Talk:Northern Cyprus/Archive 13

More about first line

 * Taivo, you're mentioning articles from just two highly biased, anglo-american, pro-western, neo-liberal media sources which are well known to favour very particular policies on politics, economy and foreign affairs. How on earth could you claim that they are neutral sources? I really doubt whether you've read anything else about Cyprus apart from these two sources. At the same time you're ignoring a whole range of books in English literature which find it important to mention the term "occupied" (see results from google books). Your insistence on favouring the fringe view while completely ignoring mentioning the widely accepted view in the first line is really astonishing. Masri145 (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point I want to make is that the presence of the turkish army in north cyprus is not mentioned in the second paragraph as you incorrectly keep pointing out. The only vague mention it gets is in the first paragraph where it says that the TRNC receives military support from Turkey. If you know nothing about North Cyprus you don't realise what this means. The message that this gives to the reader is that, a small country receives some support from a large country, which is clearly not the case. Turkey alone maintains a force of 30,000 troops on the island, an extraordinary amount for peace-time in such a small piece of land to be considered "support". That is exactly the reason why it is called an occupational force from the international community because since the invasion in 1974 it has maintained the same number of troops on the island until today. Again this is pushing the turkish propaganda right on the top of the section while the widely accepted international community view (of "occupation" instead of "support") only gets a true mention in the very last sentence of the lead section. Masri145 (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That the Turkish military force is considered an illegal occupying force by the international community is mentioned in the last line of the lede. I'm not sure it is better to bury it in the middle. Also note, everyone, Synderella is a sock of a banned user, please do not engage them, rather, their comments should be ignored if not removed (I always prefer to just ignore). Athenean (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I, Synderalla45, am not sock. You, Athenean, made LOTS OF EDITS WITHOUT ANY CONSENSUS in the Northern Cyprus page. I will definitely revert Athenean's edits. Synderalla45 (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And for such a strong majority view to only get a mentioned in the last line is really not what we call a balanced way of presenting things. The lede is a relatively large section, so by the time the reader reaches the last line they've pretty much made up their minds. It's obviously a controversial subject, but the opinion of the overwhelming majority must be told at the top. Masri145 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC).
 * @Masri, you just keep wanting to push a POV statement. First, the lead clearly and unequivocally states, starting in the second sentence of the existing text, that the Turks invaded the island.  There's no quibbling about it at all as you seem to think.  Second, what you want to say about that invasion is the POV part--that it is an "occupation" and is considered "illegal".  Whether that conclusion is widely held or not, it is still a POV judgement statement and not a description of facts on the ground.  That's why the NPOV fact of the invasion is mentioned early, but the POV value judgment is pushed later.  That's what NPOV means--we describe facts first, and value judgments (no matter how widely held) second.  The word "occupied" does not belong in the first sentence of the article since it is a POV value judgment, not a statement of fact.  The Turkish military presence in Northern Cyprus is mentioned in the second sentence.  That's certainly a very weighty placement.  It doesn't need any higher placement and the POV value judgment does not deserve any higher placement than it has.  You wear your POV on your sleeve and that's not good editing, Masri.  From your comments, it appears that your only interest here is to push your opinion that the most important thing of note about TRNC is that it is illegally occupied by Turkey.  You still don't seem to understand the nature of WP:NPOV because you are too highly attached to this emotionally.  Your Google Books search is entirely misleading and POV.  You searched for books that included "Turkish + occupied + Cyprus" so, of course, you are going to get books that push your POV.  But, as I stated above, generic Google Books searches are not valid unless you actually examine the books results carefully.  Athenean clearly demonstrated that he had done so.  You did not.  You did a POV search to get the results you wanted to get.  The question is not "Are there books that talk about the Turkish military presence in TRNC as an occupation?" because, of course, there are.  The question here is "Is the Turkish military presence in TRNC a key defining characteristic of that state?"  It is not as I have clearly demonstrated by looking at articles over the last year from the NY Times and The Economist, two of the most widely-recognized and respected international media sources.  I note that your list of contributions to Wikipedia is entirely involved with Cyprus.  I suggest you get more experience in other areas of Wikipedia to get a better understanding of what NPOV means in our context.  Read my comment to Athenean below and you will clearly see why the judgment of the international community on the current state of affairs belongs right where it is in the logical sequence of the lead.  Your problem is that you think the Turkish military presence is the most important thing to be said about Northern Cyprus and should be said first.  It's not.
 * @Athenean, there is a logical flow to the lead that doesn't seem perfect for some reason, but does have a fairly sound logic. 1) A general definition (one sentence); 2) Its origin (rest of first paragraph); 3) A physical description (second paragraph); and 4) The current state of affairs (third paragraph).  In thinking on a more logical sequence, I tried imagining the current state of affairs immediately following the origin, but the physical description of Northern Cyprus didn't sound right when placed last.  The physical description could logically follow the general definition, but then the description of the historical origin of Northern Cyprus would be pushed into third position.  I wasn't here when the structure of the lead may (or may not) have been discussed originally, but I would guess that pushing the history further back than the second sentence might have been controversial.  In the context of our discussion here, the judgment that the continuing military presence of Turkish forces in TRNC is "illegal" belongs in the last paragraph, right about where it is, since it describes the current state of affairs.  --Taivo (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Masri, just to show you how to fairly evaluate your sources to determine what relative weight means, I did a search on Google books for books that included the text "northern cyprus" published in English from 2010 to 2011. The two pages included "books" that are nothing more than printed Wikipedia articles or books that did not have excerpts available for examination.  This is the first result to look at.  Note that the continuing occupation isn't mentioned until halfway down the long paragraph.  This is the second reference and the description of TRNC begins on the 3rd of 11 references.  The Turkish military presence isn't mentioned at all.  This is the third reference and is quite interesting in that it is the Yearbook of the United Nations, but in the section on TRNC it doesn't mention the Turkish military presence at all.  This is the fourth source and the first one to highlight the "occupation" in the first sentence.  So in a very simple NPOV search of Google Books, the "occupation" isn't highlighted until the fourth reference.  Based on that, we should not be applying more weight to the Turkish military presence than our sources do--that is, it doesn't belong in the first sentence.  The current, fairly logically-organized three-paragraph lead places the mention of the continuing Turkish military presence in TRNC in an appropriate place and assigns it an appropriate amount of weight.  --Taivo (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Taivo you claim to be an expert in NPOV but you're still failing to understand the conflicting opinions here (perhaps because you're too bogged down with policy details and you fail to see the bigger picture, or simply because you have a highly biased view of things). On the disputed statement, here are the two very simple POVs: 1)The vast majority view is "NC is occupied territory" 2)The single minority view is "NC is not occupied territory but an independent country". In assigning the weight each of these statements deserve, you're ignoring WP:YESPOV, that we should Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Therefore we must ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views. This is exactly like the example of the Holocaust, and my proposal is following exactly the same principle. It's reporting facts according to the support they receive: ...which the international community considers as occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus.  Only Turkey recognizes the independence of TRNC..
 * Without offence, calling the NY Times and the Economist as neutral sources is plain ridiculous. We're not here to copy the structure of biased sources but to define the most neutral and encyclopedic-like structure among the different opinions. The current structure clearly gives undue weight to the minority view (that it's a normal state that we're talking about). This is not an article of any proper country (in the sense of a fully recognised, enjoys international respect of its sovereignty) so any attempt to follow the structure of other country articles would be invalid. This is about a highly disputed territory so the a structure has to be different. We can take examples from other more similar articles (see Transnistria): 1)Highlight dispute and present long-term conflicting views, 2)History of creation, 3)Current state of affairs and recent developments. In such structure the term "occupied" is a long-term conflicting view, therefore should be included in the top section. Masri145 (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Masri, if you don't think the NY Times and The Economist are neutral sources, then name two well-respected international media outlets which you think are "neutral". You still don't understand my point about "occupied".  You seem to think that "occupied" is the most important definition of Northern Cyprus.  I have proven, through the NY Times and The Economist and through analyzing the sources in Google Books in a neutral search (including one source from the UN) that "occupied" is not generally included in the basic definition of what TRNC is.  That's what we're talking about here--what is the basic information to describe Northern Cyprus that should be in the first sentence.  You completely push a minority POV that "occupied" is the most important thing to know about TRNC.  Most on-line encyclopedias are simply mirrors of Wikipedia, but here is one that isn't.  Notice that it doesn't mention the word "occupied" until down in the middle of the first paragraph, not in the first sentence.  While Britannica mentions the Turkish invasion, it doesn't mention that TRNC is "occupied" in its description of TRNC.  So there are a couple of encyclopedias which also fail to support your POV--that "occupation" is the most important thing to know about TRNC.  You keep trying to push Transnistria at us, but ignore other articles such as Somaliland, which has a similar opening to this article.  However, in the end, you must realize that WP:OTHERSTUFF states that comparing this article to others is a pointless exercise.  You must build consensus on this article, which is something you have failed to do at this point.  I'm not going to say more on this since you want to push your POV.  I would like to hear Richwales', Athenean's, and Dr.K.'s views on making the second sentence of the proposed wording, "Its territory comprises the northeastern part of the island of Cyprus, which the international community considers as occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus," rather than, "Its territory comprises the northeastern part of the island of Cyprus, which the international community includes in the Republic of Cyprus."  (Please don't respond Masri until they have, we need to judge consensus rather than continue a two-person debate.)  --Taivo (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, we should let other users talk. But because you challenged me on media sources, personally I find that the BBC is trying to achieve wider levels of acceptance (thus neutrality) than the two media sources you chose. The reason is because its funded by the british state and it has to express all the views of the british taxpayers/television watchers equally without offending any view. Of course they're not perfect - no media is perfectly neutral so I think this comparison is a bit pointless as we need to find our own neutral consensus. In their website, they don't maintain a country profile for North Cyprus, but whenever they refer to northern Cyprus they always make a point of the turkish invasion and "occupation" (see this and this). You see the terms "invasion" and "occupation" have to go together simply because it's a full description what has happened. One is the cause of the other, a series of commonly accepted historical events: a military invasion of RoC territory, forced ethnic separation between greek and turkish populations, continuous military occupation of RoC territory, a self-declaration of independence of the TRNC. Playing with words in the name of NPOV is simply going to present a diluted picture of reality and will only result in misinforming the reader. The 1974 invasion of RoC is not the ONLY reason for the existence of TRNC. It's the continuous occupation of RoC (until today) that is the reason of its existence. Neither of these 2 terms (invasion and occupation) is more POV than the other so I'm still struggling to understand why you insist on separating them. I'm interested to see other editors opinions. Masri145 (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Its territory comprises the northeastern part of the island of Cyprus, which the international community considers as occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus." Yes, I believe this could work.  The key point here, in my view, is that the statement "occupied territory" is qualified by an identification of who holds this opinion.  I'll probably have more to say later, but I wanted to get this comment off quickly in the interests of keeping the discussion going.   Rich wales (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a fair description. I agree. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

More about first line
If Richwales and Dr.K. both agree that this is a fair description, then I will accept it in the name of consensus building. Thus, to replace the current first sentence, we have:


 * Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus, is a self-declared, nominally independent state which officially calls itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Its territory comprises the northeastern part of the island of Cyprus, which the international community considers as occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus.  Only Turkey recognizes the independence of TRNC.''

The current second sentence (starting with "Tensions") would then become the start of the second paragraph. --Taivo (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks OK to me — with "of  the  TRNC" at the very end for grammar's sake, and with the corresponding Turkish translations copied from the existing text into this new material as appropriate.  Rich wales (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Athenean (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to pop into this so late, but I'm not sure the occupation should be mentioned so prominently, although I do note it is a weighty opinion. I'd prefer it if we could take the two major contrasting views and place them into the same sentence, rather than having one in the same sentence as the location, for better contrast at the least.
 * Minorpoints: I've also changed calls to titled in the first part, and removed the wikilink to island Cyprus (as it's the same as the republic link). Is the comma after the second name grammatically correct, and is comprises the right word?


 * Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus is a self-declared, nominally independent state which officially titles itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Its territory comprises the northeastern part of the island of Cyprus. Only Turkey has recognised its independence, while the international community considers it occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus.
 * Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That would work for me too (again, with the appropriate Turkish equivalents copied into the new text from the existing text). I would also strongly recommend that we try to get involvement here from representatives of the Turkish / Turkish-Cypriot viewpoint who are willing to work in good faith to reach a consensus.  If we implement a change to the existing text without input from all sides, I fear our new consensus will be rejected by people who feel it disregards their views.    Rich wales (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this too. Masri145 (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This new text is better. "Comprises" is, indeed, the right word.  --Taivo (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. It fairly captures the essence of the main facts and issues involved. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I went "bold" just now and revised the opening of the article in keeping with the above discussion and agreement. It was not my intention to introduce anything beyond what we've all agreed on here; if anyone feels I made a mistake in the way I did this, please feel free to correct it.

One issue I see as a possible objection to the new wording of the lead is that the first and second paragraphs both say (in different ways) that the TRNC is recognized only by Turkey and that the rest of the international community considers the TRNC's territory to rightly belong to the RoC. I know we phrased the new third sentence specifically in order to include the phrase "occupied territory" reasonably close to the start of the article, but a hypothetical person looking at this lead (and not having participated in our discussion here) might brusquely object that the last sentences of the first and second paragraph are clearly redundant and that one of them (probably the first!) must go. I'm not saying this myself, but I'm concerned that it might happen, and we may want to take some time trying to decide how to forestall this sort of thing. Rich wales (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggesting a fix for the issue I just noted:


 * After "in 1983", change the last two sentences in the second paragraph to this: Northern Cyprus continues to be dependent on Turkey for economic, political and military support.  Keep the existing source after "military support".


 * Move the four sources currently after "only from Turkey" and put them after "its independence" in the first paragraph.


 * Making these changes would take care of possible objections that the first and second paragraphs are repeating each other and would (IMO) make the second paragraph flow more logically. What do others think?   Rich wales (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that you are making a sound proposal. If I sound a little reserved it is because I haven't checked this in detail but from what I checked I have no disagreement at all and I wanted to give you quick feedback. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think those are reasonable edits. --Taivo (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've made these changes to the second paragraph for now; they (like everything else in the article) are naturally subject to further revision if appropriate.   Rich wales (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One small reservation I have is whether we should be first be reporting the majority view on the subject (according to WP:YESPOV we should Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views). So would this be more suitable: The international community considers it occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus, while its independence is only recognised by Turkey [7][8][9][10]. Masri145 (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Richwales changes sound fine.
 * @Masri145, I did consider that. However, I placed Turkey first for a few reasons. 1 In my experience direct comparisons are usually made in English with support first followed by the contradiction of the opposition, 2 Since we've noted the state I think the reason for its existence should come first, and 3 although the international community is obviously larger, it is in reality not as completely unanimous as would be supposed, and when it comes to feet on the ground it is the TRNC leaders who have the actual control (who are puppetmastered or generously supported by Ankara depending on POV), so that would make that POV more prominent. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chipmunkdavis' assessment and why the statement that gained consensus is ordered the way it is. In essence, "X exists, but most wish it didn't" is better than "Most wish X didn't exist, but it still does".  And we have to remember what "the international community" really means.  If it meant that every single country of the world actively marched to Ankara and Nicosia and demanded that TRNC disband (consider the way the Arab world treats Israel), then Masri's "majority POV" argument might have some weight.  But that's not what has happened.  The vast majority of the world simply doesn't care and passively accedes to some UN resolution or other.  That's not really a majority POV.  Indeed, what we're really talking about here, in terms of actual "energy expended" on the issue, is a very local problem with two equally weighted POVs that everyone else ignores.  If the international community really cared so much and really did have a "POV", then the issue would have been in all the papers on a regular basis for the last 30 years (again compare this to the Arab-Israeli issue, where there are real international POVs, which is in the papers weekly, at least).  99% of that "international POV" is simply pro forma and has no real concrete presence.  They consider this just one facet of the long-running conflict between Greece and Turkey that no one else really spends any time worrying about--as long as neither country really starts a war, everything is fine--after all, they're technically allies.  The Greeks and Turks have been fighting each other since before the fall of Constantinople in 1453 when the Turks turned the Hagia Sophia into a mosque, so claiming some active, weighty "international POV" is simply pointing at a cloud and considering it to be a solid object.  There are some UN resolutions, nothing more.  When's the last time that Secretary of State Clinton stood up in front of the microphones and made a speech demanding that Turkey immediately withdraw from Northern Cyprus?  Right...never.  This is the US position--the "occupation" isn't even mentioned.  But, as Chipmunkdavis pointed out, TRNC exists, whether that "international community" likes it or not, it's there and has been there for nearly 30 years.  --Taivo (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Taivo i read your comment above. Actually, the US imposed an embargo on Turkey right after the invasion of Cyprus, because of the invasion. 23x2 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But that was 35 years ago and has long since expired, hardly worthy of mentioning in the first couple of sentences here and is no longer part of U.S. policy toward Turkey. --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed it has expired, a part of history now 23x2 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Taivo when we're talking about the international community we mean the collective will of nations as expressed through the UN general assembly and the UN security council resolutions. By saying that the nations "just don't care" about Cyprus, you are simply making amateur interpretations of the nations foreign policies. Whether they actually say it in front of a crowd makes little difference in what their actual policy is. That's called diplomacy. Officially the vast majority of nations not only care about Cyprus but they also have an opinion - that the northern part of Cyprus is "occupied" by foreign forces. I'll explain what I mean. The last UN general assembly vote on Cyprus was 37/253 (1983) where 105 nations voted for and 5 against. The 105 nations are:
 * Deploring the fact that part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus is till occupied by foreign forces
 * Calling for the immediate withdrawal of all occupation forces from the RoC.

The last Security Council resolution in 2011 (voted unanimously by permanent memebers US, China, UK, France and Russia) is 1986 (2011) and Reaffirms all its relevant resolutions on Cyprus. Τhe relevant resolutions you should look are 550 (1984) in which the security council is
 * Gravely concerned about the further secessionist acts in the occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus which are in violation of resolution 541(1983), namely the purported "exchange of Ambassadors" between Turkey and the legally invalid "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus",

and 541 (1983) where it
 * Deplores the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus and Considers the declaration referred to above as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal.

These strong statements are reaffirmed every single year in security council resolutions about Cyprus. So its not just some UN resolution that they vote because they don't care. Its the most official expression of their foreign policy. Masri145 (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Taivo. Voting the north is occupied is the in thing, so to speak. I'm willing to bet that they'll keep doing it unless Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, or the EU does something to alter the status quo. Has there really been nothing in the GA since 1984? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If this were Wikipedia 1985 or even 1986 or 1990, you might have a point, Masri. (I said might.)  But it isn't.  The "international community" isn't really that interested anymore and just because the Security Council votes on the same continuing resolution (just like a dozen other continuing resolutions) that it's voted on for 25 years, doesn't mean it's really that important.  It's probably stacked with a bunch of other continuing resolutions that it votes on by habit..."Tell China and Taiwan to keep talking", "Make sure the maids take out the trash on Mondays again", "Tell Turkey that we want it to keep talking to Greece about Cyprus", "Pay the security forces", "Ask the Chinese to treat the Tibetans nicely" (with an automatic veto from China), etc.  There is no hew and cry anymore.  It's simply a continuing irritation, but not that important to the world.  When's the last time that Uganda or Tuvalu or Belize or Nepal issued a statement condemning Turkey?  Can you say never?  So that "international consensus" really isn't.  It's a 25-year-old General Assembly vote and a pro forma continuing resolution in the Security Council.  We've agreed to add "occupy" language in the second sentence, Masri.  That's higher than I'd like, but it works there.  You will not convince me to move it higher and without consensus it will not move higher.  I suggest you burn your efforts elsewhere.  --Taivo (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Taivo you live in a dreamworld. You really brought this discussion to kindergarden level. From what you're saying you're obviously not very familiar with international politics and the importance of the UN - you seem to only be reading the NY Times and the Economist. You're making your own personal interpretations of foreign policies based on your own personal beliefs (that the UN is an "irritating" and effectively useless body). But it doesn't really matter whether you personally like or dislike the UN or whether you think that nations don't care about Cyprus and that they simply vote out of habit. The reality is that Turkey is occupying RoC and the vast majority of nations simply agree and vote for this in the most official way. Your childish personal interpretation on why they're voting does not matter. And the fact that they always mention that Cyprus is "occuppied" is because this is the mainstream position which proves my point. Its the commonly accepted view and Turkey's view is always the fringe view. That's why the mainstream view should be told first. I'm not going to waste any more time with your POV pushing amateur foreign policy interpretations Taivo. I'd like to see what other editors think on changing the order according to WP:YESPOV. Masri145 (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the text of the lead in general, and the last sentence of the first paragraph in particular, is fine as it currently stands.  Rich wales (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For me, its unbelievable to read on this talk page that editors equate the UN (an organization of 193 countries) and its resolutions, with personal feelings. Moreover its unbelievable to read that there are editors who think UN resolutions are actually passed by habit of the voting countries. 23x2 (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly think that in 1984 the UN ambassador of Tuvalu called home to find out his country's official position on Northern Cyprus before he voted alongside everyone else? --Taivo (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're again showing amateurish approach to serious international issues like this. Whether they called home or not is not in our interest in this article. What we care about is what their official position is. The only thing we know for sure is their vote. If they voted for it it means they agree with the text. If they disagreed they would vote against it (as Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, Somalis and Turkey did). You're again failing to see things clearly and you're making your own interpretations favouring your personal POV. But your attempt is in violation of WP:NOR. From our discussion I still can't see the rational (based on any reliable sources) for not following WP:YESPOV in this case. From the sources I presented above it is more than clear what the mainstream view is and what the minority view is so weight must be allocated accordingly. Masri145 (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Masri, if I understand your reasoning, you believe that because the third sentence in the lead says first that only Turkey recognizes the TRNC, and second that the international community considers Northern Cyprus to be occupied territory, this is giving undue prominence to the TRNC's claim to independence — whereas a more accurate indication of the relative prominence of the various views would state first that the international community considers Northern Cyprus to be occupied territory (per the UN resolutions on the subject), and second that only Turkey recognizes the TRNC. Is that what you are saying?  If not, please set me straight.


 * As I read WP:YESPOV, I do not get the sense that it is saying that the majority view must invariably be mentioned first. It says we are to "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views".  In my opinion, the sentence in question does this:  it says that only Turkey recognizes the independence of the TRNC, while the rest of the world holds a very different view.  My sense of this sentence is that it is very clearly indicating that Turkey's position is a minority view, even though it is being stated first.  I don't get the impression at all that the average reader will misinterpret this as promoting the Turkish position and relegating the opinion of the international community to an afterthought.  And as many of us have already said, the lead section as a whole makes it extremely clear that this is an ongoing, unresolved dispute, and that most governments worldwide have officially taken the side of the Greek Cypriots.


 * So, as I said earlier, I believe the sentence in question is OK as it currently stands, and that both this sentence and the entire lead adequately embody the intent of the policy section on "Explanation of the neutral point of view" (WP:YESPOV). I suppose we could rephrase the sentence in question as "The international community considers Northern Cyprus to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus; its independence has been recognised only by Turkey" — or something along those lines — and if the consensus is to change to this wording, I doubt I would object — but I honestly don't believe such a change will have any significant impact, and I don't feel the difference is worth arguing about.   Rich wales (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Richwales thanks for bringing the discussion back to sensible levels and for understanding my concern. I fully agree with your analysis, which is why I initially said that this was a small reservation I had after having read the WP:YESPOV policy. My intention was to open a discussion on interpreting the policy correctly (but instead ended up dealing with Taivo's personal interpretations of foreign policy). Thanks for clarifying. I'm happy with either. Masri145 (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So, Masri, going back to the issue, you have now stated, "I'm happy with either." So the current text should stay exactly as it is since you are happy with it.  I agree.  The current text, since Richwales also stated his agreement with it, should stay exactly as it is.  That's WP:CONSENSUS.  I hope that since you have now agreed that you are "happy with either", we can end this pointless discussion.  --Taivo (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm still uneasy here because (as far as I can tell) our latest consensus effort has not involved any editors with leanings toward the Turkish / Turkish-Cypriot side. I know many Turkish-sympathetic editors that have been involved here in the past have been overly argumentative, disruptive, sockpuppets, etc. — but can anyone recommend one or more constructive Turkish-leaning editors who could (and should) be invited to come over here and check out what we've done to make sure it comes across as reasonably fair and balanced from their perspective? Thanks. Rich wales (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Richwales, if you see the discussions above (this section and the previous 2-3 sections), Seb and Taivo seem to be our turkish-leaning editors. So I think all positions are already adequately covered. Masri145 (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seb hasn't participated in this discussion, and Taivo is not Turkish leaning at all. Should we ask Seb for an opinion? I haven't considered him Turkish leaning either though, and nothing on his userpage shows otherwise. Perhaps ask a more amicable Turkish users opinion? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seb's tag line is part Navajo and the other part is his/her Arizona zipcode. Neither he/she nor I are Turkish, we are neutral.  Not many Turks have participated in these discussions lately, but I see User:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş above.  Perhaps he/she might be willing to comment about the neutral text that is presently in the article.  --Taivo (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I, too, was thinking of Seksen. He/she has been on somewhat of a wikibreak for the last month, but I think that's all the more reason why he/she ought to be made aware of what we've been doing to this article.  Unless someone objects in the next few minutes (!), I'll go ahead and leave a note on his/her talk page.   Rich wales (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

To my opinion, the change is all right, except the phrase "nominally independent". Quoting from the Oxford Dictionary, "nominal" means "existing in name only", and it is like "so-called", they may both suggest that the state does not actually exist, it is not sovereign. However, it is a sovereign state (even though its sovereignty is not recognized). So my suggestion to avoid this misunderstanding is, "is a self-declared, nominally independent sovereign state". --Seksen (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. However, sovereign here would be redundant to independent. Removing nominally would probably be a better solution, as probably one could say that this is the opposite of nominal, as it exists in reality but not really in name, if that makes sense. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't. If "sovereign" and "independent" are redundant (which they are), then one of those two should be removed and "nominal" kept. Not only that, but while the TRNC is indepedent in name (in other words, nominally), it is not really that sovereign: All important political decisions are taken by the National Security Council in Ankara. So "self-declared, nominally independent state" makes the most sense to me. Athenean (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Surely it's not independent in name if it hasn't gained recognition of any independence? As for the sovereign argument, that's not a very effective one in a globalised world. Decisions are made in Nicosia, although I'm sure Ankara has influence. This isn't unique though. Greek policy is basically being dictated by Brussels for example. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Making less and less sense. So the fact that is hasn't gained recognition means that it independent, but not in name? Comparing the relationship between Greece and the EU to that between Turkey and the TRNC is utter nonsense. You can't be serious. Ankara doesn't just have influence, it dictates, period. It has 30,000 troops stationed on the island, controls all their links to the outside world, etc...Do you really think any major political decision gets taken without Anakara's consent? Recently some Turkish Cypriots have been protesting the Ankara government as a colonial overlord. So while the TRNC has declared independence, it is not really that independent, since it is heavily dependent on Turkey. Hence the "nominal". Athenean (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's what "in name" would seem to mean. Somalia is nominally a state, for example, which is the opposite situation to Northern Cyprus. Anyway, I wasn't making a direct comparison, simply noting that external influence isn't a good argument. I'd like a decent source on the dictating etc part if you don't mind. The only reason the links to the outside world are all through Turkey is that Turkey is the only country that will make links to them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly . Note "It is Turkey that calls the shots". I bet a even good number of Turkish Cypriots would agree with such an assessment. Athenean (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a far subtler argument than "It dictates, period." It seems instead to say that it has editorial control over decisions, so to speak. It also notes this dependence was caused by international isolation. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that Seksen's only object in the lead is to the word "nominal" and that is because it means "in name only", which is not the case with Northern Cyprus. Let's keep the discussion honed in on that word and not get too far afield.  Athenean, I believe it was you who wanted the word "nominal".  Exactly what meaning do you want that word to convey?  Surely not "in name only" because there does actually exist a sovereign state.  Perhaps there is another, better honed word that can convey the meaning that Athenean intends.  And, Athenean, the argument that just because TRNC is supported by Turkey isn't sufficient, as you can see from Chipmunkdavis' arguments, that I agree with.  --Taivo (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Before our recent changes, the article used the term "de facto". I believe de facto describes the situation quite well — something which is a reality, but with the connotation of probably not being legal or official.  The main (possibly the only) reason for abandoning the term here, as best I can tell, is that readers might not understand it (or the flip-side term "de jure"), and they might be too lazy to click on the wikilinks and look up the terms in order to understand what the text is saying.  But if "nominal" is also confusing, then maybe we should just go back to using de facto and de jure to describe the situation.   Rich wales (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I recall we have used de facto quite profitably in similar situations because it does, indeed, contrast nicely with de jure. Sort of a step 1, step 2.  --Taivo (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing is ever good enough for you guys. You ask for a source, I provide one. But no source I have ever provided is ever good enough. What part of "Turkey calls the shots" do you not understand? "Calls the shots"="dictates". I mean come on now. If it's "dependent", how can it be "independent" at the same time? It's completely contradictory. The reasons for the dependence on Turkey are irrelevant. Does anyone here think that if the Turkish Cypriots wanted to reunify with the rest of the island against Anakara's wishes, that it would happen? What do you think would happen in such a case? Who do those 30,000 troops answer to? The government in North Nicosia? Regarding "de facto", I never liked that. What does that even mean "de facto"? Everything that exists is "de facto". Athenean (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see a problem with nominally. It seems to be the right word to use. De facto is a completely different term. The TRNC isn't really "sovereign" in any sense of the word (see dictionary). No definition of "sovereignty" can describe the power that the TRNC exercises in north Cyprus. The truth is that the TRNC is only independent and sovereign in name (i.e. in its declaration of independence) but in reality they're not as they can't take any big decisions without Ankara's approval (e.g. on economy, military, foreign relations, self-determination, reunification with south). This is exactly what "nominally independent" means. Masri145 (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

General comment. This continuing debate is rather surreal. It must be the strangest case of consensus-building that I have come across, at least in recent memory. First we reach consensus about the wording. Then Rich enacts it. Then attempts start to find anyone from the other side to overturn the consensus just reached. In an open wiki-editing environment and in a page which is watched like a hawk by many editors from all sides and no-one comes forward to protest. But no, that's not enough. We have to extend an invitation. And when the invitee comes in and offers a mild suggestion about the wording of the newly-formed consensus everyone is tripping over themselves to overturn it. This is why I love Wikipedia. Among other things, the real, live comedy you find here you simply cannot find anywhere else. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  05:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Brilliant analysis. Athenean (talk) 05:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Athenean. After long negotiations which took hours and days to hammer out we arrived at a consensus with the other non-aligned editors. One would think that in agreeing, the non-aligned editors, at least would have the courage of their convictions to defend the newly-formed consensus, not overturn it at the first available opportunity. Especially since opportunity did not avail itself through the open wiki editing environment and had to be created by invitation. This is undermining consensus by auto-pilot. But at least the situation has strong comedic virtues. That may be its only redeeming quality. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  06:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to add, even after 4 years of editing and 15k edits, I have never seen anything like this. Athenean (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is definitely an unusual approach. Dr.K. λogosπraxis   06:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The three of you who are aligned with the Greek POV can laugh all you want at the process, but it's still Wikipedia's process--to try to find a consensus that all sides can live with. Note what our Turkish commentator said--that the paragraph as a whole is acceptable.  He/she objects to a single word.  Remember what started this whole discussion?  One of you objected to the exclusion of a single word.  Wikipedia often circles around individual words--words that are missing, words that are inflammatory, words that are misleading.  And the non-aligned editors don't need "courage of their convictions".  That's why we're non-aligned--we don't have POVs and can look fairly and dispassionately at the options.  Indeed, Masri's expressions of objection over the exclusion and subsequent placement of the single word "occupation" have been far more disrespectful, POV pushing, and borderline uncivil than Seksen's single comment about "nominal".  Get over it, gentlemen, there are people who disagree with you and your strong opinions.
 * Now back to the issue. The question is about whether "nominal" is justified or not.  Of course, the Greeks will look at any example of Turkey's influence in TRNC to shout it.  The question is whether or not reliable sources actually say that or not.  Athenean has offered a single source which states that since TRNC has not been recognized as independent, it relies on Turkey for economic and other assistance.  The source also says that the impression is that Turkey calls the shots.  The source, however, in no place says that TRNC is only nominally sovereign.  That is Athenean reading his own interpretation into the text, not what the text actually says.  The origin of decisions is TRNC, not Turkey, but with Turkey's agreement.  But this situation isn't unknown outside TRNC--for example, during the US occupation of Iraq, where Iraqi decisions were, at first, the decisions of the US military, then gradually moving to local decisions approved by the US, and only now decisions that originate in Iraq and don't seek US approval.  But at no time did Iraq cease to be "sovereign" in the eyes of the world community.  Seksen does have a valid point, TRNC is more than "nominally" independent, although it relies heavily on Turkey due to the lack of any international recognition (Athenean's source says precisely that).  --Taivo (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The three of you who are aligned with the Greek POV... That says it all. Up to now when I agreed with you everything was ok. As soon as I point flaws in your approach you automatically and unjustly lump me with the fictitious monolith of the "Greek POV". I am sorry to see you dropping your usually valid arguments to such a low level. And you are wrong when you say And the non-aligned editors don't need "courage of their convictions". That's why we're non-aligned--we don't have POVs. When you agree to something, on the basis of logic and analysis, you don't backtrack as easily as you did. We are looking for consensus here not unanimity. I refuse to participate in a discussion resembling a circus with heavy-handed accusations of POV flying around designed to malign my character and the so-called non-aligned editors acting as the taskmasters. You can have this all to yourself. Dr.K. λogosπraxis   14:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I see my actions as more analogous to the scientific method — if a consensus really is strong enough to last, it should survive challenges. And a consensus involving representatives of all sides is likely to be stronger and more durable than something made in the absence of input from one side or another.  I was sincerely worried that since the closest we had to representation of the Turkish Cypriot view was input from "nonaligned" editors who could only do their best to articulate what they thought this view would say, our result could easily be tossed aside by real advocates of that position who would reject our efforts on the grounds that they hadn't been consulted and their views had not been represented (or even that we had conspired to exclude them).  As for my proposing (or being eager to consider) alternative wording, I see nothing wrong with responding to newly raised objections by suggesting possible changes and seeing if people might be willing to consider those changes as a refinement of the existing situation.  The process isn't perfect, and I'm sorry if it appeared to you that I really didn't have the courage to hold to any convictions, but we're not (or at least aren't supposed to be) trying to win a debate here, we're trying to find a reasonable middle ground that people of differing backgrounds and perspectives can all live with.   Rich wales (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate your measured tone Rich I consider your statement ...but we're not (or at least aren't supposed to be) trying to win a debate here... to be on the presumptuous side; I am sorry in advance if I misinterpreted it. Who told you I am out to win an argument? I am definitely not trying to do that. In fact, I just announced above that I retired from this discussion. Also applying the scientific method to gain consensus is misguided. First we are not doing science or experiments here. Second this, as I mentioned above, is an open wiki editing environment. People see the discussion and they participate if they want to. We don't have to drag invite them here. And why limit the invitation to one person only? Why not invite many people? I am not saying it is, but this may be misconstrued as canvassing. I don't think this is the way talkpage discussions are supposed to be handled or are historically carried out. Regardless I really don't care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  15:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dr. K., you know that normally I respect your point-of-view, but when you throw lines like "courage of their convictions" around, I am less inclined. At the point above, where we inserted "nominally", you will see that our main issue was whether or not, and how, to insert "occupy" into the first section of the lead.  There was never really a discussion of "nominally" separately from that issue, it was thrown in without serious consideration and certainly without input from editors who have a decidedly Turkish or TRNC POV.  While I do recognize, Dr. K., that you are generally open-minded and fair in your considerations, you are Greek and I'm not at all surprised that your first reaction is along that line.  If we were discussing my home and people, I would do the same, naturally.  But there are three sides to any discussion concerning Cyprus--the Greek Cypriot, the Turk Cypriot, and the non-aligned.  While we had good representation from the Greek and non-aligned positions, we certainly did not have any input from the Turkish position.  I don't consider this to be a major issue, especially since Seksen's comments were supportive of the lead overall.  Indeed, what surprised me in the few hours that I was off Wikipedia, was that there was a cascade of comments from the three of you complaining about the process of asking for input from someone with a Turkish POV.  We do this all the time on Wikipedia.  Indeed, there is a formal process for asking for input called the RfC.  And if, after asking for input, we refuse to consider that input, we're simply being hypocrites.  --Taivo (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Taivo, your point about the RfC is valid, but not the way this was carried out here. We don't do RfC by invitation, we just open it. This was not done in this case. Also please don't try to stamp me with the "Greek POV", even ever so kindly. This debate has nothing to do with "my home" or "my people". It is about RS, logic and evidence. I am as capable as anyone discerning these nuances. It is unfortunately your POV which sees me, even though almost in kind terms, as incapable of this discernment because of my background. Call it kind-hearted discrimination. This is my reply prior to your insertion of the "hypocrites" sentence and the edit conflict. I will reply to that point next. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  16:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I will address your statement: And if, after asking for input, we refuse to consider that input, we're simply being hypocrites. which was inserted after the bulk of your previous reply above and caused to have an edit conflict. First I never gave you any indication that I did not consider or even value Seksen's input. I simply criticised the process which was followed to elicit opinions. I should not be in this position, advising you about what I wrote, had you read what I wrote carefully in the first place. But I don't think that you did read what I wrote carefully, otherwise you would not have made this statement. But in your rush to throw a few more epithets around you added the statement which I highlighted. I will not characterise or analyse your statement any further. It is not worth pursuing this further. Let's end this. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  16:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So "Turkey calls the shots" has now become "the TRNC relies on Turkey". I'm not interpreting anything, you are, and you are completely wrong. This is getting more and more absurd. "Turkey calls the shots" means just that. I really don't how much simpler it can get. Athenean (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Dr. K., but in my comment I transitioned from talking to you specifically to talking about the situation in general without specifically stating that. I do, indeed, know many times that you have changed your acceptance based on RS and discussion.  I didn't mean to imply otherwise.  But, Athenean, your source simply doesn't prove the point that you want it to.  The source never says that TRNC isn't sovereign, it merely points out how necessary it has been for TRNC to rely upon Turkey because the international community has shunned it.  It does not call TRNC a part of Turkey and to consider that the phrase "Turkey calls the shots" is tantamount to "nominally", while ignoring all the rest of the text that you provided a link to, is simply WP:OR and improper WP:SYN.  The text as a whole is very clear--because the TRNC has not been recognized internationally, it is heavily dependent on Turkey.  That's not the same as "nominally".  At no place does that text use the word "nominally" and at no place does it say that TRNC is not sovereign, whether recognized as such or not.
 * Above, I did a Google Books search on "Northern Cyprus" and these are the first four sources that had available text and weren't Wikipedia mirrors. No, Athenean, I don't own these books and have not examined them in their entirety.  This is simply a Google Books search, so if I have misinterpreted their context, then I stand corrected.  This source doesn't use the term "nominal" and doesn't even describe the relationship between TRNC and Turkey other than mentioning the occupation troops.  In This source (from the UN), it also does not use the word "nominal" and relates all correspondence from "TRNC", in most cases without comment on any Turkish involvement in the process.  In this source, Turkey is not mentioned at all and all reference is to TRNC.  Finally, this source is a case concerning international law, which naturally takes the position that TRNC is not a sovereign state in regards to international law, which is in accord with the article we have before us--TRNC is not recognized by the international community as a sovereign state.  So, Athenean, the first four results in Google Books do not call TRNC "nominal".  They all refer to an entity that exists in fact, not just name.  Even your source is fundamentally flawed when trying to justify the word "nominal" in this article.  --Taivo (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We're not arguing about whether the TRNC "nominally exists"! What you have a problem with is the "nominally independent". The argument is how to describe "independent" when we all seem to agree that its not really that independent in the sense of any normal sovereign independent state. So if we're going to have the word independent we'll have to clarify its meaning, in this case "nominally independent" describes the situation as it is (i.e. independent only in name, but in reality subordinate to Turkey). If you want to remove "independent" altogether, the most accurate description is puppet state which is more in-line with Athenean's source. Masri145 (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Because I can already hear the outraged replies, I will pre-emptively mention that a considerable body of literature classifies the TRNC as a puppet state   . But it doesn't matter one bit, does it? Because "the three of us are so aligned with Greek POV...", that having been so labelled, nothing you or I say, no amount of evidence we present, will sway Taivo one bit. So Masri, there is no point in continuing this discussion. Let Taivo have the last word, maintaing to the last that the TRNC is a perfectly normal, independent sovereign state, no less so than the US, China, France, the UK and Russia, and let's get on with editing something else. However, I will close by mentioning that I have a mind to make an addition to the article to the effect that the TRNC is so heavily dependent on Turkey as to qualify as a puppet state (according to some sources at least). Not in the lede, as that would probably be undue weight, but a mention in the body text wouldn't hurt, maybe the section on politics and government.  Athenean (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The first, second, and fourth book cited above by Athenean seem (to me) to be reasonably reliable sources for a claim that the TRNC has been referred to by some experts as being a puppet state. The third book, however, looks more like a travel log/blog than a scholarly treatise, and I wouldn't recommend using it. My evaluation here, to be sure, is based only on looking at the one specific cited page in each book (as opposed to a thorough reading of each book in its entirety). I also find it interesting (and potentially useful) that, according to the fourth source, the ECHR concluded that "the decisive factor for non-recognition of the TRNC as a State was its dependence on Turkish administration, not the fact that it was an illegal entity from the standpoint of international law."  Rich wales (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, scratch the third one (I debated whether or not to include, probably shouldn't have). But there is also this one . Athenean (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't access the second source, but I agree with RichWales that the first and fourth look reasonable. I'd be interested to see that go into the article somehow. In regards to the above nominal debate, how about removing both "nominally" and "independent"? That would leave "Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs) is a self-declared state which officially titles itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)". Having "self-declared state" shows that they, and not outside observers, declared themselves a state, as well as implying by its inclusion that it remains mostly unrecognised. This would allow us to avoid any implications surrounding the word independent, and also free up the ability to put a note on its heavy dependence on Turkey somewhere in the lead, which we could support using Athenean's sources above (once they're included in the article of course). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me. Athenean (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Self-declared state" would be OK in my view. Per Athenean's earlier comment, I would be wary about using the term "puppet state" (or even related terms such as "satellite state" or "client state") in the lead section; I think the lead as a whole (including this one proposed change) will make it more than sufficiently clear to readers that Northern Cyprus's legitimacy and claim to true independence is generally rejected.   Rich wales (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Right then, I have enacted the above change, and also changed "dependent" to "heavily dependent" since at least two reliable sources uses that characterization. I also added a few sentence about the political influence of Turkey in the "Politics" section, nothing too controversial I trust. Also, I added a note in the sports section about non-recognition, and one in the human rights section about how the ongoing partition of the island impacts the human rights situation. Lastly, I removed some economic trivia added by "Brasilian Prince" since he was a sock and also since I didn't find the additions that important or well-written. If some establish users are willing to vouch for the content, feel free to re-add it. Athenean (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @ Athenean- The use of the phrase "Self-declared" State is absurd. All States with the exception of the State of Israel (UN declared) are self-declared. No one comes and declares your independence for you. Furthermore, anyone who claims that the TRNC is heavily dependent on Turkey is also making absurd comments. The TRNC has its own constitution, legislature and judiciary. It has no colonial relationship with Turkey besides bi-lateral relations under Treaty. Yes, economically the TRNC is reliant on Turkey for aid etc but all Polynesian mico-States are also dependent on other countries such as the USA. Yet, this dependency does not mean they are puppet States. Some objectivity please.

Comparison with Gibraltar?
The Island of Gibraltar whose sovereignty is disputed by Spain is allegedly occupied by the United Kingdom. Yet Gibraltar is not called an occupied territory nor is it refereed to as an illegal entity. Statehood and International Recognition via UN Membership are entirely two different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.241.156 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 November 2011‎ (UTC)


 * Totally invalid comparison by random IP. Gibraltar is a purely bilateral problem with no international dimension. The international community isn't actively trying to resolve the issue of Gibraltar in the same way that its trying to find a solution in Cyprus (i.e. UN Secretary General is personally involved in discussions between two sides). Most important difference is that there has been a treaty signed between the two countries about Gibraltar, this hasn't been the case in Cyprus since the invasion. Cyprus is a completely different case, its a dispute between international community and Turkey alone, and concerns an illegal invasion, an illegal occupation and illegal proclamation of independence of a breakaway state which is in continuous violation of international law and human rights (as condemned by the European Court of Human Rights and various UN Resolutions) . Masri145 (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a totally valid comparison. In fact, Kosovo is another great example. Gibraltar was invaded by an Anglo-Dutch forces in 1704 during the War of the Spanish Succession. Spain continues to dispute British sovereignty over Gibraltar. The rock was subsequently ceded to Britain "in perpetuity" under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. There is nothing legal about the invasion of Gibraltar. The only difference between Cyprus is that it occured 100 years before the intervention in Cyprus by Turkey. In the case of Cyprus, the Imperial Ottoman Government, after the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) and the Congress of Berlin, leased Cyprus to the British Empire who took de facto control over the Islands administration in 1878 (Albeit, in terms of sovereignty, it remained a de jure Ottoman territory until 1914, together with Egypt and Sudan) in exchange for guarantees that Britain would use the island as a base to protect the Ottoman Empire against possible Russian aggression. During World War One, Britain refused to hand over the Island back to Turkey and annexed it on 5 November 1914. Nevertheless, the young turks in 1923, under the Treaty of Lausanne relinquished any claim to Cyprus on the condition that its muslim minority population would be protected (Articles 16 to 27 of the Treaty of Lausanne). From 1950's onward a Greek movement in Cyprus gained ground called "Enosis", calling for the reunification of Cyprus with Greece. In 1955 the EOKA organisation was founded, seeking independence and union with Greece through armed struggle. Turkish cypriots were massacred. On 16 August 1960, Cyprus attained independence after the Zürich and London Agreement between the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey. The UK retained the two Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, while government posts and public offices were allocated by ethnic quotas, giving the minority Turkish Cypriots a permanent veto, 30% in parliament and administration, and granting the three mother-states guarantor rights. Turkey remained and still is a Guarantor power in Cyprus under the Treaty of Guarantee. Article IV of the Treaty of Guarantee allows the UK, Greece or Turkey to unilaterally take steps to preserve the terms of the treaty. During the 1960's intercommunal violence erupted eventually prompting Turkey in 1974 to intervene on the Island pursuant to the terms of the Treaty of Gurantee. In 1983, the Turkish Cypriots proclaimed the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is recognised by Turkey, Libya (de facto, official treaty to be signed in due course by Libyan transitional council) and the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation. The United Nations was involved in Kosovo as well. What happend? The Universal Declaration of Independence was recognised by a vast majority of the international community. When it comes to Cyprus, the only problem is strategic interests and safe guarding of those interests through double standards. Whoever controls Cyprus controls the Suez canal. Cyprus is the best aircraft carrier out their. Similar situation with Gibraltar. The UK controls the straight of Gibraltar. 122.150.241.156 (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

First line of article needs to be changed
"which officially titles itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)"- States do not title themselves. States have constitutional names. Accordingly, it is submitted that this line reads as follows: "whose constitutional name is the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". Statehood and recognition are two independent and severable things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.241.156 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 November 2011‎ (UTC)


 * The existing wording is an attempt at a compromise between editors who insist on acknowledging the de facto existence of the TRNC and editors who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the TRNC. Talking about Northern Cyprus's "constitutional name" will surely generate objections from the latter group of editors, who will argue that the only "constitution" worthy of any mention here is that of the Republic of Cyprus (whose claim to sovereignty over the entire island, they will remind us, is generally recognized by the international community).  Unless people can come up with wording which is accepted by a consensus of editors as an improvement over what is currently here, the current wording should probably remain.   Rich wales (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You see this is the problem. We pay no attention to International Law. International law states that Statehood is independent of recognition. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has achieved statehood but not recognition. Gibraltar, Taiwan and North Korea are in similar positions. Yet they are still recognised by their constitutional name. It would be best if we use International Legal positions rather than try and cater for the Turkish Cypriots or Greek Cypriot positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.4.212 (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Gibraltar has no statehood or recognition as such. 2) North Korea has statehood and recognition. Terrible comparisons. On the other hand, it's fairly obvious that we don't use the Republic of Cyprus constitution on this page, so I don't see the issue Richwales does. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with the anon IP in this regard--it doesn't matter what the international community thinks about TRNC, there is a document that is the constitution of TRNC and that document called the country the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The Greek and international communities can close their eyes and pretend that TRNC doesn't exist, but that is not NPOV.  Why do we include the name TRNC in this article?  Because the constitution of this region says that is the country's name.  It doesn't matter whether you think this state is legitimate or not, it is called TRNC because that is what its constitution calls it.  But that being said, no change should be made to the article until and unless a consensus is reached here.  --Taivo (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you believe Gibraltar and North Korea are terrible examples, then please explain to me the situation with Kosovo?? The product of NATO intervention. It's universal declaration of independence recognised by a vast majority of the international community.122.150.241.156 (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The following is a neutral first line entry:

Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs) is a state which purportedly proclaimed its independence from the Republic of Cyprus on the 15th of November 1983. It's constitutional name is the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti).... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.241.156 (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Purportedly"? Look that word up.  It means that there are rumors that something happened, but you have no proof.  TRNC proclaimed its independence.  There's no "purportedly" about it.  It was proclaimed.  Whether other countries have chosen to recognize it as independent is another matter, but the fact is that its independence was, indeed, proclaimed.  I have no problem with any of the rest of that intro.  Remove the word "purportedly" and that would be acceptable--an improvement over the stupid "titles itself" that is there now.  --Taivo (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Taivo, I inserted the word "purportedly" so that I could note that albeit the TRNC has declared its independence, it independence is not recognized by a majority of world powers. However, you are right with respect to Statehood and Independence being two separate things. I would then propose that the first line read as follows:

''Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs) is a state which proclaimed its independence from the Republic of Cyprus on the 15th of November 1983. It's constitutional name is the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti). It's declaration of Independence is only recognized by the Republic of Turkey and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.241.156 (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification about illegal occupation
We need some clarification in the first line, that the international community view is that northern Cyprus is "illegally occupied" territory as opposed to simply "occupied". Simply "occupied" is not giving the full message about the illegality of the occupation and the continuous violation of human rights (as per ECHR rulings - Cyprus v. Turkey and UN resolutions). The truth is that it is slightly more than just "occupied" and that needs clarification. As it currently stands it might be considered that the status quo (occupation) is accepted by both sides which is not. I can't see why anyone (Taivo) would object to adding this clarification since we mention that this is view of the international community as opposed to the recognition of independence by Turkey. Masri145 (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Urgh. When is occupation ever fully 'legal' anyway... Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We don't really insist on adding "wet" to "water", do we? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The existing wording already makes it perfectly clear (to a typical reader who is fluent in English) that the partition of the island and the Turkish presence in the north is not approved by the international community. Further, the last sentence of the lead section already terms the status quo as "illegal".  In my opinion, adding more "illegal"s to the existing description would go too far towards embracing the Greek Cypriot POV, as opposed to giving a balanced explanation of the overall situation.   Rich wales (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Chipmunkdavis, It's not "legal occupation" vs. "illegal occupation". Its "occupation" vs. "illegal occupation". It makes the point that the occupation has been condemned by court which is only mentioned in the last sentence. Also Seb, we can use the word "occupation" when referring to non-legal matters (such as history, eg. territory occupied in 1000BC - when no international law existed). The same thing for "war" - there's legal and illegal "war" (see Laws of war). So "wet water" is quite an awkward comparison. There's two different points I want to make 1)the occupation and 2)that it is has been condemned by international court. That's why we need the clarification in the same way. There's no bias in clarifying the kind of occupation. Masri145 (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As much as I'd love to talk about the illegal occupation which set up an illegal government in an illegal state, the information that would convey is already present in the lead. It's not "occupation" vs "illegal occupation" because "occupation"="illegal occupation". If it's a 'legal' operation, it's called something else, like Peacekeeping mission. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * International opinion of legality is already clearly expressed in the last sentence of the lead. Any further salting of "illegal" through the paragraph is simply pushing a POV.  Masri, you should know better than to keep pushing a POV where consensus has already ruled against you.  --Taivo (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Turkey is not occupying a portion of Cyprus, it is a protecting force of the Turkish Cypriot community pursuant to a treaty executed between the TRNC and the Republic of Turkey. Secondly, Turkey did not invade the Island but exercised its rights under Article IV of the Treaty of Gurantee. Had Turkey invaded the Island, the international community would have sued Turkey at the ICJ. Very fine yet highly important facts. It's not like Turkey came from the other side of the world and decided to take over the Island. In fact, Turkey was the colonial power of Cyprus prior to the British. There were ethnic Turks on the Island who were being butchered and Greek organisations were trying to unify Cyprus with the Greek mainland under "Enosis" in breach of the Treaty of Guarantee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.241.156 (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Our anon IP brings up a valid point--considering the occupation to be "illegal" is POV and if we add it without specifying exactly who thinks the occupation is illegal, then we are pushing just one POV and not being NPOV. The lead section clearly states in the last sentence that the international community (less Turkey and TRNC) thinks the occupation is illegal.  Any prior mention of "illegal" as if it is a universally accepted modifier is POV and not appropriate for Wikipedia.  --Taivo (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. Lets end this pointless debate about of who thinks is what legal. There's no such thing as "I think its legal but you think its illegal". If a commonly accepted court has ruled that it's illegal then it is. The European Court of Human Rights which both Turkey and Cyprus recognised has ruled against Turkey's occupation of Cyprus several times :
 * ECtHR, Cyprus v. Turkey, Application No. 25781/94, Judgment, 10 May 2001
 * ECtHR, Loizidou v. Turkey, Application No. 15318/89, Judgment, 18 December 1996

In these two cases, the Court ruled that the applications fell within the "jurisdiction" of Turkey within the meaning of Article 1, thereby invoking its responsibility under the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, as Turkey exercised effective overall control of northern Cyprus through the presence of its military troops. Furthermore, in Cyprus v. Turkey the Court asserted that as a result of Turkey's "effective overall control over northern Cyprus, its responsibility cannot be confined to the acts of its own soldiers or officials in northern Cyprus but must also be engaged by virtue of the acts of the local administration which survives by virtue of Turkish military and other support".

The case deals with the deprivation of property rights as a result of the continuing division of Cyprus and the Turkish occupation of the north of the island. The Court concluded that the deprivation of the right to enjoy one's property constituted a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and required Turkey to "introduce a remedy, which secures genuinely effective redress for the Convention violations identified in the instant judgment in relation to the present applicant as well as in respect of all similar applications pending before the Court, in accordance with the principles for the protection of the rights laid down in Articles 8".
 * ECtHR, Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, Application No. 46347/99, Judgment, 22 December 2005

The Court found Turkey responsible for the killing of two Greek Cypriots. Anastasios Issac was killed at a 1996 protest, and Solomos Solomou was shot at Issac's funeral. The Court found that they were both killed by agents of Turkey, and that the use of force was not justified by any of the exceptions laid down in Article 2(2) of the Convention. For failing to protect the right to life and in failing to mount an adequate investigation into the deaths, Turkey was ordered to pay compensation to the families.
 * ECtHR, Solomou and Others v. Turkey, Application No. 36832/97, Judgment, 24 June 2008

Turkey's continuous occupation of Cyprus and the deprivation of humans rights (including the Right to property) of many Greek Cypriots who were forced to become refugees in their own country has been judged illegal and in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights that Turkey itself has signed up to as a member of the Council of Europe. It is also a fact that Turkey has accepted this decision and payed up the fine of $1m (see this). So, there's absolutely no debate on the illegality of the occupation. The fact that it is illegal is perhaps the most important and undisputed fact about the occupation and simply has to get the weight it deserves. Masri145 (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You continue to fail to see the point, Masri. The point has nothing whatsoever to do with what courts do and do not say or what treaties do and do not say.  The question is not how the Supreme Architect of the Universe will judge the rightness or wrongness of the Turkish presence in Northern Cyprus.  The point is that in Wikipedia such things do not matter.  What matters in Wikipedia is the neutral presentation of all points of view.  In this case, there are two competing points of view--the POV that the occupation is warranted by the treaty obligations and the POV that is it illegal.  Wikipedia does not get to choose which POV it will side with so it must present both POVs neutrally and impartially.  The lead already clearly states that Greece and the international community consider the occupation to be illegal.  Adding an unjustified and unexplained POV comment such as "illegally" violates Wikipedia's primary position of neutrality in all disputes.  That's the point and that's the only point.  --Taivo (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem that you just don't want to understand that this is exactly what my suggestion does, says exactly what the international community thinks without taking any sides! As it stands the particular sentence lacks important detail about the position of the international community regarding occupation. It doesn't think the terittory is just occupied, it declares in the most official way that it is illegally occupied. Clarifying what the international community thinks cannot be considered POV, especially as we give both POVs. Masri145 (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My opposition comes from a different tack to Taivo. "Illegal occupation" is simply a tautology in the modern world, and we must strive for good prose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Masri, you suffer from a classic case of "my position is the right one so why do we mention the other one". Your POV is just that--a POV.  Wikipedia must be neutral.  There are two points of view on the Turkish presence in Northern Cyprus.  Wikipedia must be balanced in its presentation of those two views and not simply use one of them as the basis of our writing.  As Chipmunkdavis points out, "occupation" is usually a negative word anyway, indeed, its use was the subject of a consensus-building discussion in the first place.  Any further pushing of the Greek POV by putting "illegal" in front of it is totally against Wikipedia standards.  --Taivo (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Chipmunkdavis Actually its not. See article on Occupied territory and . The status of the occupation is very different if there is a peace treaty signed between the aggressor and the occupied country. This isn't the case in Cyprus thus saying that the status of the occupation is illegal is an essential clarification - especially when the clarification refers to a particular POV without taking sides. Masri145 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Taivo You need to stop your personal attacks and have serious arguments why you object to the clarification. I've already explained to you why it's not POV to clarify the kind of occupation (see educational links I provided above). Masri145 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Masri, this is no personal attack. It is a simple statement that your addition is unacceptable because 1) it is unnecessary, 2) it is highly POV, and 3) it is a violation of Wikipedia NPOV principles.  Simple as that.  I don't care how much legal interpretation you pull out of the air, it's still just one-sided pushing of the Greek POV that is quite adequately explained in the lead already.  Adding "illegally" is simply a provocation and pushing of your POV.  --Taivo (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Masri, if there is a peace treaty then it simply isn't called an occupation. Do you call the green line an occupation of UN forces? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your arguments don't make much sense. So are you totally against calling the occupation illegal or do you just want to mention it less? Masri145 (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm saying it's implicit. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Chipmunkdavis, you're saying its implicit but you've obviously not read the sources I provided. If it was such an implicit term it wouldn't be used in so many books (google books results)
 * The main difference here is that the term "Illegal" is there to say that it's been condemned by an international court and its the official position of the international community, whereas "occupation" alone doesn't say anything about this. Illegal is not a redundant word to use according to google books resutls, and that's exactly why it's mentioned in many other places in the article. I've added the source regarding the international court judicial decisions regarding occupation so I see absolutely no reason for not clarifying the position of international community accorindingly.
 * In fact what you guys are doing here is deliberately underepresenting the international community POV in the name of NPOV and the result is clearly in favour of the turkish POV. This is a classic example of Information_suppression. You cannot selectively present facts which are already mentioned elsewhere in the article. Masri145 (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While it's perfectly fine to say Illegal occupation or Illegal Military Occupation if one wants to make a WP:Point, we aren't here to do that, and throwing google searches around doesn't have any weight. If text is being used so redundantly in other areas of the article, it should be fixed too. Clarification implies something needs to be clarified, here nothing needs to be clarified. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. So its good that you now agree that it's not an implicit term. So, if its not implicit, it needs clarification. I'd like to see some comments here from some more neutral editors. This is blatantly an attempt to under-represent the international community POV in the leading statement. The source describing the exact position of the international community is provided, and the text simply has to reflect that opinion. Masri145 (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't agree to that, and only an extremely twisted reading of my words would bring about that conclusion. I said "it's perfectly fine...if one wants to make a point, we aren't here to do that...here nothing needs to be clarified." International community is already explicitly mentioned twice, lack of international recognition explicitly mentioned once. There's little more to say here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chipmunkdavis that the use of "illegally" is a violation of WP:POINT while I would also include it is a violation of WP:NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @Masri145- You fail to get the point. All the aforementioned "decisions" are decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (A court whose jurisdiction is accepted by the Council of Europe). The European Court of Human rights is NOT the International Court of Justice, that is, the UN Judicial body. The European Court of Human Rights is hence NOT a competent authority to entertain any matter or issue which relates to Statehood and the legality of intervention by force. The only competent authority in this regard is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). There is no ICJ decision against Turkey with regards to the Cyprus Peace operation/intervention. Nor is there any ICJ decision prohibiting the Universal declaration of independence by the TRNC. You might be interested to know however that there is in fact a decision of the International Court of Justice handed down on the 22nd of July 2010, stating that "International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence". This decision was made in relation to the Kosovo matter however formed a binding and retrospective precedent. See http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15987.pdf . Accordingly, under international law the Universal Declaration of Independence (UDI) by the TRNC is not illegal. Wikipaedia cannot and should not comment on the legality of the TRNC's UDI because in fact according to International law it is not. Please check my sources and rectify the errors in such article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.241.156 (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @ 122.150.241.156 I think you interpret the document you have attached in your own way. You have provided a link for an opinion of the ICJ on the Kosovo issue. You have used a sentence directed towards the Kosovo issue, and you have in your own interpretation used it for Cyprus. Actually the opinion you have provided says exactly the opposite of what you suggest. In fact, please read paragraph 81 on page 30/31, (pasting below) the court states that although the declaration of northern Cyprus is illegal, it can not be used as a precedent to deem Kosovo's declaration of independence as illegal too.


 * []...Security Council resolution 541 (1983),concerning northern Cyprus;...The Court notes, however, that in all of those instances the Security Council was making a determination as regards the concrete situation existing at the time that those declarations of independence were made; the illegality attached to the declarations of independence thus stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law...[]


 * The declaration of independence of northern Cyprus is illegal according to Security council resolution 541. 23x2 (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC) http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr541.htm

@ 23x2- It is actually you who is reading things in isolation and distorting the factual matrix of the Kosovo matter. Firstly, UN resolutions cannot determine the legality of acts as the issuing body is not a judicial authority. The only competent International judicial body is the International Court of Justice. Greece and Cyprus have not sued Turkey at the ICJ for fear that they will loose on the basis of Turkey's right to intervene on the Island under the Treaty of Guarantee. Secondly, Kosovo also declared its independence after NATO forces invaded the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during Operation Allied Force. The TRNC also declared its independence after Turkey invaded the island pursuant to the Treaty of Guarantee. There is no difference between the two issues. Until there is a Internationally binding International Court of Justice decision on the issue, one cannot claim that the TRNC is an illegal State. A State is defined as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. An entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. This definition of Statehood was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention. Article 3 of the Convention declares that statehood is independent of recognition by other states. In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood. A similar opinion about "the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state" is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee. The Badinter Arbitration Committee found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. The TRNC fullfills all the criteria for Statehood: It has a defined territory, a Turkish Cypriot population, a political authority (Government) and enters into international relations with the Republic of Turkey, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Libyan transitional council. No matter how one distorts the facts, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is a State, albeit unrecognised for political reasons one by a majority of the international community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.241.156 (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)