Talk:Cyprus/Archive 7

Crucial section missing: Flora and fauna
There badly needs to be a section on the native plant and animal life, and a Main link to the main article on that if there is one. If there isn't, there should be. I'd fail this as GA much less FA candidate on this basis alone, as the article is missing one of the most basic information sections needed for any major geographical location article. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 15:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Population
Could someone please clarify the population as in the population of the Republic and the whole island (including the north)? And I think instead of directing the ethnic groups section to Greeks and Turks, it should be directed to Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.111.119 (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was just looking for the population myself.  I expected it to be in the infobox.DavidRF (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like this information was just recently removed. (or changed in such as way as to break the template).DavidRF (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I reverted the good-faith edits which broke the template. Here is the link that the user was trying to update link.  I'll leave it to smarter users to figure out how/if to incorporate information from that link into the template.DavidRF (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Total land area?
What is the total land area of the island in its entirity ? including Northern cyrpus defacto state ,UN buffer Zone ,UK bases and the remainder the southern Cyprus? the infor box on this artical still leaves me confused 76.244.154.251 (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Maps
The article is provided with several maps of the island, showing various things but none of them show the split between the Greek and Turkish sections of the island. Considering it is mentioned in the article, i believe that such a map should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. E4024 (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Limited recognition
Is this the same TRNC that we are talking about? It seems that the Foreign Ministry of Pakistan, a State-Member of the UN Security Council for the years 2011-2012, is not aware that the TRNC "is only recognised by Turkey"... E4024 (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That article does indicate at least some limited amount of contact, but it doesn't say (or really even imply) that full diplomatic recognition exists between Pakistan and the TRNC. Another web page (see here) implies at least as strongly that Pakistan does not (at least as of February 2011) recognize the TRNC — the suggestion that Pakistan should recognize the TRNC logically means this is not currently the case.  In order to change what the various Wikipedia articles about Cyprus and/or Northern Cyprus currently say regarding the (non-)recognition of the TRNC, we would need reliable sources which specifically address the issue of diplomatic recognition, location of embassies, exchanges of ambassadors, etc.  Note, too, the use of the phrase "TRNC Representative Office", which doesn't imply official diplomatic recognition (i.e., if the TRNC had an actual embassy in Pakistan, they would have said "embassy", but they didn't).  —  Rich wales 16:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The island of Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus
I believe there should be two separate pages for these two titles. Similar to how when you search for Britain you get a page that shows various possibilities there should be such a page for Cyprus as well. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Like Finnish Wikipedia (fi:Kypros, fi:Kyproksen tasavalta) ? Takabeg (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Look at the map in the caption. The country, or island or whatever it is is "in the European Union". If you go to the article Austria, in this same Wikipedia, you will see that the country is located "in Europe" and "in the European Union". Maybe the real reason why they (the Greek-oriented editors) cannot accept to have a separate article about the island of Cyprus is their unwillingness to recognise and declare that it is in "Asia". (BTW is there any geographers around to tell us that the island is a part of Asia Minor?) Probably this is the only case of a country that tries to conceal where it is. On the other hand, the futile efforts of an administration (GC) to invent a legitimacy to its claim over another people`s (TC) rights whereas the correct and right way to legitimise itself is only by reaching at a peaceful reunification between the Turkish Cypriot State and the Greek Cypriot State under a new State with a new name, like the United Republic of Cyprus (that they rejected in 2004). Being a member of the UN, EU or whatever international organisation does not change the fact that the so-called Republic of Cyprus does not represent the whole island nor that the GCs have kidnapped the former Republic of Cyprus... E4024 (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

From two different articles of the Wikipedia:

1. Cuba: ... is an island country in the Caribbean. 2. Cyprus: This article is about the island sovereign state. ... (Cyprus) is a Eurasian island country located in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea... etc.

I wonder what is so special or even "magical" about Cyprus? Why is it not an island in the Eastern Mediterranean and full stop? Is it me or is it the Greek (Cypriot or not Cypriot does not matter), Greek-oriented, Helenophil editors?.. Why does Wikipedia have special references regarding a simple island, instead of having an article about a Mediterranean island called Cyprus in English?.. 88.116.117.51 (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Cyprus (Κύπρος, Kypros, Kıbrıs) is an island in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. It is the third largest island in the Mediterranean and geographically belongs to Asia, but politically closely connected with European countries. For many Europeans obsessed with religion, South Cyprus, predominantly Orthodox Christian, is Europe, although the island relates to Asia Minor geographically, whereas countries with a moslem population in proper Europe like Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo are always far from being accepted to "secular" European Union.

The island has been divided since 1974. The larger southern part is governed by the Republic of Cyprus. The northern part is under control of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Between northern and southern part there is a buffer zone known as "Green Line".


 * als:Zypern, als:Republik Zypere
 * frp:Ch·ipre, frp:Ch·ipre (payis)
 * az:Cənubi Kipr, az:Kipr Respublikası
 * bar:Zypern, ?
 * br:Kiprenez, br:Republik Kiprenez
 * bg:Кипър (остров), bg:Кипър
 * cv:Кипр утравĕ, cv:Кипр Республики
 * cs:Kypr (ostrov), cs:Kypr
 * de:Zypern, de:Republik Zypern
 * et:Küprose saar, et:Küpros
 * eo:Cyprus, eo:Kipro
 * fr:Chypre, fr:Chypre (pays)
 * lad:Kipre (ada), lad:Repuvlika Kipriyota
 * mg:Nosy ny Kipra, mg:Repoblikan'i Kipra
 * nn:Kypros, nn:Republikken Kypros
 * uz:Janubiy Kipr, uz:Qibris
 * pl:Cypr (wyspa), pl:Cypr
 * crh:Qıbrız, crh:Qıbrız Cumhuriyeti
 * ru:Кипр (остров), ru:Республика Кипр
 * sk:Cyprus (ostrov), sk:Cyprus
 * tr:Kıbrıs, tr:Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti
 * tk:Günorta Kipr, tk:Kipr Respublikasy

I think it's possible. I prefer the styles in German Wikipedia. Who will create Cyprus (island) (later we'd better change title to Cyprus) ? 13:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Something like that. Cyprus is the name of the island and when someone searches for it s/he should be able to get information about the geography and history of the island. While the page for Republic of Cyprus should give information the same it is done for any state. At the moment the history of the island is given as the history of Republic of Cyprus which is quite absurd. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree totally with the above. The funny truth is that our Greek friends like the absurd a bit too much. Look at the discussions on Cyprus, Cyprus dispute and similar topics... E4024 (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What's the distinction between the History of the Republic and the history of the island? Basically it's two tiny military bases, and only after 1960. Hardly enough to warrant separate articles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chipmunkdavis. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The history of the island goes back for 10+ centuries. The history of Republic of Cyprus starts in 1960 with it's own rich twists. The two are completely different. Republic of Cyprus page should be about Republic of Cyprus rather than the whole island. May I ask why we have a seperate article for Britain? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the distinction between the history of the Republic of Ireland and the island of Ireland. Their only difference is Northern Ireland, which was created in 20th century, so basically the same. This is also the case here. The republic does not have control over the whole island, the British bases are not parts of the republic, but they are parts of the island. --Seksen (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ireland is an other good example. There is the island of Ireland and there is the Republic of Ireland. Yet, when you search you get to the page for the island of Ireland. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * History extends beyond the founding of a political system. At any rate, Northern Ireland forms a far larger chunk of land then the British bases, and includes notable geography such as its giant loch. Its very different from two tiny military areas. I expect the situation in regard to the page names will change soon anyway, with the moratorium over... Anyway, the question to ask is this: What would an island article offer that this article doesn't? Nothing really. History would be the same (with the bases basically just hanging around), Demographics would (as the bases don't have a permanent foreign population), Geography basically would, Culture would, etc. Nothing new would help the reader. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked you an other question. Why does Britain has different articles? What you say is not true as well. An article for the island would give history, geography and demographics for the island of Cyprus. An article for the Republic of Cyprus would give history, geography and demographics for the state. There's two seperate entities existing on the island as well even though one considered illegal. At the moment, Republic of Cyprus article is unnecessarily long compared to other states that are older. I would like you to answer my question about Britain. Also, if in the future a two-state solution is realized on the island are you gonna be editing a new island page? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyhow you can start. Takabeg (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Chipmunkdavis, what you said about the geography of Ireland is also true for Cyprus. The two bases also have notable geography, such as the salt lake and two capes in Akrotiri. I can see that if we have a separate article on the island, its geography section would be different from the republic. The bases have a permanent population of 7000 Cypriots living in them, and the total population is around 14000, which makes a difference. And the history sections of the articles of Ireland also have a similar problem, and it seems to be solved, see the articles of History of Ireland, History of the Republic of Ireland and History of Northern Ireland. And I should add that, on French Wiki for example, the history section of the republic starts from 1950s. --Seksen (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Chipmunkdavis makes some great points and I agree completely with him/her. The proposed artificial separation of the island with the country is just that: Artificial. It may be even POV. Cyprus from ancient times has been an island and a country; the history of both is inextricably linked. The latest manifestation of the historical Cyprus island-states is the Republic of Cyprus which forms an unbroken link with its past ancestors. So I completely disagree with splitting this article. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

According to Article size, > 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided, > 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time). Takabeg (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Seksen makes great points about his/her comparison of Ireland and Cyprus. I agree with him fully. This "artificial" and possibly "POV" separation already seems to exists with Ireland and Britain.
 * Also, Takabeg, where do we check for the size of the article? What I did was to copy the article into a word file to see how long it is. It was longer than the page for Turkey and Greece. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try to address points one by one. Forgive me if I miss any.
 * By Britain I assume you mean Great Britain? If so there's a different article because the UK extends beyond the island of Great Britain, notably in Northern Ireland, which makes up a substantial chunk of the UK.
 * A salt lake and a couple of capes is hardly comparable to the largest lake in the British Isles in terms of notability. I also highly call into question that this would make a significant difference to the article. Are those capes notable enough to mention in a summary style on geography? No, not really.
 * Similar situation for history and demographics. A summary of the history of the island would look exactly the same as a summary of the history of the state. A few thousand people does not make any significant bump on an island of hundreds of thousands.
 * A note on main articles: History of Ireland covers the history of the entire island, just as History of Cyprus does. History of the Republic of Ireland is a subarticle of the History of Ireland, covering the republic from just after the first world war onwards. We could just as easily have History of the Republic of Cyprus, covering independence onwards. Cyprus articles are not as developed however, with the closest we currently have being Modern history of Cyprus, which could easily be divided. I would fully support anyone trying to create an article on the history during the time of the republic. Geography of Ireland covers the whole island, so does Geography of Cyprus. I'm fairly sure we could include Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Demographics of Cyprus, especially as the civilian population are cypriots. Imagine separate articles for demographics of the island and of the state; there'd be almost no difference.
 * As for the article being too long, I've mentioned that before. The article has a great excess of information. The solution is to summarise information on this page, not to split it. What were you going to split it to?
 * As for a two-state Cyprus, in that case I'd fully support a separate island article. (Assuming current divisions) the state of Cyprus would only have around 2/3 of the land, etc. In that case the island would be much more comparable to Ireland. However, currently this article treats Northern Cyprus as part of the republic. I doubt there'd be any support for changing that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how UK extending beyond Britain grants an article of it's own. By arguing that Cyprus doesn't deserve a seperate article of it's own you're arguing that Britain doesn't deserve an article for itself either. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume again you mean Great Britain? Again, there's a much greater difference between the UK and Great Britain than there is between the state of Cyprus and the island of Cyprus. You're free to try and AFD Great Britain. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For starters, your own wiki link lists the name Britain so you can drop trying to fix my use of the word Britain. Second, UK encompasses the Britain article in the same way RoC encompasses the Cyprus. Moreover, two states, one recognized and one not-recognized, exists on Cyprus. The article for TRNC already exists. So, the separation that you talk about on your last point above de facto exists both in life and in Wikipedia. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I was merely asking for a clarification, which I have now obtained. The UK covers more than Britain, Cyprus is practically coterminous with the island. As for the TRNC, information on the north of cyprus is included in the Cyprus article. Are you suggesting we remove it from here, and then create a new article for the whole island? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose proposal: there is no need to create two identical articles, since the island coincides with the political entity, like: Sri Lanka, Iceland, even Greenland and Cuba, which are also about the state and the island that bears same name.Alexikoua (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The situation of Cyprus is similar to Hispaniola (Dominican Republic, Haiti), Timor (East Timor, West Timor) etc. Takabeg (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry but wrong, the illegally established and unrecognized entity TRNC can't be conisdered a legitimate state such as East Timor or Haiti.Alexikoua (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why wrong ? Now I understand you focus on legitimacy. But I focus on whether the island is divided or not. Cyprus is also divided like Hispaniola and Timor. Takabeg (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @Chipmonkdavis, the UK covering more than the island of Britain doesn't really mean anything. You haven't provided the reasoning for why there are separate articles that I asked. Simply saying the UK covers more is not enough. UK still covers all of the Britain and it would be equally expected for it to be under the article for UK if we go by your logic of course. Mention of life in TRNC is minimal as well. If the article covers all of the island then it should cover topics of the all of the island. What I suggest is quite clear.


 * @Alexikoua, no need to Oppose something where there is no formal proposal. Also, there is already an article for the island of Cuba that you mentioned. It's called Isla de la Juventud. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @TheDarkLordSeth, if you want, you can create the article immediately. If we think the article show close resemblance to other articles, we'll use Proposed mergers. Takabeg (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Creating a new article so as to potentially merge it with an existing article sounds like an experiment waiting to fail. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 07:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer to make it a group effort rather than a one man job. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. I was wondering about the same thing. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 08:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @TheDarkLordSeth, Cyprus (island) was created. You can contribute to the article by editing. Hadi bakalım. Takabeg (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How is that constructive Takabeg? You added an unnecessary category to Balkan Pact and now you have created an unnecessary article. @TheDarkLordSeth: Looks like two one man jobs.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 12:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I redirected it to Cyprus as a POV fork with no consensus. The current article has much more content and so the so-called new article is not needed. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * He also started the edit-warring. It looks like he is trying to defend his out-of consensus POV fork by ignoring consensus and WP:3RR and exhibiting tendentious editing. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

@ πraxis. Why did you think POV fork ? The article is not fork. Because that is new article. Why POV ? What kind of POV ? German, French wikipedias have that article. The article is neutral and natural. It's not necessary to get permission of users. I think your POV is not neutral. Takabeg (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you cannot get my name straight I will not reply to you. Last time you called me "λogos" and I explained to you that was wrong. Is there a deficiency on your part I am supposed to be aware of? Dr.K. λogosπraxis  15:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I can understand your national sentiment on this issue. I estimate that some Greek users don't want the article Cyprus (island) to show and emphasize the Republic of Cyprus only "legitimate" political entity, and some Turkish users want to create the article to show the presence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. But political bias of both side prevent our efforts to make English Wikipedia normal and neutral encyclopedia. English Wikipedia must be as neutral as, at least German, French wikipedias. Takabeg (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You would have been credible if you acted within consensus but clearly you did not. It would also help to hide your POV better if you did not invite other users to edit your pseudo-article in Turkish: Hadi bakalım. I remind you this is the English Wikipedia. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @Dr.K, re you calling it a POV fork just because it goes against what you wanted? It seems like that. There are 3 people here who expressed their opinion for creation of a separate article while two people are against it. Not that numbers mean anything but it's equally POV to call something POV just because it goes beyond what you wanted. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Alexikoua, Chipmunk Davis and me do not add up to two, it is three. Second I was taking part in a discussion to reach consensus and I did not act unilaterally to impose any POV I may or may not have. Takabeg's POV however is obvious. He acted without any consensus to impose it. Just look at the introduction of the fork mentioning how the island is divided. He wants to highlight the Turkish POV. There is no issue here about what "I want". Please do not make this personal. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  17:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And now that you started discussion on the fork's talkpage on how to improve the unneeded and against consensus fork, your own POV becomes clearer. At least please stop pretending that you are a policy-abiding and neutral observer. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 17:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Make that three, and expect many more. This is nothing than content forking. As far as the entire world minus turkey is concerned, the Republic of Cyprus and the island of Cyprus are coterminous. But this is not the Turkish wikipedia. The comparisons with Ireland are malarkey. Northern Ireland is an internationally recognized part of another state, not an unrecognized puppet-state created by an illegal application of military force. Takabeg is behaving in the manner of a tendentious editor by forging ahead with his nationalist POV behavior, even though he knows full well that there are many people opposed to what he is proposing. If this continues, I will report him. Enough already. Athenean (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Athenean, you are number four, not three. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 17:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to repeat that Takabeg is considered anti-Turkish on some users on Turkish Wikipedia, because of this or this, and I can add many other examples, so we should avoid calling him pro-Turkish - but he usually makes edits without waiting results of discussions, and that was also criticized there. By the way, I wonder if French Wikipedia also supports the illegal occupation and the puppet state, which are emphasized on English Wikipedia whenever there is a discussion. --Seksen (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Consensus and the discussion to reach it is an important principle of Wikipedia. It appears that all these high concepts have been short-circuited in this case in favour of the approach of editing by coup. This edit-war-fuelled editorial grandstanding is ridiculous to say the least and ultimately damaging to the collaborative-editing principles of Wikipedia. It has to stop. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 23:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree that editing withouth waiting the consensus is wrong, and it should be avoided. But I can see that there is a continued emphasis on "puppet state", "illegal occupation" etc. whenever there is an opportunity, as if everyting except empasizing that is wrong and POV-pushing. --Seksen (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My POV is international POV. But most of users who are interested in this issue are national POV. Especially Greek chauvinism damages the neutrality of English Wikipedia. I hope they would ged rid of their own national POV and contribute to neutral encyclopedia, as soon as possible. Takabeg (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The expressions "puppet state" and "illegal occupation" are widely accepted in mainstream bibliography, but that's not exactly the issue here.Alexikoua (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said, numbers don't mean much. I don't think I needed to make a consensus to make a new article as well but I still did ask people to understand the case better. Being confrontational about an act that did not require consensus and calling it POV was quite unneccessary. I'd like to remind everyone that we're not having a pissing contest here. We're simply trying to make articles better and better inform Wiki readers. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This proposal makes perfect sense considering the Republic of Cyprus is only one of the political entities on the island currently in space and historically in time. Filanca (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm going to respond to this, and hopefully my point will get through:
 * the UK covering more than the island of Britain doesn't really mean anything. You haven't provided the reasoning for why there are separate articles that I asked. Simply saying the UK covers more is not enough. UK still covers all of the Britain and it would be equally expected for it to be under the article for UK if we go by your logic of course. Mention of life in TRNC is minimal as well. If the article covers all of the island then it should cover topics of the all of the island. What I suggest is quite clear.
 * There are separate articles because the topic are quite different. There's an island, and a state which covers much more than just that island. Taking your perception of my argument to its final point, it would be like saying that I don't want a crete article because crete is part of greece. That would be dumb, and it's not my argument at all. Cyprus the state is almost exactly the same as Cyprus this island (unlike the UK), and there has not been one point in this discussion where that has been seriously challenged. As for the mention of life here and there, it is mentioned in some areas of the article. Feel free to suggest things to add, although at this point this article really needs things to cut.
 * As for the island being older than the state, true. However, the state currently is almost exactly the same as the island, and two separate articles would invariably be two almost identical articles. That would be pointless and unhelpful to the reader.
 * So, as I see it, some users want a separate island article to try and highlight the division of the island? Is that the basic argument? If so, then I disagree with that idea completely, in addition to the duplication opposition above. There is an almost unanimous official consensus among UN states that the Republic of Cyprus covers the whole island (bar the Brit bases), and (although I disagree with chucking the word around at every point) credit where credit is due, it is true that it has been officially described as an occupation by the international community. Do I think the current article is NPOV towards the Northern side? No, not completely. However, making a WP:Pointy article is the wrong way to go around fixing anything. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent points. I agree. Please also see my reply at Fastily's talk. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 16:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody really proposed to copy the same information on this article to the other and keep it that way. The intention was to make this article shorter (which is longer than that of Turkey and Greece) and give a more comprehensive information about the island rather than the state with half the control of the island. I raised the point initially when I searched for the island and got an article on a state instead. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you say half? Last time I looked 36.2 percent of the Republic of Cyprus was under Turkish occupation. But internationally, the government of the Republic of Cyprus, represents 100% of the island since no other "government" is recognised.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 23:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Making a new article won't magically make this page shorter. There are already a number of main pages information can be transferred to, and we can easily do that to shorten the article. The state is, for better or worse, officially almost exactly the same as the island. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What is this childishness about "shortening" the article? Is that what this is all about? That the article is longer than the article on Turkey and that some people find this intolerable? "My article is longer than yours"? How incredibly inane. In 4 years of editing wikipedia I have never encountered anything so childish and petty. We're supposed to be here to improve articles. Anyone who isn't, please let me know and I will see to it that you are shown the door. Athenean (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @Chimpmunkdavis: I agree. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we can make satellite articles out of already existing sections in the article. You want "Geography"? create the "Geography of Cyprus" article, "Culture"? create the "Culture of Cyprus" article; You simply can't create a summary section for the whole article and call it an island. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 02:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

@Nipsonanomhmata, it's a figure of speech. There is no need to get nationalistic over such a use of that phrase... @Others, I'd like to invite all of you to calm down as your arguments are starting to get insulting and ignorant of what others say. If you're oppose the creation of an Cyprus(island) article then kindly state that and provide your reasoning in a civil manner. There is no need to turn this into a pissing contest. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:- Strong oppose, the island and the Republic of Cyprus [de jure] are one. The Republic of Cyprus is an island country, separating the article would be misleading to the audience.23x2 (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @TheDarkLordSeth. Nationalistic? A little over one third is not one half. That has nothing to do with nationalism.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 16:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But that's what a good nationalistic strategy is Nipsonanomhmata. Always under-represent the figures of your target and if you get caught at that call it a figure of speech. For additional effect call the guy who questioned you a nationalist. That should work; if challenged, call it a joke. But only in the end and only if you ran out of every other excuse. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 17:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Whoever put the infobox at the top of this para. Would you be kind enough to delete the infobox at the top of this para. When you edit on this talk page you feel like you are editing an article.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 16:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Otherwise it could be construed as an attempt at conditioning the reader. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 17:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I already explained that I simply used a figure of speech. Making further assumptions on my words is quite out of the line. I prefer to participate in a constructive discussion, not this... TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's move on and consider it a figure of speech shall we? Leave the infobox too, it's just an example, nothing wrong with that. Anyway, I've explained above why I object, and until Northern Cyprus becomes recognised as independent by the Republic of Cyprus my objections will probably stay. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * TRNC was never party to the discussion and reason for creating a Cyprus(island) article until you argued against it. So, it's irrelevant to base your argument over it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My argument against is not based on the TRNC, it is based on the massive duplication an island article would have. I wrote about the TRNC above because I mentioned the example infobox, which has the TRNC in it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Then your argument ignores what's been argued here all along. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That it would not be a duplication. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * But...it would be. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Nevermind... TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support The island and current political soveregins on it are different entities in space and time. Cyprus Republic is a comparatively recent event in the long history of Cyprus. It does not rule over all of the island, de facto there are three independent political entities (including the UK) plus the buffer zone beyond the control of Republic of Cyprus. Fusing those two concepts (that is, the island and one of the political entities ruled on a part of it at a certain time in history) in one article is not sensible. Filanca (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems to me that a valid analogy can be made here with the existing, separate articles on Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo. The analogy is not perfect, but both the Kosovo situation and the Cyprus situation involve territories with long histories, inter-ethnic conflicts, and current political disputes over the legitimacy of controversial de facto governments with limited international recognition.   Rich wales (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Except the limited international recognition is non-existent for TRNC. We cannot gloss over this without going seriously into POV. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 17:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Turkey recognizing TRNC is limited international recognition. You can't deny that. That's a fact. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The only country in the world to do so and also the original invader. How convincing. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 21:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be convincing. It's simply a fact. Something we have to get over... TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you would like to tow Ankara's line and ignore the huge conflict of interest that the recognising nation is also the invader. But not when you try to build a mainstream encyclopedia and the rest of the globe does not agree with you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 21:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum. You can find some international forum and discuss the morality of it there but here and everywhere by definition TRNC has limited recognition. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't throw ridiculous and loud slogans at me. Not when I try to show you that the word "limited" is downright misleading when it is applied the way you want it to apply. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 21:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There are no slogans. Please calm down. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Stop the personal references. Throwing around WP:FORUM to experienced editors is sloganeering. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 00:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sadly, experienced editors are not immune to such behaviors. Please calm down. You have expressed your opinion and chose to go against the simple definition of a term. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess you cannot stop the personal attacks. Again stop the personal comments. If you don't understand this you are unfit to continue this or any other discussion. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't attacked anyone personally. Please stop repeating the same argument. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Kosovo and Cyprus are two completely different cases. Historically, politically, diplomatically. The comparison is nonsensical. Apples and oranges. For what it's worth, I also think the split of Kosovo was a bad idea, and one that will in the future create far more problems than it solves. Athenean (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support! I think it is a more neutral way to go. I also added Akrotiri and Dhekelia because they also occupy part of the island. We could maybe add flags?


 * Oppose Strong oppose (opposition to duplicating this article with an additional "island" article.) Chipmunkdavis and others are correct above.... any separation of the island from the country is artificial and probably WP:POV in light of how Sri Lanka, Iceland, many Caribbean, Pacific Ocean, and Indian Ocean island states are considered, etc....one and the same as the island.  The two UK bases are inconsequential in size and historic scope and significance, and the N. Cyprus distinction has been around for 3 decades + and recognized by no authoritative body....so should be mentioned and covered by WP but, likewise, not "recognized."DLinth (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not for the TRNC, but its not neutral to give the article "Cyprus" to the Republic of Cyprus. It should be neutral even if we don't like the other guys, thats one of Wikipedias ideals, neutrality.--Gimelthedog (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutrality doesn't matter when the article is about Turks. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Apart from Northern Cyprus, which is internationally recognised as part of the southern republic, the island is also shared with Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Akrotiri and Dhekelia isn't recognised as part of the republic. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. It's a good way of weeding down what is definitely an overlong article, it's NPOV (no recognition of the occupied areas is implied or stated), and it reflects the historical realities (There was no RoC before independence.). Vizjim (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When I made this section I didn't intended it to be an official vote on it. So, if you'd like to have a vote where the count matters you should open a new section. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, now it's good. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I cannot help myself notice that users with names like Athenean and Logos Something (the letters are too tiny for me to read) tend to get nervous when discussing things that somehow concern the Greeks... 80.123.196.102 (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there must be a separate page for Cyprus and another for the (for me so-called) "Republic of Cyprus". In the latter, clear explanation ot the loss of legitimity of the "Republic of Cyprus" -for the ousting of the Turkish Cypriots from state institutions in 1963- should be given.The edition of a separate chapter on the UN project of a United Republic of Cyprus within the Cyprus Dispute article will also help to understand the Cypriot saga.--E4024 (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)--E4024 (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Division or Reuniting Cyprus
Are these two concepts related to the divided island of Cyprus?.. E4024 (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC) While everybody in Europe is trying to escape from the Greeks why would the Turks of Cyprus make more sacrifices for the reunification of the island?..--E4024 (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Flag of Europe
Chipmunkdavis, there is no EU flag, FYI. The flag that the EU uses is called the European flag and is adopted by (the then 13 members of) the Council of Europe in 1955. Among those 13 countries was my beautiful Turkey, while Cyprus was still a crown colony... E4024 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Aside from being de facto a true statement, it's an easy shorthand. How does this improve the article? CMD (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

By trying to educate the editors of the article... E4024 (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)--E4024 (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The same what? Talk pages aren't for discussing views on the subject, they're for improving the article. See WP:FORUM. If you have changes you think the article needs, then use this talkpage to discuss them. CMD (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't edit your comments after they have been replied too, it confuses the flow of conversation. CMD (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to answer, not test Wiki guidelines. Thank you all the same.--E4024 (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Cypriots
I agree with Spartassetc that there are "Turks" and "Greeks" (and some minority ethnic groups) in Cyprus, but "Turkish Cypriot" and "Greek Cypriot" are UN terminology.--E4024 (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Eurasian island country? (from the lead)
I realise that this is probably the product of years of wiki argument and compromise and I, as much as anyone, hate these pointless wiki-terminology disputes, but seriously is "Eurasian island country" best we can do? It just leaps of the page with its clunkiness. Can't we just say "...is an island located..." or, if we must, "...is an island and state located...". And Eurasian? Knowing wiki (but not particularly this article) it has all the hallmarks - and I'm guessing - of some huge prior argument about whether Cyprus is Europe or Asia, hence "Eurasian", but it's surprising that I can't see any discussion in the body of the article of alternative views on which continent it's considered to be in, or whether it's a special case of being in both/neither. The lead should reflect the article's body not be stand alone per WP:LEAD. And if we are here to provide information...I can imagine a punter clicking on to wiki to check which continent Cyprus is considered to be in (personally, off the top of my head, I'm not sure which)...and being disappointed by the lack of an answer. DeCausa (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as I was trying to reply to you yesterday, on Talk Greece, this time also I wrote several paragraphs that could be useful to the discussion but my edit got lost, for edit conflict or whatever. Let me first note this, later I will try to write my lost dissertation again. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @DeCausa

There is some discussion covering this issue in the Sections 1 and 6. In fact my opinion on the issue is also almost covered therein. All the same I will try to summarise it and add a few elements:

Cyprus is an island in Asia. There are two states on the island: The Republic of Cyprus, a UN member country, and the TRNC, a state with limited recognition. The basic problem here is to make a distinction between Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus. There must be two different articles for these two topics. If not delete the article Northern Cyprus and everything else related to the TRNC. So simple as said.

Regional Organisations:

As I was writing these comments for the first time, I was watching the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest first semi-final live from Baku. (I have been following the Contest since I was a teenager.) It is organised by the European Broadcasting Union. If you take a look at the membership of this "European" organisation you will see that there is one country from Northern Africa (Morocco) and several others from Asia. This European regional organisation has not closed its doors to countries from out of the continent, because geographical position is one thing and membership to an international organisation is another.

Another good example is the Organisation for Economic Cooperation at the Black Sea, an initiative launched by President Turgut Özal of Turkey. When this regional organisation was being established, in the early 90s, the Turkish Government was wise enough to ask Greece and Armenia, two countries with no coastline in the Black Sea, as well as several others that did not have access to the Black Sea either, to join in alongside the Black Sea countries. What the Turkish authorities had in mind with this move (citation needed :-) was, in my opinion, have another forum of cooperation with Greece, due to some difficulties we had been facing in those years in our bilateral relationship and to establish a channel of communication with Armenia (and also not to leave it isolated in its region and to the mercy of Russia) as the two countries, Turkey and Armenia, had not yet established diplomatic relations by then. (x) (Thanks to this initiative Armenia has an Ambassador/Permanent Representative in Istanbul, the HQ of the organisation.)

Last but not the least, and again in my personal opinion -as this is a Talk Page- Euroasian countries are countries that have territory in the two continents, Europe and Asia, like Turkey and Russia.

(x) Turkey and Armenia have not been able to establish diplomatic relations even today, after 20 years, but that is not an issue to address in this page. --E4024 (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

@DeCausa: It is pretty bad. How about "Eastern Mediterranean"? CMD (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @DeCausa and CMD: I agree with "Eastern Mediterranean", I also disliked "Eurasian" as clunky and unhelpful.  Moreover, islands are generally associated with the body of water they are located in rather than a continent (e.g Iceland is an island in the Atlantic rather than a "European island"), so I definitely think "Eastern Mediterranean is the way to go.  Athenean (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Eastern Mediterranean is already mentioned, it should be sufficient to just remove "Eurasian", this would also avoid the whole tedious issue of whether it is "European" or "Asian". Athenean (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. Agree with Athenean, just remove it. It's not like telling the reader it's Eurasian tells them anything at all . CMD (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Getting rid of Eurasian for the reasons mentioned would be an improvement to the lead. Being "located in the Eastern Mediterranean" is the important point for the lead, surely. But I think the Geography section in the body should say what the convention is as to which continent it's in. I know it's a kind of Trivial pursuit type question, but it is the sort of thing people go to Wikipedia to check up. (Which is it, btw?) Otherwise, I still find "island country" a bit clunky. I see that Britannica (not that we should follow it) makes do with "is an island in the Eastern Mediterranean" for its lead. DeCausa (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is it. An unfortunate question. Traditionally it has always been in Asia. Geographically, it is right there. Politically, it's east of the original Greek line through the Aegean, and during the age of enlightenment and exploration, as continents consolidated in the minds of Europeans, Cyprus was part of the 'Eastern' Ottoman Empire. In modern days it has cast itself as 'European', joining the EU etc., so some sources now include it with Europe. I don't think that it's worth getting in to anywhere in the article. It doesn't exactly help the reader understand anything about the country. I've removed Eurasian from the lead, it now reads "an island country in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea". CMD (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...hmm...needs Continental affiliation of Cyprus! (Not really) DeCausa (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The "Eastern Mediterranean" (sea) washes the shores of "Western Asia" (continent). The island of Cyprus is in Asia. No geographer would discuss such a simple fact. Deal with such simple questions politically and psychology enters the stage at once. When I visited the Canary Islands (an administrative unit of Spain) in Africa and said to people "It was my first landing at Africa" the reaction of some were more than funny. (We are part of Spain, we are in the European Union etc. / Those data do not change the basic fact that your archipelago is in Africa.) Want a better Wiki, emulate (Meaning No 1) the Britannica, write the facts as simple as they are, like the said Cyprus article therein. If not, it's better not to give references from that encyclopedia; WP might lose readers... :-) --E4024 (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "E. Med." is the best concise locator description I've seen. I've been hoping that would replace "Eurasian" here for a long time.
 * And no need for a "Europe vs. Asia" debate in this article, which would not add any value for readers, at least none that they can't find where such trivia belongs....in the footnote already here, or in similar footnotes in WP "list" article. I say "trivia" because of its island status:
 * With "continents" most often defined over the centuries to the present as large "continental" land masses (at times including clearcut island cases (British Isles, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, Cape Verde, Maldives, Greater Antilles (never a water separation between the latter and N. Amer. mainland >90 mi.)), it seems superflous and perhaps overreaches the definition of continents to fret over "assigning" every "in between" island in the world to a "continent", yes?......
 * .....Though some WP lists do try, even with S. Indian Ocean islands(!)  Most reputable sources place Cyprus with Asia and the Middle East/SW Asia, as does the World Factbook.  But the latter does not even try for many islands, a wise choice.  I'm not sure that "Europe vs. Asia" would add any value here.
 * BTW, a useful Canary Island story above, where perhaps the main point should be that a state or archipelago doesn't just switch from one continent to another when it joins a political union (what if Cyprus or a future independent Canary Islands soon joined the African Union as well? "Continents" do not equal political unions (EU).
 * (Yes, political geography is a large component of continental definitions for Europe-Asia, but physical geography is also a large component, more so for all the other continental divisions where it's the main factor ("separating" onto different "continents" politically similar states such as Nicaragua and Venezuela and (in some ways....they used to have a union....Egypt and Syria, yes?) DLinth (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Summary of thread: It seems to me there's consensus for CMD's recent edit: delete Eurasian but otherwise leave as is. DeCausa (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Definitely as consensual as they get. Athenean (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny infobox
From the article: "Cyprus is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea and the Republic of Cyprus is a member state of the European Union." Correct sentence not reflected correctly in the infobox. (Due to the wrong attitude of not recording the real situation but trying to defend a polital stance, which has also proved wrong for decades.) Is WP an instrument of the government of the "Republic of Cyprus" or is it an encyclopedia?

The infobox is ridiculous as it looks at this moment. --E4024 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your point. There is no scope (as far as I can see) within the infobox template to include the fact that it is the third largest med. island. And it mentions the EU membership just under the map at the top. From previous contributions I suspect you are making some opaque point about recognition of Noerthern Cyprus. (For those of us that are not as interested as you in it you have to be a bit more explicit.) But even then I don't know what you think will be done: Northern Cyprus is unrecognised by the international community so WP would inevitably treat Cyprus = Republic of Cyprus. Is that your point somehow? If so, you are frankly wasting your time pursuing it.DeCausa (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't understand because possibly you have not followed the indirect discussion by edits and reverts, done like small kids, instead of talking like grown up people...

The infobox should put the location as Eastern Mediterranean sea for "Cyprus". (In WP Cyprus is in the Eastern Mediterranean article. See it.) It sould be like this: '''Quote Cyprus is in the Eastern Mediterranean (sea). The Republic of Cyprus is a member of the EU. Unquote.'''

This formula does not say anything about contended issues. States the place of the island (or country for those who like that) and says that the State of RoC is a member of the EU. (It has no detriment to neither party.)Simple as that... --E4024 (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're not making any sense. I don't know whether it's an English language problem or something else. On the first point, there is a map in the infobox so there is no need to provide any wordy description of the location. That is the point of having a map. I don't know of any other country infobox that includes a description of location under the map. On the second point, if you want to advance the position that Northern Cyprus should be a recognised state, the infobox on the Cyprus Wikipedia article is not the place to do it. Go somewhere else to do that. There is no scope for WP doing anything but reflect international usage, which is, rightly or wrongly, Cyprus = Republic of Cyprus. DeCausa (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Because you are not looking at other countries' infoboxes to compare. For example Germany. It says it is in Europe. It is a member of the EU. Instead of "Europe" or "Asia" (where the island is really located) we say Eastern Mediterranean. Then we say RoC is in the EU. This is the name of the country, isn't it? It has nothing to the neither with the status of the TRNC nor anything. It is intended to reconcile Europe and Asia and to avoid the funny (including the North) remark. This is called mutual compromise. This is my suggestion, full stop.

Only for your curiosity, of course I have a different look at the TRNC. I also believe that encyclopedias (should) only reflect what they observe. They don't discuss political issues. FYI, recognition is not a constituent element of being or not a state. I wrote this before and nobody objected, because it is so. It is the same reason I have no problem with the term RoC. It is there, Turkey recognises it or not. Even if only Greece recognised it, it would still be a state. Statehood is not questioned here. BTW I know my English is not perfect but sometimes a simple language is better. Leave aside your doubts about my intentions and you will understand me. Look at the contribution, not the contributor. Take care...--E4024 (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right about the European countries. They all seem to have "Location: Europe" under the map. I don't know why, it doesn't seem to add anything. I looked at about a dozen non-European countries (including Turkey) and none had any location descriptions. Given that we can't say the location is Europe, I think there is no point adding anything. As for the rest, I can't understand what you've written so I guess my original response stands. DeCausa (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry I began this "discussion". --E4024 (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's at WP:ANI now . Athenean (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Which continent?
Cyprus is European politically, culturally, and linguistically.

But, geographically, it is a little bit like Asia. (Don't tell anyone.)

So, how is Cyprus normally classified in that respect?

Varlaam (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Continents aren't defined by politics, culture, or linguistics. Nominally they're defined by geography, however this isn't by any sort of consistent standard, and they're basically baseless historical ideas which have become deeply ingrained in the human mindset. As the established border between Asia and Europe is the link between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, and Cyprus is far to the east of that, geographically it's right near Asia. However, it's an island, it's in 'European' organisations, and everywhere which has the faintest possibility of being in Europe rather than Asia wants to be. Different sources will thus show different things, but in my experience most apolitical ones place it (with Turkey) in Asia rather than Europe when one must be chosen. CMD (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Varlaam, you are right. Cyprus is a bit like Asia. Especially the Greek Cypriots are as hard working as the Japanese and especially the northern part of the island is as tidy and neat as Singapore... E4024 (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As regards Chipmunkdavis's opinion, I agree -almost- completely. Roughly, geographical position counts. Cyprus is an island in Asia, because geologically it is part of the subcontinent called Asia Minor, historically, and Anadolu by us, the Turks, owners of the land. There is no doubt on that. On the other hand, Chipmunkdavis is wrong in placing Turkey in Asia, as per his/her own definition. The greater part of Turkey is in Asia, the part called Anadolu, but it has a part in Europe called Trakya (Thrace). Turkish Thrace is bigger than several (and I am not referring to mini states) European countries and has a population more than several European countries put together. So Turkey is on two continents: Asia and Europe (in Alphabetical order) like Russia. As I agree with the "geographical" argument I will not refer to political facts like Turkey's being a member of the Council of Europe, the only pan-European political body, since 1949, the year of its establishment...

In short: Cyprus is in Asia, entirely (not like Turkey) but just like Turkey there is a European connection: So this is another argument in favour of having a separate article for Cyprus and the (for me so-called) Republic of Cyprus. The other separate articles on TRNC and the Cyprus Dispute will contribute to a better understanding of this simple though complicated island... E4024 (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So the caption says that the National Anthem of Cyprus is the National Anthem of Greece!!! Without separating the article of Cyprus from that of the (for me so-called) Republic of Cyprus, this present article will not only continue to be very poor, academically, but also funny... E4024 (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Turkey was just in Asia, in fact, I never said it was anywhere. I just said most "apolitical" (for which I need a better word) sources place it in Asia, probably because that's where its capital is. Notice I noted the border of Asia and Europe as where the Black Sea meets the Mediterranean, and clearly Turkey has territory on both sides of that. CMD (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I did notice, indeed I based my words on that. Thank you very much. E4024 (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In French Wikipedia: Western Asia. --E4024 (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

State vs Political entity
The introductary paragraphs of the article refer to the establishment, in 1983, of the TRNC with the words "Turkish Cypriot political entity". In my first days in WP I tried to change the words "political entity" to "state" a couple of times -although unsuccessfully, because every time I was reverted- as that word reflects the true nature of the TRNC, a sovereign state with limited international recognition. In the end this insistence, together with similar ones, caused me a block for edit warring.

Now I ask myself (and to those contributors who would be kind enough to respond me here in a civic manner): The TRNC is listed both at the List of sovereign states and the List of states with limited recognition articles of our very dear Wikipedia. Therefore what is the reason of the insistence in calling the TRNC a "political entity" instead of "state" in this present article? Is there something special about the Cyprus article? --E4024 (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC);


 * IMO, "political entity" and "unrecognized state" are equally NPOV. However, I would prefer "unrecognized state" as it is more understandable for the generalist reader. The word "state" needs to be qualified however. DeCausa (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Human rights
I looked at the sources in the human rights section. While the second sentence, regarding the difficulty of Turkish Cypriots in obtaining papers is solidly sourced, the first sentence ("There have been reports of mistreatment of Turkish Cypriots...") does not stand up to scrutiny. The first of two source used only mentions an isolated incident in 1994. This is not sufficient to source such a sentence. The second source, the UN annual yearbook, only mentions allegations from the TRNC government. The UN source does not endorse these allegations, it merely reports them as such. Thus, I don't think this sentence should remain. The second sentence I don't mind as much. Athenean (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This was first added in 2011 and was reverted a few days later but found its way to the article through another revert and so on, all the way to today. I reverted it primarily because the phrase is a typical filler unmistakably indicating original research. Not unexpectedly it is not supported by the citation because it is original research. Gathering isolated reports from primary sources and putting them under the banner of "There have been reports..." is not good practice. We should wait for secondary or tertiary sources to perform such analysis, not do it on our own. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  20:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out, the vague statement should be excised. More generally, looking at that whole section, little of it seems really notable. I mean, legislation being unimplemented doesn't mean much by itself, as there is no corroboration as to actual violence incidents. Then there's "mistreatment of domestic staff [is] sometimes reported", which is just as vague as "There has been reports". The only notable bit seems to be the human trafficking, and that's not much more than a sentence. There seems to be a desire to turn each paragraph into a subsection in some parts of this page, but perhaps we could at least get rid of this one and fold anything remotely interesting into the main body of that section. CMD (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, that's fine by me. Athenean (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you CMD for the additional points. I agree completely. The reason I did not point these out in the first place is that I can't bring myself to read that whole human-rights section in detail due to so many POV, OR or even sock edits. Anyway, I agree with your proposal. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 20:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the area of Cyprus?
Whatever about the merits of having separate articles for the island and the Republic, maybe someone could answer this: is 9,251 sq km the area of the Republic of Cyprus, or the whole island including the area of Akrotiri and Dhekelia as well?

The CIA World Factbook says... ...which suggests 9,251 is the Republic and the island's area is about 9,251 + 123 + 130.8 = 9505 sq km
 * Cyprus total: 9,251 sq km (of which 3,355 sq km are in north Cyprus)
 * Akrotiri 123 sq km
 * Dhekelia total: 130.8 sq km

However the UN SYSTEM-WIDE EARTHWATCH ISLAND DIRECTORY TABLES says the area of Cyprus is 9234.4 sq.km. Presumably this includes only the main island, not any small offshore islands. So the figures would match if there are (9505 - 9234.4 =) 270.6 sq km of offshore islands. But I don't think they amount to nearly that much: a scan of web maps of Cyprus shows nothing bigger than a large rock off the shore, and Category:Geography of Cyprus has no island subcategory I can see. So I am inclined to believe the CIA data is misleading and the true breakdown is as follows:
 * Total: 9251
 * Physical breakdown:
 * Mainland: 9234.4
 * Offshore islets: 16.6 (= 9251 - 9234.4)
 * Political de jure breakdown:
 * Akrotiri + Dhekelia: 253.8 (= 123 + 130.8)
 * Republic of Cyprus: 8997.2 (= 9251 - 253.8)

I might also hypothesise a political de facto breakdown... ...though this has two further doubts: jnestorius(talk) 14:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Akrotiri + Dhekelia: 253.8
 * Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus: 3355
 * UN Buffer Zone: 346
 * Republic of Cyprus: 5296.2 (= 9251 - (3355 + 253.8 + 346))
 * The figure of 346 sq km is according to the United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus article, but not in the source it cites
 * It assumes the Buffer Zone does not take any territory claimed by TRNC; or else that the CIA figure of 3355 already excludes any such territory. (I'm pretty sure the Buffer Zone doesn't eat into the sovereign bases.)


 * I have never been good at math but a simple calculation shows that the Republic of Cyprus controls only some 55 % of the island, right? I guess we should insist on the merits of separate articles for the Republic of Cyprus and Cyprus, the island... --E4024 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a separate section for that debate. Your point is irrelevant to the questions I have raised here. jnestorius(talk) 22:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Cyprus is in Asia
I have edited the Cyprus page since it inaccurately claims that Cyprus is in Europe.

Cyprus is in Asia for the following reasons;

- Geographically a part of Asian continent. The idea of continents were proposed by Greeks (anything east of the Aegean sea is Asia), so why is it a Greek is deleting this. By the way, I'm Greek Cypriot.

- Cyprus is below the Asian part of Turkey, known as ASIA Minor or Anatolia (Anatoli is Greek word for east)

- The bible refers to St Barnabas the Cypriot saint as a Levite. Therefore, the Bible confirms the islands location in the Levant.

- Original settlers Eteo-Cypriots were of Asian (Middle Eastern) stock, from Anatolia and Phoenicia. Hence the Cypriots ethnically too belong to the Levant - NOT EUROPE

- Cypriot culture is in line with the Levantine one. Foods such as Halloumi (Arabic; Halloum), Kolokasi, coffee, mulukhiya etc all foods shared by our Asian brothers on the Levant mainland.

Being part of the a political entity called the European Union does not qualify to being a part of Europe (continent). Otherwise Turkey would have more right to being European, which they are far from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alasiya pride86 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a perennial debate. Please check the archived debates. And I know that you are a new user so I am going to try to tell you as nicely as I can to please not mention where editors come from because this is irrelevant as well as insulting. I hope you understand that in this place we try to share ideas and opinions not information about our ethnic backgrounds. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 19:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hala Sultan Tekke
Hala Sultan Tekke is not and has never been a place of pilgrimage for Christians. I do not know what could cause anyone to come to such conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.22.174 (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

RE : In 1974, following the intercommunal violence between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, an attempted coup......... took place.
In 1974, following the intercommunal violence between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots,[14] an attempted coup d'état by Greek Cypriot nationalists[15][16] and elements of the Greek military junta[17] with the aim of achieving enosis (union of the island with Greece) took place.[17]

The inter communal violence occurred in 1963, that is, 11 years before the coup of 1974. The clashes of 1967 was a confrontation between militants at Kokkina. The article as it is, will mislead the reader into thinking there was inter communal violence in 1974, shortly before the coup. The phrase "following the intercommunal violence" implies that inter communal violence was a factor in the decision to overthrow the legitimate government when it wasn't. This sentence must be changed to address these points. HelenOfOz (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

RE : The intercommunal violence and subsequent ?? Turkish invasion led to the displacement of over 150,000 Greek Cypriots[18][19] and 50,000 Turkish Cypriots,[20]
There are a couple problems with this sentence. 1. What inter communal violence is the sentence referring to ? The massacres in 1974 happened AFTER the 2nd Turkish invasion (14th August), not before. So the sentence should read "The Turkish invasion and subsequent intercommunal violence". 2. The 50,000 Turkish Cypriots in the Greek held territory were "displaced" to the Turkish side in 1975, a year after the Turkish invasion. At the same time, a few thousand Greeks trapped in the north came to the south. The displacement of those 50,000 Turkish Cypriots (and Greeks of the north) was the result of an agreement between the Greeks and Turks in 1975, not (directly) by the Turkish invasion in 1974. The sentence as it is now, implies this sequence of events But the truth, which can be easily backed up by Turkish sources, is this This sentence must be rewritten to address my points. HelenOfOz (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Inter communal violence
 * 2. Turkish invasion
 * 3. Displacement of 150,000 Greek Cypriots and 50,000 Turkish Cypriots
 * 1. Turkish invasion
 * 2. Inter communal violence, and displacement of 150,000 Greek Cypriots (I don't know how many TCs)
 * 3. One year later, in 1975, agreement to displace 50,000 Turkish Cypriots from the south and the remaining Greek Cypriots in the north


 * Be WP:BOLD, go for it. Athenean (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you can provide enough sources on your version of truth then you can surely go ahead but at the moment it would simply be a POV push. It's a widely accepted fact that there was inter-communal violence before the Turkish intervention. Displacement happened before, during and after the intervention in different stages. The one after the intervention was due to the population exchange agreement while the other ones were due to people running away from the violence. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * TheDarkLordSeth, the sentence as it is needs clarification because it begins with "In 1974, following the intercommunal violence.....". HelenOfOz (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That section there refers to the inter-communal violence that started in 1963 continuing until 1974. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That was not a good time to tell someone to be bold Athenean. There was communal violence stretching back long before the Turkish Invasion, which we all know. CMD (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * CMD, what communal violence "which we all know" are you referring too ? The sentence begins as "In 1974, following the intercommunal violence.....". It reads as if "In 1974, there was inter communal violence followed by a coup" which is not the case. The reader should know the post-independence the violence was almost exclusively in 2 periods, 1963/4 and 1967. If anything, the reader should know that there were no major clashes for the 7 years prior. If you know otherwise, consider editing the Cypriot intercommunal violence article for those of us who are unaware. The clashes in 1974 started on the 20th of July, the day Turkey invaded Cyprus. HelenOfOz (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And when and where there was no "intercommunal" violence it was because the Turkish Cypriots were confined into ghettos and could not use their basic rights and liberties, even travelling freely on the island, right? --E4024 (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Only about 25-50% of Turkish Cypriots were in enclaves. What "intercommunal" violence did the rest of the Turkish Cypriots experience outside of the periods 1963/4 and 1967 ? HelenOfOz (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

@DarkLordSeth re "That section there refers to the inter-communal violence that started in 1963 continuing until 1974": I think that's the misconception that Helen is trying to address. That the intercommunal violence wasn't "continuing until 1974" (which led to the coup and subsequently to the invasion) but that the last incident of violence was in 1967 and that 7 years later there was a coup not as a response to intercommunal violence 7 years ago but for other reasons. Masri145 (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The current sentence doesn't suggest that the coup happened because of the inter-communal violence. It simply provides a chronological situation. It uses the word "following" instead of "due to". That said it's not a myth that the coup attempt in 1974 was a bloody one. I don't think anyone would deny that and the fact that Turks were not left alone during or before this coup attempt. So, we can easily say that the intercommunal violence have extended up to 1974. What HelenOfOz actually suggests in his initial post that intercommunal violence was directly caused by Turkish intervention. This seems rather like a try to shift a presumed blame. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi all, i think the word "following" in that context you described TheDarkLordSeth is a misrepresentation of the chronological order of events. "Following" implies coming after or "as a result of" as you can see from the dictionary i have provided.  23x2    φ  20:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the Turkish intervention did not happen after the intercommunal violence? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @User:TheDarkLordSeth Am i ? Please re-read what i said. "Following" needs to go mate  23x2    φ  05:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you said yourself that "following" means "coming after" so I'm trying to understand what's wrong with that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent editing of images
I am very suspicious that one of the recent series of image edits is being done by one individual using more than one IP. I don't have the capability to investigate but I hope somebody else can. Thanks. — Glenn L (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * if someone changes a photo that you do not like you always have to do everything possible to eliminate the other? nice wikipedia, I'm in charge and that's it, good .... keep it up ...--85.237.212.60 (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Topographic map of Cyprus
Hello, I have created a topographic map of Cyprus in SVG format. I have used public data but sometimes there are some inconsistencies. Would it be possible for someone to check if it is correct? Thanks --Ikonact (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Economy
The Greek Cypriot economy, in other words the economy of the so-called Republic of Cyprus is bankrupt. This is confirmed by the President who confessed "bailout is a necessary evil". See the latest news here in "Cyprus Mail". Let us leave aside fighting on the past of the so-called bi-communal republic and edit the "economy" section of this article to make it reflect the present situation. --E4024 (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First reactions here. Where are all those editors rushing to compete at editing in ESC final or the Olympic Games or the UNGA Resolution on the State of Palestine? --E4024 (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Cypriot Costume
Does anyone disagree with creating a sub-section named "Costume" within the "Culture" section regarding traditional Cypriot costume? This could include information about traditional male and female costume, such as the Vraka for the former and the Foustani for the latter. Kupraios (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If this is more important and urgent than the economic crisis (see upstairs, if you have not heard of it) let's do it at once... --E4024 (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't need everyone focusing on one thing at the same time. I have no interest in writing about the economy of Cyprus as I am not very knowledgeable of it. Indeed I have read news reports about it but I'm in no position to choose information of relevance regarding economics. Kupraios (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Bias.
I genuinely beleive that this article heavilly slanted in the Greco-Cypriot's point of view. When I attempted to make the article more neutral, my edits were deleted (by a Greek, incidently). And, further-more, I was treated with patronization, and not with the dignity & respect a fellow Wikipedia deserves. Wikipedia clearly states that its articles must be unbiased, & Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it a propaganda journal.

For instance: - The article refers to the Republic of Cyprus as an "island nation", it is clearly no-more an island nation than Éire is. - The flag presented depicts the island of Cyprus in it, yet surely the 2004 neutral flag would be more appropriate? - The territory shown includes the land occupied by the RoC, TRNC, UN zone, & the UK bases; this does not constitute the true territory of the RoC. - The style of the article is not as though it was presenting the Republic of Cyprus as viewpoint/perspective, as it should; but as a fact, which it should not do.

Also, unrelatedly, the ethnicity descritions are incorrect: a Greek is, & only is, a national of the Hellenic Republic; & the Turkish are those, & only those, who are nations of Turkey. To describe one says they are Greco, & Turk, respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.145.223 (talk • contribs)

I agree with the above. No real mention of EOKA's genocide of Turkish Cypriot villages in the South. Very slanted to the Greek perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popkid2002uk (talk • contribs) 10:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Popkid2002uk, you are free to discuss and edit the article. Create new sections on this talk page so the editors can address your concerns. HelenOfOz (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think that we should include massacres committed by EOKA B. We cannot deny the truth about the atrocities committed by both sides during the war and it would be unbiased if we do so. But I disagree with the usage of proposed 2004 flag, as this was rejected anyway. The use of word 'island nation' also is a set thing. Cyprus has been referred to as 'Island nation' due to political reasons as it is accepted by international community that the Republic of Cyprus represent the entire island, therefore (even if not de facto correct) is an appropriate usage. In addition, territories shown on this page do clearly show the bases and territories not under effective control of the Republic (occupied north is shown with lighter green!). Furthermore, ethnicity is shown correctly. I rather prefer it to be called Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot than just Greek or Turkish (that would also be politically biased). You can change anything you want but please do not make this article a battleground and keep editing and deleting everything the way you like it to be. Ngparos (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is written really very one-sided. There are many thing to add. Specially all the barbarian activities committed by EOKA are somehow hidden. I think the people are not objective and try to keep this point of view of the article by not letting people editing the page. Splitting is a MUST, too. The arguments on this talk page prove it as well. I will be splitting the article in the next days.Serhan (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You have no consensus to do that. See discussion below. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 21:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Area figure
A recent edit clarified that the area given of 9,251 sqkm 'Includes Northern Cyprus, the UN buffer zone, and Akrotiri and Dhekelia'. This answers a question I had asked on the Talk:page. However, I have some further points:
 * 1) what is the reference for the assertion that the area is of the island rather than the state? Given the confusion in the sources, it is not sufficient to rely on a single source giving a single figure with no context; there should hopefully be a reliable source which gives both the island and the state areas at the same time.
 * 2) can the infobox also include the state area? That would be a better match for the area_rank statistic, which as it stands is meaningless.
 * 3) the 2011 census figure excluded Northern Cyprus. What about the buffer zone and sovereign bases?  jnestorius(talk) 19:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I already divided the area and populations into RoC, North and British bases but I cannot keep up with people constantly changing the information regarding their own political views. So I just gave up really. But it is true that if RoC claims politically that north belongs to the Republic, we should have information for the whole island, then divide it down to de facto information about south and north. Before people included north in the area but completely refused to include the northern population which I think is politically motivated. There should be detailed information regarding north, but if I do it, it will be changed soon Ngparos (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In my experience, well-referenced statistics are less prone to edit-wars than unreferenced info or non-statistical, more "subjective" info. I don't really care which figure(s) get priority in the infobox, as all of them are available somewhere, with references. Maybe the infobox can crosslink to a subsection.
 * It's interesting that the Republic's statistical service's guide to districts marks the Turkish-occupied portion but makes no reference to the UK bases (or the UN buffer zone). It's not clear whether they were included in the 2011 census or not, or more generally to what extent the statistical service regards them as falling within its remit. jnestorius(talk) 15:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, because the British bases do not officially make part of the Republic as the independence treaty signed with Britain clearly states that Cyprus is independent except two bases which belong to the UK. Therefore I am not sure if RoC would even count bases in any of its statistics simply because they are not part of the country. They still try to county North simply because it makes an integral part of the Republic even if it had de facto declared independence from Cyprus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngparos (talk • contribs) 16:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that thinking; however, the map I linked to does not show the bases at all. It might be that the Republic of Cyprus government downplays their existence to some extent, allowing the view to persist that they are leased or temporarily granted to the UK by the Republic, as US overseas bases are, rather than totally external to the Republic. I'm not suggesting that the Republic officially takes such a view, merely that it is less than eager (for whatever reason) to prevent misconceptions. That's just an impression I have, which isn't directly relevant to the article, except that if true it might help explain why statistical breakdowns are hard to track down. jnestorius(talk) 17:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was actually going to point that out too before we had a random power cut. Yes, it is bizarre that bases are shown as Cypriot territory. And that is not the case. I have seen many maps and sources where bases were shown as Cypriot territory and I am sure that the government is fully aware it is not a temporary lease, it is simply given to the UK in the independence treaty. There might be contemporary disagreement in public on that subject but everyone is aware they are British bases. However, also true that due to that attitude, it may be difficult to track down sovereign base populations. As a Cypriot, I have not actually ever heard population in bases being considered as Cypriots. Maybe British sources can point out exact statistics on the bases? Ngparos (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Some contribution to the above discussion may be found at the US State Department's Cyprus entry where you can see a detailed map of Cyprus, in which you may distinguish the areas under the "control" (read it as sovereignty) of the "Republic of Cyprus" and also "the Turkish Cypriot-administered area" as well as the bases marked as (UK) and of course the UN Buffer Zone. We may be making an encyclopedia here but we do not even have such a detailed political map of Cyprus in our article. Oh, sorry I forgot that we still do not have an article for "Cyprus" but pretend that our "Republic of Cyprus" article covers all the island. I am sure the American diplomats do not look at WP to make their page... --E4024 (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Governments in Cyprus (?)
From the UK British Sovereign Bases Administration's official website: "The Administration is in effect the civil government of the SBAs. The Headquarters of the SBAA is at Episkopi. Its range of interest is that of any civil government but, many of its functions, particularly in respect of the Cypriot inhabitants of the SBAs, are carried out by Republican officials on behalf of the Administration under delegated powers. The SBAA itself carries out those minimum functions directly related to the exercise of sovereignty – the enactment of legislation, maintenance of law and order and the control of immigration and development." (I bolded some important points.) This information may be useful to comprehend better the status of the Island of Cyprus and to continue the above discussion on a more informed basis. --E4024 (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The presence of the bases on Cyprus and their administrative status has no effect on the recognition of Cyprus as Cyprus by the international community. These are just legalistic arguments you are presenting to defy the fact that "Cyprus the island" is widely recognised as "Cyprus the state and island nation" by the international community.  No amount of legalistic nitpicking will change that fact. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  22:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How can you say that Republic = island if that is demonstrably false due to the presence of the SBAs which may be in fact considered by Cyprus and the UK to be outside the Republic? What we need are sources from the Republic and UK that speak on this matter. --Golbez (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The SBAs are definitely outside the republic, that has never been in question. However, does their existence mean that a second article is needed? I can't see how a separate article would result in anything other than content duplication. CMD (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All I ask - and I can provide an example thereof in a few days when I have a computer I can write an article on - is an overview article of the complex geopolitical nature of the island. Not a geography fork, either, just a border outline that doesn't treat the Green Line, SBAs, and TRNC are mere subtopics of the Republic. --Golbez (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said above the bases are 0.0270241055% of the island are or the Republic is 99.9729758945% of the island, a virtual 100%. It would be WP:UNDUE to split the article based on a tiny percentage as 0.0270241055% for the bases. That and the fact that the international community has decided that there is no distinction in the terms for the island or the Republic or the nation makes this a clear case against not splitting the article. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 18:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You have your decimal point in the wrong place; the bases are 2.7% of the island, not .027%. (Yes, 250 / 9251 is .027, but that means 2.7%. 250 / 250 is 1.0, that doesn't mean 1%, that means 100%. You have to multiply the resultant fraction by 100 to get the percentage, that's what a percentage is, per cent, per 100.) Please do not continue to use demonstrably false numbers to further your position, as you will irreparably weaken it. Also, that the international community is ignorant of the SBAs doesn't mean we have to be. --Golbez (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No lessons are needed for an honest mistake due to a hasty calculation. Even at 2.7% this is a second-order phenomenon compared to the size of the Republic. The international community is not "ignorant" of anything. These are prestigious organisations with thousands of employees and many are academics who have written books on the subject. They just choose to ignore the tiny percentage of the bases. Calling these prestigious organisations "ignorant" is original research on your part. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  18:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

@Golbez (This came late for an edit conflict that made me smile.): Golbez, in other words we may inform the "international public opinion" well on Cyprus or "underinform" it. I prefer the above term instead of "international community" because the latter refers more to the "chancelleries", which are high offices that know everything but at times tend to pretend ignoring several things for convenience. No need to say, these offices have a major influence on the press and academia (public opinion).--E4024 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * DECLARATION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM,Zurich treaty,1959
 * B. That, with the exception of two areas at (a) Akrotiri - - Episkopi - - Paramali, and (b) Dhekelia - - Pergamos - - Ayios Nikolaos - - Xylophagou, which will be retained under full British sovereignty, they are willing to transfer sovereignty over the Island of Cyprus to the Republic of Cyprus subject to the following conditions: 1) that such rights are secured to the United Kingdom Government as are necessary to enable the two areas as aforesaid to be used effectively as military bases, including among others those rights indicated in the Annex attached, and that satisfactory guarantees are given by Greece, Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus for the integrity of the areas retained under British sovereignty and the use and enjoyment by the United Kingdom of the rights referred to above; 2) that provision shall be made by agreement for: I. the protection on the fundamental human rights of the various communities in Cyprus; II. the protection of the interests of the members of the public services in Cyprus; III. determining the nationality of persons affected by the settlement; IV. the assumption by the Republic of Cyprus of the appropriate obligations of the present Government of Cyprus, including the settlement of claims.


 * UN A/RES/37/253 16 May 1983
 * The General Assembly,
 * 2.  Affirms the right of the Republic of Cyprus and its people to full and effective sovereignty and control over the entire territory of Cyprus  andits natural and other resources and calls upon all States to support and help the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to exercise these rights;


 * Euronews
 * "The rest of the world recognises the Greek Cypriot state in the south, which represents the whole island in the European Union that Ankara also aims to join."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.69 (talk • contribs)
 * Greek Cypriot State in the south. Hummm... :-) --E4024 (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. Here is the full paragraph:
 * "Only Turkey recognises the self-styled Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The rest of the world recognises the Greek Cypriot state in the south, which represents the whole island in the European Union that Ankara also aims to join." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.69 (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, wait, "With the exception of the two bases... they are willing to transfer sovereignty over the island"? So the SBAs are not included in the Republic? Not sure why the UN passage is quoted as it appears to add nothing. --Golbez (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC).


 * (Replying to Golbez with similar irony level as him)
 * A formal UN General Assembly document ignoring the bases and recognizing the RoC as sovereign state adds nothing? I had the impression that UN resolutions are more carefully writen and the bases would be mentioned if considered appropriate. Maybe something like "over the entire territory of Cyprus except the bases"? You can keep ignoring formal sources but realize that your lack of any proper arguments. ( 2.5% is not a reason for a split)
 * What you pasted says the people of Cyprus should hold full sovereignty over the territory of Cyprus; this is somewhat uncontroversial and I don't see what it has to do with what we're arguing. :P If Northern Ireland made up only 2.5% of the island of Ireland, would we not have an article for the island as a whole? I think we would, in part because of the Anglo subject bias of the English Wikipedia, there is far more content on Ireland than there is Cyprus. I'm a little surprised no one's tried to bring up the example of Guantanamo Bay, the difference being that land is still globally recognized as being part of Cuba. Though I would propose a similar split of Cuba as well, since the nation of Cuba makes up more than the landmass of Cuba, same with Cyprus. I would also support a split of Great Britain, were that country still in existence, as well as a split of Malta (which is already split), and Australia, and Taiwan, really, though I wouldn't argue as strenuously for them. I just think every landmass should get its own article regardless of political status. There are few places where an island country is purely coterminous with its single named landmass; Cyprus isn't one, Cuba isn't one, Iceland isn't one. The only ones I can really think are Nauru and maybe some of the Lesser Antilles, which are too small to have associated islands. But anyway, this is mostly a matter of Wikipedia ideas rather than my own, if Wikipedia had wanted separate articles for each landmass we'd probably have them by now. The issue with Cyprus is that it's such a geopolitically crowded landmass that I think that - not necessarily anything else pertaining to the island - warrants separate mention rather than as a subtopic. There is no article that I can think of that simply lists the four entities on the island as separate topics, right now all we have is this article (where they are all subtopics to the Republic) or the Cyprus dispute article (which does not really involve the SBAs). Maybe what I'm seeking is less a split and more a fork. --Golbez (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

@The IP user who forgot to sign: "Do the words the areas retained under British sovereignty refer to Hong Kong and Gibraltar? We are discussing about Cyprus here... --E4024 (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No one mentioned Hong Kong or Gibraltar. How did you come up with this?


 * Golbez, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.69 (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of trying to explain yourself with poor arguments such as the bases see the reality. Splitting the article is ridiculous. Why do the UN write about the RoC as being the sovereign state? Is the UN ignorant of the existence of the Bases? There are 30 sources by Dr.K that refer to the Republic of Cyprus as Cyprus. Is it WP:COMMONNAME or not? i hope your next argument won't be Ireland which is actually divided by 2 countries, split with a significant percentage of the island compared with the bases which by the treaty are effectively military bases and cover 2.5% of the island. I doubt that you actually read what is posted here based on your arguments
 * Why is it strange the UN would reiterate the right of the Republic to be sovereign over the land the Republic claims, and that the UN says it includes? The statement you pasted mentioned nothing as to the extent of the Republic. I don't really care that Dr.K has 30 sources, he should have stopped somewhere around 5, as after that it just became noise, and especially because they were mostly useless. It's very uncontroversial to refer to the Republic as "Cyprus", and I can only speak for myself but I certainly never argued otherwise. Of course the short form name of the country is Cyprus, and the article for the country should remain at said location. So, at least my argument has nothing to do with COMMONNAME so I'll thank you not to throw it at me. As for "actually divided by two countries", what about Cyprus which appears to be divided by at least two, the Republic and possessions of the UK? I can make this argument without ever bringing up Northern Cyprus if necessary, that's just frosting on the cake. I'm not exactly using Ireland as an example, I'm using it as a point: If Northern Ireland were the relative size of the SBAs, I still think it would have an article on the island in part due to the systemic bias of Wikipedia towards that region. We know more about it, therefore we have more articles on the subject. However, I CAN use Ireland to counter Dr.K's sources, as in several instances he used mentions of "Cyprus" to indicate the source was treating the island and country as identical; I had the same sources, using the same words, that mention Ireland, but no one would suggest the island and country of Ireland were identical. --Golbez (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(Above was writen before reading the reply))
 * Please leave the country alone. The bases do not have a proper government. They are military bases. Please stop making them something they are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.69 (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That they are mere military bases does not change the possible (we seem to still be arguing this part) fact that they are not part of the Republic of Cyprus, and therefore the Republic and the island are not equivalent. All evidence that I've seen so far is that they are external territories of the United Kingdom and were never included with the Republic upon its independence; I'd love to see a deeper scholarly treatment of the matter if you have one available. --Golbez (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(Removed proxy edit)
 * Golbez we are going round in circles. This article is the overview of Cyprus.  23x2    φ  12:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's the article on the Republic. Are we positive that the island and the Republic are coterminous? If not, then the island needs its own article, no matter how insignificant (say, 2.7%) the difference between the two is. The question is, are the SBAs part of the Republic? All I've seen so far says no, they are not, the Republic has land borders with territories of the UK. --Golbez (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No borders or checks are present between the Republic and the bases and that is the reason the bases are never mentioned and Republic of Cyprus is called Cyprus .79.111.13.156 (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to WP! Can you please explain us why the Base Areas Administration has a "customs" department; to protect the British customs and traditions on the island? --E4024 (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Easy mate, I'm not here to argue. I'm just saying that I've been there and there is no physical border when "crossing", no president, no sperate currency and most of the eployees outside the actual military area are Cypriots, Greek or Turkish. They do not claim any sea territory and is definitely not UK but an overseas territory which is not even mentioned most of the time in Bristish Overseas territories lists because it is only for the military 79.111.13.156 (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "No separate currency" doesn't make one the same country; are you suggesting France and Germany are the same nation? No president? They have a queen, being under solely British jurisdiction. None of what you say is a challenge to the notion that the SBAs are separate from the Republic. Furthermore, I've never said they are part of the UK, they are overseas territories of it, alongside places like the British Indian Ocean Territory, Gibraltar, and Bermuda. --Golbez (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So are you arguing that they are not military bases?  23x2    φ  19:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, when did I say that? I equated them with the BIOT, which is basically Diego Garcia, a military base. The difference between the BIOT and the SBAs and, say, Gibraltar, is that Gibraltar has a substantial civilian base and is not purely for military uses, but the division of civilian vs. military does not in any way change the fact that both are overseas territories of the United Kingdom. As opposed to, say, the overseas bases of the United States, which are usually leased land from the countries they are placed in, and in zero cases are these bases considered the overseas territory of the United States, even Guantanamo Bay. But these three facilities of the British military - BIOT and the two SBAs - are considered actual overseas territories of the country. --Golbez (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Golbez You are going in circles, i have explained to you, that this article is the overview. The military bases and the administration on the occupied areas of the Republic are described in the lead. There is no need to separate this article. 23x2   φ  18:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not the overview. This article is about the Republic of Cyprus. That there are other entities described in the lead doesn't change the fact that this article is solely about the country of Cyprus, rather than the three other entities on the island. There is no article about the geopolitics of the island at large. How am I going in circles? --Golbez (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Make up your mind: Is it "Golbez we are going round in circles" or "Golbez you are going in cycles"? I think you are repeating yourself with minor changes... --E4024 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * WAIT A MINUTE PEOPLE. THIS DISCUSSION HAS TURNED TO A JOKE. QUEEN ELIZABETH II IS ALSO THE QUEEN OF AUSTRALIA AND MANY OTHER INDEPENDENT TERRITORIES(ABOUT 20?). GERMANY AND FRANCE ARE COUNTRIES WITH THE SHARED CURRENNCY OF THE EU. THE BASES DO NOT DIFFER MUCH FROM ANY COUNTRY'S MILITARY BASES ON A FOREIGN COUNTRY AROUND THE WORLD. SUCH A LONG DISCUSSION FOR SUCH A SMALL DETAIL. THERE ARE BETTER PLACES TO SPEND YOUR TIME EDITING THAN THE CURRENT DISCUSSION.79.111.13.156 (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sometimes E4024 you are trying too hard to be funny. Relax, you dont have to try that hard.  23x2    φ  19:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Golbez I see you are insisting of the "geopolitics of the island" argument. Thats why you are going in circles, and repeating yourself. If you want an article explaining the Human geography of the island then you should take this discussion to the Geography of Cyprus article.  23x2    φ  19:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm repeating myself because the arguments are being poorly refuted. In the face of inadequate responses there's no need to change my argument. --Golbez (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry Golbez, but your arguments are extremely poor, baseless, and wrong. 30+ RS sources say otherwise + commonname + "geopolitics" argument which is false.   23x2    φ  19:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What is wrong in my saying that the SBAs are not part of Cyprus? Answer me that. Also, "extremely poor?" Please. At least I don't paste sources that are easily refuted by replacing the word "Cyprus" with "Ireland". --Golbez (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No its not easily refuted by replacing a word, as the sources are for the specific word they mention, i.e. "Cyprus". If i start replacing words, thats original ressearch. I have already replied. In what sense you mean? You mean geographically, politically or geopolitically?  23x2    φ  21:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You must have missed where I refuted several of Dr. K's assertions about sourcing by using the example of Ireland. That's fine. In what sense are the SBAs not part of the Republic of Cyprus? In every conceivable way, just as Gibraltar is not part of Spain. In what sense are you saying they are part of the Republic? --Golbez (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * PRO-Split <duplicate !vote by user:Sbasturk> Would you please stop this unnecessary discussion and split this article? The fact is already out there that the Cyprus government and the island are not the same thing. What are we waiting for? Sbasturk (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a nice trick. You have already !voted twice as "Sbasturk" and once as "Serhan" for a total of three times. Please erase the excess !votes. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 21:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Golbez i read what you wrote, when Dr. K gave you 30+ RS source contradicting your argument. I do not accept that you have "refuted" them, because you are using original research to contradict reliable sources, thats why your arguments (i think) are extremely poor not to mention commonname which complete against your argument and the "geopolitical entities" fallacy you argued on. Initially you were even arguing that the United Nations buffer zone in the Republic is another "geopolitical power". And that was wrong too. I have asked you to specify your question, In what sense you mean? You mean geographically, politically or geopolitically? i didnt ask you to answer your own question. Gibraltar is Gibraltar and not Cyprus. Just like the queen argument you brought up only to be silenced by the IP's answer (and E4024 attempting to remove it)  23x2    φ  22:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop it there, will you? I only asked the IP to write the argument in lowercase, without shouting. (BTW I did not see anything interesting in their words.) --E4024 (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I refuted Dr. K's use of them. If I can poke holes in them then they are not suitable sources for what he was arguing (His sourcing was primarily, the world considers the island and country to be the same because of this wording. I pointed out the exact same sources used the exact same wording when referring to Ireland, which no one considers to be the same, so that destroys his argument). He then committed the same error, at which point I decided he had nothing to offer. The UN is a de facto power in a small part of Cyprus, yes. I haven't brought that or the TRNC up recently because I haven't had to; the SBAs are sufficient to establish that the island and Republic of Cyprus are not the same thing. In what sense are the SBAs not part of Cyprus? Politically (they have different sovereigns and are not considered the same country), geographically (They occupy different chunks of land) and geopolitically (they are distinct polities that are distinct from one another). Finally, I fail to see why you are bringing up the common name policy, seeing as how I never once suggested this article be moved from where it is. Also, "silenced by the IP's answer"? What, you mean his suggestion that only entities with different currencies and border patrols are different countries? The French will be startled to learn they've joined Germany. --Golbez (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, no, you are using original research/synthesis to argue against reliable and verifiable sources which Dr. K has provided. Also you are insisting on repeating the same false argument. SBA's are not a political establishment. They are military bases, i have provided sources and explained it to you over and over again, but you insist ignoring or forgeting (?) what we discussed earlier. You are not bringing TRNC or the UN buffer zone up, because you understood (i hope) that they are wrong arguments as explained over and over and over.  23x2    φ  22:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Again. Don't say I refuted Dr. K's use of them. You have done nothing of the kind. The International Community has spoken. They consider the Republic, the island and the island-nation to be one and the same. You are not doing anything by arguing these points again and again. Let others chime in now. You made your points and if I judge from the "oppose" !votes you have not been successful in gaining consensus for your point of view. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When you use a source from the BBC as an indicator that the global community refers to the island and the republic as being the same, and I can use a page from the exact same source using the exact same language for Ireland, that means your argument is faulty. You are the one synthesizing - you are taking webpages and saying, "See? This matches my idea!" while skillfully omitting the parts that, y'know, don't match your idea.
 * As for 23x2: Whether the SBAs are a political establishment is irrelevant, so I won't get into that semantic battle with you. The real question is, are they part of the Republic of Cyprus? Where is a source (You claim to have some) that says the SBAs are part of the Republic of Cyprus? Because above was posted text from the treaty that formed Cyprus that indicates the SBAs are in fact not part of the country. The CIA World Factbook indicates that Cyprus has land borders with the SBAs. If they are not, then the island is shared and warrants its own article, end of story. So, it comes down to you: What reliable sources state explicitly that the SBAs are part of the Republic? Not that the Republic is on the whole island, that could come down to ignorance or expedience. I want an explicit statement that the SBAs are within the borders of the Republic of Cyprus. --Golbez (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ireland has nothing to do with Cyprus. Cyprus has only a tiny percentage of SBA territory which easily falls under WP:UNDUE. No comparison to Ireland. Please do not repeat this discredited line of inquiry. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is, you cannot use a statement to back your position, if that exact same wording can be used against your position. This has nothing to do with discrediting sources, it has to do with me saying you're reading those sources incorrectly. --Golbez (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You made your points and I made mine. Let's just agree to disagree. Let others chime in now instead of monopolising the discussion with predictable repetitions. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet, if the SBAs are not part of the European Union then the entire island of Cyprus cannot be considered in the EU, and if it is not, then the Republic (which is a member of the EU) cannot logically be the entire island. If the landmass is shared, it must get its own article, no matter how insignificant that share may be. --Golbez (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment over the Above: Golbez, whether the SBAs are part of the EU or not is not that decisive really. Because being part of the EU only makes the border between one of those two base areas with the "Republic of Cyprus" an "internal border of the EU" instead of an "external border with the TRNC" as is the case with the other base area, supposedly "temporarily" until the whole of Cyprus is in the EU, which is a hypothetical thesis indeed. --E4024 (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Splitting: The bases are somewhat part of the Republic of Cyprus as from 1960-1964 the United Kingdom paid rent but stopped doing so after the intercommunal violence claiming that the money would not be splitted equally between the 2 sides. The Republic of Cyprus also wants the UK to pay it the corresponding amount from 1964 to present. Cyprus supports that the bases are its territory. The Sovereign bases are also non-residential(for civilians), military entities maily used for operations and training and would not be a reason for a split the article which also follows the convention. JGordon7859 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm saying you're wrong, but I was unable to find sources for the above in an (admittedly very quick) Google search. Do you have sources for the rent and that Cyprus says the bases are its territory? --Golbez (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thats the case indeed.

Historical Dictionary of Cyprus, page 26 by Farid Mirbagheri, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f82Jn_H4VukC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false 101.99.3.164 (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Inconveniently, pages 26 and 27 are not available in the preview. Presumably you have access to a full copy, can you type the relevant sentences for me? Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "In 1960,Cyprus was granted independence from the British Empire.Great Britain wished to retain military bases on the islnd and as a result of the treaty of establishment which was signed in 1960 it was awarded the areas of Dhekelia and Acrotiri. Between 1960 and 1964 following Cypriot independence the British governement paid rent to the Republic of Cyprus for use of the SBAs. The intercommunal conflict between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots led to the cessation of rent payments form Great Britain to the Republic of Cyprus. Britain asserted that it could not be sure that the money would benefit both communities equally. The Republic of Cyprus is still claiming rent from the British government for the use of the SBAs from 1964 to date." 101.99.3.164 (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny. It worked for me. Page 26 came up clear:
 * Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 16:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And this:
 * Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 17:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess the pages are random. If I'd tried on a different browser I might have been able to get page 26. So, if they're paying rent - and the term 'rent' is used repeatedly - then that's paying for Cypriot land that they hold sovereignty to, similar to Guantanamo Bay or possibly the Panama Canal Zone, and that while it might be considered an overseas territory by the Brits, its actual status is somewhat fuzzy. So, congrats, y'all! Took you a week of horrible arguments (seriously, you don't seem to understand how dreadful "the short form name of the country is Cyprus!" argument is) but you finally found one that sticks. I'd still like an official UN and EU stance on it (if the SBAs aren't in the EU, then how can the whole island be in the EU?) but hey, at least it's something. Not that I won't sandbox up something next week when I get a new computer. --Golbez (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess the pages are random. If I'd tried on a different browser I might have been able to get page 26. So, if they're paying rent - and the term 'rent' is used repeatedly - then that's paying for Cypriot land that they hold sovereignty to, similar to Guantanamo Bay or possibly the Panama Canal Zone, and that while it might be considered an overseas territory by the Brits, its actual status is somewhat fuzzy. So, congrats, y'all! Took you a week of horrible arguments (seriously, you don't seem to understand how dreadful "the short form name of the country is Cyprus!" argument is) but you finally found one that sticks. I'd still like an official UN and EU stance on it (if the SBAs aren't in the EU, then how can the whole island be in the EU?) but hey, at least it's something. Not that I won't sandbox up something next week when I get a new computer. --Golbez (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of navigation and fishing: Some user was questioning, during the course of this split discussion, if the Sovereign Base Areas had territorial waters. Above is the source that they do have territorial waters. --E4024 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

To Golbez again: Golbez, as I told you above, whether the SBAs are part of the EU territory or not is not so important in this discussion, as I already told you above. Do you need a link that shows that Gibraltar is also EU territory? --E4024 (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gibraltar is part of the EU; it is, however, I believe, the only British overseas territory that is. The SBAs are not part of the EU in themselves, though they could be part of the EU via the Republic if that's how the EU sees it. It shouldn't be this hard to find out if the EU considers the land under the SBAs as part of it or not. One source I've found (here, page 13) states that the SBAs did not accede to the EU upon Cypriot accession, but it's not an official source. Do the UN and EU have nothing clear to say on the matter? --Golbez (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This Protocol shows clearly that the EU sees the Sovereign Base Areas not only as "separate" from the "Republic of Cyprus" but also clearly states that they belong to the United Kingdom and have own international borders. In other words, the UK is the sovereign on those parts of the island called Sovereign Base Areas. --E4024 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The link you provided says nothing of the kind. It just calls them SBAs of the UK. We knew that all along as we did their status. The fact that the UK government paid rent for them implies that they recognise that they don't "own" them. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 18:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The caremony for Cyprus EU presidency took place in the area of the SBAs as a message from Cyprus that the Bases area is actually part of the Republic of Cyprus. The Republic of Cyprus does consider the area of the sovereign bases to be its territory and thats the reason it asked the UK to pay the rent from 1964 to present. If it was an exclusive UK area then no rent would ever be paid but from 1960-1964 the UK did pay rent and it only stopped because of the intercomunal violence which wouldn't allow the money to be spend on both sides equally.JGordon7859 (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The majority of sources I've seen describe them as remaining under full UK sovereignty (and the UK FCO lists them with the other territories without distinction), albeit through agreement with the Cyprus government. "Rent" may perhaps just have been a word used. It was after all, time limited. Very unusual true, but oddly not unique. I've read in various places that the Malaysian government annually pays money to the line of the Sultan of Sulu for Sabah, an area completely under Malaysian sovereignty (although the Philippines, inheritor of Sulu's sovereignty, has a dormant claim). Coincidentally, this also involved the British, who originally rented Sabah from Sulu. CMD (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was not meant to be time-limited. See the citation above where it says after 1965 it was supposed to be adjusted: . It is another matter that the UK found the excuse of unequal distribution of the rent and stopped the payments. But the Republic still claims them to this day. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  19:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was time-limited, as you stated again it was going to undergo a review after 1965, at which point anything could happen really. As for the Cyprus claims, it can claim what it wants, but the UK currently claims that "Under the 1960 Treaty of Establishment, HMG retained sovereignty over the SBAs". The [http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1960/jul/04/cyprus-agreement orignal Hansard states, among other things, that (emphasis added mine) "Akrotiri, which is too closely adjacent to the main airfield to permit of an enclave solution, will be the only village under British sovereignty", "since we have no intention of relinquishing sovereignty the question of cession does not arise", "It has been agreed that Her Majesty's Government will provide over the next five years a sum of £12 million. Provision is made for the amount of aid in future five-year periods to be determined, after full consultation with the Republic". They further down also discuss the 12 million along with other payments given to Cyprus upon its independence, but also note that if sovereignty was relinquished it would be to Cyprus. Most sources seem to share this viewpoint of UK sovereignty. CMD (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As us usual in these political situations there are disputes regarding the terms of the treaty and the status of the compensation:
 * Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 21:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a historical dispute over money, but whatever it is is in addition to being complicated apparently quite low key and inactive. On the other hand, we have plenty of sources which explicitly assert UK sovereignty, including statements from the time of Cypriot independence and from today. None has been provided here, but I'm curious to see any current official statement from Cyprus, and would be interested to see if they claimed the territory as part of Cyprus, or claimed that it should be part of Cyprus (a quirky legal difference which applies to the Spanish claim on Gibraltar). Nonetheless, it remains that the sources, UK and other, clearly indicate the bases as a separate territory under British sovereignty and jurisdiction, and the bases are currently under British control. Statements claiming otherwise are incorrect. CMD (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a historical dispute over money, but whatever it is is in addition to being complicated apparently quite low key and inactive. On the other hand, we have plenty of sources which explicitly assert UK sovereignty, including statements from the time of Cypriot independence and from today. None has been provided here, but I'm curious to see any current official statement from Cyprus, and would be interested to see if they claimed the territory as part of Cyprus, or claimed that it should be part of Cyprus (a quirky legal difference which applies to the Spanish claim on Gibraltar). Nonetheless, it remains that the sources, UK and other, clearly indicate the bases as a separate territory under British sovereignty and jurisdiction, and the bases are currently under British control. Statements claiming otherwise are incorrect. CMD (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

CMD, I think SBAs dont fall under the clear definition of "british overseas areas". I think i had brought this up earlier during a discussion with Golbez. Because by the Treaty of Establishment of Cyprus they are "sovereign"  howver they are also claimed to be "dependent" territories of the UK. As i said before, an area clearly cant be both dependent and sovereign at the same time. Perhaps i am looking at the wrong list. Whatever the case, even if they are or even if they are not, does their existence mean that this article has to be split? I dont see the reason, since this article is the overview. 23x2   φ  08:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They may be sovereign but this sovereignty is limited to them being only used as military bases as explicitly stated in appendix o of the SBA agreement. Their military nature is also indicated by the fact that they do not report to the Foreign Office but rather to the UK Ministry of Defence. In addition the agreements explicitly preclude any other use of the bases for adding colonists to the SBA territory or any such activity. Further the laws of the Republic also apply at the SBAs for the resident Cypriots and the Republic has taxation and other powers within the SBA regime. Overall there is an overlap of jurisdictions in the SBAs between UK and the Republic. Add to that the unclear legal status of the other issues such as the rent etc. and it is far from clear that the Republic cannot exercise its authority within the SBA areas. In fact the opposite is true; it is clear that the Republic can exercise substantial powers within the SBAs. In many respects the SBAs are legally transparent to the laws of the Republic. In any regard WP:UNDUE still applies here and the onomatological issue is also resolved in that the island is coterminous with the Republic SBAs or no SBAs. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  08:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree Δρ.Κ..  23x2    φ  08:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @23x2: The bases are not themselves sovereign, the UK is sovereign over the bases.
 * @Dr.K: That the UK delegates some administration to Cyprus does not in any way make the UK less sovereign over the areas. Cyprus exercises powers only with the sayso of the British military authority.
 * Whether or not the split should happen (and if you look above, and remember previous conversation, you'll note I positioned myself against it), muddying the waters by continuing to argue the mistaken position that the SBAs are part of the Republic does nothing but derail discussion. CMD (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand that you want to support a view of sovereignty which is different than mine. But I did not accuse you of having a simplistic view of a rather complex and tangled legal situation in International Law. I have supplied to you references which support my arguments. The least I expect from you is to AGF that I am not trying to "muddy" the waters. If you are unable to do that CMD there is no reason to discuss this any further. In any case the Republic does not exercise its powers at the sayso of the British military authority as you suggest. It exercises them under a commitment by HM's Government: Declarations by Her Majesty’s Government regarding the Administration of the Sovereign Base Area mentioned in Article 1 of the Treaty concerning the Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus which remain under the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom under appendix o of the SBA agreement. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  09:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not supporting any specific view of sovereignty, I'm following what the sources say. All your sources say is that Britain agreed to pay money to Cyprus over 5 years, after which it would undergo review, although this did not happen. Your sources do call the money rent, but one even puts that in quotation marks and notes that Cyprus hasn't accused the UK of breaching the treaty. On the other hand many sources, provided by myself and others, explicitly state that the UK has sovereignty (and as your linked page notes, everything is "subject to their military requirements and security needs", so it is the military's decision). A statement that something is muddying the waters is not in any way a comment on anyone's good faith, it's a statement that something is muddying the waters (ie making a situation less easy to understand). I thought that we had interacted enough to know that we both are interested in improving the encyclopaedia. Clearly I was mistaken. CMD (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you have to link to the freedictionary. I know the expression "muddy the waters" quite well and I don't need the link. As far as your other statement that you were mistaken in your belief that we both are trying to improve the encyclopedia, I am not sure how or why you reached that conclusion but I have not reached a similar conclusion about you because of our past interactions and because I still AGF on your part. In any case, and apart from AGF, commenting on my intentions was unwarranted and surprising. I did not expect it from you and it shows that the conversation has reached a low point. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 11:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The Cyprus Parliament voted for the UK to abandon the bases. The following is an article from an online newspaper showing clearly how the Republic of Cyprus regards the bases:
 * Nicosia, 30 June: "The Cypriot House of Representatives unanimously adopted a resolution today on the status of the British Bases in Cyprus, pointing out that they must not be used by the British for offensive purposes and calling on Britain to fulfil its financial obligations to the Republic of Cyprus and respect the rights of the Cypriots living within the Bases' areas. In its resolution, the House "declares that the United Kingdom has no sovereignty over the territory of the British Bases, even in the context of the Treaty of Establishment, but a commitment to merely use this territory for specific military purposes." I'm reminding again that the caremony for Cyprus EU presidency took place in the area of the SBAs as a message from Cyprus that the Bases area is actually part of the Republic of Cyprus.JGordon7859 (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The link to the declaration is here: Embassy News Cypriot House adopts resolution on British Bases 2005-06-30 11:43:13. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 09:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Also from Cyprus Mail: EU: a Curium spectacular: Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 09:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Question (and comment) to JGordon: Are you suggesting that we should look at the SBAs and other issues related to Cyprus (the island) just like the Government of the "Republic of Cyprus"? Then we cannot have an objective encyclopedia. --E4024 (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you read the declarations made by the British governement it is clear that the only thing they cared were military bases and not to establish a sovereign state. They are merely a reason for splitting the article. They are very different from other overseas territories. The RoC believes that it is its territory and it was lended to the UK(which makes this a dispute over whose land it is). I don't think that I am not objective because I oppose splitting the article. On the other hand, based on your repeated quotation marks on the Republic of Cyprus I think that you don't really care about the bases but you want to split the article because you actually don't recognize the Republic of Cyprus but you recognize North Cyprus. I'm sorry but the North is de jure area of the Republic of Cyprus and untill that status changes, the Republic of Cyprus does represent Cyprus nomatter whatever you believe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGordon7859 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Question & Comment to E4024: I am trying to understand what "objectivity" means to you here. You put quotation marks to the words Republic of Cyprus, asking to create an objective encyclopedia. Did you mean to bring the Wikipedia article on Cyprus to the level you see objective? Why did you put quotation marks to the words: Republic of Cyprus? 23x2   φ  19:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To distinguish "Republic of Cyprus" from Cyprus (the island). The topic of our split discussion here... --E4024 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Guys, it's as plain as could be that the UK has soevereignty over the Base Areas. The fact that some Cypriot politicians don't like it (or the Cypriot population possibly) doesn't change that. Remember, the UK gave Cyprus independence. The UK was smart enough (or abusive enough, depending on your perspective) to ensure that in the independence charter, the UK retained sovereignty over the bases. My sympathies are with the Cypriots - the UK should not have bases there if the Cypriots don't want them. It's plain ugly colonialism. But legally, the UK are the winners here. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

An alternate proposal
It seems that much of the argument has been tainted by the bar at the top of the article. I want to make this clear right now: I have no interest in moving this article. No one would reasonably suggest that the expected destination for someone searching for "Cyprus" isn't the article on the country of the same name. There's no need to move it to "Republic of" like we do for Ireland; people searching for "Ireland" could reasonably be looking for either, but it's well known that the Republic of and island of Cyprus are generally (not exactly) coterminous. It would be like needing a disambiguation page for Australia the continent and Australia the country. Not necessary.

That still doesn't change the fact that this is a shared landmass, and that requires special attention outside of the article on the country. To claim that "The other entities are fine being mentioned in the article on the main entity" is unsatisfactory. We need a separate article to explain the complex situation on the island, and neither Geography of Cyprus (which specifies multiple times it's about the country, not the island) nor Politics of Cyprus (which is even more explicitly about the country) nor Cyprus Dispute (which generally omits the SBAs) is sufficient. --Golbez (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article should not be split. To be honest, I dont understand the need for a separate article. How would a reader benefit from your suggestion? Why is there a need for a new article, what would be the content and is it not already explained in these articles?:

As an example, consider this, you said that the article Cyprus Dispute "generally omits the SBAs" and therefore "it is not sufficient". If thats the case, then why dont we add that section? Again this is my personal understanding of what you are looking for here. 23x2   φ  12:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cyprus
 * Northern Cyprus
 * Sovereign Base Areas
 * Cyprus dispute
 * Geography of Cyprus
 * Politics of Cyprus
 * Because the SBAs aren't terribly germaine to the topic of the Cyprus Dispute, from what I gather. That's between the south and north. --Golbez (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that no move is needed.
 * I disagree that the comparison made to the Irish position. See Names of the Irish state. The Republic of Ireland is not even the name of the Irish state (Ireland is). In contrast, Republic of Cyprus is the name of the Cypriot state. The Cypriots (like the Irish) are not sovereign over all of their island (the UK bases). The Irish have an even stronger case for having the Ireland article assigned to their state.
 * I think the treatment of the Irish article is just Wiki politics. Lots of suggestions were made to fix it but they all got put down.
 * I don't agree with creating more new articles. The quality of the existing articles is so poor, we need to work on them, not split out our energies.
 * Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

More on the Republic - Island (Opinion of the academia)
The Max Plunck Encyclopedia of International Law is an academic publication specialised on International Law, thus a "perfect" source for our need here. According to the Encyclopedia's article titled Cyprus, by Frank Hoffmeister, "Finally, technical details on the transfer of sovereignty from the United Kingdom to Cyprus were laid down in the Treaty concerning the Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus (‘Establishment Treaty’). The territory of Cyprus was defined as the island of Cyprus with the exception of two British military bases, ‘which areas shall remain under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom’ (Art. 1 Establishment Treaty). The ‘Sovereign Base Areas’ of Akrotiri and Dhekelia cover together approximately 256 square kilometres; around 3% of the island’s territory." (I bolded and italicised some parts; however I did not put the quotation signs on "which areas shall remain under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom".) Here is the link. You are free to use the source also on the "Turkish intervention-invasion" discussion; why would we prescind such an important academic contribution... --E4024 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done. That was my understanding of the position. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, so clear. Thank you Sbasturk (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in WP
In this article we try to state that the island is in Europe (I resisted this when I was a newbie here, and said it was in Asia, as part of Anadolu/Anatolia but of course then nobody listened me, we always tend to reject newcomers.) However, someone very recently removed Cyprus from the List of European islands by area. Here is an older version of that article where we have the island in the said list. What is interesting in that article is that we had already separated the "Republic of Cyprus" from the island of Cyprus, as there is a clear reference to the UK Sovereign Base Areas on the island. I know we do not use WP articles as sources to cite, but we can go and look at them to see that in another occasion we have accepted -something we have been discussing above, with a lot of passion and interesting arguments- that the island and the "Republic of Cyprus" is not the same thing. The said WP article may help the editors who oppose a split to understand that this is not something we have never accepted, at least in principle, before... --E4024 (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Greeks and Turks, not Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots!!!
The terms Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots do not state an ethnic group. Greek Cypriots are the Greeks of Cyprus and Turkish Cypriots the Turkish of Cyprus like wikipedia itself states. There is no Greek Cypriot ethnic group (ethnicity). For example there is no German Swiss ethnic group, just German. This is a leftist propaganda who want to create an ethnogenesis. From the book «οι χώρες του κόσμου», “the countries of the world”. From wikipedia itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Cypriots // and - cia – the world factbook-  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartiatis papadopoulos (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriots - Greek Cypriots (between 1960 and and 1974)
On July 28, 1960 the Greek Cypriot leader and first president of the Republic of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios, said, “The agreements do not form the goal - they are the present and not the future. The Greek Cypriot people will continue their national cause and shape their future in accordance with their will”. Ominously, in a speech in his native village of Panayia on September 4, 1962, Makarios warned, “Unless this small Turkish community forming a part of the Turkish race which has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism is expelled, the duties of the heroes of EOKA can never be considered as terminated.”

“The Greek Cypriot members of government unilaterally abolished 13 of the Basic Articles of the Cyprus Constitution in November 1963. When the Turkish Cypriots objected, they were expelled from the government.”

“December 1963, the Greek Cypriot side unleashed an armed onslaught against Turkish Cypriots in a renewed push toward Enosis.”

“The United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) arrived to the island in 1964 and drew the first Green Line through the Cypriot capital, Nicosia........On February 17, 1964, the Washington Post expressed that “Greek Cypriot fanatics appear bent on a policy of genocide.” Just two days later, this description was echoed by the Christian Science Monitor, which characterized the ongoing violence as “a genocidal policy [directed] against the Turkish Cypriots.” That same month, United States Undersecretary of State, George W. Ball, visited Cyprus and declared that President Makarios was turning the island into his “private abattoir”, concluding that the Greek Cypriots “just want to be left alone to kill Turkish Cypriots.” http://www.tc-america.org/issues-information/overview-cyprus-issue-82.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syalin11 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

1974 Turkish interference in Cyprus: Ethnic cleansing and insuring safety and protection for Turks
“ In 1971, General George Grivas formed EOKA-B which, like its predecessor EOKA, was committed to transforming Cyprus into a wholly Greek island and annexing it to Greece. EOKA-B increasingly came under the direct control and influence of the military junta in Athens. On July 15, 1974, EOKA-B launched a bloody coup overthrowing President Makarios and installing the even more hard-line Nikos Sampson, a former member of EOKA, in his stead. The Greek junta/ EOKA-B coup against Makarios posed a grave and unacceptable threat to the Turkish Cypriot community who had suffered physical attacks at the hands of the Greek Cypriot side since 1963.”

“ Turkish forces were dispatched to the island on July 20, 1974. The landing of Turkish troops blocked the annexation of Cyprus by Greece. The Turkish Army created a safe haven for Turkish Cypriots on the northern third of the island. In 1975 the UN brokered population exchanges whereby Greek Cypriots moved south and Turkish Cypriots north.”

“The intervention was justified. The Greek newspaper Eleftherotipia published an interview with Nikos Sampson on February 26, 1981 in which he declared, “Had Turkey not intervened I would not only have proclaimed Enosis, I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus.”

“The Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe concluded that Turkey “exercised its right of intervention in accordance with Article 4 of the Guarantee Treaty of 1960” (Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution No. 573, 29 July 1974). To portray the Turkish intervention as an “invasion” and “occupation” as is common these days constitutes a grave injustice and distortion of the facts.” http://www.tc-america.org/issues-information/overview-cyprus-issue-82.htm

“A special international treaty, the Treaty of Guarantee, obligated Turkey, Greece and the United Kingdom to preserve the independence of Cyprus and prevent its annexation by any other state. This system of checks and balances, however, faced a serious and immediate challenge when the Greek Cypriot side attempted to amend the Constitution by removing all provisions that gave the Turkish Cypriots a meaningful say in the affairs of the State. Failing that, in late 1963 they launched an all-out armed attack on the Turkish Cypriots throughout the island, killing and wounding thousands, driving one-quarter of the Turkish Cypriot population out of their homes and properties in 103 villages and causing widespread destruction.” http://www.tc-america.org/issues-information/tca-issue-papers/cyprus-peace-operation-484.htm

Other links http://www.tc-america.org/files/news/pdf/Annan_Plan_April2004.pdf http://www.tc-america.org/issues-information/tca-issue-papers/turkish-cypriots-celebrate-anniversary-of-cyprus-peace-operation-711.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syalin11 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Climate of Cyprus
The section about the climate of Cyprus includes some inaccurate statements (see below). There are also too many details about the temperatures, which could be cleaned up and replaced by other important climatic parameters, such as annual precipitation.

1. "Snow is possible only in the Troodos Mountains in the central part of island". I would stay that "Snow is rare in the plains and coastal areas, but occurs regularly every winter in the Troodos Mountains".

2. "Middle of summer is hot – in July and August on the coast the average temperature is usually around 33 °C (91 °F) during the day and around 23 °C (73 °F) at night (inside the island, in the highlands average temperature exceeds 35 °C (95 °F)) while in the June and September on the coast the average temperature is usually around 30 °C (86 °F) during the day and around 20 °C (68 °F) at night". Temperatures exceed 35 degrees rather in the central plain than in the highlands.

A reliable source of information is the (already cited) website of the Cypriot Meteorological Service. http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/ms/ms.nsf/DMLcyclimate_en/DMLcyclimate_en?OpenDocument

Chneophytou (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

comment
Leftist propaganda and leftist fascism by locking the page!!!

Shameful leftist propaganda!!! I studied ethnology the years 2001-2006 in USA. When we talk about "ETHNIC GROUPS" then you can not say Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. The ethnic groups of Cyprus at 1960 where Greeks 77%, Turkish 18% and others 5%. There is no "Greek Cypriot ethnic group (ethnicity)", JUST GREEK! There is no ελληνοκυπριακό έθνος, μόνο ελληνικό! With your leftist propaganda and leftist fascism by locking the page, you create HATRED in the Greek society of Cyprus, an island that has 34 centuries of Greek civilization! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartiatis papadopoulos (talk • contribs) 14:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Leftist propaganda and leftist fascism by locking the page!!!
Bold text

Shameful leftist propaganda!!! I studied ethnology the years 2001-2006 in USA. When we talk about "ETHNIC GROUPS" then you can not say Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. The ethnic groups of Cyprus at 1960 where Greeks 77%, Turkish 18% and others 5%. There is no "Greek Cypriot ethnic group (ethnicity)", JUST GREEK! There is no ελληνοκυπριακό έθνος, μόνο ελληνικό! With your leftist propaganda and leftist fascism by locking the page, you create HATRED in the Greek society of Cyprus, an island that has 34 centuries of Greek civilization! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.152.9.101 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Split the article
Many things are discussed once and again in WP. No reason not to discuss once more such a logical split request. Cyprus is an island which has two sovereign states and two other sovereign territories on it. The most logical approach should be a split between the island article and the one about the so-called Republic of Cyprus. --E4024 (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I dont see how splitting Cyprus is "logical", other to safeguard a strong Turkish Pov/claim, that Cyprus is not an island nation.  23x2    φ  11:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree with E4024. This would only impose the Turkish point of view which is that the Republic of Cyprus does not represent Cyprus as a whole island. Currently the only "so called" state is the so called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which in essence is nothing more than an unrecognized puppet state. 94.46.15.18 (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear IP user; your word selection of "puppet state" shows you are impartial on this issue and approach very objectively to the question. It is very useful to receive input from users who are not engaged with national positions. I would like to hear your opinions on how you see the existence of the two British sovereign bases (sovereign territories) separated from the rest of the island during the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus... --E4024 (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ignoring your sarcasm,let me explain myself:

First of all, my wording is not that different from yours .("so-called Republic of Cyprus"). Secondly, a puppet state is a state that is is controlled by a foreign power. As much as the term "Puppet State" sounds not neutral and insulting,  the so called Northern Cyprus is a puppet state. Its is solely depended on Turkey. Due to its lack of recognition, splitting the article would impose the Turkish POV (Turkey presents it as an independent legal separate state). The Republic of Cyprus, de jure, represents the whole island of Cyprus and as such it also joined the EU with the Northern part considered as not under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus.Another proof RoC does not represent the entire island of Cyprus: Akrotiri and Dhekelia military bases of the United Kingdom and United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus. The total area of ​​these,% 7 The British sovereign bases have nothing to do with the discussion of splitting the article. If you do care what I believe about them, I believe that a EU member holding land of another one is entirely inappropriate. The big difference is that the sovereign bases are recognized territory of the United Kingdom in contrast with the so-called Northern Cyprus. 94.46.15.18 (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And as the base areas are recognised as sovereign territories, as from the establishment of the "Repuclic of Cyprus" the island of Cyprus has never been sovereign on all of the island. Your words on TRNC I am ignoring for the moment. --E4024 (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we should open an article about the "island".--Rapsar (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * E4024, this attitude won't get you anywhere. The lack of arguments and your failed efforts to present the so called northern Cyprus as being independed make this discussion fruitless and there's no point on continue discussing with you. 94.46.15.18 (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think IP has hit the nail on the head. The only way this can be agreed upon for a split is if it is agreed that Northern Cyprus. This will not be agreed upon, so E4024 doesn't have enough arguments.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Split: The country isn't coterminous with the island. It doesn't have de facto control over TRNC, whereas the SBAs and the UN Buffer Zone are recognised. The same model of Ireland and Micronesia should be followed. 14.0.208.113 (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Some notes:


 * 1) Republic of Cyprus joined the EU as Cyprus
 * 2) Republic of Cyprus is represented in cultural events like Eurovision as Cyprus
 * 3) Republic of Cyprus is regarded in international football matches as Cyprus
 * 4) It is regarded by the international community as Cyprus
 * 5) The flag of the Republic of Cyprus has the whole island
 * 6) The British bases are only military bases, and do not claim any title.
 * 7) The Northern part is internationally unrecognized
 * 8) CIA world factbook regards Cyprus's government as  the Republic of Cyprus

From CIA world fact book on Cyprus:
 * conventional long form: Republic of Cyprus
 * conventional short form: Cyprus
 * local long form: Kypriaki Dimokratia/Kibris Cumhuriyeti
 * local short form: Kypros/Kibris
 * note: the Turkish Cypriot community, which administers the northern part of the island, refers to itself as the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" or "TRNC" (Kuzey Kibris Turk Cumhuriyeti or KKTC)

source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cy.html 94.46.15.18 (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.46.15.18 (talk • contribs)
 * Really hard to understand how people are trying to keep the article as it is. Almost half of the island is ruled by another government, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. It is very easy to understand. There has to be a disambiguation page where you can go to island page as well. In fact 'island page' should be the default one when you search for 'Cyprus'. It's first meaning is its geographical expression. Please split the article. Serhan (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with who advances really persuasive and coherent arguments. The IP arguments are in line with the previous discussion on this talkpage which has also rejected the split proposal before and nothing has changed since then. The arguments about the British bases etc. are not significant enough and have been discussed thoroughly and rebutted before and the rest of the world recognises and names Cyprus as Cyprus as the CIA handbook demonstrates. This is just another tendentious attempt at imposing a certain POV and is completely unacceptable. You cannot win arguments by reopening rejected proposals hoping people will get tired debating the same points. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  18:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Split The IP sock arguments are not valid at all. It is enough to look at this page to see how WP treats islands. Arguments like "the EU accepted Cyprus as a whole" are ridiculous not only considering the status of the TRNC but also looking at the discussions in UK about leaving the EU. When or if UK leaves the EU, the sovereign bases will continue to be EU territory? Patent nonsense. Again: The "Republic of Cyprus" was established on part of the Island of Cyprus, from the beginning; as the UK bases are "sovereign territory". It is not necessary or relevant if those territories have a government, president, flag, whatsoever. Split the island; "calling the ROC as Cyprus or not" is another issue. The Republic of Ireland is shortly called Ireland but does not occupy all the space of the island in WP. --E4024 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have warned you before not to use the edit summary field to attack other users. But you did it again: Revision as of 19:03, 26 December 2012 E4024 (→‎Split the article: Enough with irrelevant "political" arguments. You only forgot to add "Christian".). Please stop any more demonstrations of your fundamentalist attitude. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  19:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Split the article: Arbitrary break
Afterall, the UN consensus 550(1984) recognizes the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus on Cyprus 94.46.15.18 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not Split Ireland is split into Ireland and Northern Ireland which are both recognized. North Cyprus IS NOT. The bases are ONLY for military purposes. The currency there is the EURO(not GBP) and one can drive without passport control. The fact that the UN and EU regard the Republic of Cyprus as Cyprus and is presented as such in social events is enough to prove that splitting the article is baseless.
 * I completely agree with your very well made points anonymous. The mere mention of Ireland and Northern Ireland shows the inherent POV of these editors, comparing and putting on equal footing two recognised and legitimate countries with the puppet state of TRNC. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  20:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree with 94.46.15.18. Actually instead of splitting the article of Cyprus, i think we should consider merging Northern Cyprus article to this one. Britannica and CIA Factbook have one entry.  23x2    φ  20:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the "puppet" could be the Blocked IP above: Even though they are blocked I need to remind them something, here, from the Sovereign Base Areas Administration official site: "You should also be aware that it is an offence for persons other than “recognised residents” to live in the SBAs for more than 28 days in any period of 12 months, except in accordance with a permit issued under that Ordinance. Again, you may apply for a certificate of recognised residence or a permit, but the Administration only rarely consents to granting these.". Be careful, as neither the UK nor the Sovereign Bases Area are part of the Schengen Visa Regime you may face difficulties if you violate the above; I mean even if you are a citizen of Greece or another Schengen country. (This Announcement is dated 30 May 2012. Since then the Civil Government of the Administration has not made any agreement with any of the other two Governments in Cyprus for a Schengen-type Free Circulation Area, right? So also the citizens of the TRNC and the RoC should be careful.) This may also be helpful to understand the "Cyprus" case, BTW. --E4024 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Recognition isn't the only criteria. We may refuse to recognise it's legality, but we cannot pretend it doesn't exist. The SBAs of the UK aren't part of the EU. Visitors can enter Andorra, San Marino and Monaco freely and use euro coins and notes there too and this doesn't make these countries part of the EU. 14.0.208.87 (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The WP:COMMONNAME for the Republic of Cyprus is overwhelmingly Cyprus. We are not here to invent new onomatology based on original research. Also the bases are insignificant compared to the total area of the island. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It works equally fine even if the articles are named Cyprus (country) and Cyprus (island), or Cyprus and Cyprus (island). Vatican City, San Marino, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco are all insignificant and should be ignored, if we are to apply the same scale. 14.0.208.87 (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Against splitting I think that since there is an article concerning the North and the Republic of Cyprus is usually refered to as Cyprus(at least here) no splitting should take place.190.114.224.20 (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So are you pretending the TRNC simply doesn't exist, or just something fictional? 14.0.208.87 (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, thats how we refer to the island here(refer to as Republic of Cyprus)... I'm not saying the North is fictional but undoubtly Cyprus and Republic of Cyprus are two equivalent terms in the outside world and that would be the appropriate way to present it.(in my opinion ofcourse) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.114.224.20 (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Against splitting . Just so that its clear.  23x2    φ  23:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Pro-splitting I strongly support E4024 in this issue. This work had to be done before. Here,there are two undeniable truth. Republic of Cyprus does not represent the whole island as Cyprus. There are separate de facto state in the north of the island. Recognized or unrecognized by the the international community,is not important. Because,Northern Cyprus doesn't need this splitting, already it has separate article. Another proof RoC does not represent the entire island of Cyprus: Akrotiri and Dhekelia military bases of the United Kingdom and United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus !! The total area of ​​these: 7% and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus 35%,remainder 58% is managed by Republic of Cyprus government!! I think,it is not a political issue be discussed. Unfortunately,some Greek users are looking with biased, subjective and nationalist concepts to subject.

But the situation is completely geographically.Official name of Greek Cyprus government Repuclic of Cyprus See: WP:ON & WP:NCGN Cyprus an island in the eastern Mediterranean Sea Britannica. That to reconcile with the European Union membership or Eurovision Song Contest, extremely ridiculous.There are many examples of this.
 * Island of Ireland -->  Republic of Ireland (83%) and 🇬🇧 United Kingdom (17%) with Northern Ireland
 * Island of Borneo --> 🇮🇩 Indonesia (73%), 🇲🇾 Malaysia (26%) and  Brunei (1%)
 * Island of Hispaniola --> 🇩🇴 Dominican Republic (65%) and 🇭🇹 Haiti (35%) For more, List of divided islands Among these, only the expression of the island of Cyprus does not have a separate meaning.--Maurice (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose splitting First line of the article from  above (List of divided islands) is "This is a list of islands whose land is divided by one or more international borders."  The islands mentioned above are completely different cases internationally accepted. 46.21.74.234 (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Pro-Splitting<duplicate !vote by user:Sbasturk> Because TRNC is not internationally recognized, you just ignore half of the island? http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/84/79884-004-B27AF93D.jpg But the reason for splitting is not only political but actually the geographical meaning of the island. But some people are strictly trying to hide TRNC and everything about it. Preventing the split is just because of this. Serhan (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * comment It is not "the island" which is de facto divided, but the Republic of Cyprus. The international community regards it as an island nation see 550. Quote from 550 "Gravely concerned about the further secessionist acts in the occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus". The republic of Cyprus has de jure sovereignty over the entire island, less the UK military bases which the Republic gives to the UK with its Treaty of establishment. TRNC has its own article, as things stand. How can you argue to split the article in order to not ignore TRNC ?  23x2    φ  06:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment on the above comment - Does that resolution say that the two sovereign British territories reserved (separated from the former colony's overall territory) on the island at the day of the establishment of the "Republic of Cyprus" also belong to that Republic? --E4024 (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment on the above comment No need to say that. The legal context for the existence of the UK bases is non other than the Treaty of Establishment of Cyprus. If Cyprus is non existent for some reason as you insinuate (if the Treaty of Establishment becomes null and void) then there is no legal framework for the UK bases. It is the existence of Cyprus which safeguards the existence of the UK bases. Feel free to read the Treaty of Establishment and its annexes.  23x2    φ  12:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Establishment of Cyprus"? Hmmm. That agreement was made with God apparently... --E4024 (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Against splitting-- Absolutely against splitting. Cyprus is represented by the republic of Cyprus. The arguments above are more than enough110.139.119.110 (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your first ever contribution to WP but we are not making an intergovernmental meeting here; we are writing an encyclopedia. --E4024 (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Against splitting -- Yeah sure the US has bases in Qatar. Lets split the Qatar article as well. Oh wait, it also has bases in Philipines. Lets splitt it as well. And in Canada. Lets split Canada as well. What about guandanamo isalnd. Lets split it as well. But wait a second.... In every country embassies are considered territories of their respective governments. Lets split every country in the world according to the number of embassies it has. Its funny how people are trying to justify an attempt to show that a partially recognized country is legal.......177.36.243.77 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your first ever contribution to WP. I think you have some confusion: 1. Embassies are territory of the receiving state. (Believe me, I made a master's on international law.) 2. We are not talking about bases but "sovereign territories" in Cyprus, which have never been part of the Republic of Cyprus. Remember, the UK government promised to give part of that sovereign territory to the proposed "United Republic of Cyprus" but the Greek Cypriots rejected the establishment of a United Republic. --E4024 (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment on the above comment E4024 you have said 3 times the same thing. Saying it over and over doesn't give validity to your pov understanding of the Treaty of Establishment.  23x2    φ  13:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Pro-splitting -- Please, we need to be a little objective and impartial in this regard. This issue must be removed completely from politics. Thoughts to impose anachronistic prejudices and offer an extremely useless political arguments is invalid. Yes,Turkish Northern Cyprus officially is not recognized in the international arena. This has nothing to do with the division of the article. Claim of attempt to show that a partially recognized country is legal,is extremely reflects a point of view unfounded. That refuse users who, actually,they argues that the status of Northern Cyprus is the only justification at their hands. They offer with reasons and arguments, even contradict themselves.--Maurice (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Against-splitting -- Another attempt by Turkish Propagana.¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.153.48.67 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting enough the same arguments such as "insignificant", "people don't understand", "people who are unfamiliar will be confused" are all repeated at Talk:Taiwan. 14.0.208.97 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Against-splitting I do not understand why this split is necessary. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.160.108 (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The British bases also have their articles and their sovereign territories. So Cyprus is not home to only the "Republic of Cyprus". This is why we need a separate article for the island itself. --E4024 (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment TRNC is considered by the international community as occupied area of the Republic of Cyprus. The bases as explained 5 times so far are there based of the Treaty of Establishment of Cyprus. Thats why Cyprus is an island nation. 23x2    φ  21:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The basic question is, does Cyprus the island get an article separate from Cyprus the republic? I say yes, split the article, if only for the fact that the geopolitical situation is amazingly complex on that little island and having an overview article, if only as a glorified disambiguation for the polities that exist on it, would be very useful. There are three different geopolitical entities overlapping on this island and it makes sense to treat them separately as well as together. And, fundamentally: If the island were named something other than "Cyprus" it would already have its own article. The only thing keeping them wedded is the name. Now, some countries can get away with that, like the argument over whether or not Taiwan (island) and the Republic of China should be the same. But the situation with Taiwan vs RoC is vastly simpler than the situation with Cyprus vs Republic of Cyprus vs TRNC vs United Nations vs British SBAs. The only sane option is to split. It has nothing to do with recognition, and everything to do with simplifying an extremely complex geopolitical situation for our readers. --Golbez (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that Golbez. Moving the same words in separated articles will, on the contrary add ambiguity and complexity to the readers. It just takes a paragraph to explain to the reader the geopolitical situation of the island nation.

''The Republic of Cyprus has de jure sovereignty over the island of Cyprus and its surrounding waters, except for the British Overseas Territory of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, administered as Sovereign Base Areas. However, the Republic of Cyprus is de facto partitioned into two main parts; the area under the effective control of the Republic, comprising about 59% of the island's area, and the Turkish-controlled area in the north, calling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and recognized only by Turkey, covering about 36% of the island's area. The international community considers the North as occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus.''


 * 1) UK bases on the island nation - area of which provided for de jure by its Treaty of Establishment
 * 2) Occupied areas of the island nationUNSC Res 550 in the north
 * 3) UN buffer zone to buffer Turkish hostilities from the north - area of which provided for by the Island Nation

Whats the amazingly confusing part? 23x2   φ  10:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: Well, I get what you mean but the SBAs are just military areas. People can go through and there are no checks(If you lived near believe me you would know). The buffer zone is just considered as territory of the Republic of Cyprus that has been given to the United Nations for peace keeping.(Thats the definition). Furthermore the North is still considered occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus. By splitting the article wouldn't it imply taking the side of Turkey that the island is actually officially divided by questioning the sovereignty of the RoC island ? What's wrong with leaving the article as it is? I think that the reason for suggesting  splitting the article with the  SBAs as a pretext is quite obvious. It is to show that the North is a separate country. The current state of the article states that there are SBAs and a northern part giving a link to it. It reflects the real life situation. The RoC and the areas which are not under its control such as the North and the bases which were part of the establishment of the RoC.190.151.22.98 (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in the least. It's simply saying, "Cyprus" is a very complex issue so here is an overview explaining it. I don't see how this is conferring legitimacy to anyone, it's simply a tool to help our readers understand a complex issue. --Golbez (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * On balance split, but it's a close call. I hadn't previously thought this, but recently thinking it through WP:COMMONNAME points to this. Firstly, the legal position, IMHO, is not relevant. Looking at usage in English-language media, the word Cyprus (at least when it is first used in a piece of writing or news story), almost always refers to the entire island as a geographical concept, not as a political entity. When the political entity is referred to it is almost always "Republic of Cyprus" or "Greek Cyprus" or cognates thereof in order to distinguish it from the North. I don't think there is much doubt that the overwhelming international position is that there is only one legally recognised state on the island (excepting the British territories). But the name of the article (because of WP:COMMONNAME) should be entirely separate from the legal issue, and mustn't be seen as legitimising either point of view. Muddying the two has led to some muddy thinking. DeCausa (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But based on the arguments above, in international sports it is always Cyprus, in Eurovision it is Cyprus, in the EU it is Cyprus,the flag and the emblem is the whole island, CIA world fact book has Cyprus as the Republic of Cyprus(also mentioning the north) and the SBAs as separate "country" choice. Just like the current ssituation in wikipedia. The current article also says everything about geography and history of the island. I guess WP: COMMONNAME would be Cyprus.Splitting it would serve no real purpose.190.151.22.98 (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no fewer than four distinct political entities with varying levels of de facto or de jure control over at least part of the island. There should be an overview article separate from those to explain the situation. --Golbez (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The overview article is the Cyprus article because it is an island nation. Early on it explains the situation with links to the separate articles of all the political entities. I am using your term "political entities" although i think its incorrect but the explanation may well be for another discussion.  23x2    φ  10:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Belated for edit conflict) Let me try to respond to that: I already said before that we are not at an international meeting discussing the accreditation of the TRNC delegates. We are writing an encyclopedia and that is it. Even as I see unnecessary, let me refer you to the sovereign territories called British Bases which even have their "customs administration" and "police". Read well especially the last two articles. You will see that there is another "sovereignty" on part of the Island of Cyprus. (Only for whipping brains: Even if there were no Cyprus question at all, -maybe some day, when the "United Republic of Cyprus" is established-, still the sovereignty over the island would be split, between that of this Republic and UK.) --E4024 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant, i have explained to you multiple times about the UK bases. Cyprus is the shortname of the Republic of Cyprus. Its WP:COMMONNAME is Cyprus. This is how it is used in Encyclopedias. Wikipedia is not and it will not become Turkey's office of foreign affairs. Get over it  23x2    φ  21:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is your argument purely name based? If not, then stop giving that such prominence in your statements. You make it sound like, if the island for whatever reason had a different name than "Cyprus", you'd be 100% fine with a separate article for said island. --Golbez (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And FYI, everyone needs to stop accusing other people of nationalism, even if it is obvious. You could find a few dozen people here who would agree that I am far from having the glory of the Turkish people as my highest concern. --Golbez (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have provided 3 reliable sources that treat Cyprus the island and Cyprus the government interchangeably, all three go against the suggestion to split the article. On which reliable sources is the split suggestion based? Is it perhaps based on original research? If we are here to write a reliable encyclopedia then let get serious  23x2    φ  22:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC) From the US Department of State website:
 * Here the UN refer to the Republic of Cyprus as "Cyprus" interchangeably i just got a random recent resolution.
 * Here Britannica refers to the Republic of Cyprus and Cyprus the island interchangeably, having one article one entry. Britannica actually states against the original research that E4024 repeats that the Republic of Cyprus is recognized as the de jure government of the whole island.
 * Here the Cia Factbook refers to Cyprus the island and the Republic of Cyprus interchangeably being one entry / one article.
 * Since when does a disambiguation/explanation split need reliable resources? --Golbez (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clear: Cyprus is an island nation. Note the sentence: Cyprus joined the European Union in 2004 No "Republic", no "Island", just "Cyprus". Period. Are we going to second-guess the United States Department of State? Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No one reasonably disputes that Cyprus is an island nation; I fail to see how that is relevant to having an overview article of the island's complicated geopolitical situation. And they are welcome to use whatever name they want; the name of Ireland is "Ireland" but that doesn't mean it's identical to the island of the same name. Guys, if your only argument is that the country has the same name as the island, that's a really, really poor argument, so maybe you should rely less on it. --Golbez (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood my edit above. The point is everyone is using "Cyprus" in place of the state and the island and vice versa without making a distinction onomatologically. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

From the Cyprus country profile on BBC:

Note the sentence: EU invited Cyprus to become a member. No "Republic", no "Island", just "Cyprus". Period. Are we going to second-guess the BBC? Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "In November 2010, Ireland and the EU agreed..." I wonder if the BBC is referring to the island or the country? Or, is this a case, like Cyprus, where the names are the same? And, were they not the same, would we even be having this argument? (the answer is no, by the way, there would already be separate articles) The difference between the two of course is that the de jure borders of Cyprus are coterminous with the landscape of the island, but there are three other de facto polities there that make it a complicated subject, worthy of separate handling. --Golbez (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have more:

From the European Union Cyprus Year of EU entry:

Note the entry name: Cyprus. No "Republic", no "Island", just "Cyprus". Period. Are we going to second-guess the European Union? Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You did this knowing I would paste the same about Ireland, right? Why did you even bother? You shouldn't have, and I won't. You know what it says about Ireland. Again, you are making this about the name and the name alone, which is a horrible argument. Be better at this. --Golbez (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing me of being able to foretell your actions? That's a good one. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις
 * Yes, because it was exceptionally obvious. "I'll paste something where someone calls the country "Cyprus" which is also the name of the island it's on!" "Well I'll paste the same, but for Ireland, thus disproving your point." "Then I shall do the exact same thing and that will solve the matter!" "Rinse, repeat." In other words, you were bad at this. --Golbez (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you are bad at understanding the concepts involved here. If you want to disambiguate anything do it by using an article title other than "Cyprus". The name "Cyprus" is already reserved for the island and the state. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 23:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose on splitting: I really don't see ANY reason for splitting the article apart from creating controversy,endless edit wars and endless talks. The article as it is is clear. The Cyprus problem is a political and a name dispute. Why split it? What are the advantages? Would it be clearer if the geography and history was cut and pasted on a new article instead of being as is? Doesn't the article mention and connect to the sovereign bases and North Cyprus? How would a reader benefit? Also, a look on the changes shows the edit wars taking place on this article. I would suggest leaving it protected indefinitely to prevent vandalism and remove the tag to prevent endless talks like the current. As an administrator, Golbez this would be the best move in my point of view. Leave the article as it has been for so long and prevent further disputes and vandalism. A consensus for the name will never be reached from what I see.
 * Why open a new round of vandalism, huge talks about where the North should be on the new article like first or second or third?And if the Greek side is more described on the general or why the Turkish is less described? Just leave it as it is which as Dr.K said is globally accepted. JCA100 (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Another example: Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Another example: Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 23:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think anyone reasonably disputes that Cyprus is an island nation, and that there is a country whose short name is Cyprus that has fully recognized de jure borders that are coterminous with the landscape of an island named Cyprus (and, naturally, smaller surrounding islands, as befits any island nation). There just happens to be the other three de facto powers on the island that make it a complicated enough matter to be dealt with separately. --Golbez (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact I agree. I am not opposed to creating a new article based on such geopolitical analysis as long as it has any other title except "Cyprus" or "Cyprus island". Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 23:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And so on:

Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 23:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Golbez, this is crazy. The name dispute It will NEVER reach a consensus. At least not until the Cyprus Dispute is solved... Just leave it as it has been for the past so many years please. I know that you don't get any side's side but please see that this will never end. JCA100 (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The naming issue and the splitting issue are different issues, we would do well to not confuse them. --Golbez (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware how informed you are but officially Cyprus claims the title of the island and North Cyprus supports that it doesn't. Ultimately, it is a naming issue and by splitting the article is like

taking one side's side. Note that this discussion has been opened in the past and the result was not to split it. Why don't you just close it and live as it has been for the past 8 years?JCA100 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose splitting the article Per all the comments against the split in this thread and all others. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 23:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Golbez, i have read your comments over and over. Splitting makes no sense. The people of Cyprus (at least the Greeks) have been around since the 2nd millennium BC. Through out their history, they went through wars, conquerors etc and in 1960 they created a republic. What would be the content of the separate suggested article "Cyprus (island)"? About the flora and fiona? About the trees, the bees or the pygmy hippos of Cyprus? Ofcourse not, it would be about its people, and their story. Well the history of the people of Cyprus is continued with the republic of Cyprus. The military bases and the status of north Cyprus are sections in this article along with the buffer zone. What is there to warrant the separation of this article? Could you please explain?  23x2    φ  23:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the island and the Republic of Cyprus [de jure] are one. The Republic of Cyprus is an island country, separating the article would be misleading to the audience  23x2    φ  23:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. In fact the international community uses the term "Cyprus" interchangeably to refer to the island and the state. By inventing any other awkward onomatology locally in Wikipedia we are going against accepted onomatology and against our own policies of NPOV, NOR and WP:COMMONNAME to name just a few. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  00:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Pro-Splitting Here an example why we need another article on the geographical island. Let's take a look here:Ottoman Cyprus. The reader wants to know, what's the island of Cyprus. Voila! There is no link there at all, cause there is no article about the island but only a government on it! There are many such articles which need such connection to the island of the Cyprus. But because of some NPOV-loss nationalists, the readers of WP can't access the information they are looking for. I don't refuse that Cyprus is an island country. But it is not an island itself! @23x2 By the way, nobody asks how long the Greeks were on the island please don't confuse the main point of discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbasturk (talk • contribs) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The above argument is completely wrong. There is a history section on the current page. The split suggestion is anyway not to split it into Historical eras and the reader wouldn't benefit at all. On the contrary, on the current page, clicking on the history link takes the reader directly to the history sectionJCA100 (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to do with the history. I just want to be able to link that article to the island of Cyprus, where we need it. Please take a look here as well. The 'Cyprus' article from the second biggest WP. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zypern We nees such a geographical island article and a disambiguation page for the countries on it. Serhan (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Sbasturk I dont get your point. What is the question here? The reader wants to know, what's the island of Cyprus What do you mean? Whats the island? What you want to link it to specifically. What is the content you are looking this to have?  23x2    φ  00:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @23x2 Sorry if I couldn't express my thoughts cleanly because of my poor English. But if you take a look to the German article I've given, you'll easily be able to understand it. The idea is very simple and is very easy to understand by someone like you, of course only if you want to. Look this is an island and not the Republic of Cyprus: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Cyprus_lrg.jpg "An island is any piece of sub-continental land that is surrounded by water.". Serhan (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem Serhan, i am here to help. i wouldnt say you are a single purpose account, but for how long have you been trying to add a link from Ottoman Cyprus to "a geographical island article". Because from your contributions i see you have never edited either article before this discussion. Perhaps you should explain what content is that you are looking for, and i will try to help you, perhaps you did not search correctly or you missed it. Please let me know, the content you are looking for 23x2    φ  00:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kindness. But basically you just don't want to understand. FYI: I'm on WP since 2006 and this is my only account ever. It's not true that this account is a single purpose account like yours. By the way I just looked up on your user talk page in WP and seen the message by an admin: Salvio_giuliano "Hello 23x2 and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry to have to inform you that edits such as this constitute disruptive editing. You seem to be pushing your point of view in violation of different Wikipedia's policies, namely WP:NPOV and WP:V. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it should never be used to promote your personal beliefs. Please stop." Because of this I don't want to discuss this simple concern with you to save my time, as obviously you always have been a NPOV-loss user. My final expression from what I've seen is that this article MUST be split just like in the German WP Serhan (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So there is nothing you want to link to anything, you simply wanted to make a point and you just blew it. And now your reverted to the oldest trick in the book which is shifting the subject matter. Btw all of a sudden your English are so much better. Impressive. An admin to intervene here please  23x2    φ  00:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Serhan, all the information contained in the german version is basically what is included in the english version of the RoC. There is nothing more. In fact, the english version (the one under discussion) contains even more information. Previously you argued that an example user might want to find info related to Ottoman Cyprus era. In the German version, it does not exist whereas in the current English version, Ottoman Cyprus is a section. By splitting the article the information would be reduced and not increased since the current article is quite complete and information would just be taken away and transferred to another article. Splitting it serves no purpose other than causing long talks and conflicts like now JCA100 (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * JCA100 I didn't mention that a user wants to find info related to Ottoman Cyprus era. What I was saying was that, a user on this Ottoman Cyprus article cannot find any connection to the Cyprus island itself. "Island of Cyprus" is written in the very first sentence but you can't click it here as current Cyprus page has nothing to do with this real meaning which is the real island itself and not governments. It is also not about which WP has more information. But which WP does it in right way. Splitting this article will not cause loss of information but simplicity to reach to information. All other islands have such a own article for the real meaning without the governments but the Cyprus not. Why WP should give you this privilege.. German WP has it for Cyprus in the right way to my way of thinking: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zypern Serhan (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will repeat the question again, this time in bold, lets see if Serhan sees it. Sbasturk what content would you like this new imaginary article to have? 23x2    φ  01:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, still not convinced. What you have just said about presenting the country and not including the governments could be argued to be done in Greece, UK,USA,Turkey and every country. Usually, when you open the wikipedia page of a country it is about the government, not the geography or History.JCA100 (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Serhan Geography of Cyprus by the way is a separate article. here you go Geography of Cyprus. Thanks  23x2    φ  01:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Serhan, much of the Geography of Cyprus and Ottoman Cyprus is included in the Cyprus article. The article you mention is the detailed long one which anyway is too big too fit if the article is split. Splitting it will only transfer part of the current's version contents to the newJCA100 (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is quite clear(see below) what the WP:COMMONNAME is in this case. Going against a so widely used term leads to nothing but confusion.JCA100 (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Hi all. I havent contributed to Wiki in a long, long time but seeing where the cabal is pushing things i couldnt resist. The argument brought forth is makes absolutly no sense. Its complicated they have said to explain the situation of Cyprus in this article, therefore they suggest to create two different articles to explain the situation there. The same words that will explain the situation in 100 different article can explain the situation in this single article. In the article of Cyprus, all information (if there is something not already covered) may be included, nicely organised in sections for all to follow. Excuses such as "too complicated" has nothing to do with writting an complete article. Aristovoul0s (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I just think it would be easier for our readers for the overview to consider all four entities on the island, rather than making three of them literal footnotes to one of them. Yes, I know the Republic is the de jure country of the entire island, and globally recognized as such, but there are three de facto entities competing with them and I think it would be useful to have a glorified disambiguation article handling this. I don't know if it should be about the island itself per se, with regard to geography and general history, but it should involve the demography and modern political history.

There is no other island in the world that has anywhere near this complex a situation, and if the island were named something other than "Cyprus" we would already have an article on it. Whether or not this article should be placed at Cyprus, I don't know. In fact, probably not; the Republic is obviously the least surprising destination for anyone looking for Cyprus. But I do think there should be an overview article handling the geopolitics of the island separately from that of the Republic. --Golbez (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly i would like to thank you for your reply.

I appreciate the fact you took the time to reply and explain your thoughts. Your efforts -if i understood correctly- are directed towards adequately explaining to the readers the "geopolitics of the island". I understand that a reader who is not familiar with the subject needs to be explained (sometimes spoonfed) certain facts. Sometimes, that's what an encyclopedia has to be. However, i disagree with your approach for many reasons, i will explain one. This is what i think; at the core of my disagreement lays the fact that Cyprus (the Republic) and Cyprus (the island) are one, hence island nation. I know you have read this before and you agree with it as you have said in your prologue. However you took exactly the opposite stance in your epilogue, basically contradicting yourself with what you have said originally, by saying: "there should be an overview article handling the geopolitics of the island separately from that of the Republic." geopolitics of the republic. By saying geopolitics of the island, whats implied is that the geopolitics of the island is a separate subject matter from the geopolitics of the republic , which is in clearly not the case. A fallacy. A consistent statement (with your agreement that Cyprus is an island nation) would be the geopolitics of the island-nation. As thats what the island is, an island nation, as you have said you agreed with, that the island and the republic are one. If Cyprus (the Republic) and Cyprus (the island) are one (an island nation) then it removes the argument of creating a separation to explain the geopolitics of the former separately from the latter. I do agree that a reader looking for Cyprus in Wikipedia, will almost certainly be looking for the Republic, and that strengthens the argument against the split. I will just leave it to here, and see your response so that this is a dialogue and not a monologue. So, to sum up i will ask you this, Do you see the fallacy in the message you wrote to me? Thanks  23x2    φ  17:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The geopolitics of the island are different from the geopolitics of the republic. The island is a landmass shared among four powers in overlapping fashions; the Republic would hardly say it shares itself with three other entities, would it? The Republic of Cyprus is an island nation, generally (not exactly, due to associated islands also being included) coterminous with the landmass of the island of Cyprus. That landmass also contains three other distinct polities with varying levels of de jure and de facto control. If the island were named anything other than Cyprus, or if Cyprus had another major island like Malta does, there would be an article on the island itself. I just think it's somewhat unfair to treat the SBAs, Green Line, and TRNC as subtopics of the Republic, which is what we do if the article on the Republic is the only article we have on the island's geopolitics. (Cyprus dispute is a possible alternative, but has far too much detail; all I want is a quick overview. Hell, maybe I should write it myself to give us something to work from, but unfortunately at the moment the only computer I have real access to Wikipedia from is work and I don't think they want me spending my time writing articles. :P) --Golbez (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * :) If you manage to get paid by your employer while surfing the web and writing in wikipedia then you are a better man than i am :) Way to go! For the conversation we are having: I disagree i am afraid, actually i think you have another two-it may be three- more fallacies in your statement but i will not hold that against you :). No, Its not shared, the Republic's geopolitics are the same with the island's geopolitics. Ill start of by creating a list of the "three powers" you used. I want us to analyse the statement you repeat "geopolitics" for "four powers", because in my opinion it is baseless, and wrong.


 * 1) TRNC - (geo) occupied area of RoC,  the republics politics directly affect it(politics).
 * 2) military bases - area given by RoC (geo) by agreement it has no political powers whatsoever (politics)
 * 3) buffer zone - area (geo) given "temporarily - it may be invoked at any time the Republic chooses to - by agreement  no political powers whatsoever (politics)

Which are the four powers you are referring to that have the ability to have their own geopolitics separate from the Republic's ? And why you repeat "geopolitics of four"? when they have no political powers. If your argument was that there is one other power (de facto) and its geopolitics, well i would be inclined to partly-agree. i will pause again and wait for your reply. Please dont write an article there is no consensus to split the Cyprus article. In fact the Cyprus article is the overview. Thanks   23x2    φ  18:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I can get away with quick responses on talk pages, but I don't think they would like me writing an article. :) I was under the impression the SBAs were actual British territories and thus not part of the Republic. I see nothing on Wikipedia that indicates the land is being leased from the Republic, and everything indicates they are entirely separate from it. For example, the CIA World Factbook mentions 150km of land borders for Cyprus, all with the SBAs. "The Republic's geopolitics are the same with the island's geopolitics" Considering there is a partially recognized nation on 1/3 of that island, with full control over that 1/3, that statement could be considered incorrect. And then there's the question over whether or not the SBAs are part of the Republic or a possession of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, while I'm no expert on the subject, I don't see anything in our articles that says the Green Line exists at the Republic's pleasure, that it was imposed upon them by the UN, but I could easily be missing something. --Golbez (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats a good employer ;). Excellent, lets examine each individually, but first i will like to remind you that you have said that: "you would like to explain to our readers the "geopolitics of the island". You have used the word (geopolitics). And that is what we are discussing. Not something else, but the (geo) & (politics). I will hold you to the word you, yourself has used, (geopolitics). I will prove to you how the (geopolitics) of the island and the Republic are the same. Therefore two out of the three are striked out, as i explained, and the third, its politics are directly related with that of the Republic Of Cyprus. So i stand firmly by my initial argument that the geopolitics of the Republic and the geopolitics of the island are the same, as it is an island nation.  23x2    φ  20:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) TRNC You said: "Considering there is a partially recognized nation on 1/3 of that island, with full control over that 1/3". By saying "full control" i assume you mean (geo) (politics). Well, no it doesn't enjoy full control. It doesn't enjoy even partial control, it just prevents with arms the exercise of full control by the Republic of Cyprus. Lets investigate these one by one (geo) & (politics) and you will see that your argument is not correct. Because the Republic of Cyprus has de jure control over TRNC's territory it (the Republic) has informed the international community that its (the Republic's) northern ports and airports are closed. The international community recognises this and follows suit not using these northern ports and airports. The international community recognizes practically the de jure authority the Republic of Cyprus exercises over its occupied area, the area that TRNC claims. Therefore, the (politics) of the Republic of Cyprus, affect directly the occupied area (geo). Therefore the ability of TRNC to exercise its geopolitics has to pass through the RoC.
 * 2) SBA's. A very good read to comprehend what the SBA's are, (and a must since we are having this conversation) is this. Please if you have the time, read it fully. After reading it, please come back here and read on. You said "And then there's the question over whether or not the SBAs are part of the Republic or a possession of the United Kingdom".I think the British havent yet decided what they want their military bases to be. On one hand they claim they are "dependent territories" meaning British dependent and on the other hand "Sovereign". Either they are dependent; or they are sovereign; a territory cant be both at the same time. This issue however is for the SBA article to elaborate and explain this mess, the Cyprus article just gives a quick overview saying that these military bases exist. Now the answer to your question. As i said the SBA's do not have any authority for (politics) as they are purely military bases. The Treaty of Establishment safeguards that. So if the SBA's do not have the ability for (politics) how can we talk about a "geopolitical power"? It is wrong.
 * 3) Buffer zone - you have no argument of (politics) here i hope. You agree that (geopolitics) as a term doesn't apply to this, and it was simply mentioned in an effort to make the argument more serious than it really is. Make it it sound important by saying that there are "4 powers". Btw you should be working and not reading this. I could argue that even the UN themselves dont have the ability to exercise (geopolitics). But i wont.
 * "It just prevents with arms the exercise of full control by the Republic of Cyprus" But isn't that simply what a de facto but not de jure independent country does? That doesn't change the fact that it is a de facto independent country and has been for nearly 40 years. (I was kind of hoping someone would accuse me of being a Turkish nationalist, which would make my day in a way you cannot understand, as I get accused of being an Armenian sympathizer all the time on the Nagorno-Karabakh articles) The TRNC occupies land that is globally recognized as part of Cyprus, but it has exercised sufficient control for a sufficient amount of time to be its own actor as well. Just like Nagorno-Karabakh, just like Somaliland, just like Taiwan.
 * I think the "sovereign" means they are places where the British government is sovereign, unlike leased air bases like the U.S. has at Ramstein. Not that Akrotiri is in itself sovereign. They are a geopolitical entity because they represent the United Kingdom's possessions on the island that may or may not (the jury is obviously still out, as I have not read the article) be part of the Republic. If they are not part of the Republic then the island and the Republic are not coterminous. (not that they are anyway, but the issue of minor islands is a different point)
 * I've read the treaty and it details where the SBAs and Republic will intersect, but it doesn't make it clear one way or another if the SBAs are part of the Republic.
 * The Green Line is a product of political geography; any other geography isn't relevant, so "geopolitics" is the correct term here. Anything involving the imaginary lines in the sand that we humans draw is geopolitical. The UN appears to unilaterally control territory in the Republic that, while de jure part of the Republic (more clear cut than whether or not the SBAs are de jure part of the Republic), is de facto under blue beret control.
 * So, on the island, we have the following entities:


 * Republic of Cyprus
 * The island makes up 99% of its de jure territory.
 * The island makes up 99% of its de facto territory.
 * (the 1% is given to handle associated minor islands)
 * 100% of the island is de jure in the Republic.
 * 60% of the island is de facto in the Republic.
 * (Please don't hassle me on the percentages, I'm just illustrating something here)
 * Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
 * It has no de jure territory.
 * The island makes up 99% of its de facto territory.
 * 0% of the island is de jure in the TRNC
 * 30% of the island is de facto in the TRNC.
 * Sovereign Base Areas
 * The island makes up 100% of its de jure territory.
 * The island makes up 100% of its de facto territory.
 * 8% of the island is de jure in the SBAs.
 * 8% of the island is de facto in the SBAs.
 * Green Line
 * It has no de jure territory.
 * The island makes up 100% of its de facto territory.
 * 0% of the island is de jure in the Green Line.
 * 2% of the island is de facto in the Green Line.


 * So, based on the above, we have four entities that have de facto control over the island, including two entities with de jure control. Furthermore, two of the entities with de facto control also control areas that are not on the island. My point here is, geopolitically, the island and the Republic are not coterminous and should not be treated as such. --Golbez (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, we disagree, lets agree to that. Geopolitics being the application of the influence of political and economic geography on the politics, national power, foreign policy, etc., of a state. I have explained that the "three powers" although having the territory (we disagree in the way we mean "have") they lack the ability to practice policies in a way that the term (geopolitics) implies. You have listed geography of the 3 "entities", nothing more.  23x2    φ  21:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are making a good argument about geopolitics and I agree with your analysis. Also the legal details that these issues represent can be adequately explained in the already existing satellite articles about the bases and northern Cyprus. The main article on Cyprus can accommodate these issues in summary style. There is no reason to create any new articles. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But why is the article for a country that has only controlled 2/3 of a landmass for 40 years the only acceptable article for said landmass, especially when that landmass makes up only part (albeit the largest part by far) of said country? --Golbez (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not here to invent new onomatology based on our own original ideas about what the landmass is comprised of or not. In the references I have provided everyone refers to the island and the state with a single term and makes no distinction between the terms. The British Government, again in the references below, refers to TRNC also as the the "north of Cyprus". So the short answer to your question is: Because the international community recognises "said landmass", as you put it, to be one and the same as the Republic, the nation, and the island state. We must then reflect the vocabulary established by the international community and not invent artificial entities on our own. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 00:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No one cares about your sources. We know there are sources that say Cyprus and the republic are coterminous, despite that being blatantly false (Cyprus the Republic also contains local smaller islands). This isn't a numbers game, so stop playing it. Instead, speak to this: are the SBAs part of the Republic? If they are not then the island is shared between at least two sovereigns and thus the article should be split like Ireland is. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You say: No one cares about your sources. Please speak for yourself. You may not care for the sources but many other people do. By the way they are not "my sources"; this is the international community speaking about Cyprus and it clearly establishes the coterminous usage of the terms by everyone in the international community. You say ...despite that being blatantly false. I hope you understand you cannot evaluate language usage by reliable sources; this is original research on your part. You are going against the international community and you are calling everyone's usage of the terms wrong. I think when you reach the stage in your arguments that the international community is wrong and you are right it may be time to reconsider your thinking. As far as the SBAs it is a clear case, as I said above, of WP:UNDUE and it does not advance your argument one iota because the international community does not care and makes no distinction on its onomatology based on the SBAs. So please stop making it. The evidence of coterminous usage is overwhelming. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  17:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Another example to use as reference when the article gets unprotected: Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 01:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are some more:

and:

Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 02:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose splitting, since in English usage, "Cyprus" usually means both the nation and the island, or rather the island nation recognized by the US and all but one other UN member as the legitimate government of the whole island. Note that this is a linguistic argument, rather than a political one, and if English speakers started to make the distinction, I'd support splitting.


 * Consider the case of China. There's a better argument for dividing that article, since not only does the People's Republic of China not control all of China, but Taiwan is officially recognized by many governments, and recognized de facto by many others (and thus unlike the TRNC it has full control over its ports, waters, and airspace). However common English usage refers to the PRC as "China," and the ROC as "Taiwan," and so in the name of simplicity, that's what we do, and we put most of the history of the entities referred to in English as "China" under the article about the PRC.


 * Only in Turkish does "Cyprus" (or rather "Kibris") mean anything other than the state internationally recognized as the legal government of the whole island. In English, if we're talking about the TRNC we say "Northern Cyprus" "Turkish Cyprus" or "TRNC" while using "Cyprus to refer to both the Republic of Cyprus and the Island as a whole.  Unless the common English uses changes and we start distinguishing Turkish and Greek Cyprus as a matter of course (as we now do with North and South Korea), there's no reason to divide the article.--Quintucket (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quintucket, by any chance have you ever looked at our Sovereign Base Areas article? (It has not been edited since July 5 -or by a bot on November 4- this year.) The lead says: "The only two Sovereign Base Areas are located adjacent to the Republic of Cyprus which was formerly governed by the United Kingdom." (Let me translate it for you: The only two Sovereign Base Areas are located adjacent to the Republic of Cyprus on the Island of Cyprus, which was formerly governed by the United Kingdom. (I bolded my addition to make it clear that the Sovereign Bases are "adjacent" to the Republic of Cyprus, but what was formerly governed by UK is the Island of Cyprus, and not the "Republic". This biassed obstination of claiming that the RoC is Cyprus has brought us to this point, where Cyprus-related articles in WP are strange as they currently are. --E4024 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'd always assumed that despite the name and de facto British control, the Sovereign Base Areas were de jure Cypriot territory, a similar situation to the US and Gitmo, but the article indicates that they're British Overseas Territories.  So you may have a point.  However I can think of no good analogy, since I don't think there's any comparable situation. That said, if you're going to make the argument for splitting the article you really should stick to the base areas.  You might have a point there about the base areas, but the TRNC-based case is a practically non-existent one.


 * Personally, I still think most English speakers will make the same assumption I did (I mean, I at least knew the base areas existed, but I still didn't know that they weren't even nominally Cypriot), and thus most English speakers (most of whom probably won't know about the SBAs or the TRNC) will treat the Republic of Cyprus and the island as co-terminous. Given this, and given the fact that the history of the Base Areas is basically that of Cyprus until 1960, and there's no civilian national identity for them, I'd say it's still probably better to treat the island and Republic as one and the same, with separate articles for the TRNC and the SBAs, which we mention in the "Cyprus" lede, i.e. the status quo.


 * Using the Ireland analogy, the SBAs seem closer to the Treaty Ports than to Northern Ireland, though I'm not certain of the exact legal status of the Treaty Ports. —Quintucket (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You said: This biassed obstination of claiming that the RoC is Cyprus has brought us to this point, where Cyprus-related articles in WP are strange as they currently are. This biassed obstination is shared by the whole of the international community. Have you bothered to read the biassed obstinations of CNN, the New York Times, books, universities, even the Journal of Turkish Weekly and all the other references I put in the collapsed section all of whom make no distinction whatsoever between the republic, the island and the nation? From someone who keeps calling Cyprus the "so-called Republic of Cyprus" every chance you get it may be a bit much to expect. Talk about bias. And in any case the sovereign bases are only 250 km$2$ in area. This compared to the island's 9,251 km$2$ is a very minuscule amount. In percentages the bases comprise 0.0270241055% of the island or the Republic is 99.9729758945% 97.29758945% of the island, a virtual 100%. This is a  classic case of WP:UNDUE to put such an emphasis on such a tiny area but that only serves to highlight the size of your POV. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  02:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose split. Primary usage of "Cyprus" is the country. Converting "Cyprus" to a disambiguation page would be a huge disservice to our readers. Splitting the article will also lead to a large amount of content forking. Athenean (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Straw man; at least one of those strenuously arguing for a split (me) has not suggested moving "Cyprus" to a disambiguation page. The obvious most common use for the name "Cyprus" is for the country; I suggest splitting off "Cyprus (island)" to illustrate the complicated geopolitical nature of the island. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose splitting: cf. the analogy: Taiwan, the island, and the Republic of China (RoC), the state on the island, direct to the same page, even though the RoC is internationally much less recognized than the state of Cyprus (Taiwan is recognized by 30+ states, while Northern Cyprus as a separate state from the Republic of Cyprus is only recognized by a single country, its occupying power Turkey). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The two are not analogous, as Taiwan has only one entity exercising sovereign power over its land, whilst two entities claim it. Cyprus has four powers, claimed by three, and is thus much more complex. This is less to do with the TRNC and more to do with the SBAs, to be honest. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Cyprus case is in fact less complex than the Taiwan issue: the United Nations and the international community recognizes only the Republic of Cyprus as the state of and on Cyprus. That is a straightforward situation. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we have a source that explicitly states the UN says the Republic covers the entire island and/or that the SBAs are part of the Republic? I haven't seen one, unless it's buried in Dr. K's pile o' sources. --Golbez (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but here is Der Spiegel saying "The country will effectively lose its sovereignty.... Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), will essentialy take control of the Mediterranean island. Effectively equating the island with the Republic. There are more sources with very similar phraseology. The small percentage of the SBAs is not enough for the international community to make any distinction between the Republic and the island and so it is ignored by them in their onomatology. Insisting on the opposite is a classic case of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV and goes against the accepted international onomatological practice as I said before.
 * Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 19:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gun Powder Ma specifically mentioned the United Nations, it's not unsound of me to want that backed up or rescinded. Der Spiegel is not exactly the United Nations. --Golbez (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cyprus is a UN member state which is recognized as such under name of "Cyprus", the name of the island. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That they are recognized by a certain name does not mean the UN considers the SBAs to be part of the Republic. Your argument is exceptionally weak and you do yourself a disservice by repeating it. "Ireland" is a member under the name of "Ireland", but no one suggests that the country of Ireland is the whole island based solely on that. Or do you? If you are going to take the UN's use of the name "Cyprus" as solid proof that the UN considers the whole island to be part of Cyprus then, does that mean they use different rules for Ireland or are you just making stuff up? If you do not have a source explicitly stating that the UN considers the SBAs to be part of Cyprus, or that the Republic takes up the entire island, then please withdraw your statement as an affirmation of your position. There's no honor lost in being wrong, so long as you correct it in a timely fashion. --Golbez (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That they are recognized by a certain name does not mean the UN considers the SBAs to be part of the Republic. Your argument is exceptionally weak and you do yourself a disservice by repeating it. "Ireland" is a member under the name of "Ireland", but no one suggests that the country of Ireland is the whole island based solely on that. Or do you? If you are going to take the UN's use of the name "Cyprus" as solid proof that the UN considers the whole island to be part of Cyprus then, does that mean they use different rules for Ireland or are you just making stuff up? If you do not have a source explicitly stating that the UN considers the SBAs to be part of Cyprus, or that the Republic takes up the entire island, then please withdraw your statement as an affirmation of your position. There's no honor lost in being wrong, so long as you correct it in a timely fashion. --Golbez (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Again with the SBA argument. Give it up already, it's not cutting the mustard.  We're not going to split the article because of the SBAs, period.  The split will only occur if a consensus to do so forms.  Right now, we couldn't be any further from a consensus, and it is my feeling such a consensus is not going to form.  Put down the stick and back away from the horse. Athenean (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose splitting. Per every argument here against the split. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will take this moment to do some low-level trolling and point out that one of the arguments (that you just agreed with) is that the island and republic have the same name, so surely you'll be fine with merging the articles on the region and country of Macedonia? --Golbez (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol, not quite the same! but yes, you are good at low-level trolling... Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The result would have be two articles with to a large extent the same information. Not very practical for the average user. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? You're making some assumptions about what articles we want to make. --Golbez (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am assuming that the idea is one article about the island and one about the republic, since that is what has been proposed. And I cannot see how this can be done without much double action. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you lack vision. --Golbez (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That may, of course, be true, but I am afraid the discussion so far has not helped me much in developing a broader vision. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I promise to whip something up in the coming week. :) --Golbez (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that no move is needed. I disagree that the comparison made to the Irish position. See Names of the Irish state. The Republic of Ireland is not even the name of the Irish state (Ireland is). In contrast, Republic of Cyprus is the name of the Cypriot state. The Cypriots (like the Irish) are not sovereign over all of their island (the UK bases). The Irish have an even stronger case for having the Ireland article assigned to their state. I think the treatment of the Irish article is just Wiki politics. Irish editors are relatively small in number. Lots of suggestions were made to fix it but they all got put down. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Split - Ireland


 * Oppose splitting: This is clearly an attempt to provoke argument regarding the occupied and internationally unrecognised pseudo-state "TRNC" and the Republic of Cyprus, also referred to as Cyprus. The geography and history of the island are already described in this article and do not require a separate one. Kupraios (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cypriot, does our Northern Cyprus article call TRNC a pseudo-state? Sure? --E4024 (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Strongly support splitting: I have no interest in the political issues that are clearly and mischievously being allowed to hijack this argument. I searched for "Cyprus" because I wanted to discover various facts about the island, such as how large it is. The article starts by claiming incorrectly that Cyprus is a synonym for "The Republic of Cyprus" which is clearly inappropriate and probably contravenes NPOV guidelines. If the article is about the state it should be called "Republic of Cyprus". Having started in this vein, the article then goes on to material such as "Cyprus is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea" and much else which clearly refers to the island and not the state. Most of the history has nothing to do with the state. What is needed is a new article "Republic of Cyprus" with appropriate redirection and/or disambiguation. As it is, the article is a hodge-podge in which unrelated material is mixed together. This politicisation of WP is unacceptable. treesmill (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I support moving the article. I believe Cyprus leading to the article on the country is the policy of least surprise, your experience notwithstanding, just like it would be for Iceland and Australia to not go to the island or continent articles, respectively. However, I do think some form of split should be done, either a full split of the island (since the nation is not coterminous with the island, even if you ignore the three other bodies on the island, the country includes area that is not part of the landmass. And yes, I would support a split of Cuba for the same reasons) or just a split off of a glorified disambiguation page explaining the various entities at play. --Golbez (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, Golbez, there is no Cypriot nation. There are Turkish and Greek nations. (If you used the word in the "American" way, there are two states on the island.) So we would better speak of "Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities" and their respective states.. --E4024 (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure where this is coming from, but ... there is a country whose short form name is Cyprus, and that is the destination for most people looking up "Cyprus". The other country you refer to has the short form of Northern Cyprus. I don't need to specify beyond that; there is absolutely no ambiguity when referring to the country of Cyprus as to which one I'm referring to. And no, they aren't "states" in the "American" way because they aren't parts of the same country. Well... you know what I mean. They were never divided in such a fashion. --Golbez (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Golbez, in Turkish we have a saying: "You were the only person who understood me; and you misunderstood me." :-) Please forget this. --E4024 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, I see. Yeah, we tend to use "nation" and "country" and "state" interchangeably, when that's not the case. In its previous form at least, Cyprus was a multinational state. --Golbez (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "I searched for "Cyprus" because I wanted to discover various facts about the island, such as how large it is." It says it on the right-hand side. Cyprus is commonly used to refer to the Republic of Cyprus, at least it is in the English language. There are many similar cases where "Republic of" is ommitted when referring to a country, such as "Serbia" and "Republic of Serbia", "Albania" and "Republic of Albania", and so on. The Republic of Cyprus encompasses the entire island except for the British Sovereign Base Areas, hence it is unnecessary to split the article. It is clear that the intention here is to promote Cyprus as being composed of separate states and is thus purely a propaganda attempt. Kupraios (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "It says it on the right-hand side." No, it doesn't. It has the area of the country on the right-hand side, but the country also includes small surrounding islands. The area of the island is absolutely not the same as the area of the country, even if you include the SBAs in the country, any more than the area of Cuba the country is the same as Cuba the island. --Golbez (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You stated that you wanted to know how large the ISLAND is. It says that on the right hand side: 9,251 square-kilometers. Look at the source, it encompasses the entire island, including the SBAs. Kupraios (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The infobox states the area of the "island" to be 9251 sq km. This is incorrect, that is the size of the Republic of Cyprus, which also includes 17 sq km on surrounding islands. According to Wolfram Alpha, the area of the island of Cyprus, the individual landmass, is 9234 sq km, a difference of 17 square km. This needs to be repaired. --Golbez (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then add that in. There's no need for a separate article for it when the RoC article encompasses the entire island already. Kupraios (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I oppose splitting. Really, I can't understand how splitting the article of an island nation can improve it. In fact the other encyclopedias are reasonable on keeping Cyprus as a single article. Cyprus is a name that is very hard to distinguish neither to nature nor to entity, as those things have always been together in the past and always will be. And even if the split is done, both articles will, more or less, share the same information which will bring a new debate at the future: the debate of merging the two articles! So lets be reasonable from now already and not split this...--SilentResident (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose splitting. I pretty much agree with the points user Δρ.Κ raised.--WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)