Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia

Maps

It looks like CIA got its Dhekelia map wrong. The area to the north of the UN buffer zone is not under the control of the Republic of Cyprus but under turkish occupation (or Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus administration, according to your PoV) Mavros

No, its just that no country recognizes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, except Turkey. Takeshi

My statement above refers to an older version of the map which was wrong. The map has been corrected. Mavros 15:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Split question

Why aren't there separate articles for Akrotiri and Dhekelia? They are listed as separate entities in the CIA Factbook. —Cantus…☎ 21:01, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Could somebody create a map of all Cyprus with dots to indicate where these territories are located? RickK 09:45, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

See UK sovereign base and/or Image:Cy-map.png. - Hoshie/Crat 00:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

City question

As for this edit, I am interested to know if Akrotiri and Dhekelia are cities. Thanks. — Instantnood 21:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

They are villages really Mavros 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Vote to split this article.

Here's a section where you can cast a vote on whether or not you are in favour of 2 separate articles - Akrotiri Sovereign Base Area and Dhekelia Sovereign Base Area.One vote per person please. - (Aidan Work 01:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

Votes in favour of splitting this article.

I have always been in favour of 2 separate articles under the 2 above-mentioned names. The lists of the Administrators of the 2 S.B.A.'s should be included. - (Aidan Work 01:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

Votes not in favour of splitting this article.

• Despite what the CIA lists, Akrotiri and Dhekelia is considered by the UK to be one entity not two. Shocktm | Talk | Contributions 15:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Shocktm, constitutionally, Akrotiri & Dhekelia are 2 separate entities. Legislation made for Akrotiri has no legal force in Dhekelia & vice-versa. This is why there should be 2 separate articles. - (Aidan Work 01:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

Everything I have seen including http://www.sba.mod.uk/ indicates that the SBAs are one entity. They have one administrator (Currently Peter Thomas Clayton Pearson ), one capital (Episkopi), one police force, etc. I could be wrong but it does not apprear to be seperate entities to me. Shocktm | Talk | Contributions 02:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[1] suggests there may be a few local ordinances for Akrotiri, but that almost all ordinances apply across the SBAs. --Henrygb 19:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The local ordinances relating to Akrotiri actually relate to the Greek Cypriot village of Akrotiri. They probably come about because the village is the only civilian Cypriot community within the SBAs sizeable enough to warrent a measure of local government. All the villages inside the Eastern SBA boundaries were actually made Republic of Cyprus enclaves and subject to that country's rule of law. I believe that at the time of the setting up of the SBAs, the villagers of Akrotiri were paid compensation to relocate. For one reason or another they didn't, they were never forced to leave and have remained to this day. Incidentally, Akrotiri is the name of;

• The Greek Cypriot village
• The peninsular that forms the southern most part of the Western Sovereign Base Area (and of Cyprus)
• The bay to the east of the peninsular, and south of Limassol
• The Salt Lake in the middle of the peninsular, winter home to flocks of flamingos
• The RAF base, RAF Akrotiri on the southern edge of the peninsular, that takes up 15mi² of the Western SBA's 47.5mi²

--Dashers 06:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Schedule 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (as amended) lists all the British overseas territories. The SBAs comprise a single territory, not two. JAJ 00:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If this article is to remain as one, it should not continue with its current title- it is basically an article on the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus, and should be titled as such- ie Sovereign Base Areas (Cyprus), with the current Sovereign Base Areas article retained for disambiguation purposes. The article is basically expanding on what is written in that article anyway. To make Akrotiri and Dhekelia the title of the article is misleading when there is more in it than just those 2 bases. There are multiple entities within the sovereign base areas, but the SBAs themselves are governed together- by the Sovereign Base Area administration, which has civilian governance over all areas outside the Military installations. All areas within the military installations come under military governance.--Dashers 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, the Sovereign Base Area administration with civilian resposibility for both SBAs is based in Episkopi, the British Army Garrison positioned at the northwest of the Western SBA on Cyprus' south coast. Military command for the Western SBA is in the hands of the Station Commander, RAF Akrotiri; military command for the Eastern SBA is the reponsibility of the Garrison Commander at Dhekelia; and the HQ for British Forces Cyprus is at Episkopi. The Commander for British Forces Cyprus based at the HQ in Episkopi is also the administrator of the SBA administration. The garrison of Episkopi is a few miles to the west of the Cypriot village of Episkopi, situated just north of the Western SBA's northern border.

--Dashers 06:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change of name for article

I would like to reiterate my belief that the title of this article should be changed to "Sovereign Base Areas Cyprus". This is the name of the administritive unit that both these areas fall under, as per the Sovereign Base Areas web site [2].Locally the areas are known as Western Sovereign Base Area and Eastern Sovereign Base Area, rather than Akrotiri and Dhekelia- these names refer to the RAF base and the Army garrison of the same names, each constituting just a part of their respective base areas. It concerns me that the CIA World Factbook is being used as the definitive authority on this issue rather than British Government material such as the SBA website and the British Forces Cyprus web site [3]. There are a number of inaccuracies in the CIA source- for instance, it states there are no indigenous inhabitants; however, there is the Cypriot village of Akrotiri in the WSBA that is under the governance of the SBA administration, not the Republic of Cyprus (unlike the villages in the ESBA). No where on the British Forces website does it refer to Episkopi as a Cantonment (however, Dhekelia is). Episkopi, as an army garrison, hardly qualifies to be called a capital- it is an Administritive Centre. --Dashers 03:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• suport Reaper7 08:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Dragases 08:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. JAJ (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree, having lived in the ESBA for a year and the WSBA for almost four years, neither are referred to in the ways outlined in this article. The WSBA includes the RAF Base called Akrotiri and the British Army Garrison of Episkopi, each of which are named after nearby Cypriot villages. The ESBA includes the military bases of Dhekelia and Ayios Nikolaos. Both of the SBAs comprise areas of land which are not inside the military bases. Contrary to what it says in the article Episkopi is not the capital of anything. I think the CIA Factbook could do with a lot of updating. If it can get this small area so fundamentally wrong then I wonder about its other articles. * Support. Fatspoonwiki 22:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay

I'm not seeing any reasion in the article for the see also link to Guantanamo Bay. If there is one, it really should not point to the disamb. article, it chould point to the correct mainspace atricle. Should I remove it, point it to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base or Guantánamo Bay, Cuba? Zvar 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just delete it I think. It's enough that both belong to Category:Overseas military bases, no real need to refer to it in the "See also" section. --Mathew5000 07:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What percentage of land is taken by the UK bases on the Greek Cypriot land?

From the maps of this article - it looks like a significant percentage/. Reaper7 15:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

None! The UK Bases are on British land not Cypriot land Greek or otherwise. YourPTR! 22:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Overseas territory

The SBAs seem to be listed frequently on Wikipedia (and the CIA Factbook) as separate British territories, but the article seems to infer (or even state outright) that they aren't anything more than British military bases, albeit not located on British soil (I would imagine that Akrotiri and Dhekelia aren't the only British bases overseas, though.) Why are these bases usually listed as territories? True this is probably a discussion for the talk pages of the various lists of countries on Wikipedia, but since the ones that list the SBAs all link here, might as well discuss here. --Canuckguy 13:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The SBAs comprise a single British Overseas Territory. They are the only bases in the world that are the sovereign territory of the operating nation (although British sovereignty is restricted by the terms of the treaty with Cyprus). Guantanamo Bay is an American base on Cuban sovereign territory, albeit leased to the United States. JAJ (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag

This website shows a separate flag for use on Akrotiri and Dhekelia rather than the UK flag, is this just unofficial? [4] - J Logan ^t: 21:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Inofficial fantasy flag. —Nightstallion 01:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to second what Nightstallion has said. The flag sold by flagsonline.it is bogus. See the deletion debate for these images on Commons. - Thanks, Hoshie 12:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

BRITISH SOLDIER - RAPE CASE OF LOUISE JENSEN

What is it with the people here, the soldiers were sentanced to 25 years and released after 13 years NOT the 2 years lie, that is on this wikipedia page see BBC source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4792915.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockybiggs (talk • contribs) 11:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

PRESIDENT COMMENTS

Resolved

Why is this comment mentioned on this page. It is not helpful or needed.

This is British land, the same as Buckingham Palace is British Land. Therefore why are these comments here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.4.199 (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned because it suggests the government of Cyprus may challenge British sovereignty over the base areas. That in itself is notable. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What it surgests is irrelevant. As the Republic of Cyprus has no ownership of this land. In legal and international legal terms this is British land, unless Britain decided to give this land to the Republic of Cyprus. This is not an arguement but a fact as per Zürich and London Agreement (1960 Treaty of Guarantee). (talk • contribs) (Rockybiggs (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)).

We know what it is now. The paragraph refers to a possible change in its status at some point in the future. The way this may be brought about is unclear, but it is a prospect that is still worth mentioning. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is to be left submitted, then British Sovereignty, must also be mentioned. To present a fair and balenced view. Leaving these comments as is, indicates the land can be taken back at anytime. Rockybiggs (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How you mean? British sovereignty is mentioned throughout the article. Hint: look at the flag if you can't be bothered reading it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a irrelevant remark, and should be removed or amended 172.159.150.122 (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Further more the source is in Greek, how do we know what the scource states. This is the English Language Wikipedia and Sources must only be in English. A new source in English must be added or comments must be removed Rockybiggs (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed. It doesn't matter if the Cypriot President thinks the status of the bases is "under review" because it is nothing to do with him and the British point of view is the bases are not under review and Akrotiri and Dhekelia remain British forever. If the bases were under review than so would Cyprus' status as an independent state, but it is not. YourPTR! (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There are ways, both legal and political, in which the Republic of Cyprus could contest the sovereignty of the base areas, if it so desired. Your point about the British view being the only relevant one is not quite convincing, either. It was also the British view at the turn of the last century that Cyprus would remain British forever, as would the rest of the Empire, for that matter. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since Tassos Papadopoulos has failed to be relected anyway, surely the point is moot? --Arwel (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It remains to be seen how his successor will deal with Britain. The frontrunner, Dimitris Christofias, is the leader of the communist AKEL, after all. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Deals with Britain ? whoever it is they have no power to deal with Britain. This was a silly comment, to boost Papadopoulos pre-election propects. This is UK soil period. A stupid comment which is not needed or worthy of any comment.Rockybiggs (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In a section titled "Dispute with Cyprus", the comments of the Cypriot president are relevant and notable, unlike your British nationalism. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

NO they are not relavant, stop putting your Greek POV on this page.

This British Land and will remain so. Please see WP:DBF

Rockybiggs (talk) 09:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The CIA has made no bother to mention these base areas as an "international dispute". The President has not made any real threats to close any bases, be they British, Turkish, or a within the Green Line. His threat of stagnating a good economy does not seem to have happened. I swear I have not been drinking, and that the UN is not an actual country, but why does the Green Line seem to be larger than the UK Sovereign Base Areas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.223.175 (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is getting very boring and tedious now.

I am not the only one who has stated the comments of the President of Cyprus, are not of merit. I am not imposing my views on this i am being neutral, I have a real problem with the Greek point of view being made, and the comments `has cast fresh doubt on the continued British presence`. These comments imply that the President of Cyprus can kick the British out anytime, which of coarse is not the case. Surely you can see the NPOV here !? The base is British, so why does, the comments of the Cyprus President matter ? Except to make the Greek POV feel better.(also the source doesn`t mention any comments). (Futher point why can`t you use the talk page instead of Reverting all the time. )Rockybiggs (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made my points on the relevant talk page, if you'd bothered to read them. The stance of the President of Cyprus, whether you like it or not, does affect the future of the bases. The real question is, if British sovereignty is as unassailable as you claim, why are you so intent on censoring the so obviously inconsequential Cypriot view? If we followed your argument elsewhere, we wouldn't mention the Argentine claim on the Malvinas either, as according to you the sun never sets. Whatever. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again you miss the point, Yes the Argentines claim the Falkland islands, BUT it doesnt`t mater what their President states, as Legally they are British. As per the U.N surport for the U.K when they Invaded.

I dont think your POV comments about the sun never sets are helpfull either.

I propose a compromise, that the comments `has cast fresh doubt on the continued British presence`, are removed. Rockybiggs (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Further more i await your reponse to avoid any silly revert war Rockybiggs (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Although you as a Brit may think it doesn't matter what Argentina says, the mere fact that British sovereignty is disputed by another country is notable in and of itself. You can't just ignore it. I have reworded the paragraph to reflect the source more accurately. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As for Argentinas claims, Nestor Kirschner once urged/demanded/threatened/whatever the Government of Uruguay to ceace the producing of pulp-mass in the town of Fray Bentos. As I was mistaken to think that Uruguay was a part of Argentina, I soon learned that the production of pulp-mass would be geared up with business as usual. No news seems to have arrived from that "controversy" since 2007.(82.134.28.194 (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Ok i agree with your partial amendments (despite my own reservation as i dislike the left wing guardian, but thats my own POV.) Thank you for being a Gentleman. Rockybiggs (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, matey. And just out of curiosity, why do you rail against the "Greek POV" when you identify yourself as a "Greek Wikipedian"? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a bit unfair to say i rail against Greek. As i fully supoort the efforts to re-unite Cyprus from the Illegal Turkish occupation. I consider myself Britsh,

but i do have Greek Ancestry through my Greek Great-Grandfarther. Rockybiggs (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would consider you British too, which is why I found your inclusion in the "Greek Wikipedians" category rather puzzling. But I guess it does that automatically when you put the Greek ancestry userbox in your profile. All good. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As for international disputes, they happen only once a year: All the time. No one noticed that Turkey protests Cypriot Government creating hydrocarbon blocks and maritime boundary with Lebanon in March 2007. Anyone can tell that this is plagitarianism from a CIA document. I am supposed to have heard that Hugo Chavez disputes Dutch sovereignity over the ABC Islands, but CIA has not noticed. There is no copy and paste routine from the CIA to what Cyprus actually says on Akrotiri and Dhakelia. BTW Discussions are on to what sort of Communist Chritofias happens to be. I guess the Greek discussion page is better than that.(85.164.223.175 (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC))

Egyptian guerrillas were flown into Larnaca for interrogation

The scouce for this is bogus (i.e the website doesn`t exsist).

Why are these comments here, when there is no proof or need. this a guess and not fact ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockybiggs (talk • contribs) 11:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

International controversy

Votes for this section to be removedRockybiggs (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? It is sourced entirely from mainstream news sources. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the International controversy title alone in name is irrelevant. Not only was there no Interntional Controversy, and the comments are only suited to a cypriot propaganda agenda.

First paragraph: 1956 Suez crises comments

1) This first paragraph is plagiarism from the alleged source.

2) How can this be called a source, when these are not facts but one journalists opionion being raised in a newspaper article.

3) Which have been taken out of total context.

4) Plagiarism alone is a Wikipedia offence in its self.

British soldier rape case

1) There is already a Wikipedia page devoted to this rape case Louise Jensen.

2) I can`t see any reason why this case should be mentioned on this page, apart from a cypriot view, and as this is UK soil and the offences took place on cypriot soil,please tell me why they shouldn`t be omitted. Rockybiggs (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rockybiggs, please consider the following: the British military bases in cyprus are not exactly UK soil, they are sovereign! At the same time they are liable to the Republic of Cyprus laws in regards to Freedom of Access, Legislation, Public Services,Education, Agriculture, Co-operative Development, Labour and Social Insurance, Social Welfare, Health and Medical Services, Postal Services, Forestry Services, Customs, Currency and Exchange Control, Civil Proceedings, Criminal Proceedings, Prisons etc etc. They are a distinctive case. SBAs are meant to be military bases only. The laws of the UK do not apply to Cypriots in the SBAs. Regards Meander^₪ —Preceding comment was added at 13:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi 3meandEr, I accept your valid point on the soldiers rape case issue. Rockybiggs (talk) 14:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

i owe you a smiley :). Please also consider the following: The existance of the Republic of Cyprus (through its treaty of establishment) reinforces and does not hinder the sovereignty of the military bases, as they are bound by the same treaty. It is the cooperation of the two which makes possible the SBAs sovereignty. It is for the same reason Rockybiggs that the infobox of cyprus was added. To be honest i was bewildered when i saw it removed. Without the treaty, and the republics infrastructure the SBAs would not be the same. Kindly reconsider, thanks Meander^₪ 14:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Having the infobox only on the Republic of Cyprus page should be the correct and proper place. As Akrotiri and Dhekelia already has infobox, and is a Sovereign base (UK administered). From a presentational point of view as well. Rockybiggs (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, Your are right, it doesnt look nice. Meander^₪ 15:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any chance these areas will be settled by civilians in the future?

They already are. Christopedia (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Not by British civilians. Britain is under a treaty obligation with Cyprus not to use the bases for anything other than military purposes. JAJ (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The bases belong to the European Union

I read, at the end of the article, that they adopted the euro despite they are not part of the European Union. I think this is not correct: they are not part of the Euro Zone, but they do belong to the European Union, as part of the United Kingdom. Am i correct or is there some special status I am not aware of?--Nebu87 (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

They use the euro; see link: [5]. They are not part of the E.U --Rockybiggs (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We can just say that the Vatican became a member of the EU, but the Pope was mistaken to believe that Europe was to turn up in the gardens of the Vatican. Then we end up with one enraged Monarch who wants out of the EU.......As If. (83.108.30.141 (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

British overseas territories: "The British Overseas Territories are fourteen territories that are under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, but which do not form part of the United Kingdom itself[...]Gibraltar is the only Overseas Territory that is part of the European Union[...]the main body of EU law does not apply and, although certain slices of EU law are applied to those territories" Apokrif (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That article is not correct. The colonies, now "overseas territories" have always been considered part of the British state and part of the United Kingdom. Only the Crown Dependences are not fully part of the UK, but form a federacy with it and are treated as part of the UK for some purposes such as nationality. A&D are part of the UK but not part of the EU. The bases belong to the British and no one else! Christopedia (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, BOTs are not "part of" the United Kingdom. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

They are under British sovereignty but not part of the UK itself. --92.0.124.79 (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If the EU had any say about the management of these areas, that will be the same day the EU is allowed to dictate or limit the defence policies in each EU country. When I say dictate, I dont mean by just telling....Poland to mind it's exterior towards Belorussia. What if both the Finnish and the Greeks were obliged to ceace using conscripts? I believe Greek conscripts are made to sing songs of wounding Turkish soldiers....cutting of his noble parts....and letting him choke on it. If the EU dares to ban these things, that is a cultural loss which we can not allow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.30.141 (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Post address

Having read the article I wondered, how would I address a letter to one of these places? GB, Akrotiri? CY, Akrotiri? Is there a postcode? --155.56.68.220 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Does any one have pictures like these: [6] [7]. There's hardly any pictures on this article. --92.8.99.201 (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Flag and anthem

Is it not a bit of overkill having GSTQ as the anthem and the union flag in the infobox, there is none in the Guantanamo Bay. BigDunc 18:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don`t think so, if you read the Guantánamo Bay`naval base` page it states ``The Cuban-American Treaty gave, among other things, the Republic of Cuba ultimate sovereignty over Guantánamo Bay while granting the United States "complete jurisdiction and control". Where as the UK ``retain sovereignty`` over Akrotiri and Dhekelia (effectively part of the UK).--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's ridiculous, unsourced and being removed in a few days unless sources are provided. There is no evidence that Akrotiri and Dhekelia has a national anthem and flag, other than the designated UK ones. Some places do have a distinct national anthem or flag which remains GSTQ or the Butchers Apron, but they retain the constitutional ability to change them. Including them on this article is equivalent to including them on Bognor Regis. That's not a nation, it doesn't have its own flag or national anthem, and neither should this article. Either provide sources that show Akrotiri and Dhekelia has a distinct national anthem and flag which are GSTQ and the Butchers Apron, or I'm removing them. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm, as you know full well, before you come to this page with threatening behaviour and hostile remarks and stating you will remove this and that, you know full well the wikipedia process. Why dont you start reading the British overseas territories page for starters and you will see the coat of arms for starters apply. Furthermore EACH overseas territory mentions the national antham on each page and the coat of arms, such as Falkland Islands, and even the little Pitcairn Islands population 50 !. source - covers flag, head of state etc CIA World factbook --Rockybiggs (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you've provided no sources for the so-called national anthem or coat of arms, I've removed them. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted. See this one near bottom `British Sovereign Base Areas`--Rockybiggs (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Further note-Please also see the fully sourced wikipedia page List of anthems

Imprecise Language

The article refers to a "number of controversies" involving the British, but describes only two. The article should either say "two controversies," or describe the rest of them to avoid misleading imprecision or exaggeration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.229.114 (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The bases are split into

They're not really. There are two bases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

geography

Akrotiri surely isn't surrounded by Cypriot territory. Also, is Dhekelia in two parts, connected by the buffer-zone, or is the link also British? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the link is also British, see this map. Apcbg (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"Dispute with Cyprus"

The whole first paragraph under this heading "Dispute with Cyprus", about the UK Govt failing to pay money claimed by the Govt of the Republic of Cyprus, is unreferenced - basically because it is largely wrong. It appears to come from a story based on a mis-reading of the 1960 Exchange of Notes on Financial Assistance to RoC (commonly referred to as "Appendix R" from the grouping in the set of papers presented to the UK Parliament). From the Republic of Cyprus's own Government website at http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/portal/portal.nsf/0/7efeb0c73e0ee288c2256fdc00396ae3?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=1 you can see that this is about the former colonial power giving financial aid "by way of grant" to the new Republic on a tapering basis - a total of £12 million, with £4 million in the first year, down to £1.5 million in the 5th year. Then there are other very specific payments related to the arrangements for independence. Then there is at (c) a provision that the UK is every 5 years to review & determine, in consultation with the Republic, the amount of financial aid to be provided over the next 5 years "taking all factors into account, including the financial requirements of the Government of the Republic" - clearly linking it to the needs of the new government, not to anything that the UK is paying for. The common mistake (or deception) is to claim that the money was rent for the bases, but the bases were not rented, and a tapering rent is an odd concept. Instead it is financial aid - and on a reducing basis, with no guarantee of anything after the first 5 years - it is entirely for the UK to decide how much, which means the supposed "estimates" of something actually owed are entirely fanciful. The paragraph does not reference any demand made by the Government of the Republic, motions have been passed in the Republic's Parliament, but it must be significant that the Government has never taken them up with the UK, let alone with any international court (even with the excuse that the Turks must be dealt with before the Greek-Cypriots take on the British). If there has been no demand, and there is no document to back up any such claim or even put any figures on it, then what is this paragraph doing on Wikipedia? Waldronfan (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have just edited the offending paragraph to add some of this material (without the argument). But now that I look at it, it brings home the point that the financial assistance was never related to the bases in the first place, so this page is not the natural Wikipedia home for information about this story. It would fit more appropriately on the existing "Cyprus–United Kingdom relations" page, where the detail could be set out and whoever promoted the original paragraph could find and show evidence about when the RoC Parliament (not Government) has passed resolutions urging the RoC Government to claim money from the UK. Waldronfan (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If as you say it is unrelated, then it would be better on the relations page, where it should probably be anyway. CMD (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, just in case not clear - I mean the whole paragraph on the alleged financial dispute should be moved to the relations page, not just the bits I have added. I am not sure about the etiquette of moving it myself, particularly as I see it as a non-story anyway.--Waldronfan (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:Bold, there's no etiquette issue. If anyone objects they'll discuss it here as well. CMD (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Just an acknowledgment is needed under GFDL when it moves to the new destination, in the edit-summary field of the destination article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it does. I've been bold and moved this, citation needed tags and all. CMD (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thank you CMD. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Flag in infobox

Chipmunkdavies restored [8] the UK flag and CoA in the infobox with the argument that "It seems standard, both in external sources, and in wikipedia, to use state flags for dependent territories that lack their own". I respectfully disagree: what we are doing in this infobox is not "using" (displaying) a state flag, in the way we would "use" it in, say, tables of sports teams with {{flagicon}} sugaring. The infobox is supposed to convey encyclopedic information. The question to which it is supposed to provide an answer is not: "what national flag would be flown in this territory?", but: "what is the flag of this territory?". If this territory has no flag of its own, then there is no encyclopedic value in displaying some other. The fact that British flags are in use on this territory is trivial, given the fact that it's a British possession; the space at the top of the infobox is too valuable to waste on such trivialities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've always seen flags in infoboxes as more a description of "What flag is used to represent this territory?". I feel that this does have encyclopaedic value. In places where dependencies represent themselves, such as sports (although I very much doubt this ever applies to A&D specifically), or political meetings, usually one specific flag is flown. Showing the reader what flag would be used to represent dealings by a certain territory is helpful. An analogy would perhaps be French territories, although in many cases they have specifically legislated that the French national flag is also their official flag. CMD (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

ISO 3166-1

Does any one know (by reference to sources) why this territory is not included on the above mentioned ISO list? Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Government

There seems to be confusion about the name of the Administrator of these bases. The panel at the top of the page gives the name Air Vice Marshal (AVM) William Stacey but under the heading "Politics" in the main body of the text, the name of AVM Graham Stacey is given. Are these the same person? Haynestre (talk)