Talk:Cyprus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Cyprus is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 15, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
November 2, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Countries (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Cyprus (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cyprus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cyprus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Greece (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Turkey (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Western Asia (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Islands (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Eastern Europe  
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a WikiProject related to the nations of Eastern Europe.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (see Cyprus at Wikipedia for Schools). Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Cyprus historical Census ( 1777-1960)[edit]

The Data to be added Population Census Table[edit]

Year GCs TCs Total
1777 37.000 47.000 84.000
1790 47.500 67.000 114.000
1793 46.392 67.000 118.000
1800 30.524 67.000 97.524


The following have the same format with the table in the article:

Population of Cyprus according to ethnic group 1777–1960
Ethnic
group
census 17771 census 17902 census 17933 census 18004
Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  %
Greeks 37,000 44.0 47,500 41.5 46,392 39.3 30,524 31.3
Turks 47,000 56.0 67,000 58.5 67,000 58.8 67,000 68.7
Armenians
Maronites
Others 4,608 3.9
Total 84,000 114,500 118,000 97,524
1 Source: [http://]. 2 Source: [http://]. 3 Source: [http://]. 4 Source: [http://].
Distribution of Turkish Cypriots (1891, 1911, 1931)
Distribution of Turkish Cypriots (1946, 1960, 1973)
Distribution of Turkish Cypriots (1891–1973)
Population of Cyprus according to ethnicity (1881–1960)
Ethnic
group
1881 census[1] 1891 census[1] 1901 census[1] 1911 census[1] 1921 census[1] 1931 census[1] 1946 census 1960 census
Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  %
Greeks 137,631 73.9 158,585 75.8 182,739 77.1 214,480 78.2 244,887 78.8 276,572 79.5 361,199 80.2 442,363 77.1
Turks 45,458 24.4 47,926 22.9 51,309 21.6 56,428 20.6 61,339 19.7 64,238 18.5 80,548 17.9 104,333 18.2
Armenians 174 0.1 280 0.1 517 0.2 558 0.2 1,197 0.4 3,377 1 3,686 0.8 3,630
Maronites 830 0.4 1,131 0.5 1,130 0.5 1,073 1,350 1,704 2,083 2,752
Others 1,738 0.9 1.364 0.7 1,327 0.6 1,569 1,942 2,068 2,598 20,488
Total 186,173 209,286 237,022 274,108 310,715 347,959 450,114 573,566

In the census from 1881 to 1960, all Muslims are counted as Turks, only Greek Orthodox are counted as Greeks. There were small populations of Greek speaking Muslims and Turkish speaking Greek Orthodox.[2]

During (1955-1960) 6,759 Turks and 31,844 Greeks emigrated.[3] During (1961-1973) 9,760 Turks and 39,192 Greeks emigrated.[3] In total, during (1955-1973) 16,519 Turks and 71,036 Greeks emigrated.[3] Of the emigrated Turkish Cypriots in this period, only 290 went to Turkey.[3]

According to the 2011 census, combined with 2006 Northern Cyprus data, the ethnic composition for the entire island was 60% Greek, 24% Turkish, and 16% other

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f https://books.google.com.cy/books?id=6jH4Xy4KFrYC&lpg=PA21&dq=cyprus%20census%20turks%20greeks&hl=nl&pg=PA21#v=onepage&q=cyprus%20census%20turks%20greeks&f=false
  2. ^ A Handbook of Cyprus, Hutchinson, Joseph Turner, page 57, 1907
  3. ^ a b c d Is the Turkish Cypriot population shrinking?: an overview of the ethno-demography of Cypus in the light of the preliminary results of the 2006 Turkish-Cypriot census, Mete Hatay, International Peace Research Institute, 2007, page 64

Ethnic cleansing and cultural heritage[edit]

The sentence on the destruction of Greek Cypriot cultural heritage within the framework of ethnic cleansing has been a particularly problematic one, as evidenced by the discussion above. I have recently encountered this source, pointing out to two reports by the European Commission in 1989 and 2002, both of them refuting this assertion and one of them dismissing it as outright "propaganda". It also explains how the claims of cultural destruction within a framework of ethnic cleansing are perpetuated by both sides to vilify each other. I would like to point out that this is not a denial of the policy of ethnic cleansing that existed in 1974 or such a policy that continued to exist afterwards.

The one-sided nature of the statement (note that this does not imply that Hadjisavvas' paper is biased as it chooses to focus to the north) is further revealed by an article by Sam Hardy, an archaeologist at the UCL specializing in destruction of cultural and community property, particularly in Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, published in a book by Palgrave Macmillan. While it supports the idea that "the issue of Turkifying and Islamizing Cyprus" are at play when it comes to destruction of cultural heritage, it also elaborates upon a policy of "enforced neglect" by the Greek Cypriot authorities that results in the destruction of Turkish Cypriot and Islamic heritage. In another paper, he states:

Neither the Turkish Cypriot administration, nor the Turkish state, nor even the Turkish army, per se, “plunders” northern Cyprus; the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot nationalist gangs that do, however, are incredibly powerful and constitute a “deep state”, similar to the Greek and Greek Cypriot nationalist deep state that operated throughout the island between 1960 and 1974.

Greek Cypriot extremists’ destruction of mosques both demonstrated they shared the nationalist logic for Turkish Cypriot extremists’ later destruction of churches, and established religious desecration as part of the practice of ethnic cleansing on Cyprus.

These explicitly refute the idea that the destruction is motivated by a national policy of ethnic cleansing ("Turkish policy of erasing the Greek presence in Northern Cyprus within a framework of ethnic cleansing") - a very fine distinction exists between that and what Hardy is pointing out to (see deep state), and a similar destruction, albeit at a smaller scale, occurs at the south, and when it comes to cultural heritage, one cannot ignore the other side of the coin because it is at a smaller scale (WP:POV). Yes, the report cited in the article is very reliable, but these are equally reliable sources that explicitly refute its assertion. Thus, the issue should be treated as any scholarly debate is treated and the views presented in these sources should be given due weight.

In the light of these sources, I believe one of the following course of action should be taken: Either the assertion by Hadjisavvas should be attributed to him per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, due weight should be given to the deliberate neglect and destruction of T/C cultural heritage, the ideas given in the above sources added and the implication that the destruction of heritage is part of a policy of ethnic cleansing is an established fact avoided by any means; or the reference to cultural heritage completely removed.

A notification to users involved in the discussion in the section above: Athenean, Fern 24, KazekageTR, Nyttend, YeOldeGentleman; any input would be very appreciated!

--GGT (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

My input was not on the kind of content that should be included, but the text itself: we should be paraphrasing the guy if we're including his opinions, not quoting him. No opinion on whether he should be included, or who else should be. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Busy now but will look at the sources and comment sometime in the near future. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your research, GGT. I'd like to add another source to be considered, regardless of the course of action we choose. The ECHR issued a ruling in 2001 about the various human rights violations that, in its estimation, Turkey had committed. Although this does not discuss the motivation behind Turkey's actions (as far as I can ascertain), I think it is an excellent summary from an extremely reliable source for this section. Fern 24 (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out to that. If we are to cover Turkish-instigated violations, believe that other issues arising due to the Cyprus problem, such as the violations of the right to property, violations of the civil rights of enclaved Greek Cypriots (and Turkish Cypriots in the south, per the ECHR case Aziz v. Cyprus) should be discussed, though caution should be taken as the decision for Cyprus v. Turkey is from 2001 and there have been notable improvements in the conditions for the enclaved since then (per US reports). I would even say that these issues should take precedence over cultural heritage. But without digression, I believe we should currently concentrate on removing the existing bias in the section. --GGT (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not at all impressed with Sam Hardy's scholarship or publication record, which is minimal. Neither of the papers you link to appear in peer-reviewed journals. He is also extremely partisan, seeking by various means to equate the wholesale and ongoing plunder of Greek Cypriot antiquities with the far more limited destruction of Turkish Cypriot heritage in the heat of the aftermath of the 1974 invasion. Much of what is written in his publications has nothing to do with antiquities and the destruction of heritage, but are rather devoted to portray the Turkish Cypriots as victims of Greek Cypriots (he writes on and on about how the Turkish Cypriots were pushed into Gaza-like enclaves, and other similar claims far outside his area of expertise), and he even goes so far as to blame the Greek Cypriots for the plunder of their own antiquities. The lack of impartiality in his work has been pointed out by Hadjisavvas, so it's not just me saying this. Based on his minimal publication record and partisanship, I thus cannot consider him an equal source to Hadjisavvas, and he does not invalidate what Hadjisavvas says about the plunder being motivated by a policy of ethnic cleansing. The bit about the distinction between Turkish policy and the Turkish deep state is a piece of sophistry. Mr. Hardy is an archaeologist and not an expert in international law, thus this claim falls far outside his area of expertise and does not merit consideration. That said, I have no problem with attributing the ethnic cleansing sentence to Hadjisavvas, with one caveat. If another reliable source can be found that makes a similar claim, then the attribution should be removed. Athenean (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I rather considered those papers to be supplementary to the reports by the European Commission in question, whose reliability, I believe, in such matters cannot be second-guessed. Given that these reports are in stark contradiction to Hadjisavvas and that Hadjisavvas has failed to respond to them, I would like to see an opinion with regards to those reports.
I wonder whether your claim of Hardy being "extremely partisan" is your personal view and as such original research, as that seems to be the case - and this is something that does not affect the evaluation of its reliability. Hadjisavvas does critique the work of Hardy by saying "Though well documented, Hardy’s work is largely devoted to criticism of Jansen’s publication and seeks to equate the organized destruction of Greek and Christian heritage in the north—executed by a foreign country— to vandalism and limited destruction of Islamic religious buildings in the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus that occurred during the conflict at the hands of a small group of extremists", but that is all he says and this has nothing to do with your claims of extreme partisanship. He also calls Hardy's work an "important contribution" to the field of the destruction of Cypriot heritage. It is equally evident that Hadjisavvas has been critiqued by Hardy. We are not in a position to judge the partisanship of a given author whose articles have been published in a peer reviewed publishing house; which Palgrave Macmillan is (Hardy also has an article on Cypriot heritage published in the peer-reviewed European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research). What this seems to be is a usual case of an academic dispute between two reputable scholars in the field of archaeology, to claim that Hadjisavvas is the only reliable source and use this to diminish the value of Hardy's peer-reviewed research (which is further dismissed as "minimal" in number) is a clear form of argument from authority. I do not see how the distinction between the deep state and the Turkish national policy is sophistry, that seems to be an unsubstantiated assertion as the distinction between the two has been made quite clear in the work of Hardy and the relevant articles. I would also like to point out to Hardy's evaluation of the destruction, especially in the south, in this article in a peer-reviewed journal. (However, with regards to the second paper I have linked in my first comment, you are indeed right that it lacks peer review, though that does not change the reliability of Hardy's peer-reviewed papers or his position on the issue.)
I would also like to point out that Hadjisavvas is also an archaeologist and has no expertise in international law, and that if we were to apply the idea that "this claim falls far outside his area of expertise and does not merit consideration", it should be equally applied to the legal-political evaluations of motives and violations made by Hadjisavvas. Alessandro Chechi, an expert in art law, has an article published in the peer-reviewed Ashgate Publishing House regarding the issue of cultural heritage in Cyprus. As I said before, the source points out to the reports by the European Commission and argues that there is no policy of ethnic cleansing at work when it comes to cultural heritage by either side, and that this is a piece of propaganda perpetuated by both. He elaborates upon both the destruction of Christian/Greek and Islamic/Turkish heritage and argues that the responsibility falls jointly upon Turkish and Greek Cypriots. To me, it appears that Hadjisavvas is the lone holder of the opinion that the destruction in the north is utterly incomparable to that in the south and is the result of a policy of ethnic cleansing, a view that is negated by the European Commission, Chechi and Hardy. --GGT (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's not that simple. The European Commission is a political body, not an academic body. Its reports are not subject to peer-review, and as a political body it has a political agenda (which at the time that those reports were written was supportive of Turkey's EU admission). As such, it cannot be considered equal to an academic source like Hadjisavvas. If Hadjisavvas says "A", and the EU Commission says "not A", I'll take Hadjisavvas. Regarding the shodiness of Hardy's work, you should read what Hadjisavvas says further down: "The mere fact that I reviewed Jansen's manuscript for mistakes in the archeological record presented was taken by Hardy as an attempt by me to dictate to the author the official Greek point of view.". This is outrageous and calls into question both the impartiality and quality of Hardy's scholarship. His publication record is also minimal, thus I do not consider him in any way the equivalent of Hadjisavvas. So it's Hadjisvvas vs. Chechi, but there is also a vast body of literature on this subject out there, e.g. [1], which unfortunately I do not have the time to investigate at the moment. Nevertheless, in the interest of resolving this dispute, I re-iterate my proposal to attribute the sentence to Hadjisavvas, to which you did not respond in your previous post. Athenean (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That vast body of literature incorporates a significant amount of Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot propaganda (Chotzakoglu, Hellenic Parliament, Sabahattin). I would truly be interested in other literature though (and will look to investigate it further), and especially given this dimension of the issue, I can by no means support the inclusion of the point of view of Hadjisavvas alone. I fully support, however, the attribution of the statement by Hadjisavvas, and consider that part of the debate settled, though this by no means settles the issue. Chechi and Hardy are perfectly reliable sources per WP:RS: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Any attempt to dismiss these peer-reviewed sources published in very reputable publishing houses is not grounded on Wikipedia policies and what is exhibited above is, again, an argument from authority. "Minimal publication record" does not in any way indicate that Chechi is less reliable than Hadjisavvas in the evaluation of the destruction of cultural heritage, given that Hadjisavvas' "extensive" publication record does not in any way relate to the question that we are discussing (see [2]: his publications are mostly concerned with the ancient history of Cyprus), and his publishing record with regards to the destruction of cultural heritage and ensuing legal issues is, to say the least, as "minimal" as Hardy or Chechi. Indeed, Hadjisavvas is an archaeologist and any legal evaluation that he makes, including the assessment of legal responsibility for the cultural heritage, falls outside his area of expertise. This is, however, precisely Chechi's area of expertise and thus, if it is Hadjisavvas vs. Chechi, Chechi must be given at least the equal weight. Thus, I believe, the argument from "publication record" is invalid and misleading, not only because it is not a prerequisite for reliability, but also as most of Hadjisavvas' publication record is irrelevant and as he is by no means an authority in the area of art law. As to the sentence that you quoted, in the light of the view I have expressed, I believe that it compromises Hadjisavvas' reliability as much as Hardy's - it must be noted that this is the response of Hadjisavvas to some assertion that we have no access to and we cannot possibly assume that Hadjisavvas presents a neutral account of the criticism, and we cannot evaluate Hardy's actual assertion without accessing it; and that statement is rather cherry-picked as if Hardy's work could not be considered reliable or was not worthy of academic consideration, Hadjisavvas would not call it an "important contribution". --GGT (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Currency & calling codes[edit]

I have tried editing the Cyprus page to show that there are TWO currencies and TWO calling codes for Cyprus but someone keeps removing my edit.

The two currencies are Euro (EUR) in the South and Turkish Lire (TRY) in the North.

Likewise there are two calling codes: +357and +090

Jojobookreader (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)jojobookreader

"Greek Cypriots"[edit]

Currently the article uses the term "Greek Cypriots" to refer to the populous in the Republic of Cyprus–controlled area. Is this accurate? Surely some native Turkish Cypriots still reside in the controlled territory? Or have moved back since? Rob984 (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the article Turkish Cypriots, the number of T/Cs in the south is around 2000 (around 0.2% of its population), which I would say is negligible. That said, using "Greek Cypriot" as a demonym for the south seems to be commonplace anyway ([3] [4] [5]). --GGT (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Future Work[edit]

This section is designed to discuss the future work of the article.


We should seek to extend the Culture section to include a new subsection regarding the traditional clothing worn in Cyprus, given that there was a distinctive dress amongst men and women, such as the Vraka. Indeed, these are no longer worn except for dance performances and celebrations of Cyprus' history, but I think it's worth including if possible. This new section may be titled as 'Folk Costume' to relate to the following article: Folk costume.

Cyprus has been Greek in Character for over 3000 years[edit]

Briefly: Cyprus has been Greek in nature for over 3000 years, Since at least 1200 BC. This is evident from various Archaeological discoveries of Mycenaean and Minoan (early Greek civilisations) Structures and objects, being found in Cyprus, dating back to the ancient times.

In addition, there are many references from countless ancient authors, (including Herodotus, Homer and Plutarch to name a few)regarding Greek colonisation and civilisation in Cyprus from as early as 1200 BC. Therefore, Greek people and culture have definitely existed in Cyprus form these ancient times.

Greek language has also been widely used in the island from the ancient times, this is apparent from various sources. e.g the Cypro-Minoan tablet (early Greek language) uncovered in Cyprus dating back to approximately 1500 BC.

In modern times, there is no need to explain why Cyprus is Greek in nature, but I will list these points nonetheless. The majority of people living in Cyrus are Greek, the island's main religion is Greek orthodox, the main language spoken is Greek, the character and culture of the majority of people is Greek.

From the ancient times up until now, Greeks have lived in Cyprus (making up the majority of the population). Greek has been the islands main used language. Greek religions have dominated the island, from the worship of Aphrodite to Greek orthodox and Greek culture has flourished.

In conclusion, I have briefly highlighted a few main reasons why Cyprus has been Greek in character for over 3000 years. Of course these points could be immensely expanded upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.231.212 (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)