Talk:Rauf Denktaş

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

Photo[edit]

Dearie me, that is an unfortunate photo of Mr Denktash we have there. I'll grant he's no prettyboy, but shouldn't we have something a bit more formal? The one on Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus seems rather more appropriate. Comments?
-- Finlay McWalter 17:16, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well I can't help what he looks like. It's not meant to be an insulting photo, just a standard news pic.
Adam 00:17, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I asked the TRNC President's office for a photo and Evrim Tolga sent this new picture. He did check the site so he is familiar with the terms of Wikipedia.
ato 14:48, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Geography)[edit]

Paphos is not located in the north of Cyprus. It's right next to the Akamas peninsula, which is the southernmost point of the island.
(Pantelis Panayiotou, Nicosia, Cyprus)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.21.45.44 (talk) 10:19 & (3 edits spanning 35 sec.:) :20, 22 April 2004‎

(One colleague's additions)[edit]

I plan to make a few additions to this article shortly. If you want to fix my English, or make additions yourself. I'd appreciate you wait until Monday. Thanks. ato 04:04, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think I am done for now. I used information from the cited external links and History of Cyprus. This site contains a lot of information as well. ato 01:44, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1981 disputed election[edit]

"Turkish Government has interfered with the election process from the lowest to the highest possible degree. In 1981 parliamentary elections three opposition parties won 21 out of 40 seats and declared immediately that they would be ready to form a coalition. Therefore, the main opposition party (Communal Liberation Party , then presided by Alpay Durduran) was supposed to be given the duty to form the government. However, the president declined to obey the tradition and both military and civilian officials from the then military dictatorship in Turkey interfered and did not allow a government to be formed until two of the opposition MPs left the coalition and joined the ruling party for a coalition. This example shows an interference to the electoral process from the highest degree." From http://www.cyprusaction.org/humanrights/elections/ . I'm sure you can get much more info on this in turkish. Mavros

Contact information for Mr. Denktaş[edit]

İlhan Savut Sok. No. 9,
Köşklüçiftlik,
Lefkoşa, KKTC.,
Mersin 10, Türkiye/Turkey.

Tel/Fax: (0392)229-1582, Office Tel: (0392)229-1584, Office Fax: (0392)229-1583,
e-mail: aykarkot@kktc.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Expatkiwi (talk • contribs) 20:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INTERCOMMUNAL TALKS[edit]

[INTERCOMMUNAL TALKS: At the end of 1968 Denktash arrived secretly on the Island and after a short detention by the authorities he was released in a bid to start talks for resolving the constitutional problem of the Republic.Intercommunal talks between the Chairman of the House of Representatives, Glafkos Clerides and Rauf Denktash went on for a number of years, in an effort to reach a negotiated settlement for establishing a unitary state. When a settlement was reportedly in sight, Rauf Denktash brought the talks to an end, when he announced that the two sides were attaching completely different meanings to the term "unitary state" ].

A text of this nature is needed in order to cover two points. First, the fact that Rauf Denktash was not banned from entering the island during the whole period leading to the Turkish invasio, as the article may lead one to conclude, and Second, that the different interpretation of the term "unitary state" by the interlocutors was not but a pretext, as the meaning of the term negotiated upon, was the first thing that should have been agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.228.112.194 (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rauf Denktaş. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Help me" edit request by blocked user[edit]

Edit request.

Hi please can someone add his middle name in the intro, it should be Rauf Raif Denktas. [1] [2]


Also his signiture in the template. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rauf_R.Denktaş%27ın_ıslak_imzası.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.240.62 (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.cypnet.co.uk/ncyprus/people/famous/ppl-raufdenktash.htm
  2. ^ http://www.rdu.edu.tr/about-rdu/rauf-raif-denktas/

- Struck edit request by blocked sock. IamNotU (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Sam Sailor 21:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the requested edit. The request was made by a blocked, long-term-abusive user who is not allowed to edit Wikipedia. See WP:BLOCKEVASION and WP:BMB. Please check any similar requests before granting them, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have also reverted the replacement of this edit by GGT, as it's clearly a reinstatement of an edit made on behalf of a blocked user, and I believe it falls under the rules of WP:BLOCKEVASION: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." In any case, I've reverted a bold edit, which means it doesn't have consensus. I do understand GGT's position that "the fact that he's blocked doesn't mean that the edit is actually incorrect", but this is addressed in WP:BMB. The article has stood for more than 15 years without this particular edit, and there is WP:NORUSH to make it now. I feel that the potential disruption and damage to Wikipedia, by creating a precedent to accept edits from Shingling334, as long as his edits are "good", is not worth any potential improvement such edits could make.

As noted in WP:BMB, when edits by blocked/banned users "force editors into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content", the latter course should be taken. Please understand that this isn't just a bureaucratic exercise. The hope is that this user will eventually stop their disruptive/deceptive practices once they realize that all their edits are reverted, without exception - similar to the concept of WP:RBI. If instead they are given the message that they only need to convince another editor to support them, they will redouble their efforts and disruption. Taking the long view, I believe it's in the best interest of Wikipedia, and particularly in having accurate, unbiased articles about Turkey and Northern Cyprus, and a good-faith environment for other editors, not to let any of this user's edits stand. If there are other discussions relevant to this, please let me know, as I'm happy to consider them. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have restored the middle name since it's a correct edit, and the user who made it has said they assume responsibility for it. And, as clearly stated in WP:BANREVERT, being allowed to revert edits by banned users does not mean that all edits by, or on behalf of, a banned user must be reverted, which is why I chose not to revert it when cleaning up after the socks. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment. I've been doing some further reading about the subject. The WP:BANREVERT section is entitled "Edits by and on behalf of banned editors", and begins: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule". I have read that as meaning I am allowed to revert edits made on behalf of banned editors, without further reason and without it being considered edit warring. However, I now think that's probably a misreading, and the first sentence only applies to edits by, but not on behalf of, banned editors. The relevant text about edits on behalf of banned editors is below in the "Proxying" subsection, which says editors can make such edits if "they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content."
On the other hand, that section used to include the text: "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry." (That appears to have been removed without consensus - I will try to take that up on the banning policy talk page). Since WP:BMB is very clear that they "may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good", it seems to me that reinstating and vouching for one of their edits would tend to undermine or sabotage the enforcement of the ban - which editors are expected not to do according to the banning policy - and encourage sock puppetry. So it should only be considered on very rare occasions.
My thinking is that there is a technical block in place, which is intended to completely prevent all edits by the user. Unfortunately this user has gone to some lengths to use proxies and other methods to circumvent the technical block. I think we should in that case manually carry out the function of the block - revert all edits and ignore them, as though they never happened. It's true that not all edits must be reverted, and no editor is required to assist with enforcing a block or ban, but I think they are required by policy not to interfere with someone else doing so, as far as is reasonably possible.
"What is seen cannot be unseen" though, and in some cases an edit that should have been blocked points out an error in an article that would be negligent not to repair, such as a violation of WP:BLP or other core policies. But that's quite different from adding new material because it's "helpful" or "constructive" for example. Editors can choose to refrain from making any edit, considering the potential cost of encouraging block evasion. At the very least, indispensable material should be re-written in the editor's own words, rather than reinstating verbatim an edit of a block-evading user. In this particular case, it could be argued that it's one of those very rare occasions, since there's no other possible way to write the name, and no other possible place in the article to put it. So if there's a consensus to make this one edit, I won't object, though I would still prefer to revert and ignore it, since I feel that the risks to Wikipedia of encouraging further sock puppetry from this editor (not the least of which is further hours spent by those of us cleaning up after him) outweigh the benefits of including the middle name. In other cases though, I hope that people will not make a habit of reinstating trivially "useful" or "correct" edits by this person, and they should expect that I may challenge such reinstatements on the basis that they unnecessarily undermine the enforcement of the block/ban, in contradiction of the policy. --IamNotU (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the middle name was a good faith edit made in response to an edit request, before the IP was blocked as a sock, or even suspected of being a sock, and can definitely not be seen as meat-puppetry. So just drop it. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have nothing to do with the original response to the edit request, which was obviously a good-faith edit. I'm talking about someone reinstating an edit that they know to have been made by (or unwittingly on behalf of) a block-evading user. I don't think such a reinstatement should be made lightly, purely because it "was actually a useful edit". The language that "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users" was part of the banning policy, and from my review of the circumstances in which it was removed, should still be. Whether or not it can be described as meatpuppetry or proxy editing, if editors are completely free to reinstate any reverted edit of a blocked/banned user "no questions asked", purely because it looks useful, that undermines the purpose of WP:BMB ("they "may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good"), and of the block itself. Editors aren't forbidden from reinstating edits by blocked users, because in some cases the reasons are strong enough on balance to outweigh WP:BMB and to disregard the block. As I said, it might be argued that this is one of those cases, but in general it's a practice that is discouraged and should be avoided if possible. I think I'm within my rights, supported by policy, to revert a reinstatement and to ask for discussion and consensus on its necessity, in light of the needs and goals of block/ban enforcement. --IamNotU (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, but a place where common sense should prevail. You were edit-warring (making three reverts in less than 24h) against multiple other users, behaviour that can not be excused by your personal interpretation of the rules (a hard-line interpretation that very few, if any, experienced editors here support), and could have led to you being blocked if you had continued. So just drop it. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already admitted that it seems I had misinterpreted WP:BLOCKEVASION with regard to the non-applicability of 3RR (though I didn't actually break it), and I've proposed a change to the wording of the policy. In any case, whether I was edit warring or not isn't relevant to the discussion. I also already said that I won't object to this particular edit if others, such as yourself, support it. So it's not necessary to keep telling me to drop it.
I still believe it's 100% common sense that a blocked editor is blocked from editing, even if the edits seem good, and other editors should generally refrain from reinstating such edits, unless there's a strong reason to do so. I hardly think that's a hard-line interpretation, and from reading various discussions, there seems to be general support for it. I think it's entirely reasonable to weigh an edit's usefulness against the damage done by enabling the user to effectively evade their block, and to challenge it if it doesn't measure up. If I miscalculated in this case I can accept that, but in general I think doing so is in line with both common sense and policy. --IamNotU (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary massacres?[edit]

Hi, I believe the following sentence to be at best unsourced, at worst totally false: "After the 15 July 1974 Greek ultra-nationalist military coup in Cyprus, massacres began against the Turkish Cypriot population already confined into enclaves." Can someone with access to the appropriate sources verify? I found absolutely nothing in support of such massacres, so for the time being, I simplified the sentence into "After the 15 July 1974 Greek ultra-nationalist military coup in Cyprus, fearing for the safety of the Turkish Cypriot population, ...".
Pensées de Pascal (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2020[edit]

Under "Illness, death and funeral" change Nicosia to North Nicosia -- because that's the location of the hospital he died in. Wikiwarrior1999 (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Wikiwarrior1999: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You can reopen the request by setting the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request once you cite the sources.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rauf_Denktaş&oldid=1194072485"