Template talk:Northern Cyprus-note

Recognitions

Organization of Islamic Cooperation

Mehmet Hasguler, "Cyprus at a Crossroads" (Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2009, pp. 63-71)
"...Organization of the Islamic Conference recognize the republic as an independent state..."
Alexyflemming (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 31.153.94.214 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Recognition" and "Legality" are different things

International Court of Justice, 2010 Kosovo Decision: "Recognition is political issue, not legal".
I will give the source as well.Alexyflemming (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP31's edit is suitable

IP31: Northern Cyprus is the subject of a territorial dispute between the Republic of Cyprus and (the Turkish Republic of) Northern Cyprus. The latter declared independence on 15 November 1983, but Cyprus continues to claim it as part of its own sovereign territory. Northern Cyprus' independence has been recognised by Turkey and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). does not claim NC is recognized by UN. If that thing is realized, then only in that case UN information should be placed. There is also "partally recognition" "limited recognition" standards in WP. But, inclusion of those also extends the paragraph.Alexyflemming (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are not the edits of the IP. These are your edits after the IP cleaned up the other POV you had added to the template which you created. Stop trying to mislead people and stop trying to whitewash the lack of recognition of Northern Cyprus. You have become extremely disruptive. You cannot continue on this path. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get consensus for including nonrecognition? Kosovo is also neither full nor observer member of UN and in its replica template nonrecognition is not written. Also, ICJ Kosovo 2010:"recognition is a political issue, not legal"Alexyflemming (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In cv of a person, where he is worked is written, where he is not worked is not written.WP codex:"states without limited recognition","partially recognized states"... UN info will be placed when NC becomes member of UN. Alexyflemming (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo and Northern Cyprus

Kosovo is not a member of United Nations. Northern Cyprus is not a member of United Nations.
Kosovo is neither full nor observer member of United Nations. Northern Cyprus is neither full nor observer member of United Nations.
In Wikipedia, both Kosovo and Northern Cyprus are regarded as "state with limited recognition" (i.e. partially recognized state).
A state has a limited recognition as long as it is not a member of UN. This is true for both 108 and 1.
Alexyflemming (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think nobody (except you) wants this note placed in any article. 31.153.94.183 (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never talk on behalf of everybody! You are just you just as I am just me. Please avoid using "everybody"/"nobody" in Talk discussions to justify a point.Alexyflemming (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't talk on behalf of anybody. And when I say 'everybody', I mean the people who we know to be aware of it, i.e. me, Dr.K. and TU-nor. It seems obvious to me that you should attempt to establish a consensus for having such a note in the first place....before edit-warring over its phrasing. 31.153.94.183 (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a consensus in WP about behaving Kosovo and NC as partially/limited recognized state. i.e. They are in the same category. And hence they both deserve to be behaved equivalently. Any distinguish against NC after that built-consensus was caused by POV viewed users. Hence, all such distinguishing handlings will be removed from WP. Alexyflemming (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "consensus" about treating Kosovo and NC identical is your interpretation and exists only in your imagination. There is no such general consensus in WP. --T*U (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. This SPA account is pushing his POV and imagining things along the way. This is disruptive editing, but I have said this many times before. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tu-nor: Look here:List of states with limited recognition#Non-UN member states recognised by at least one UN member.

Dr. K. You are very very biased on Northern Cyprus topics. You are notorious with your "island nation of Cyprus" and "hiding behind 1974 events" distortions. You still did not answer

* how can you qualify Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots that have nothing in common for 500 years including race, religion, language, etc. (and that conflicted with each other continuously) as island nation?

* How can

1. 15 July 1974 (Greek Cypriot terrorist coup),

2. Sampson(15.07.1974): "I declare Hellenic Republic of Cyprus",

3. Makarios(19.07.1974): "Cyprus was invaded by Greece"

have no importance according to you?

You can deceive ordinary users, but I am a flemish Northern Cyprus expert!Alexyflemming (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are not "ordinary". You are a personally attacking, nationalist SPA with no consensus who is pushing POV, copyright violations and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH like there was no tomorrow. WP:DROPTHESTICK once more. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously believe that Greek and Turkish Cypriots have nothing in common? Frankly, anyone who's got such blatant disregard for the truth has no business editing an encyclopaedia. 31.153.94.183 (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, just a few hours ago you were editing Turkish Cypriot folk dances; I know this will come as a shock, but those are also the dances of the Greek Cypriots. 31.153.94.183 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. K, look at the mirror. Your "island nation of Cyprus" still waits to be explained. Dr. K. again, WP policy bombardment instead of how you deduced "island nation" and how you infer "the above 3 facts are not important for you".

IP31, having minimal similarities does not make completely different nations as "one nation"! Though the Turkish Cypriots have been living in Cyprus island for 500 years, the number of mixed marriages between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots is less than 5 (in 500 years)! So, there are definitely 2 nations in the Cyprus island and that's why there are 2 sovereign states. Alexyflemming (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AF: The sorting of states in the list you mention is obviously useful for practical reasons. It has nothing to do with any general consensus in WP to treat NC in an identical way of Kosovo. Such "consensus" is pure fantasy (and that is also not the way WP works). Also: This TP is for discussing the template, not for a general discussion of the Cyprus question. Please keep to the point. --T*U (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the things he's saying are simply untrue, and they need to challenged -- no matter the venue. (There have been very many more than five mixed marriages.) 31.153.94.183 (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP31, just for sampling purposes, can you give the names of mixed marriages btw GCs and TCs since 1960? You say "very many more", could you give a reference for the total number (if it is not 5)?

TU-nor, you say "The sorting of states in the list", did you notice that there are many categories in that list, and the place for Kosovo and NC is the same! It is general consensus in WP to treat the items in the same group/category in a similar fashion.Alexyflemming (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number of total mixed marriages between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots:

In Famagusta: Only 3 during 1948-2008!Alexyflemming (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said 'in 500 years'; obviously, there wasn't much intermarrying after around 1950. Also, that's 3 mixed marriages Ata is personally aware of. Anecdotal evidence has no place here. 31.153.94.183 (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually incorrect to speak of Greek and Turkish Cypriot intermarriage in the last 500 years, 'cause Cypriots identified by their religion before the early 20th century. 31.153.94.183 (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total number of mixed marriages between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots is 5 (civil marriages + religious marriages)

Marriages:
1. Famagusta, marriage date: before 1960, civil marriage.
2. Famagusta, marriage date: before 1960, civil marriage.
3. Famagusta, marriage date: living with religious marriage during 1963-67. Man is GC (possibly excluded from GC people).
Source: http://www.acikgazete.com/yazarlar/ata-atun/2008/07/08/kibris-39-tan-tek-halk-gercegi.htm?aid=2883
4. 1st Greek Cypriot bride (from Australia) to Turkish Cypriots, year 2004

I think possibly the 5 includes GCs and TCs living outside Cyprus island! Other info:
Village: Ayios Ermoyenus; No mixed marriages! Alexyflemming (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total number of mixed marriages between Turks that went to Cyprus pre-1974 and after-1974: 13,000.

Right, I'm wasting my time here. 31.153.94.183 (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No intelligence is required to see that the number of mixed marriages between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots tends to 0 in limit (from math!). That is almost nil.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, thank you for reinforcing my assessment. 31.153.94.183 (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there is of course this. But could we now please return to what this TP is supposed to be about: The template? --T*U (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]