UN's efforts to find a solution did not address the Turkish side's grievances but concentrated on regurgitating the dead document while the conditions on the ground had changed profoundly. The creation of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is a manifestation of this frustration.

Another point made in the article is that Greece did not take part in the war. It is very lucky for all parties that this did not happen but Turkey clearly saw Athens Junta regime of that time as the aggressor in the conflict in Cyprus and an unfortunate accident could have sparked an all our war with Greece. Two NATO members going on war in the most critical area of the Mediterranean could have been a big blow to NATO itself. At the height of the Cold War this could have been very nice suprise to Soviet Union. (Allies of Greece and Turkey, US and UK although did not put much diplomatic effort into avoiding a military action but they seem to have put pressure on the Turkish and Greek governments to avoid a war between the two NATO allies.)

There has been a very interesting development in Cyprus in 2004 when Greek side and Turkish side held a simultaneous referandum for the unification of the island Cyprus reunification referendum, 2004(sic.) If both sides said 'yes' this would have been way to shorcut the arduous negotiations in the UN: A unified Cyprus would immediately be a EU member state and the conflicts between the two communities in Cyprus would be handled in the framework of EU. The Greek side rejected the unification by 76% and the Turkish side voted in favor by 65%. If not anything, this is an acceptance by the Greek Cypriot population that 1960 constitution is dead and that the political entity in the South is not the 'Republic of Cyprus' mentioned in the 1960 constitution. Althought the Greek side rejected the unification it was accepted in the EU as the 'Republic of Cyprus'. This is another confirmation that 1960 constitution does not apply and the EU member 'Republic of Cyprus' is not the same entity in that constitution. The Treaty of Guarantee clearly states Republic of Cyprus cannot participate in whole or in part, in any political or economic union with any State whatsoever.

Considering the latest developments the embargo on the Turkish Cypriot side sounds totally uncalled for to the average Turk. In rejection in the union, the existence political entity in the Northern Cyprus is being ackowledged and the international recognition should follow.

The train of unifiying Cyprus has been missed which would have been a way to legitimize the current 'Republic of Cyprus' (Although the Turkish Cypriots voted in favor of unification, public opinion in Turkey was along the lines of the Greek Cypriot side), the other opportunity of legitimizing the 'Republic of Cyprus' would be to accept Turkey as a EU member which also seems very unlikely. The current legal situation is very concerning since there is no agreement marking the end of the 1974 war in Cyprus. As long as EU claims that EU member 'Republic of Cyprus' is the same political entity in the 1959 Treaty of Guarantee or the 1960 Constitution of Republic of Cyprus, EU would be in a State of war with the Republic of Turkey. EU is looking for concessions from Turkey and the islamist leaning currrent government in Turkey seems to agree to such consessions but the public opinion in Turkey is overwhelmingly against such a consession and if materialized it would mark the end of the current government. The Cyprus issue has singlehandedly affected the public opinion in Turkey in a negative way. And it is likely that the will to join the EU will have all but evaporated by the time recognition of Republic of Cyprus comes to the table as precondition for membership. 


Below is the first two articles of the 'Treaty of Guarantee'.

APPENDIX B

DRAFT TREATY OF GUARANTEE

ARTICLE I

... The Republic of Cyprus undertakes to ensure the maintenance of its independence, territorial integrity and security, as well as respect for its Constitution.

It undertakes not to participate, in whole or in part, in any political or economic union with any State whatsoever. It accordingly declares prohibited any activity likely to promote, directly or indirectly, either union with any other State or partition of the Island.

ARTICLE II

Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, taking note of the undertakings of the Republic of Cyprus set out in Article I of the present Treaty, recognise and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, and also the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution.

Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom likewise undertake to prohibit, so far as concerns them, any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, either union of Cyprus with any other State or partition of the Island. ... AverageTurkishJoe

CYPRUS has always been Greek and forever will be!!!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyprus&oldid=36163985"