Wikipedia talk:Greek and Turkish Wikipedians cooperation board

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

Comments[edit]

How is it going to work?[edit]

I'm glad to see the Greek and Turkish wikipedians board of cooperation idea relaunched. Kudos Baris! --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some basic questions:

  • Before setting this board were there the possible common grounds of co-operation seriously examined and analysed? I think we must clarify: where we agree where we disgree; what we can do together, and what we cannot.
  • The prospect of involving in this initiative the History of Greece wikiproject and the the Turkey wikiproject has been, is or will be considered?

In general, it looks to be an interesting effort, but we should clarify where we are going exactly, because it is easy to say "we want to cooperate"; the difficult part is the implementation of these good intentions. I say that, because in most cases and articles, I only see disagreements and almost no agreements! This is an inherent problem of the diachronical Greco-Turkish relations, and the tough goal is to see if and how we can overcome these difficulties here in Wikipedia (because everywhere else I'm afraid we have failed to do it!). Thanks!--Yannismarou 21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a good idea to me as well. But i would also like to know some more things in advance. I think that Greco-Turkish-related articles is already filled with rhetoric, so, i guess we would not like to see this happening here as well. Under which grounds will we be willing to cooperate? which fields this cooperation will cover? (all, i hope...). on which basis will be looking to reach compromise at? (cause if it will be on the grounds of threats that i recently saw, and which caused an, IMHO, justifiable reaction, i see no reason to...). Hectorian 22:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is sad that the earlier proposal by Michalis had failed. I will really try to get more Turkish users involved, by repeatedly reminding them if need be :)) I read your post to WP HoG about the non-involvement of Turkish users on the naming conventions talk. Hopefully we will get around to relaunching it at some point :))) I definitely agree that blanket cooperation declarations is not enough nor efficient. I was thinking that the best way to approach this would be to raise specific issues that need to be addressed, one by one. By small steps. We can open specific tasks to look at these issues. One that came to my mind was the intro for the TRNC page, for example. We can also use the notification board to look at random issues. However, to be realistic, I don't think that there will be quick fixes to many issues. One thing that could be important is that, if we can develop satisfactory compromises for certain issues, they can be used as a reference to prevent edit and revert wars in the future. If we can nurture debates here, especially among Wikipedians who have been around for sometime, and manage to shift debates that effect a wide range of articles here as well, I think something can come about :))Baristarim 01:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the linking of this board to WPHoG and WPTR.. I will try to rewamp WPTR in a couple of days, I am also working with another user about that. Unfortunately, WPTR has become (kinda) defunct at worst, or underutilised, at best. I will include a direct link and section about this board under the WPTR project page in an effort to get more users involved. The same thing can be done for the WPHoG I suppose. Baristarim 01:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the WP template wars.. :)) I think a much wider debate among all Wikipedia is needed to draw the guidelines and criteria for the inclusion of such WP templates. But that's also something that we can look at in this board about the inclusion of WPTR and WPHoG templates in Greek/Cyprus/Turkish articles. Baristarim 01:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I spoke about a co-operation between the WPHOG and the WPTR, I had in mind a similar co-operation between the Wikiproject Military History and the Wikiproject Biography. I know it is not exactly the same thing, but my initial thought was the creation of a similar page-connection between the two projects. But let me think a bit more about it and substantiate it; it is a vague proposal I maust further analyse. What I have in mind is some kind of "liaison group". Check for instance the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military, which is the liaison group of the military history and biography projects. And of course we can speak about an official co-operation of the two projects, only if they are both active. The WPHOG has its problems but is (more or less!) working. I don't know the status of WPTR.--Yannismarou 12:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to revisit this issue when WPTR is reformed and becomes active again. Unfortunately, the current framework of WPTR doesn't allow for great cooperation even for the smallest of projects or tasks. Baristarim 00:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPHoG and WPTR templates[edit]

There has been a recent trend in small-scale edit-wars in certain Wikipedia article talkpages, fortunately not specific to WPHoG and WPTR templates, about the inclusion of WikiProject templates. Even though this issue needs to be addressed in a wider Wikipedia-level, we can develop a certain criteria for WPHoG and WPTR templates about articles concerning Turkey/Cyprus/Greece. I suppose there can be three different approaches to this:

  • "Borders approach": Templates only included for articles that concern events that have happenned, places that are in and people born in the actual borders of one country. Easiest approach.
  • "Due relevancy approach": Exceptions made for where there is a strong relevancy, rather than just a small connection. In this case, such relevancy should be discussed for every single article. Would take the longest work.
  • "All-encompassing approach": Include the templates if there is the smallest possibility that they can be of the smallest relevance to the article in question. Easy approach.
I am for an "intelligent application" of the all-encompassing approach. That is, if an article about one of the Greek islands talks about the Ottoman period, I would consider it appropriate to add the WPTR template. If not, I would not bother to include the template. If the article in question is about a place that is within the borders of the other country, -- example would be a discussion of the Ionian Ephesus for example, I would add the WPTR template. On an article about ancient Athens, I would not. My reasoning is this: I see the template as a marker that some other editor who might be interested in editing Turkey related articles might find useful. I know that I would find it useful and would consider the Ottoman period of Greek places as relevant to those interested in Turkey and Turkish history. As for places within current borders, I think it just makes sense and perhaps gets some geography knowledge across :), especially to the non-Greek-and-Turkish users of wikipedia. Free smyrnan 10:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you mentioned, I don't think that we have faced some problems here. And I did not face any kind of hostility wherever I added the WPHOG. For instance, it is clear for me that the WPHOG template has to be in the Ottoman Empire article, because of its huge importance for the Greek history. What matters for WPHOG (whose scope is a bit more limited that the scope of WPTR) is the importance of the X or Z article for the Greek history. Since the Taksim article has to do with a crucial period not only of the history of Cyprus but of the history of Greece (and of Turkey) as well, I have to put there the WPHOG. And I do not see why anybody should be offended. The fact that I'm interested in this article should be flattering. I agree that we should be careful when and how we add these templates, but, hopefully, until now, we had no such problems. In any case, I think that my above proposal for the creation of a liaison group between the two projects would be really careful to resolve such problems that may arise in the future as well. This is one domain a liaison group could be possilbly useful. Under the term of course that both projects work. Liaison groups for projects which are between life and death have nothing to offer!--Yannismarou 12:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no other comments. Shall we wrap this up and write down some guidelines? --Free smyrnan 07:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have no problems until now, do we definitely need guidelines?--Yannismarou 08:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. It might be a good idea, since there is a ready-made consensus, to verbalize this consensus and move on. --Free smyrnan 12:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this discussion still on? Who TF cares what's going on in the talk-page header? If a WikiProject is dumb enough to implicate itself in WP:POINT practices by slapping around tags and not doing zilt in articles, then so be it! I myself, as a Greek, am genuinely interested in, say, Istanbul. I acknowledge every right to every other WikiProject to consider itself interested in, say, Thessaloniki. As a matter of fact, the more WikiProjects are interested in an article, the more chances it gets becoming better. I think this is obvious, and I wouldn't mind being written down as consensus or not. Hell, let's direct opposers to this thread if they persist! NikoSilver 14:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but, if Free smyrnan wants this consensus to be verbally expressed, I have no problem.--Yannismarou 09:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need. Let's proceed as you suggest. --Free smyrnan 10:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice[edit]

Good idea. Hoş geldiniz, kαλώς ήρθατε (Kalosirthate), willkommen, welcome, bienvenu. Personally, may I suggest that the topic of this article should remain Greece and Turkey. Not Cyprus. Cyprus is a different country with its own agenda. If we include Cyprus, then we can argue that it has to be both the southern 'Republic of Cyprus' and the 'TRNC' because each sector has its own leadership and its own dynamic. So, in my opinion, it is better to leave it out as much as possible. Politis 11:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an interesting point. As far as Cyprus is concerned, I do not know if there is any possibility for the creation of a "Cyprus Wikiproject" under the auspices of which Greek and Turkish Cypriots will try to co-operate. After all we have to do with a third state here (or a third and a fourth if we count the unrecognized Republic of Northern Cyprus as well).--Yannismarou 12:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My view is inclusionistic. Every attempt to separate the issues in sub-issues and sub-projects does not let us see the broader picture. No split, include Cyprus (after all it is inhabited by Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots). NikoSilver 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Cyprus is important; the issue plays a part in G-T relations. But for any special emphasis, why not a 'Turkish and Cyprus wikipedians board (section)', or something like that; and a 'Greece and Cyprus wikipedians board (section)'. It is an independent country and one of the wealthiest (at least the southern sector), independent countries in the world. Politis 13:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding Cyprus is not possible IMO. Both for the reason NikoSilver said above, and for the simple reason that everything that happens on the island has its own impact on the history of the too countries (Greece and Turkey). Anyway, we will soon find out that we can't ommitte it. Hectorian 13:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a general view; to exclude Republic of Cyprus and TRNC is not possible, since there is a huge dispute on related articles, also many articles related with Greek/Turkish also linked/related to these countries. If we would try "to sweep the dust to under the carpet" we could face other disputes in the future. To handle all proplems/disputes together, seems better to me. Why are we afraid? We wont create any additional disputes now, how many disputes there are yesterday, the same number of disputes there are now,at the start point of this project.no more.
Lets work in this project under the systematic of general problem solving approach. lets divide matters to smaller parts as possible as to find acceptible(by two side) parts, lets take them away and lets focused remaining disputable parts. In this manner (I believe exactly) that in a short period many of the articles will be clear off the disputed sections. Lets go, and see.Regards/thanks to all of contributors.MustTC 18:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to agree with Hectorian and Mustafa about this. We might want to exclude Cyprus, that is a very plausible idea. But really, is that possible? :)) Of course, we should give due importance: the board shouldn't be filled with Cypriot related issues, and we should definitely try to stop it becoming so. However, they will come up one way or the other at one point since Cypriot issues are, unfortunately, so linked to politics and history of both Greece and Turkey. Plausible and note-worthy idea though, I hope that one day Cyprus won't be such an important issue between Turkey and Greece. Baristarim 00:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

System[edit]

  • A section Proposed and inserted to main page by MustTC 13:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Moved from main page to here by MustTC 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Please do not use these military-sounding terms like a "patrol team" and "third party attack" to describe efforts to produce a free encyclopedia. Also, for not cluttering this nice looking main page, it could be good to have proposals of this kind on Wikipedia Talk:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board first, which could then be moved to the main page after some sort of consensus. Atilim Gunes Baydin 17:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but these terms in use in wiki, like as; "Recent change patrol" etc. If some body is disturbed with these terms, naturally they would be modified.
Main page - Talk page; in this manner we can not take a step forward just talk. Thanks to Barış that create a project main page without looking consensus(is there?) and losting time in talk pages. This is the best way I think. This was the first approval, now anybody which have some idea on the general construction of project can make some addition on Main page, later we can discuss to develop/calcel some sections/procedures etc with a concensus. But now, time is to go, no need to loose time.MustTC 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "System" section you appended to the main page is essentially a suggestion for two additional pages to be created (you yourself marked that as a suggestion in your first edit). I still maintain that suggestions belong to this page, just as you moved my suggestion to this page. And what 'attack' by a 'third party' are you talking about, for God's sake? Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving your text from the main page to this page and I hope you can understand my concern. I don't want to slow things down but your new section really doesn't fit under the "Principles" heading on the project main page. I think this could be added to Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board/Current tasks and projects, after getting the input of other users and clarifying what you mean by "application manuals" and so. Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested working method by MustTC :

Sample User template[edit]

  • This is a proposal/sample of a user template for project members; Help needed to make nicer.

MustTC 17:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]



This user is a member of Greek and Turkish WCB
 Hey :), I know it's totally trivial to spend time on this when there are serious stuff to do about the project, but I could not resist trying to make one. What do you think? Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! I like the layout very much! I just hope nobody will think WCB stands for 'Worthless Cabal of Bulls***ers', or 'Wannabees Craving Block'! :-) How about we shorten it to 'Wiki Coop Board'? NikoSilver 21:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, never thought about that! I tried "Wiki Coop Board" but it seems to increase the height of the box past the "standard" userbox dimensions. Oh, and there is this chain of retail stores called Coop here in Scandinavia. I don't know. Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know Coop. It's short for 'cooperation' because the company started from independent merchants who cooperated! Height is not a problem I think (fits in Babelbox anyway), so we can even have the title full. Width was a problem in Mustafa's proposal, which was otherwise very good. See how it looks below (I only changed pic sizes to match): NikoSilver 22:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user is a member of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board
I like the userboxes :) Baristarim 00:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I created the userbox on Template:User GR-TR-member and put a simple notice about how to use it under a new section on Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board/Participants. Please do not hesitate to modify the userbox if you have any ideas. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, just thought I should show off some good will :-) so here goes: Does anyone mind it's so blue? NikoSilver 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participants[edit]

I just went bold and moved all members to a new sub-page. I added all new tabs. I think it's better if we limit the main page to the absolute necessary for the scope. Also, 'Participants' will hopefully become long enough, that will need its own page for WP:SIZE limitations! :-) NikoSilver 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur :) Baristarim 00:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this board is going to help much. After all, for trying to soften Greek POV's, I've come under attack by various personages on the grounds that I'm a 'mouthpiece for Turkish propaganda'. I actually try to discern FACT from TRUTH (fact being the raw information while truth is simply an interpretation of raw information). Doing this has resulted in various Wikipedians taking exception to this, so I don't really know what good this board is going to do. Expatkiwi

I think that wikipedians who believe they can add something valuable, in order to keep an open dialogue between Greeks and Turks, with the main ambition being the searching of compromises and understanding on common grounds, should take part. Those who think that this cooperation board is useless and blame the others in advance (!), it would be better both for them and for the current participants, not to bother taking part. Regards Hectorian 22:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True that.. There is a lot of POV running around everywhere in Wiki, so we might as well learn to live with it and try to keep dialogue open to search for common ground as Hectorian said. At least this board can be used to bring attention to particular POV-fighting going on in one article to get involved other users who are willing to dialogue, or to highlight issues that need to be addressed via the involvement of a greater number of users.Baristarim 00:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


And another important thing is for future users to Wiki: Having this template on the talk pages of certain articles would, at least, make them raise the issues here first, instead of head-diving into edit-wars like many new-users do. If we can spread the knowledge that there is a cooperation board out there where certain discussions can take place is important as well. That way we can simply increase efficiency by not engaging in so many revert-wars with over-zealous new users who feel that their countries heritage is under attack by the "others". :))Baristarim 00:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Guys[edit]

Picture yourselves... I'd love the feedback! NikoSilver 22:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent initiative! I don't know if I've pictured myself, but I've given you an answer!! The feedback you wanted!!!--Yannismarou 09:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parthenon picture?[edit]

Do we need a picture of the Parthenon? Admitedly it also served as a Church and a Mosque, but, hey, this might be streching it abit. There must be other monuments... the Rotunda in Thessaloniki (Greek foundations, built as a Roman Mausoleum, Greek Church, Ottoman Mosque (minaret still visible), empty Museum). Or the bridge in Arta, aso... Politis 13:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure.. I mean, when I was looking for pictures I went to the articles of Turkey, Greece and Cyprus.. I have to admit I wasn't paying so much attention to the pictures, I just tried to have some not-political ones in there, but if someone can bring in a better one, for any of those in there, go ahead.. Baristarim 15:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, a picture of Hagia Sophia would also be nice. Hectorian 15:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Coverage to More Positive Aspects of Greco-Turkish Relations[edit]

I actually have a problem with this. I would personally hope to see more positive coverage rather than negative. But is this the aim of this board? Or is the aim to resolve disputes (which generally would occur around the more negative aspects of the relationship) by reaching a neutrality and factuality level that both "sides" can live with? --Free smyrnan 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can start at SS Kurtuluş. It's one of the nicer ones...--Euthymios 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles such as the one you cite are great. These do not need a special cooperation effort - that is, how is this board supposed to be involved in these? Perhaps it could point to positive events that do not have current wiki coverage in an effort to have the article written? --Free smyrnan 23:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any article for the humanitarian assistance offered by Greeks and the collaboration between Greek and Turk NGOVs and individuals as well after the earthquakes in Turkey (in 2000 or 2001 if I'm not wrong)?--Yannismarou 09:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! Couldn't find any except for a section titled "Earthquake Diplomacy" in the Greco-turkish_relations and that only talks about the rapprochement. It would be a good article. I do not have statistics and a quick googling did not come up with much beyond the Greeks arriving first and the Turkish thankfulness for Greek support in their hour of need. How shall we start? --Free smyrnan 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like this: Greek-Turkish earthquake diplomacy. :-) NikoSilver 23:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have some statistics. During the Weekend I'll work on that.--Yannismarou 07:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good! I think I can collect stuff on the Turkish reaction to the Greek help. --Free smyrnan 07:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not keep my promise, but I still plan to work on the article!--Yannismarou 19:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for Turkish support[edit]

Follow this thread. NikoSilver 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I checked the conversation. I could offer my support, but I could not unfortunately notice anything to support. The discussion and your reply seems not to be about the article. I mean, people are expressing their feelings about an historical recruitment practice, in a forum-like fashion, whereas I believe they should be talking about the article and how it can be improved. The mention that "other local residents appreciated the custom" is a serious claim and it should be supported by references, and it should be removed if there is no credible source indicating that was the case. Atilim Gunes Baydin 14:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Probably I was too emotional about it and followed the wrong path that this conversation was already led into. I am very sensitive about human rights issues, and I couldn't understand how today there can still be people defending obviously genocidal practices. NikoSilver 14:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We defend it because we accept them within the context of the time. To call it genocidal is irrational, especially considering people wanted to submit to the process of collection. Besides, as Atilim reminds us we should be concerned with sourcing and creating articles, not engaging in arguments about history. --A.Garnet 14:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, Niko, and I feel quite the same way as you do about forcing people to give up their children, just to let you know. But I think I wouldn't make such a long list of condemnations about history which won't help very much except making you and the party you are addressing more angry. I honestly have no idea if there were cases where people wanted to be collected and the families gained a benefit from this, but at the end it is all about this referencing business. As a note of sensitiveness, I am a bit sensitive about this "genocidal" adjective readily popping up, but no worries. Atilim Gunes Baydin 15:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a historical topic. If we were talking about a practice being done today, I would have much the same reactions as you. But, we cannot impose today's values on past practices. I have a few scholarly books on the topic, I'll check through and see whether or not I can add something other than my POV to the topic at hand. Regards. --Free smyrnan 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and sorry for bringing that here in the first place. Regarding the "genocidal" adjective, please don't take issue, but it would be genocide today (just read the last sentence in the definition). Regarding "wanted", I find it very hard to believe (and so do you I think), and would request WP:INDY citation if we were in the relevant talk (also I'd like to know versus what consequences or along with what incentives they may have "wanted"). To which (talk) I suppose we should jump in right now and sort this out. However, my initial statement still stands: I can't believe that there are people defending this practice today. NikoSilver 23:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"at the time of the conquest of Bosnia in 1463, the inhabitants had at once submitted to the sultan and accepted Islam. When the sultan offered them a privilige in return for their actions, they requested they become subject to the Collection, and since then, the sultan had taken lads from that region" Colin Imber, 2002. The Ottoman Empire p.137.
Why should you find it hard to believe Niko? That a family may want their boy to be fed, clothed, educated and given land in return for service to the Sultan, what is so unbelievable about it? --A.Garnet 23:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not discuss it further here. I was talking about non-sympathizers to Islam or Ottomans. NikoSilver 23:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need to come to a consensus regarding Cyprus related articles.[edit]

There is a big problem with Cyprus related articles: there are many and they repeat the same thing. We need to come to an agreement to make sure each article is unique in what is saying, and not a rehash of the same. For me the best article is Cyprus dispute, it was written by a man who said he was an expert, and i believe he may have been James Ker Lindsay (signed his comments with JL). It is a very good article for all matters relating to Cyprus, and we should try to refer readers as much as possible towards it.

I recommend that Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, if it is to be unique, should merge with Military History of the 1974 Invasion of Cyprus, an article that provides a military dimesion to the landings. We can also merge Operation Atilla into that article, so we can reduce three articles concerning the same thing into one. All pre-74 explanation should be directed to Cyprus dispute.

I've already tried to start this process by removing a lot of the repeated material from Cypriot refugee, and focusing it more on the displacement of people, but even so, it is still bears resemblance to Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict, so possibly these can be merged also.

If we can come to some sort of 'grand consensus' on all these articles, i think it would be both good for this project, and also create a set of tightly informative articles on the Cyprus dispute. Cheers, --A.Garnet 15:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment this is how i envisage it:

The major article of the entire dispute, from origins to present.

All to be merged concerning the military operation of the invasion.

To be merged concerning the human rights aspect of the problem, i.e, casualties, missing persons and displacement.

So from these seven articles, more or less repeating the same thing in a different way, we can have 3 tightly packed articles on three dimensions of the problem: political, military and humanitarian. I'd like to hear peoples views. --A.Garnet 15:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way you put it (the 3-d motif) and I agree that the whole thing needs a "grand consensus" and a subsequent major overhaul. I also agree with the general direction of your proposal. I have however one thing to note: the Cyprus Dispute article is very good but it addresses the generality of the problem, from before the Cypriot independence to the Annan Plan. So, to achieve a comprehensive 3-d (political, military and humanitarian) perspective of the 1973 events I'd propose something similar to this:
  • Cyprus Dispute -> The general problem 1950-now
  • "The three dimensions of the 1973 events" --> 3 articles, one for each of the political, military and humanitarian aspects of the events.
My two cents. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whow, I wasn't aware that there were so many articles.. I seem to be running into them all the time :)) They should be merged somehow, I mean, it seems that some of these articles can serve a better purpose under one heading.. Baristarim 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read all of these articles in detail (i will, but it will take some time...), but judging from their titles and the content they have (or should have), i think it would be better to have a closer look at each one of them, instead of merging them. and this is how i would put them in brief:
i)Cyprus dispute: dealing in general with the conflict from its beginning to the present. covering in more diplomatic affairs, rather than affairs having to do with military.
ii)Turkish Invasion of Cyprus: the two stages of the invasion and the greek/turkish/international reaction to that.
iii)Timeline of the 1974 Invasion of Cyprus: i see no reason why this should be merged... There are timeline articles about many wars/invations/operations. i think it is good for the readers to have the chance to see events in chronological order.
iv)Military History of the 1974 Invasion of Cyprus: this one is quite good. it has details about the weapons, planes etc used, and it is big enough to justify its existance as separate... and in this case we can exclude nothing from this article, nor rephrase.
v)Operation Atilla:the code name of the invasion... Maybe this one should be merged to 'Turkish Invasion of Cyprus', since they both analyse the exact same events (or series of events). btw, in Greek, either u say 'Turkish Invasion of Cyprus' or 'Operation Atilla', everyone understands u mean the same thing (with the first been the most commonly used).
vi)Cypriot refugee: the 250,000+ refugees deserve an article on their own... and we are talking about approximately 1974.
vii)Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict: contrary to the above, this one may be talking about events that happened in the '60s or as recently as 1996. it is not about refugees, but about casualties, wounded or missing people. even from a humanitarian point of view, the two cases could be separate (unless the info presented is not enough). Hectorian 16:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cypriot refugee[edit]

User:Aristovolous has reverted my edits, i would ask that users here have a look. --A.Garnet 18:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article[edit]

Hey this was recently created, and since i don't know how speedy-deletion thing works, it might be nice if someone who knew it would get on the case Ushtria Çlirimtare e Çamërisë - it starts by "Ushtria Çlirimtare e Çamërisë is the Freedom Fighting Group that will liberate Çamëria from the greek occupation...."... Some of this user's edits also had to be reverted from some other articles as well.. If an admin stepped in and gave the low-down on wiki rules it would be nice.. Baristarim 22:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, Baris:). LOL, the user who created it is really funny! Hectorian 23:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
loooool :) Baristarim 13:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bogdan to the rescue! - Francis Tyers · 13:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An issue that needs to be solved- Turkic nations and entities template[edit]

A.Garnet playing games with words. He thinks that adding the word entity to the Turkic nations and entities template allows him to assume that the TRNC should not be in brackets. But this entity is defined by international law as a separatist part of the Republic of Cyprus. His defenses are null. International law is real and therefore notable. The international view = ROC covers all island with both communities + "TRNC" is a part of the Republic of Cyprus that is separatist (only turkish occupying forces). In addition, there are Turkish Cypriots in the areas controlled by the Government and many of "TRNC" people have Republic of Cyprus passports and therefore citizenship, which is their birthright. I am merely providing a counter argument supporting the opinion of international law.(UNFanatic 01:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

It seems like this issue is now at an impasse. It has turned into a game of words, in my opinion. Please see [1]toward the bottom. Reading the whole thread I think that A.Garnet seems to think that adding the word entity to the Turkic nations and entities template allows him to assume that the TRNC should not be in brackets. But this entity is defined by international law as a separatist part of the Republic of Cyprus. International law is real and therefore notable. The international view = ROC covers all island with both communities + "TRNC" is a part of the Republic of Cyprus that is separatist (only turkish occupying forces). In addition, there are Turkish Cypriots in the areas still controlled by the Government and many of "TRNC" people have Republic of Cyprus passports and therefore citizenship, which is their birthright. I am merely providing a counter argument supporting the opinion of international law.

In addition, I am NOT saying that the "TRNC" should not be included at all.

I also feel weird and awkward that this dispute, under the guidance of others, is over a bunch of parentheses and quotation marks. It really pains me. For that end I really do hope that Cyprus is reunified soon as a true democratic unitary state safeguarded by the EU. It will be better for the Cypriots, and better for Europe. (UNFanatic 07:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I've been watching the issue for quite a while. I think A. Garnet's point is that, recognized by international law or not, TRNC is an entity (an entity unrecognized as a state by international law). You yourself call it an entity in your sentence "But this entity is defined by international law as a separatist part ...". And if the list is defined as a list of entities, I also think that TRNC can stand without parantheses, with proper notice that it's an entity but not a recognized state.
But, the main motive behind this entity issue seems to me somehow, even if very remotely, an attempt to give the TRNC a touch of legitimacy on Wikipedia and I think this should not be done. We are here to just report the facts in an encyclopedic way (as close as we can get to that). But then again, since the unrecognized status of TRNC is unmistakably mentioned a thousand times everywhere (in the footnote of that template, obviously, and in every single place where TRNC is referred to), you shouldn't be so obsessed with having that paranthesis notation, stressing an already pointed out unrecognized status yet louder.
So I see why I couldn't join the discussion there, it's just so hard for me to take a side with this one and I'm sorry if I added nothing to the discussion. I share your feelings and hopes. It would be wonderful to have a unified island and to only think of Venus when someone says Cyprus to me. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 02:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Article that must be read.[edit]

CYPRUS: Who Is Right? Is Anyone?

TIME
Posted Friday, May 1, 1964

Flowers were in bloom on the crumbling towers of St. Hilarion, and hawks turned soundlessly high above Kyrenia. Now and then, rifle fire beat against the spring stillness, for a band of well-entrenched Turkish Cypriot irregulars still held Kyrenia Pass against the determined onslaughts of their Greek countrymen. All across Cyprus last week, the 7,000 "peacemakers" of the United Nations wagged their blue berets in impotence and pleaded a simple cause: cool off. But no one on Cyprus would or could listen. The islanders were caught up in a Mediterranean frenzy of nationalism, the product of four centuries during which Greek and Turk Cypriot had been taught to hate, fear and—finally—kill one another. The U.S., which is being accused by each side of favoring the other, cares little enough about the issues, but is being forced to ask who is right. Even a partial answer is buried deep in history.

Enter the Turks. Greek influence in Cyprus dates back to the Trojan War, more than 1,000 years before Christ. Homer sang of friendship between Agamemnon and Kinyras, a king of Cyprus, and Greek colonists brought their culture to the island in later centuries. Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, Romans and Franks came after, but the Greek influence endured, flourishing during the Byzantine Empire. Then came the Turks.

Janissaries of Sultan Selim II wrested control of the island from Venetian merchant princes in 1571, and quickly demonstrated to the Cypriots the basic style of Ottoman administration. The defender of the Cypriot city of Famagusta, one Marcantonio Bragadino, had held off the Turkish troops for nearly a year, and when Famagusta finally fell, the Turks slowly and publicly flayed him alive. Bragadino's straw-stuffed skin was paraded through the city, and the lesson was not lost on the Cypriots.

Earlier conquerors had exiled the Greek Orthodox archbishops, who served as religious and political leaders to the Cypriots. But the Turks, confident in the strength of their 30,000-man garrison, unwisely permitted these ethnarchs to return. When the mainland Greeks rose against the Ottoman Empire in 1821, Cypriot Archbishop Kyprianos aided them—and was beheaded for his collusion along with hundreds of his followers. Greece won independence in 1829, but Cyprus remained under the hated Turkish rule. The desire for enosis, or union with Greece, had been kindled, only to be brutally frustrated.

Enter the British. In 1878, Britain took Cyprus in "trust" from the declining Ottoman Empire and disregarded Cypriot demands for union with Greece on the grounds that the Sultan was still the suzerain. But after Turkey sided with the Central Powers at the start of World War I, Britain annexed the island outright. Under the British, a state of wary but peaceful coexistence developed between Turkish and Greek Cypriot. Greek landowners in the craggy Troodos Mountains leased their pastures to Turkish shepherds; Turkish shopkeepers bought oranges and carobs from Greek farmers. In the village taverna, Turk and Greek sat at separate tables, but spoke politely to one another, usually in Greek.


World War II found both Greek and Turkish Cypriot firmly on the side of the Allies, but the wartime camaraderie with Soviet Russia gave the island's Communist movement a chance to expand. By 1943, the Reds had latched onto enosis and won major municipal elections by appealing to Greek passions. Today, the Communists' Reform Party holds five seats in the 50-man House of Representatives, while the dominant Patriotic Fronts party of President Makarios is 40% Communist.

Enter Makarios. Archbishop Makarios III, born Michael Mouskos, became ethnarch in 1950, armed with a church-run plebiscite that showed 97% of all Greek Cypriots in favor of enosis. Setting out vigorously to fulfill his mandate, Makarios was joined in 1954 by Colonel George Grivas, a Cypriot officer in the Greek army who returned home secretly to lead the EOKA (National Organization of Cypriot Fighters) in four years of terrorism against the British. The British had staffed the island police force with Turkish Cypriots, and soon the Greek hatred of the British splashed over at the Turkish community. Rarely concerned with politics before, the Turkish Cypriots now began worrying what their fate would be if Makarios, Grivas and EOKA finaly won independence. Their apprehension was shared in the Turkish homeland.

By 1959, when Britain, Greece, Turkey and Makarios began discussing the conditions of Cypriot independence, Ankara's concern had grown to neurotic proportions. In long, frustrating negotiating sessions, Britain was wearily willing to grant any sort of constitution just to get the thorn of Cyprus out of its side, while Makarios was equally ready to sign, speculating that, with time and the majority on his side, he could iron out discrepancies later.

Turkey took advantage by adamantly insisting on safeguards for its Cypriot kinsmen, and the inept constitution that became effective on Aug. 16, 1960, gave disproportionate power to the Turkish Cypriots, who comprise only 20% of the island's 600,000 population.

Exit reason. The Turkish Cypriots were granted 30% of all police and civil service posts, 40% of all billets in the army. A Greek Cypriot President was to be balanced off by a Turkish Cypriot Vice President, both men having a final veto power over internal and external defense and foreign affairs. Not only was the executive split sharply along ethnic lines, but the legislature was also segregated in dealing with certain measures; a simple majority of the 15 Turkish Cypriot M.P.s could effectively block a bill passed by 35 Greek Cypriot votes. And block they certainly did: for months, the government was unable to pass a vital income tax law. The judiciary was split along similar lines.

Last November, with the Greek government momentarily involved in a leadership crisis, President Makarios decided the time was ripe to "rebalance" the constitution. He submitted a 13-point amendment that effectively stripped the Turkish Cypriots of their safeguards. In a flash, Cyprus was up in arms. The Turkish Cypriots, backed by Ankara with its threats of invasion, cry for taksim—partition—or at least some form of cantonal federation. Greek Cypriot extremists, reviving the threat of enosis with Athens, have seriously suggested that all Turks be forcibly removed from the island and packed off to Turkey. Either solution appears unworkable. An outstanding Greek Cypriot leader might have avoided the current violence, which is killing Greeks as well as Turks, but Makarios is neither a great leader nor a notable humanitarian. He is a fairly skillful intriguer who deliberately unleashed forces he may no longer be able to control, even if he wanted to.

In sum, the Greeks have a sound point when they argue that the Turkish minority is blocking the democratic principle of majority rule. But the Turks are equally convincing when they contend that the Greeks under Makarios have abused their majority power, and are increasingly unwilling to let the Turks survive on the island. To a degree, the antagonists are victims of history. Yet the world, which these days demands—and gets—fairly rational behavior from the hostile big powers, has a right to ask a modicum of reason from both sides in this vicious little squabble.

peace(UNFanatic 08:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Solomos Solomou / Tassos Isaac[edit]

Hi guys, I'm posting here since we were on the brink of a revert war in these two articles, perhaps we could agree on a neutral but descriptive phrasing? --   Avg    04:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will try to look at the other article as well soon..Baristarim 11:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas coming up[edit]

I figure people will have better things to do than to check wikipedia on Christmas? :) To all the members of the board, an early Καλά Χριστούγεννα! --Free smyrnan 08:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Καλά Χριστούγεννα! Although some of us (who had ambitious plans!) may end up here checking Wikipedia on Christmas!!! Bouhouhou!File:Cry-tpvgames.gif--Yannismarou 10:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas everyone! Thanks for the immaculate Greek, Free Smyrnan! NikoSilver 11:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year! E104421 13:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

happy 2007[edit]

May 2007 bring prosper times for Greece Turkey and of course the rest of the world :). Lets hope the relations between greeks and turks will improve even more. Cuz in the heat of fire we must depend on each other as brothers :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barakus (talk • contribs) 21:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Greco-Turkish relations[edit]

Maybe the members of the board would like to voice themselves here. Turkish users have not yet expressed their mind. Thanks!--Yannismarou 14:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herald Tribune feature piece[edit]

People here might be interested in an article from yesterday's International Herald Tribune, "Cultural thaw nudges Greeks and Turks closer". Might even be a useful source in an article somewhere. --Delirium 06:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Turkish relations I think. Baristarim 18:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Michalis is working on this article. I'll leave a comment in the talk page of Greco-Turkish relations.--Yannismarou 13:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Cyprus-stub[edit]

Ongoing discussion at the Template talk:Cyprus-stub. Since there is no TRNC-stub, this led to an edit-war with the involvement of some administrators over the use of the Cyprus flag. It is currently under full protection, and the discussion seems to be straying off topic, so the involvement of a larger audience from the board would be useful, whatever the eventual outcome. Baristarim 18:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brand new WP:GREECE[edit]

With relief (after some hours of agonizing mergers!), I inform the members of the board that a brand new and dynamic WIKIPROJECT GREECE has been created after the merger of Wikipedia: WikiProject Greece and Wikipedia: WikiProject History of Greece, which was decided after consensus has been achieved between the members of both projects. The scope of the project is now broader, and does not cover only history issues (which are my passion!).

The photos to the right illustrate the new policies and guidelines the new project unanimously adopted with regards to the articles related to Turkey.--Yannismarou 08:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement Plan[edit]

Hi everyone, I think it is time that we work together to get the Greek War of Independence to FA. Seeing as this war included Turks and Greeks I thought this would be a perfect place to have my suggestions heard. The current article only a fraction of what it can become if it receives TLC from Wikipedians who are willing to get this article to FA. So please tell me what you think. Geia. Kyriakos 07:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the article, it might get me back into wikipedia... BTW, I could not resist, so here it goes: Ethnic Joke Alert!!! The following is not intended to get anybody angry or insult anybody's national identity... Did you ever hear the Greek War of Independence characterized as a war fought between Christian Albanians and Muslim Albanians? Best regards, --Free smyrnan 16:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You think I haven't thought about that?! The question is: did we (Greeks and Turks) in a unique (during all the centuries of our adventurous co-existence) sacrilege alliance exploited the Albanians or did the Albanians fooled us and put us fight against each other?! Seriously, now, I was flirting for months with this article, but always something happened and I did not have the chance to go through it. I hope now I'll have the chance to help more, although I have many articles left in the middle (Plato, Don Quixote, Cervantes, Manuel I Komnenos (which is my first priority right now), regionalism etc. etc. etc. - I've made a mess!).--Yannismarou 19:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get you back?! You were out? Frightened by the photos in the previous section I guess!--Yannismarou 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The photos don't scare me, it looks like Uskudar (Scutari) in Istanbul where they are digging up the entrance to the Bosphorus tube, courtesy of our dear municipality.
I took a few days off. In the meantime, I decided to see for myself what the Venetians took from Constantinople . I accompanied a historian whose specialty was Constantinople and Venice -- I am amazed. St. Marco's walls are decorated with triangular marble pieces that are actually sides of Orthodox church altars. All the columns in Venice, all the porphyry, and these are the things that are too small to mention. Actually, I want a userbox now, how does one create them? I want one that says "this user supports having a copy of the Quadriga placed in the Hippodrome in Istanbul." :)
Nobody rung the bells of St. Marco because of me though... "Turks are coming" is supposed to be one of the warning signs to ring the great bells of St. Marco. If Turkey joined the EU one day, we should ask to have all these "Turks are coming" warnings given across Europe. :)
Back to the Greek war of independence, do you guys know about Kostaki Musurus Pasha? I have been meaning to create an article about him. First ambassador of the OE to Greece, successfully got Greece to pay for the lands of Ottoman muslims nationalized by Greece, semi-successfully got Greece to stop electing representatives of what then were Ottoman islands to Greek parliament, got insulted by King Otto and got him to formally apologize and got shot in Athens (wounded, not dead). Possibly the last great Ottoman diplomat and the last great Phanariote. Best regards, --Free smyrnan 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Cooperation boards[edit]

Are there other cooperation boards on Wikipedia? - Patricknoddy 21:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can check Category:WikiProjects and its subcategories. "Cooperation board" is not a common name there but what users do in these wikiprojects is to cooperate. Or do you mean something defined as a board for people from two nations, like this one? Atilim Gunes Baydin 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Öcalan[edit]

Isn't it an important event also and worth to mention (at least at the "Timeline" section) in Greco-Turkish Relations as his relations [2] with Greek Polliticians and the role of Greek embassy in Nairobi international airport Kenya, when he captured in an operation by MIT in 1999, he was a really important factor caused delay of forming normal relations between GR & TR in those days? (as ups and downs of the relations) - (SEY01 12:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Omission of Greece and Turkey from OECD[edit]

I would like to inform you about an interesting situation I've come up by chance. A graph in use in Obesity article, Image:Bmi30chart.png made by User:Phils based on data published by OECD, is supposed to compare the percentage of obese population in the members of OECD. The interesting thing with this figure is that out of the 30 OECD member states covered by the data (current working url of the Excel sheet with the original data: [3]), it leaves Greece and Turkey out of the list for an unclear reason. Please also check the original graph published by OECD here: [4]. I'm currently working on a corrected graph and will upload that soon to replace the existing one. Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the update, you can still see the older version omitting Greece and Turkey, via the "File history" section on the image page or this url [5]. Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader just told me that the omission was not intentional. I'll try to adjust my "assume good faith" knob a notch. Atilim Gunes Baydin 03:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4.1 earthquake[edit]

La la, let's meet in Vienna on June 29, 2008, watching red whites and blue whites. denizTC 01:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman task force[edit]

I thought I should bring the following input from Kyriakos in your attention:

"Hi everyone, a discuss is going on at WPMILHIST about wether or not an Ottoman task force should be created. Since this subject seems to go hand in hand with some Greek articles, I thought this would be a good place to past a message. If you are intrested please ggo to WPMILHIST and show your support. Geia. Kyriakos 09:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Thanks!--Yannismarou 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that, a group to improve articles related to Ottomans? denizTC 19:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Denizz, go to the WP:MILHIST and check the discussion here.--Yannismarou 20:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter![edit]

Χριστός Ανέστη! And here is a (horrible photography I know, but it tasted good) Paskalya coregi for all the board members. -Free smyrnan 11:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter!--Yannismarou 13:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Easter (we don't need to be a Christian to say that, right?). Did you watch last South Park episode? I didn't like it so much. denizTC 17:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had forgotten that Easter was upon us - been way busy. Happy Easter to all! Baristarim 20:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive[edit]

As a Wikipedian who is neither Greek or Turkish, but who grew up among both groups in Montréal, I have to say it's very impressive to see this page and project. I have always admired Greeks and Turks as being smart, courageous and polite, not to mention the rich histories of the countries, and well, the fabulous food! This project of yours just goes to show that their is still good on this earth. Best wishes.--RobNS 20:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus diplomatic missions[edit]

This article was written to fit in with the other 100+ articles in the diplomatic missions by country category. I understand that many here would not think that it should be categorised as such, arguing that the TRNC is not a country. Speaking as neither a Turkish or Greek I am totally neutral on this matter, and I acknowledge that with only one country in the world recognising the TRNC its sovereignty is scarely existent.

However the DMBC articles include similar states, like Taiwan and Israel. I follow the principle that if the laws and policies of a country recognises another country's representative offices as legally embassies (or consulates etc), then they are embassies and can be duly included on this list. This is regardless if 100%, 99% or 1% of other countries recognise that country's sovereignty

This is by virtue of the self-identification principle of Wikipedia - we call things descriptively, not prescriptively (see Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Overlapping_names), even if the merit of calling something an "embassy" is perceived to be flawed.

Grateful if User:KRBN accepts this argument and ceases removing the category tag from the page. Kransky 12:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fires[edit]

My sincere condolences to all those whose loved ones died or suffered emotional, physical, or material damage. DenizTC 00:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

İpsala Patrol Video[edit]

Hi,

I took a video record. I made this video for Turks and Greeks

After the video record, we took photos with Greek soldiers eachother.

Thx

Teşekkürler, iyi çalışmalar. XD kızılsungur 06:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merger[edit]

Please see Talk:Battle of Navarino#Merger DenizTC 12:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info needed[edit]

Info needed for a fair presentation of Kemal's biography in greek wikipedia. Thanks in advance--Kalogeropoulos 12:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User[edit]

Greek users might want to pay attention to User:Real Make, contributions I reverted some of his edits, but he is not technically breaking any rules. cheers Baristarim 18:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State of the project[edit]

For some time the Board has been only occasionally active mostly serving as a notification board. This could mean two things: either we have reached a relatively stable state for GR-TR related articles, or the Board has been overridden by sporadic "skirmishes" at various talk pages. Judging from the articles mentioned at our "current tasks" page, I would say that the former is more likely to have happened. However, the list of "current tasks" could be outdated. Are there any ongoing GR-TR disputes elsewhere?

And, at any rate, it would be interesting to see the overall impact the Board has had. If it has proven at all successful we could go on and propose an Israeli-Palestinian one (now, that would be fun...). --Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any controversies in a long while, which is a very good thing. It has become eerily quiet, and I hope it stays that way... and I have absolutely no interest in such a proposal. We are relatively mild compared to them! :) Monsieurdl 13:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do have some controversies, but fortunately we don't have heated ones, as far as I can see. Kekrops, Alexius, Laertes and occasionally I do the R on some articles, also we had this weasel tag issue on North Cyprus. DenizTC 07:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

list of people[edit]

Hey, a user has recently started adding to city articles wikilinks to notable people hailing from that city, naturally Constantinople and Istanbul have many such people. I moved them to already existing List of people from Istanbul article after creating a section there. The user created List of people from Constantinople and moved the wikilinks there. I think the list of people from Constantinople warrants an article. What are your opinions, should we have different sub articles of Constantinople and Istanbul even if they are of the same sort? Is Constantinople already a sub article of Istanbul? So, what is the situation? DenizTC 07:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it wasn't Istanbul until the 20th century to be perfectly correct, and so the lists should be amended or merged into one article with two sections. Who is to say that the patriarchs of 1500s-1800s were NOT from Constantinople, but Istanbul? That is just not factually correct- I have a problem with it. Monsieurdl 12:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monsieurdl, I believe there is a concensus to associate pre 1453 events with Constantinople, and after 1453 events with Istanbul. I don't know how Byzantium fits in. I was not part of this consensus discussions, they seem to have happened before I was a wiki editor. I don't know how far the split goes, hence my questions above. DenizTC 21:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, I didn't even realize that it was a consensus rule- it just struck me as odd because I would have thought the very idea to be correct with regards to the name was most important. If this consensus prevents a large amount of warring, then I'm all for it. Monsieurdl 21:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

invitation template[edit]

Don't we have an invitation template for this cooperation board? DenizTC 07:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

Having just browsed through to here from the Liancourt Rocks page, which is an awful history of nationalist edit warring elsewhere, I just wanted to say what a pleasure it was to come to the humane and constructive atmosphere of this page. Not my area, but it tempts me to change my interests! ariwara (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Language[edit]

In the talk page of Talk:Turkish_language, a discussion about "listing of Northern Cyprus in official languages section" continues. You can check it out. Kaygtr (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reïsdere[edit]

Is there any available info about the village Reisdere at Çeşme municipality? Geraki TL 20:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone tell us if this village exist ?--Vagrand (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entry in WikiProject directory[edit]

I created an entry for you at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/History_and_society#Ethnic_conflict_resolution_projects. Since there hasn't been any activity recently I entered you as Active=no; please change as appropriate. I hope that if you are indeed inactive then it's a sign that conflicts have calmed down. — Sebastian 07:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ganache[edit]

Neither Turkish nor Greek Wikipedia have an article on Ganache. We should do something! -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Wikipedia was in its craving mood so it was just created. :) --Bahar (Spring in Turkish) ✍ 02:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greek Wikipedia followed :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Cypriots[edit]

Seems to be a bit of a content dispute. More eyes/more participation on the talk page could be very helpful. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Greek_and_Turkish_Wikipedians_cooperation_board&oldid=1137415012"