Talk:Famagusta

Legality
Neo, You need a source that says: "occupied by Turkey and is considered an illegal settlement by the international community" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(You know nothing of Greek history and the Greek people. You should either permanently shut up or open a history book. Also, it's called 'intervention' not innovation.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.200.33 (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

in addition
As you say this island never been Greek in history. Ottoman empire allowed Greeks to live in this island thats the reason this island have Greek citizens but because of past Greek revolution in 60s and Makarios and Solmon lots of innocent cypress Turks were murdered. United Nations and UK only watched. Turkish Republic was the one of guarantor Nation others were Greece and UK but in the past, Island owners were Ottoman Empire it mean Turk, Turkish Republic want to help from UK to protect Turks who living in island but UK didnt care finally Turkish army attacked the island because of protect cypress Turks. And no one expect they can conquar to Island. USA blocks selling gun to Turkish army even all of this They won the war. But world dont want to accept lots of Turks were murdered on this island. For example if you search you can see one of Turkish army doctors family were murdered to slay I mean his wife and his little children. That's happened before the war. whatever this Island were directed with cypress Greek and Turks were represented minority they were accepted this eventhough there was no solution and Turkish Republic were rights on this Island they used this right.So THERE IS NO INNOVATİON! They can live in Varosha easyly but they forbiden to protect it. I hope world search this cypress problem on lots of sources because, dont know clearly all facts and things. Turkish Republic always one of stepbrother to Eu and USA, but it's land and it's army always necessery to use from EU and USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.24.76 (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean when you say Cyprus has never been Greek. Greeks already inhabited the island in Mycenean times, just like Greeks inhabited Turkey, like the Ionians, Dorians, Aechaeans and Aeolians. From the 12th century islamic Turks started conquering Anatolia and murdering and expelling the Greeks. But on Cyprus Greeks lived about 2500 years before it fell to the Turks. They were ruthlessly massacred, so I would say they were the ones who needed protection. In fact, in Turkey still live Greeks, and it seems that many muslims think that the Greek arrived later, although they live there 2000 years longer than muslims. Els — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.191.150 (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Slight correction. The settling of Turks in Anatolia begins in the 11th century. The first major Turkish state in Anatolia was the Sultanate of Rum, established in 1077. Its original capital was Nicaea (modern İznik). Also the Greek and other Anatolian population was not only killed or expelled. They underwent assimilation, called Turkification. Dimadick (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for my edits:
1) Picture: I don't think there are any cities whichs main picture is just a random roundabout. The Saint Sophia Church/Mosque is more unique to the city, therefore I believe it shoudl be the main picture. 2) Rule: The city is officially under Cypriot rule. Cyprus is recognized as the ruler of the city by EVERY COUNTRY in the world (except Turkey), the UN, the EU and all the other world organizations. Therefor it is fit for its country to be listed as Cyprus. 3) Mayor: The official mayor of the city is Alexis Galanos since he is the only legal mayor. Cyprus, the EU and the UN only recognize the Nicosia Turkish municipality (other than the neutral Cypriot ones). Oktay Kayalp is not recognized as the mayor by any country, organization or union. Therefor mentioning him as the mayor is not right. 4) Legality: The north part of Cyprus is recognized as being under illegal invasion by the UN and EU. Therefor texts which state this are informative texts, rather than biased ones. Two UN resolutions published in 1983, UN resolution 541, UN resolution 550 and many others back and state the fact that the north part of Cyprus is under illegal Turkish invasion. 5) If there is anything else that I wrote that someone feels is biased please state it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmatso (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * in my opinion current main picture (roundabout) is so pointless too. Old photo (St. Nicholas' Cathedral/Lala Mustafa Pasa Mosque) was way better. That monument is almost symbol of Famagusta (even Famagusta Turkish Manucipality use it in their logo) (Ghuzz (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Famagusta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111009044709/http://www.ktff.net/index.php?tpl=show_all_league&league_id=19 to http://www.ktff.net/index.php?tpl=show_all_league&league_id=19
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120425132250/http://gundem.emu.edu.tr/contents/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64:mausa-arena-acildi&catid=44:spor&Itemid=88&lang=tr to http://gundem.emu.edu.tr/contents/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64%3Amausa-arena-acildi&catid=44%3Aspor&Itemid=88&lang=tr

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for, as the actual coordinates are yes inside the city (south) but outside the real city center (that means inside the old Venetian walls). I suggest to use the latitude=35.1248 and longitude=33.9417 coordinates instead. —Walta (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Deor (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Population in 1974
The article says that in 1974, there were 60,000 inhabitants, consisting of 26,500 Greek Cypriots, 8500 Turkish Cypriots and 4000 from other ethnic groups. That makes 39,000 together, what about the other 21,000? Bever (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Very good point. Has been fixed and sourced. --GGT (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The VICE article on Varosha says that Varosha also had 39,000 inhabitants before the invasion, did the two towns coincidentally have the same number of inhabitants or was the journalist confusing the numbers? Bever (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Famagusta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131106001538/http://www.devplan.org/Nufus-2011/nufus%20ikinci_.pdf to http://www.devplan.org/Nufus-2011/nufus%20ikinci_.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120820022935/http://globalheritagefund.org:80/index.php/what_we_do/sites_on_the_verge/ to http://globalheritagefund.org/index.php/what_we_do/sites_on_the_verge/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Famagusta remains fenced off?
Seriously obsolete, no? Does Wikivoyage:Famagusta lie? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Help
Please could someone block the editing on this page I see a lot of editing wars happening — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.108.131.248 (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2017‎ (UTC)
 * ❌. First, I don't see much evidence of any ongoing war, and second, WP:RFPP is the proper venue to request protection. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Famagusta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121130084635/http://www.kibrisgazetesi.com/printa.php?col=78&art=18856 to http://www.kibrisgazetesi.com/printa.php?col=78&art=18856
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429095900/http://www.emu.edu.tr/aboutemu/emuhistory.aspx to http://www.emu.edu.tr/aboutemu/emuhistory.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Famagusta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160406183521/http://magusa.org/en/story-of-a-town.html to http://www.magusa.org/en/story-of-a-town.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Population
Why article of Famagusta city show population of 40,920, if 50 times bigger Famagusta District has 46,900 inhabitants? There is a high probability that there is an error in Famagusta city or Famagusta District article. Subtropical -man (talk / en-2 ) 18:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Answered in Famagusta District talk page. --Tomisti (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

de facto / de jure

 * I absolutely see the point of your edit here, but unfortunately there is a snag. Back in 2014, we had huge discussions about the presentation of places in Northern Cyprus, involving a now indefinitely blocked editor. One issue was how the "double presentation" in the infobox should be constructed. You can see the discussion here. Even if only a few editors were involved, we were actually the only editors making systematic edits to NC-related articles at the time. I supported the "(de facto) / (de jure)" presentation that you have proposed, but in the end, I accepted the "Country / Country (controlled by)" formula, as long as the "de facto" situation was presented in the main text (in the form "Xxx is a village in Cyprus. It is under de facto control of Northern Cyprus". This consensus was then implemented in a large number of articles (at least 100, perhaps 200), and it has to my knowledge not been contested since (apart from some attempts to remove either the Cyprus links or the NC links completely). Accepting your change to this article will therefore have rather massive implications, and I do not think it would be wise to change it without making sure that there now is a consensus for your suggestion. This could be made through a Request for comment. The question is: Is it worth the effort? Any thoughts? Regards! --T*U (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake. Someone had previously vandalized the page to say that it was illegally controlled by Northern Cyprus, So i decided to NPOV it and use De facto and De jure, Following the example of Tskhinvali. Then when someone changed it to "Controlled by Northern Cyprus", I reverted it to my version, Believing in error that that was the norm. Sorry to disrupt. Koopinator (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. Happy editing! --T*U (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The infobox has been changed today, back to "(de facto) / (de jure)". To me it's more sensible, and the terms are straightforward and used in many other articles. There is a very long history of consensus in the Northern Cyprus article to use them, I don't think an RfC would be necessary. The "Country (controlled by)" construction has always struck me as awkward and unclear in meaning - "the country that is controlled by Northern Cyprus"? Its use seems to have been proposed in an attempt to resolve a dispute with a disruptive editor, though it wasn't something that editor asked for, nor did they agree with it or even comment on it. The editor who proposed it said "I'm ok with either". I don't understand why changed their stance, and it's not clear to me that the one other comment, "@TU-nor: I also agree with your point" refers to the original point ""The de jure / de facto has a long-standing consensus, so I think we should keep to that. I liked IP31's first suggestion", or to "I withdraw my last reservation". It looks to me that people were just trying to agree on something, and ended up agreeing on something that nobody particularly wanted. I support the current revision Special:Diff/866610355 by . --IamNotU (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

PS, I added Template:Northern Cyprus-note to the infobox. --IamNotU (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your analysis of what happened in 2014 is mostly correct. At that point I found it more important to have a working consensus than to insist on my preferred choice (de jure – de facto). Once the "controlled by" formula was agreed upon, there followed a rather frantic implementation of that consensus in order to reduce the impact of the disruptive editor's hectic production of pages with extreme TRNC POV. Still I sometimes come across pages that need some work, but mainly it has been relatively peaceful since that editor was indeffed. If there is enough support for changing back to the de jure / de facto formula, I will happily join the flock, but I would need to be quite sure that the consensus is strong, since the amount of work is rather overwhelming: My estimate is around 200 pages, not all very easy to find. That is why I suggested a RfC.
 * Regarding the NC-note, I am not so happy about it. It was made by the same editor as a way of "building up" Northern Cyprus to the same category as Kosovo. As you can see here, it does not seem to have filled a very large need. It is so much easier to say that TRNC is only recognised by Turkey than to explain the Kosovo situation in a short comment, so I guess no-one has felt any need to use it during its 4 years of existence. Regards! --T*U (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , I don't know that it's necessary to change all the pages en masse. I just want to say that I don't see that there was a strong consensus that "controlled by" should always be used (it looks more like a misunderstanding), and I don't see a problem with the edit here changing it to "de facto", I don't think it's "against consensus". I'd rather not make a fixed rule about it. I guess that either one could be used, neither is incorrect, I just find the "controlled by" to be somewhat unclear. On the other hand "de facto" isn't necessarily understood by everyone, so I think it's good to have a note there, and using a template makes it easy to update if it's used in multiple articles. I agree that the current version is overly long, I'll go ahead and simplify it. One other thing, the phrase "de facto country" is relatively rare, it's normally "de facto state". But I can see that mixing country/state in the infobox could be confusing, as NC isn't a subdivision. I'm open to other suggestions or future improvements, I just mainly oppose "Country (controlled by)" as being awkward. --IamNotU (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , . I am starting to believe that a RfC may not be necessary after all, since – as you both say – the "(de facto) / (de jure)" is not really contestable. It would still have to be accompanied by explanation in the main text (in the form "Xxx is a village in Cyprus. It is under de facto control of Northern Cyprus"). And I am fine with using the now reduced version of Template:Northern Cyprus-note. I do, however, think it is advisable to make an effort to eventually change all articles, so that no-one can use the "variation" as a pretext for making their own POV version (which was part of the problem back in 2014). Anyway, I am happy with the current infobox version in the Famagusta article. --T*U (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing me here . What about the variations of Mayor (NC) / Mayor-in-exile that I've seen going around too? I think they are also easy to be politicised and contested etc, as they also push POVs and could be misleading or sidelining to facts (i.e. having a "Turkish Cypriot Mayor" & "Greek Cypriot Mayor-in-exile" could mean: 1) the Turkish Mayor is legitimate, 2) the Greek Cypriot mayor is legitimate and was ousted from his role, maybe by the current Mayor...). Should they also be changed to Mayor (de facto) and Mayor (de jure)? Does that apply to the mayors? I'm very on-board with helping to systematically go through and help change things to whatever it is we decide upon. Any thoughts? Nargothronde (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not quite sure what is the best way to handle this, but "Mayor (de facto)" and "Mayor (de jure)" is not the solution. They are both very much "de facto", elected according to certain – albeit different – procedures. It could even be argued that they are both "de jure", since the internal framework of Northern Cyprus is "legal" at least in one sense of the word (governed by formally adopted laws), regardless of the illegalness of the state itself. I can accept both "Mayor (NC) / Mayor-in-exile" and just plain "Mayor / Mayor-in-exile" in the infobox, but it would be best that the situation is explained more detailed in text. At-a-glance infoboxes are never good for presenting complex situations... --T*U (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * , if it's not clear what it means - and that's certainly the case in this article - then it should be explained in the article exactly how and why it is that there are two mayors, and supported by reliable sources. We don't make judgements about whether something is legitimate or legal. We report what reliable sources say about a subject, giving the most weight to the most reliable, independent, and neutral ones. We also try to use the names and descriptions most commonly used by those sources. For example, there are several hundred results for a search of "Alexis Galanos" "mayor in exile", including a number from very reliable sources such as Reuters, The Daily Telegraph, and the Chicago Tribune, and even both Hurriyet and Cyprus Mail use the term. On the other hand, there are zero results for ""Alexis Galanos" "de jure mayor" or "İsmail Arter" "de facto mayor".
 * Also, whatever consensus we reach here doesn't necessarily apply to other articles, as the situation may be different. For example, the Nicosia article is done differently, and whatever is decided here doesn't give a "right" to change that article. In general we improve individual articles by editing, following the bold, revert, discuss process and core content policies, not by a few editors agreeing on special rules that apply site-wide. If you think the infobox here is an improvement, then by all means you can change similar articles in the same way, and point people to this discussion if they have questions - but you take responsibility for your edits, and others are free to challenge them. I would suggest not doing a large-scale change of many articles at once. I hope that helps answer your questions... --IamNotU (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * yes it definitely does! Thanks! In addition to just finding the largest quantity of a particular term/reference, wouldn't it also be advisable to consider that: 1) many of these sources would likely be referring to the Greek Cypriot official discourse, rather than taking a neutral standpoint, which essentially has the effect of POV pushing or providing misinformation, and 2) in light of the above and the Cyprus issue in general, it can be expected that political expediency may be considered in these sources before what is factually right? I mean, does "Mayor in Exile" make sense here? Was the mayor there and then ousted and deposed from his/her role and thus became exiled? Or was he/she later appointed to a position already occupied by the local mayor, by an external government? I mean, I don't think that's a very reliable or neutral choice of wording. Instead of using a nonsensical diatribe, regardless of how often it is referred to and in how many sources, it makes much more sense to find something that... well... makes sense, and that is neutral, too, and not just "factual" by a 'political' or 'popular' standpoint. That's why I suggested that it didn't make sense, and that maybe we could think of a different way to say it other than "mayor" and "mayor in exile". Any thoughts? Nargothronde (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I've just had a late epiphany! As it was Southern Cyprus, or the Greek Cypriots who were granted international recognition as the government of all of Cyprus (Security Council Res. 186 of 1964), and it was Southern Cyprus that joined the European Union, without the consent of the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey etc, and that Northern Cyprus, or the Turkish Cypriots are not recognised or provided any recognition or legitimacy, isn't it the Turkish Cypriot side, or rather the Turkish Cypriot representation that is doing his duties "in exile"???????????????? As far as Southern Cyprus and the rest of the international community is concerned, at least, that's the way it is. Any thoughts????? Nargothronde (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Gazimagusabelediyesi.png

What did Turkish Cypriots call Famagusta before the invasion
I know that after the invasion/intervention it was called Gazi Mağusa, but did they call it just Mağusa before the invasion or not, or maybe they only called it Famagusta. Does anyone know what was it called? 95.0.226.6 (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I searched but could not come up with any Ottoman reference other than Mağusa or more common currently, Magosa (should be added to article). They probably borrowed/used the Arabic name or a variation. 72.69.210.72 (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)