Talk:Cyprus/Archive 2

Education in Cyprus
Contrary to what is said here, primary and secondary education for Greek-Cypriots is mostly independent from that offered in the Greek mainland. The Cyprus Ministry of Education has its own curriculum and books for most subjects. Modern Greek and history are the notable exceptions - the Greek curriculum is used for these lessons, with supplementary courses on Cypriot history and literature being available (and, in most cases, compulsory).

Article structure
Can I invite comment on whether we should restructure this article? Here are the reasons for my suggestion:


 * at the moment, nearly every section finishes up talking about the Cyprus dispute;
 * Sections are repetitious, especially in relation to the events of 1974;
 * The sections 'political division' and 'reunification' would be better placed after or within the 'politics' section;
 * There is hardly anything geographical in the 'Geography' section (which is followed by another summation of the Cyprus dispute):


 * The order of sections is illogical; can I suggest:
 * 1) Name and position
 * 2) Geography
 * 3) History
 * 4) Politics (including Political Division and Reunification)
 * 5) Economics
 * 6) ff. Demographics, Education, Misc, Ext Links (as presently).

Can I call for people to vote here on whether they agree that there should be some restructuring? If there is agreement, I will first make amendments to structure only, and we can then discuss how best to deal with duplication of information and instances of POV.

Comments please? Peeper 16:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed - there's much more to Cyprus than the repetition of the dispute - I also was thinking of writing a separate article of the Troodos Mountains when I have the time, but I'm all for your suggestion! Ramallite (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

In addition, once we have improved the structure, I would like to suggest we tighten up on description of the Cyprus issue which should more properly be replaced by links to the Cyprus dispute article. Peeper 16:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!I have now restructured the article in what I think is a much more logical way. I think we should now move on to pruning out all the repetition, and replacing all the blah about the Cyprus Dispute with links to Cyprus dispute. In the meantime, please go ahead and add some material about Troodos, Ramallite! And as ever, comments from other users welcome. Peeper 09:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking good! Better then having the Cyprus dispute as the first thing when you scrool down.  One minor quirk with the new structuring.  On monitors that use a resolution higher then 1024x, where it should show the beginning of the History section, it scrolls up to the right of the satellite image of Cyprus so it's hidding from you when you look for it even though it's right infront of you.  I dont really know what to do to fix that so someone mess around with it till they get it right if possible.  Anyways, good job!


 * Thanks! Yes, I thought there were going to be problems with the satellite image, it did funny things to me too but I'll keep tinkering. I'm now going to start slicing out the repetitive chunks of narrative and redirecting instead to Cyprus dispute. Looks like we're getting somewhere! Peeper 10:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to the structure we have agreed here, and will endeavour to check that all further minor and sensible amendments are returned. Please ensure that all major amendments are discussed on this page. This article is about Cyprus, not the Cyprus dispute - they are not the same thing!. I'm happy for the article to be overhauled if there is consensus, but there's not point returning to an old version which harps on about the dispute in every section and contains flagrant POV like even the most fervent Greece-lovers! Thanks. Peeper 08:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A few more amdnments and edits to the structure made, including cordoning off 'post-independence' which should ultimately be the only section containing material about the Cyprus dispute. However, I am putting out a request for users to contribute more information to the 'Post-Classical and Modern Cyprus' section which is pretty sparse. And as usual any thought on this article are welcomed. Peeper 09:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

REASONS FOR REJECTION

 * Ok. I know not where you got your facts regarding Cyprus and Greek slaying Turks. To be honest with you I highly distrust history taught in the military or in schools. That means I distrust are own books (I'm a Greek, as you have already guessed). So let us try and see things from another point of view.


 * How does the Turkish goverment uses minorities? If I recall well placing claims on land mailny inhabbited by Turks on nearby existing borders is a time-honed tradition of the Turkish goverments. There is still one such example in Greece, placed near Thraki.


 * Militirasm is another characteristic of the Turkinsh nation. Seeing the figures spend on their DoD (equivelant) or even better watching the vast influence the army has in their politics you can easily unsterstand that it is mostly an army-controlled nation. This (IMHPOV) is not the case with Greece.


 * Last but not least the Turks have a long history of ethnocatharsis. Um, I think that in english that is national cleansing (forgive my rather poor vocabulary), well I think that you pretty much understand the meaning I'm trying to convey. Anyway, for such examples take a look at Armenias (1,5M killed) or Kurds (ongoing supression). I will also mention the cleansing of the West coast from Greeks during 1921 (we call it the Minor Asia Disaster) but you can take that with a grain of salt since it's coming from my mouth. Well at least two national cleansings have taken place.


 * So, who do you think is most likely to have invited this whole issue regarding Cyprus?


 * And another small thing. I believe that your _facts_ (meaning what you have been told) should be taken with a rather _large_ grain of salt. And I will explain myself. Your intel comes from the US military, right? Well I think that them as well as the British (who some claim that they had immediate participation in the military operation codenamed Attilas) did play their parts in the invasion (feel free to call it whatever you want, I'll stick to this, because that's what I believe it is). Moreover Greece was under dictatorship which was established in the 21/4/1967 (US format) and it was supported at that time by the CIA. That I'm afraid you cannot counter, since recently (in 2005 I think) the former US President Bill Clinton uttered some words in one of his visits here, that, well pretty much everybody thought it was an apology for the part of the US regarding the dictatorship. Also _do_ recall that at that time putting military in the seats of power was a rather widespread method of stopping the advance of Communism. Thus I believed that your sources are heavily biased.


 * You are welcome in Greece. Saying that you belong in the US military here is bound to bring at least some attention (we _are_ considered anti-Americans and I agree to that but... read on), but most Greeks know to tell between goverments, power-houses and people (misinformed in our belief) who follow orders. Don't pay antention to ethisists (call them facists too, you wouldn't stray much from the truth). They are the same pille of shit in any nation you look at, we have are share. Please be kind enough to overlook this.


 * Last but not least I higly disstrust that all here who claim to be Greeks are so. Even a complete moron would _not_ sign as GreekWhoSlaysFamilies.
 * Filippos

POV statement?
"What is often left out is that Turkish Cypriots where forced out of parliament in 1963 and the constitution illegally changed by the Greek Cypriots. This confined the Turkish community to 3% of the island and 103 Turkish villages where forcibly evacuated. Turkish Cypriots had limited freedom of movement between 1963-1974, with countless casualties for those daring to move out of Turkish controlled territory. Cyprus joining the EU is in violation of the 1960 constitution which did not permit Cyprus to join an economic organisation unless both Turkey and Greece already belong to it. Successfully Greek proproganda skirts over these issues and have convinced the world that these events did not occur."

This is pretty much as POV as a statement can be.Opinions are divided about the events presented here.This is obviously the Turkish Cypriot POV(one of them,anyway).Shouldn't this be divided in a "Greek Cypriot/Turkish Cypriot Points of view" like similar articles?

Also,

"Successfully Greek proproganda skirts over these issues and have convinced the world that these events did not occur."

This is seriously not the kind of wording a wikipedia article is supposed to have.An encyclopedia is supposed to inform, no to accuse. --Jsone42 16:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another note, these events are covered in much more depth and clarity in other articles, there's no reason for them to be presented here, much less in this way.--Jsone42 16:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, however I prefer no material be removed, can some one reword it in a neutral tone? So that it porints out the claim but not accuse? --Cool Cat My Talk 10:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Material requires revision
''What is often left out is that Turkish Cypriots where forced out of parliament in 1963 and the constitution illegally changed by the Greek Cypriots. This confined the Turkish community to 3% of the island and 103 Turkish villages where forcibly evacuated. Turkish Cypriots had limited freedom of movement between 1963-1974, with countless casualties for those daring to move out of Turkish controlled territory. Cyprus joining the EU is in violation of the 1960 constitution which did not permit Cyprus to join an economic organisation unless both Turkey and Greece already belong to it. Successfully Greek proproganda skirts over these issues and have convinced the world that these events did not occur.''

--Cool Cat My Talk 09:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not a history article, I suggest just mentioning something on the lines of "after 1963 the turkish cypriot community does not participate in the government" and point to a cyprus dispute article for the details. Mavros 02:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * On a side note, I don't know who put the etymology of Cyprus up, or where they got it but it's wrong and I'm going to ammend it. The Copper part is probably right so I'll leave that in, but it  makes it seem that Cyprus got it's name from the word Copper, which is false.  "Cyprus- from Gk. Kypros "land of cypress trees," eastern Mediterranean island famous in ancient times as the birthplace of Aphrodite and for erotic worship rituals offered to her there; hence Cyprian (adj.) "licentious, lewd" (1599); applied 18c.-19c. to prostitutes." [b]Source:[/b] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Cyprus --HawkeyE 17:44, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

The etymology of the name comes from copper. the natural ore close to the surface oxidizes for that distinctive orange tint to many of the buildings created with cypriot stone. The latin word for copper is Cupros (hence Cu on the table of elements). Cupros- Kupros- Kibris- Cyprus. The name does not have to do with cypress trees. Plus I don't see the connection you made from cypress trees to prostitution.

Population info
Population - Total (June 2004) 	Ranked 155th

775,927 3

 3 Of which 771,657 is in the south and 323,657 in the north

These numbers are obviously wrong!


 * So fix it, its wiki! We need your sources for the numbers though. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was just a typo (either intentional or not). It's not easy though to get the right information. Most probably the total US est. (775,927) includes also turkish cypriots. The most recent Census was in 2001 and showed 689,565 inhabitants (TRNC excluded). But I don't know of any reliable source regarding the TRNC population. So, I would only add the Census data if no better idea appears. -- Phiniki 21:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, this means we will assume that somewhat 300.000 people does not even exist on the island?? It just doesn`t make sense... Wiki is a reference source, and it should stick to the facts first. No dispute or political argument could just erase the actual presence of people.

Infobox Country
Updated to use template. Some data (GDP, for example) needs updating; complex due to political situation. Removed northern flag; it's inappropriate here; CIA doesn't have population broken down. Parameter check welcome. &mdash; Davenbelle 01:53, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Updated population est. and Census (cited the statistical service). --phiniki 10:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I have updated the Demographics of Cyprus page here on Wikipedia. I will change it here too when I have some free time.

Is the president, Tassos Papadopoulos, a colonel? Because I don't think he is.


 * I also don't think so, it must be a joke; in any case, in the news (e.g. PIO) he is addressed as "Mr. Papadopoulos". Removed.


 * Joke, or deliberate action :-( Many (including myself) may not agree with his political views, but that's no reason to attack him like that. He is, after all an elected president.
 * Mr. Papadopoulos has never been part of any army (including the Greek-Cypriot National guard). He is a lawyer by profession and the director of a large-ish international law office in Nicosia. The reference "colonel Papadopoulos" is probably a sad attempt to associate him with colonel George Papadopoulos who headed the junta that (illegitimately) ruled Greece between 1967 and 1974. --Pantelis Panayiotou 16:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Asian Country
To clear some confusion... Cyprus belongs to the Eurasian Tectonic plate (more detail: USGS), not the Arabian (ie. according to Physical Geography, it's either Europe or Asia). Considering Human Geography, there is no doubt Cyprus is Europian (Europian language, culture, heritage, etc.). Is there more convincing needed between the Asia/Europe camp?

It's an asian country geographically. 209.90.162.13 23:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not only Asian, but geographically Middle Eastern.--Gramaic 03:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Cyprus. Cyprus is only the name of the island, it can not be used to refer to a state as there are two seperate states on the island of Cyprus although one of them is not recognised by some countries.

If you're talking about the Turkish controlled part of Cyprus, the only country in the world who recognises the TRNC is Turkey itself.--Gramaic 01:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Cyprus cannot be concidered Asian because it belongs to Europe [culture, race (Greek, British), language etc]. The island was united under the name of Cyprus with Hellenic (Greek), Turkish and British population until 1974 when Turkey invided. Turkey occupied a big part of the island and declared a new state, recognized only by Turkey itself! The part which remained free brings the name of the former free state, Cyprus. This is logical and acccepted by all nations as well as international organizations (UN, EU, etc). Petros The Greek


 * True. Cyrpus does belong to Europe right now, but it is still geographically in the Middle East.--Gramaic 02:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is geographically into Asia. But Asia and Europe are geographical definitions, so it should be considered to be in Asia. --Andrelvis 19:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

What is the problem with being from asia? Or what is the advantage of being from europe? It has never made any sense to me that some people insist to belong to a certain part or city in the world while denying the truth. Cyprus is on southern of asian part of Turkey, so how can it be from europe? This is that simple.

- - - -

Culturally it is tied to Greece, but geographically it is part of Asia.

If one were to use the arguments used by the "Europe" camp, then the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, as well as much of South America would all be part of Europe.

MYLO 01:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

213.149.188.164 Edits
I'm adding a cleanup tag based on the latest round of edits added by 214.149.188.164 (and a few other things I noticed). Some of this appears to be lifted from http://allfreeessays.com/student/Cyprus_History_Of_Conflict.html but just reworded a bit. I'm not going to edit this as I don't really have much knowledge about Cyprus, but here are the problems I have with the history section:


 * "The people early learned to work..." - poorly worded English; revised
 * "The Mycenæan civilization of the West seems to have reached the island around 1600 B.C." - Based on archeological evidence? If so, it should be stated that way.  The phrase "...seems to have reached" is too vague.
 * "The Greek and Phœnician settlements belong to the Iron Age." - Probably could be better stated as "the Greeks and Phœnicians settled Cyprus during the Iron Age." Current wording seems to indicate that the "Iron Age" owns those settlements.
 * "Around 1200 B.C. we observe the massive arrival of the Mycenaean Greeks as permanent settlers to Cyprus, a process that started and lasted for more than a century." - Who is "we"?  Should be stated 3rd person.  Also "started and lasted for more than a century" is poorly worded.  Maybe rephrase the sentence as, "Around 1200 B.C., the Mycenaean Greeks began to permanantly settle Cypress; a process that lasted for more than a century."
 * "This migration is remembered in many sagas rehearsing..." - Not the right usage for "rehearsing"; consider revising to "concerning".
 * "...their advanced technology" - Can you cite a source for this?
 * "When the Ionian Greeks revolted against Persia (499 BC) the Cypriots except for Amathus..." - Who is Amanthus? This is the first mention of him in the article, yet it is never explained who he is, or why he did not wish to revolt against Persia.  Either explain who he is and why he is important, or remove the reference.  Also, who did the Cypriots join?  The Ionian Greeks or the Persians?  It's not clear from the section as written.
 * "They won despite Ionian help." - Who won?  It's not clear at all from this statement who won the conflict.  Was it the Cypriots, the Ionians, or the Persians?  At this point I'm not even sure who was fighting?
 * "After the Persian defeat, the Greeks mounted various expeditions against Cyprus in order to liberate it from the Persian yoke, but all their efforts bore only temporary results." - So the Persians lost, but retained control of Cyprus and were the target of Greek efforts to liberate Cyprus?  This is all very unclear.  It should be clearly defined who "won the war" of the Greek revolt against Persia in a military sense and who retained control of Cyprus when all was said and done.
 * "No doubt the most important event that occurred in Roman Cyprus is the visit by Apostles Paul and Barnabas having with them St Mark..." - Should probably be worded "the Apostles Paul and Barnabas accompanied by St. Mark..."Isotope23 16:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Amathus
http://www.limassolmunicipal.com.cy/amathus/main-e.html

Removing Tags
I'm going to go ahead and remove the totally disputed and cleanup tags. The cleanup tag was added by Isotope23 in concern over the 214.149.188.164 edits, which users have cleaned up since. The totally disputed tag was added by 68.192.101.165 with no reasons or input for what he would like cleaned up.

Controversial tag
I added a controversial tag to this page for apparent reasons, but sorry for the other stuff... i'll state the reason next time... btw, can anyone create an account?

History of Cyprus
I wonder why the British part of the "ownership" of Cyprus is so truncated? As part of that history - being stationed as a British soldier on the island between 1954-58 - it seemed to me that what was happening was very much part of the scheme of things, not least because it brought to head the business of enosis. I should be grateful to know why it seems to be omitted - is it part of the controversy surrounding the whole thing? And again - should we not be including stuff about the antiquities on the island - mosaics etc? Or are we too wrapped up in politics? Peter Shearan 19:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up External Links
I've removed a few external links that are either not informative, linking to a site selling material/goods/property and/or having a 'anti-greek pro-turkish' outlook. I very much would like to remove rentcyprusvillas also, and if anyone finds the information they have posted as copy pasted from any other site, please go ahead and replace the links. I'm surprised that such 'anti-greek' propaganda links were left up for as long as they were.

Instead of overloading the links section in the front page, maybe their should be a completely different page with links and a description. For example, the recent discovery of the perfume and wine factories in cyprus. All the best of the web's links that give information about this can be provided on that page, with any other 'informative' and non-commercial links added to that page.

edit: I've removed the controversial tag on this page. We shouldn't always feel that our editing is biased to one side. If it belongs in this page, stick to the facts and it wont be controversial. Any controversies belong in the cyprus dispute page where the POV thrives. Come on people, sooner or later these two communities are going to have to come closer together. Their is no reason to instigate and promote hate. Cyprus can be a model community for all the other communities once the two ethnic groups reconcile and the politicians decide to work together instead of against each other.--Kakonator 09:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Cleaning up External Links
It's not that I'm trying to support the schism, I myself rather be called a Cypriot than a hyphenated one (e.g. Greek/Turkish-Cypriot), but as some people have exampled above, it still is a controversial subject. Even though this article probably has no effect on current Greek/Turish-Cypriot relations, I'll try your idea, and as long as everyone keep the flaming at a minimum, I won't re-add the tag.

J.W. Hasan, 03:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV statement - suggested amendment
In 1967 a military junta took over the Greek government and enosis went out of favour - even the most fervent Greece-lovers didn't want union with such a repressive regime

I'm not going to get heavily engaged in assessing this whole article, but this sentence stood out for me as needing attention - it's lazy history and poorly expressed, and smacks of bias. 'Even the most fervent Greece-lovers'?! Unless anybody objects, I will amend this to be a bit more balanced and thorough, on the following grounds:


 * the term 'Greece-lovers' is immature, simplistic and possibly meant to be insulting
 * Enosis did not suddenly go 'out of favour' as a result of the 1967 coup. In fact, Makarios's foreign policy had clearly stalled on the issue since 1960. The only substantial political change on the Enosis issue caused by the 1967 coup was that, if anything, the Greek colonels were impatient with Makarios's failure to deliver Enosis and were now prepared to take radical measures to unite Cyprus with Greece.

Comments? (Please be civil - my aim is to be historically balanced and authoritative, not to rub people up the wrong way or cause an edit war..!). Peeper 09:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

No response either way - amendment made. Peeper 15:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits by 70.151.110.126
A couple things that should be discussed. First, their was an edit by 70.151.110.126 on the 17th of August that switched 'Turkish' to 'Greek' concerning the Reunification article. I don't know if his edit is legit or not, since all his other edits are Turkish based. I have my doubts and am asking others who know better to please comment whether it was an honest edit or changing facts.

Secondly, their seems to be an issue with wanting to put TRNC information to correspond with the ROC article. I am not here choosing sides and waving my flag to prove a point. I simply wish for the Cyprus wiki page to be as historically accurate as possible, which means that their's space for only the truth.

Concerning your edits: ''Ymnos.. or whatever is not the anthem of Cyprus, maybe in the south'' After thinking about this, is their an OFFICIAL national anthem for the ROC or not? Since the ROC is supposed to be the government for ALL people on the island, despite that most Turk-Cypriots are in the north, is it a person to person preference of what they choose to be the national anthem?

Greek cypriots rejected the Annan Plan, they cannot represent the whole island, therefore you have to specify Mehmet Ali Talat You make it seem as something it is not. I don't have to specify anything. I and everyone else is not here to put opinions in. The way things are, ROC president is Papadopoulos. Maybe after the reunification, we can update the pages with info concerning Turkish-Cypriots holding political positions, but till that day comes, and hopefully soon, why promote the ethnic conflict?--Kakonator 05:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Facts: Greek Cypriots rejected the Anann Plan. Greek Cypriots -in order to accomplish Enosis- started to kill Turkish Cypriots (See http://www.kibris.gen.tr/english/massacres/index.html). Turkey had to protect Turkish people and his rights on the island; and rescued Turkish people and secured his rights on the island in 1974. Now, the current situation is: There are independent actual physical governments on the north and south. They are speaking different languages (Turkish and Greek), they different flags, anthems, etc. Although Europe, Greece and Greek Cypriots try to deceive that there is one (Greek) Cyprus, Turkey and TRNC clearly stated that they will 'not' waive their rights on the island. The Annan Plan -although it was favoring Greeks- was rejected only by Greeks because they dont want unification: they want the whole island, and they want it cleared from Turks; and in doing so the only thing they'll get is shit. You can tile the whole internet with "Greek Cyprus, Ymnes... the anthem, Papadopulos the president" to satisfy your ego. But if you want to write about the truth, you'll have to see TRNC. TanrI Turk'u Korusun!


 * This is not the forum for historical discussions, but the "fact" remains that the world community recognizes ROC and not TRNC. If you insist on placing the names of the national anthem and the president of TNRC, there is Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus for that. If you want to place them here, they go *after* the Greek names, not before. And your analysis of the rejection of the Anan plan is plain wrong: there are at least two main reasons that the Greeks rejected the plan: 1- You cannot have peace with a foreign army still occupying the territory. We have tried this in Palestine and it failed. The Anan plan did not provide for Turkish withdrawal, and that was unacceptable. 2- The Anan plan did not adequately address the property of Greek Cypriots that are still in the Turkish occupied areas. Turkish Cypriots are not foreigners, but the Turkish army is a foreign occupying power, and the property of all Cypriots must be respected. So the Greek Cypriots were correct in rejecting a plan that does not end the occupation of the Island and reclaim their rightful property. The ROC freely gives EU citizenship to TNRC Cypriot Turks (but not Turkish settlers), so you can hardly claim that Greeks want Cyprus cleared from Turks (well, Turkey Turks yes, but not Cypriot Turks). Ramallite (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, the Turkish soldiers are the only guarantee that Turkey/Cyprus Turks will see the sun the next morning. They are there for a 'reason' which you do not want to understand and do not want people to realize. Your president Papadopulos is a pure terrorist who killed Turkish Cyriots with his own hands. Rauf Denktas, for instance, was a lawyer. Mehmet Ali Talat is an engineer. That is how Greeks evaluate the situation. Also this is an encyclopedia, not UN or EU. Not diplomatics or politics but the truth matters here. The sentence "If you want to place them here, they go *after* the Greek names, not before" clearly proves that you are a blind-minded conservative racist. Turkey, in addition to UK and Greece, is the only country that has 'legal' rights on the island. Turkish soldiers are 'not' foreign forces. Turkey is not 'any' country for Cyprus. Turkish Cypriots had properties on the south side as well. Why are you not mentioning it? But their properties are all gone now. South Cyprus is giving EU membership to some Turkish Cypriots in order to introduce social separation and classification in TRNC. But South Cyprus prevents touristic agencies to pass and carry tourists to the north side. is it not correct?? And yes, Greeks do desire a pure Hellenistic Cyprus more than anything, there is no point arguing this. Turkey is willing to withdraw his soldiers -in parallel with Greek soldiers- only when there is a just equal representations of Turkish Cyriots politically, sociallly, physically, economically. And Greeks should give up their Enonsis plans and their cleaning policy of the island.

"you are a blind-minded conservative racist" - Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks, so please refrain from attacking. The reason the Greek goes first only has to do with the fact that ROC is the internationally recognized government and represents the majority of the population, usually majority comes first. Second, I do not deny that both sides committed ugly acts in the 60s and 70s, but this is 2005 and you cannot continue to assume that this is still true. Greek citizens have free access to the north during the daytime hours through the Ledra Palace Checkpoint, and thousands from the south have visited the north, and I don't believe any Greek Cypriot has gone and killed a Turkish Cypriot. Third, I was only mentioning reasons for Greek rejection of the Anan plan, and was not denying that there is Turkish Cypriot property in the South, it just wasn't a part of the context. Fourth, ROC gives citizenship to ALL Cypriots, Greek or Turkish. But if one is NOT a *Cypriot*, but a Turkish settler, then by international law they cannot get citizenship, as Turkey is violating the Geneva conventions about settling civilians in occupied lands, just like Israel. Fifth, I agree that both Turkish and Greek soldiers must go home, but I don't believe the Turkish army intends to leave in good faith. The Turks did not fulfill their obligations of "returning the status quo" when they invaded in 1974, otherwise the island would not be divided. Fifth, Papadopolous is not "my" president, I am not from Cyprus, I am from Palestine, and my interest in Cyprus is from the outside, but I have a very good idea of what *occupation* is. Ramallite (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ramallite, sorry if it seems I'm repeating much of what you said. I meant to submit the post earlier but became distracted, and when I came back to finish, you already posted.  I very much appreciate your comments though. --Kakonator 04:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The year is 2005, not 1974. Their is no reason for the Turkish army to be on the island.  The goal of the invasion was to stop the coup.  Did they not do that?  They did.  The Greek government collapsed immediately after the invasion, along with Sampson in Cyprus.  But the problem is that they pushed onwards again during the second stage of the invasion.  That is where todays problem lies.  Not with the July 20 invasion, but with the August territorial expansion of Turkey.  If they toppled the coup, why must a foreign army reside in Cyprus?  Why couldn't Turkey simply retrieve her troops with British troops holding the peace? Do you really want us to believe that they are there to protect the Turkish Cypriots?  They are doing more harm then good by keeping them isolated from the world.


 * I love how Turkish politics can twist the story around. You throw around the word genocide as if it means nothing, but when someone puts the words genocide, Turkish, Armenian together, lawyers are amassed to denounce the source.  Tying intercommunal fighting with genocide are propaganda tools for Turkish newspapers.  I hear no mention of such genocide coming from your politicians because their is no basis. Your sentence of "Also this is an encyclopedia, not UN or EU" is absolutely correct.  That means calling people blind-minded racists are completely inappropriate since the user was making a honest suggestion on contributing to the encyclopedia.  Again, I am not trying to promote ethnic conflict among the Cypriots.  If you are fanatic, please do not come here waving your flag, whether their is a cross or a moon and a star on it.  If you do respond, please talk to us as equals, and you shall receive a response from me and hopefully others with respect. --Kakonator 02:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

So, let me repeat again so that you can "understand". Turkey is not "any" country for Cyprus. Turkey has "legal" rights on the island. Turkish forces are "not" foreign forces. If you have any problem with that, I am so sorry; That will stay as is. Secondly, during 60s and 70s both sides did "not" committed ugly acts: This is very very important. "The Greeks" started to kill the Turkish people on the island, and they killed many many innocent Turkish people, children, women, men. They were slaughtered like cows in a butchery. Why were they killed?? Because Greeks were/are burning with desires of pure Hellenistic Cyprus, West Anatolia, Aegean sea region. Turkish soldiers will stay on the island "as long as" there are any kind of threats for Turkish people and the Republic of Turkey. If you are unable to understand what I am talking about now, you are either retarded or biased. About the date, I am perfectly aware that it is the year 2005, and it has never been more urgent and important than today to "protect" your country and your rights.

I'm not going to launch into the debate, except to say that I agree with you Ramallite and Kakonator, and that I am very saddened by the venomous and ill-considered tone of the responses from 70.151*. 70.151, you may have to accept that the consensus is against you; that is the way Wikipedia works. Whether or not you choose to believe that we are reasonable people or racists out to get you is up to you - the interpretation is solely yours. Be sensible. Peeper 09:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Concerning "Greeks brutally killing Turks" statements, and to get history right:
 * 1. Between 1957 and 1974, tense relations between the two communities led to several sad events such as assassinations, mass executions, etc. committed by both sides. Total number of people killed was a few hundred from either side. From what I know, the number of Greek-Cypriots killed is somewhat larger than the number of Turkish-Cypriots, but that can be explained by their larger population.
 * 2. Typical examples of mass executions of Greek-Cypriots by Turkish-Cypriots include the Kionelli massacre of 1957, and the mass execution at Lysi in 1974.
 * 3. There are also 1586 Greek-Cypriots who are listed as missing persons since 1974. Also, approx. 260 Turkish-Cypriots since 1963.
 * 4. After 1974 (during the 80s and 90s) the Turkish army killed 7 Greek-Cypriot solders and 3 Greek-Cypriot civilians in the buffer zone. There was also 1 Turkish-Cypriot civilian killed by the G-C National Guard during the same period.
 * 5. Tassos Papadopoulos was a member of EOKA during his youth. EOKA was formed in 1955 to "liberate" Cyprus from the British and achieve union with Greece. It was dissolved after the independence of 1960. Rauf Denktash was a member of the TMT. The TMT was founded in 1957 to "protect" Turkish-Cypriots from the Greek-Cypriots. I think it was dissolved some time after 1974.
 * 6. The above figures come from my personal studies of recent Cyprus history and are supported by facts as far as I can tell. Please feel free to correct me :-) --Pantelis Panayiotou 16:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"Turkish Cypriots had properties on the south side as well. Why are you not mentioning it? But their properties are all gone now."

It seems that we have Greeks and Turks blurring out 'facts' without really knowing anyhting about the situation. As i am interested in Politics, and probably have more patience than any of my fellow Greeks to read up on the situation, i tell you this: Your comment is absolutely false! In the south, any Turkish-Cypriot who requests their land back, is irrefutably given back his land. The RoC has documented all the Turkish owned properties and currently owns them and rents them to Greek-Cypriots under the pre-condition that the maintain the property.

The law states that as soon as a rightful owner/heir requests the property back (after it has been proven - and a complete record is kept) the land is to be returned *immediately*.

Also, if any Turkish-Cypriot requests citizenship in the RoC (as it is the only internationally recognised state on the island), he/she may not be refused it. Of course, as for the aforementioned, their identity has to be confirmed. If he/she had parents/grandparents that lived on the island before 1974, the law clearly states that they are allowed their properties back and are due citizenship.

Talk with facts, and not with pride; and a solution may be found. -Theo

Missing Infobox footnotes
I've just fixed a number of syntax problems in the infobox (mostly missing '|' characters at end of line). Doing so, I noticed multiple footnote references without corresponding text. Someone with more knowledge than me of the article should fix these. (nb: i deleted footnote '4' from the area datapoint as it was breaking the infobox syntax.) Ferg2k 00:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

population in the north
I'm not sure where the figure for 323,657 people in the Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus came from. According to the estimates of the ROC, the population in the north is approx. 230000. About 65000 of them are Turkish-Cypriots (people born in Cyprus by Cypriot parents), 40000 are Turkish soldiers, and the rest are settlers from Turkey (or their children; the Republic does not recognize people born in Cyprus with Turkish parents as Cypriots). --Pantelis Panayiotou 16:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

If you realy think that Greece and Turkey should stay away from the island, then you the Greek Cypriots have to guarantee the rights of the Turkish Cypriots. Why do not you ask yourselves: What did we do to Turkish Cypriots in the past so as Turkey had to come to the island? Waive the Enosis. As long as you insist on that, Turkey will exist phisically and mentally in the island. [User: Mr_Glass] 11:10 25.01.2006

Etymology of Cyprus
It is possible that name "Cyprus" is related with the names
 * 1) "Cabirians" (or preciously, Cabeiroi, or else Cabiri), a people who was appearing in Mycenean Greece
 * 2) Caphtor (or Kafthor, or Kaftor, or Keftiu), a people who is mentioned in Bible.
 * 3) Cythera (or Kythira), an island between Crete and Laconia, Peloponnesos.
 * 4) Cebriones, an Trojan, who was a son of Priam (according to Homer). Rationalistically, most of "sons" of Priamus must have been, simply, his allies.

''Caphtor is the land of the Biblical Caphtorim (Egyptian Keftiu, Mari Kaptara), said in Gen. 10 to descend from Ham's son Mizraim (Egypt). It has been, etymologically, linked to Cyprus while other suggestions identify it variously as Crete, and the nearby coasts of Southestern Asia Minor (i.e the posterior Caria). By some accounts, both islands, Cyprus and Crete, together were known as "the isles of the Caphtorim", and perhaps of significance is the fact that the earliest Minoan script used on Crete seems to have been hieroglyphics''. [ From the Wikipedian article, Keftiu ].

Note: In Crete, according to Homer (Odessey), there was four peoples and one of them, Cydonians (or Cydones), a people who lived in western Crete, in Cydonia (modern Chania).

These, perhaps, were "Keftiu", who migrated to Crete from Cyprus.

--IonnKorr 21:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The name 'Cyprus' is derived from the Cypriot Greek 'Kypros', which means 'copper', which was the main export in ancient times. An ox-hide-shaped copper bar is depicted on the 1955 & 1956 5 Mils coin. The Cypriot Millennium commemorative coin is also an ox-hide shape. - (Aidan Work 01:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

Enosis referendum
I removed "Following the independence of Cyprus from the UK, the Greek Cypriots held three referendums on the issue of whether they wanted to be annexed by Greece. On all three occasions there was a vote in favour of annexation but Greece had agreed not to merge with Cyprus under the terms of the independence treaty and Greek Prime Minister Konstantinos Karamanlis did not seek to do so. " As far as I know there was no referendum on Enosis after the one organised by the church in 1950 Mavros 00:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Order
The last paragraph in Post-Classical and Modern Cyprus seems oddly out of place.

Sovereign Base Areas.
There are 2 Sovereign Base Areas - Akrotiri Sovereign Base Area & Dhekelia Sovereign Base Area. As they are not part of the Republic of Cyprus, they have their own constitutional status, which is guaranteed under the terms of the 1959 Independence Agreement. - (Aidan Work 01:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

Liberate from the Persian Yoke
After their defeat, the Greeks mounted various expeditions in order to liberate Cyprus from the Persian yoke, but all their efforts bore only temporary results. This sentence sounds Greek POV. To make it NPOV I propose the following change: After their defeat, Greeks had many unsuccessful attempts to take Cyprus back from the Persians.


 * Not that accurate, the aim was to make the cypriot city states independent of Persia, not subordinate them to "the Greeks" (which were not a single state but an alliance of city states).Mavros 10:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever, But the "Yoke" part is still unneccesary and totally uncalled for!!

Turkish layman's POV
This is the Turkish layman's point of view:

Turkish point of view is that with 1974 coup staged in Cyprus by EOKA-B terrorist organization with approval of Greece's Junta regime leader Ioannides, the treaty that defines the entity 'Republic of Cyprus' had been broken. The signatories became warring factions and a new treaty was necessary to define the new entity. (EOKA article has a section for EOKA-B in which it is described as: EOKA-B was a Greek Cypriot fascist pro-enosis paramilitary organisation formed in 1971 that was supported by the ruling Greek junta which came to power in 1967, overthrowing the legitimate Greek government of George Papandreou.)

Turkey has been pressing for a new treaty and a constitution for Cyprus in which she has been seeking a bizonal confederation of two equal states made up of two distinct societies. Turks remain adamant about the fact that all diplomatic attemps of Turkey before and after the invasion had fallen into deaf ears. The day before the invasion, a big part of the Turkish Cabinet hopped in a plane to London to force the British government to use their Guarantor status and take an  action agaist the coup in Cyprus otherwise a Turkish military action was imminent. A very bold move considering the turn of the events could have lead to an all out war between Greece and Turkey and if their plane crashed a governmentless Turkey could have found herself in war. The Turks demanded the removal of Nicos Sampson and the Greek officers from the National Guard and a binding guarantee of Cypriot independence. Turkish demands were rejected and the military action was taken on July 20, 1974.

Turks have a hard time to understand the point repeatedly made about the illegitimacy of second military operation that defined the current borders of "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" while landing on the island granted as legitimate. (This is also the UN's position.) The Turkish point is that this is exactly what they meant when they warned the British about the military action. Even after the Turkish troops landed in the island the British acted like nothing has happened. Only when the Turkish troops came close to the British military bases, the British government seemed somewhat motivated to take action. A war is suppposed to end with a truce, an agreement and a treaty and a political solution. This has not happened for 32 years and the war has not officially ended to this day.

The Turkish POV is that for all practical purposes the document defining the creation of the 'Republic of Cyprus' and the entity it defines has been dead for 32 years. UN's efforts to find a solution did not address the Turkish side's grievances but concentrated on regurgitating the dead document while the conditions on the ground had changed profoundly. The creation of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is a manifestation of this frustration.

Another point made in the article is that Greece did not take part in the war. It is very lucky for all parties that this did not happen but Turkey clearly saw Athens Junta regime of that time as the aggressor in the conflict in Cyprus and an unfortunate accident could have sparked an all our war with Greece. Two NATO members going on war in the most critical area of the Mediterranean could have been a big blow to NATO itself. At the height of the Cold War this could have been very nice suprise to Soviet Union. (Allies of Greece and Turkey, US and UK although did not put much diplomatic effort into avoiding a military action but they seem to have put pressure on the Turkish and Greek governments to avoid a war between the two NATO allies.)

There has been a very interesting development in Cyprus in 2004 when Greek side and Turkish side held a simultaneous referandum for the unification of the island Cyprus reunification referendum, 2004(sic.) If both sides said 'yes' this would have been way to shorcut the arduous negotiations in the UN: A unified Cyprus would immediately be a EU member state and the conflicts between the two communities in Cyprus would be handled in the framework of EU. The Greek side rejected the unification by 76% and the Turkish side voted in favor by 65%. If not anything, this is an acceptance by the Greek Cypriot population that 1960 constitution is dead and that the political entity in the South is not the 'Republic of Cyprus' mentioned in the 1960 constitution. Althought the Greek side rejected the unification it was accepted in the EU as the 'Republic of Cyprus'. This is another confirmation that 1960 constitution does not apply and the EU member 'Republic of Cyprus' is not the same entity in that constitution. The Treaty of Guarantee clearly states Republic of Cyprus cannot participate in whole or in part, in any political or economic union with any State whatsoever.

Considering the latest developments the embargo on the Turkish Cypriot side sounds totally uncalled for to the average Turk. In rejection in the union, the existence political entity in the Northern Cyprus is being ackowledged and the international recognition should follow.

The train of unifiying Cyprus has been missed which would have been a way to legitimize the current 'Republic of Cyprus' (Although the Turkish Cypriots voted in favor of unification, public opinion in Turkey was along the lines of the Greek Cypriot side), the other opportunity of legitimizing the 'Republic of Cyprus' would be to accept Turkey as a EU member which also seems very unlikely. The current legal situation is very concerning since there is no agreement marking the end of the 1974 war in Cyprus. As long as EU claims that EU member 'Republic of Cyprus' is the same political entity in the 1959 Treaty of Guarantee or the 1960 Constitution of Republic of Cyprus, EU would be in a State of war with the Republic of Turkey. EU is looking for concessions from Turkey and the islamist leaning currrent government in Turkey seems to agree to such consessions but the public opinion in Turkey is overwhelmingly against such a consession and if materialized it would mark the end of the current government. The Cyprus issue has singlehandedly affected the public opinion in Turkey in a negative way. And it is likely that the will to join the EU will have all but evaporated by the time recognition of Republic of Cyprus comes to the table as precondition for membership.

Below is the first two articles of the 'Treaty of Guarantee'.

APPENDIX B

DRAFT TREATY OF GUARANTEE

ARTICLE I

... The Republic of Cyprus undertakes to ensure the maintenance of its independence, territorial integrity and security, as well as respect for its Constitution.

''It undertakes not to participate, in whole or in part, in any political or economic union with any State whatsoever. It accordingly declares prohibited any activity likely to promote, directly or indirectly, either union with any other State or partition of the Island.'' ARTICLE II

Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, taking note of the undertakings of the Republic of Cyprus set out in Article I of the present Treaty, recognise and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, and also the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution.

Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom likewise undertake to prohibit, so far as concerns them, any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, either union of Cyprus with any other State or partition of the Island. ... AverageTurkishJoe

Regarding Greek Muslim Delusional Paranoia Syndrome
"Considering the latest developments the embargo on the Turkish Cypriot side sounds totally uncalled for to the average Turk. In rejection in the union, the existence political entity in the Northern Cyprus is being ackowledged and the international recognition should follow." _______________________________________________________________________________________________


 * Jesus Christ would not be happy about his followers advocating hate. AverageTurkishJoe 05:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________

I havent seen such a sick minded and desperate Don Kisot for a long time. so there are still some of this species. Turks always proved themselves in political area and battlefield. (I accept it hasnt been good in politics for a few decades but it is gaining its power again even if you refuse). At least you must have realised last advancements in Turkey.

And read the CIA fact book to realise that it was greeks who attacked and force the Turks to move into enclaves before Turkey interfered. Turkey has rights on the island that no one can refuse.

Cyprus Turks and Turkey Turks are both Ottoman Turks. Dont try to seperate them as in Turkish and Kurdish both of which are actually different Turkish tribes originally from Middle Asia, not different nations. (For people who can read and understand in Turkish, I can give scientific and satisfactory sources about this fact and about how Russia first launched this plan to seperate these people from the same nation for their own benefit). So Turkish army is not going anywhere. Turkey will never leave his nation either in Turkey or in Cyprus under others' rule like greece.


 * I can produce news stories from India or the US or France or any other country that can depict this type of occurance. My point it that you cannot base your thoughts on one news story.  If you are doing this as propaganda then stop.  I can cite a National Geographic article on India which states that India still is struggling with the old caste system mentality today even though it was "offically" abolished when it gained independence.  So by your logic,  I should perhaps say that India fits the picture as a racist and discriminating country.  You better realize that Cyprus as a democracy is struggling against forces that do not want it united and strong as a country should be.  And a democracy it is struggling for the removal of all foreign elements that have tried to control it, namely Britain, Turkey and Greece.  Jack Straw's comments and actions were denounced by the British Parliament my friend and as such they do not hold.  The Cyprustales blog is full of anti-Cypriot propaganda.  Please stop this crap.(UNFanatic

Greek Cypriots and Democracy
What can i say my dear Cypriot, it just proves again how narrow-minded Greek Cypriots are. I am not basing my experiences on just this piece of news. I just cited an example and there are hundreds of racial incidents in Greek side, i have personally gone through...infact, i could write a book about it. And coming to India, i never told you that it is a perfect country or i am great fan of India. I believe in equality. Rather than concentrating on Greek Cypriot racist policies, why do you drag other countries into this discussion.

If Republic of Cyprus is democracy, as you say, then why is National Guard 100% Greek Cypriots???


 * In 1963 the Turkish Cypriots withdrew from the Government of Cyprus and all official organs thereof as specified in the Constitution, directed by Ankara. Buddy, wake up. No country is perfect. (UNFanatic)

Well, i accept your statements Unfanatic, but still insist that Turkish Cypriots were forced to withdraw under the circumstances just the same way Greek Cypriots were dictated by Greek Junta. But i ask you again why are the Other minorities and tiny Turkish Cypriot population which chose to live in the Greek side even after 1974 are not allowed to join the national guard! Now how democratic is that! World Citizen


 * My answer is that stupid Greek and Turkish politicians made it legal to fly Greek and Turkish flags from 1960. That is in the Constitution.   Of course I have never agreed with that.  Because of the political implications, raising a Turkish flag would provoke some verbal response. (Turkish invasion)  When the problem is solved only the Flag of Cyprus will be flown and any foreign flag will be restricted to official visits by dignitaries. As things stand, Turkish Cypriots have graffitied the turkish flag and the psudostate on a mountain.  Now that is screwed up.  In the final analysis, both communities should start to fly only the Cypriot flag, a flag of neutral design, and not the flags of foreign nations as a start for reconciliation. (UNFanatic)

Greek Cypriots and Reality
This is getting interesting now. I can see glimplses of frustration in your words especially against Turkish Cypriots. As you say Turkish Cypriots withdrew from Cyprus Govt. in 1963, you are forgetting one fact here buddy. Turkish Cypriots did not pull with joy or with intentions, but they were forced to by Greek and Greek Cypriots.

Turkish Cypriots were being murdered, looted and openly butchered by Greek Cypriots and Greeks, directed by Greece.


 * Greece was under a military dictatorship, supported by the CIA, not under a democratic government. The people were powerless at that time.  Remember the Polytechnic Uprising were many died.(UNFanatic)

Yes, i agree that Turkey directed the act,yes, i agree Turkey invaded Cyprus, and yes, i agree Turkey violates international human rights. But have Greek Cypriots taken any blame at all for letting Turkey do this to them! Do Greek Cypriots accept that it was Greece who brought all this upon Cyprus! Do they condemn Greek action! The answer to all this is 'NO'.

As i said before, if Cyprus Republic is democracy, why is it still following 1960's constitution, why has it not reformed for better, why didn't they change the law related to flying Greek flag!!! Greek Cypriot school children walk on the streets wearing t-shirts which says, "a good turk is a dead turk". Now is that what the new generation needs to be taught! Gay people are persecuted and abused verbally, mentally and physically. Now is that what Greek Cypriots call democracy!

Recently, the authorities in South on the border are doing this pathetic act of making people walk on disinfectant carpet, checking vehicles for birds wearing masks and gloves. Now i ask Greek Cypriot authorities whether they are doing the same to all Greek, German, French and other European countries who have just announced bird flu exsistence. Are they making them walk on disinfectant carpet and checking people the moment they land from these countries!!!

/* Turkish Cypriots and Reality================ */

Yes I have an idea, I have lived there recently for an extended period of time and I honestly think that life is very similar to New York life, except slower. There are stupid people in America as well as in Cyprus, Turkey and Greece for that matter. But to make Greek Cypriots seem like they are the Ku Klux Klan is really stupid and absurd. BTW walking on disinfectant carpet has nothing to do in this conversation. Apparently you missed the point.

I say, along with hundreds of locals & foreigners who live on the Turkish side, it is discrimination and higly prejudiced to make such a mockery of walking on disinfectant carpet just because you live in north. And thats why after complaints, the EU has put a stop to it. World Citizen

Cyprus is controlled by Anglo-Saxon interests and not Cypriot interests of unity. Britain is too powerful to allow anything to change for the better in Cyprus. Greek Cypriots are a peace loving people my friend. I invite you to come and live with my family.(UNFanatic)


 * "As i said before, if Cyprus Republic is democracy, why is it still following 1960's constitution(because treaties with Great Britain, Greece and Turkey - which withdrew recognition- were signed and it is currently the best "solution" if only the Turkish Cypriots returned to their posts), why has it not reformed for better (I answered this above), why didn't they change the law related to flying Greek flag!!!(This is because there must be agreement between the two communities and as the current situation is obvious, there is not - Turks would have to erase both Turkish flags from the Pentadactylos range too - I wonder if that is going to happen) Greek Cypriot school children walk on the streets wearing t-shirts which says, "a good turk is a dead turk" (Never seen that happen in my lifetime;but I suppose it would also be absurd to claim Turkish Cypriot children walk around in the streets with pictures of the Turkish flag on a map of Cyprus with a Turkish soldier killing a Greek).


 * From the time, the borders were opened, there is a tremendous enthusiasm in the minds of Turkish Cypriots to accept and integrate with Greek Cypriots. Now in the north, we play Greek songs, music and enjoy it, we allow greek advertisements to be published, we allow Greek Cypriot dailies to be distributed and many other things worth to promote harmony..but i have never heard a single turkish song played in the greek side, never saw one turkish ad being published and not one single newspaper is allowed to be sold in south. So how can you call Greek cypriots are peace loving people. It's the people that make it happen just like the historical wall of Berlin was brought down. Turkish Cypriots opened the Ledra street to promote peace in the community...but what was Greek Cypriot's silly objection, Turkish army has encroached the UN buffer zone land...now how pathetic can anyone be to make an excuse of this nature rather than let goodwill prevail and promote harmony among the two communities. Can you explain unfanatic!!!

World Citizen

Greek Cypriots & EU Law
South Cyprus drags feet to implement EU Law THE South's government is to fast-track an amendment to the Constitution to allow the extradition of Cypriot nationals wanted on European arrest warrants (EAW), Attorney-general Petros Clerides said last month. The issue has resurfaced after the South’s Supreme Court upheld a decision by a Limassol district court not to extradite a Greek Cypriot wanted on tax fraud charges in the UK. The top court in the land found that the initial decision was correct, since the South Cypriot Constitution currently supersedes the EU acquis. The appeal to the Supreme Court to re-examine the case was made by the South’s Attorney-general’s office, which argues that the current state of affairs is an anomaly, given that South Cyprus is an EU member and therefore has an obligation to enforce the acquis. A clause in the Constitution expressly prohibits Cypriot citizens from being transferred abroad for prosecution. Legally speaking therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling followed the letter of the law and came as no surprise. Sources said the Attorney-general’s office knew they would probably lose the appeal, but used the case as an excuse to highlight the need to amend the Constitution. But allowing EU law to prevail over the South’s Constitution would have wider ramifications extending beyond the extradition of individuals. “The Supreme Court’s decision vindicates what parliament has been asking for a long time now,” said deputy Rikkos Erotocritou. “All along we’ve been saying the Constitution needed to be amended, but the government was dragging its feet. The Supreme Court’s decision was, therefore, to be expected.” Erotocritou is the legal counsel for Constandinos Constandinou, 41, wanted by British authorities in connection with a £10 million sterling VAT scam. The European arrest warrant for Constandinou was issued last September, but he evaded justice by first disappearing and then coming to the South Cyprus. His alleged accomplices are reportedly in custody. It is precisely because the South Cypriot Constitution is strict in these matters that the need to amend it has arisen. In neighbouring Greece, for example, the Supreme Court ruled in March that there was nothing contradictory about extraditing a Greek national wanted by Spanish authorities. Constandinou is the second South Cypriot citizen recently to hit the headlines for being wanted by foreign law enforcement. The other is Lycourgos Kyprianou, CEO of bankrupt Nasdaq-listed AremisSoft; he is considered a fugitive by the US authorities and is wanted there on charges of securities fraud and money laundering. The case has been described as one of the biggest stock market frauds of all time, with some 6,000 investors allegedly stripped of over $500 million.


 * I can produce news stories from India or the US or France or any other country that can depict this type of occurance. My point it that you cannot base your thoughts on one news story. If you are doing this as propaganda then stop. I can cite a National Geographic article on India which states that India still is struggling with the old caste system mentality today even though it was "offically" abolished when it gained independence. So by your logic, I should perhaps say that India fits the picture as a racist and discriminating country. You better realize that Cyprus as a democracy is struggling against forces that do not want it united and strong as a country should be. And a democracy it is struggling for the removal of all foreign elements that have tried to control it, namely Britain, Turkey and Greece. Jack Straw's comments and actions were denounced by the British Parliament my friend and as such they do not hold. The Cyprustales blog is full of anti-Cypriot propaganda. Please stop this crap.(UNFanatic

POV tag
It is still required. The history section does not even make mention of the 63-74 period where Turkish Cypriots were forced into enclaves. The article states Turkeys invasion was illegal, which is not true. The Treaty of Guarantee allowed for Turkey to invade to restore order. What is considered illegal is that Turkey stayed there. The history section also suggests that Turkey had ulterior motives by saying for example "Turkey invaded Cyprus by violating international laws by sea and air on 20 July, 1974, presenting the invasion as an act of protection for the island's 18% Turkish Cypriot minority" - this is a highly POV sentence. --A.Garnet 19:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Saddly, this entry seems to tow the southern ROC government line; it arguably exonerates the ROC, it excludes the Turkish Cypriots from the main picture and can be considered as biased against Turkey and, to a lesser degree, against Greece, hence it is a POV.Politis 15:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the post-independence section is an entirely Greek Cypriot account of history. Since it has been changed in such a one sided way, i'm going to put a totallydisputed tag on until a more impartial and accurate even of history is given. --A.Garnet 17:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Greek Cypriots & Immigration
EU citizens complain of racism in Cypus

OMBUDSWOMAN Eliana Nicolaou said yesterday she was investigating around 120 complaints of racism from Cypriots and foreigners filed over the past six months.

Nicolaou was speaking at a conference titled “Racism in the Media” to mark World Anti-Racism Day where she announced that her office would be taking on full responsibility for racism issues in the future.

Her new jurisdiction also gives her the power to investigate issues regarding gender equality in the workplace from both the public and the private sectors, including health care and education. Since new anti-racism legislation was passed last May, Nicolaou said she had received 120 or so complaints, the majority from EU citizens living in Cyprus who felt they had not been accorded equal rights resulting from the island’s accession to the bloc.

She said her new duties would also include research, collect statistics and monitor international developments and see how Cyprus is applying EU legislation. Nicolaou’s office will also be able to issue rulings and penalise offenders.

Nicolaou said an enlightenment campaign against racism and xenophobia was also being launched with several events lined up over the coming months.

Asked by reporters about the case of a Serbian family that was deported after 11 years in Cyprus, Nicolaou said she had given in her report to the Immigration Department recommending the deportation be reversed.

She said the woman was a nurse, and her husband a highly-skilled typographer, that their son had been born in Cyprus and as was integrated in school, and spoke only Greek. Neither did the family constitute a financial burden on society, she said.

Removal of POV tag
Recently there has been a lot of interference with this article. I appologize for my actions but I forgot that there were the other more in depth sections. I was trying to counter arguments that were being written in the body of this article, which now I have seen, did not belong in this article but in the other "sub-articles" as I call them. My arguments should have gone to the other articles in a better fashion. Finally, I am monitoring all these articles for Turkish POV and Greek POV and skillful literary remarks which quite frankly should be kept out (and as a corollary, I should not have added what I put because it was counter to something someone else tried to write in a POV way - as a point of honor and with my heart I apologize). (UNFanatic 21:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC))

UNFanatic: You are a better person for apologizing. However, it is not necessary. Your input is well appreciated, as it is debating and intelligent. It is unfortunate that World Citizen chooses to be so ignorant. Keep up the good work, UNFanatic! Rarelibra 8:47 21Mar06 (UTC)

Elections Are Legal in South Cyprus???
236,000 people were made "greek-cypriot" citizens since 1974;


 * Settlers from Greece                  100,000
 * Pontian Greeks                         70,000
 * Former-USSR citizens                   30,000
 * The Christians who escaped from Lebanon 20,000
 * Third World citizens who took refuge   10,000
 * Kurds who took refuge                   3,000
 * Armenians                               3,000

That application's target was to made Turkish Cypriots more minority in the island.Greeks always critisize North Cyprus in order to give citizenship who comes from Turkey.OK, i'm not denying that.TRNC citizenships were given even at the restaurants(it's over now) but their numbers are just 50,000.This number is %21 of TRNC, but it's %37 at south cyprus.So nobody has any right to critisize North Cyprus or Turkey at this point...

South Cyprus's president Papadopoulos who is an ex-EOKA terrorist and smuggler of Cypriot Bank says "Talat became leader by votes of who came from Turkey and that's illegal".Papadopoulos became leader by %51 votes(just as Bush).165,000 of those settlers used their votes for him.That's to say %35 of Greek-Cypriots used their votes for him.So is this legal? Inanna 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Inanna - you have a pretty good point there. Interesting thing is - by the loose definition of 'terrrorism' these days, most of the world leaders would qualify, if it weren't for their present positions. Rarelibra 5MAR06 UTC


 * Absolutely Inanna, i agree with you. South Cyprus has no right to criticise North especially TRNC President Talat having been elected as their leader only because Turkish settlers voted in favour of him. The fact is many Turkish settlers did not want a solution and opposed against Annan plan, so Papadopoulos claims are invalid. It is Papadopoulos who has won the elections through Pontian Greeks and former USSR citizens votes which should be in question. And the fact that Papadopoulos is a former EOKA member and people have actually voted for him to lead the country, is startling. As i said before, its the people who make the difference with an example of Berlin wall coming down. "World Citizen"


 * Agree rather interesting points. Given that the Greek Cypriots wanted the repratation of Turkish settlers as part of the reunification and they refuse to recognise Cypriots (born in Cyprus) of Turkish parents it's rather revealing... Nil Einne 18:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, in Cyprus and most EU countries (and probably most of the world with the US being a famous exception), citizenship at birth is not automatic even if one is born on that country's soil. At least one parent needs to be a citizen in order for the newborn to be a citizen. Therefore, by being born to non-Cypriots, babies born of Turkish settlers are not considered Cypriot, but the nationality of the parents, which is Turkish. The same would be true had the Turkish settlers delivered their baby in the United Kindgom. According to Cypriot authorities, Turkish Cypriots who now live in Turkey CAN give citizenship to their offspring by registering them as Cypriots. Ramallite (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is changing in the United States. It was originally set up to encompass all of the freed slaves who did not originate their citizenship in the US. It has since been abused, especially by Mexican citizens, to cross into the US illegally and then have a child to establish a 'foothold' for citizenship and residency. There is legislation proposed to incorporate a change in the law, so that any illegal who has a child will not have the 'citizenship at birth' right, only legal residents. Debate lies around both what to do with those in the country on visas (but not residing) and the fact that there is a 'voice of concern' among the hispanic population. Rarelibra 17:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Languages
By how much of the population Greek is spoken? How much do speak Turkish? It's not said. 亮HH

why don greek editors revert the pic. version ?
Well, I am waiting for your answer. We lived the same disscussion in Adana and all of you put the Adana massacre or rebelition. So I am here to ask you not to delete pic. It is not important whether you like or not, but it is true. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Because there are copyright implications - see Fair use. --Latinus 18:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to be funny ? --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Opening Turkish Airspace and Seaports to Greek Cypriots
South's President Tassos Papadopoulos hit back at comments made by Turkish Cypriot ‘foreign minister’ Serdar Denktash, saying Turkey’s opening of its ports and airspace to Cypriot vessels and planes is an obligation towards the EU and not a bargaining tool. He was responding to comments from Denktash, who initially said Turkey and the north would open their ports and airspace as “a gesture of goodwill”, before demanding there be a simultaneous lifting of restrictions on Turkish Cypriots in exchange. Papadopoulos said: “I will reiterate the position of the our government. Turkey’s obligation to open its ports and airspace to South Cypriot airliners and vessels is an obligation towards the EU. Turkey cannot demand exchanges for something that it is obliged to do.

Citing the above paragraph, I totally agree that Turkey should open its ports and airspace to Greek Cypriot side as it is under obligation after signing the protocol last year in order to join EU. But what i don't understand is why Greek Cypriots insist on using ports and airspace of Turkey who they say are the occupying forces of their country!!! Wouldn't it be a betrayal to their national interests using an occupying country's ports and airspace!!! As Turkey and North are willing to open them up as a gesture of goodwill, why is South Cyprus not extending the hand of peace in return!!! Any comments!!! "World Citizen"


 * I guess u know that Turkey does not recognises Cyprus.in fact,it's the only country that does not.apart from the economical reasons for the opening of turkey's ports and airspace, it would mean an direct recognition of the country's status by turkey.maybe that's why when Erdogan signed the protocol made a statement that this does not consist a formal recognition of the Republic of Cyprus. Peace cannot come from the one side only, and especially when the other side has troops consisting 1/5 of the population of the north. in any case turkey will open ports and airspace, and it won't be a gesture of good will,but an obligation of the protocol Erdogan signed. --Hectorian 13:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, ofcourse if Turkey wants to open ports and airspace, it will by its own will, not just because it has signed protocol. Like every other country in the world, if its interests are not met, Turkey similarly will pull out of EU membership race. It will not open ports to South and that is quite clearly stated by Turkey. If that happens, Turkey will never come to negotiation table ever. Then what happens!!! Will it be good for South Cyprus!!! Maybe thats what Greek Cypriot leadeship wants as it a known fact that Papadopoulos aspires no solution secretly.

"World Citizen"


 * If turkey wants to become an EU member, will have to fulfil its obligations.if not, she won't be an EU member.but lets be realistic...Turkey wants and needs to join the EU. before assuming what Papadopoulos thinks, better see why the Anan Plan was rejected.a solution based on democrasy will be the only surviving solution. --Hectorian 13:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In Asia or Europe?
Is it right to say that Cyprus is an Asian country? I think its more of an European than Asian. --Spartian 05:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Spartian - this has been discussed on the main page, and the revert edits occur frequently, of course. Geographically, Cyprus is on edge of where the Europe/Asia line could be drawn. Turkey has long been considered part of Asia, however, they are applying to join the EU and being considered (pending some changes - like pulling troops out of Cyprus). So that would make them on the border of Europe and Asia. Since Cyprus originated with Greece, it is only fair to state it as being a part of Europe IMHO. Rarelibra 05:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Geographically, Cyprus is in Asia and belongs to the Asian continent, no doubt about it. But if Turkey can aspire to join EU being in Asia, why would Cyprus not want to be part of the club, so it a member now (disputed one). Cyprus has majority Greek speaking population and apart from that reason, i don't see anything else being European about it. Greek Cypriots are totally different from Greeks in Greece. I feel EU is going beyond its territory to include Asian countries like Cyprus and Turkey. What next, Israel!!! "World Citizen"


 * Geographically most of Russia belongs to Asia, but noone calls Russia an asian country.this is not only a matter of geography.Cyprus is in europe when all the other characteristics are counted.u said : Greek Cypriots are totally different from Greeks in Greece...i will just consider it a joke...--Hectorian 13:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Get your facts right after consulting and referring, Hectorian, Russia is in Asian continent and will never be able to join EU club. It dosen't matter what people call it, its the facts that matter. And you can consider whatever you feel like, but the fact is Greek Cypriots are different from Greeks in Greece. To be very precise, they are Cypriots, dosen't matter Turkish or Greeks, having their own unique identity. "World Citizen"


 * I do not know whether Russia will ever join the EU or not,but it is a european country and perhaps u are the only who denies it.greek cypriots are greeks.that's what they say and that's what they are.they are as different from the pontian greeks as the pontians are different from the cretans and the peliponnesians from the thessalians(id est in a level within the ethnic group,not a seperate ethnic group). --Hectorian 14:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As i said Hectorian, we are talking about geography and not assumptions. And Cypriots, not greeks or turks make up Cyprus. We are living in 21st century, with country borders defined (some disputed) not ethnic groups..Don't try to bring Racism here...let Cypriots live peacefully as Cypriots and be proud of Cypriot identity. "World Citizen"


 * After reading the above comments, we have to approach this in a neutral tone. I see several things happening here with regards to Cyprus and geography - Greeks say that Cyprus is definitely in Europe, Turks say that Cyprus is definitely in Asia. The fact is, it is on the border of definition - a definition that has broadened enough to the point that Cyprus could be considered totally in Europe now. Non-Europeans would take that as a "eurocentric" domination approach, when really the EU is not about colonializism as much as economy now. The fact is, Cyprus (part of it, anyway) IS recognized by the EU (yes, the Greek part). Should Turkey gain membership to the EU, I'm sure the other part of Cyprus would then be recognized as well.


 * Would that mean that Cyprus could have a better chance of unification? Economically, maybe. But from what I have seen only here on the discussion page and from the malicious edits that occur (on BOTH sides), it seems that the Greeks want the Hellenistic approach to gain Cyprus, and Turkish pride wants the island for their interests. I'm sure the solution would be for the Turks to withdraw their troops, the Greeks to withdraw theirs, the British theirs, and for the UN to run the whole show until peace reigned in a few years. Just look at other regions of the world - Kosovo is a good example. The UN should simply state that neither Turkey NOR Greece deserve a say in the future of Cyprus. The Cypriots should have a referendum, vote on it, and live with the outcome - that is what democracy is all about. If they vote for unification, then lets unify the place and protect it while it grows. If they vote for division, then lets once and for all draw the lines and give the two pieces to Greece and Turkey and deal with the consequences.


 * That said, please understand, World Citizen, that Russia IS in Europe - Eastern Europe includes Poland, Belarus, Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and part of Russia. As does Asia include part (Russia is known as a "EuroAsian" country). Because the continents really are attached, it is growing more difficult to define where one begins and one ends. Modern-day geographers refer to it as ONE continent (Eurasia). To debate if it is a good or bad thing for Russia to have membership in the future is not for this discussion forum. Now it seems that the definition will include Eastern Europe including Turkey.


 * Mentioning Israel smacks of anti-semite tone, so be very careful, World Citizen. Rarelibra 15:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My intentions are not aimed at anti-semitism, but the country as such. But why would Israel be treated any different as an occupying country like Turkey, England,Pakistan,China and so on. Lets stick to Cyprus please. "World Citizen"


 * I just asked a simple question and got such complicated replies. The article should mention in which continent Cyprus lies geographically. Continent is more of a geographic term than a cultural or political one. Geographically Cyprus lies in Asia while it has been culturally close to Europe. Russia is a different case all together. 1/3 of Russia i.e. the part of Russia west of the Urals is in Europe while the rest comes in Asia. Cyprus is relatively much smaller and this entire dispute about in which continent it lies is ridiculous. I think the article should mention that Cyprus is a small island in Asia. Geographically, Cyprus is much closer to Turkey, Syria and Lebanon than it is to Greece. How about saying that Cyprus is a Transcontinental country. The article should mention in the intro-para in which continent or Subregion Cyprus actually lies in. --Spartian 15:58, 28 March 2006


 * Spartian - that is the whole point, though. IF Turkey ends up joining the EU, by sheer definition it will be considered a part of Europe. That would mean that Cyprus, too, would also be a part of Europe. One could consider the "start" of Asia in the middle east at Israel/Lebanon/Syria. So the definition will always be debatable. Consider this - why is Malta considered part of Europe and not Africa? Surely, it is geographically closer to Africa. But by definition, Malta is part of Europe (probably because of colonialism). Thus, Cyprus is part of Europe as well. Rarelibra 16:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you mixing up EU with Europe. EU is more of a political and economic organisation. Asian Development Bank has UK as its member, that doesn't mean UK is in Asia. Wait for 50 years, you will see India and Japan joining the EU. Anyways, my whole point is that the article should mention in which continent Cyprus lies, be it Asia or Europe or both. --Spartian 16:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not 'mixing up' anything. The EU is the EUROPEAN Union, thus, "India and Japan" will not be able to join (or Israel, or Iran, etc) - PERIOD. They have a base currency (the "Euro"), they have an open-border agreement, and they have a joint economic base. Not all of the members use the Euro or have open borders, but thus they ARE part of "Europe". The Asian Development Bank has no relation to the EU - if Asia started an "Asia Union" and pushed to have a common currency, open borders, etc then it would be similar.


 * Geographically, Cyprus is close enough to be in Southwest Asia (most middle-eastern countries), the UN describes Cyprus as a "Mediterranean island", and it is said that "many Greek-speaking Cypriots assert that they are a part of Europe mainly due to the fact that the majority of its inhabitants are of European extraction and as such are both culturally and politically closer to Europe than Asia. Historically, Cyprus has always been a bridgehead between Europe and Asia, with interchanging periods of Levantine, Anatolian and Greek influences." So like I said, the definition is CHANGING - especially with part of Cyprus being a part of the EU. Rarelibra 17:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. So, Cyprus is a Bicontinental nation like Turkey, Russia and Panama. Why not mention that Cyprus is a Bicontinental nation? Saying that Cyprus lies in the Mediterranean Sea doesn't say much about Cyprus' cultural and geographic links and doesn't answer the obvious question: Is Cyprus an Asian or European country? --Spartian 21:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Bicontinental" is a good word to use. Look above - I mentioned modern-day geographers refer to "Eurasia" as ONE continent. FYI - Panama is not "bicontinental". Technically, you have North America, Latin America, and South America. But then others will argue that latin American covers ALL of the mid- to South American countries.


 * Cyprus is geographically an Asian country (Southwest Asia). Culturally it is a EUROPEAN country. Because of the influence, the geographical definition is changing and Cyprus is more-and-more considered a European country. Rarelibra 21:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Panama is the same case as Cyprus. Panama lies in Northern America while culturally it lies in Southern America. FYI- There is no continent called Latin America. It can be considered as a subregion of the Americas.


 * Cyprus is more-and-more considered a European country - so you mean to say Cyprus is actually drifting towards Europe? Anyways, does anyone mind if I include the sentence "Cyprus is Bicontinental country" in the intro-para? Thanks --Spartian 22:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said there was a continent called Latin America. Yes, Panama lies on what is defined as North America and is culturally South America (actually is culturally LATIN American). The Americas include a number of countries in both North and South America. But I think that it is proper to put a bicontinental definition on the intro-para, if need be. Rarelibra 22:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * See Transcontinental nation. The section doesn't say much about the status of Cyprus. Anyone interested? --Spartian 02:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Cognizant of ongoing discussions, I've revised the article lead to correctly embrace the geographic/cultural duality of Cyprus: as these discussions demonstrate, it is of Eurasia. Also note that added details are in the geography section of the article, particularly notations that the island is/was a crossroads having varied European, Asian, and African influences. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Eurasia is a much better term. Cheers --Spartian 04:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Cyprus is the 'crossroad' of 3 continents: Asia, Europe, Africa. Since it's an island you can't just solely add it in the territorry of 2. If i'm not mistaken each country has some nautical miles in sea to claim as its own, and Cyprus shares in the north an area in the Mediterranean sea.


 * Believe me, I considered noting Eurafrasia(n) instead; however, it is a rarely used term to describe the three continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa collectively. I stand by the current version: African influences, though substantial in Cyprus previously, have been far superceded by the other two in modernity.  And even though it is at a metaphorical crossroads of the three, Cyprus is geographically approximate to the Asian/Eurasian mainland (thus, it's accurate); similarly, rarely is Cyprus considered African (though I don't deny that it might be).  Moreover, the current version is an apparently agreeable compromise with support herein.  I hope this makes sense; thanks.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverts
Rarelibra,I will take your threat as a joke:)...I am aware of the rules.i had a discussion with the user who made the changes. I have no problem in saying that Cyprus is geographically in Asia, cause this is the truth and no one denies it. I still cannot see what is your problem...but do not challege me in a revert-war, cause the 3RR aplies to you too... also, about the 'tenuous African roots' of Cyprus, i guess this goes to the Ptolemaic period. Fine by me, as long as it is well worded and not POVish. --Hectorian 03:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't a threat - the 3RR will be something to hold users to - including you. Something that we all need to be reminded of, especially after recent events. My point was that it was discussed and, yet, you chose to immediately revert it. Cheers to E Pluribus Anthony for such a great wording and approach. Rarelibra 04:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * E Pluribus Anthony, did a good job indeed.but Cyprus article is yet to be 'done'. it is not a featured article yet, so be patient... Regards --Hectorian 05:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your praise. Now, I will proceed to move/add distance details from the intro (save for generalities) to the geo sxn.  And let's remember that we needn't throw in the kitchen sink in the intro ... particularly when a subarticle exists for that very purpose.  Merci!  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Learn Greek if you want residency says South Cyprus
NON-EU Nationals will have to demonstrate a “sufficient” knowledge of the Greek language and of Cypriot history and culture to secure long-term residency in the Cyprus Republic, according to a government proposed plan in implementing a European Directive on non-EU national residency rights. But immigrant support groups such as KISA have spoken out against the plan, which they consider a thinly veiled effort to deport the maximum number of immigrants since few of them will be able to meet the requirements of the plan. In the government’s proposed plan, foreigners seeking long-term residency will have to fulfil one of the following conditions among others: 3) Have a “sufficient” knowledge of the Greek language Concerns have been voiced that in its demands of non-EU nationals to have a “sufficient knowledge” of the Greek language and of Cypriot history and culture, the government will be able to turn away large numbers of people, since the word “sufficient” is open to interpretation.

According to the Cyprus Republic Constitution adopted on: 16 Aug 1960, there are two official languages under Article 3, Greek and Turkish. So based on this Constitution, it is total violation and an illegal act of Greek Cypriot administration to implement such a rule asking non-EU nationals to have sufficient knowledge of just Greek language to gain residency under the pretext of implementing European directive. I hope EU is watching this discriminatory and illegal act and will take steps to stop it. The fact that a country (Cyprus here) seeks to impose their language (just one language as opposed to two) to whoever (Non-EU nationals) wishes to apply for residency is absolute violation of human rights. Any comments my fellow Wikipedia users!!! "World Citizen"


 * Due to the sheer background of the nation, they should just teach BOTH languages to the young kids in school and be done with it. Otherwise they'll make the same mistake as the US - primarily English speaking nation with a huge Spanish speaking majority (the US should teach English AND Spanish to young kids in school). Rarelibra 13:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you haven't noticed, this is a page about Cyprus, not Cyprus constitutional problems nor Cyprus dispute page. But you're forcing me to comment: Cyprus is NOT United States! And please, stop globalising your American problems and compare other countries with US. It is pointless, since every country has different people and different problems. If you want to, go make a separate article i see no point of continuing this discussion in here. As for the turkish language, FYI it was implented and taught (voluntarily in a language package) in schools 4 years ago if i remember well. --www.doc 00:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you haven't noticed, but your pinhead comments don't contribute to the overall good, nor to the conversation. Go ahead and be that way and single me out, but it was a discussion - one that World Citizen would have let me know if he had a problem with it. He and I have a cool understanding now, unlike your idiot comments. I was making an example of what not to do for Cyprus. If you want, go and next time read more on assuming good faith and pipe down your comments. Rarelibra 02:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well you're leaving too much open hotpoints. And nor has your 1st comment answered World Citizen's question. Turkish cypriots were considered a minority (15-20% of the population); I don't know now, the turkish settlers and the rest of the foreigners must have changed the numbers. Would US accept to be ruled by a minority? It always depends on how the demographic charts flow. And what good would it do if they teach our kids the turkish language? The turkish side is flooded with beautiful remnants of past greek history. And most of them are left to rot. They don't care more or less than Greek Cypriots about the situation.
 * As for World Citizen's case, there are courts of human rights where he can apply and file a complaint against the government for being conservative and unwelcome to foreigners and foreign diplomas. I surely encourage him to do that. Maybe they're doing this to keep the unemployment levels low. There are already a lot of EU residents flooding the island, Cyprus might have unemployment problems in the following years.
 * Finally, I believe that there are other human rights more important than a language abuse (doesn't make it ok though),that are already violated in Cyprus, for example going freely to wherever I want on cypriot soil. And since the invation I can't go pass the green line. Now they make you pay a fee for "car insurance" and a get a stamp on your passport, hence recognizing the existence of a different republic (I never crossed the green line, I'm waiting for this political scenario to end). Now, since the republic itself is being violated I regard its normal to have conservative laws. --www.doc 05:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Coming straight to the point, a country follows the constitution...not what population ratio is based on. When the Republic was created, it gave all the rights to each community and was agreed upon by all parties. It is the Greek Cypriots who wanted to change many things in the constitution for their own benefit that has caused all these problems. That is the fact, no point in trying to explain it was a complicated setup...it was agreed by all parties including Greek Cypriots. So irrespective of minority or majority, Turkish Cypriots had rights including learning one official language, Turkish. And here everyone seems to forget that there is a tiny Turkish Cypriot population still living in South (being treated like second class citizens) and they have the right to learn Turkish language. And sradevic, seems to conveniently forget that there is a Greek Cypriot school opened in Karpas area for Greek Cypriots students unlike the Greek Cypriots who are still dragging their feet to open Turkish school in the South, infact they are being taken to court for not doing so. Suppose if we accept your point of view and say what good will it do, a minority language in South, the same can be applied to Greek Cypriots living in Karpas area, and shut down the Greek Cypriot school because they are a minority!!! right sradevic!!!


 * Regarding EU residents flooding Cyprus, you seem to have forgotten that when Cyprus entered EU, it becomes EU territory and hence EU residents have the right to move in. Don't forget, hundreds of Greek Cypriots moved to UK even before Cyprus was a EU member. Greek Cypriots need every gimmick in the book to keep non-EU nationals as they like to keep their grip on the power and keeping intact the Greek superiority(Racism).


 * And talking about crossing the line, the same rules apply to people who cross from North, they have to pay car insurance and show their id...and the reason the both sides do it is for verification. Have a broadmind and cross the line, maybe you will see how beautiful Cyprus is. Just because humans draw a line, the country dosen't change colour or shape..it is still the same old Cyrus, my dear.

"World Citizen"


 * "It was agreed by all parties including Greek Cypriots" - Name me one country (Cyprus) that the persons (British) who bought them in the past (from the Turks) practically gave them the constitution. There wasn't anything to agree on. The constitution had flaws, both sides admit that. For example, having a vice-president that can vote for veto on any subject, anytime. This action created problems. Both the president and vice-president could create a chaos by applying vetos. That was one thing the greek side wanted to change. I'm not saying Turkish Cypriots are to be blamed entirely. Each side had done some of the worst things a man could ever imagine. But being controlled by a constitution given by foreigners was the source of the problem. Can you deny that?


 * I don't deny it because all the constitutions in the world are never satisfying any one or all the parties, but the best part of democracy is, everyone compromises and agrees to one single constitution, which happened in case of Cyprus. If you look at the track record, it was always Greek Cypriots who put forward proposals that were vetoed by Turkish Cypriots, not the other way. And Greek Cypriots were the one who were frustrated and wanted the changes so that with it being the majority in the house, can actually dictate terms to Turkish Cypriots. If it was so unbalanced as you put it, why didn't Turkish Cypriots complain about Greek Cypriots vetoing every proposal put forward by Turkish Cypriots! "World Citizen"
 * "all the constitutions in the world are never satisfying" - you've just made my point: a constitution can't make everyone happy. "everyone compromises and agrees to one single constitution" - I didn't check, but I don't think they made a referendum back in 1960 for voting the new constitution. Don't get me started about the new referendum and its 'black holes',because I simply that is done, and denied (thank god). "vetoed by Turkish Cypriots" - Don't you think it's unfair putting it like that? Maybe Greek Cypriots didn't have a neutral POV, but what about Turkish Cypriots? Everyone looks for their own interest. "who were frustrated and wanted the changes" - They wanted changes to make the system work, not to declare and start a dispute. And I don't think you're historically correct. Both sides were exercising vetoes: "The Turkish-Cypriots had also vetoed the amalgamation of Turkish-Cypriot and Greek-Cypriot troops into the same units." (That's a Turkish Cypriot website I think). Also look @ comment about neutral POV before. - "didn't Turkish Cypriots complain...Greek Cypriots vetoing every proposal" - So, by exercising counter-vetoes on some actions, they didn't complain? Get real. And read more at the site i posted earlier. --www.doc 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The proposed constitutional changes were rejected not just by the Turkish Cypriots, but also by Turkey . Greece supported Makarios on the unworkability of the Constitution. - In the general article on that site they made it look like Greek Cypriots wanted a separation, but they actually pinpointed the real problem: Foreign countries butting in with their interests. --www.doc 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And having a constitution with flaws is what Greek Cypriots had tried to change. Maybe they were unfair, I haven't lived during those days and frankly I don't know what happened exactly. If you ask older persons, G.Cs or T.Cs you won't get a neutral POV.
 * "Have a broadmind and cross the line" - My mind is very broad. In fact, check this page. I wrote that. I never said I hate Turkish Cypriots ;) I hate the situation foreign countries brought us into.
 * And I'm serious about going to the EU court of human rights. Instead of placing arguements here, why don't you simply sue the government?


 * I can't sue the Cyprus government because i live in the North and Turkish Cypriots don't ask me to learn Turkish to grant me residency. But i hope the non-EU nationals will take action. "World Citizen"
 * Turkish Cypriots had a referendum (of their own) for the TRNC constitution (Check under Cyprus) by their own, and not guided by (excuse my language) lame suggestions, like Annan's.
 * So you payed for housing to live on soil that might be practically owned by someone else (Cypriot of any kind)? Did they give you a passport with that as a gift? The Republic of Cyprus doesn't need to provide personal reason for attraction of foreign citizens. And the 2nd generation rights are practically ensure different members of the citizenry equal conditions and treatment. "I can't sue the Cyprus government because i live in the North" - Who said that? --www.doc 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, how many languages do you know? 18 my dear as i come from India (Answer by World Citizen) Is it really that bad learning foreign languages? Learning by interest is good, not by force. (Answer by World Citizen). Noone forced you to come and live in Cyprus. (Reply by www.doc) I know 4, well 5 if you count latin I'm currently studying. I'm not saying that by forcing foreign non-EU persons is a nice thing to do, but does it really hurt that bad? Every country has its flaws, Cyprus has a government that is run by paperwork and politicians older than my grandma. We could really use a change in all this. That's why I encourage you to go and protest against this, if you strongly believe it is against human rights. Every country makes its own rules, e.g. I think killers can run away in Mexico, right? (I'm not sure, I'm asking) If so, wouldn't that be against human rights? --www.doc 14:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Next time please include that you answered the questions, it looks as if I'm talking on my own. --www.doc 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know either, but like i say to many users here, we are talking about Cyprus, not any other country, stick to it, please. And republic of Cyprus is run by Greek Cypriots, point-blank...never ever will they share the power. Think about it, throughout modern history of Cyprus, it is always Greek Cypriots who wanted to assert their superiority. Greek Cypriots should be greatful to Turkish Cypriots for the Ottomans helped revive Greek orthodox presence on the island afterall rather than trying to treat them as second class citizens calling them a minority. "World Citizen"
 * "not any other country, stick to it, please" - You miss the point: So murdering other people is a human right? Or is your personal right that you want a job here more important than human lives? I know we're talking about Cyprus, but I think a constitution is prioritized by "fundamental rights and liberties", and I don't think forcing someone to learn Greek is a torture ;) They forced you to learn English to be able to talk with anyone globally.
 * Greek Cypriots should be grateful to Turkish Cypriots for the Ottomans helped revive Greek orthodox presence - It is a disgrace to even think that or I misjudged your point. First you compare a friendly minority with a hostile and greedy Ottoman Empire. Secondly, the Ottoman Empire did a bit more than 'reviving' orthodox presence; yes, it did make christianity stronger, but are you willing to give your child to be a yenitsar body (forcefully muslimised non-ottoman babies)?. And thirdly, Turkish Cypriots were guided by Turkey to lead in the separation. So were the Greek Cypriots by the Greek Government: Radio announced that the Greek Government rejected them completely"0-"Athens Radio announced that the Greek Government rejected them completely"0comment.htm "Athens Radio announced that the Greek Government rejected them completely". Greek Cypriots should be thankful for the "1974 coup and invasion"


 * To sum up, I believe you have the right for a trial to the European Court of Justice. And take it there instead of making comments without citing. Again, this is not the page to talk about this. If you want, you can make an article that actually has a basis. I think I explained the right of the Republic of Cyprus of addressing it in either Greek or Turkish. Oh and "sufficient" means recognized with a diploma of Ordinary level or locally approved colleges/persons ;) --www.doc 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed it a bit.
I've changed the brief info and set is as "general". I've also added a subtopic "tourism" in Cyprus, since it is a tourist attraction


 * I'm restoring the prior format, the structure of which is supported by the Wp country wikiproject. Please make edits within the framework or discuss major changes and garner consensus before implementing them. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, sorry. There's so much forereading that I missed some :)

Proposed changes
"Terminology" is such a vast term. I'd prefer "Nominal derivation". And as for the term Eurasia, it's not correct, at least for this island.

I'd recommend the 'head' text to be set in a place of its own and to implement this:


 * Cyprus is the third largest island located in the extreme eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. Its neighbouring countries are Greece (from the mainland, 800 km; 497 miles), Turkey (65 km; 40 miles), Syria (100 km; 62 miles), Lebanon (108 km; 67 miles) and Egypt (360 km; 223 miles).
 * The island is divided into four sectors: the southern Republic of Cyprus, the unrecognised Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the British Sovereign Bases, and the United Nations-controlled Green Line. The southern Republic of Cyprus (Greek: Κύπρος, Kýpros; Turkish: Kıbrıs; see also List of traditional Greek place names) represents the original island nation.

Mind you, the distance numbers might be wrong, if anyone can suggest them proper and 100% sure about it, I'd be grateful. --www.doc 02:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Sradevic, how about YOU open up a copy of Google Earth or MapPoint and measure for yourself. We have tried and tried until we are blue in the face - and who are you, anyway? What makes you the authority over "100% sure" for the distance? I'm 100% sure that you need to take a map reading course and use a ruler. Rarelibra 02:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I just measured it, and Cyprus is 65 miles West of Syria, 285 miles East from the farthest Greek island, 40 miles South of the coast of Turkey, and 235 miles North of Africa. Rarelibra 03:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Rarelibra, I didn't say the measurements already posted are wrong nor have I ever critisized them and surely i haven't implied that I'm an authority of any kind. I'm a just a native Cypriot that likes his country to have a nice wikisite.
 * I meant the distance measurements I posted on the suggestion above, not the ones on the current site. I was asking for someone expert to do a kind gesture to answer or even find out in his/her free time, a plea if that's what they call it. If you think yourself as an expert in the field of Geography then you could've just said so, instead of critizing someone you don't know. Truth is twosided and my mind is multisided :) I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough on the post. --www.doc 03:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. This revised lead, however, is not an improvement on the current one: it's unclear and too detailed.  First, it's unclear if Cyprus is the third largest island in the eastern Mediterranean or in the sea's totality.  Moreover, as above, the distance details should be moved to the Geography section of the article or subarticle, not placed in the introduction where it's excessive: the intro should be summative, not atomic.


 * Britannica and several other official sources list Cyprus as the third largest island in the Mediterranean. The list of sizes includes Sicily as the largest, Sardinia as 2nd largest, Cyprus as 3rd largest, Corsica as 4th largest, and Crete as 5th largest. Rarelibra 03:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not debating that, but the sentence above is unclear to that point. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Cyprus is an island in the Mediterranean Sea, the third biggest in Meditteranean Sea" - That's in Geography of Cyprus, I guess it should be debated there. --www.doc 03:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You misinterpret. To clarify: the grammar of the proposed sentence (which differs from the above) is imprecise and the syntax unclear; reword. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * *laughs* It's funny how the whole meaning changes. It should be something like: Cyprus, the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea, is located in the extreme eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea.
 * Yes: better, but not ideal yet. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I know, repeating "Mediterranean Sea" doesn't look so good. Final try (for now): Cyprus, an acritic eastern Meditteranean island, is considered to be the third largest one in the Meditteranean sea. --www.doc 05:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Acritic" is too esoteric, and unclear, for a general audience. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, regarding the current version: any compendium will yield that usage of Eurasia in this context is correct, so saying it's not is a non-starter; please cite otherwise. Anyhow, I'll tweak the intro shortly.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Eurasia is just fine, and Cyprus definitely qualifies for that description. Rarelibra 02:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

As above, I've made some changes/enhancements to the introduction and geography sections. Distance details have been moved to the latter; the figures (save for Lebanon) have been derived from the Cypriot government and Greek embassy websites. The parenthetical refs can be tweaked (too many?), though. Anyhow, there you go! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've since added all the extra distance details to the Geography of Cyprus subarticle and, thus, removed all but the closest territorial distance from the same section in this article. This isn't a huge thing, however, so feel free to restore the prior version is this is disagreeable.  Thanks!  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice change.
"with lengthy periods of mainly Greek and intermittent Anatolian, Levantine, and British influences" - uhm there were influences on behalf of the Venetians,who fortified Nicosia, and the Franciscans. There are is some brief historic info here --www.doc


 * Thanks! Add if necessary (I'm ambivalent); however, we should probably note major influences only in this, what is supposed to be, overview article; remember, it's the geography section, and these seem more apt of culture or history.  The article is just straddling the recommended max article size (and in its current state, is efficient and readable).  Thus, more details regarding influence should be pruned, moved, or improved upon in other sections or (definitely) dedicated subarticles.  My two ... cents/euros? :)  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well ok, I believe that the major influences were from the intermittent Anatolian, Levantine, the Greeks, the Venetians, the Franciscans and the Ottoman Empire (in that order). The British didn't add anything from their culture. I'll look into it a bit more and suggest a change after a small research. We could add the US for "Mcdonalisation" *laughs* just kidding! --www.doc 15:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That is why I married a European! I'll be the first to admit that the US has no culture - what do you classify, pizza? tv? football? pepsi? Americans fool themselves into thinking they are the "best" and then fail every time to learn from other cultures. That is why, with my lack of culture, I am always trying to learn about more cultures. Rarelibra 22:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * American pie huh?:) America has had some great historic moments, marked points if you want, no one can deny that. But I also think that America has no culture of its own, it's multicultured. Which is great, in Cyprus you won't get to interact with so many people of different countries/cultures/customs, Cypriots are very friendly but they're 'closed' as far as family is in question. Cyprus has.. well um it has something!:) I'm no expert but it has taken bits from a lot of cultures, which is very visible in its unique Cypriot dialect. The bad thing about a multicultured country is that there's not much school time to teach children about all the cultures present in their environment, I mean teaching them as a whole. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the time they quickly browse through the essentials and fast forward, hence such countries lack of knowledge. Unless they're really interested and open a book, they end up spending rich daddy's money :\
 * All and all, I personally like what America represents, freedom, and the great persons in history that emerged in that freedom, but I think some politicians, or whoever's the big kahuna there, started to misinterpret the word make in the phrase "to make peace". I mean look what happened to Belgrade :\ I might even take some photos to see the damages done, not to mention some babies suffering from teratism (studying medicine, it's really painful for me to see this increase of 5%). And for what? For a handful of persons that made 'war crimes'. They brought down the economy to sub zero here. They increased the crime & corruption up to 500%. Am I missing the point of this peace? American leaders really started to misinterpret their power over other countries. I wonder if it'll end as the Empires of old time heh. And forgive me for the long paragraphs :p --www.doc 03:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well stated. I like the way the article is written. :) Rarelibra 19:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Major influences is so broadened.. what am I supposed to look at? Historic remnants? Language? Behaviour? Culture? Demographic alteration?

Shouldn't there be some kind of warning in front of the webpage? That they're not allowed to change the content without talking about it in frontpage? :\ Oh and this needs changing: "The third largest island in the Mediterranean, it is currently divided into four main portions..." -> doesn't make sense. wouldn't it be better: "It is the third largest island in the Mediterranean, which is currently divided into four main portions" --www.doc 02:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of style: the current version makes sense (since the second sentence directly follows the first concerning "it" (the island) already) and doesn't need changing. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone changed the main page to "President yeah" and surprisingly enough forgot to close the ]] link. I also took the liberty of removing the thompson beach link since it's considered spam. Government's link is simply enough as it is, right? Or at least change it to something less "sales-like" --www.doc 11:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Um something wrong in this: (Asia Minor, or modern-day Turkey) - The whole phrase shows somehow that Asia Minor was a country of some sort, although it is the geographical location where most of Turkey sits nowadays. I don't know how to change it, but i think it needs rephrasing :) --www.doc 22:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Muy bien ;) Wish I was fluent in English.. like you two guys :\ --www.doc 01:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
User:Globo is inserting anti-TRNC content into Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (diff). I'm not sure about the neutrality of his edits, so if you're interested in the topic, please come and join the discussion. -- ran (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus history
I am making a school project on Cyprus. I am now looking for more information on this subject. So far I used the site http://en.ayianapa.nu and the history there was good (it was in swedish?? but as I understand some Swedish it was ok) but I am not sure this facts was correct and I need more. I am looking for suggestions where I can find more facts then here and at that site?

(By the way http://en.ayianapa.nu was also very helpful and sent some emails with more information.)