Talk:Nicosia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nicosia status

This is to discuss the proposal to include this text as Nicosia's status:

Divided between the Republic of Cyprus (southern half) and the de facto Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (northern half)

In my opinion this is highly biased toward the Turkish POV of simply presenting a two state city (whether de facto is included or not makes little real difference). We simply cannot ignore the huge imbalances of opinions we have in this debate. On the one side we have the turkish side (the invading country) of presenting a two state city and the greek side which is supported by the international community through a series of UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions of a partly occupied city and a self-declared puppet state.

The proposed text is unacceptable because

a) It completely ignores the majority view of the international community (that is the "Turkish occupation") while favoring the single minority

b) The wording is way too simplistic and not based on any reliable and unbiased sources

c) The word "de facto" is does not say anything to the average user about the status of TRNC, that is being an unrecognised and illegal entity (a view which is supported by the international community).

I propose the current wording which would cover any concerns turkish editors have about not mentioning TRNC.

Internationally recognized as the capital of Republic of Cyprus. Northern half occupied by Turkey, self-declared as the capital of TRNC, recognized only by Turkey.

This would be short and descriptive provided that a UN-related footnote is added in the bottom section of the infobox which would explain the great imbalances in the debate:

The Turkish invasion, the continuous occupation and the self-declaration of TRNC have been condemned by a series of UN resolutions.

I'm open to discuss these suggestions, but at this stage I cannot see any other way of mentioning the TRNC without mentioning the occupation and the UN resolutions. Masri145 (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree and insist on keeping the Richwales edition, as it has achieved more or less consensus. In a higly controversial area, more consensus is impossible, especially when a user first reverts then discusses a difficultly reached at compromise.

As regards status you may visit either Northern Nicosia or the webpages of the relevant TRNC institutions. Simply see the relevant articles regarding the island of Cyprus and List of Sovereign States on this Wikipedia and you will see the divided status of Cyprus, including its capital; in the latter case, a reality since 1964. --E4024 (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not a very constructive spirit. You recognized it yourself that such a highly controversial text must be thoroughly discussed and balanced between the two sides before a compromise is reached. This wasn't done in this case and clearly it is far from compromise. The discussion above was more about users' behaviour rather than content. There are 2 pro-Turkish editors that have fully agreed but no Greek users agreed. We simply cannot ignore the other side especially when reliable neutral references are provided. Its not enough saying that you "insist" on a version when you're not providing any reliable sources. You should have known by now that Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reference (as per WP:SELFPUB). One reliable and neutral source that we cannot ignore is the UN resolutions [[1]]. I'm willing to form a commonly accepted text, the current one is provocative and simply lacks any credibility. Masri145 (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that one neutral editor agreed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It was Richwales's proposal that was supported by yourself until E4024's inflamatory comments. Anyway the point is that this is not a balance between Greek and Turkish views and mostly it completely ignores UN votings. Masri145 (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. So one neutral editor supports it. You're the one who came up with some sort of head-count; if you do so, do it correctly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

[redacted personal attack; do not replace]

Moving away from head-counts we need to have a proper discussion on this. I'm still expecting to see where you disagree with my proposal. Masri145 (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think both texts are problematic. I've therefore put into the article a third suggestion (per BRD) which is to retain the express statement that it is internationally recognised as RoC territory but, in parentheses, that the northern half is within TRNC recognised only by Turkey. I would hope that that would be acceptable to all since it is difficult for anyone to argue (I would think!) that it is factually inaccurate. DeCausa (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yours is a much more balanced version which competently and fairly addresses most of the salient points of the situation. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks DeCausa. I agree with Dr.K. but I feel it's important to have some more accuracy on the stance of the international community considering the UN resolutions on Cyprus's status quo. Essentially, this is what the second paragraph of the article says which is the product of some lengthy discussions in the past. Masri145 (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your addition is unnecessary. It already states that it is internationally recognised as RoC territory. Therefore, by definition, any control of the territory by any other entity is "occupation". I've therefore reverted you for two reasons. Firstly, it's an infobox. There should be short punchy statements. Lengthy explanation is for the body of the article. It's already long for an infobox: your addition makes it too long for something that's not essential to say. Secondly, the addition gives the impression that you want to hammer home your message. It already says it's ROC territory. It already says the TRNC is only recognised by Turkey. We all know that there is a strongly held alternative point of view (however much a minority internationally). This is a collaborative project and editing needs to be conducted in that context. If the essential information that a reader needs from an infobox is there, then the addition is not only unnecessarily provocative it is, IMO, disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand Masri's perspective. He wants to add "occupation" to the mix in the infobox. It is an understandable position since it is also referenced. But in good faith I accept DeCausa's explanation as satisfactory. This is an infobox after all. As such, infobox info has to be as pithy as possible. We don't have to add "occupation" explicitly to it since it is already implied and a more thorough discourse about occupation is already present in the article body. Therefore for the sake of consensus, saving time and out of respect for DeCausa's contribution, which I find substantial and elegant, I think we should accept the current infobox statement. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO non-recognition of a country does not imply military occupation by another. It's only implied if you're familiar with the problem. You have to keep in mind, the difference with northern Cyprus as compared to other non-recognized entities. The reason I want to add "occupation" is because Turkey maintains a disproportionate amount of military forces (30.000) in the occupied territory since the invasion in 1974. Every year the UN calls for the "withdrawal of occupational troops" which is not the case in Taiwan or Kosovo or Transnistria AFAIK. So some more accuracy is necessary. However in view of Dr.K.'s and DeCausas' comments above and due to the fact that the occupation is explained in the second paragraph in the text I will accept the proposal. Masri145 (talk) 06:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Turkey and "Greece"

Turkey intervened in Cyprus, in 1974, as a guarantor power of the status of the late "Republic of Cyprus", whose government institutions were kidnapped by the Greek Cypriot side since 1963, in breach of the Constitution. The military intervention of Turkey (called invasion by some circles) brought peace to the island, after a Greek military junta government organised coup d'etat, in 1974. The following words "On the one side we have the turkish side (the invading country) of presenting a two state city and the greek side which is supported by the international community ..." are confusing. (Bold letters mine.) I thought Cyprus was a separate entity. Or is it Greece? Or in case the author is referring to "Greek editors" with the words in bold, do they have a special responsibility here? I thought we should not refer to the editors for their nationality, religion, whatsoever. I just retracted one comment -although it did not contain any national reference in it- because some users showed their displeasure from their own national standpoint. After that I withdrew a reference to user nationality in another talk, without anybody asking me; simply because I see it is counterproductive, and I recognise, not very nice.

I wonder when and if someone will remind Masri to stop talking about the nationalities of the users... --E4024 (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I refuse to engage in this sort of discussion. Will an admin please intervene as E4024 seems to act as a self-appointed administrator removing user comments from talk pages. Masri145 (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not remember anyone inviting you "to engage in this sort of discussion"; you come without being invited. The only request I forward you is to stop talking about the national identities of other users. If an admin comes around here he/she will only see your edit war, your removed (not by me) personal attack and my implied apology for previous own behaviour, which I repent even more now, seeing myself in the mirror of your deeds... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with E4024 here. This has been my stance for a very long time but I will gladly repeat it. All talk about nationalities is ultimately futile, irrelevant and counterproductive and must stop. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

North Nicosia (2)

The paragraph "Nicosia is the capital and seat of government of the Republic of Cyprus. The northern part of the city functions as the capital of the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, a disputed breakaway region whose independence is recognized only by Turkey, and which the rest of the international community considers as occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus since the Turkish invasion in 1974." provides enough information for the northern part. Since there is an article exclusively for North Nicosia describing everything about it, lets just leave this article for the Republic of Cyprus official Nicosia area.It's fairer this way F224

I completely agree with you. This has been my suggestion a long time ago to stop the ongoing edit-war. Since an article for North Nicosia exists it should be used for information for that part of the city for post-1974 buildings/politics/history etc. As long as we reference the North Nicosia article from here it should be enough. This is the case for Cyprus and TRNC articles (e.g. in Cyprus there are no descriptions for football stadiums and politics of the TRNC) so i can't understand why we can't do the same here. I would like to see what the admins think about this suggestion. Masri145 (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The WP is not written by admins but well-intentioned editors. If someone makes edits with a negative motivation/intention it is called POV and possibly could convert into disruptive edition. In those cases certainly the admins will be asked to intervene for sanctions if those negative attitudes persist. Other than that the admins do not have a special role to play here... --E4024 (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion for "South Nicosia" and "North Nicosia" is impossible. "South nicosia" does not exist in any official document. The city is internationally recognised as "Nicosia", the capital of the Republic of Cyprus and so this article describes everything that has to do with Nicosia - Republic of Cyprus. In all international official sources the name "Nicosia" is associated with the Republic of Cyprus (not south or north). The "North Nicosia" article (if it stays) should describe only post-1974 developments/buildings/schools/transport etc as north/occupied Nicosia didn't exist as a separate entity before the division of the city in 1974. You can't have both articles to describe high-rises and stadiums built after 1974. Masri145 (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There was never an intention of having two articles, South Nicosia and North Nicosia. Furthermore, as the northern part is not recognized, one cannot write for Nicosia the capital of the republic of Cyprus(which afterall is the city described in the article) that it includes Cyprus International university or Ataturk stadium. These should only be mentioned in the North Nicosia article. It's common sense that: 1) This article is about Nicosia, the capital of the ROC as seen by the rest of the world. 2) North Nicosia article is about the northern part of the city and it describes everything in detail including stadiums,universities e.t.c 3) Officially Nicosia contains the universities and stadiums mentioned currently in the article from world's prospective. 4) North Nicosia should just be referenced in this article --F225

Glad to see that we agree. Apologies for the confusion, I was replying to E4024's suggestion that "we should have South Nicosia and North Nicosia articles, no need for a Nicosia article" on this [2] edit. Masri145 (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with this position. We should move quickly to change this longstanding problem, and reconcile the two articles. Outback the koala (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is "South Nicosia" is a term invented by the Turkish government. The rest of the world recognises the city as only "Nicosia" the capital of Cyprus. Just do a Google search for the invented term "South Nicosia". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a numbers game here. We, as a neutral encycolpedia, cannot take sides in these types of disputes. We should only be presenting the facts and each side of the arguement equally, as legitimate. The position of the Turkish government is a position, just as worthy of any states' opinion, of being included and equally represented in the encycopedia. We are not presenting a view of the world from one side or the other. The situtaion is in glaring error here, and this does need to change. I think the best solution to this situation is to merge the north article into this existing article and begin to treat the arguments and positions of the Turkish government and treat the entity of the TRNC as just as equally legitimate as the other side and present the facts neutrally. Our readers should come here and find an unbiased page. Outback the koala (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not a numbers game. It is the WP:COMMONNAME of the city in the English language. If you want to change the naming conventions this is not the right place to do so. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Having a North without having a South really shows the level of academic perfection we have reached at, here. What a pity for WP... --E4024 (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Outback the koala, the city is divided in two and no-one disagrees with that - as is the whole of Cyprus. We should follow the paradigm of the Cyprus and TRNC articles. TRNC gets very limited mentioning in the Cyprus article (as much as necessary) and the appropriate links. The problem is not the existence of the two articles, the problem is having North Nicosia information in the Nicosia article. New buildings, pictures, transport info, universities, municipalities etc which are only related with North Nicosia should not be included in this article as TRNC information is not included in the Cyprus article. Masri145 (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

@Masri145 I see your position and that of DrK - I understand that there cannot be an article like "South Nicosia" or anything along those lines, however we should be able to make clear that this article is strickly about the southern partition of the city. Additionally we can work to make sure that, as Masri suggests, we keep content related to each article strickly separate. Outback the koala (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Outback the koala and :E4024. I see what you mean and I respect your opinions but having a South Nicosia article is impossible. There is no such thing as south Nicosia. On the other hand there should be a North Nicosia article since it talks about the capital of the de facto state of TRNC. What would a south Nicosia article represent? Whether you like it or not there is no such a thing as south Nicosia. Internationally Nicosia is recognized as the capital of the ROC and the only reason a north Nicosia article exists is because of the de facto state of TRNC. Search wherever you want. I can guarantee that wherever you look you won't find South Nicosia as the capital of ROC. As Masri145 wrote a good example are the articles of the Republic of Cyprus and TRNC. In our case a reader who wants to read about the official Nicosia,the capital of the ROC visits the Nicosia article. A reader wanting to read about North Nicosia visits the North Nicosia article. As simple as that. Neutrality is maintained since both side's views are presented(One article will just reference the other) . I can't see a reason for the WP complaints. Think before you write people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F225 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

@F225 This is exactly what is wrong with the approach to this article. You say "Internationally Nicosia is recognized as the capital of the ROC" - well whoop-de-do. Firstly, its not accurate - there is international dispute over this between most of the world and Turkey; a majority of the international community's opinion is does not make this fact. Nor does it make it the position of Wikipedia to endorse one viewpoint. We can bring attention to the disparity of different states in differing opinion, and we should, but thats about it. You also write, "the de facto state of TRNC" but we all it more than just a de facto state: it's partially recognised and whether its a de jure state or not is disputed. Should wikipedia pick a side on this dispute as well? I continue to advocate that this article, and wikipedia as a whole, needs to have a neutral viewpoint from which to present the facts and allow the reader to decide which is "the official Nicosia". Which is? We sure as hell should not presume one over the other because X # number of states says so and only X # number of states disagrees. I repeat that in international disputes, its not a numbers game. Outback the koala (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, "hypocrisy" is maintained. People come to Nicosia article and they are kindly told, at the top, that if they are looking for Nicosia, Sicily they should go to the concerned article. But no word about the TRNC. (Nicosia, Sicily was the Corleone village in Godfather?) What a shame... --E4024 (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said North Nicosia should be referenced. But whether you like it or not, North Nicosia and TRNC are not internationally recognized. They are considered as occupied territory of the ROC. When someone visits the Nicosia article he/she searched for the capital of the ROC. If he/she wants to read about North Nicosia he would search for "North Nicosia" and read the article representing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by F225 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

@E4024:In one of my earliear suggestions (before you joined) I changed this along these lines: the article is about Nicosia - Republic of Cyprus, for North Nicosia - TRNC go here and for Nicosia, Sicily go here.

@Outback the koala: I don't know what sources you have for your assertions above. I can only point you to the List of United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning Cyprus. You can have a look at the resolutions adopted unanimously by the General Assembly and the each year's new resolution adopted by the Security Council. "the de facto state of TRNC" that you question, is in reality a puppet state. do not forget that the so called "dispute" is the world vs. a country which invaded another and declared a separate state which has not been recognised by anyone but itself (i.e. a failed attempt to create a new state). Even if the imbalances in the dispute are so huge, no-one said we should take any sides. Thats why a North Nicosia article exists in the first place. What I'm proposing is a separation of content between the Nicosia and North Nicosia articles, both having commonly accepted texts and adequate links between them. Masri145 (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@Marsi: You make some very good points. I agree completely with your proposal for a separation of content between the two articles. I must note however that you are referring to the United Nations as if it is a neutral organisation or a neutral source. Its not and we should not treat it as such. Even if its "the world vs. a country" its still a dispute between sovereign states. And in these cases we should not sides no matter how clear it is who may be on the right side of international law, because each side of an argument has a different opinion of their positions. Outback the koala (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Outback, we're not here to judge who's right or wrong or take sides with anyone. But, the reason I'm pointing to United Nations resolutions as a reference is that they're probably as neutral as you can get with international politics. Especially those adopted by the General Assembly. These resolutions are the product of debates and votings between the supporters of the conflicting views. So in a way they represent the collective position of the international community (i.e. a consensus, like we're trying to achieve here in WP). Masri145 (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The UN may be, "as you can get", but that does not make them neutral, nor does that make the collective position of the international community necessarily fact or reality. We see that every time a de facto state comes up. We should acheive our own consensus, not adopt those of the United Nations because that as close as we'll get; there are other sources (i.e. experts and professors) whose opinions can differ widely, but also differ from those of these states in question. Outback the koala (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicosia: More on hypocrisy

In the article we insist on calling it "divided capital" but we reject to make separate South and North Nicosia articles. I cannot find words... --E4024 (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

E4024. There ARE two articles. It's just that South Nicosia is not an official term. Whether you like it or not officially there is only Nicosia and unofficially North Nicosia both having a separate article. If it wasn't divided, a North Nicosia article would have not existed-- F225

Article not whole of Nicosia?

I hadn't paid much (in fact, any) attention to the "North Nicosia" discussion, so in my innocence I made this edit and got reverted here. Having now read it, I find the discussion very puzzling. Renaming this article is irrelevant. But, given the title, the general reader would, I believe, expect this article to be about the whole city even if there is a more detailed article on North Nicosia. The systematic exclusion of information about North Nicosia is confusing because nowhere in the article is that explicitly stated that that is what's going on. I see no reason to do this, although I agree that there is no need to go into a much detail on North Nicosia. I think, at minimum, there should be a short section on North Nicosia (just a short paragraph) with a see main link to the North Nicosia article. Also, the systematic exclusion of the North, per the IP who reverted me is, IMHO, silly.DeCausa (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Source for flag and seal

Is there any reliable source for the appearance of the flag and seal/emblem of Nicosia? Nicosia.org.cy uses a logo similar to (but not the same as) the one we have here, and doesn't mention any flag. --Taejo|대조 13:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Demographics section is missing

There is no demography section. DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Climate chart

Would someone please help me verify the average temperatures of the first climate chart table (Climate data for Athalassa, Nicosia, elevation: 162 m) in the article? Its average high temperatures are likely to have been vandalized. This is quite common in other articles and I can't verify the averages as there was no simple way to do so from its source. I was only able to copy some averages from an old version of the article, but I still can't verify them. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Metro" population

For the RoC, that's the aggregate of all urban (what the Cyprus census people consider to be urban) settlements in Nicosia District. For example, Geri is quite far from Nicosia, the city. For NC, it's the Turkish municipality's population (the city population is minus Hamit Mantres and Mia Milia). Obviously, I think the population of Geri shouldn't be included, but subtracting it would probably constitute WP:OR. Anyway, I think it should be stated that the south's "metro" isn't exactly that. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)