Talk:Cyprus/Archive 6

• Here is the next iteration that incorporates (faithfully, I hope) all the previous comments and (again I hope) is sufficiently neutral to satisfy all sides. If this is acceptable, we can move it to the main article. Please let me have your feedback. --Zlerman (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the first population census after the declaration of independence, carried out in December 1960 and covering the entire island, Cyprus had a total population of 573,566, with Greek Cypriots comprising 77% of the island's population and Turkish Cypriots 18% (other nationals accounted for the remaining 5%) ^[1]. According to the last census covering the entire island (April 1973), the population of Cyprus was 631,778 with the Turkish Cypriots estimated at 19% of the total (about 120,000). ^[2].

The subsequent censuses conducted in 1976-2001 after the de facto division of the island covered only the population in the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus government, and the number of Turkish Cypriots residing in Northern Cyprus was estimated by the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Service based on population growth rates and migration data. In the last census of 2001 carried out by the Republic of Cyprus, the population in the area controlled by the government was 703,529. The number of Turkish Cypriots residing in Northern Cyprus was estimated by the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Service at 87,600, or 11% of the total.^[2]

The latest available estimates by the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Service put the island’s population at the end of 2006 at 867,600, with 89.8% (778,700) in the government controlled area and 10.2% (88,900) Turkish Cypriots in Northern Cyprus.^[2] However, the Republic of Cyprus estimate of Turkish Cypriots does not represent the total population of Northern Cyprus. In addition, the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Service also estimated that 150,000-160,000 Turkish immigrants (“illegal settlers” in the language of the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Abstract 2007, p. 72) were living in Northern Cyprus, bringing the de facto population of Northern Cyprus to about 250,000. This estimate produced by the Republic of Cyprus matches the results of the 2006 population census carried out by the government of Northern Cyprus, which gives 265,100 as the total population of TRNC.^[3] The total population of Cyprus is thus slightly over 1 million, comprising 778,700 in the territory controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus and 265,100 in the territory controlled by the government of TRNC.

Hi guys - sorry but I have been a little ill - recovering now though.

I think this is about right, although I would personally put (listed as "illegal settlers" in the abstract from the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Service...) to avoid any possibility of objections and edits from disgruntled parties.

Apart from that it's fine. Achieves NPoV and accurate figures.

Thanks for your work Zlerman, I can only apologise for my illness taking me out of action for a couple of days after my return home--Chaosdruid (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused to what consensus was achieved for the paragraph of the Demographics section when I explained a few complaints about it. The current paragraph is less detailed and less referenced than the one me and Chaosdruid prepared. --WhiteMagick (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have had some correspondence with an anonymous editor who added a category tag to the Cyprus page. I deleted it as the category guides say that to add a category there should be enough material in the article to clearly show relevance. I am not concerned with anything apart from that fact, and remain as ever, NPoV. The anonymous user has mentioned the discussion being broadened to the Cyprus Project and so I have included our conversations here on the Project page--Chaosdruid (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I owe a word of explanation to the community: User:NIR-Warrior began making massive changes to this article starting 9 March 2009 at 18:21. This user is now banned for sockpupetting (and also disruptive editing). Since I had a number of clashes with this user over his/her edits between 9 March and 12 March, I am now going over all the edits one by one, keeping what is appropriate and reverting what does not look appropriate to me. You are all welcome to pitch in: this is very time consuming and I will not be able to finish the checking in one session. I should point out that this banned user was making similarly massive changes in other project areas (Ukraine, Moldova) and this somehow will have to be dealt with also. --Zlerman (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The population estimate for the 1st of Jan 2009 is found at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008_MONTH_12/3-15122008-EN-AP.PDF --WhiteMagick (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This file requires login and is therefore unusable. But see my reply to the section "New population estimate" above. --Zlerman (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi.

I just noticed that there is a disambiguation in the cuisine section of the Cyprus article. In particular, the article refers to the traditional cypriot (and also other ethnicities) dip of tahini, as tashi, which is how Cypriots commonly refer to the dip. However the link to the explanation of the dip leads to the Tibetan word for good fortune. I believe the two are unrelated and the error should be corrected. I will try my best to do so, but as I am a newbie on this it would be lovely if someone double checks that i did it correctly.

Regards Michael Skotiniotis

Mskotiniotis (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Done. See also Cypriot cuisine#Mezedes. --Zlerman (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear wikifriends, I'm reading a chronology of the first world war which says that Britain annexed Cyprus in November 1914. This article says 1923. Can someone clarify ?

Thanks Johncmullen1960 (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Most accounts of Cyprus mention its varied history. Would a slight mention of it, and its cultural significance, be an interesting feature for its introduction? Whilst the pre-existing summary is mainly concerned with the (somewhat depressing) political background of the island, surely a balance of themes would be better for those unfamiliar with the country and willing to learn more about it? For instance, take the introductions for Malta or Greece in terms of exploring their archaeological and cultural backgrounds. Here is a proposal of what could be added (bear in mind that not all the references are present, but many can be found in the internal links from within the paragraph):

The island was originally known as Alashiya, an important state during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, and a prominent source of copper mining, from which it derives its modern name. At the confluence of three continents, and often considered to be situated in West Asia or the Middle East,^[1][2] the country has a wealth of history, having been the subject of lengthy periods of mainly Hellenic and intermittent Levantine, Persian, Byzantine, and Arab influences. It is home to its own dialect of Arabic, and the mosque of Hala Sultan Tekke is considered to be the third holiest site in Islam. Cyprus is well known for its world heritage sites, including the Tombs of the Kings. Its location was also significant in Ancient Greek religion and mythology as the site of Aphrodite's birth, Petra Tou Romiou, and is also considered a potential location for the mythical lost island of Atlantis.^[3] The country is also alluded to in the Old Testament as Kittim, a name which went on to be used generally by the Jews in reference to ancient Greeks and Romans,^[4] and has since been the site of the foundation of the Cypriot Orthodox Church.

Any thoughts? - Olympian (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, the lead is already pretty long. Typically, leads shouldn't be longer than 4 paragraphs, and this one already is. Also, the role of lead is to give a general overview of the subject. The historical info you mention is rather sepcific and would be more appropriate for the "History" section. --Athenean (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Olympian. As you've said, many guides about the island are fixed on its background and about how many times its been invaded as well as its archeological 'attractions'. Its certainly a big part of the country's heritage - affecting aspects like the tourism already mentioned, alongside its modern-day culture and national pride (cf. 'island of aphrodite', etc). Certainly if we can mention its tourism and colonialism, surely referencing the periods before that are equally important. Whilst I also agree with what Athenean is saying, couldn't we cut down some of the 'cyprus dispute' content as it seems to be consuming the entire introduction and the details mentioned are even more "specific" (to quote you) than the centuries of historical background. Sure, its extremely important, but there is more to Cyprus than what the current introduction is making out - it seems like the island is simply the site of a never-ending civil war, not a culturally and historically rich location. Just an idea ..... --Danja2 (talk 19:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look back through the mists of time (and into the talk page archive) you'll see that wars have been fought over that intro, many times. Of course it should be shorter, but good luck in actually making it so. Just a warning - I think you're right in what you're trying to do. Vizjim (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this is an encyclopedia, not a tourist brochure or guidebook. Leads need to be short and concise. Take a look at the lead for other countries to see what i mean. This one is already too long as it is.--Athenean (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This was the intro through much of 2006 - Vizjim (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus (Greek: Κύπρος, Kýpros; Turkish: Kıbrıs) is a Eurasian island in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea south of the Anatolian peninsula (Asia Minor) or modern-day Turkey. Cyprus is third largest island in the Mediterranean. The northern area has been occupied by Turkey since it invaded in 1974 (the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is recognized only by Turkey). There is also the United Nations-controlled Green Line separating the two, and two British Base Areas. Cyprus has been a member state of the European Union since May 1 2004.

I would like to discuss the location of "cyprus". If proximity is the case here, Europe is not the closest continent. The European Union membership of the island does not change its geographical location.Why is it refered to as part of the European continent? Giz m87 (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Check Geography of Cyprus - probably best to start such a discussion & achieve consensus there. Vizjim (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I also checked "geoghraphy of cyprus" and the information there is not misleading. However on the "cyprus" section there is a banner on the right side of the page where the location of the island is written as the "european continent". I believe it is best to set it to "mediterranean sea" as mentioned on the banner of the "geoghraphy of cyprus" page. The information concerning the location of cyprus does not match.Giz m87 (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For references:

% of the GDP spent on Education: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tsdsc510&plugin=1

% of GDP spent on education privately: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00068&plugin=1

Foreign language learning: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00056&plugin=1

Expenditure on Education based on GDP per capita: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00069&plugin=1

Tertiary Education: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-28042009-AP/EN/3-28042009-AP-EN.PDF

-WhiteMagick 25 June 14:24

I'm wondering why is the French name for Cyprus featured at the beginning of the article. I can certainly understand Greek and Turkish being there because they are spoken in Cyprus, and English because this is English Wikipedia. But why is French there?? As far as I know, French is not widely spoken in Cyprus. Probably only spoken by a few expats. Dennisc24 (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the French translation of Cyprus from the first paragraph. From what I can see, it's completely unnecessary. If anyone thinks it should be there, by all means put it back but please let me know why. I'm simply curious. Dennisc24 (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Cyprus is officially an associate member of [La Francophonie], but I agree that it seems a pretty unnecessary place to have the French name. Vizjim (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Although there are two seperate articles on Greek- and Turkish-Cypriots, might I suggest an article about the unanimous population of the island — Cypriot people in general. I suggest this in the light of fairly recent genetics research which presents evidence that Cypriots form a united, single genetic group on the island which is distinct from the ethnic groups of so-called "mainland" Greeks and Turks. The only difference, therfore, between the island's two major groups is linguistic. Here are a few sources which represent this data, (although more primary sources would be required for the proposed article itself):

Nearly identical

percentages [of β-thalassaemia] were observed for the two Cypriot groups, quite different from those for β-thalassaemia patients from Greece and Turkey. This suggests close contacts between the two Cypriot communities during many centuries without a major recent influence from Greek or Turkish β-thalassaemia

carriers.

“In Cyprus there are only ever Greeks or Turks” right? So do we mean Greek or Turkish Cypriots? Not so, one Medical Doctor and Researcher Dr. Geoffrey Dean claims: “there is little genetic difference between Greek and Turkish Cypriots.” Historically, he argues that Ottoman soldiers who took up residence in Cyprus after the Conquest of 1571 were known to take up to four Greek Christian wives and that intermarriage was more common than people think. Pointing to another blood disease, Dr Dean argues that the fact that the Thalessemia gene is prevalent in 16% of all ‘Greek’ and ‘Turkish’ Cypriots is evidence that their blood group is very similar and quite different to Greeks and Turks. In fact, Dr Dean says: “They are Cypriots not Greeks or Turks.” Dean is not the only medical researcher to construct such a claim. According to research by a Turkish genetics engineer Erol Baisal who contacted research about 15 years ago, the DNA genes of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are almost identical and undoubtedly much closer than the corresponding genes of the ‘mainland’ Greeks and Turks. In an article published by both Yeni Duzen and Politis in 1990, it is reported that samples taken from 116 Turkish Cypriot, 303 Greek Cypriot, 235 Turks and 174 Greeks were tested in the US by Professor Huisman who claimed that even though the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot customarily saw their ‘mainlands’ as there genetic source, they were very far apart and different from both. Exceeding their own expectations, the researchers echoed the fact that certain codes in the DNA can only be found in Cypriots, which they believe serves as conclusive proof that Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot together formed one DNA group.

Moreover, according to data collected by AJHG, regarding the Phoenician influence on the Mediterranean (article , table ), Cypriots share closer Haplogroups with Arabs and North Africans, than European Greeks or Turks.

Arabid Haplogroups 43%
- J2 37%
- J1 6%

North African/Somalid 25%
- E1b1b 20%
- T 5%

Europid 20%
- R1b 9%
- I 8%
- R1a 3%

Based on this genetic research, more of which has been published, I think an article addressing the single ethnic group of Cypriots would be viable, even if only to demonstrate this research. Many Wikipedia articles address Greek- and Turkish-Cypriots as being merely Greeks and Turks, yet this data indicates that whilst there are some culural ties between said communities, Cypriots — due to frequent invasions by Assyrians, Arabs, Persians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Anatolians, etc., and intermarriage (of both persons and culture; such as their cuisine, music and dialects, including Cypriot Arabic) — form their own ethnic group. —Olympian (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Gypsy and Italian minorities in Cyprus could be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.75.94 (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of this comically blatant propaganda about Turks supposedly withdrawing to small enclaves? They did it becasue view was better? They did it because they really wanted to leave their homes and towns behind and self-imprison themselves and UN had to feed them so they would not starve? Play all the word games, if that is all left to do, reality stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.118.177 (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the Cypriot currency is actually the euro ; not the AUS as it was said in the article.

Greek Cypriot currency is the Euro, it used to be Cypriot Pound. Turkish Cypriot is Lira, TL (turkish lira), or YTL (yeni turk lirasi (new turkish lira)) It is the same currency that is used in Turkey. Zara Cyp (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The area is off according to the List of countries and outlying territories by total area page. And also the area in miles is larger than the area in kilometers. Obviously there is an error that should be changed. However, when I went to correct it, it said do not remove per WP:MOSNUM. Also population density should be checked with the area. Evride (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Geography of Cyprus article, it should be: 9,251 km2 (3,572 sq mi) WAY OFF currently - MOSNUM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.144.49 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The flags are missing.. There should be the Greek Cypriot white flag, which is present and also the Turkish Cypriot red and white flag which is not there. Not to be confused with Turkey's flag, the colours are reverted. Zara Cyp (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

just a little detail: those leaves next to the halloumi cheese are not mint leaves, but parsley leaves.

Mrtyalcin (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I cannot edit this page, may be due to my account being Dutch. However, the page for northern Cyprus exists, but it doesn't show in the disthinguish template because the crosslink is wrong. If someone able to edit could change;

to

it would work. HoundDog (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Link to disambiguation works as well, whatever everyone prefers. Just thought I'd clear up that the page exists but the link was simply wrong - HoundDog (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoever wants to visit cyprus. They can see there are two countries in the island. It is clear that the south cyprus rules don't work north of the island! People who are asking refference this is so clear just come and visit. Maverick16 (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

However There is a border between two country. Maverick16 (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that Cyprus is de facto partitioned, your additions are unnecessary, as the info you have put into the lead is already mentioned several times in the article (lead, infobox, History and Geography sections). Don't be surprised if it is removed. --Athenean (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't Cyprus be considered Communist if the ruling party is Communist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.59.88 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Though the ruling party has communist roots, its policies on private industry, with low corporation tax, few state owned businesses etc. and that fact that the political system in Cyprus remains that of a democratic republic, means it is not a communist state. Cyprus could be described as a socialist-run state at present. 87.228.193.251 (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

it was told that in 1789 cyprus people put their "stomed their birds that they killed befor cooking" to kill any dieases —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.189.173.25 (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I've nominated this for "good article" status, as the old edit wars seem to have finally calmed and a stable article is emerging. It would be nice to get to Featured Article status one day, but that's probably impossible given the nature of the topic: however, this is at least a start. Vizjim (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but how can this article become featured if the information on the page is incorrect? As you may have noticed this article is rather biased. In order for it to become a feature the article should aim to feature both cultural aspects of Cyprus, forget the war, that just brings up bitterness on both sides! just include relevent information about Cyprus now. 94.171.217.54 (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to say this for Turkish people, we aren't spell Southern Cyprus Republic to Republic of Cyprus. So This article's name must change to Southern Cyprus Republic.(Güney Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti) Because some countries don't accept cyprus one country. Note: Sorry, my english is terrible... --Ozozcan (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ozozcan - Actually, all countries apart from Turkey recognise the Cypriot government as the government of Cyprus. Only the Turkish government has another policy. Vizjim (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, Turkey does not recognize the Greek Cypriot government as a republic, naming it the Greek Administration of Southern Cyprus (Güney Kıbrıs Rum Yönetimi). --Mustail —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustail (talk • contribs) 15:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not just Turkey, Pakistan and Turkey but Pakistan isn't very important. And yes you're right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozozcan (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have evidence that Pakistan recognizes the TRNC, could you add it to Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus? As far as I know, your statement is not correct. I certainly wouldn't view Pakistan as "not very important." Vizjim (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea that this is a good article is ridiculous. No objective editor is going to look past all the bias loaded inclusions and accept this nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.135.27.28 (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

where the article talks about prostitution, it refers to Cyprus as a portal from which prostitutes enter the European Union. There is no evidence to back this and it is pure speculation. In the same section, it is also noted that some laws are not enforced properly and it talks about "the republic in the north" and law enforcement there. This article is about the Republic of Cyprus and not about an unrecognized group who call themselves a republic in the north. This section of the article fails to distinguish between the goverment controlled areas and the turkish controlled areas and thus talks in general about things that do not apply in both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.71.121 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I also found that section a concern. SilkTork *^YES! 01:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The situation has changed since that paragraph was written (though its point about Cyprus being a route for trafficking is backed up by two references, and the fact that the US State Department places it on Tier 2 for trafficking). The current government has made some good efforts towards overcoming sexual exploitation of foreign workers. I will update as/when. Vizjim (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also a bias issue in the part which discusses the Turkish intervention in '74. It heavely favor<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>s the Greek Cypriot side of the <script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>st<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>ory and only mentions the negative aspects of the Turks, not the Greeks who (if not equally so) were atleast partially to blame for the incident and treated Turkish Cypriots no better than the Turks treated them. As an American, I also find it somewhat offensive when the article insinuates that the U.S. aided the Turkish invasion. There is no evidence that the Turks used U.S. intelligence, and throughout the crisis the U.S. pleaded for both sides to use restraint. I think more discretion needs to be used and the writer should stick to the facts and the facts alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.40.66 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article gives an effect, that Cyprus isn't a seperate country. Cyprus is seperated by Turkish and Greek Cypriots. Turkish cypriots don't live in the south. And, the article must write cyprus as a seperate country. The nortern part of the island doesn't belong to Greeks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerli (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, there is a small Turkish Cypriot population in the south, around 5,000 people.Vizjim (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article must change as"Southern Cyprus Republik". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerli (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this article is a joke article about an imaginary place, a united island of Cyprus. What next, an article about modern Europe that suggests it is still all part of an ongoing Roman Empire. The number of Wikipedia rules and guidelines this article breaks must be many. Meowy 22:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The article follows international norms that do not recognise the right of conquest claimed by Turkey. It also states in its earliest paragraphs (and elsewhere) that the island is de facto but not de jure divided, which is the actual situation however much your own biases lead you to believe it should be otherwise. Vizjim (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. This article follows the POV opinions of a little clique of editors who have no interest in reality. A Wikipedia article is meant to reflect and explain things as they are, not as some editors would like them to be. Meowy 16:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources? Specific criticisms? Maybe you could actually try editing the article? Vizjim (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already given my specific criticism: this article is about an imaginary place, a united island of Cyprus. I won't be editing this article have because it is probably owned by a clique of editors who will just revert or remove anything that moves this article beyond its current unsatisfactory state. Meowy 03:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to bring to your attention Section 2.6: Recent History. The entire section is drenched in vehemently anti-Turkish bias. Particularly, paragraph 1:

Firstly, the Republic of Cyprus is described as having "reached great levels of prosperity, with a booming economy and good infrastructure" These are very subjective terms of description, and no citations are added to back them up. Worse still, the parallel comparison with Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus merely states that "area of the island not under effective control of the Republic of Cyprus, Northern Cyprus, is dependent on help from Turkey". By describing the North as "the area... not under effective control of the Republic of Cyprus" the author is taking sides. Furthermore, description of the North should run parallel to the South in describing government system and economy.

Also, the paragraph incorrectly states that Republic of Cyprus "is a member of the UN, the European Union and several other organisations by whom it is recognized as the sole legitimate government of the whole island." Yes, the South is recognized as a de jure state, but not as the "sole legitimate government of the whole island" or the UN's Annan plan wouldn't have to tried to split the island between Greece AND Turkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MAKootage (talk • contribs) 04:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

THIS article is about the Republic of Cyprus, which is the sole internationally recognized government of the article. Stuff about Northern Cyprus being "semi-presidential" and whatnot does not belong in the "Recent history" section of this article. There is a separate article for Northern Cyprus, where that can be added. --Athenean (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Annan Plan did not try "to split the island between Greece AND Turkey." Vizjim (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

@MAKootage: Let's look at the hatnote at the top of the article: What does it say? This article is about the internationally recognized island state. That's right, this article is about the Republic of Cyprus, also known as the "South". There is a separate article about Northern Cyprus. I'm getting tired of repeating myself. --[2[User:Athenean|Athenean]] (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

@Vizjim: Where does the article say that? --Athenean (talk) 19:5<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>3, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't - I was quoting MAKootage's remark, above. Vizjim (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

@Athenean: Well, I think the revised "Recent History" is more appropriate. It's not my version, it's yours, but it's fair. Regarding the subject of the article, I disagree. Cyprus as a term could refer to either North or South, since both Republics use the proper noun in their names. MAKootage (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Regarding your point, well, that is the wikipedia consensus for these articles. The reason the Republic of Cyprus is referred to as Cyprus is because most reliable English-language sources use "Cyprus" as shorthand for the Republic of Cyprus, preferring "Northern Cyprus" for the entity in the North. --Athenean (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not in the spirit of the word Cyprus to refer only to the Republic of Cyprus, a mere portion of the island. When most people say Cyprus, they think of an island in the Mediterranean split into a Greek and Turkish republic. Wikipedia is a collection of human knowledge, not a spokesperson for the UN. We should therefore define Cyprus the way it is perceived of by most people. MAKootage (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The current situation reflects the prevailing consensus on Wikipedia. If you want to change that, you are going to have to start a major discussion and achieve a new consensus. --Athenean (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Major discussion and emerging consensus is happening right now on this very talk page MAKootage (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

CYPRUS IS A DIVIDED ISLAND AND THIS MUST BE REFLECTED IN THE PAGE. WHETHER IT IS ACCEPTED OR NOT, THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE STATES ON THE ISLAND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.175.243 (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

To me, this is meaningless as well as inelegant. What is a "Eurasian" island? I have never heard that term in the literature. Cyprus is an island, so it is not part of the Eurasian landmass. Is Japan a "Eurasian" island? Is Rhodes? Do we say that Sicily is a "Eurafrican" island? I don't see why Cyprus should be singled out in this manner. To me, the most elegant solution is "Cyprus is an island country in the Mediterranean". The "Eurasian" bit is clunky as well as unnecessary. Anyone who looks at the map can see where Cyprus is located with respect to the major landmasses. We don't need to tell them. --Athenean (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The concept of Eurasia is well documented, and any online search will reveal a multitude of references both germane to Cyprus and not. We do not say that the Italian island of Sicily is Eurafrican (though that is not inaccurate) as that is not necessarily required and given its proximity to Italy (Europe) ... but it is in this case given the ambiguous nature of the country's location (subject to prior edit warring) and various conflicting sources (which may say it is in Asia or Europe). Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No source on Cyprus that I have seen describes it as "Eurasian" . I searched each of these books for "Eurasian" and...nothing. I will look at encyclopedias as well, but I'm rather skeptical any of them describe Cyprus as such. I think it's best to let the map do the talking. "Cyprus is an island country in the Mediterranean" is about as neutral as it gets, and far more elegant than "Eurasian". If you want to minimize edit-warring, that's probably the way to go. Lastly, what about Malta or Lampedusa? They too are close to Africa and their position is ambiguous, and we could easily say that they are "Eurafrican". But we don't, do we? --Athenean (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook: , Lonely Planet , EU , Library of Congress . All describe Cyprus as a Mediterranean island. None do as a "Eurasian island". Islands are described in terms of which body of water they are in. Not which landmass they are closest to. It just doesn't make sense to describe an island in terms of the nearest landmass. --Athenean (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the CIA includes it in the Middle East (using a map of Europe to locate it), the EU website refers to it also (obviously) as a European country, Lonely Planet notes it flows on the waters of the "European Mediterranean", etc.

Inexactitude aside, its fairly common in geopolitics: a link has been provided to a volume about Eurasia that devotes an entire chapter to Cyprus; other notations can be found. The fact that it is described as a Mediterranean island is not in dispute, but the long-standing lead appears to have been constructed to preclude edit warring by those who opt to mention that it is part of Asia (given its proximity to Anatolia) OR Europe (given its history and EU membership) -- which a host of sources also indicate in some measure -- when it is arguably a component of both. That mention was removed without comment, and I challenge why. And, of course it makes sense to describe an island in relation to what body of water it is in AND the nearest landmass -- after all, Japan, Indonesia, and a host of other territories are explicitly described this way. Cyprus is little different. As for Malta and Lampedusa, that's for their respective editors to decide. I'm frankly unsure where the skepticism is coming from. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, 'Eurasian' means virtually nothing here: 36% of earth's land is 'Eurasia'. 'Mediterranean' is for sure a more specific term.Alexikoua (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If one supplanted that with 'Asian', which is 30% of the Earth's landmass, it would mean almost as much and be more pointed (as has been done, and for which there is very strong rationale) -- many other articles do just that when it comes to describing similar locales. Take a gander at the article leads of the states in the Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) and you get the drift. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A clearer reference corroborating the location text has since been added. That should settle the matter. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK - the definition is bulky but covers everything - remember that Cyprus is an island as well as a country... its an island so its floating in the sea and isnt attached to anything underwater ???
The Eurasian plate is a continental plate, the division between Asia and Europe on maps is not geological as there are no separate plates of Europe nor Asia. This distinction is a geological one, and so only needs to be included in the Geography (or geology) section(s)
Cyprus is on the Eurasian side of the join between the Eurasian and African plates, and was thrust out of the water when the plates collided - Africa pushing steadily underneath the Eurasian plate forcing the Eurasian sea bed out of the water to form the island of Cyprus/Kibris and on towards Eurasia. It is attached to Eurasia and so is part of Eurasia.
Medditerranean is a sea, and Europe is a political thing, so in geographical terms Cyprus is a Mediterranean Island of Eurasian continent.
On a lighter note, the Isle of Man doesnt even say its an island in its intro !!
Chaosdruid (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say about the Population that 270.000 Turks of 1Million total inhabitants is not 18%. Please change this mistake whoever wrote this. That should be 27% Turks not 18%. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoosT35 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The new estimate for the population on Jan 1st 2009 is 796 875 Source: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=tps00001&tableSelection=1&footnotes=yes&labeling=labels&plugin=1

Education: % of the GDP spent on Education: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tsdsc510&plugin=1

% of GDP spent on education privately: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00068&plugin=1

Foreign language learning: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00056&plugin=1

Expenditure on Education based on GDP per capita: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00069&plugin=1

Tertiary Education: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-28042009-AP/EN/3-28042009-AP-EN.PDF —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 14:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there an actual source for this? I need a reputable source, and obviously wikipedia is anything but reputable. Is a citation for this statement too much to ask? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.129.24 (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There are many reputable links for you to look at in the pages on Northern Cyprus, the duspute and Cyprus in general - if these are not enough I suggest starting with google - use NATO, recognised country and Cyprus in the search box

Mainly it is due to the UN Security Council resolutions 353(1974), 357(1974), 358(1974), 359(1974), 360(1974), 365(1974)

This is a good one to start with, , but if you need any more please ask again

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Another source will be CIA. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cy.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.242.170 (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

IMPORTANT TO MAKE CLEAR WHY THE ISLAND IS DIVIDED AD POINT OUT THAT EVENTS LEADING TO TURKISH INTERVENTION STARTED FROM 1963 NOT 1974! TURKEY DIDNT INTERVENE IN CYPRUS JUST FOR THE FUN OF IT. THE RULING JUNTA IN ATHENS WANTED TO UNITE THE ISLAND WITH GREECE (ENOSIS).. TURKEY WASNT ABOUT TO SIT BY AND WATCH TURKISH CYPRIOTS BE KILLED AND BURIED IN MASS GRAVES FOR THE SAKE OF ENOSIS. TURKEY, UNDER THE 1960 'TREATY OF GUARANTEE' INTERVENED IN PROTECTING THE TURKISH CYPRIOT PEOPLE.. GREECE AND BRITAIN WEE ALSO PART OF THIS TREATY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.175.243 (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The article should describe the entire island of Cyprus, rather than merely the Republic of Cyprus- which is a political entity in the south of the island. There should be a section on the Republic of Cyprus and also the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. I propose a simple solution. The history, geography sections should remain untouched. However, from there the article should branch out into two separate pages on the two republics MAKootage (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it works quite this way. According to WP:NCON#Common_names you must prove that the term "Cyprus" is not the common name for the "Republic of Cyprus" in the English world. The CIA factbook has that the conventional short name for the Republic of Cyprus is simply Cyprus . So things don't look too good for your POV. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Also a quick search for "Cyprus" on the NY Times website. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Also Encarta. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is about Cyprus - that is all three aspects, the island, its people and its history. The present legal government is the Republic of Cyprus and so it will remain on the page about its country.

There are already pages for "history of cyprus" as well as "Northern Cyprus"

This page is about the whole thing and is structurally fine as it is. (well apart from the obvious non-neutral POV, arguing over it was them not us and the constant edit wars)

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Cyprus only effectively governs the south. This leaves a void on information about the political and economic life in the north. MAKootage (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The history and people of Northern Cyprus are extensively discussed in this article, so there is no void on relevant information. On a matter like this, I think it would be worth considering how it is treated by other encyclopedias.--Ptolion (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated previously there is a separate page on Northern Cyprus (click the link!) - and in this article it is thoroughly covered Chaosdruid (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to say it seems quite reasonable to have a separate article on the island of Cyprus. You have a separate article for Ireland as an island, for instance, and another one for the Republic of Ireland. The landmass of Cyprus is, in some sense at least, separate from the Republic of Cyprus. Druworos (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

For me such an action would in a way imply that the 2 governing bodies are equally legitimate. This is just a defacto situation that one day (hopefully soon) will end. Ireland as you know is a completely different case having both the Republic of Ireland and the UK claiming land on it. Something similar takes place in the Island of Hispaniola which accommodates both Haiti and the Dominican Republic. This does not occur on independent island republics that their boundaries extend till their coastlines. Examples are Cuba, Sri Lanka, Madagascar, Bahrain and Malta (although practically two islands). TomasNY (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The term "Cyprus" is synonymous with the Republic in common English usage as I showed above using reliable sources. It is not up to us to reinvent the wheel. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Also there are already pages for the geography of Cyprus which cover the island as a whole, as do the history articles ...however I believe the first question in the section was about political entities which I have already stated have an article for "Northern Cyprus" and covers the defacto political North

Chaosdruid (talk)

Hi all

I just reverted an edit in the history section from Choirokotia back to Khirokitia

I know the name was officially changed in 1987, and we updated everything in 2007 to reflect that, however there is a reason for my change which I hope you can see makes (a little?) sense.

In archaeological books, most reference Khirokitia as they were published over two years ago, and it seems logical to keep this name when talking about the town pre 1980, but esp 1000 AD back to 6000 BC

This is the same as calling Londinium (Roman name) London. Historically it was Londinium and all texts would refer to it as that. I have left the other names as Choirokotia as they are in the lead para etc and so should remain that way.

Comments welcomed - I seem to remember that I was corrected on "Dukinfield, Greater Manchester" when talking about it historically as it was part of Cheshire at the time I was writing about, and not part of Gtr Manchester until the late 20th century

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,

I would suggest using both spellings like this: Choirokoitia (Khirokitia) in the same way as the Department of Antiquities Cyprus does, see: http://www.mcw.gov.cy/mcw/da/da.nsf/All/4EF92D50616EFE49C225719B00314171?OpenDocument

You appear to be under the missaprehension that Choirokoitia and Khirokitia are different names for the same place. Choirokoitia and Khirokitia are two different spellings in English of the SAME place name transliterated from Greek and are NOT comparable as you suggest to the different names London and Londinium. Londinium is the Roman Latin name for London. London and Londinium are different names in different languages for the same place separated by over a millennia in usage (they just happen to be similar - the latter obviously derived from the former). The discrepancy between the two spellings Choirokoitia and Khirokitia of the same place name Χοιροκοιτία (in Greek) arises from inconsistent transliteration from Greek to English. One is not the old name and one the new name, they are the same name just spelled differently.

By way of explanation. In Greek the place name is Χοιροκοιτία. The “X” at the beginning of the word has historically found its way into English as “Ch” as in the words Christ (Χριστός), School (Σχολείο) and Archaeology (Αρχαιολογία) for example. Sometimes the “X” is transliterated as “Kh” instead and even just as “H” since to English ears the Greek letter “X” sounds likes a guttural and rasping “H”.

The “οι”, which occurs twice in the Greek name, is a diphthong which properly pronounced makes an “ee” sound as in the word “cheese”. This is sometimes transliterated as “oi” but more sensibly is often rendered as simply “i” or “e” in English to replicate this “ee” sound.

This should give an idea as to where the two English transliterations the two possibilities from Χοιροκοιτία, Choirokoitia and Khirokitia, arise from.

Putting issues of transliteration aside I suggest that it is more sensible to follow the lead of the Cypriot government antiquities authority and use this form: Choirokoitia (Khirokitia).

Also, in your original comment above you misspelled Choirokoitia as “Choirokotia”.

Lastly, it makes little sense to use "Khirokitia" in the main Cyprus article and then litter the actualy article about the site with the spelling "Choirokoitia", it is bound to throw up confusion.

I hope this is useful feedback, all bests, dds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.4.27.139 (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lots of new information for Cyprus by the government has been published:

http://www.pio.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/CE54D43364456AAEC22576B200326B7F/$file/CYPRUS_IN_FIGURES_2009.pdf?OpenElement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.111 (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

—==Greek Cypriot should be Greek==

I moved these comments that the editor put in the wrong place...I also reverted his edits in the article and asked him to discuss which I assume is what he is doing with the two comments above below. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not only wrong but also unaxeptable to use the term "greek cypriots" and "tyrkish cypriots" when you are refering to ethnic groups. there is no "greek cypriot" ethnic group only Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartiatisl (talk • contribs) 22:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Historicaly the arabs never occupied cyprus. When you talk about the ptolemian and byzantine era you cant say "conquest" because these where greek peoble who controlled cyprus and the greek population of cyprus considered them liberetors —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartiatisl (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You have incorrectly redited the page to put this information in again.

These people were not born in Greece, they were not born in Turkey - They are Cypriots, born in Cyprus and they speak two different languages. Although they speak Greek and Turkish, this does not make them Greek or Turkish.

Your edits are both inflammatory and incorrect. I ask you once again not to include those in the article.

Your next edits are even worse...

(althou Greeks wanted to unify their island with their mother country )

That statement is obviously NOT neutral in its point of view

( not considered conquerors because cypriots are greeks )

That statement is incorrect, inflammatory and non neutral.

Please do not put these back into the article

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough.

If there are 77% greeks and 17% Turks - How many are Cypriot ??

I have put the word ethnic in as it would be wrong to leave simply the word Greek or Turkish, as they are not those nationalities, simply ethnic groups. If consensus is not reached on leaving either Cypriot or ethnic in then this matter must be dealt with elsewhere.

Chaosdruid (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Ethnic" is fine. Athenean (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been looking at other countries listed and find that in some cases just "white" "black " etc are used and in ones such as United States of America they are all listed as African American or Irish American

If we are really to restore this to GA or similar then we must folllow guidelines and standards set elsewhere - ethnic Greeks may not be enough but for now we must let it ride I think

Chaosdruid (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But we should be following the source cited, surely.

According to the CIA World Factbook:

Nationality:

noun: Cypriot(s)
adjective: Cypriot

Ethnic groups:

Greek 77%, Turkish 18%, other 5% (2001)

In other words, a distinction is made between nationality and ethnicity. We also treat the Cypriot nationality, under the Demonym section. My understanding has always been that the terms Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot refer to a combination of ethnicity and nationality, not to distinct ethnic groups per se. ·ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ· 02:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot are both commonly used. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess the problem is caused by the fact that the Infobox field refers specifically to "Ethnic groups". No one is suggesting that we stop using the terms in the rest of the article. ·ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ· 03:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Athenean (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, using that same source, we have the entry for United Kingdom

"white (of which English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) 92.1%, black 2%, Indian 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, mixed 1.2%, other 1.6% (2001 census)"

Now perhaps you see that in some cases even the CIA can be ambiguous ;¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your argument. In regards to ethnicity, it refers to the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, etc. It does not refer to English Britons, Scottish Britons, Welsh Britons, Irish Britons, etc., because that would be redundant. The same applies here. We already know they are Cypriots; this is the article on Cyprus, after all. ·ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ· 04:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I shall quote what I have posted elsewhere on Wikipedia:
You make the distinction between ethnicity and nationality, but with the term “Greek”, do you have any evidence that this distinction is actual? According to all the dictionaries I have checked, including Oxford and Princeton Wordnet, a Greek is “a native or inhabitant of Greece”. So by that very definition, Greek-speaking people in Cyprus, whilst they may have links with Greece, are part of a different ethnic group. Why, by common sense, should the exact same ethnic group exist in Greece and its islands and then also exists thousands of miles away? And why should the Achaean Greeks who landed in Cyprus hundreds of years ago be the only source of Greek Cypriot heritage and genetics; what about the pre-existing aboriginals (the Eteocypriots, etc) and the assimilated subsequent settlers from the Near East, Anatolia and North Africa? Many geneticists who have studied Cypriot DNA have published material confirming that Cypriots are genetically not the same as Greeks and Turks. As for the cultural aspects of ethnicity, Cyprus has endured a completely separate history from that of Greece since ancient times. No ancient Greek poet or writer considered Cypriots to be Greeks, cf. Herodotus and Aeschylus, and it was never a Greek city-state. Since Classical times, Cypriot history has been distinct from Greek up until only very recently: in the Byzantine empire, Cyprus was a mere colony and was sub-ruled alongside the Levant, not alongside mainland Greece or its islands. In addition, there were centuries of non-contact between the two modern-day countries, which lead to separate evolutions of the Greek language, and separate customs being developed in Greece and Cyprus. Many sources list “Greek/Turkish Cypriot” as ethnic groups or communities, including Cyprus: A Country Study from the Library of Congress, as well as most censuses (such as this I found on Google from the British government which classifies Greeks, GC, Turks, TC and Kurds as distinct ethnic groups). Even in the Cypriot census leading up to the Cyprus Convention, and in subsequent censuses, Cypriot people were/are asked to identify themselves as "Greek Cypriot, Armenian, Maronite, Latin, or Turkish Cypriot"; not Greek or Turkish. Why should we automatically judge these sources as incorrect, especially when they are social studies and international censuses. Some sources go so far as to use the term “Greek-speaking Cypriots” instead. For instance, in the Yearbook of the United Nations (such as Volume 1967), in the Journal of Neurological Sciences, and in this TIME article. To quote the seminal post-colonial literary text on Cyprus, Bitter Lemons:

"There are two main ethnic groups living in Cyprus: The Christian Orthodox community of Greek-speaking Cypriots and the Muslim Sunni community of Turkish-speaking Cypriots….But the Greek and the Turkish Cypriots have similar customs, and are indistinguishable in looks (e.g. colour, complexion, height, and attire)."

Other Cypriot-run organisations also use the term “Greek/Turkish-speaking”, including unifiedcyprus.com and thelastdividedcapital.com, amongst others. As for the concept of Cypriot ethnicity, the following anthropological or ethnological studies (some by Cypriots themselves) reference or describe Greek or Turkish Cypriot ethnicity: and , as well as in the brilliant book Divided Cyprus, and in much of Floya Anthia’s well-known published material.

I wrote this to simply demonstrate that many Cypriots self-identify as being merely Cypriot, and that this view of Cypriot ethnicity is supported by several neutral sources, including anthropological studies and international censuses. Whilst the terms "Greek" and "Turkish" are often employed, they usually represent the difference in language between the two major parts of the Cypriot community, rather than claiming that Greek and Turkish Cypriots are ethnically the same as people from Greece and Turkey. Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey have very separate histories (for instance, Cypriots were the only peoples, of the three countries, who endured Venetian, Genoese and British imperial rule and were subject to considerable Egyptian and Phoenician influence in Classical times) and, according to several sources, genetics. Additionally, Cypriot culture has many differences from Greek and Turkish, and the amount of overlap that does exist is usually expected between neighbouring countries and people. So if Cypriots and Greeks are not identical in the way of history, culture and genetics, then what aspects of ethnicity bind them together? Yes, they are both Greek Orthodox, but they are members of different autonomous churches. And, even if we ignore this, does that mean that every Greek Orthodox person (including members of the Churches of Antioch and Sinai in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt) is ethnically Greek? And when the Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the term "Greek Orthodox" as being simply a synonym for the Eastern Orthodox Church in general, would we then have to include every Eastern Orthodox from Latvia to Egypt in the same ethnic group? What about members of the African Greek Orthodox Church? As for the fact that Greek Cypriots speak the same language as Greeks, well, not only is Cypriot Greek an extremely diverse dialect (which, as above stated, underwent a separate historical evolution from that of the language spoken in Greece), but it makes me question the idea that all people who speak the same language must ethnically be the same. So are Austrians in fact ethnic Germans, and the people of the Ivory Coast ethnically French? Even in near-by Lebanon and Egypt, many people identify themselves as simply Lebanese or Egyptian as, for them, speaking Arabic doesn't mean they are part of one large Arab ethnicity.

If the Cyprus Constitution and the country's censuses use the term "Greek Cypriots" instead of "Greeks", then why should we not use the term in the article? —Olympian (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

But it doesn't. The Constitution of Cyprus uses the terms Greek Community and Turkish Community. It also refers even more simply to a Greek or a Turkish citizen of the Republic, clearly not in regards to natives of Greece or Turkey. Furthermore, it calls the country's main religious denomination the Greek-Orthodox Church. You have failed to demonstrate that "many Cypriots self-identify as being merely Cypriot", as calling oneself a Greek Cypriot does not imply that one does not feel Greek. Quite the contrary. How can one be a Greek Cypriot without being Greek? ·ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ· 10:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that providing the above sources from censuses and anthropological studies on Cypriot ethnicity would represent the fact that, for many, the idea of Cypriot, Greek Cypriot and/or Turkish Cypriot ethnicity is considered valid. These published sources cannot be disputed and, whether we agree with the concept of Cypriot ethnicity or not, it is still discussed and acknowledged and hence should be presented in an encyclopaedic article. Nonetheless, to answer your question on Greek Cypriots. From my perspective, the Greek and Turkish in the terms represent the linguistic divisions in the Cypriot population. The term Greek Cypriot merely represents Greek-speaking Cypriots, in contrast to the other linguistic groups on the island. Simply because some Cypriots speak Greek, and acknowledge that they speak Greek, as opposed to Turkish, Arabic, or Armenian, does not mean that the term is employed to present Cypriots as Greeks. Hence why some sources describe them as "Greek-speaking Cypriots" instead. In a contrasting example, most Cretans are simply referred to as Greeks, never as "Greek-speaking Cretans" and very rarely as "Greek Cretans" (unless if the text, prior to using the term "Greek Cretans", has not made it clear to readers that Crete is in Greece). Again, the term "Greek community" may just represent the Greek speaking community; the phrase does not confirm or deny that Greek-speaking Cypriots are ethnic Greeks. Moreover, at the beginning of the Constitution, in the Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, it formally describes the "Greek Cypriot Community". As with this article from UNHCR, Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot are the terms used under "groups", and it also goes on to state that "the majority population of the island has long been Greek-speaking". Per this source, the only census taken of the whole island, in 1960, surveyed Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots, Armenians, Maronites and Latins. Note that whilst the smallest groups are not referred to as, for instance, Armenian Cypriots, the largest two are. Hence, whilst Armenians have been regarded as Armenians living in Cyprus, the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are not simply Greeks and Turks.

In addition to Cypriots who consider themselves Greek Cypriots or Greek-speaking Cypriots (and not Greeks), there are those who consider themselves solely Cypriot. There is a very recent article in the Cyprus Mail, a Greek-language Cypriot newspaper, that has several comments from readers who reveal that many Cypriots agree with the concept of Cypriot ethnicity. One argues that "Cypriots and real Cypriots at heart no matter if you are Greek speaking or Turkish speaking [should] stick together", whilst another states that Cypriots are "not Greek or Turkish .. not from Greece or from Turkey.. or even of those lands, but of Cyprus". I must point out that, as this was free to comment on, I contributed none of the text underneath the article (in case I'm accused of staging this). Therefore, there are numerous examples of Cypriot ethnicity, and whilst I'm not suggesting we edit the article to state that the island is 97% Cypriot, I think stating that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are ethnic groups would not only be in accordance with what several Cypriots and ethnologists argue, but also be a fair middle-ground between those who support the idea of stating that they are simply Greeks and those who believe they are simply Cypriots. With the terms Greek and Turkish Cypriots, at least they are broad enough to appeal to different perspectives.

Additionally, I don't think what I wrote on the Church of Cyprus is being understood. I am not disputing whether or not it is classified as Greek Orthodox (although as I stated, for many, including Britannica and the Oxford English Dictionary, the term is typically used as to represent the Eastern Orthodox Church in general, or as a synonym for the Church of Greece), but the idea of using Greek Orthodoxy as "proof" of Greek ethnicity in Cyprus is pointless, given that the same line of argument would mean that any Greek Orthodox in Europe, Asia or Africa is also an ethnic Greek.—Olympian (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears your "non-Greek Cypriot" identity is a recent phenomenon largely confined to the expatriate community in London, judging by the comments on the Cyprus Mail website. The guy who says "we are definitely not Greeks" has "lived in the UK since 1957". Maybe, after 53 years, he's just a Briton? The same goes for the other contributor, who claims that "only foreign Cypriots truely [sic] understand how important it is to have an identity". Unfortunately for many Britons of Cypriot origin who seem to bear a grudge against Greece, the Greek identity is still very much alive on the island itself, where the Greek flag flies ubiquitously alongside that of Cyprus. Much of the anti-Greek rhetoric is of course coloured by the political events of the 1970s and the involvement of the Greek military junta, and is not necessarily motivated by any real desire for ethnic differentiation.

I suggest you stop cherry-picking only those passages which support your viewpoint. The very same sources you cite directly contradict you, e.g. "By law, Turks living in the north are disallowed from running for parliament in the south, and this is now also under legal challenge," "Large numbers of mainland Turks settled in the occupied north," and "A consequence of this policy was that the Turkish lived side by side with the Greeks, although as separate religious communities — according to the confessional group [Millet] division that was typical under the Ottoman Empire."

As for the constitution, it explicitly defines the Republic as follows: "The State of Cyprus is an independent and sovereign Republic with a presidential regime, the President being Greek and the Vice-President being Turk elected by the Greek and the Turkish Communities of Cyprus respectively as hereinafter in this Constitution provided." I rest my case. ·ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ· 13:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be ignoring core aspects of my argument. Whilst those from the Cyprus Mail article may be restricted to British Cypriots, the anthropological studies and censuses I also listed discuss and acknowledge Cypriot ethnicity, and are published by a range of Cypriot and non-Cypriot writers, ethnologists and local governments. As for your concept that Cypriot identity is somehow "anti-Greek", I would have to disagree. Simply because Cypriots chose to identify themselves based on their Cypriot ethnicity does not mean they are anti-Greek; they may respect Greece but also admit that liking another country or culture does not make you a member of either. If, as several Cypriots and non-Cypriots argue, Cypriot ethnicity is indeed existent, then stating that one is Cypriot and not Greek is as anti-Greek as a Bulgarian person arguing they are Bulgarian and not Greek, or a Irish person arguing they are Irish and not Greek. Cypriots who describe themselves as Cypriots are merely acknowledging their own identity, they are not doing it out of hatred for Greece or Greeks. There are many Cypriots, in both Cyprus and the diaspora, who emphasize their Cypriot ethnicity first and foremost. I also find your comment on British Cypriots slightly contradictory. If a Cypriot living in the UK becomes something equivalent to a Briton after only 53 years, then why is it that in Cyprus, centuries after Achaean colonization and centuries of isolation from Greece, Cypriots are still somehow ethnic Greeks?

You are correct in stating that the articles use the terms Greeks and Turks, but they do so after introducing them as Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, and use Greeks and Turks as short-hand. The UNHCR publication may abbreviate, but under the "groups" section, it defines the ethnic groups on the island as Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots, Armenians, Maronites. As with the Cypriot census, even if the terms Greeks and Turks are used colloquially, when the ethnic groups are surveyed for official government data, they are formally described as Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots (not, as with the Armenians, simply just Greeks and Turks). Even if I appear to be cherry-picking, how do you explain published material which describes Cypriots as Greek-speaking and Turkish-speaking instead? Cypriots may be regarded casually as Greeks and Turks because of the languages spoken, but that does not make them members of the Greek and Turkish ethnic groups. If that was the case, then everyone described as an Anglophone (in the UK, Ireland, Hong Kong, English-speaking Africa, etc) are all members of the English ethnic group; and all Francophone peoples (in France, Belgium, Switzerland, Mauritius, South America and Africa) are all members of the French ethnic group. There are no commonly used terms for Greek or Turkish speakers, such as Hellenophone or Turcophone, so sometimes the short-hand terms, Greek and Turk, are employed instead for ease. Still, all the census and anthropological material I have identified above detail Cypriot ethnicity, regardless of the fact that Cyprus' official languages are the same as that of Greece and Turkey, which is something the article should address. —Olympian (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ι would suggest to stop this endless playing with the words. Is leading to nowhere. --Factuarius (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not intentionally trying to play with words. In response to the debate on whether Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are considered ethnic groups, I have collected published material which explicitly describes and observes Cypriot ethnicity. Therefore, I would suggest that we reflect this information and list Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot ethnicity in what is supposed to be a neutral and unbiased encyclopaedia article. —Olympian (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

All I see above is a bunch of hand-waving ORguments, e.g. "Cypriots may be regarded casually as Greeks and Turks because of the languages spoken, but that does not make them members of the Greek and Turkish ethnic groups." There is a clear consensus against you. Athenean (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. The rather silly claim that Greeks does not really mean Greeks, but is shorthand for something else, smacks of original research. On Wikipedia, we don't go by what we think the sources should say, but by what they actually say. And, since his own sources call them Greeks, he would have to provide new sources which explicitly support his claim that there is a distinct Cypriot ethnicity. ·ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ· 04:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No offense but the Cyprus Mail is not a top notch or quality newspaper and has minimal sales because it is aimed at english speaking FOREIGNERS and NOT Cypriots. It is also staffed largely by British people and some FAILED GCypriot journalists, especially those of a british background who cannot possibly speak or write proper Greek and thus cannot get a job in a DECENT Greek language newspaper. Trying to base your argument on an article by Cyprus Mail, which is renowned of expressing BRITISH views on cypriot issues, is not just poor but also RETARDED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 18:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Cyprus Mail is the second highest selling paper in Cyprus. Given that first inaccuracy, there seems little point in dealing with the more, erm, subjective elements of this last comment. Vizjim (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confusing Cyprus Mail with Cyprus Weekly which is published only on fridays and has the 2nd highest sales on that day alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Knowing personally many of the journalists who work for the Cyprus mail and the Cyprus Weekly I can confirm that they are mostly Cypriots, and some of them are decent journalists. Having actually lived in Cyprus I can also confirm that Athenean's usage of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot is valid and current and well understood in Cyprus. For the Greek Cypriots there is a slight confusion in that they would identify themselves as Greek (using that term in English) but the word they would use in Greek would be Elladites and not Ellenas (Ellenas means a person with Greek nationality, Elladites refers to an idea of pan-Greekness a member of the larger Greek community, the Greek diaspora. This argument about what was written in the constitution of 1960 is silly. With a subject so fluid and raw as the Cyprus Problem and Cypriot ethnicity why rest your case on terms used 50 years ago. The majority of people in Cyprus would uphold the validity of the terms Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot and those people would not want to be confused with mainland Greeks (who often appear in the south as soldiers doing national service with their shaved hair and strange expressions) and mainland Turks (who according to Turkish Cypriots I have spoken to are considered very different from Turkish Cypriots). A movement toward a unified Cypriot ethnicity has gained pace since the Anan plan and beyond and has gained currency, the Greek and Turkish signifiers (as in Greek and Turkish Cypriot) could be considered to refer to language as Athenean suggests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.4.27.139 (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Athenean - I notice you undid my edit about the reason for displacement.

You said "it was the major reason" and you are correct - that it was not the only reason though. At the moment it reads "The Turkish invasion was the reason..." which implies it was the only reason and that they started after the invasion.

The intercommunal problems were the reason though - hence the reason for my edit. It is wrong to solely blame it on the Turkish invasion when there were displacemnets before that event

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

But most of the displacement took place as a direct result of the invasion. True, there were displacements prior to the invasion, but these were minor. The major reason was the invasion. If you'd like, we can qualify the statement. Athenean (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the lead to say "The intercommunal violence and susequent Turkish invasion led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Cypriots and the establishment of a separate Turkish Cypriot political entity in the north. These events and the resulting political situation are matters of ongoing dispute."

I trust this is more in keeping with neutral PoV and a more acceptable version to all concerned.

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it puts the displacement due to the intercommunal violence and the displacement due to the invasion on an equal footing. They aren't. Pre-invasion displacement was minor compared to what followed during the invasion. The invasion was THE major factor in the displacement. NPOV does not mean we have to follow political correctness. Athenean (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The invasion was a continuation of the violence - without the violence there would not have been an invasion at that time, if at all.

We agree that they are the sole reasons for that displacement: that there was no other reason for it ?

There can only be an issue with you wanting to say that there was more displacement after the invasion ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That is the issue. MOST of the displacement took place during the invasion. That much is clear and obvious. The invasion and intercommunal violence should not be given equal weight for the sake of political correctness. NPOV and political correctness are two completely different things. Athenean (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I AM AGAINST THE TERM 'INVASION'. TURKEY INTERVENED IN CYPRUS IN 1974. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE CYPRUS PROBLEM STARTED IN 1963 WHEN MAKARIOS TORE UP THE CONSTITUTION AND PROPOSED A 13 POINT PLAN. THIS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE AKRITAS PLAN FORCED TURKISH CYPRIOTS OUT OF THE PARLIAMENT AND GAVE THE GREEKS FULL CONTROL. AKRITAS MEANT THE GENOCIDE OF ALL TURKS FROM CYPRUS IN ORDER TO FULFILL ENOSIS - UNION OF CYPRUS WITH GREECE. DISPLACEMENT OF 103 TUKISH VILLAGES STARTED FROM 1963. THIS MUST BE MENTIONED ALSO ANDNOT ONLY FOCUSSED ON THE GREEK PERSPECTIVE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.175.243 (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a full enough understanding of the history to offer an informed opinion on the substance of your edit. I reverted for purely grammatical reasons: changing "invasion" to "intervention" requires a change of preposition as well (e.g., "of" to "in") in order to qualify as standard English. Thank you for bringing your concerns here to the talk page, which I'm sure is well patrolled by a diverse body of editors willing to respect Wikipedia policies on verifiability and consensus. If I might offer a suggestion, please consider revising the format of your remarks; typing in ALL CAPS is considered SHOUTING and is unlikely to prove persuasive. Rivertorch (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm living in the middle east and When I was a kid I was listening to a radio station whose broadcaster would say "saipress" ("radio saipress"). I believed I was listening to a radio broadcasting from Cyprus. But I now see Cyprus is pronounced differently. Hmmm... I wonder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.13.254 (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm maybe they would have less troubles if they weren't so binary? Like if they had four official languages instead of two. Say, Arabic and Armenian, something like that, in addition to Greek and Turkish. That could help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.179.32.59 (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Or just maybe one - Cypriot ? Chaosdruid (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi all

Most of the pics are on the right hand side. It seems to me that they are better on that side so they do not break up the text.

Can we at least leave them there for now rather than anyone starting and edit war on such a simple matter ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This whole article is a disgrace. Such blatant and tranparent Greek propaganda. Unfortunately it seems to be the norm for Wikipeda where the ethnic zealots seem to rule. Greeks and Armenians are under the delusion that they can actually re-write history and have the ending change to their taste. It is a disgrace that Wikipedia allows this to take place. Eventually it will cease to be a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.248.90 (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

hey you get turks doing it to. so dont say thay dont. oh evryone does it

There is Greek POV in the culture section of the article. It starts with Greek names, and finishes with Greek names, without considering Turkish Cypriots. I tried to add a few Turkish names there, but I think there should be an important change there. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the New Cyprus Party 'The population in the north is reaching 500,000 and is continually rising...' (see here: see also ). Cyprus Mail has also quoted Mehmet Ali Talat who '...made a statement in one of his speeches with indirectly saying that our de facto population is around 500,000' (see here:). What do other users think? Should we include this information? At first I thought that this estimate is too high. However, according to CIA Cyprus' population is 1,102,677 (July 2010 est.), 18% of which are Turkish Cypriots which would equal 198,482. Many Greek Cypriot sources (even Turkish Cypriot sources) argue that the people from Turkey [unfortunately] out-number us Cypriots so this could be a possibility right? Turco85 (Talk) 21:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. "New Cyprus Party" and Mehmet Ali Talat are not reliable sources. Politicians and political parties are prone to hyperbole and exaggeration to promote their views and attain their goals. The rest of your post is OR. Athenean (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, no offense to you, but I would rather hear the view of Cypriots as well. People from Cyprus are likely to know more about this subject. As a Cypriot I believe that we [Turkish Cypriots] have become a minority in our own country to people from Turkey! If there is close to 200,000 of us, and they outnumber us, then there may well be as many as 500,000 in the north. I have also found Greek sources: '...στα κατεχόμενα είναι περίπου 500.000 και ότι 120.000 μόνο είναι Τουρκοκύπριοι' (see here:)Turco85 (Talk) 21:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well, the official population of TRNC is 265,000, including people who came from Turkey after 1974, according to the TRNC State Planning Organization. There are many arguments about the Turkish population. Some people say 300,000, some say 500,000. But Wikipedia should use reliable sources. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody actually read the 2006 census taken in the North? Because it seems as though there has been a great misunderstanding. The article currently claims the following:

'...the Republic of Cyprus estimate of Turkish Cypriots does not represent the total population of Northern Cyprus. In addition, the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Service also estimated that 150,000–160,000 Turkish immigrants (described as “illegal settlers” in the Republic of Cyprus Statistical Abstract 2007,[73] footnote on p. 72) were living in Northern Cyprus, bringing the de facto population of Northern Cyprus to about 250,000. This estimate produced by the Republic of Cyprus matches the results of the 2006 population census carried out by Northern Cyprus, which gives 265,100 as the total population of Northern Cyprus'.

It does not match the 2006 census in the North. It seems as though nobody has even read the 2006 Census. According to the census:

• Distribution of the 178,031 TRNC citizens according to birthplace: 147,405 Cyprus-born; 27,333 Turkey-born; 2,482 UK-born; 913 Bulgaria-born.

• Distribution of the 147,405 Cyprus-born TRNC citizens according to birth place of parents: 120,031 have both parents born in Cyprus; 16,824 have both parents born in Turkey; 10,361 have one parent born in Turkey and the other parent born in Cyprus.

In 1974, the population of Turkish Cypriots was almost 118,000; the 2006 census results show that out of the 178,031 TRNC citizens, the current native Turkish Cypriot population (one or both parents born in Cyprus) now numbers 132,635.127.

The demographics section also fails to say that the population in the North is increasing from Turkish Cypriots from the UK re-locating back to Cyprus. Furthermore, there is an increasing presence of Bulgarian Turks.

Thus, the 2006 census does not agree with the statement made by the Republic of Cyprus. Yes they have the same estimate of about 250,000; but the RofC claims that Turkish Cypriots make the minority of about 80,000 whereas the 2006 Census shows that the Turkish Cypriot population has in fact increased not decreased. Thus, I shall change this section of the article now. Turco85 (Talk) 10:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The references provided does not say that the RofC estimates 10.2%. I have never come across such an estimate. If the claim is not verified with reliable sources then I shall remove this.Turco85 (Talk) 12:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Mosques section must be excluded as most of the mosques presented there are located in the Northern-Occupied Partition of the island. What is more so many pictures of mosques are not making any useful or if they do they help little. Pictures of those monuments on the last paragraph must be erased as they are excessively useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldglobal (talk • contribs) 17:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No they are not. We've been through these arguments before. Are you sure you did not participate? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What a ridiculous thing to say. No wonder this articles fails to be neutral.Turco85 (Talk) 13:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would any Chrsitian consider Hala Sultan Tekke sacred? You can't just go and say that, you must explain a Christian denomination's motivations for calling this site sacred. Because I certainly think that the Prophet Muhammad and / or his wet nurse don't really account to much to say... the Catholic Church or the Cypriot Orthodox Church or the Orthodox Church of Greece or the Orthodox Church of C-ple. I bet there are even Buddhists from China who think this site is sacred, aren't there?! I mean... no disrespect here, it's just simply unbelievable. Show me just one Christian source that says this Tekke is sacred TO CHRISTIANS in any way. Maybe it's respected by all communities, that's a different thing. I really need to see a Christian motivation to regarding it sacred to be able to swallow this one. As for the 3rd most sacred place in Islam there are literally HUNDREDS of very good and reliable academic sources that state plainly that the Mosque of Al-Aqsa in the Haram Ash-Sharif, i.e. Temple Mount complex is the third most sacred place in Islam after the mosques of Mekke and Medine. From Israeli sources to Palestinian sources (secular and religious), to Arabic sources (like Egyptian ones), to even Turkish sources (just check out the site of Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı - Presidency of Religious Affairs of Turkey), to even radical fundamentalist Jewish sources (like the guys who want to bring down the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa to build the 3rd Temple). All of these acknowledge Al-Aqsa as the 3rd most holiest place in Islam. Just check out the Wikipedia page for Al Aqsa and Haram al-Sharif and you'll find there all the sources you need. The sources cited here, which are obviously Turkish Cypriot sources seemed simply not to be informed well enough (if not altogether biased) if they can't even agree with the Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı of Turkey.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.239.121 (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed also concerned about the statement and the references given. One of them clearly states that since the 1974 incidents there has been a drop in the number of pilgrims to almost none - it seems that sites are ranked according to three things, Mohammedan places of residence, descendants of Mohammed and numbers of pilgrims visiting the sites.

I also feel that we have no need whatsoever for the SEVEN refs given there. For now I have moved the text from the picture and placed it in the main article but would urge all editors to try and remain calm while we try and sort this out.

There are not many places one can go to research this material and I would like to point out that the text actually states:-

"third holiest site in Sunni Islam"

Amy assistance on finding references to either prove or disprove this would be helpful as the ones cited seem to all say "in the Islamic world" rather than Sunni. I do not really think that it is realistic to say "in the Isalmic world" as, after reading sources for over an hour, it seems that it almost definitely is not the third in the Islamic world; it may be in the Sunni though. It seems odd that there are so many factions of Islam and they all seem to disregard many of each others sites due to disagreements on things such as whether "person X died here at A" or "here at B" and beliefs as to whether or not person X was actually descended from Mohammed

Chaosdruid (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the third holiest site in Islam is the Al Aqsa Mosque. I can also say that there is absolutely NO chance of Christians of any sort considering this place sacred. Considering the whole thing was added by User:Olympic god, I think a large pinch of salt is called for. Athenean (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, this is the thing. It is sacred for some Cypriots, isn't it? This tekke is sacred, lise Apostolos Andreas Monastery. So, because it isn't sacred for Christians, it doesn't mean it is not sacred. Anyway, it is not the third holiest place in Sunni Islam. Those holiest places are in Hijaz or Jerusalem. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The only people who on wikipedia claim that the halatekke is the third holiest site are, judging by their field of intrests and prior edits, radical orthodox jewish trolls trying to negate the importance of the Harim al Sharif in Jerusalem, see the ludicrouw statement there and their referral to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.11.150 (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove pictures of Monuments of Cyprus both Muslim and Christian churches which are very pointless to the readers of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Economiesofscale (talk • contribs) 10:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The area for the Republic of Cyprus includes the northern territories as well but apperantly, the population only includes the south but not the north. Isn't it more correct to include the northern population as well if the article shows us Cyprus as a whole rather than divided. Otherwise why don't we take the northern territories off from the area of Cyprus. It would be better to either include both state's information or separate both from each other. Otherwise the information given is incorrect. 92.238.125.31 (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have clearly indicated what includes North (the population and area) and what does not. It seems more correct this way. 188.74.121.43 (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of interest is that using the ROC estimates, the TRNC estimates or some other estimates (CIA etc)? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually they are what UN figures say. ROC also say the population is around 800,000. North is not clearly known, therefore it is better not to include North. But we know the area of North, so it is indicated that the area shown is actually the area of whole island. Population is only the population in Republic of Cyprus. 188.74.121.43 (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This edit added what appears to be the Turkish national anthem to the infobox. Just to be thorough I ran a quick search on the Cyprus's national anthem, but my search did not provide much in the way of verifiable or neutral information to source on whether this is an accurate addition to the article. So for the mean time I have left the addition in place with a citation needed tag accompanying it. If anyone has any verifiable and neutral sources on the history or official stances of Cyrpus's national anthem that could aid in sorting out this question have at it, otherwise I will remove it from the article. Thanks, –TheIguana (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is the Turkish national anthem. I used Google translate and it seems to be a rough translation of "Hymn to Liberty" in Turkish but I may be wrong. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) We have this on Wiki Hymn to Liberty, and this on CIA factbook "name: "Ymnos eis tin Eleftherian" (Hymn to Liberty) lyrics/music: Dionysios SOLOMOS/Nikolaos MANTZAROS note: adopted 1960; Cyprus adopted the Greek national anthem as its own; the Turkish community in Cyprus uses the anthem of Turkey".

There is nothing on any of the government websites so I assume we have to go with the fact that it should be Greek when Greek prime minister is there and Turkish when Turkish vice president is there - what if they were both there lol?. As the Turkish community has not taken its parliamentary seats in recent yeears it seems unlikely that the Turkish one will be played though.

It seems bizarre to me that they would "choose" the Greek national anthem, I think they should have a new one of their own - perhaps along the lines of this . Chaosdruid (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In the article of the Greek national anthem it says: According to the Constitution of Cyprus, the Greek national anthem is used in the presence of the Greek Cypriot president (or other Greek Cypriot), and the Turkish national anthem is used in the presence of the Turkish Cypriot vice-president. Cyprus stopped using the Turkish national anthem, however, when Turkish Cypriots broke away from the Government in 1963. However, the Constitution does not mention anything about an anthem. This translation of the Greek anthem to Turkish as the Cypriot national anthem in the Turkish version, though, is totally wrong. After the Turkish Cypriots fled from the Constitution (after the reformations made by the Greek Cypriots) and created their own state (after the Turkish Invasion), Cyprus is identified as a 'Greekcypriot state', that represents, even de facto, the Greekcypriots only (just like the TRNC with Turkishcypriots), although the Republic is suposed to be a state representing both the Greek and Turkish Cypriots, the latter group do no longer 'participate' in the Republic and has even created its own state. Despite the fact that it is not recognised as an indepented state. But the thing is that I can't find either a 'law' or something that says something about this thing. The sure is, however, that the first years there was no official anthem of the Republic, and that now the official anthem is the Greek national one with no Turkish translation. I think I've read somewhere that a piece of classical music was used, after an agreement between the two communities, before 1974, as an anthem. I will keep searching. Anyway, I think the translation of the Greek national anthem to Turkish should absolutely be removed. And Chaosdruid of course the Turkish-cypriot population uses the Turkish national anthem, because it is the official of the Turkish Republic of Nothern Cyprus their 'coutry'. And no, it's not that bizarre because as I mentioned before after the Turkish invasion we felt 'free' to adopt the Greek anthem because we are Greeks and back then the will for Enosis among the Greeks of Cyprus was still strong. Of course if there is to be a solution as a single state, then a new anthem should be crated, but until then, this should be corrected.. --109.242.67.227 (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all I said "bizzare that they would choose the Greek" - that was a response to the CIA factbook saying "Cyprus adopted the Greek national anthem as its own" - in other words they were probably simply out-voted.

Wow, it only took 2 hours but I found the link lol

• "The decision concerning the National Anthem of the Republic of Cyprus was taken by Council of Ministers on 16 November, 1966. According to this decision the music of the Greek National Anthem was adopted as the National Anthem of Cyprus.

National Anthem of Cyprus

Decision no. 6133

14. The Council decided to adopt the music of the National Anthem of Greece as National Anthem of Cyprus.

(link to sound clip)

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OK!! That's wonderful!! I've just changed the Hymn to Liberty article. I am going to change it in this article, too. I can, can't I? I mean, now there is proof about the Anthem. --109.242.67.227 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This article has a few sections where a row of pictures are included. These don't really add anything to the article (and funnily enough the Ayia Napa photo is already in the article!). Galleries shouldn't be included without reason, so I think they should be removed. As for lists, The current mosques section should be removed. So should the list of churches. The architecture section should discuss the architecture, not be used as a repository for names. One church and one mosque side by side would suffice. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Demographic Report 2009: http://www.pio.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/populationcondition_21main_en/populationcondition_21main_en?OpenForm&sub=1&sel=4

Abstract 2009: http://www.pio.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/other_101main_en/other_101main_en?OpenForm&sub=1&sel=4&highlight=abstract —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.131.75 (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I have just undone an editor who removed occupied from "Turkey invaded and occupied the northern portion of the island."

The same editor also changed

• "... Turkish-controlled area in the north, calling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, covering about 36% of the island's area and recognized only by Turkey"

to:

• "... Turkish-controlled area in the north, the unrecognized (recognized only by Turkey) Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, covering about 36% of the island's area."

I have undone them because Turkey has occupied the northern part since the intervention and invasion. The articles from the treaties signed in the 1960s clearly state actions can only be taken "to restore to the original state agreed in these treaties". That would, of course, include sovereignty.

The second part as the TRNC is not recognised and so calling oneself something does not mean it is true. There is no officially recognised republic (TRNC) and so it can only be described as calling itself. No-one else calls it anything as they do not recognise it. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi

@ Seksen iki yüz kırk beş - I have removed the POV tag. The section deals with all aspects of the topic of education. It is very neutral in its tone, content and in general. It does not mention anything more about Greek than Turkish, in fact it only mentions (like Greek universities) and has Greek and Turkish mentioned in the "go on to study in" sentence.

There really is no justification that I can see for keeping the POV template, and I cannot see anything in the Education section that is even a miniscule amount of POV.

Perhaps the problem is that there is no mention of "education in the Northern Republic" - this article is about Cyprus though, not about the TRNC. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose changing the map of Cyprus in the article — would it not be better to have one where the island was centralised, as is the case with most country articles, rather than being pushed aside to the corner? Additionally, as the map is EU-centric, a neutral version might appear more fair, especially as it would serve its geographical purpose instead of taking a social or political approach. Even the matter of the EU's position on "Northern Cyprus" makes it more complicated; some EU maps I've seen cut the island in half when highlighting member states. Furthermore, a neutral map would also be more representational of Cyprus being geographically in Asia and having been historically considered to be "Eastern" or "Oriental" compared to mainland Europe (a view apparent in a large amount of Colonial literature; and one which, arguably, stems back to Herodotus: NB: Irwin, Elizabeth K., Reading Herodotus: A Study of the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotus' Histories, p.273, 2007). —Olympian (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I see little reason to as yet. Other things mentioned aside, maps for all EU countries are similar in format. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I see a big reason to change it, since it has Cyprus (really the Republic of Cyprus, which is another issue) as occupying all of the island, whereas it only occupies half. There is not even a disclaimer about "claimed" territory. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

MAP IS VERY MISLEADING AND INACCURATE. I PROPOSE A PROPER INVESTIGATIN INTO THE MAPS OF THE EARY 1970S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.175.243 (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey I'm trying to make a SVG map of Cyprus districts I'll make some different versions of it. What versions should I do? I will put the 2 new districts (Morphou - Guzelyurt and Trikomo - Iskele) added by the government in the north. Should I make a version with only old districts (6 districts)? Also in code of 'Administrative divisions' section I see imagemap tag, I don't have any knowledge about that. Not to forget, should I color each district in different color as it was before? Ufo karadagli (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that they are not part of Cyprus. They are in occupied territory and named, probably illegally, by the TRNC government. The Cyprus government still consider the regions as in the original map, see , although they have given them greek names, which do not seem to correspond to the map we have at present. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely like that map but, the map in the article has green line and the north of the island is colored darker compared to the south. Therefore the map we already have is divided. I think the table next to the map is wrong too. Since the map is divided, Nicosia should have been separated as North and South Nicosia. Or we can have two maps one is not divided having 6 districts like the one you linked to and one divided having the up to date districts. As you know sadly RoC has no control over north of the island. We can say the map of RoC before Turkish invasion and map of Cyprus after the occupation. If you check the article combined north and south of Cyprus (population, communication, media). We should find a middle way. Ufo karadagli (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The important thing is that this article is "Republic of Cyprus" and there is another article for TRNC. It may be ok to put the TRNC districts on a map there, but it would probably not be acceptable on a map in this article. The green line is just a green line, the region should be clearly in a different colour and the line crossing it will not cause a problem as it will still be the same colour on both sides.

Naming anything north and south Nicosia would be wrong as the area is not called that. You must remember that there is no legal compunction for such naming, nor would that be acceptable to the Cypriot government. While I understand your point on middle ground, this article is not a middle ground, it is about the Republic of Cyprus. There is a need for articles to show that all weighted sides of a topic are covered, however this is not the case in a map representative of the particular governing body of a country I am afraid. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrative divisions are a de jure thing, so the map should follow whatever the position for the Cypriot government is. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not decided in What is meant by Cyprus section of this talk but I agreed with you. So it is only Google Maps that takes Cyprus as whole. For this article, should I remake the same map or the map you linked to? Ufo karadagli (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

New map is completed and uploaded to commons: Cyprus districts.svg use its talk page for suggestions and comments.
I changed the map with the new svg version without district names and corrected the imagemap thing. Now hovering on a district will show name of the corresponding district, clicking will forward you to article related to the corresponding district. Ufo karadagli (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Currently it is written: "is a Eurasian island country in the Eastern Mediterranean"

I find it strange to use "Eurasian country" in this case. Cyprus is Mediterranean, Western Asian, even Near/Middle Eastern, but why "Eurasian"? Who calls Cyprus "Eurasian"? Depending on the context it can be "European" (most contexts) or "Asian" (when the topic is its location - and most commonly a more detailed designation is used such as Western Asia or Eastern Mediterranean), but not both.

I suppose that someone wanted to emphasis the European nature of Cyprus (in terms of culture, history, economy, politics - CoE/EU, etc.), but this is already described in detail in the article below.

I would suggest simply removing this "Eurasian" reference, but maybe some variant of "is an island country located in the Eastern Mediterranean off the coast of Western Asia" would be better (to emphasis that the context is location). (see this and this) Alinor (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus is a Middle Eastern Country, see Middle East.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no other article for a country in Wikipedia which at its article has so many pictures of monuments. Please remove both churches and mosques as it seems to the reader as a tourist brochure and not an actual article for a country. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.133.131 (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Cyprus seems to have a major case of Wikipedia:Main article fixation. I've been looking through this article, which in some areas is quite good, and then looking at subpages. The current History section of this article is almost as long as the History of Cyprus article, and I've just removed photos from sections in this article which don't even appear in the subarticles. In addition, this article is in many places (like aforementioned history) very very long, at the expense of articles such as Demographics of Cyprus. Not to mention the giant table of contents here. In lieu of that, I was wondering if it might be worth mass transporting information from this article onto the subpages, and trying to make this page much more in the spirit of WP:SUMMARY STYLE. Thoughts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been on a list of my things to do for some time, as has bringing the ancient history articles up to date and quality, the problem has been the reluctance of people to get involved as well as renaming problems due to the de-facto split. If you are willing, then I am happy for you to take the task on :¬)

I will get more involved once you start as I have some pressing things to do for the next couple of days. My main areas of interest are ancient rather than modern, so will help with those particular parts.

The TOC (table of contents) is fine, there is nothing wrong with it. I always look at other comparable articles to see if they are similar, take a look at these other country articles - Germany and France - and you will see that this one is fairly standard in sections and subheaders. I have jsut checked ten random countries and they are just about all similar sizes. For really large TOCs there is always the possibility of hiding level three and below. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at FA countries, Germany is actually an odd one out in terms of number of subsections. Some, such as Indonesia, have no subsections at all. On this article I think there's no need for the Exclaves and enclaves section for example, and perhaps there could be a much shorter history section. I highly doubt there should be any level 3 sections on a country article, there's none here anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think the history section is too long. If we look at other highly rated country articles, e.g. Germany, Bulgaria, their history sections are even longer. I think the length of the history section is just about right. Cyprus moreover has had a very long and eventful history. As for why the article is so long overall, well, that is because it used to be an FA until recently, and FAs are usually on the long side. Of course, that's also why parts of it are still good. I worked on it a while back to try and bring it to FA again, but gave up. If you're looking for stuff to trim, the Climate section and Water supply section are top candidates (the latter is good for wholesale removal as it is entirely unsourced). In general, I don't think it would be that much more work to bring the article to FA status again, but I also don't think it's that long. Most FAs are in fact much longer. Athenean (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I've looked at other FA articles, this history section is long. See Indonesia, India, Peru, Australia, for example. Anyway, that's not why I raised the length. I raised it because the history section on this article is almost as long, and is far better than the actual History of Cyprus article as well as being sourced. I'm thinking a wholesale copypaste of the text could actually be done effectively, from this article to that one. As for the Water Supply section, I agree it is also Undue. I honestly can't figure out the climate section, although I think it could be arranged into some sort of tabular form. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If the history section is long, in comparison to other countries, it's because Cyprus has more history than most. It would have been nice if it could have avoided most of it but it has been a regular victim of history.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 00:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not start copy and pasting. It would be in entirely the wrong direction, the correct direction would be from the sub-articles (up to the History of Cyprus) up to here. Any expansions should be done in the second (Cyprus (Prehistory), Cyprus in the Middle Ages, Modern history of Cyprus etc.) or third (Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Alashiya, etc.) sub-levels.

You need to understand the way this has been structured - The History of Cyprus article is linked to section mains, each section has a main article and so the sections are themselves simple summaries. In effect there is not a tree of linking, but more of a cloud. (If that makes sense?)

That is why this article's history section looks bigger. The sections in the History of Cyprus article are an expansions of the "History of Cyprus" Navbox (Although there is no section on the Ottoman Empire period as yet) THe links in this article go directly to the second level and sort of miss out the History of Cyprus article as many of the topics are both massive articles in themselves and of high importance. Take the Modern History section (British Empire, Independence, Contemporary Era) - Here there are many large articles relating to the recent modern history. Going back in time to the Ancient history there are only a few smaller ones. This is reflected in the larger summary in this article. There is a large summary for the modern history, and a small one for the Ancient history. This is not because more has happened, simply that less has been written about on Wikip and more importantly, the fact is that when looking at how big the history section is, more weight has to be given to summarising modern history as that is the main topic. As such I think that giving 30-40% over to modern history is about right and the summary is fairly concise. I cannot see much that could be removed from it.

The demographics of Cyprus is obviously going to be a hot topic most of the time. Warring is rife over many topics here and, as it is the main Cyprus page, we have to be careful about what is and is not included to keep those wars to a minimum.

There is a lot of work needed on those second and third level history sub articles, the ones from the Navbox, and if you need a project to work on I would be more than happy to help out on that as it is one of my main personal areas of interest. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I haven't copy-pasted yet, as I raised it here. I don't think there is a correct direction in which we have to shift information. Although in a perfect world we could craft the section here from the sub-articles, this is not perfect. The situation as it is now is that the history section here is much better developed than the main article. Information on it should be copied back (and I'm not saying it needs to be cut from this article), and expanded from that point, to both the main history article and the relevant subarticles. I fail to see how information appearing in Cyprus#History, of which the main article is History of Cyprus, would not appear on History of Cyprus. Surely the summaries of this article, in which history is just a small part, would be shorter than the summaries in the History article, which is an article entirely devoted to History.

I don't have time to do anything major, and it's going to be that way for awhile, but if I do, I'll make sure to contact you. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is tendentious editing. A classic example of main article fixation, where every single instance of mistreatment of a Turkish Cypriot must be reported in the main article, or else. In this instance, the edits are against WP:SS and WP:UNDUE. It is not the place of this article to report on every single human right violation that has occurred (one of the additions is about something that happened in 1994 for crying out loud). Shall we create a similar section in Turkey, where we report every single human right violation that has taken place in that country? Personally, I am of the opinion that the whole Human Rights section is tendentious and the article is better off without it. In addition to being a magnet for POV-pushers, such sections invariably cast the country in question in an excessively negative light, which against NPOV. It is simply impossible to have a NPOV Human Rights section. No country has a perfect human rights record, but Cyprus is hardly the worst in that respect. I can understand the need for such a section for countries with a particularly negative record (say North Korea), but this is not the case here. Do other country articles have similar sections? Does Turkey have a "Human Rights" section? I wonder how some users would feel about creating such a section. These types of sections do nothing but create battlegrounds and serve no useful purpose, out it goes. Athenean (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I also believe that the details are unnecessary and should be placed in the article of Human rights in Cyprus. I also believe that the article is better without that section. If it is removed, I will not oppose, but it is the same case in Northern Cyprus, in which it is also impossible to have NPOV in the human rights section. And it should be removed from the article there, too. And I added it, so it was obvious that it was not just about the difficulty in obtaining ID cards, now as it is understood, it can be removed. But I should add that as we can easily see the mistratment there, we cannot remove the sentence about mistreatment, if we do, it is tendentious editing. So I agree with you in general, and I want the same to be applied in the article of Northern Cyprus. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus is not a "country". It is an unrecognized political entity that is not viable on its own and is solely maintained thanks to the presence of an occupying Turkish force on the island, an occupying force the entire international community considers illegal (which is why no has recognized it). It's very existence denies the rights of all of those who were expelled and had their properties confiscated. It is not the same as Cyprus. Athenean (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

And anyway, wikipedia is not a market. There is no "trade" here ("I agree to remove the section here provided we do the same for Northern Cyrpus"). If you want the human rights section from northern cyprus removed, open a discussion thread there. Here we discuss whether or not to remove the human rights section from this article, and only this article. Athenean (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not bargaining or doing something like that. To inform you, Northern Cyprus is an unrecognized country, which does exist. Northern Cyprus has the same rating by Freedom house as the Republic of Cyprus, and reports say that both governments respect human rights. In addition, Turkish Cypriots' properties in the Republic-controlled area are in the same situation, and Turkish Cypriots were expelled from their properties in Republic-controlled areas. And anyway, human rights section is about recent incidents, not 1974 (1994 is recent when compared with 1974). So, Northern Cyprus is just like the Republic of Cyprus. And when we return to this article, it seems like we both agree that the article is better without the human rights section. So why are we still discussing? --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually waiting to see what other users think. Athenean (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I have had conjunctivitis for just under two weeks, its been hell but I can see again! lol. Anyway, I think the human rights section is very badly done:

• It separates Northern and the Republic - "the democracies of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus" is just plain incorrect as Northern Cyprus is an occupied part of the Republic's territory.
• It perpetuates the "Turkish" v "Greek" problems - "the displaced persons of Cyprus who own the majority of the land and property in Northern Cyprus are prevented from returning to their homes" and "reports of mistreatment to the Turkish Cypriots in the Republic of Cyprus" and pointing to a US gov. document through some "Hellenic" website is not appropriate, direct links to the site and docs are far more appropriate to remove any perception of bias.

In my opinion the only things that should remain there are human rights violations perpetuated against Republic of Cyprus citizens in the Republic of Cyprus. That would mean removing most of the material except for the two paras:

• "Prostitution is rife in both the..." (and removal of the references to the "Turkish controlled regions" as the Gov of Cyprus has little or no control there)
• "Domestic violence legislation remains..."

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the information about the North should not be included in this article, but "reports of mistreatment to the Turkish Cypriots in the Republic of Cyprus" happened in the Republic-controlled areas, and it is also a part of the human rights violations in Republic-controlled areas. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

@Chaosdruid: Well, it's good to have you back then! As far as the article goes, I don't disagree with you. If you could be so kind as to do the honors, I think it might be best. Athenean (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi all

An editor made some changes about the location of the island in the geography section .

I undid them and refactored the sentence , adding my edit summary (Geography: cr continents - Eurasia is the continent, Europe and Asia are not really separate continents.)

The editor then changed it back again , with the edit summary (I'm sorry - you wrong.)

I have restored the original again and asked that the editor discuss before undoing again as per WP:BRD

It is the responsibility of the editor adding the material (Subtropical-man) to show why we should accept the material being added.

As I stated in my undo there are not separate Asian and European continents, they are in fact one continent Eurasia. The article on this topic is pretty well defined at Eurasia. As stated in the reference from National Geographic, "Europe and Asia are physically part of the same landmass, but the two areas are culturally diverse"

In the Geography section we discuss things about geography and geology, not about culture. The fact that there are cultural differences which people use to separate the two does not spearate the landmass. There is a map from the USGS which demonstrates this . Chaosdruid (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources, writes that Europe is a separate continent. There are hundreds or thousands of sources for this, see google. Eurasia is supercontinent, also Eurafrasia and Americas. Sorry, you wrong. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You have not found consensus for your change. Please observe WP:BRD - you boldly added, I reverted, now we discuss until consensus is found. (It may be that you do not realise that this would mean that more than two peoples opinions are needed, so wait until others join the conversation.)

"Europe is now generally defined by geographers as the westernmost peninsula of Eurasia, with its boundaries marked by large bodies of water to the north, west and south; Europe's limits to the far east are usually taken to be the Urals, the Ural River, and the Caspian Sea; to the south-east, the Caucasus Mountains, the Black Sea and the waterways connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea."

"Geographically it is a single continent"

Eurasian Plate

Did you actually go and read the material I provided as links? If so, then why are you not demanding that the Eurasia article be deleted and the Europe one be changed? Chaosdruid (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

1. per WP:BRD, this is new change (see history of changes ) and not defined as vandalism. You changed on your whim. If you do not agree with something - I invite you to discuss. You have not found consensus for your change. Seven continents (Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia) is common knowledge (like "the earth is round"), your version is confusion in science supported by only a few sources.
2. The vast majority of sources writes that Europe is a separate continent. There are thousands of sources for this, see google.
3. Eurasia, also Eurafrasia and Americas is supercontinents, only a few sources writes that the continents.
4. Do not mind that there are articles of Eurasia, Eurafrasia and Americas - if there are several sources. See also Flat Earth - this article also is exist.

Subtropical-man (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your sentence, "It lies on the Mediterranean Sea at the borderland of three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa" still doesn't make that much sense. First of all, I don't know what borderland is supposed to mean. Obscure english at best.

Now, let's say we take Europe as a geographical continent for now. That means there has to be a border. Where is the border? It doesn't go anywhere near Cyprus, see Borders of the continents#Europe and Asia. In addition, the reason to include Africa still isn't clear.

The sentence only makes sense in either a geological or cultural construction. Under the geological construction, Cyprus actually is just near or on the border between Eurasia and Africa. Speaking culturally, one could say that Cyprus was the intersection for Africa, Asia, and Europe, but a cultural sentence wouldn't go in the geography section anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Afroeurasia is not a geological continent, it is simply a large landmass. This is not about getting the largest possible grouping, but about the actual divisions of continental plates. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You do not need to use the name "continent". Afroeurasia is continent or landmass or other, not important. I not used the name "continent" for Afroeurasia in my edits. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Continents" is my idea . I remove it because is edit-war. I undid revision by Subtropical-man. Article returns to the front of my editing. At present, there is no consensus for any change (for Europe and for Eurasia). We can continue to discuss to get a consensus. If someone introduce a their version to the article without a consensus it will be considered vandalism. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, true true. I didn't know that. Anyway, are you open to having your sentence about the three continents adapted for the Culture section? It would form a nice basis for a general introduction.

As for whether an edit would be WP:VANDALISM, it would not. Wikipedia has a clear definition of vandalism. It may however be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"...are you open to having your sentence about the three continents adapted for the Culture section?" - yes. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been researching and believe I have found a possibly better compromise, including both the Europe/Africa/Asia split and the Eurasia/Africa split, and avoiding noting either as definite continents, instead just noting the continental plates.

Geography

Cyprus is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea, after the Italian islands of Sicily and Sardinia (both in terms of area and population). Also the world's 81st largest by area and world's 49st largest by population. It measures 240 kilometres (149 mi) long from end to end and 100 kilometres (62 mi) wide at its widest point. It lies between latitudes 34° and 36° N, and longitudes 32° and 35° E.

Cyprus is located at the crossroads between Africa, Asia, and Europe.^[5] Turkey lies 75 kilometres (47 mi) to the north, Syria and Lebanon 105 kilometres (65 mi) and 108 kilometres (67 mi) to the east , Israel 200 kilometres (124 mi) to the southeast, Egypt 380 kilometres (236 mi) to the south, and Greece to the northwest: 280 kilometres (174 mi) to the small Dodecanesian island of Kastellórizo (Meyísti), 400 kilometres (249 mi) to Rhodes, and 800 kilometres (497 mi) to the Greek mainland.

The island of Cyprus is located on the Anatolian Plate, on the border of the Eurasian and African continental plates.^[6] The physical relief of the island is dominated by two mountain ranges, the Troodos Mountains and the smaller Kyrenia Range, and the central plain they encompass, the Mesaoria. The Troodos Mountains cover most of the southern and western portions of the island and account for roughly half its area. The highest point on Cyprus is Mount Olympus at 1,952 m (6,404 ft), located in the centre of the Troodos range. The narrow Kyrenia Range, extending along the northern coastline, occupies substantially less area, and elevations are lower, reaching a maximum of 1,024 m (3,360 ft).

Culture

Due to it's location between Asia, Africa, and Europe, the island of Cyprus has passed between leaders from all three areas throughout history, leading to a mixture of cultures and strong religions and ethnic divisions.^[7]

The first and third sources could no doubt also prove extremely useful adding to the article elsewhere, if anyone so wants. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Chipmunk - First of all, thanks for joining the conversation. Just to point out the the lead/lede has been stable for a pretty long time with "Eurasian" in it, this was debated long and hard over a couple of years as you will see from the links in a sec.

@ All - Just in case you have not noticed there are two other discussion prior to this one which I will let you catch up on before I comment too much. In this page Talk:Cyprus#.22Eurasian_island.22 and Talk:Cyprus#Eurasian_country, and there are some in the archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6

@ Subtropical - Really, you need to calm down and try and understand how things work on Wikipedia. That sort of tone and behaviour is not going to get us anywhere. You boldly changed the material, I reverted. As you can see from the discussions I have just put here for Chipmunk to read, the issue has long been discussed and Eurasian was the consensus. It is quite ridiculous of you to equate my postings to the flat earth theory, but do not worry, I am not going to stoop to your level. Let me also say that I have noticed your other edits to articles such as the Geography one. You may want to consider putting a little more info back into the climate section. It is supposed to summarise, as such it should have some statistics about the rainfall at least. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Primary: "Continents" is my idea . I remove it because is edit-war. I undid revision by Subtropical-man. Article returns to the front of my editing. At present, there is no consensus for any change (for Europe and for Eurasia in section Geography). We can continue to discuss to get a consensus. If someone introduce a their version to the article without a consensus it will be considered as vandalism (lack of willingness to consensus, waging edit-war, introducing just his point of view despite the opposition of other users and lack of compromise).

Secondary: writes in the article (in intro) - "Cyprus is a Eurasian island country in the Eastern Mediterranean". I emphasize the word "Eurasian". So, it is also how you want.

Third: however we not decided whether Europe and Asia will be as separate continents or as Eurasia or Eurafrasia. Here you have to find a consensus. There is no other way. You do not enter controversial editing without consensus. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I was reverting to chipmunks revised and accepted version which reflect what is written in the lead. What is the problem? The Eurasian was accepted by a consensus of editors in the conversations I have given you to read - have you read them? If you do not read them then it really is not my fault that you do not realise there was already consensus for Eurasian. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

At the end of the day you have known that there was a problem with this as someone else discussed it with you back in December 2010 User_talk:Subtropical-man#Mediterranean_Sea. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm very against changing the lead, I thought this was simply dealing with the geography section. Anyway Chaosdruid, any objections to placing it as a header text in culture? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope none whatsoever - culturally they are considered different, as per the year-and-more ago passport and Europe Navbox discussions :¬)

I reverted to your geography edit but it seems Subtropical does not want that even though they have withdrawn their edit, however as it is already been so thoroughly discussed I cannot see what their objection is. Your geography edit was fine, with consensus, married up with the lead and the main geography article and all the sources I have given, we await the comment tomorrow I suppose. I did have some lovely illustrations from a Cyprus geological study which showed how the Island was pushed up when the Eurasian and African plates met. It is a shame I cannot find them as they showed how the Troodos range folded up from the seabed...maybe they were in those previous discussions, I will look more tomorrow. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, well I'll try and get a nice short introduction to culture soon, although my time will be limited over the next few days. The source I posted above for Eurasia is a short note about tectonic plates. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Here you go, the Cyprus government website has the diagram Chaosdruid (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to point, that objections (and this discussion) concerns edit-war over the recognition of the Eurasian as continent. Seven continents (Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia) is common knowledge. Version with continents of Eurasia or Americas is supported by only a few sources. Old discussions have no connection in this case. The old discussions were right, this is compromise - Cyprus is most European country but lies (geographically) in Asia = Eurasia. However, there was no consensus in Wikipedia that supports the version with continents of Eurasia or Americas. That was the reason for the edit-war, that someone changes continents Europe and Asia to a single continent. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Go and read the links. The six continent method is the most accepted method. Eurasia is not a compromise, it is a fact. Read the link from the Cyprus government website.

It is similar to the North America problem, Central America is a political/sociological separation, the fact is that those "central American" countries are in fact in North America geographically. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You wrong. The six continent method is not most accepted method. Identified by convention (norm), there are seven regions commonly regarded as continents: Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia AND "Most people recognize seven continents—Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia."^[8] See also, there are two versions of six continents: . Subtropical-man (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is preferred by the geographic community" Chaosdruid (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Full citation: "The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is preferred by the geographic community, the former states of the USSR (including Russia), and Japan". In addition - no sources, this is text without the sources from Wikipedia. Another citation: "The division of the landmass of Eurasia into the continents of Asia and Europe is an anomaly, as no sea separates them. An alternative view, that Eurasia is a single continent, results in a six-continent view of the world. This view is held by some geographers and is preferred in Russia (which spans Asia and Europe), East European countries and Japan. The separation of Eurasia into Europe and Asia is viewed by some as a residue of Eurocentrism." Subtropical-man (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

So you are agreeing then? "The separation of Eurasia into Europe and Asia..." Chaosdruid (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I read that over 90% of the homes on Cyprus use solar water heaters (Ristinen 101). I thought this would be an interesting addition to the water supply section but I do not know how to cite references on Wikipedia.

source: Ristinen, Robert A., and Jack J. Kraushaar.Energy and the Enviroment 2nd Ed. Hobokin, NJ: Wiley, 2006. Print. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.148.163.39 (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The main map of Cyprus should show the area of Cyrpus (Turkish Cyprus) which is not under the formal control of the Cyprus Government. This change is being enacted to all countries with similar situations (e.g. Serbia, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, etc). Turkish Cyprus will just be highlighted in a lighter shade of green, showing the region which is 'de-facto' independent. It will reflect the reality of the area. MosMusy (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

First WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Second the Republic of Cyprus has de-jure jurisdiction over the northern part. What you are proposing is highlighting the de-facto status over the de-jure status, which is in itself POV. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that MosMovy is POV pushing. He is from Armenia and wants to push the separatist Nagorno Karabakh to the forebench. Also it was he himself who has changed the map of Georgia. But we must work according to international law and regulations. Neftchi (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Right now there is a discussion on the issue of de-jure names versus de-facto names. It is of related nature, so I welcome you to join the discussion here. Neftchi (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There should be a standard. If Moldova, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Serbia have parts of the country which is not under their control shaded in light green, Cyprus should have too. But this would be a controversial edit. The thing here is not the existence of an independent political entity there, but the absence of the Cypriot/Moldovan/Georgian etc. control there. --Seksen (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, we are at a difficult point. You have some countries showing their separatist regions, and others not showing it. We need consistency. And given the nationalistic flavour in all this, I propose a 3rd party, high ranking editor (a few ideally) to make a decision on this, since if we try to reach a conclusion, it will just transcend into a nationalistic fight, which we don't want. MosMusy (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem and this could not be simpler. If there is any place to indicate the different rules and regions of a country, which is no longer a single country, it is here. There is a agiant green line guarded by UN troops. One can not cross the line without passports. How much more demarcation is necessary before it makes it on the map. What does law have anything to do with it? Whose law? There are two rules, two states, two peoples, two flags etc.. Is this Wikipedia or Supreme Court? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.162.40 (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I was the one creating this new map used in the article. I asked how I should do it in Map section of this talk. If you read, it was concluded that this article is article about Cyprus and Cyprus is short name for the government Republic of Cyprus. Also there is article for Northern Cyprus for the de-facto government in north of the island. I think we should create an article for Cyprus (island). This Cyprus (island) and Republic of Cyprus problem was talked before in What is meant by Cyprus section which is now archived. Ufo karadagli (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, no consensus was reached on that discussion that a separate article should not be created on the whole island. But there should really be a standard. This map is used in the article of Moldova, and in Cyprus it is a much bigger part of the island in which the Republic of Cyprus control is absent. --Seksen (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This citation has led to an edit war and drive-by reversions justified by short edit summaries. This communication by edit summary is not satisfactory so I opened this discussion. Is this citation reliable? Can it be used? Some input would be appreciated. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a perfectly reliable source, this is just a case of a tendentious editor doing a quick Google keyword search to achieve his goal but then not liking the end result when others looked at the source a little more thoroughly than he did. It is a high-quality scholarly publication by Greenwood Publishing, a reputable publishing house, thus meeting all the requirements for WP:RS. Danopoulos is only one of 3 co-editors, and I'm not even sure if he is the author of the chapter cited in the article. The "logic" (if we can call it that) of the source's detractors goes something like this: It is a "Greek" source, therefore it can be used for "Greek" "confessions" (i.e. that the Greek army was behind the coup), but not for anything else. Needless to say this is tendentious, WP:OR, and bordering on racism as well. Athenean (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Athenean for the clarification. I checked the reference and Danopoulos is one of three editors for the book, the other two being non-Greek. The partition claim is referenced with another reference inside the Google book (ref#42) and it is also mentioned that the Turkish demand for partition was part of the Macmillan and Radcliffe plans in 1956 and 1958. It seems like a solid fact and the citation looks reliable. Further, in page iv of the book it is mentioned that Danopoulos and the other two non-Greek editors collected a series of lectures at the Ben Gurion research centre in Israel and published them. It states: Chapters chosen from a series of lectures presented at an international conference on nationalism and national security, held the Ben Gurion Research Centre, Sde Boker, Israel, July 13-16, 1999. Edited by Danopoulos, Dhirendra Vajpeyi and Amir Bar-or. The source is an international conference, not a Greek book. Therefore there is no reason at all to dismiss this source. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Which one is the correct coat of arms? Cyprus Coat of Arms.svg or Cyprus coat of arms.png? It seems like the first one, but I wanted to make sure. --Seksen (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Definetly the first one because that is what we have on our passports. But they are both Coat of Arms of Cyprus, only the design is a bit different. 188.74.123.17 (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. I have never seen the second one before. The tone of the colors are quite different. --Seksen (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

obviously, neither of you are aware of the correct coat of arms of the nation of Cyprus. These are only the emblems which were incorporated after the accord in 1887, in the presence of Queen Victoria. The real coat of arms cannot be reproduced on the passport as it is the personal symbols of the House of Amrania.

I suggest that you specifically mention that these are the official symbols of the Government of Cyprus, rather than unceasingly invite the wrath and ire of fellow editors here. Thank you for your attention. Harvardoxford (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Scratching vandalism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• The Presidency of the Republic of Cyprus does not say so. --Seksen (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Harvardoxford (talk · contribs) is a vandal and a troll, who is making nonsensical edits and making nonsensical posts on various pages. He has been gratuitously inserting Queen Victoria in various places and apparently finds that form of vandalism humorous. I am leaving a warning on this user talk page as well. I'm scratching his post above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess this in here (in Greek) and here (in English) is the new coat of arms. Can anyone confirm? This is seen in all official websites and newly issued personal IDs. If confirmed I will vectorize and upload it to commons. OCK (t·c) 17:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the completed SVG version Coat of Arms of Cyprus.svg. OCK (t·c) 18:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This was left on my talk and I moved it here for a more centralised discussion:

Cyprus

"It is internationally recognised as such." There is no international consensus that states this, evidenced by Turkey recognising TRNC as a state. You and the current page are taking a position, one that I admit is held by a large number of states, but not all. We need the page to be neutral and tell both sides (majority and minority), not just one, and represent the disagreement objectively. I need not wplink NPOV. That is all I am saying. Wikipedia, along with most acedemics treat the TRNC as a de facto state, by virtue of this fact whether is it de jure is automatically in dispute. I encourage you to rethink your position. Please let me know on my talkpage. Outback the koala (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have provided, even though this is an undisputed fact, a reference by Britannica stating clearly that Cyprus is the "internationally recognised original and de jure government of the whole island of Cyprus". I really don't know why we are still discussing this indisputable fact. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the citation I provided:

<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/148573/Cyprus Cyprus from Britannica.com] Quote: "Two de facto states currently exist on the island of Cyprus: the Republic of Cyprus (ROC), predominantly Greek in character, occupying the southern two-thirds of the island, which is the original and still the internationally recognized de jure government of the whole island..."</ref>

In Wikipedia the only thing which works is facts supported by WP:RS. Anything else is original research and synthesis (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

And your claim There is no international consensus that states this, evidenced by Turkey recognising TRNC as a state. is blatantly wrong. Turkey, the invading country, does not nullify international consensus or international law. Turkey being the only country recognising TRNC is actually proof that the international community is united in their opposition to Turkey's action and that international consensus is unanimous against Turkey in this matter. So your claim that there is no international consensus recognising the de jure sovereignty of Cyprus flies in the face of reality. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me tell you something about international law. Have you ever heard of Turkey, Grecee and United kingdom being Guarantor under the agreement. This dictated that if any trouble arose on the Island parties could intervene. Now I call Enosis and the massacers of Turks as well as forcing them to live in enclaves a reason for intervention. This intervention is ofcourse just under the agreement. Now don't blater on about international laws... Laws only apply to the weak. The powerfull will just make them and walk over them. Tugrulirmak (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi all

Just to let you know that someone has been "correcting" Troodos -> Troödos

They have changed around forty pages and moved several , I have moved Troodos mountains back, but left the rest asking them to revert themselves.

(↓from their talk page↓)
You have not opened discussion, as far as I can see, and have just decided to do it of your own volition. Can you please provide some evidence that this is the most common English spelling of the name? Thanks. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Please can you revert all your changes from Troodos -> Troödos, (except any that say in the article "Its Turkish/Greek/Local name is Troödos"). It seems pretty obvious that, as there are over 1 million search results for Troodos and only 25,000 for Troödos, the correct most common English spelling is Troodos.
(↑from their talk page↑)

Any comments? I have reverted as I found Google search giving:

• Troodos - About 1,390,000 results
• Troödos - About 25,900 results

I suspect that this will continue unless checked now. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Good catch Chaos. This must stop. If not, user may have to be warned further. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that saying that the RoC has de jure sovereignty over the whole island is particularly informative. Might be better to say that only Turkey recognizes the TRNC while the rest of the international community regards the RoC as the sole legitimate authority on the island. At the very least, the stance of the international community that the Turkish troops in the north are considered an illegal occupying force, which has been denounced in several UN resolutions, should be mentioned. Athenean (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree if the note on de jure is replaced by a note that the international community does not recognise the independence of the TRNC. I don't however see why opinion on Turkish troops is due for any mention in the lead. We note in the history paragraph that Turkey invaded and its troops remained, which already tells us about their troops. We then describe views on the sovereignty in Cyprus, which is appropriate as this article is about Cyprus. Information on Turkish forces (or any forces really) would not be appropriate for this article. I'd think it much better placed in an article such as Turkish Armed Forces in Northern Cyprus, where it directly pertains to the subject. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it the same thing which is repeated through the two paragraphs before that sentence? There is no need to emphasize it, it can be understood if it is said once. --Seksen (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the MIT says that Turkey invaded the island fearing that the coup would result in enosis, but not using it as a pretext. Which is the correct one? --Seksen (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There is definitely some overlap between the last two paragraphs. I think we should remove mention of reasons in the lead, and just give what happened. Reasons can be discussed in the body. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Athenean, can you explain why you made this edit? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, isn'it obvious? You said that the aims of each side should not be discussed in the lead. You removed that the aim of Turkey was Taksim, I removed that the aim of the Greek Cypriot coup was enosis. Fair enough, no? Athenean (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No it wasn't, thank you for clarifying. I did not remove Taksim, I just removed the statement that Takism had been an objective of Turkey since 1955. The part about the Turkish invasion achieving Taksim is still there (albeit behind a pipelink). Furthermore, the part I removed was about Turkey, not Turkish Cypriots. Since what I did was apparently contentious, I'll self revert for now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The way I see it, either we mention both the Greek and Turkish motives or neither. There is nothing controversial about Taksim being Turkey's aim since 1955 (and the source used states that very clearly). After all, enosis was the Greek Cypriots' aim for even longer than that. But if we mention that the aim of the Greek Cypriot coup was enosis, that may justify Turkey's invasion to some readers, which is why we should mention that Turkey aimed at Taksim since 1955. Both, or neither, I'm fine either way (prefer the current version). But I would very strongly disagree with a situation in which Turkey's invasion is placed in an incomplete context in the lede. Athenean (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd much prefer if we had something about Turkish Cypriots, rather than Turkey. At any rate, it should be written in a more chronological order. Perhaps we can combine the third and fourth paragraphs somehow, leaving space to actually tell the reader about Cyprus rather than just focus on the dispute. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, the Turkish Cypriots did not invade the island, Turkey did. I don't see any overlap between the third and fourth paragraphs. The third paragraph tells what happened, the fourth tells the reader the current situation. The first two paragraphs tell the reader plenty about Cyprus, and unfortunately, when most people today think "Cyprus" they think "Cyprus dispute". So we do need to mention it in the lede. I don't think the dispute is mentioned excessively in the current version of the article. If you want we can beef up the other two paragraphs or even add a fifth, although frankly I think it is fine the way it is now. Athenean (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel that Turkish Cypriots would better balance out Greek Cypriots. The overlap is in subject, such as the last sentence of the third paragraph. I'm sure the whole thing could be more elegantly presented, and would probably be better if not based mainly off a Greek source. I can't add a fifth paragraph as that goes against lead guidelines. I'll think about trying to make the lead better, including your earlier point about international perspectives. Will post a draft here later. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I take it that its editors agree that readers of the Cyprus article should not be exposed to this view of the island, due to its point of view, which could be seen as realistic - you know, maybe NPOV and helpful to casual browsers trying to get a look at the positions as they have existed for some time now? - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I am disturbed by the statement (repeated in three different places in the current article text) that Turkey used its treaty guarantor status as a "pretext" to invade Cyprus. The word pretext strongly implies that deception is involved (indeed, some dictionary definitions explicitly define the word as involving deception or concealment). It may very possibly be true that Turkey had designs on northern Cyprus and used its status under the 1960 treaty as an excuse to hide their true motives, but IMO we need to find a more neutral way to describe the events — such as by citing sources supporting Turkey's claimed justifications on the one hand, and other sources denouncing Turkey's diplomatic talk as a smokescreen on the other. Simply saying (as the article does now) that Turkey used the treaty and/or the coup as a "pretext" for its actions, IMO, violates NPOV and is inappropriate. — Richwales (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, NPOV is a lost-cause in these articles. You're right in your NPOV concerns and there are a lot of other violations of NPOV as the article often behaves as Greek point of view is right and Turkish point of view is wrong. Wikipedia stops being an encyclopedia in such articles and becomes a tool for the majority that's louder. Thread on your own peril. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That it was a "pretext" (which is an assessment I agree with), is sourced to a top-notch source. And I'm sure I could find lots more if I searched. It's a widely held view, I don't think there is a NPOV problem. Athenean (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Danopoulos book, "Civil-Military Relations" (currently footnote #18)? I looked up this book online and expanded the quote to include the subsequent text, which does in fact call the coup "the pretext for the Turkish invasion". And yes, I definitely do agree that characterizing Turkey's assertions as a pretext is a widely held view that ought to be expressed per NPOV. But I'm still not sure that a single source (however high its quality) is enough to justify the unchallenged use of this hot-button term, and I'd like to hear what other people think about this. — Richwales (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the quote. "On July 15, 1974, the Greek junta, in cooperation with Greek military officers stationed on Cyprus and Greek Cypriot right-wing extremists, organized and executed a coup d'état aiming at overthrowing President Makarios and his government in order to unite Cyprus with Greece. The real aim, however, became the partition of Cyprus. The coup provided the pretext for the Turkish invasion on July 20, 1974." It implies that the aim of the junta was to divide Cyprus. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

@Richwales, are you suggesting that everyone believes that Turkey deceived to invade the island by saying that the term is unchallenged? That view is surely a widely held view among Greek or pro-Greek authors. Most people don't really bother to raise that idea simply because Turkey only intervened 11 years after the ethnic clashes peaked in 1963. Mentioning it as a view of particular authors should surely be present in the article but having it as if it's an accepted truth of the intervention is a clear violation of NPOV. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There are sources supporting the "pretext" viewpoint, but there are also sources which describe Turkey's actions more sympathetically. I believe the article is displaying bias if it simply says that Turkey used the situation as a pretext for invading Cyprus ­— just as it would be biased if it were to say that Turkey's motives were a purely altruistic response to Greece's aggression against the Turkish Cypriot minority. Neither of these views can be stated all by itself as if it were a neutral fact; NPOV requires that they both be acknowledged. — Richwales (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There is obviously no need to dramatize anything on Wikipedia. However, a claim of foul play should be reported as a claim rather than a fact unless it's proven and accepted or held as the majority view (it should be reported as a view and not a fact). What the article needs to point is that Turkey intervened in Cyprus through enacting the treaty of guarantor. The claims of deception can be pointed out later on. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, then, here's a possible change. In the third paragraph of the lead, change this: "Turkey used this as a pretext to invade the northern portion of the island. Turkish forces remained after a cease-fire, resulting in the partition of the island; an objective of Turkey since 1955." — to this: "In response, Turkey invaded the northern portion of the island. Turkish forces remained after a cease-fire, resulting in the partition of the island."

Two followup questions. First, is the claim that the 1974 attempted coup was part of a Greek goal to achieve enosis seriously disputed by any reliable sources, or is this accepted by everyone? And second, is the Danopoulos book (currently reference #18) still appropriate to use as a source in the third lead paragraph, even if the "pretext" language is removed from the lead? — Richwales (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I object to "in response", that seems to justify their invasion. I note that I have provided a reliable source about the wording "pretext" (and could find probably many more), while the editors disputing this haven't provided anything. What's next, "intervened" instead of "invaded"? Danopoulos is a 100% reliable source and of course is still appropriate. I don't see why he would all of a sudden stop being appropriate. I will try to find if there are any reliable sources disputing that the goal of the 1974 coup was enosis. Athenean (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In response wouldn't justify anything. They acted in response. Whether it was due to some premade plan, evil military ambition, or humanitarian desire, etc, their action was a response. As for intervention and invasion, as we have discussed, Turkey intervened by invading. Simple. Couldn't we just say "Following this Turkey invaded the northern portion of the island, and remained after a cease-fire resulting in the islands partition."? (although I think we should drop "the northern portion of" because its unnecessary prose).

@Richwales, the coup in 1974 was carried out by EOKA-B (which was an organization created with the purpose of enosis) and Cypriot National Guard following the orders from Greece. The Greek junta installed Nikos Sampson as the president who is referenced in saying "Had Turkey not intervened, I would not only have proclaimed Enosis but I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus as well." I have never seen anyone challenging these. On the other issue, I'm not knowledgeable enough about Danopoulos's book to say anything about it. What I'd propose is this: "In response, Turkey enacted Article IV of Treaty of Guarantee and invaded the island. Turkish forces remained after a cease-fire, resulting in the partition of the island." TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds okay, but I would suggest using "invoked" rather than "enacted" to show that it was Turkey's reasoning that it was justified under the treaty, rather than a general agreement (I doubt Greece at the time agreed that was right). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You're arguing for the right word for the wrong reasons. The word "invoke" is better because of it's definition. However, that doesn't mean "Turkey enacted" means others agreed at all. Though, others did agreed. Council of Europe did acknowledged Turkey's right to intervene in Resolution 573. Greek Supreme Court of Appeals did acknowledged the same thing in 1979 as well. So, I guess, it's safe to say that it's not even challenged by the Greek government itself. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Turkey wanted to invade and partition the island ever since 1955. That much is unambiguous (and solidly sourced, in contrast to all the OR above). In 1974, they finally had the pretext they wanted. Danopoulos is 100% reliable, in contrast to all the OR I am seeing above. As such, I much prefer the current wording. Athenean (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as you can't prove that that is in fact what Turkey have been planning since 1955 you can't have it as if it's a fact. So far it's only a claim that's neither backed by historical facts nor logic. It's an unproven claim. That's what it is. If it was indeed unambiguous as you claim it to be you'd be citing proof of it rather than some Greek author mentioning it and Turkey would indeed invade in 1963 where Turkish Cypriots were forced into only 3% of the island's land. Thus, the current wording violated NPOV. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Athenean on this one. You can't replace an generally accepted, unambiguous statement from a reliable source with OR. The complete series of events (invasion, occupation and creation of breakaway state) tell only one thing, that the operation's aim was not to restore the constitution (under which greeks and turks lived together), but to do exactly the opposite (to split the island). The word "pretext" is the best one to use and is backed by large number of neutral (not just greek) sources (see google books). Masri145 (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What OR? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That there's any disagreement on whether it was a "pretext" for the invasion and occupation. Why remove the word if we have so many sources that agree that it was a "pretext"? Masri145 (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

None of those sources, while the majority of them being from Greek authors, go beyond being a claim. You would be sourcing proof and not claims if it was such an obvious fact. The complete series of events do not tell only one thing as well. It tells a multitude of things; a conflict and a failure to resolve that conflict and etc. It defies logic to claim that only possibility is that Turkey have been trying to invade the island since 1955. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Another issue with the word pretext is that it expects a lot of knowledge from the reader to be understood properly. A background would be needed to represent an undercurrent that would lead to the course of action taken behind the guise of a pretext. I doubt a lead can provide this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no surfaced secret document from past Turkish government or army that backs up such a claim. The two simple points that Turkey did not invade in 1963 and that Turkey requested UK to act before they did in 1974 defies the logic behind the use of such a word anyway. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)