Talk:Northern Cyprus/Archive 15

Self-declared state
Why is the need to write these words? Likewise the United States of America (and many other independent countries) are Self-declared States... If the idea is to stress the fact the TRNC is not generally recognized it would be correct and enough to say so: a generally not recognized State. 80.123.196.102 (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the TRNC is self-declared. The USA was once self-declared, but not since Britain and other countries recognized it. But I must add that this idea of "being self-declared" must be stressed equally in the articles of other states with limited recognition, especially the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which is the most similar case to Northern Cyprus. Interestingly, although as far as I know Nagorno-Karabakh is considered to be occupied by Armenia by the international community (and what I know seems to be correct), this is not in any way mentioned in the article, not to mention the lead section. I think something must be done about it. Anyway. --Seksen (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Karabakh is being treated as a province of Armenia, by the Armenians, as expressed by high level officials of that invading country. So no relation whatsoever to the TRNC, established as a sovereign state by the Turkish Cypriots, a sovereign people who had co-established the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 in accordance with their sovereign willpower but ousted from that state by force by the Greek Cypriots... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.123.196.102 (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If that is so, could you please provide sources for Karabakh? I am not claiming that the cases are completely the same, but what you said affects neither case. As I have said, I sense a double standard here. However, a state is considered to be "self-declared" when it declares itself and is not recognized by any country or recognized by a few countries, and especially not recognized by the state it declares its independence from, which is the case here, but also in Nagorno-Karabakh, for which it is not mentioned there at all, whereas we have this issue of self-declaration mentioned in the lead sections of the TRNC, Republic of Kosovo, Abkhazia, Somaliland and Azawad. --Seksen (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge Turkish Federated State of Cyprus to here
The proposal is to merge the article Turkish Federated State of Cyprus into the article Northern Cyprus, replacing it by a redirect. The current article Turkish Federated State of Cyprus is more like a stub, but giving it more meat will only lead to useless duplication with the Northern Cyprus article. Compare Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is definitely a more important and notable topic than Turkish Federated State of Cyprus, yet is just a redirect to Northern Cyprus. --Lambiam 11:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Moreover, the correct attitude should be to have 4 articles about Cyprus in Wiki: Cyprus, the Cyprus Question, RoC and TRNC. E4024 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not so certain. First of all, Northern Cyprus is the short name for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Northern Cyprus = Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Besides, back then, no political entity named "Northern Cyprus" existed. In fact, I personally know from an interview with Rauf Denktaş that I have once seen on TV that when the declaration of the TRNC was first considered, the name "Turkish Republic of Cyprus" was preferred and the name was changed just the day before the declaration. And there is a significant difference between the TFSC and the TRNC, the former sought the reunification of the island, whereas the latter seeks international recognition (even though it continues reunification talks), and as a result, the real "institutionalization" of the state began in 1983. So, I can say that there are some significant differences and it is not in any way comparable with Northern Cyprus and TRNC (as they are the same thing). I think I can add some details about the economy and politics, let's see. --Seksen (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Page A can redirect to page B, while A and B are not the same topic; it can just mean that topic A is dealt with on page B. For example, ﻿Cap Carcasse redirects to Hispaniola, and Malia Obama redirects to Family of Barack Obama. "Northern Cyprus" is primarily a geographic designation, which is now used for the KKTC by entities that do not recognize it. It was likewise used before 1983 for the KTFD, for example in a question in the British House of Commons on 28 July 1976, or quite explicitly in this press clipping from The Cincinnati Enquirer of 11 January 1981: 'Northern Cyprus, calling itself the "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus"'. --Lambiam 01:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that Turkish Federated State of Cyprus could actually do with a lot more on the proclaimed status of the region, reaction of the international community and of Cyprus, border issues at the time, etc. This was a place that still considered itself part of Cyprus after all (legally). I don't think such information would go well on the general Northern Cyprus page. CMD (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Culture
Are there no Turkish Cypriot users to edit this section? Who will add here film directors like Derviş Zaim, poets like Mehmet Yaşın and all other Turkish Cypriot men and women of arts and culture? Please dont say Be Bold to me, I am bold enough... --E4024 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seksen, would you be kind enough to check and fix -if necessary- my links/ref for the film Missing Bus. I understand I am too old for these internet gadgets...

--E4024 (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They seem to be OK. As a standard, we use the tags in situations like this, when we cite a source. --Seksen (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent pov edits
It's really sad that the 1974 invasion is presented as a "Northern Cyprus Peace and Freedom Day". Apart from that I see no reason why the neutral description of the event (the one that the international community recognizes as such) should be deleted [][]. Actually the entire article presents dozens of references that prove that the 1974 event are doomed by several UN resollution.Alexikoua (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) If Northern Cyprus, which is the subject here, refers it as "Peace and Freedom Day", it must be used as a such (although it could be noted that it is considered as an invasion by the international community), no matter whoever is offended. Why would there be celebrations if it is not a national occasion ("bayram", literally "feast")? And why should we delete the reference to that national occasion? This could even qualify under censorship. --Seksen (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree on that point: In fact the pov claim can stay, only if it is clarified that this is "claimed by the x part as such", but the internationally acceptable term can't be avoided in such an instance. Alexikoua (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would not object to "celebrated in Northern Cyprus as Peace and Freedom Day". What do you think about the following? "Turkish Stars show performance during the 2011 commemoration of the Turkish invasion which led to the establishment of Northern Cyprus, celebrated in Northern Cyprus as the Peace of Freedom Day." I think this makes it all clear: why there is a show, how the Turkish Cypriots consider it and how the international community considers it. --Seksen (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have an even better idea. Why don't we replace the picture, which doesn't tell the reader anything about NC, with another picture that does? Athenean (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Good idea. But for that we need to find an alternative about the military. --Seksen (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I started uploading some from the Republic Day parade in 2007 here, although I am not quite sure which one is Turkish Cypriot and which one is Turkish, but I think where there is the TRNC flag, there are the Turkish Cypriot troops. This must be less controversial as it commemorates the declaration of the TRNC, and more relevant as it depicts the Turkish Cypriot troops marching in one of the thoroughfares of North Nicosia on a national holiday (these are attended by a large number of civilians, although so are Turkish Stars shows, of course). --Seksen (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture caption
Why are we giving 2 alternative names to the picture of Cape Apostolos Andreas, and why are we redundantly noting it is in Northern Cyprus? Alternative names are meant for articles. They're not going to help the reader understand Northern Cyprus at all. CMD (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's simple. According to the Turkish POV this is a Turkish article so we have to convert all nomenclature to Turkish for political reasons and WP:COMMONNAME be damned. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes,we should give two alternative names to photo of Victory Cape.But,due to the negative and intransigent attitude of the Greeks,happens edit warsWP:EW,unfortunately. English page of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is routinely exploited by political, geographical, and naming polemics.Please,you don't personalize your claims and thoughts.I was wondering something!Why Greeks do not make these contributions in their own language? Also; you must look at:WP:AGF,WP:NPOV Maurice talk 22:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope you are able to read. I said:
 * Where do you see any personal comments in that statement?
 * Meanwhile substantiate your WP:BATTLEGROUND claims that:
 * or withdraw them.
 * And I find your question
 * weird. Can you explain what you mean by that statement? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  19:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have given a lengthy explanation to the user. However, Dr K., according to another Turkish POV, there is no such stereotype for the Turkish POV, so I do think that your comment does exceed its intended purpose a bit. --Seksen (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Seksen for your intervention. And yes you are right. I should have phrased this statement differently to indicate this type of Turkish POV is only shared by only a few editors and it does not represent the mainstream by any means. But coming from another edit-war which this editor started at List of sovereign states with about five reverts there, I was perhaps too quick to comment as soon as he started another one here. The thing is I did not want to make this comment personal and say: "According to Maurice07's POV blah blah blah...". So I tried generalising it, but I overdid the generalisation. Point granted. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  22:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

 Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about WP's Sock Policy but I am so sure about the principle "Content not Contributor". The above is a very useful document to understand the recent history of Cyprus and the essence of the Cyprus question. So it should not be deleted for any reason whatsoever and continue to stay in these pages, just as it is... --E4024 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, it should also be added to the article Turkish invasion of Cyprus. --E4024 (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Requesting expansion/clarification of existing Balkans sanctions to cover Cyprus
Everyone please be advised that I am about to post a request at WP:RFAR to clarify / expand the existing WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions for the Balkans to cover Cyprus as well. I'm not suggesting that this is a magic wand that will make all the problems go away, but it may help. The case for discretionary sanctions here is, I believe, at least as strong as some other notoriously contentious areas of Wikipedia where sanctions have been in place for some time. — Rich wales 06:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Lede
I've always wondered about the following clause in the lede: "The Turkish Army maintains a large force in Northern Cyprus with its presence supported and approved by the TRNC government,...". But the other day I came across the following article, which suggests that the Turkish Army is not quite as welcomed by the Turkish Cypriots as previously. The source is quite reliable, and it presents the results of an apparently reliable survey of Turkish Cypriot public opinion. Based on it, I would remove the claim that the presence of the Turkish Army is supported and approved by the Turkish Cypriots, i.e. I would change it to: "The Turkish Army maintains a large force in Northern Cyprus,...". Athenean (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article says it was just 50 people they interviewed. Unless there is more evidence than this, I'd be cautious about altering text that has proven to be so contentious.  --Taivo (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is only 50 people, but as the article says they are people that play an important role in shaping public opinion, including business leaders, academics, etc..., not just people in the street. I agree that if it were people in the street it wouldn't be significant, but considering we are talking about opinion shapers here, of which there is a limited number, a sample of 50 is quite weighty. Athenean (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless there is an enumeration of exactly who these 50 were and how much they really are "movers and shakers", it's just the journalist's word that they are people of important and whose opinions somehow carry more weight than the average Joe. But even if they are all movers and shakers, 50 is still a very small number considering there are thousands of businessmen, politicians, etc. in Northern Cyprus.  It's still a very shaky source to change a sentence in this article.  And, as the editor below points out, a "majority" could be 26 out of 50.  This source is simply fact-challenged.  And you know as well as I how contentious every word in this article is.  It simply takes more than the word of one journalist.  --Taivo (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

National POV destroying WP
Wonderful poll made among 50 Cypriots from the South and North of Cyprus. The details are not given but I am sure what opinion the 25 Greek Cypriots gave. So if one Turkish Cypriot joined them we have a 26-24 majority! And the result is also disturbing for Turkey. What other facts could we possibly be looking for to add another anti-Turkey POV to the article? I am afraid some people's national feelings are destroying the neutrality of WP articles related to Turkey and the Turks and certainly not increasing WP's prestige... --E4024 (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Hürriyet article doesn't really seem to me to speak to the question of what the TRNC government (as opposed to academics and businessmen) may think about Turkish troops in Northern Cyprus. At the same time, if the lead is going to say that the presence of Turkish forces is "supported and approved by the TRNC government", I would feel better if that claim were backed up by one or more reliable sources (right now there are no sources given) — and, if possible, sources reporting comments by non-involved third parties who might be trusted to deal evenhandedly with the question of whether the TRNC government's acceptance of Turkish forces accurately reflects Turkish Cypriot opinion.


 * I do think that the lead should retain some (suitably sourced) mention of whatever support exists for the Turkish military in Northern Cyprus, as a counterbalance to the other comments in the last sentence telling the reader about opposition to the Turkish military presence by the RoC and the UN. But again, it really should be sourced.


 * As for what the Hürriyet article says about Greek Cypriot views of the Turkish army presence in the north, these comments seem almost surreal or unreal in the context of the overall crisis, and I'm not inclined to accept this part of the article as a reliable source for Greek Cypriot opinion in general — or am I missing something really major here?


 * Additionally, this last sentence of the lead — if it's to remain in the article at all — would seem to me to make more logical sense if it were put at the end of the third paragraph (which deals more directly with the invasion / intervention / whatever-we-wish-to-call-it and its aftermath as reflected in the facts on the ground). —  Rich wales 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Cyprus was invaded by Greece" (?)
It's not transparently obvious to me why the addition of [ this material] should be a problem. The statements seem properly attributed to the people who made them, and (presumably acceptable) sources are being provided. I would suggest some minor grammatical and punctuation cleanups — for example, correct English usage would be "Makarios said that Cyprus had been invaded by Greece" — but other than that, the new material doesn't seem to me to be summarily ruled out, either as obvious vandalism or inappropriate POV.

I do see that one of the two editors involved here has accused the other of being a sock, and that a SPI request has been lodged. However, this request is still pending, and until it has been properly decided, I question the appropriateness of summarily reverting edits by the account in question on the grounds of "reverting a sock". I left uw-ew warnings on the talk pages of both editors involved, and if one or both editors object to my having done this, I suppose we shall simply have to agree to disagree. Regardless of whether sockpuppetry is happening here, I still believe the material in question ought to be evaluated (and either included or not) on its own merits.

FWIW, regardless of what some might believe or claim, I have no connections to Greece, Turkey, or any portion of Cyprus, and it is not my intention here to act as a partisan of either side in this overall dispute. — Rich wales 21:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Everyone please note that has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR/EW. — Rich wales 22:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Axisperpendicular is an obvious sock of the banned, whose latest reincarnation was . He can be reverted on sight. Athenean (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Axisperp is a sock perpetrator. Account created 2 days after Reagavarinx got permablocked. He pushes the same OR, PRIMARY edits as Reagavarinx. He fills the talkpage of this article with the same long screeds as Reagavarinx. I give him a sock notice yet he doesn't even bother to reply at the SPI. Richwales gives him a 3RR warning, next thing he does is revert more. I mean this is not about WP:DUCK any more. This is the Revenge of the Ducks. A real Duckmaggedon. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, even the edit-summaries are identical. I mean, I am all for proper procedure, but this couldn't quack any louder.  Rich, I disagree that the material should be evaluated on its own merit.  It is my understanding that socks of banned users should be reverted on sight so as to impress upon them that any attempts to edit while banned is futile.  Considering the merits of their edits will only send the message that socking works and encourage them to sock even more.  Not that it matters at this point, but even if we do look at the material he wants to add, it is about as primary as primary sources get (some kind of speech transcript by Makarios), and as such not really suitable as a source. Athenean (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Typical MO of Justice Forever. He specialises in primary sources. Digs up some primary source and tries to advertise it using this article as a platform by incessant edit-warring. As a consequence of his reliance on WP:PRIMARY, Justice Forever's sock edits almost always suffer from WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. I was surprised why Rich did not detect this primary source issue. But from his disclaimer above, I think he thinks I am a "partisan", since I am Greek. So the moral of the story seems to be that no matter how good your record is at detecting socks or how strong the evidence may be that these are indeed socks, as soon as you are identified as a partisan, solely due to your background, socks get the royal treatment and you (I) end up getting those ugly templates. Despite the fact that the edit I was reverting was a bona-fide sock edit, first added by now indeffed sock Reagavarinx: The first and the current presidents of Cyprus (Makarios and Christofias) qualified the action of Greece upon Cyprus as invasion on 19.07.1974 and 27.09.2010 resp and re-added by Axisperpendicular: The First and the Current Presidents of Cyprus (Makarios & Christofias): "Cyprus was invaded by Greece". So even if Axisperp is not a sock, and that's a big if, I was quite justified in reverting an indeffed sock's edit which was restored without explanation. But like I said: If you are identified as a "partisan" no matter how good the evidence you present is, you are simply treated as a pariah by some and without respect you get your talkpage loaded with ugly robot-assisted warnings, while the socks and socks-to-be get the limo treatment. And it is not as if this information about the connection between these two accounts and this edit was a secret; I had already started the new Justice Forever SPI and all the information is there. But somehow all this was ignored. I don't wonder why. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  00:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I was not finger-pointing at alleged partisans; I was only saying that I am not one myself. As for usable sources for Makarios's statements to the Security Council on 19 July 1974 (in which he referred to events in Cyprus as an invasion), there appear to be several accounts in respected newspapers of the time.  I did a ProQuest search just now and found articles to this effect in the Los Angeles Times (20 July 1974), the Washington Post (20 July 1974), and the Times of India (21 July 1974).  I also found a New York Times article (20 July 1974) consisting of lengthy quotes from Makarios's speech (which, depending on one's perspective, could perhaps be seen either as a primary or a secondary source).  So if the Makarios "Greek invasion" claim does have a legitimate place in this article, there would seem to be ample WP:RS available to substantiate it.  Given that I've made a 3RR/EW block here, I would prefer not to add such material myself, but others can do with these sources whatever they decide makes sense.  —  Rich wales 00:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The "partisan" issue should have never been raised. This is a simple socking issue. Politicising it doesn't help. As far as debating the merits of the sock edits, this must either be a first or at best a very rare event on Wikipedia. I have yet to see another example of an article where the edits of a blocked sock are debated. If years of sock related edit-policies are a guide, this is a rather unusual proposition. Let me put it another way so that I may be better understood: You are proposing a model of editing whereby edits of blocked socks may be repeated by new but as yet unproven socks. Until these new socks get certified and blocked again you propose that their edits, even if identical repeats of a blocked sock's edits, be given legitimacy, never mind the amount of quacking; and you are prepared to suppress good faith editors by templating them into submission so that the socks-to-be be given free reign to wreak havoc until a CU stops them. So let me ask you. Are you proposing this as a general sock policy or only as a socking policy applying to Greek sock-eradicating editors? Also am I alone in thinking that in either case this new proposed policy is not such a good idea? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've taken the general policy question to WT:SPI, and I would propose that serious discussion of this reasonable question should take place there (and hopefully with a broad set of participants, not just you and me). Whatever the policy or its interpretation should be, IMO it should clearly apply across the board, and not solely to editors of one particular origin or viewpoint.  —  Rich wales 06:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This discussion is also very serious. Except if you think templating veteran sockpuppet investigators based on their background, and despite the deafening quacking, is funny. The only funny thing here is the case which prompted all this discussion. A case which cannot be seriously defended as being difficult to determine due to the high-decibel and long-term quacking of Symphonic Choir proportions on this article and its talkpage. You have made an error in judgement but since, based on my background, you have decided that I am a partisan you have treated me abysmally and unapologetically. Just look at the angry bolding mess you left on my talk with your templating, as if I were legally blind and could not read subtler text. You should learn not to treat intelligent editors to such loud text pollution, especially when you were trying to defend such an obvious duck. I am disappointed because I thought you understood the intricacies of subtle communication with intelligent editors in a text-based wiki environment. Instead you chose to hit me with the equivalent of a text-based hammer. I could raise questions concerning your judgement as an admin as related to this topic with its chronic sock problems. But I will not, because you are a relatively new admin and still learning the ropes. I also don't want to further personalise this dispute and besides I will agf that you can learn something out of this and hopefully you will not repeat your mistakes in the future. In closing, take Taivo's advice at the SPI talk. In his very carefully and expertly crafted reply, he very eloquently told you, among other sage things, that adding more regulations in obvious cases like this, could tie the hands of conscientious editors who know what they are doing on the sockpuppet front on a given talkpage such as the present, while empowering the socks who could exploit the additional loopholes. To that I would add to not ever again use the national background of any editor as a determining factor for your actions, especially when you are acting in an admin capacity. Δρ.Κ. λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  18:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

After further discussion of relevant policies at WP:SPI, I indef-blocked Axisperpendicular earlier today, without waiting for the SPI process to finish. My intent was/is not to short-circuit the SPI, which I hope will continue to completion.

The fact that Justice Forever has been able to continue harassing Wikipedia for roughly five years — forcing Dr. K. and others to play a never-ending Whac-A-Mole game against an endless succession of socks — suggests that additional enforcement tools may be needed (and might possibly be helpful). For example, I'm wondering if it may be appropriate here to seek either community- or ArbCom-imposed sanctions, allowing admins to step in and act more quickly and forcefully against disruptive behaviour, whether it's the result of obvious sockpuppetry or not. Has anyone tried to pursue anything of this type; and if so, what happened? Alternatively / additionally, are there any ways that haven't been tried to curb this seemingly endless sock activity, other than by indeffing each sock one at a time? — Rich wales 03:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Can someone please point to a reliable reference of Makarios speech at the UNSC where he said "Cyprus was invaded by Greece" ? Thank you  23x2    φ  16:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It was reported in several mainstream newspapers on or around 20 July 1974 (the day after the speech). For example:


 * Los Angeles Times, 7/20/74, p. 4: "Makarios said he was awaiting a reply last weekend from a letter he had written to the Greek junta requesting withdrawal of the officers.  'The reply came; it was the coup,' he said.  'No revolution took place in Cyprus—it was an invasion which violated the internal peace of Cyprus.'"


 * Washington Post, 7/20/74, p. A6: "The coup, Makarios said, was 'clearly an invasion from outside.'"


 * The Times of India, 7/21/74, p. 1: "He charged the military regime of Greece with organising the coup against him and called its action a 'clear invasion' of Cyprus."


 * Additionally, a New York Times story (7/20/74, p. 9) reported lengthy excerpts from Makarios's speech to the UN Security Council on the 19th, in which he said several times that the coup in Cyprus was an invasion for which the Greek military was directly responsible. For what it may or may not be worth, none of these sources report Makarios saying the exact five-word utterance "Cyprus was invaded by Greece", though IMO the meaning of what the man said and meant (as reported by these sources) is pretty clear.  —  Rich wales 17:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above interpretation by Richwales. --E4024 (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure it is clear, as Makarios in his speech said "military regime in Greece" and "Greek Junta". There is a difference between the military regime / Junta, and the Republic of Greece which was not functioning at the time. All in all Makarios did not say "Cyprus was invaded by Greece" but "an invasion by Junta" two different things, i think.  23x2    φ  20:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with 23x2 that Makarios was being very careful in the way that he worded things so that he did not ever say, "Greece invaded Cyprus". He was careful to talk about junta and officers, etc., not the nation of Greece.  --Taivo (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the big deal is anyway. I mean, Makarios said something in a speech, so what? He said all kinds of things, are we to turn these articles into speech transcripts?  Athenean (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I see two issues here. One is whether the coup that replaced Makarios by Sampson was an internal Cypriot matter, or whether it was engineered by those in power in Greece at the time.  The other is whether the Greek military junta was a legitimate government, such that actions by the junta could (or could not) properly be attributed to the country of Greece.  Is this what some people are expressing concern about?


 * Makarios was (IMO) clearly and unambiguously saying that he considered the Cyprus coup to have been organized and carried out by the de facto government of the day in Greece (i.e., the military dictatorship). I don't seriously think that point is in dispute, is it?  But are people worried that a statement such as "Greece invaded Cyprus" would imply approval (either by the Greek people, or by people editing this and related articles) of the military dictatorship as the rightful Greek government?  I (a native speaker of North American English, FWIW, and not linked in any way to historical events in Greece) don't feel this is a significant hair to split here, but I'm willing to recognize that some other people might feel differently.  —  Rich wales 21:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is precisely in articles like this one, where passions on both sides sit right on the surface, where splitting hairs is extremely important. Makarios did not say "Greece invaded Cyprus".  Makarios did talk about the Greek junta and Greek officers being involved in the coup to such an extent that it constituted an "invasion" of sorts.  That is a significant hair and must be split here to be absolutely accurate and fair to both sides.  --Taivo (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Taivo, first, it is not only in the articles but also in United Nations Security Council Official Documents which are located in official web page of United Nations. Hence, you cannot downgrade the value of the data. Second, some makes a difference between "Greece invaded Cyprus" and "Greece's junta invaded Cyprus". This difference also bears nothing: because, 1_at that time, Greece was administered by junta (military dictatorship); also, 2_the legal participations of Greece in international meetings at that time was by that military junta of Greece. None of the other participant countries objected the participation of military dictatorship of Greece with the reason of the type/legality of the administration in Greece. 3_Till now, no decisions have been made by later Greece's authorities to nullify the military dictatorship (junta) of Greece and annihilating the legality of military dictatorship. Waltersamedical (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 23x2, Here are the things you wanted: clear reference to "Cyprus was invaded by Greece": I bolded the expressions you want to see:

SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL RECORDS, 29TH YEAR, 1780TH MEETING, 19 JULY 1974, NEW YORK ( http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/PV.1780(OR)&Lang=E )

Makarios' Speech at the UN SC on 19.07.1974:

8. ...the coup which was organized by the military regime of Greece and was put into effect by the Greek officers

9. ... The military regime of Greece has callously violated the independence of Cyprus. ... Greek junta has extended its dictatorship to Cyprus. ....terrorist organization EOKA-B, directed from Athens...illegal organization had its roots and supply resources in Athens...

11. ...behind that argument, other interests were hidden.

12. ... for while on Monday I was waiting for a reply to my letter the reply came, and it was the coup.

14. ...leave Cyprus rather than fall into the hands of the Greek junta.

16. ...Cyprus crisis caused by the Greek military regime.

18. ...clearly an invasion from outside ...so-called coup was the work of the Greek officers ...

20. ... There is no doubt that the coup was organized by the Greek junta and was carried out by the Greek officers

23. ...'''It was an invasion which violated the independence and the sovereignty of the Republic. And the invasion is continuing so long as there are Greek officers in Cyprus'''. ....this invasion...

25. ... instead of helping in the defence of the island’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, they themselves became the aggressors.

31. ... anomalous situation which was created by the coup of Athens.

32. ...'''do not constitute an internal matter of the Greeks of Cyprus. The Turks of Cyprus are also affected. The coup of the Greek junta is an invasion, and from its consequences the whole people of Cyprus suffers, both Greeks and Turks...call upon the military regime of Greece to withdraw from Cyprus the Greek officers serving in the National Guard, and to put an end to its invasion of Cyprus'''.

33. ...put an end to the invasion ... Waltersamedical (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Cyprus was invaded by Greece" vs. "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military dictatorship (coup)"
Here, there are two groups: 1_Some argue that "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military dictatorship (junta)" is plausible whereas "Cyprus was invaded by Greece" is false, citing the Greece's nation and Greece's nation's thoughts/wills are totally different from Greece's military dictatorship (junta). 2_The other group: "Cyprus was invaded by Greece" is plausible.

I am of the second group. Here are my arguements:

1. (Richwales's thought; I participate to him as well) Makarios was (IMO) clearly and unambiguously saying that he considered the Cyprus coup to have been organized and carried out by the de facto government of the day in Greece (i.e., the military dictatorship). The difference btw. "Cyprus was invaded by Greece" and "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military dictatorship (junta)" is not significant to split.

2. At that time, Greece was administered by junta (military dictatorship);

3. The legal participations of Greece in international meetings at that time was by that military junta of Greece. None of the other participant countries objected the participation of military dictatorship of Greece with the reason of the type/legality of the administration in Greece.

4. Till now, no decisions have been made by later Greece's authorities to nullify the military dictatorship (junta) of Greece and annihilating the legality of military dictatorship.

5. (MY MOST IMPORTANT REASONING) History registers the actions not the thoughts/wills. Greece's nation's thought about Greece's government handling on Cyprus is a thought/will; Greece's government handling on Cyprus is clearly an action. Makarios does not say that A democratic government in Greece must have invaded Cyprus instead of a military dictatorship (junta)!. What Makarios clarifies is the invasion of Cyprus by Greece. The data of the character of the then-government in Greece is second-degree important compared to the action of the then-Goveernment of Greece on Cyprus.Waltersamedical (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Four comments.


 * First, I hope you are honestly a new person here. We've had a ridiculously lengthy battle going on against a disruptive editor who has been banned but refuses to leave us alone.  Please understand that some people here are (with very good reason) skeptical of (apparently) new editors who turn out to be sockpuppets of that banned disruptive editor.  If it does turn out that you are a genuinely new editor, you are welcome here as long as you respect Wikipedia's policies, but please be prepared to spend time convincing some extremely wary people (myself amongst them) of your good intentions.  Rest assured that if you are in fact a banned sock, you will be indefinitely blocked from editing anywhere in Wikipedia; hopefully this tentative possible accusation will turn out to have been premature and mistaken, but I do not enjoy being taken for a fool.


 * Second, it's generally considered poor form to insert a huge block of quoted text into a talk page. Many people will simply not read it.  Far better to quote the relevant excerpts and include (as you apparently did) a link to an external site with the full material.


 * Third, as someone who really does not have an opinion right now regarding this issue, I feel I do need to point out that Makarios, in his speech, made frequent references to "the Greek military regime", "the Greek junta", and "Greek officers" — but I couldn't find any specific mention of "Greece" having invaded Cyprus. I understand (and may even agree with) your reasoning that since the military dictatorship was the legally recognized government of Greece at the time, the phrases in question were for all practical purposes the same as if Makarios had said "Greece invaded Cyprus".  At the same time, however, I do have to concede that Makarios apparently did not utter those exact words, and the conclusion that this is obviously what he meant by what he said is (or is at least dangerously close to) original research and/or synthesis from multiple sources, which is not allowed here.  Especially when a point like this is clearly known to be contentious, we need to be extra-careful in what we do (or don't do) with our sources.


 * Fourth, rather than rely so heavily on primary sources such as this actual transcript of Makarios's speech, we should be looking for secondary sources to analyse and interpret the speech. (Read WP:PSTS for more about primary vs. secondary sources.)  If there are reliable secondary sources (such as news sources that are not specifically tied to any of the parties in the conflict) which describe Makarios's speech as an accusation against Greece (as opposed to the Greek military rulers), then what those sources say definitely belongs in the article, no matter who might be offended thereby.  But I haven't seen any such sources yet, and you don't appear to have provided any such sources yet.  Please look harder — in fact, I would give you friendly advice not to continue arguing this semantic point until and unless you can back up your claims with reliable secondary sources.  —  Rich wales 08:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your valueble suggestions. I embellished ny edit based on your suggestions. I listed only the quotes of Makarios' speech on 19.07.1974 in UN SC instead of giving the whole speech. Please correct me as much as possible. I am new to Wikipedia and its syntax. I'll continue niceing the edits based on your suggestions.Waltersamedical (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pay attention to Richwales when he says that when you insert long comments, no one will read them. You also need to distinguish between primary sources and secondary sources.  This speech by Makarios is a primary source and is therefore of little value in Wikipedia.  What is more important are secondary sources--scholars who have written in scholarly sources about what Makarios said.  I still see not one single place where Makarios says "Greece invaded Cyprus".  He talked only about the junta and "Greek officers".  Period.  Not an armed invasion by the armed forces of the nation of Greece--only certain officers.  Indeed, it sounds like nothing more than what the US did at the beginning of the War in Vietnam--sent officers to South Vietnam to act as advisors.  At no point, in any neutral secondary source, has that been called an "invasion".  And just because something is in the files of the United Nations doesn't make it any more valuable than any other document.  This is a record of Makarios' speech, nothing more.  --Taivo (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The other issue here is weight. These were comments made by one individual in the heat of the crisis.  Are they really that important or is this just more incendiary text to add to the article?  If this was part of a pattern of accusation and counter-accusation, then it might have some weight, but if it was just a one-time speech, then it really isn't that important.  The key here is how much weight neutral (and I emphasize neutral) scholarly sources put on this.  If they don't put any weight on this, then it is just pointy editing and should not be included here.  --Taivo (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So, Taivo, do you have something to object "Makarios said "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military dictatorship/coup" in parallel with the Richwales' secondary sources (Los Angeles Times, 7/20/74, p. 4; Washington Post, 7/20/74, p. A6; The Times of India, 7/21/74, p. 1) in addition to the primary source (SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL RECORDS, 29TH YEAR, 1780TH MEETING, 19 JULY 1974, NEW YORK http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/PV.1780(OR)&Lang=E + Makarios' Voice Records) ? If your objection still continues to "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military dictatorship/coup" as well as "Cyprus was invaded by Greece", then it would be impossible for me to regard you as an "objective" and "neutral" wiki-user. Because, though I (for the time being) did not find that Makarios apparently uttered those exact words, but I have various sources (1. UN SC Official Document 2. Makarios' Voice Record 3. LA Times/US 4. Washington Post/US 5. The Times of India/IN) that Makarios uttered words parallel with "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military  dictatorship". Waltersamedical (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please try as much as possible to focus on the content here, not on other editors. Again, we need to stick to the secondary sources; read WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:PSTS to help you understand why.  If you can't find reliable secondary sources which report Makarios saying that "Greece" (as opposed to its legitimate or illegitimate military rulers) invaded Cyprus, I would be strongly inclined to say that we should settle for reporting what the secondary sources do say, and leave it at that.  If there is in fact no real difference between the two phrasings, then in my opinion there is really nothing lost by saying Makarios blamed the Greek junta for the invasion (as opposed to expending so much effort in finding some way to say that Makarios blamed Greece for the invasion).  As for Makarios — yes, he was one individual, but he was an extremely significant individual in Cyprus at the time, and central to the conflict, so it does not seem at all to be an abuse of undue weight to report what he said about the crisis as it was unfolding.  —  Rich wales 14:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue of "weight" really isn't about who said something, but more in combination with a reliance on neutral secondary scholarly sources what effect did those comments have. Were they just one-off comments that went nowhere and had no effect on the long-term, overall situation?  Or were they interpreted by others as something more meaningful that led to further actions?  That's why secondary scholarly sources are so important (neutral ones, of course)--they give us a better idea of the weight of something.  --Taivo (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So, for example: According to the sources, did Makarios's speech at the UN (on 19 July 1974) provoke the Turkish military to invade Cyprus the next day?  Or was the Turkish invasion a direct reaction to the coup in Cyprus, and would it have happened on the 20th regardless of whether Makarios had talked about an invasion by the Greek junta or not?  And although our own private speculations or extrapolations might be interesting in a USENET newsgroup, for our purposes here on Wikipedia we need to confine ourselves to what reliable secondary sources say.  —  Rich wales 17:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Um, just in case it isn't already obvious, this ostensibly "new" user is in fact just the latest Justice Forever sock (picks up right where the previous sock left off with the "Makarios said Greece invaded Cyprus" obsession, same bad English, same use of caps). Would somebody kindly do the honors, or am I going to have to file another SPI?  Athenean (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, right, Athenean. This whole discussion is really moot since it is sock-based.  --Taivo (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not yet convinced that the case is solid, but I have opened a new sockpuppet investigation in order to allow a discussion of this question in the place where I understand it belongs. —  Rich wales 18:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Richwales, I do not defend stubbornly "Cyprus was invaded by Greece". Rather, I say, there are clear proofs to say "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military dictatorship/junta". In principle of the traditional writings of History, though they are in essense the same, I am not insistent on the former. Please notice that the Helen users here oppose BOTH "Cyprus was invaded by Greece" and "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military dictatorship/junta". If Helen users (Dr.K., Athenean, Taivo etc.) accept that "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military dictatorship/junta" then that is enough for me. Note, this is utterly said by Makarios. Helen wiki-users object the latter as well. Also, look Tavio. You mention neutral secondary scholarly sources and Were they just one-off comments that went nowhere and had no effect on the long-term, overall situation. Notice that Makarios speech in UN SC on 15.07.1974 summarizes the period 1963-1974 to some extent as well. Makarios also is not an ordinary person on the streets, rather he is one of the key figures of Cyprus history. Hence, his sayings on Greece's coup's action on Cyprus should be placed in the article. There are clearly neutral secondary sources on this issue as well.Waltersamedical (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please be very, very careful not to attack or criticize editors based on their presumed ethnic / national background. Read WP:NPA ("No Personal Attacks").  Cyprus is a very touchy topic area, where discussions can quickly degenerate into shouting matches, and anyone who descends into personal attacks is going to get blocked from editing (at least for a while) in order to protect Wikipedia.  Stick to discussions of content; content should speak for itself, regardless of who is supporting or opposing it.


 * As for including a mention (one sentence should be enough) about Makarios speaking before the UN Security Council on 19 July 1974 and accusing the Greek military regime of invading Cyprus by engineering the coup — as I said earlier, this does appear to be more than adequately documented in several reliable secondary sources (thus, no need to quote official transcripts of his speech) — and Makarios is (as far as I understand) a central figure in modern Cypriot history, whose notability is well established. I would still be wary of citing Makarios's speech in such a way as to imply that his words at the Security Council provoked the Turkish military's reaction; we should not propose that inference unless there are credible sources to back it up.  Perhaps this latter concern is at the root of some of the objections; if so, or if there are other, appropriate reasons not to mention this event, I would certainly be grateful to understand them better.  But again, we need to strictly limit the discussion to deal with the content, not who is supporting / opposing it (or why).  —  Rich wales 21:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Waltersmedical accuses me of being Greek ("Helen"), but anyone who has spent time on this page knows that I've also been accused of being "Turk". Guess that is the badge of being a true NPOV editor here :)  Stop the personal attacks, Waltersmedical, or else you will be subject to being blocked.  Since you're probably a sock of Justice Forever, anyway, this is probably a moot point since you'll be forever banned soon and will have to take up a new identity for your next ban.  I'm sure that Makarios is an important figure in the history of Cyprus, but that doesn't make everything he ever said relevant or able to pass the measure of weight.  Turkey invaded the next day, that means that Turkey's decision was not based on Makarios's speech before the UN.  No invading army can get ready and hit the beaches in 24 hours.  It was just a well-timed part of the invasion, to try to add some legitimacy to it.  It obviously wasn't a causal factor.  So I still think that neutral secondary sources are critical here.  But if this is just another sock, it doesn't matter at all what he/she has to say.  We don't give socks the time of day.  --Taivo (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No Cyprus was not "invaded" by Greece and the only country that invaded Cyprus is Turkey. Turkey is the country which killed the thousands during the 1974. Turkey is the country that infiltrated in Cyprus politics in the early 1960s to increase tensions between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Turkey is the country that has 40000 troops in its Occupied parts and Turkey is the country acting in an arrogant way not recognising the legitimate Republic of Cyprus. I'm sorry but this should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findblogging (talk • contribs) 13:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Why did Turkey intervene?
Maybe this opinion by British MP Michael Stephen could also be useful in further developing this article in WP. --E4024 (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request declined
This is a courtesy notification that an amendment request this page was named in has been declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2012

 * Other links
 * North Cyprus Free Press An online newspaper dedicated to North Cyprus

Ncfp (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: solely on the basis that the requesting user's username matches the external link and therefore I see promotional intent. If an editor in good standing sees good reason to add this EL I will not object; however, I will note that the EL section of this article could use some trimming. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Editors,

You very kindly agreed with my request to amend the North Cyprus page to include a section on the economy and most importantly to notify readers of a highly sensitive 'test' case called Kulaksiz 5, which will determine the fate of thousands of Expats and foreign homebuyers there. Your agreement, along with one or two other editors, is only in principle, and the request was denied in relation to the current form of my recommendations ″undue weight". May I make a new suggestion therefore. How about I reduce the 'impact of the property abuses on the economy' parrt to one short paragraph citing the Kulaksiz case there, and then have a separate page on the Kulaksiz 5 case, as did the "orams" case which also was a landmark case there in North Cyprus. That is suggestion 1. Suggestion 2 would be one short paragraph on the 'effect on the economy part' of my recommendation, and one separate short section on Kulaksiz 5 case. Reason being that, in order to get agreement from yourself and the other editors, I really need to know what kind of "weight" I should be aiming for. If not I could see there being a lot of suggested amendments and requests, before anything is actually added. This would be a shame as there is a highly publicised and important Kulaksiz 5 court case on the 29th November (2 days time) which is the opening of the Main Case Kulaksiz 5 Residents vs Akfinans Bank. This is the big show down, after 3 years of guerilla court battles over injunctions (Kulaksiz 5 made 5 seperate attempts, including appeals, to get an injunction prohibiting resale of their homes by Akfinans) and it would be timely to have some information keeping people up to date on the case and it's proceedings (even if abbreviated updates, ie once sentence). There are many people in the UK, including members of Parliament who are following the case.

Thank you for your time on this matter.

Kind regards, ToZero

ToZero (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If there's no current article on the cases, I suggest creating a new section with all the sourced details on Economy of Northern Cyprus. Once it's all there, it will be easier to see if it should be on its own page, and it will be easier to determine what should be summarised on this page. CMD (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"the resettlement of many of its inhabitants"
I don't think the lead needs any further detail on the current "the resettlement of many of its inhabitants". Much of the paragraph it is in gives only a short space between two commas for many events, and I disagree that the shifts in population are of any greater importance than the other issues mentioned. The invasion itself gets only a few words. I also don't think that the Greek population from the north can be described as forcibly resettled. Forcible resettlement implies they were taken from one place and put in another, however they were forced from their homes and then settled by two separate groups. Forcibly removed, perhaps. I used "forced from their homes" in the body, which seemed to conform to the source. CMD (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Because of the excessive edit warring on this article regarding the above issue, I have protected the article for 3 days. Please discuss the issue here in a civil manner, and come to an agreement on the wording.  If you come to an agreement in less than 3 days, let me (or any other admin) know and I'll unprotect the article.  If you can't come to an agreement, please don't resume edit warring when the protection expires, but rather start an WP:RFC to get a wider range of opinions.  Note that edit warring can result in blocks even if it doesn't exceed WP:3RR.  <span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#442244;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#447744;">| converse _  22:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good job Scotty. Love the firm hand, the bolding and the warnings. I like your style. :) Only gripe is I don't think that you should have used the rollback tool to revert Alexikoua. But I guess water under the bridge. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 17:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"the resettlement of many of its inhabitants" is simply a very bad summary of the source. Masri145 (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

We have to stick with the source and I agree with Chipmunkdavis, a phrase like "forcibly removed the predominantly Greek population in the north from their homes" conforms the source. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The text in the lead wasn't even attributed to that source until the latest series of edits (leads don't always need sources anyway, as long as they only use information available in the text, see WP:LEADCITE). There's no reason to give particular prominence to this one effect of the war. CMD (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * When you say "giving particular prominence to this one effect of the war" do you mean you that the 160.000 people that were forced out of their homes is not an important enough fact to be mentioned? That's not very NPOV. If you don't think the resettlement part is important enough then you might as well remove the whole sentence altogether. You either say something according to the source or you don't say it at all. Masri145 (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In a four paragraph summary of Northern Cyprus, we don't need to be giving such specifics. However, contrary to your suggestion, it deserves mention as an effect. This has nothing to do with NPOV, and the argument that sources disagree that much of the population had to be resettled isn't going to go anywhere. CMD (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you really think that being kicked out of your house classifies as "specifics" of "resettlement"? As it stands the sentence does not have a source. You cannot revert the addition of a source to unsourced content. Masri145 (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What we are arguing here is basically a few more words to add more clarity to the current sentence which speaks only of "resettlement". I don't think that we can ignore the fact that one third of the island Greek population was forced to evacuate and use vague terms such as "resettlement". That was a great event. Not a small or a medium event. But a great event of a great social and political catastrophe. It deserves the additional word "forced" to properly describe it. Adding the adjective "forced" is not undue weight for the lead for an event of that magnitude but just a modest adjustment to add some definition to that great calamity. Lumping it all together as "resettlement" is very misleading and leads to reader misinformation. It is just a modest change which does not affect the balance of the lead in any way and in fact clarifies it and adds more balance to it. Not including it is where the real POV lies. Normally I agree with CMD and I can see his way of thinking quite clearly and on most, if not all, occasions I agree with him. This is one time, only one, that I am at odds with his opinion. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 17:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Masri: It's a specific. I doubt any reader would assume that people moving during a war are doing so for fun. A further explanation is sourced in the body, and the edit is more than just adding a source. If it was just adding the source, it would be unnecessary, but not a great issue. Anyone could, at any rate, revert any changes they wanted, hence WP:BRD.
 * @ Dr.K.: It won't lead the reader to misinformation, it'll lead them to the article body where further detail is given. If the proposal is to just add the word forced to the resettlement phrase (or some similar minor wording change), then that's a different matter to the actual edit which was being warred over, which was more than that. I still fail to see how "resettlement" is any vaguer than "tensions", or how the brief summary causes POV in any direction. In both cases the situation is elaborated upon in the body, where there's more room to delve into details, and presumably where readers could be linked to articles providing yet more detail (although there's no guarantees that the linked article would be a good one, of course). CMD (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. I have no dispute with most of your arguments. In that case how about adding the word "forced evacuation of the Greek-Cypriot population" and I'll be ok with that. You can of course tweak this to your satisfaction. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 18:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good idea to get into the differences between the ethnic groups at that point in the lead. It's a common pattern in civil wars or ongoing tension for the population to segregate along ethnic lines (or whatever other lines the war is being fought on), despite what the separate cases may be, be it being kicked out by an invading army, fleeing due to fear of retribution, trying to find a less dangerous place to live, or some other factor. Today's Iraq, for example. It's the result, that of a mass population movement, that is the important message that should be conveyed, and anything else in my opinion puts it in undue proportion to the rest of that paragraph.
 * For the statement that the Greek Cypriot population was evacuated, while I'm unclear of the exact details behind the evacuation of the Greek Cypriots, for whatever reason they clearly weren't all evicted, as they remain a minority population in parts of Northern Cyprus to this day. I'm also willing to bet many Greek Cypriots fled before the Turkish army even reached their houses, as that's a sensible reaction to an invading army approaching.
 * Perhaps we should replace the word resettlement with displacement? ie "the displacement of many of its inhabitants". It's less passive, which I feel may be part of the problem here. CMD (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We have reliable sources which describe that the Greek Cypriots were forced to abandon their homes. We don't have the discretion to call this anything else but forced abandonment or something along these lines. We cannot "blend" the populations together if one part was not forced but the other was. Instead of "displacement" how about "eviction"? As in: "Many Greek Cypriots were evicted from their homes and many Turkish Cypriots relocated fearing for their safety". Again, you are free to tweak as necessary. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 21:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We do have the discretion to use wording that is different to the source, as long as the content is the same. Saying that both populations were greatly displaced is an accurate summative statement. There's no way we should be using a single source which gives no details, and for all we know was switching up words for variety, to claim that one sides movement was completely voluntary as opposed to another's which was completely forced. Turkish Cypriots up to that point had spent a decade being forced into ever more militarised enclaves; it's difficult to see how it could be remotely argued that they moved, both then and during the war, because they wanted to move. How were the Greeks forced to abandon their homes? Was it a declaration by Turkish authorities, or something they did in response to the invasion? Both would be situations in which one could easily use the word forced. Do we have a source discussing Greek evictions (and one noting it at the time, rather than discussing eviction in terms of the prevention of return)?
 * Even putting aside the exact details behind the displacement, there's still been no explanation for how this one issue deserves more treatment than every other historical event which we summarise with just a few words each. The result, in terms of population displacement, is that there was a huge number of refugees. It is the result which we should be conveying in the lead, not the process, which is at any rate far more complicated than "many Greeks were evicted, many Turks were scared". CMD (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the other events are clear enough to summarise in a few words. An "invasion" is an invasion. A "coup" is a coup etc. But an "eviction" is not a "resettlement", it is an eviction and thus has to be described in more detail. But you are making a fair point about the details as to how the refugees were "forced" to evacuate versus their Turkish-Cypriot counterparts. I will investigate. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  22:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that an eviction is not a resettlement, but this is because one covers the loss of a home and another the gain of a home (however relatively unloved). Hence my proposal to replace resettlement with displacement, which was an immediate effect of the war. CMD (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the sources below conclusively prove that the Greek Cypriots were forcibly evicted and Turkey was actually found responsible by the council of Europe for the evictions: In its reports adopted on the 10th July, 1976 the Council of Europe stated that Turkey was responsible for the eviction of the Greek Cypriots from their home.. Noone criticises the Greek side for forcible evictions. Hence we can say that the Turkish Cypriots fled their homes but were not forcibly evicted. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Many of the sources seem to cover a different topic, discussing the eviction in terms of the Turks seizing the property once the Greeks had fled, and not allowing them to return. This is what the European courts ruled on. Source 2 actually seems to discuss evictions post-1975, which presumably are a different matter to any evictions during the fighting. Others discuss the war though. Complicated. However, some sources do validate what's current wording in the article body, which is good. Fair do's, working around your suggestion of using the word eviction, "and an invasion by Turkey in response. This resulted in the eviction of much of the north's Greek Cypriot population, the flight of Turkish cypriots from the south, and the partitioning of the island leading to a unilateral declaration of independence by the north in 1983." I've put the population shifts before partitioning as they (mostly) happened during the flux of war, and split the sentence to prevent it being a massive run-on. Also, as it now discusses both groups separately, it makes sense to me to have the note of partition after that, to show the partition was between those two groups. I've been toying with expanding on the pre-1974 tensions as well, but can't find a way to address it concisely. CMD (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you CMD. I agree completely with your time sequence and the wording you propose. It captures the essence of these sources. Only suggestion perhaps we could capitalise the "North's". Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Capitalising would establish the north as a defined area, which seems reasonable. We could probably also remove that glut of sources currently there. It actually makes it appear less sourced. CMD (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing sources from the lead is a good idea. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 01:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 September 2012
Politely request to have this information added to the North Cyprus Article.

ToZero (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC) RECOMMENDED SECTION TO NORTH CYPRUS ARTICLE

PROPERTY BOOM AND SUBSEQUENT COLLAPSE In 2003 and 2004, intensive marketing in the UK, in conjunction with the prospect of the Annan Plan awaiting ratification, prompted an unprecedented construction boom and influx of foreign homebuyers and Expatriats. The property sector boom had an unparalleled effect on the North Cyprus economy, lifting agricultural workers into the service industries, lifting wages, creating wealth in all sectors and across all socio-economic classes. However, towards the end of 2006, the Foreign Home Buying/ Construction began a rapid decline as it became apparent to the majority of homebuyers and Expats like that titled deeds were not being delivered as per their contracts. The British High Commission posted warnings on their website, highlighting the potential dangers of buying property in North Cyprus to prospective buyers. As events unfolded the problems facing the foreign home buying tourism industry could be split into 3 catagories: 1.	Stealth Mortgages (named as such as the homebuyers they affected were never informed that mortgages were placed on their site after they purchased) were registered by unscrupulous banks on residential sites where homes had already been contractually sold to foreign home-buyers. Thousands of buyers complained they had paid the sale price of their properties but had not received their title deeds due to slow administration processes. Mortgages however, were often granted with full notice to the bank of the existing pre-sold villas, and a number of Turkish Cypriot banks (Akfinans Bank, Universal Bank, Near East Bank, Vakiflar Bank, Limassol Bank and CO-OP bank) had registered their interest at the land registry in Kyrenia, having declared the collateral as "bare-land", and neglecting to mention the pre-sold villas. The most famous case involving 17 elderly British Expatriats, is the Kulaksiz 5 Case. The residents have attended court over 100 times, in an attempt to stop Akfinans Bank from evicting them, after Akfinans Bank bought their homes from auction as a result of a defaulted £38,000 loan, taken out after the residents signed contracts and had partially built homes. Ertu Kader of Akfinans Bank has been exposed for fraudulently declaring the land as “bare land” when registering the banks mortgage interest, despite the Akfinans’s commissioned survey report showing 13 partially built homes on the site. At default judgment hearings Kader/Akfinans failed to report the existing of the homeowners to the court and took a judjement based on false pretenses. Marion Stokes of the Home Buyers Pressure Group claimed that over 1500 other home buyers were in the same position as Kulaksiz 5, awaiting the outcome of the long drawn out court process. 2.	Title deed Ransom so called because when home buyers had finally obtained Permission to Purchase documents (PPT’s) and had paid their taxes and stamp duty, Landlowners and Developers held onto the title deeds in lieu of extra payments. Very often in the 10’s of thousand pounds. 3.	Unfinished Infrastructure hundreds of residential sites were never finished, with roads, or connected electricity and water. Often disputes arose over build quality of the homes.

ToZero (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. RudolfRed (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The Article on Northern Cyprus is not strictly incorrect for the time-related information. However, times have changed in Northern Cyprus and over the past 8 years, since the Annan Plan was not ratified a number of factors have affected the economy, and should be added to or replace the economic data in the Economy Section.

The entire economy of Northern Cyprus has suffered due to 2 main factors weighing down on the Foreign Home Buying/ Construction industry. The first is "stealth mortgages", which are mortgages placed on sites where villas have already been contractually sold to foreign home-buyers but who have subsequently not received their deeds due to slow administration processes. Those mortgages have often been given with full notice to the bank, of the existing pre-sold villas, and a number of Turkish Cypriot banks have registered their interest at the land registry in Kyrenia, having declared the collateral as "bare-land", and neglecting to mention the pre-sold villas.

There is also sufficient evidence to show that Human Rights Violations have been claimed in Northern Cyprus especially by Expatriats living there who face eviction and blackmail, and who have suffered due to a lack of "freedom of press". The Cypriot banks and their owners, have considerable political interest due to the level of borrowing the TRNC government does, openly, and on a monthly basis, to bank-roll their public sector. There has also been a number of claims of influence by the banks over the judicial system.

Finally, similar to the Orams Case, a new property abuse case has surfaced over the last 4 years, which is referred to as "Kulaksiz 5". This case is a landmark case and a household name throughout the TRNC as it looks to decide the fate of 17 British Expatriat Home Owners residing in Karsiyaka 18 miles west of Kyrenia, but ultimately, stands as a "Test" case for over 1500 property buyers who have discovered mortgages on their land, taken out without their knowledge or consent, and who were never informed by bank or borrower. In virtually all cases the loan has defaulted, and in some cases sale of memorandums have been granted by courts to the banks, in violation of the "Principles of Natural Justice" and those banks are actively pushing for Public Auction dates, to sell the whole site, including the 3rd Party villas of the Home-Buyers.

KULAKSIZ 5 CASE The Kulaksiz 5, is an estate of 13 villas built in 2004 and finished in 2005. 3 villas were given to the landowner in return for the land, and 10 were sold by the developer Kulaksiz Construction, to 10 elderly couples from the UK. During 2005 Akfinans Bank, gave a loan to the landowner as guarantor and developer as loan applicant. The initial loan was £1600, given on March 16th 2005, but no payments were ever made. A subsequent loan was made of 83000tl, on 11th November 2005, at a 250% interest rate. Neither the bank or the landowner, or the developer informed the homebuyers. The loan was registered by Akfinans at Girne District Lands Office on 11/11/2005, with the description of the land being "tarla", or bare land (in English) despite all the villas having been fully completed, and payments schedules also completed, barring the final payment for transfer of deeds.

In 2006 Akfinans Bank filed a case for default judgement as a result of non-payment of the loan although at no point was any of the 3rd parties informed either by the courts or by the bank or the landowner or developer all of whom were party to the case. A judgement was finally given, and Judge Mehmet Turker allowed the two parties to agree the Judgement default interest between them. A figure of 80% quarterly compounded interest was agreed between the developer, the landowner and the bank, and the loan amount continued to increase.

Finally, in 2008, the Estate Agency Law was brought into being allowing homeowners to register their contracts at the land registry, whilst they await transfer of title deeds.

On arriving at the Land registry in April 2008, some residents and homeowners on Kulaksiz 5 were first informed of the presents of a mortgage on the site, 3 years after the mortgage had been granted.

At first the residents consulted their lawyers who were initially confused, others were advised not to worry that the mortgage would be removed.

In November of 2008 the residents were informed by a Junior Lawyer at Mentesh Law Office of Kyrenia that a court order was about to be given granting the sale of their properties, if they did not collectively pay off the mortgage at which time was over £113,000.

The Kulaksiz 5 residents took further advice and in February 2009 launched a case against the Akfinans Bank, Yuksel Yilmaz the landowner, and Kulaksiz Construction the developer. Over the following 3 years, the local courts in Girne have rebutted numerous applications for an injunction to stop the bank evicting the homeowners, and injunctions to stop them selling on their properties. The courts gave the Kulaksiz home owners no relief, and the main case was set for a 18 months time.

In the spring of 2009 a sale date was given for the Public Auction of all the houses in Karsiyaka, with the Notice of Sale itemising the houses and swimming pools, despite the fact the original loan document had only declared a "bare land". On June 6th 2010, the Nations eyes were focussed on Karsiyaka Square where over 400 British Expatriats and over 200 Turkish Cypriots turned out to witness the public auction of the estate. Founding President Rauf Denktas arrived before the proceedings and announced publicly that the Auction was illegal and would be declared so, and asked that no-one bid on the estate. Finally, a bid was made by an employee of AKfinans Bank. The bank purchased the site from Auction, as the buyer and the seller, and so needed only to pay for taxes and administration costs, and aquired the site of 13 villas worth over £1.3 million based on their initial loan of 83000tl (approx £38000).

Over the following 3 years, the legal team for the Kulaksiz 5 lodged an early appeal to the European Court of Human Rights siting violation of Article 1, 6, 13 and Article one of Protocol 1.

Despite a nationwide campaign to explain the legal facts to both the Government and the public, the Kulaksiz 5 eviction cases have proceeded. The next hearing on the 28th September 2012 will decide whether or not to stay the evictions, pending the outcome of the Kulaksiz 5 owners case against the bank. Whilst in most countries, it is unheard of for courts to allow evictions to take place, before the outcome of a main case disputing the true ownership, in this case, the TRNC courts have stated that evictions can take place before the main case has been heard.

Rauf Denktas, before his death claimed that the Kulaksiz 5 case was a case of negligence by the bank, or Fraud, one or the other, and officially reqeusted an investigation by the Attorney Generals office. The Kulaksiz 5 residents also made a request for an investigation but to date no investigation has ever been carried out.

The case will decide the fate of over 1500 homeowners, who purchase their homes prior to any mortgage, but where that mortgage has become the over-riding interest with the possability of leading to sale and eviction.

ToZero (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:. I do not see any sources to back these claims, and no consensus to add these sure-to-be controversial claims to the article. If you can get both feel free to reactivate the edit request. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This original edit request of 14th September was answered unsatisfactory with not done. However, the reason for the denial quite correctly asserts that no sources or consensus was provided.

I have today included the first of many sources to be added, and a source in good standing. Hurriyet newspaper (a National Newspaper in Turkey) began reporting on the Kulaksiz 5 case in March 2011.

Reference 1: Turkish National Newspaper Hurriyet:

On the 6th March 2012, Today's Zaman followed the story and reported receiving letters regarding the case.

Reference 2:

On the 30th April 2012 the Afrika Gazette published factual documents of the case, most specifically the "Akfinans Survey Report" which was a revelation to the entire country, as it proved beyond doubt that the bank were aware of the 17 homebuyers, as their houses (although Partially built) were indeed detailed on the survey report. Akfinans had claimed on their Land Registry documents at the time of registering the mortgage, that the collateral was just "a bare field".

http://www.afrikagazetesi.net/Afrika-Arsiv/Nisan2012/30nisan2012.pdf

The following Newspapers in Turkey: Hurriyet & Todays Zaman have informed the Turkish public of the story of Kulaksiz The following Newspapers in TRNC: Cyprus Today, Cyprus Star, Afrika Gazette, have written extensively on the problem. All of the articles can be provided as sources if necessary.

May I point out that the Kulaksiz 5 Site Case, is the key "test" case for over 3000 foreign homebuyers in the TRNC, who bought homes, and suddenly found themselves the victims of blackmail and stealth mortgages. This blackmail, in turn, is vitally important to explain the sharp downturn in the economy of the TRNC between 2007 and 2012, as the primary rise in living standards in the TRNC was due to an influx of retired European Homebuyers, and the subsequent collapse of so many restaurants, supermarkets and local businesses, is due to those Foreign Homebuyers returning home, as a result of blackmail, stealth mortgages and inability to obtain title deeds.

CONSENSUS:

The consensus of the problem can be found in the following articles on NorthCyprusFreePress who applied to have the page edited on the 6th October.

The following reference is a list of search results all relating to different NCFP articles on the subject. A substantial percentage of the articles site/quote the above national newspaper, and make comment and analysis on the subject.

Consensus 1:

Further consensus can be found through the website which documents and follows the Kulaksiz Case. The site is included in the reference below:

Consensus 2:

In addition the NGO Make North Cyprus Better (MNCB), has a number of updates, including judgments regarding the case and comment and analysis of regarding the incredible injustices to Kulaksiz residents and other sites. Most importantly, they sponsored the production of a film, which highlights the problems to all North Cypriot Home-buyers, using the Kulaksiz 5 Case as the central case study. All facts and documents regarding the history are included in the short film (26 mins)

The film can be seen on the MNCB website:

Consensus 3:

Today I have provided references and sited a number of sources of consensus on the subject below.

I respectfully request that the page be Edited to at least mention the devastating effect of Kulaksiz 5 Residents plight, the extent to which thousands of home buyers are relying on the case to be won by Kulaksiz 5 residents, and the affect on the real economy in TRNC as a result of property and mortgage crimes/abuses by banks, lawyers and the government alike.

End of Request — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToZero (talk • contribs) 7 November 2012
 * Please see this page for the Wikipedia definition of "consensus". I will leave this edit request open for others to weigh in. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with above. Looks there are sources now, but consensus can only be generated by discussion here and agreement by Wikipedia editors. That said, I think the amount of text above is probably undue weight for the subject, so I would not support the change in its current form. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the undue weight concern, but I think that the info is very important. Two months ago I spent 2 weeks in North Cyprus, and I noticed that along the coast there are literally thousands of newly built houses which are empty. Reading what the user above wrote, I think that at least one reason for this situation is now clear (the other being the financial crisis), and surely this problem deserves to be mentioned (with the due weight) in the article. Alex2006 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)