Talk:Cyprus/Archive 5

Different "Military" Image Required
Under the "Military" section, please can someone replace the image of a US marine helicopter (captioned oddly "The US embassy in Cyprus") with something more directly related to the Cyprus National Guard? Occamy 14:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Southwestern Asia
Can someone please clean up for me the confusion between Southwest Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Central Eurasia, all of which regions seem to include Cyprus. Is one or both of these articles incorrect? Or are all these areas overlapping? Or is it something else? Thanks Vizjim 08:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus culturally belongs to Europe, geographically it's south-eastern Europe or western Asia, any of the two. But politically and generally, Cyprus is the southeastern border of Europe.Nikosextra 12:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus is not and never has been geographically a part of Europe under any definition. It is a part of Asia (the Middle East, or South-East Asia), historically and currently. Europe is not a political entity so I dont see the context to claim it is politically a part of anything larger, the EU is not a political entity (at least not yet). And to say it is culturally a part of Europe is to ignore the large Turkish population in the north which have set up their own republic and since Turks are from Asia that would put them culturally as Asians. To say it's part of Europe is simply cosmetic to make Cyprus appear better because of the stigma associated with being from the Middle East (or Southeast Asia as more commonly used nowadays but which leaves out Egypt). 24.182.142.254 (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment
I am new at this, so please forgive me if I don't enter my comments in the correct way. After reading various iterations of this article, I still question the term "styling itself". Why not use the simpler phrase "calling itself"? "Styling itself" carries POV connotations that are not necessary. There is nothing gained by hinting that the TRNC government is playing at pretense or dressing itself up. If "calling itself" is too weak, then further clarification can be added without using loaded terminolgy. I could suggest "calling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (although recognized by no nation other than the Republic of Turkey)." Saraalan 01:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Given no replies, I made the change and removed the loaded terminology. Saraalan 04:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Section cleanup
In reference to the responses I have been receiving after tagging this section for cleanup, my rationale is quite simple. In addition to the overall cleanup temp at the top of the page, this section has no sub-headings and really, to be honest, needs some smaller text in bolder referring to the next paragraph. At the moment, the section looks like an essay and is really quite simple to fix by the people who do actually know what they're talking about. And seen as I don't know much about post-war independence in Cyprus, I'd appreciate someone who does to add further sub-headings. You can do so by adding ====Sub-section heading====. Also one more thing this section would also benefit from sub-section headings. Thanks. Onnaghartl ! co 15:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The 13 amendments and subsequent intercommunal violence
Stylistic editing of this section has been the most difficult so far. The timeline of the previous version had the 4 March 1964 Security Council resolution sending the peacekeeping force, followed by other factors that precipitated the 4 March 1964 Security resolution sending the peacekeeping force, so I tried to straighten that out. Please let me know of any issues or problems with my editing. Thanks. Saraalan 01:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what happened between 1965 and 1974? Thanks, Saraalan 02:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Weasel phrase alert
Some smart ass had written the following in the beginning of the second paragraph of the main article: "Greek military junta and genocide against Turkish Cypriots of that period,". The claim that Greeks committed a genocide against the Turks is ludicrous, to say the least, and I will not even go into who has committed what genocides over the past aeon. In short, I removed the offending text so it reads "Greek military junta". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.4.62 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like a simple case of vandalism by User:Aslanerh, who has no other edits. Thanks for reverting. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 23:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Invasion (1974)
This section of the Cyprus article includes the phrase, "In the process over 160,000 Greek Cypriots who made up the overwhelming majority of the population of these areas were ethnically cleansed." The term "ethnically cleansed" is unclear, as is the fate of the 160,000 persons. The Sunday Times article referenced discusses mass killings (as well as the torture and rape) of Greek Cypriots and says that 170,000 persons became refugees, unable to return to their homes in the north.

Given this, I would prefer to say something like, "In the process, large numbers of Greek Cypriots were victims of mass killings, and 170,000 were evicted from their homes and forced to move to Greek Cypriot-held territory."

If "were victims of mass killings" is too strong or considered unsupported, then perhaps "lost their lives".

This proposed change is an attempt to clarify and not to change content. Please let me know if you have any issues with this proposed change. Thanks, Saraalan 03:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Given no response, I have made the change as outlined. Saraalan 02:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction issue
The fourth paragraph sort of makes it sound like the U.K. bases are not de jure, while the bullet says the U.K. maintained jurisdiction, which would seem to be de jure. I'm not sure how that could be fixed without some clumsy language, but I may be able to come up with something. If you have thoughts regarding this, please let me know. Thanks, Saraalan 04:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Change made with minor change to the wording. Please let me know if you don't think this is satisfactory. Thanks, Saraalan 16:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Gini Coefficient
After a lot of search I have finally found the Gini Coefficient for Cyprus. It stood at 29 at 2004 which is very good since the optimum is considered to be 25 (?) Please add it.

Link: http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/3FF386B73F87AF46C22572F00028C49D/$file/EUSILC_05.pdf?OpenElement   (In greek) User:WhiteMagick 11:40 16 Oct 2007 (GMT)


 * I started to do that, but decided to leave it to someone who is more invested in this article than I am. I don't think that this info belongs in the Economy section unless it is mentioned in that WP:SS article, and the info may not fit in there.  Outside of that section, I didn't see a natural home for the info in this article. Incidentally, my understanding is that it is  "gini index" when expressed as a percentage. -- Boracay Bill 11:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think is a valid enough resource for the Gini coefficient for Cyprus, which stands at 29. http://www.poverty.org.uk/L14/a.pdf User:WhiteMagick 01:09 14 April 2008 (GMT)

English language in Cyprus
The article states that the English language is widely spoken & understood all over Cyprus, exactly to which extent is it spread (ie - are textbooks in schools in the English language) and is there any chance in the future that it may be adopted as a third official language? - Soprani 09:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Textbooks, no, but quite a few government documents, work contracts from most large companies, street signs, labels in supermarkets and fourni, etc, all are in both Greek and English. There are two English-language newspapers and numerous English-language magazines.  There's also a very large population of British ex-pats who have only the most rudimentary command of Greek, and the workers from Eastern Europe and the Indian sub-continent usually communicate with their employers in English.  Although, given that my Greek is still awful, I'd like to see English established as a third language thus recognising the de facto situation on the ground, I very much doubt it will ever happen (unless there's a two-state solution and Turkish stops being the second official language). Vizjim 03:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Somebody placed English as an official language which is wrong. I will remove it by tomorrow! User:WhiteMagick 00:20 27 February 2008


 * I think english language is established as an official language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.101.218 (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not an official language in the constitution of the Republic. User:WhiteMagick 01:08 14 April 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction location issue
Given the changes over time to the introductory wording about location, I have attempted to clarify the location of Cyprus in a manner similar to other island country articles (see Malta and Jamaica) and tie the opener to the geography section of the article as well as to the Geography of Cyprus article. Looking at a map, Cyprus is in the corner of the Mediterranean surrounded by Turkey, Syria, and Lebanon, so I think those would be the best reference points. Please let me know if you see any problem with the wording. Thanks, Saraalan 01:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. I considered using the phrase "geographically part of the Middle East while politically more a part of Europe", but I decided to use "European Union" instead. I'm interested in what others think about this. Thanks, Saraalan 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said elsewhere, I see little sense in cluttering up the opening paragraph with these details when there's a map next door, but clearly given the political history it would be more tendentious to give only Turkey as a reference point. Therefore, I will support your wording. Vizjim 12:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking at the entry on Malta, it seems that such triangulating countries is indeed standard. Vizjim 12:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, though shouldn't it be "geographically part of Asia"? The Middle East is more a cultural/historical/political than a geographic entity. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've fudged it to "Eurasia". Europe isn't technically a separate continent, but to describe Cyprus as Asian would seem ludicrous: hopefully anyone following the link will be able to discern that this is one of those odd cases that fall through the faultlines of Europe (political entity), Asia (political entity) and Eurasia (continent). Vizjim 14:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it works. What does everyone else think? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted this verbosity. Fudging and unsourced opinionating aside, recent edits have merely added unnecessary, redundant, even misleading details and have the potential of further politicising the introduction. Debatably, Cyprus isn't part of the Middle East (see that article); as well, some sources identify Cyprus as part of Europe (which is commonly reckoned as a continent, technically or otherwise), perhaps because Cyprus is a member of the EU (which, with the prior edit, is now duplicated in the introduction.) Physiographically, not geographically (which is rather general), Cyprus is part of Asia. Is it truly difficult to grasp or note that Cyprus is closest to Turkey (per Geography of Cyprus et al.), without throwing in the kitchen sink as is proposed? If extreme brevity is warranted remove that notation, retaining that it is in the eastern Mediterranean. Note that my changes have been minor; however, others have not been and seem not to be an improvement and therefore, require a lot more consensus than has been demonstrated so far. Before reverting again to a "factually correct" -- and fallacious -- version, please provide evidence to justify why. Corticopia 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Corticopia, three editors have expressed one opinion and as yet you are the single voice arguing against them. Not sure you're in a good position to lecture on consensus.  There is one, and so far it's not in your favour. Vizjim 20:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you even read or address the comments above, or do you blindly persist in supporting substandard original text for the hell of it? Anyhow, I shall return thrice every day until something more agreeable materialises ... and, no, the above is not it. Corticopia 20:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am rather sorry to have played a part in precipitating such a firestorm. To be honest, my intention upon returning this evening was to try to be accomodating to Corticopia, taking to heart his(her?) initial response to my comments yesterday. I especially considered his counsel regarding assuaging the editors and respecting political realities. But his later comments appear to belie such motivations, and a threat to revert three times a day until he gets his way is highly questionable. I certainly wouldn't expect that my opinion should govern, and I would guess that no one should within Wikipedia.

One thing -- I fail to see what is "fallacious" about what is written in the opening at this point. The word "Eurasia" is back in, and "Middle East" is out, which means that the "Geography of Cyprus" article will have to be changed. I'll try to get to that tomorrow (if anyone has suggestions, please go to it). I don't think I can be objectively helpful this evening. Also tomorrow I will try to digest the numerous changes entered by Diego -- some of which appear helpful but others not so much, and some even appearing to be random additions or subtractions of links. Thanks, Saraalan 03:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do apologise for the brusque attitude, but I see little evidence of a ground-swell of consensus for the edition discussed above. For those who invoke consensus (erroneously) regarding the proposed lead, please re-read that policy: a long-standing version, by virtue of its longevity, has more legitimacy as consensual than a concoction among few editors that hasn't even lasted a day.


 * So, why is the current lead 'fallacious'? It is definitely wordy; let's dissect:
 * 'geographically part of Eurasia': This is a tautology since, 'geographically', it cannot be anything but Eurasian. The prior edition also indicated this but with more economy.  Within the field of geography there are two major subsets: physical geography and human geography.  Precisely, physiographically, it is Asian (in Western Asia), due to its proximity to Turkey; regarding the latter ...
 * 'Politically part of the European Union': no argument but, in juxtaposition with the prior sentence, it is arguably also Asian, European, and or Eurasian from a geopolitical perspective: it is a member of quite a few bodies, 'European' (e.g., Council of Europe, Commonwealth of Nations) or not (e.g., Non-Aligned Movement, World Trade Organization). As well, redundant notation in the introduction of it being in the EU is arguably partial to that perspective.
 * details regarding location and numerous approximate territories: superfluous, given their iteration in the subsection and subarticle: for instance, the CIA Factbook only notes that it is "south of Turkey", without listing other territories ad nauseum, as does the concise entry in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Why not list Israel, Egypt, Greece, and Libya too?
 * So, read the introduction and ask yourself: is it something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia? I feel the version discussed above is not and wordy for not what, whereas the long-standing, concise, preceding version is closer to that and consistent with summary style.


 * It is ironic that certain editors invoke brevity herein, only to exhibit the opposite. So, again, please justify whythe introduction and subarticle must be changed as proposed?  Corticopia 14:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is becoming hard to assume good faith here, particularly given Corticopia's "brusque" attitude and attempts to bully others into accepting his point of view. He is trying to overturn a style of introduction that, as Saraalan has indicated, is in operation on other articles for island nations (which argument, incidentally, was enough to change my opinion from my original preference for brevity).  He is trying to do this against the opinion of every other editor who has so far voiced an opinion.  On both definitions of consensus, Corticopia is acting against it.
 * To tackle those long-winded points in turn:
 * "'geographically', it cannot be anything but Eurasian" - well, it could be African, as is a part of the Eastern Med.
 * Let me rephrase: saying it is geographically Eurasian implies that it is something else in some other respect. The long-standing edition indicates this very simply. Corticopia 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I genuinely don't understand Corticopia's second point. European Union membership is far more important than the other bodies you mention from virtually any standpoint, affecting laws, alliances, economy, trade, borders, etc.
 * I genuinely don't understand yours: I see redundant mentions of it being in the EU (and de jure de facto the TRNC is not), but none indicating upfront that the island is of or approximate to Asia -- that's arguably imbalanced editing. Corticopia 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * De jure there is no TRNC and the whole Republic is in the EU Quote: "The whole of the island is considered to be part of the EU. However, in the northern part of the island, in the areas in which the Government of Cyprus does not exercise effective control, EU legislation is suspended" Notice there is no mention of TRNC 3meandEr 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What the CIA Factbook does is not germane to Wikipedia house style. As previously noted, the consensus across United Kingdom, Malta, Jamaica and others is to give multiple points of reference.
 * You use the term 'consensus' very liberally, and I wonder whether you actually know what it means.  You compare with other Wikipedia articles -- which of those articles are featured? -- while I compare with other reliable, authoritative sources to demonstrate the advantage of being concise as before.  Corticopia 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am using the word in the sense of WP:CON, which I re-read after you pointed me to it, and which reinforces the importance of established practice across multiple articles. Again, I urge you to read WP:CIVIL (for the first time?) before questioning other users' understanding of basic English and/or basic WP policies. Vizjim 12:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that the justification for describing Cyprus's position solely in reference to Turkey is non-existent and against both standard practice and the consensus among editors on this page. I hope that all editors will try to achieve a consensus for change here on the talk page rather than resorting to a tedious edit war. Vizjim 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So, you say it is hard to assume good faith. Droning aside, doubly so: you obviously didn't seem to have difficulty with the simpler version six months ago, so who knows -- or cares -- what your motives are.  In any event, given your precipitous commentary, I may comment hereafter when others decide to weigh in. Corticopia 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As already explained, my opinion has changed as per the good argument of Saraalan and the consensus elsewhere in Wikipedia. I know that you have a problem with the idea of changing your opinion, but not everyone is as inflexible! (joke). Vizjim 11:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As regards the specific question "Which of those are featured articles?": Hong Kong, Isle of Portland and Japan are former featured articles on islands, all of which use a similar triangulating method of describing location with reference to multiple surrounding points. United Kingdom is a good article .  Vizjim 12:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * While I still maintain that this point in the introduction is longer than it needs to be, the current edition seems an agreeable compromise: it's still rather concise, without redundantly listing a litany of territories to satisfy various editorial viewpoints. I also corrected the figure, per Geography of Cyprus, indicating the distance to the Asian mainland (75 km from Turkey).  Shall we consider this issue resolved? Corticopia 09:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia "minor"
Corticopia - could you please stop marking edits to disputed areas as "minor"? That function is meant to enable people to filter out unimportant and uncontentious grammar or spelling tweaks. Given the length of the discussion above, it's clear that almost any change to the opening paragraph will be considered contentious. Also, changing the facts on the page (for instance the change from East to east-south-east) would normally not be considered as minor. It's a pain for other users, who would as a matter of course ignore minor edits. Vizjim 09:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * These are minor edits, your hyper-reaction makes them major. So I will edit and tag at my discretion, thank you. Corticopia 09:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "A check to the "minor edit" box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the version with your edit and the previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." From How to edit a page. It's sort of the way things work here. ;)  Another way that things work is to not use inflammatory langauge like "hyper-reaction".  Please consider your words more carefully in future. Vizjim 09:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They are superficial: if you think these edits differ significantly from what is being discussed, that is not my problem. And I always consider my words carefully, and I stand by them: your response to a statement of hyper-reaction is with, well, another hyper-reactive, condescending statement.  So, you should also consider your words more carefully.  Now I am ending this ... thread.  Corticopia 10:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are modifying content: the policy clearly states that this is not minor. Please try to work with other editors: if somebody has indicated that your choosing to tick the "minor" box is inconvenient, why persist in ticking it?  Vizjim 10:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is debatable: since this content is elsewhere in the article, tweaking or removing unimportant, redundant content in the introduction is anything but major ... particularly given the prior consensual state. No comment regarding other comments.  Corticopia 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly it will form part of the discussion at the complaint against you (here): no sense in pursuing this any further on this page. Vizjim 11:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Map / contradiction
The map of Cyprus in the infobox shows all of the areas claimed by the Republic of Cyprus (including the areas controlled by the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus), but the map of PRC shown in the infobox at PRC only includes the areas controlled by the PRC (the areas claimed by the PRC but controlled by the ROC are left out). This seems inconsistent. (Stefan2 (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Cyprus is internationally recognized as the country of the entire island. Not what it de facto is. It's not claiming anything, unlike China. El Greco(talk) 16:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the situation is similar, the island of Taiwan and other ROC controlled territories are considered by the international community as part of the PRC, although in reality it isn't. Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  07:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a significant division of opinion on the ROC & PRC, with quite a few countries recognizing the former. There is no such debate over the TRNC, where only the occupying power recognizes the state it created.  In a speech given earlier this month, the TRNC president repeated his position that the UDI could easily be reversed, which reinforcesd the perception that this is just a bargaining tool (albeit one that looks to have backfired badly, in my opinion, as opinions in favour of partition continue to harden in the South and in other European nations). Vizjim (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but aren't we talking about lines of actual control. (btw...my position is that we should maintain the status quo aka the current map). Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  09:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Religion and Education sections
I have added some citation requests in the religion section, mostly because I am interested in seeing that data. I have added some general warnings in the education section because of things such as:


 * "The high quality of instruction can be attributed to a large extent to the above-average competence of the teachers"
 * "State schools are generally seen as equivalent in quality of education to private sector institutions."
 * "The government is trying to eliminate this problem but this seems impossible at its current state."

which surely constitute original research or subjective claims. Also, mentions of the need for private tuition in the case of public school students could really use some evidence, despite the fact that it is well-known to Cypriots. In fact, the whole Education section could do with a re-write. AstarothCY (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman history section
The Ottoman history section is strongly biased against Cyprus' Ottoman rule period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.175.51.146 (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in intro

 * The Republic of Cyprus, the internationally recognized state, has de jure sovereignty over 97% of the island of Cyprus and all surrounding waters, and the United Kingdom controls the remaining three percent. The island is de facto'' partitioned into four main parts:


 * ''* the area under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus in the south of the island;
 * ''* the Turkish occupied area in the north, calling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognized only by Turkey);
 * ''* the United Nations-controlled Green Line, separating the two; and
 * ''* two Sovereign Base Areas (Akrotiri and Dhekelia), over which the United Kingdom retained jurisdiction after Cypriot independence.

I think this text needs reworking. First it says the island is de jure split in two, between Cyprus and the UK. But then it says the UK part is a de facto separation. It's either one or the other.

I humbly propose:


 * The Republic of Cyprus, the internationally recognized state, has de jure sovereignty over 97% of the island of Cyprus and all surrounding waters, and the United Kingdom controls the remaining three percent. The territory under the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus is de facto'' partitioned into three main parts:


 * ''* the area under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus in the south of the island;
 * ''* the Turkish occupied area in the north, calling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognized only by Turkey); and
 * ''* the United Nations-controlled Green Line, separating the two.

☆ CieloEstrellado 09:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is no contradiction. de facto means something like 'in practice'. Which is true, because the island is divided in practice like the article states now. On the other hand, the text you propose reads a lot easier, so I'm in favour. Van der Hoorn (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying, but "in practice" (hehehe) de facto is used in contrast to de jure. You cannot, or shouldn't, attribute both terms to the same thing. This is why I say it's a contradiction. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No mention of the Sovreign Bases in the proposed intro? El Greco(talk) 22:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Change of President
I have changed the president of the Republic to Dimitris Christofias according to the election results with 53.5% of the vote. User:Whitemagick 16:12, 24 February 2008

Music section rewrite
This section seems to be irrelevant and uninformative. I also suspect that some people may be using it as "advertising space". The section should mention relevant things, such as what traditional Cyprus music is like, how it relates to the culture, what sort of music is popular on the island today and only mention very few names of very important artists. The main Music article should elaborate on details and can list more artists, but notability standards should be maintained. AstarothCY (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the section, please help improve it and add citations. Also someone should add the Turkish Cypriot aspect of it as I am unfamiliar with it. Please refrain from adding any more artist names unless necessary, for the reasons mentioned above. Also, I know I have missed out a couple of genres so please add them. AstarothCY (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam edits from MyCyprusWeb
This has been going on for long enough. What can be done to end this ridiculous situation? AstarothCY (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia facts about "Communism" in Cyprus
The fact that Cyprus is the only country with a communist president in the EU shouldn't be in the first paragraph. It's just a trivia fact and not so important to be included in the begining of the article, if you still want it in the page then you could put it somewhere else maybe at the politics of the country. Cyprus having a communist leader doesn't mean that it's like USSR or China or all the other communist countries. I never herd of anyone getting food with coupons and also as far as I know I still own my house and have all my bank accounts and Cyprus always and even now has capitalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankateif (talk • contribs) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He is no communist in the "American" sense. He is pro-Market and that's documented. He may be self-labelled Communist in the past but also many European leaders are labelled socialist without being what most Americans think, 'the state just before becoming communist'. --Leladax (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm...He is not promarket. He is an advocate of the mixed economy. He repeated this statement in his campaigns and has been repeating this again and again recently due to the economic crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 05:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ankateif. I agree with you that this piece of information was misplaced in the lead of the article. About trivia sections you might be interested in taking a look on WP: trivia section.
 * You made many statements to what Cyprus is not and to which I certainly agree. However, the piece that we are talking about did not make such claims. Therefore, let me recall what the article stated before you removed it.
 * Cyprus is, at present, one of only two countries in the world to have a democratically elected communist government (the other being Moldova), and is the only European Union member state currently under communist leadership.
 * As you can see, nothing has been said that Cypurs would be like the USSR, China or nonreligious. Quite the contrary, it is stated that the government was democratically elected. Please be more careful in the future, when you oppose something. Make sure that your opposition does not go out of bounds and that you do not imply things that have never been said. Tomeasy (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

1974: Invasion or Intervention
Recently IP 86.143.172.123 has changed the state of the article in a way that it uses the term intervention rather than invasion. I am wondering, if that makes the article more or less POV. Tomeasy (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bewildering IMF Results
The new date for April 2008 concerning Cyprus showed a GDP PPP projection of 38.535 billion and a GDP PPP per capita of 48,990.660! Either this is due to the conversion of the EURO bringing in fact a massive increase in purchasing power or the data are simply flawed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.32.101 (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I second this. It's crazy. The article lists Cyprus GDP per capita as being: $46,865 (7th) while at the same time, in the Economy section, it is mentioned that Cyprus "per-capita GDP (adjusted for purchasing power) is slightly lower than that of France, Germany, Italy and the UK, but slightly higher than the European Union average". Something is not right. kyri (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not for us to decide whether the IMF data are correct or not, especially when the CIA World Factbook appears to have adopted them. I have updated the relevant section accordingly. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The IMF has never said $46,865. I don't know where the CIA got their numbers from, but it can't be the IMF. IMF data 195.159.43.66 (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Extensive rewriting today
Thank you for rewriting the article in order to make it smaller. I should say, however, that the rewrite unfortunately has extensive grammatical errors and does not read very well. I really appreciate your effort but I am not sure whether we should revert to the version before the rewrite and attempt the rewrite again, or try and fix this one. Is anyone willing to help review the whole article closely? AstarothCY (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you point the grammatical errors? I reviewed and didn't find any.Maybe i missed sth in the process. The previous history section was a real mess. Inaccurate, POV, way too long and in every word culminating about the 1974 invasion. To be honest i can't imagine a single reason to be reinstated again. This one maybe not perfect it's way way better. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well there are grammar problems throughout the article, pretty much. Especially with missing punctuation (pretty much throughout, but for example paragraph 3 of the History section), some awkward wording (e.g. first sentence of 5th paragraph in History), and some wording that is unsuitable for an encyclopedic article or contains POV words (e.g. second-to-last paragraph in History), but there is a lot more. Once again, I really appreciate your effort but the fact is that even though the article is now shorter, it does not read as well as it did before the rewrite. I am just not sure whether I will end up having to do extensive rewriting all over again if I have to go through and fix these problems, and whether that means that it would be best to revert. AstarothCY (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"As of today, there are 1,534 Greek Cypriots [15]and 502 Turkish Cypriots [16] missing with the events of the summer of 1974 dominating the politics on the island and the Greco-Turkish relations."

"In 1878, on the aftermath of the disastrous Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), administration but not sovereignty of the island, was ceded to British Empire, as a base in case of a renewed Russian aggression."


 * Maybe i speak Congolese.Can you please show me the mistakes? Anyway saying that this version is POV compared to the previous one, is travesty at least.You can improve it.I mean so many months i didn't see anyone bother doing anything to change that mess and now..Weird --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The first sentence is confusing. You are saying two different things in one sentence. "As of today, there are 1,534 Greek Cypriots [15]and 502 Turkish Cypriots [16] missing as a result of the invasion. The events of the summer of 1974 dominate the politics on the island, as well as Greco-Turkish relations."


 * The second sentence has awkward wording as well as POV words, and could be rewritten as "Administration (but not sovereignty) of the island was ceded to the British Empire in 1878, in the aftermath of the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878). The island would serve Britain as a base of operations in case of renewed Russian aggression."


 * There is no need to get agitated. My intentions are good, and when you make an edit you should expect scrutiny and constructive criticism. Please try to assume good faith when dealing with fellow Wikipedians. AstarothCY (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Who says i am not (assuming good faith)?If i didn't i wouldn't be here. I just said sth obvious.That this is a better base for further improvement than the last version and everyone is free to contribute. I can see your objections (and to same extent i agree) but they are not grammatical mistakes. Anyway it's good that there is someone to work with, about this article.Cheers --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The page has been vandalised with severe inaccuracies. Please find out who it is who did this. This include 1)mehmet ali talat being presient, 2) independency from Greece. --WhiteMagick (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The vandal was Ali SarpTurk. I strongly advise that this person is suspended. I am also given the impression that previous vandalism may have also been done by this person who appears to have made a Wiki account recently. Including the corrections above I also corrected the name of the Republic, Capital and currency. It is obvious that this person is an extremist since he replaced the english name of the capital, Nicosia, with the Turkish name.--WhiteMagick (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Cyprus
The article states "Cyprus is the only country to display its land area on its flag". Christmas Island is another country to do so. (The flag of Antarctica also displays its land area, but Antarctica is in no snse a country.) Maproom 21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Christmas Island is a territory of Australia and not a country. That may still leave some ambiguity. In the article, I linked the term "country" to the Wikipedia entry defining it. Do you still think this is too unclear? Maybe the statement isn't really useful? Thanks, Saraalan 00:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you are right, Christmas Island is not a country. I was misled by its having a domain code. Maproom 09:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been wondering (not only about the flag of Cyprus, but also about country flags in general): what is on the back of Cyprus' flag? Is it plain white, or the same design in reverse, or what? (I ask because some countries' flags have an abstract pattern, which then gets shown in reverse on the back, like the US flag, while other countries with a pictorial design, like Albania's symmetrical design, can be shown in reverse on the back without any problem. But when the design is 'pictorial' (not an abstract pattern) and not symmetrical -- what is the default for the back of the flag?) Wikiway (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The back of the flag is the same as the front of the flag - otherwise in the wind it would look kinda funny don't you think? :) As for being the only country - well that's a tricky one. Kosovo, albeit not yet recognized by the UN tho recognized by quite a few different countries not including the Republic of Cyprus, has its map on the flag as well. In fact, this is mentioned over at the Kosovo article. --Ubardak (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Vandalism
Can someone please edit the Cyprus page to remove the current vandalism (visible June 26th 2008)? I checked the source code, and there is currently a div set to appear on top of the page content blocking the whole screen, with a huge ascii/table image in it.

I was able to get to the edit page by using a Firefox extension to disable various page colours, but because the page is semi protected, I can't make the change myself.

Can someone else please take care of it?

--Zenbuffy (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Transliteration of names
The etas (η) should either be transcribed as ē or i NOT ī. --Kupirijo (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to settle in cyprus what can i do for that
Hello friends i from india and i want to setlle down in cyprus. i am a bussiness man i want to work n the cyprus what is best way to setlle in cyprus.i love cyprus.i am still bachlors because i want first to settle in cyprus then after i will marry other wise not. my email : acharyamanish@sify.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.21.3 (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Climate?
Why is there nothing about the climate of Cyprus? Lehasa (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Links to www.hr-action.org
I've removed the links http://www.hr-action.org/chr/ECHR01.html and http://www.hr-action.org/chr/ECHR02.html, which purport to lead to the text of European Commission on Human Rights reports. In fact, they lead to an odd web page which has links to a jumble of sites on various unrelated issues, including Armenian Genocide, Air Travel, and Real Estate Training (!) If the reports in question can be found among the links on those pages, it certainly isn't apparent (there is a link called Cyprus Invasion but if you follow it you just get to a bunch more links, none of which seem to be to such reports.)  If anyone wants to include links to those reports, please insert URLs that actually lead to them. Strawberryjampot (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why so many different articles?
I don't understand why so many Cyprus topics (like "reasons for rejecting the referendum") are shunted off to separate articles. If the reason is that it seems easier to handle controversy that way, I think it's a bad reason. Strawberryjampot (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more that every aspect of the Cyprus problem has to be handled in mind-numbing detail, otherwise someone will shout "bias". I'm not saying that this is right, it's just an ineluctable part of writing about the arcane politics of the region. You're welcome to try to boil down the reasons for rejecting the referendum into a short form that's acceptable to every editor working on this page, but I suspect you'll find it quite frustrating. Vizjim (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Demographic Update
I shall be updating the demographic article on Cyprus due to new Statistics on the behalf of the EU for 2008 as there are still not governmental ones. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008_MONTH_08/3-26082008-EN-AP.PDF WhiteMagick (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Update on the population of Cyprus according to Government and EU estimations which coincide. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-08-049/EN/KS-QA-08-049-EN.PDF —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 13:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic groups
I was doing research for school, and I could not find anything regarding ethnic groups in Cyprus. Is there any info regarding that? Zadora13 (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you checked the Demographics Article? It has rather detailed information on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 13:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Temporary
"...which lost it temporarily to the Arabs in 643 AD before reclaiming it in 966 AD." I could not help a smile. 350 years! I guess "temporary" can be a relative term.--Murat (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is kind of funny. I think it might be best to just remove the word temporarily. Kman543210 (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

They can understand Turkish language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.6.163.21 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made.

I see an edit war being waged over the spelling of recogni*e. I think that warriors on both sides have misunderstood the situation. I should like to ppoint out that

I am not committed to Oxford spelling. If someone can produce a good reason who Cambridge spelling is appropriate, then fine. But at present, I'm in favour of this version as it's consistent, even though I'm not convinced by the editor's argument.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Even though English is not a national language of Cyprus, the history of the island and the fact tha there are still British zones means that it qualifies under Manual of Style. Therefore, a British spelling is appropriate.
 * 2) There is no standard British spelling of recogni*e. WP:Spelling discusses the two different British spellings. When I looked at the article last week, I noted that both spellings were present and arbitrarilly decided to settle on Oxford spelling. . The remaining -ise words (exercise, comprise) are spelt consistently with Oxford spelling - (I've checked the copy of the OED on this laptop.
 * 3) The version being fought for in recent edits by the "ise" advocate is inconsistent and retains Oxford spelling of several words, including, in one place "recogni*e"


 * Who uses Oxford Spelling these days? All Major institutions and media companies in the UK do not use Oxford. "ise" is the most common version, "ize" however is becoming increasingly unpopular in British spelling. So it would make sense to use the most common version. Ijanderson (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As indicated above, I don't feel strongly about this. I went for Oxford spelling because it would require fewer changes. WP:Spelling does provide some people who use Oxford, such as the MoD, TLS and Nature and a couple of dictionaries other than the OED itself. If you do decide to change, then do it properly and search for all occurrences of "-ize" in the article, go through them one by one and change "organized" but not "seized".--Peter cohen (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK will do. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have now performed the edits in response to this discussion. Ijanderson (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made.

Is Cyprus really a developed country?
If you look into the CIA World factbook, it will say that Cyrus is under the title of developing country rather than a developed country based on IMF standard. Though Cyrus is a good country according to Quality-of-life index measured by the Economist Intelligence Unit, the sentence in the introduction that "the Republic of Cyrus is a developed country" should be removed or modified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijriims (talk • contribs) 07:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The question has been solved by myself when I look into more details: it seems that the data in CIA World Factbook 2008 is not up-to-dated and the source from IMF Oct 08 listed Cyrus under the category of advanced economies already. But still there is no mention of Cyrus being a developed country. At best, it is just one of the advanced economies.
 * Two more bits of information from World Bank classifications: (a) Cyprus is not a developed economy, but rather an economy moving toward self-sufficiency (Tier 2 country); ; (b) Cyprus is a high-income non-OECD country. The fact that Cyprus is a high-income country should probably be reflected in the opening paragraph. --Zlerman (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Still, Cyprus now meets 5 of the 6 criteria set out in our own article, which in any case treats "developed" and "advanced" essentially as synonyms. That is the same score as Britain. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 17:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In the table in Developed countries Cyprus has a score of 4. How did you get 5 (which is indeed the UK score)? --Zlerman (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On the presumption that the CIA data were out of date, as noted in your earlier post. One would expect Cyprus to be added to the list of advanced economies in the next revision. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 02:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus independence date/Independence Day
Anon 82.44.78.16 (22:51, 11 November 2008) called our attention to the fact that Cyprus was granted independence on 16 August 1960, but Independence Day is celebrated on 1 October, because 16 August falls just after a Greek religious festival. I have reflected this information in the Infobox, but if someone could find a verifiable source I think we should also include it in the main text. Any ideas? --Zlerman (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If you follow this link to the Cypriot Parliament Website it confirms date of actual Independence from the UK is the 16/08/1960 21:24, 12 November 2008

http://www.parliament.cy/parliamenteng/index.htm
 * Thank you. That's a reference for the date of independence. Where can we find a reference that Independence Day is celebrated on October 1? A URL to a list of national/public holidays in Cyprus? --Zlerman (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The name 'Cyprus' in phonetic alphabet
I am removing the unsupported version for phonetic alphabet of the name 'Cyprus' in the heading, not least to remove noise from the article. --Laocoont (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Demographics
Hi all

I have just reverted a couple of edits from an editor who matched the figures to the claims that the CIA factbook took their figures for Greek/Turkish/Other from the info an editor put onto the Wiki page (see Talk:Demographics_of_Cyprus).

The CIA factbook states the figures came from 2001.

Demographics article here was started Feb 2002, and the Cyprus article, started Nov 2001, had these figures in Feb 2002 "81% Greek Cypriot and 19% Turkish Cypriot"

I have reverted the edit on that basis. I am aware that the CIA factbook does not always contain correct up-to-date information, (see Talk:Argentina - subject demographics), but as that is the reference used and the edit I reverted was not supported by a reference so rather than leave potentially incorrect info with "citation needed" I chose to remove it.

If there is a subsequent census quoted, or the CIA chooses to update the factbook, which includes all the island and is from a trusted reliable source then I think it should be discussed and consensus formed before the article is changed.

Thanks --Chaosdruid (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Chaosdruid the reference for the Demographics is http://www.pio.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/5B26588F9EB90E4DC225753E003449AF/$file/ABSTRACT_2007.pdf?OpenElement which is marked as a pdf file [1] in the references of the Demographics. I do not know how to change the reference. I tried but I couldn't do it. However the numbers are correct. You also failed to check the changes in the demographic article where it quotes 61 000 Britons and 20 000 Russians which is wrong which I also corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would have been better to leave this here, and wait for a reply than to go in and change the article again, quoting "Vandalism" ::The idea is that we make sure the reference is correct before making the changes. Please ensure that if someone reverts and leaves a message here that you discuss before changing it back again. I did not "fail " to check the changes. However I will now look at that article as well and ensure that correct referencing has been followed.
 * The document you mention does not exist at that http you gave, so the information you added is "unreferenced". I will undo the edit and store the info for later as well as try to find the reference you suggest.


 * Also the section needs editing, the census states that there are only 10% (90,000), it also says northern cyprus has 265,100 turkish people - this means that the census was not of the whole island


 * Please do not put that back again until discussed and consensus reached


 * Thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have commented out the section until we have dicussed further. I will leave a note with WhiteMagick to start discussions here--Chaosdruid (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Chaos Druid the link works. The link works for me I don't know why it doesn't work for you! Also Try this: http://www.pio.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/publications_en/publications_en?OpenForm&OpenView&RestrictToCategory=194&SrcTp=1&Category=1&Subject=9&SubSubject=4&subsubtext=27& The file is Abstract 2007.

The government of Republic of Cyprus is the only internationnaly recognised government on the island and questioning it's records and statistics implies that you also do not recognise it as the official government. Even the EU to which it is a member does not question them. In addition you know that the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise its control in the northern part because it is occupied by turkish troops. The government can only make estimates of the Turkish Cypriots in the occupied parts by taking into account their population before the Invasion of 1974 and make estimates according to emigration and birth rates. Added to this the government also relies its records on the number of Turkish Cypriots who own IDs and Passports of the Republic. The census in the occupied parts includes thousands of settlers and turkish troops. Added to this it counts as Turkish Cypriots all the settlers it gave citizenship to. Thus all this makes their census wholy inaccurate. The final and actual number of Turkish Cypriots will be decided only when there is a settlement on the Cyprus Problem which involves the return of many settlers and the elimination of foreign troops. Until then you will suffice with the actual data of the Republic of Cyprus as they are released.

Finally you claim that no changes will be made however you took the liberty of deleting whole sentences in the Demographics section before the discussion is finalised. --WhiteMagick (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2009


 * Firstly, in answer to your final point, the article is as it was before you first put the new section in. I have not deleted anything, it is still there but hidden. Secondly, it is a bit impolite to suggest that I am refusing to recognise the official government. I recognise the official government and I also recognise that there are many thousands of Cypriots in the North.
 * The problem is that the article is about "Cyprus", not "Republic of Cyprus " or "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", and please do not think that I am in any way biassed, I am totally neutral in this matter, apart from ensuring that Wiki procedures are followed.
 * As it is about the whole of Cyprus, it would be wrong to only include the figures from the south and say "this is the population of Cyprus".
 * I am not disagreeing with the figures for the Republic of Cyprus, and I think we need to discuss how to correctly word this in an acceptable way to both parties, South and North.
 * I suggested discussing it because we have a responsibility to remain neutral in all Wikipedia articles, it was not neutral and the link you provided did not work, and after I had taken the comment out with valid reason it was put back in again without discussion.


 * Discussion.
 * The link you have just given leads to a page with three documents, 1. CYPRUS IN FIGURES 2008 (EN), 2. STATISTICAL ABSTRACT 2007 (EN) and 3. STRUCTURAL INDICATORS, 2008 (EN). 1 and 3 work, but 2 does not work, and gives a message "There was an error opening this document. This file cannot be found" and I think that is because they expect payment of €17.00.
 * That is not a problem per se, the correct link to that document would not work, and so you can probably quote it using the
 * The wording must reflect that it does not include the Cypriots in the North of the island. You may also consider that to remain neutral an estimate of the numbers there should be given.
 * I would consider using "This census does not include the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, estimates of the Turkish population in the North of the Island are XXXX." or similar.
 * I do not have access to the census, but if it shows that there are "XXX British, Russian, German settled here" etc, then the estimates of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should reflect similar
 * I would suggest wording it "There are also XXX thousands of Turkish immigrants since" (1974) or (enosis/taksim) "as well as XXX of other people who have settled there"


 * --Chaosdruid (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this article really not about the Republic of Cyprus? That's interesting. Whenever I type and search for the Republic of Cyprus this is article is what comes up! Have you ever done the same? Obviously not! The entire island of Cyprus is represented internationally by the Republic of Cyprus. If one splits the whole thing into Cyprus, Republic of Cyprus and TRNC you imply that there are two internationally recognised states on the island. An example of this is Ireland. This cannot be applied for Cyprus. That is what whenever you type and search for Cyprus or the Republic of Cyprus this is the article that appears. Thus your first argument fails.
 * The article appears just fine for me! It loads as normal. Maybe you should change your Internet browser's settings.
 * The population estimates for Cyprus count all Cypriots and immigrants who have entered the area of cyprus under the control of the Republic of Cyprus. Thus Turkish settlers are not counted since otherwise it would suggest that they have legally entered the island and they are a part of the local population which of course under international law they are not.
 * The estimates of the areas occupied by Turkish troops show that there are 100 000 Turkish Cypriots. The government's estimate is 88,9 for 2006 which I rounded up to 90 000. The article gives the emigration and immigration for each country's citizens for 2002-2007. I found the net difference and added those numbers to the total of each country's immigrant group according to the Census of the population in 2001. I could send you the file if you wish.
 * --Whitemagick (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2009


 * Before we continue, I would like to remind you this is a discussion - please do not let this degenerate into anything else


 * You may not have noticed, but the article is definitely about "Cyprus" as stated at the top of the article page - if you type in Republic you get this -
 * A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A former featured article candidate.
 * (Redirected from Republic of Cyprus)
 * Thus you are wrong - it is about Cyprus. There is, however, a separate article about TRNC
 * As you say yourself "This cannot be applied for Cyprus" and so it is about the whole of the island.
 * I do not need to change my browser settings as all other PDF work fine, and all other links apart from that particular one.
 * You did not need to mention this, as I have already told you that it is probably acceptable to put the ref as a book ref rather than a web ref.It may be that you live in Cyprus and so do not have to pay for the link, I do not know, but the fact remains that I have no problems with any links other than to that 1 PDF. I think it would be wrong for you to send me the file, I have to buy it and so sending it me would probably break one or more laws.
 * You saying that there are no Turkish Cypriots living in the Republic of Cyprus and no-one from the North side has the right to be called of the Republic, however there a re people living in the North who have the right to be in the Republic. As such the figures are for people living on the island.
 * The survey done by the North gives the figure at 145,000 which includes 17,000 born to non-Cypriot parents. This would mean the figure should be around 128,000 rather than 90,000. This would give a total of 794,000 - and give a split of (83.9%) 666,000 to (16.1%) 198,000
 * If you use the maximum from the TRNC census then it gives the fig of 178,000 which gives a total of 844,000 and a split of 78.9% and 21%.
 * The other option is to mention the TRNC census as well in the article, although I do not think that is necessarily wise at this point.
 * It may be necessary to move the page to "Republic of Cyprus" to remove these types of problems, we have the same problem here as the Englsih Scottish and Welsh live in Great Britain, but are separated into articles for each nation.
 * thanks --Chaosdruid (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

PS If the Turkish army left, how would that affect the residents ? any immigrants who had come from the mainland would not be counted as citizens I assume, but those that were originally citizens of the Republic and their children would I suppose?


 * So if this article is just about Cyprus is there no article about the Republic of Cyprus at all? And why does it direct you to this article when you type The Republic of Cyprus? The answer is simple. Because the entirety of Cyprus is represented by the Republic of Cyprus. Another prove at the top of this article: This article is about the internationally recognised state. For other uses, see Cyprus (disambiguation). Did you not see that? Your argument does not stand and fails again.
 * I sent the direct link to the pdf to people in the UK and France and they could access it. Chaosdruid please read that the disclaimer actually says:


 * ''The Statistical Service announces that it has prepared the report “Statistical Abstract 2007".

The publication provides comparable time series data (in many cases since 1960) for several socio-economic themes such as Economy, Inflation, Population, Social Conditions, Labour, External Trade, Agriculture, Industry, Construction, Energy, Environment, Transport, Tourism, Trade, Science and Technology, Information Society.


 * The publication is available for sale at the Government Printing Office in Lefkosia at the price of €17,00 per copy. An electronic version of the report can also be downloaded free of charge from the website of the Statistical Service, under the section Publications (Category: Annual Publications, Theme: Other, Subtheme: General).''

http://www.pio.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/2B01AE6239087D8AC22575390034A16C?OpenDocument&highlight=Abstract%202007


 * You only need to pay for the paper copy. It is not illegal to share a file that is available for download for free. Please read it again. Also try to access the pdf as suggested. And by the way I was not talking about the pdf when I proposed sending it to you, I was talking about the 2001 Population Census + Immigration = Population by ethnicity since the Abstract only includes immigration and no total for each citizenship group of immigrants. I hope it is clearer now.
 * I never said that no Turkish Cypriots lived in the Republic of Cyprus and I did not say that no one living in the occupied parts have no right to be a part of the island. I didn't even type Turkish Cypriots in the part you are referring! I typed Turkish settlers. I think you are not aware of the difference between Turkish Cypriots and Turkish Settlers and you have shown signs of crediting me with words I never typed. The Republic however estimates the number of Turkish Cypriots alone and not the ones who have been given a citizenship.
 * Why would you use a survey of the Occupied Parts in an article about the Republic of Cyprus? The surveys of the unrecognised state are quoted in its article. The other option is to mention the TRNC census as well in the article, although I do not think that is necessarily wise at this point. - Chaosdruid. To that I agree so stop using their statistics to prove the 78% Greek-Cypriot to 20% Turkish-cypriots.
 * You cannot calculate to the total the estimates of the citizenships given by an illegal state. Those citizenships like the citizenship of the TRNC is null and void according to international law.
 * My suggestion would be to simply use the estimates for Turkish Cypriots given by the republic and add them to the total population of the republic which includes both legal immigrants and Greek-Cypriots. This is exactly how the Republic of Cyprus gives the numbers and this is how they are in the Demographics article.
 * --WhiteMagick (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS We could have both the 1960 Census and the end of 2007 Estimation --WhiteMagick (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What part of Try not to turn this into an argument  did you not understand?
 * "Because the entirety of Cyprus is represented by the Republic of Cyprus" - I know
 * "I sent the direct link to the pdf to people in the UK and France" - Well it doesn't for me
 * "An electronic version of the report can also be downloaded free of charge" - yes but doesn't work for me - there is no link to the article on the link you sent, and when I did find it 2 days ago the PDF would not download (and i did say "I do not know" if that's the reason)
 * "Your argument does not stand and fails again." I am not arguing and I was correct the first time, it says Cyprus not Republic which is a redirect, I did not say it was not about the Republic of Cyprus and so you are wrong again
 * I am very aware of the difference between Turkish Cypriot and settlers
 * what words have I credited you with that you did not type
 * You should not continue to try and argue by continuing this as it does not help the discussion

Important stuff - the wording of the addition


 * It says "of the island's population" and you did not change that - it does not say "of the Republics population"
 * There are Turkish Cypriots living in the North who are entitled to Republic citizenship and are possibly not included
 * The citizenship of someone who is in the north and was living as a citizen of the Republic in 1964 is not null and void
 * If the Republic estimates include all of those in the north that are entitled to citizenship then state that or put a note that says it.
 * I agree now, as I did then, to using the two sets of data from 1960 and 2001 and even include the estimate, however
 * 1 There were no references before.
 * 2 The statement said "the islands population" which you would have to point out was not the case in the second set - which you did not
 * 3 There was no statement to cover the Turkish Cypriot residents that were in the north and their children.


 * I suggest that you write in here what it is you wish to put in and then we can agree on it or refine it instead of keep going round in circles

Lastly, I did ask you to try and not turn this into anything other than a discussion, so stop attacking me - it is not my fault that when I go to the page linked and follow the link on there I cannot get the article you use as the quote, I will tell you once more that you simply need to use the "book" style citation instead of the "web" style. You do not need to keep going on about trying to access the PDF so please do not mention that again. I am sure that others will read it and if they think the figures you quote are incorrect they will change them.--Chaosdruid (talk)


 * Chaosdruid read the top of the article's mainpage. It specifically says: This article is about the internationally recognised state. For other uses, see Cyprus (disambiguation). Read it please. This article is about the Republic of Cyprus.
 * We must change the title to The legal population of Cyprus according to the Republic is... which will include the estimate of the Turkish Cypriots
 * From what you wrote I am incline to doubt it.
 * Repeating what I wrote: I never said that no Turkish Cypriots lived in the Republic of Cyprus and I did not say that no one living in the occupied parts have no right to be a part of the island. I didn't even type Turkish Cypriots in the part you are referring! I typed Turkish settlers. Let's forget this since it will keep us going in circles.
 * The government's estimation involves all Turkish Cypriots on the Island. Both occupied and non-occupied parts. Not just the ones with IDs or passports.
 * I said that the citizenship of the TRNC and the citizenships given by it are null and void. Reread please.
 * Yes it does, the note must be included.I am not a Wikipedia expert so I don't know to reference which I almost always point out when I make changes.
 * My Suggestion: The sentence should read The population of Cyprus according to the Republic of Cyprus is.... We must include both the 2001 Census and the estimation of 2007 (end of) in the Sidebar for Ethnic Groups. These two along with the 1960 Census must be used for comparisons in the Demographics Section furtherdown the article but also in the Demographics for Cyprus Article as part of the Demographic History of the Republic. We must also mention the claims of the TRNC. This is exactly what the Demographics subsection included. --WhiteMagick (talk) 19:57, 19 February


 * At last - "Let's forget this since it will keep us going in circles." (although you did mention it again at quite some legnth lol). I can read, and have read, the top many times and I do know who and what this article is about.


 * The problem with using "The legal" is that it is inflammatory and so should just read something like "The latest census from the Republic of Cyprus Government ..." which I think you have put later on in your post.


 * I agree with your suggestion but would word it The population of Cyprus according to the Republic of Cyprus Government Census of 2007 is...
 * I agree to your proposals "These two along with the 1960 Census must be used for comparisons in the Demographics Section furtherdown the article but also in the Demographics for Cyprus Article as part of the Demographic History of the Republic. We must also mention the claims of the TRNC. This is exactly what the Demographics subsection included.
 * If you mean by "sidebar" the box at the top of the article which has the flag etc, I dont think we need to have 2 sets of data in there. I think we should use the 2007 census, as it is an official one, but need to put (est) after the numbers for the Turkish Cypriot population to make sure people know it is only estimated.


 * WE HAVE CONSENSUS !!! WOOHOO!!!


 * I know this has been difficult for you, and that you may feel I have been aganst you, I have not. I am simply interested in making sure that the article is correct and referenced. I thank you for your patience in all of this and am very happy with your latest comments (apart from the I cant read bit lol)


 * I am sorry for misreading the part where you talked about null and void, that was a mistake on my part (see I can admit my mistakes lol)


 * I will pop back in a couple of hours when I get back homw and see how you are getting on, any problems witht he references, don't worry, I will hlep you write them so they are correct and in the correct format.


 * Thanks --Chaosdruid (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Chaosdruid. I agree with you as well. We do have a consensus. Concerning the main page's information box I have noticed that for a lot of countries they include the latest Census plus the estimations. I don't mind if we don't but I do think (not necessarily strongly or desperately) that we should include it. I don't have time to do it now. It's quite late. I do like though that we go through this together because I do not know how to reference. So what we could do is to write up the paragraph here with the links for referencing and then put it in the Demographics section. --WhiteMagick (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine with me - I'll be busy tomorrrow today until a bit later but will be happy to help you. I'll be around, but I have some important Wikistuff to sort out first, if you want to ask anything leave me a message on my chat so I see the "you have a message" come up and I'll get back to you as soon as I can

Political Terminology
To the extent that both Enosis and Taksim can easily be translated with English terms (something like repatriation and partition), it doesn't seem necessary to use them throughout the article. Rather, providing the term once to ensure the clear association with the notion as it pertains to Cyprus specifically with whatever English term is chosen, and then proceeding with the English would make the article read much more smoothly. Manicsleeper (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the term Al Qaida is always used as such without an English translation.WhiteMagick (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Al Qaida is a name, and as such should be used in it's native language whenever possible whereas enosis and taksim are not, and so the english word can be used.--Chaosdruid (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Enosis means Unification in Greek implying the unification with Greece. I am not sure but I think it means Division in Turkish! --WhiteMagick (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2009


 * I believe it does mean division (or partition) --Chaosdruid (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Does it refer to the partition/division of the island to turkish and greek parts and the unification of those parts with the mainland countries? --WhiteMagick (talk)


 * I don't really know, it could mean that they are talking about the coup or enosis being division, or that they wanted to go and divide it because of enosis. The only older people I know are one Greek Cypriot and one Turkish Cypriot, but they both really don't like talking about it, they both lost people and wish it didn't happen. The GC married a TC around 1958 and the TC married a GC in 1962 - messed up for both of them.--Chaosdruid (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Check out this for Taksim: http://www.turkishdictionary.net/?word=taksim (<--added later) Does it refer to the partition/division of the island to turkish and greek parts and the unification of those parts with the mainland countries? --WhiteMagick (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Those extremist groups (EOKA B' and TMT) destroyed many lives. Concerning Enosis and Taksim, the Greek-cypriot community wished that the whole of the island would become a part of the Republic of Greece thus a unification, while the Turkish-cypriots wanted the island to be split into Turkish and Greek areas and have those areas join the respective motherlands, thus Taksim, division. This was of course the view of extremists while after the independence of Cyprus most people were happy with the independence as it were. --WhiteMagick (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a new Demographics section
Ok. This is how the demographics section should read:
 * I have taken the liberty of splitting this proposal off into a separate section to make it more visible and more readable. --Zlerman (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the first census carried out by the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 the country had a total population of 573,566. Greek Cypriots comprised 77% or 441,568 of the island's population, Turkish Cypriots 18% or 103,822, Armenians 3,627 or 0.6%, Maronites 2,706 or 0.4% and 4% or 24,408 being foreigners[1]. However, after the Turkish invasion of 1974, the demography of the island changed considerably due to the economic prosperity in the areas of Cyprus still under the control of the Republic of Cyprus in contrast to the international isolation and economic downturn experienced the areas under the control of Turkish troops.

In the last Census by the Republic in 2001 the population of the Republic of Cyprus (in the areas under its control) stood at 689,565. Greek Cypriots were 618,455 or 89.7%, Armenians were 1,341 or 0.2%, Maronites were 3,568 or 0.5%, Latins were 279 or 0.04%, Turkish Cypriots were 360 or 0.06%, 661 or 0.1% of unknown origin and finally foreigners numbered 64,811 or 9.4% of the total population [2]. The five biggest groups of foreign citizens in Cyprus in 2001 were 17,459 Greeks from the Hellenic Republic, 11,870 British citizens, 4,952 Russians, 4,939 from Sri Lanka and 3,245 from the Philippines[2]. The massive decline in the number of Turkish Cypriots is due to the division as a result of the 1974 invasion by Turkey. Greek Cypriots moved into the areas under the control of the Republic of Cyprus while Turkish Cypriots moved into the areas under the occupation and control of Turkish troops. The Republic estimated that in 2001 there were 87,700 Turkish Cypriots in North Cyprus[3]. The decline is due to an estimated 36,000 Turkish Cypriots who emigrated [9]

In the last estimation of its population the Republic of Cyprus reported a total population of 789,300 showing a jump of almost 100,000 since the last census [4] Greek Cypriots were estimated to be 665,223 or 84.3% of the population which also includes an estimated 2500-3000 Armenians [5], 6000 Maronites [6] and 2000 Latins [7] since they chose to be a member of the Greek community of Cyprus according to its constituion. Foreigners were a total of 124,077 or 15,72%; almost a doubling since 2001 due to the entry of Cyprus in the European Union. The five biggest groups of foreigners in the Republic of Cyprus are 37,604 Greeks, 26,661 UK citizens, 9,991 Russians, 4,146 Poles and 3,733 Bulgarians while 11,323 people are of unknown origin [8]. The estimate in 2007 for Turkish Cypriots is 90,000 [3].

This part we could include in the main Demographics Article:

According to a census carried out in the beginning of 2006 by the Turkish Cypriot administration, the TRNC has a population of 265,100[10] of which majority is composed of indigenous Turkish Cypriots, with the rest including a large number of settlers from Turkey. Of the 178,000 Turkish Cypriot citizens, 82% are native Cypriots (145,000). Of the 45,000 people born to non-Cypriot parentage, nearly 40% (17,000) were born in Cyprus. The figure for non-citizens, including students, guest workers and temporary residents stood at 78,000 people.[10] [11]

References: [1] http://countrystudies.us/cyprus/21.htm [2] http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/805CB6E0CF012914C2257122003F3A84/$file/MAIN%20RESULTS-EN.xls?OpenElement [3] http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/8B6B6163A4A61D3BC225753E0033D015/$file/ABSTRACT_2007.pdf?OpenElement pg72 [4] http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/8B6B6163A4A61D3BC225753E0033D015/$file/ABSTRACT_2007.pdf?OpenElement pg73 [5] http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/portal/portal.nsf/All/EA264B3D6D24E808C2257028003644BA?OpenDocument [6] http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/portal/portal.nsf/All/837ED638FD32587BC22570280033E67F?OpenDocument [7] http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/portal/portal.nsf/All/6CB99B1257738B60C22570280037228D?OpenDocument [8] http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/8B6B6163A4A61D3BC225753E0033D015/$file/ABSTRACT_2007.pdf?OpenElement pg83-88 [9] Quoted after the Euromosaic report, a study commissioned by the European Commission ([1]PDF (120 KiB) [10] TRNC General Population and Housing Unit Census 2006, TRNC State Planning Organization, updated 7 October 2008. [11] Simon Bahceli (2007-02-15). "Indigenous Turkish Cypriots just over half north’s population". Cyprus Mail. http://cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=30725&cat_id=1. Retrieved on 2007-02-16.

--WhiteMagick (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I will be online in a couple of hours--Chaosdruid (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is how this should read

According to the first census carried out by the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 the country had a total population of 573,566. Greek Cypriots comprised 77% or 441,568 of the island's population, Turkish Cypriots 18% or 103,822, Armenians 3,627 or 0.6%, Maronites 2,706 or 0.4% and 4% or 24,408 being other nationals[1]. However after the separation of the island by 1974 the demography had changed considerably due to population movement into the different areas of control.

In the last Census of 2001 from the Republic of Cyprus the population was 777,265. Greek Cypriots were 618,455 or 79.6%, Turkish Cypriots were 88,006 (360 in the south and an estimated 87,700 in the north) or 11.3%, Armenians were 1,341 or 0.2%, Maronites were 3,568 or 0.5%, Latins <--what exactly is a latin ???--> were 279 or 0.004%, 661 or 0.09% of unknown origin and finally people from other nationalities numbered 64,811 or 8.3% of the total population [2]. The five biggest groups of citizens of other nationalities in Cyprus in 2001 were 17,459 Greeks from the Hellenic Republic, 11,870 British citizens, 4,952 Russians, 4,939 from Sri Lanka and 3,245 from the Philippines[2].

In the last estimation of its population the Republic of Cyprus reported a total population of 879,300 showing a jump of almost 100,000 since the last census [4] Greek Cypriots were estimated to be 665,223 or 75.7% of the population (this figure includes an estimated 2500-3000 Armenians [5], 6000 Maronites [6] and 2000 Latins <--what exactly is a latin ???--> [7] who chose Cypriot citizenship <--If they chose Greek citizenship then they should be in the Greek figures at the end-->), Turkish Cypriots 90,000 (estimated) or 10.2% and European nationals totalling 124,077 or 14.1% which is almost double since 2001 due to the entry of Cyprus in the European Union. The five biggest groups of residents of other countries in the Republic of Cyprus are 37,604 Greeks, 26,661 UK citizens, 9,991 Russians, 4,146 Poles and 3,733 Bulgarians while 11,323 people are of unknown origin [8].

--Chaosdruid (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That still reads quite well but in the 2001 estimate for Turkish Cypriots it included ALL of T/c on the island so their number stood at 87,700 not 88,060. If you make this correction then the paragraph can go straight to the Demographics section of the Republic's main article webpage! :) However I am afraid I do not know how to reference. :-/ Can you do it please?


 * A Latin is a member of the Greek community who has Greco-Italian roots and is Italian Catholic. Thus his/her descendants were Greek and Venetians/Genoese who ruled the island before the Ottomans. On the founding of the Republic of Cyprus the three minorities of Armenians, Maronites and Latins were given recognition as minorities however they had to choose the community (Greek or Turkish) to which they would belong when it comes to parliamentarian and presidential elections. They all chose to be members of the Greek community. For example the President of the Republic's Parliament is of an Armenian descent. The government always states how many individuals of these three minorities are included in the number for Greek-Cypriots. You can read all about each minority in the websites that I quote their numbers from. --WhiteMagick (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The last version still needs work, especially in clarifying what numbers refer to the entire island, what numbers are census data for the South, and what numbers are the South's estimates for the North. As part of the process it may be necessary to reflect the population numbers from TRNC statistical sources. Please wait a little longer to allow me to review the current proposal and add my suggestions. As a compensation for the delay, I promise to deal with the references, embedding them in the revised text. --Zlerman (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So you are saying the 2001 estimate should read "87,700 (306 in the south and an estimated 87,394 in the north)" - like that ?
 * Thanks for trying to explain the Latin element, although it seems strange to recognise a minority and then make them choose a new one. There are only Repulic of Cyprus or the non-legal Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, "choose a community" implies that they were deciding to suddenly become of Greek descent, although I do understand the system of allocation of Parliament members is unusual on Cyprus. This is clearly devisive and IMO they should be stated in their own right as Armenian etc and not be included in the Greek number as they are Cypriots of Armenian descent. It would be wrong to include tham in the figures for Greek Cypriot on that basis and as you state "President of the Republic Parliament is of Armenian descent" he is thus an Armenian Cypriot not a Greek cypriot. However if that is the way the government portrays them it must be so stated in the body of the text as you suggested in your first draft.
 * I have added most of the references to your original text, so you can check them more easily, without dates of publishing which we can fill in later. Do not get confused; The reflist numbers them in order and the number next to your number will not be the same - especially your 9(4) 10(9) and 11(10). I have also combined your No3 and 4 into Ref3 and put both page numbers at the end. You will see that they are still, apart from 4(3), called (ref name=) r1-r10 as you originally called them
 * I think we should wait for Zlerman to comment before we attempt a final draft.--Chaosdruid (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it should read as such for Turkish Cypriots. For the minorities: They are recognised as historical minorities kind of a thing but the structure of the Republic of Cyprus is based on the Greek and Turkish communities, thus when it comes to any kind of elections they belong to the Greek Community. That is the Parliament has a certain number of seats for MPs for the Greek Community and others for the Turkish one. If an Armenian/Maronite/Latin is elected as a MP then he counts as a member of the Greek Community MP count. This arrangement makes sure that they can get enough votes to be members of the parliament if they want despite their small numbers since they get can get votes from Greek individuals too, an example being the now Chairman of the Parliament who is of Armenian Descent. Anyways the system is a bit complicated but the arrangement serves their interests. Hopefully Zlerman will have a look of this and the Demographics section will be updated. --WhiteMagick (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Demographics after edits (with embedded references)

 * I have tried to edit the section based on the primary statistical sources for the Republic of Cyprus and TRNC (plus the LOC study for 1960), bearing in mind that on the one hand we are talking about the island of Cyprus, while on the other hand we have two distinct entities with distinct statistical services. Since these primary sources contain no data on ethnic composition (only religion and citizenship), I have omitted the breakdown into ethnic groups (after 1960). This can be added to the main article Demographics of Cyprus if we manage to sort out the ambiguities between ethnicity, religion, and citizenship. Your comments are welcome. --Zlerman (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the first population census after the declaration of independence, carried out in December 1960 and covering the entire island, Cyprus had a total population of 573,566, with Greek Cypriots comprising 77% of the island's population and Turkish Cypriots 18% (other nationals accounted for the remaining 5%). According to the last census covering the entire island (April 1973), the population of Cyprus was 631,778 with the Turkish Cypriots estimated at 19% of the total (about 120,000). .

The subsequent censuses conducted in 1976-2001 after the de facto division of the island covered only the population in the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus government, and the number of Turkish Cypriots (residing mainly in Northern Cyprus) was estimated by the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Service based on population growth rates and migration data. In the last census of 2001 carried out by the Republic of Cyprus, the population in the area controlled by the government was 703,529. The island’s total population as of the end of 2001 was estimated by the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Service at 793,100, with 11% (87,600) Turkish Cypriots residing in Northern Cyprus. The latest available estimates by the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Service put the island’s total population at the end of 2006 at 867,600, with 89.8% in the government controlled area and 10.2% (88,900) Turkish Cypriots in Northern Cyprus. Republic of Cyprus estimates thus show a steadily declining share of Turkish Cypriots in the island’s population, from 19% in 1974 to 10% in 2006.

According to the 2006 population census carried out by the government of Northern Cyprus, the total population of TRNC is 265,100, i.e., three times as high as the estimate of Turkish Cypriots by the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Service Combining the TRNC data for Northern Cyprus (265,100) with the 2006 estimate of the population in the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus government (778,700), we obtain an estimate of over 1 million for the island’s population (1,043,800), of which 25% are Turkish Cypriots residing in Northern Cyprus.


 * Three points Zlerman. Firstly the TRNC is presented as a credible source of information for the demography when it is not and in addition you are hinting some quite or a recognised government in occupied Cyprus . Secondly you seem to assume that out of a population of 265,200 reported by the TRNC all of them are Turkish Cypriots when in fact they are not. It includes foreign citizens and states that the  TRNC citizens are 178,000 while actual Turkish Cypriots are 145,000. Thus out of 1,043,800 they are 14% not 25%. In addition you are giving some credibility to the citizenship or the TRNC in general by saying that they are 265,100. The whole last paragraph is misleading. Thirdly in the 1973 census 18.4% is T/C, 78.9% is G/C and 2.7% are Others. --WhiteMagick (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Before we can continue further, we need to define the term "Turkish Cypriots". Can you help by providing a sourced definition that will be relevant in the context of using population data from the Statistical Abstract? My outsider's view of this term is based entirely on the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Abstract 2007, which divides the island's population into two distinct groups: "population in the government controlled area" and "Turkish Cypriots". In the definitions section on p. 63 of the Abstract we read under "Coverage": "Tables (C.2.1-C.2.2) give estimates of the total population both in the government controlled area and the Turkish occupied area while the rest of the tables refer to the Government controlled area only." These official definitions guided the content and the style of my draft, where, as noted in my introductory note above, I had to ignore ethnicity issues due to lack of data in the Abstract. If you disagree with my interpretation of what Turkish Cypriots are in the context of the Statistical Abstract, let us discuss this. Once we resolve this core issue, we can address your other comments above. --Zlerman (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Zlerman one cannot take the Census of the TRNC seriously because it survives financially with hundred of millions of aids from Turkey and hands out citizenships which are not recognised by anyone besides Turkey. With that being said a Turkish Cypriot is a Turk who has a parentage of individuals who were born in Cyprus before the 1974 Turkish Invasion. That is accepted even by the authorities in the occupied areas with the number of 120,000 for Native Turkish Cypriots and another 12,000 claiming a T/C heritage out of 178,000 citizens of theTRNC, a citizenship which legally is null and void, and its acknoweledgement of the 78,000 people who are either non-citizens, foreign students or Turkish settlers. You have equated the population given by the TRNC with the number of Turkish Cypriots when even their authorities prove you wrong. All this was quoted by a T/C journalist, Simon Bahceli of Cyprus Mail at http://cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=30725&cat_id=1 Thus one can only say that in Cyprus the Republic claims a population of 87,600 for T/C while the trnc claims 120,000 and 12,000 who claim a T/C heritage. Definitely not 268,000. Their maximum share (132,000) of your estimated population of 1,044,000 is 12,64% not 25%. --WhiteMagick (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please forget about TRNC for the moment, stop the rhetoric, and try to help me with the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Abstract 2007. In this Republic of Cyprus publication, 778,700 is the population in the government controlled area and 88,900 is shown as Turkish Cypriots (end of year 2006, Table C.2.2, p. 72). I have quote above the definitions of "Turkish Cypriots" from the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Abstract (p. 63). If you agree with these definitions, then 88,900 is the population of Northern Cyprus (i.e., Turkish occupied territory, TRNC) according to the Republic of Cyprus estimates (regardless of ethnicity, citizenship, birthright, etc.). Yes, no, maybe? This is what we need to resolve first of all. Questions relating to TRNC can be addressed later. Please focus on this issue only at the present stage. We really need your help with this. Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are asking about the population of the occupied areas as being 88,900 then No, the Republic states that there is an estimated 88,900 Turkisch Cypriots in the occupied areas but also quotes an estimated number of 150,000-160,000 Turkish settlers in the occupied parts as well. This is at the bottom of page 72. Thus according to the Republic the estimate for the occupied parts is 238,900-248,900 excluding an unknown number of other foreign citizens. --WhiteMagick (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Thank you very much for this insight. This now effectively closes the huge gap between the Republic of Cyprus estimate for Turkish Cypriots and the number from the TRNC census (to which you object). I will digest this new information and redraft the proposed section. In redrafting I will take into consideration your comments about TRNC, but please bear in mind that we operate in the Wikipedia environment, where Northern Cyprus exists, TRNC is written without quotation marks, and TRNC statistical publications are treated on a par with other official statistics (although possibly with reservation). On to the next round. Thanks again. --Zlerman (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Zlerman that still doesn't mean that there are 265,000 Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus like you write in your first draft. I shall await for your new drafting. --WhiteMagick (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The new drafting is in the new section below (time stamp 16:06). --Zlerman (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a very balanced paragraph like the one I and Chaosdruid prepared (is that being placed in the actual Demographics for Cyprus?) however there is no mention on the number of Greek Cypriots or foreigners which makes it look like all the rest of the population is Greek thus inflating their numbers. It also looks like a good paragraph to put in the Turkish Cypriots article concerning their numbers. --WhiteMagick (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Demographics section: next iteration

 * Here is the next iteration that incorporates (faithfully, I hope) all the previous comments and (again I hope) is sufficiently neutral to satisfy all sides. If this is acceptable, we can move it to the main article. Please let me have your feedback. --Zlerman (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the first population census after the declaration of independence, carried out in December 1960 and covering the entire island, Cyprus had a total population of 573,566, with Greek Cypriots comprising 77% of the island's population and Turkish Cypriots 18% (other nationals accounted for the remaining 5%). According to the last census covering the entire island (April 1973), the population of Cyprus was 631,778 with the Turkish Cypriots estimated at 19% of the total (about 120,000). .

The subsequent censuses conducted in 1976-2001 after the de facto division of the island covered only the population in the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus government, and the number of Turkish Cypriots residing in Northern Cyprus was estimated by the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Service based on population growth rates and migration data. In the last census of 2001 carried out by the Republic of Cyprus, the population in the area controlled by the government was 703,529. The number of Turkish Cypriots residing in Northern Cyprus was estimated by the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Service at 87,600, or 11% of the total. The latest available estimates by the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Service put the island’s population at the end of 2006 at 867,600, with 89.8% (778,700) in the government controlled area and 10.2% (88,900) Turkish Cypriots in Northern Cyprus. However, the Republic of Cyprus estimate of Turkish Cypriots does not represent the total population of Northern Cyprus. In addition, the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Service also estimated that 150,000-160,000 Turkish immigrants (“illegal settlers” in the language of the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Abstract 2007, p. 72) were living in Northern Cyprus, bringing the de facto population of Northern Cyprus to about 250,000. This estimate produced by the Republic of Cyprus matches the results of the 2006 population census carried out by the government of Northern Cyprus, which gives 265,100 as the total population of TRNC. The total population of Cyprus is thus slightly over 1 million, comprising 778,700 in the territory controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus and 265,100 in the territory controlled by the government of TRNC.


 * Hi guys - sorry but I have been a little ill - recovering now though.
 * I think this is about right, although I would personally put (listed as "illegal settlers" in the abstract from the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Service...) to avoid any possibility of objections and edits from disgruntled parties.
 * Apart from that it's fine. Achieves NPoV and accurate figures.
 * Thanks for your work Zlerman, I can only apologise for my illness taking me out of action for a couple of days after my return home--Chaosdruid (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)