Talk:Turkish Cypriot enclaves

Events leading to the creation of the enclaves
UNFanatic, I think that your recent addition to this sections are a bit superfluous. This article is about the enclaves themselves and while the events leading to their creation are important and should be mentioned, I think the section about them cannot be the largest section in the article. Those tragic events should have their own article and mentioned here as a summary.

Moreover, I can't get over the idea that your additions are a bit POVish, I mean reading the section gives out the idea that the Turkish Cypriots were the only ones responsible for the situation. Of course they have a part in the responsibility but I doubt that the Turkish Cypriot community chose to live in plight, poverty and lack of housing, water etc just to make a political statement.

Please, consider if you should change some of your additions. --Michalis Famelis 12:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted it to the version before my edits. I am a little flustered that this article needs expansion but no one want to improve on a supposed POV statement and use the English language to turn it into something non-POVish. I would like some more help but here but no one is willing...all it is up until now is revert instead of edit/revise.(UNFanatic 20:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Lies, lies and more lies: The size of enclaves
One of the favourite lies of the Turkish propaganda machinery has to do with the size of the enclaves. The issue is in fact one of simple mathematics. On the one hand it is an accepted fact that about 20.000 turkish Cypriots left their homes during the intercommunal fighting of 1963/4 and moved to other Turkish Cypriot villages or town suburbs many of them under the control of Turkish militants; and many of them later returned to their homes. That means that under 15% of Turks relocated, the remaining 85% remaining in their original places of residence. How then can it be that the territories occupied by Turkish Cypriots were reduced from 30% to 3% as claimed by the article?

In fact the 30% figure refers to a claim made by Turks that 30% of all cypriot land is the property of Turkish Cypriots, an allegation that is in itself a lie. According to the official Colonial land registry and the Cyprus Republic Land Registry records only 12.3% of all Cypriot land (and only 16.7% of all privately owned land) was owned by Turkish Cypriots. This figure includes all land owned by Turks, not just land in the built up areas. The actual built up areas of the Turkish Cypriot villages or the Turkish quartes of the mixed villages or the towns of the island represented a much smaller proportion of the actual territory of the island. As for the 3% figure, it is a distortion of a figure given in various reports of the built up areas of Cyprus that had come under the control of Turkish Gunmen. Most of the areas where the Turkish Community continued to live after the 1963/4 events did not form part of these areas.Larisv 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute Situation in the Enclaves
The section states that there was a "long-standing Turkish Cypriot campaign to end all social, political and economic co-operation with Greek Cypriots". This seems to promote the Greek-Cypriot viewpoint that Turkish-Cypriots "self-segregated" while not even mentioning the Turkish-Cypriot stance that the enclaves were created for protection against violence being inflicted upon them by the Greek-Cypriot community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.188.248 (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong and incomplete
This article contains wrong information. First of all, Kophinou is not Larnaka (Larnaca), it is Geçitkale. But in 1963-74 period, people simply called it "Köfünye". And Baf Kasabası (Paphos City Centre) is not in KKTC, which is TRNC. In addition, all Turkish villages were Turkish Cypriot enclaves, according to the article. But no, there were some villages like Morphou, called "mixed" villagea. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)