Talk:Northern Cyprus/Archive 7

message: Is there some particular reason why Garnet keeps removing the POV title tag? This is a fully explained dispute. If you want the other tag as well, feel free to add both, but the title should remain until the dispute is resolved. //Dirak 22:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my last post above.Baristarim 22:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto, and you didn't explain why the tag was removed. //Dirak 22:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was it removed? a)you added it without consensus to make a wp:point. b)you agreed to remove by consensus in which you consulted with Fut. c)This article has nothing to do with pontian greek "genocide", so do no try and link the two as some kind of market stall tag bargaining. --A.Garnet 22:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A) There is no consensus to keep a tag at the PGG article (you assuption of POINT is a violation of WP:AGF), B) any agreement no longer stands as the tag is still there , C) say that to yourself. //Dirak 23:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dirak, you have a lof of nerve to accuse others of vandalism. After your latest wave of WP:POINT edits and blatant disruption, after the one that followed the creation of bogus POINT articles and their speedy AfDs, I had to take a look at your contribution list (go tell admins if you like), and I noticed that even the VandalBOT is reverting you . Really be careful, if such disruptive behavior continues, there will be an ArbCom if need be. I don't know what you have to do, but I would take a chill pill if I were you. If you are actually going to conribute to Wikipedia, then stay; if not, I wonder what you are doing here. Baristarim 23:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Threats (=attempted intimidation) are not allowed. I'm beginning to interpret all these POINT accusations as personal attacks too (come on, this title dispute has been going on for months, that accusation is nothing more than an ad hominem). The "agreement" Garnet appeals to was an understanding of a tag ceasefire (=both sides), and if there is realistic prospect of change, the tags will not be there forever. Unfortunately, it seems that all this is a case of gullible me assuming that the "opposition" in both disputes would act in good faith. //Dirak 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No threats, I am just letting you know of something that will happen. That's all. I don't do edits that are reverted by the VANDALBOT. By POINT, I was referring to KG and its more than unusual AfD, as well as your very recent tag of POV for the Turkish diaspora article. Baristarim 23:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is or is not the Turkish diaspora article sourced? You can't go around claiming millions of Turks live everywhere without it being disputed! The thing speaks for itself. As for KG, it was sourced and my humble creation has expanded significantly. I have explained how it is not a POINT case but the natural course of events time and time again. Let me refresh your memory: when one does research on Turkey and Genocide, you find lots of interesting things! I just wove a few of them into an article and there is nothing wrong with that. Trying to delegitimize everything I do by appealing to my vandalbot experiment or claiming POINT is nothing more that cases of this and this. Common logical fallacies. //Dirak 23:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalbot experiment?? Do you experiment with vandalism? :) Well, in any case, Turkish diaspora article is sourced, sources are there if you take a look. Most numbers have a ref right next to it, ones that don't have a citation tag. Nearly all those numbers are sourced ismi sabit degil bey.Baristarim 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you trying to suggest that there can be a conventional name for an unconventional entity? :-) NikoSilver 00:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic there is. :-) Khoikhoi 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "entity" is treated as a sub-article (or paragraph) of Republic of Cyprus (aka Cyprus) in all other encyclopedias online (check bottom of this thread for links). I'd also like opinions on this draft I made for WP:VPP. NikoSilver 00:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, TRNC is the conventional short form. Northern Cyprus is a geographic expression, this article concerns the defacto state of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. --A.Garnet 23:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is another problem with simple syntax and language here that is being overlooked, and it is more important. Don't forget that two entities claiming the same name in their official names is extremely rare. Nagorno Karabakh, Transnisteria, South Ossetia are not the same since their "claiming" entities carry a different name. I gave examples of this somewher above. That's why I am giving an example of China. It doesn't have to do with the partial political recognition/non-recognition of Taiwan/RC. Moreover, if there was a different geographic name for Northern Cyprus, such as "Turkland" etc, then there wouldn't be a problem with having two articles, one for Cyprus and one for "Turkland". The problem is there is no such name. They both carry the same geographical name. Baristarim 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... I don't buy that... one claims to be "Cyprus" (all of it) and the other merely claims to be "northern Cyprus" (the north part of the island). If they both claimed to be Cyprus, it would be called the "Turkish Republic of Cyprus". This contrasts with the China situation where both regimes claim the whole of their own and their opponent regime's territory. If "TRNC" is the short form of "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", how is "Nagorno-Karabakh" the short form of the "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" (what about "NKR")? Sockul 18:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. The finer point is that the Republic of Cyprus also claims Northern Cyprus via its official name. There are no other examples other than TRNC/Cyprus and RoChina/PRC where two entities/breakaway states/whatever use the name of a geographical region in their names in a way that puts them, syntax wise, in direct confrontation. NG is claimed by Azerbaijan, an entity that doesn't incorporate the NG name in its official name. If Azerbaijan was called "The Republic of Nagorno Karabakh", then the current article of Nagorno-Karabakh would have to be moved to NGR, or some other name. Baristarim 18:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: I have a question: isn't "Northern Cyprus" the conventional short name for the TRNC? Khoikhoi 00:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you trying to suggest that there can be a conventional name for an unconventional entity? :-) NikoSilver 00:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic there is. :-) Khoikhoi 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "entity" is treated as a sub-article (or paragraph) of Republic of Cyprus (aka Cyprus) in all other encyclopedias online (check bottom of this thread for links). I'd also like opinions on this draft I made for WP:VPP. NikoSilver 00:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, TRNC is the conventional short form. Northern Cyprus is a geographic expression, this article concerns the defacto state of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. --A.Garnet 23:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is another problem with simple syntax and language here that is being overlooked, and it is more important. Don't forget that two entities claiming the same name in their official names is extremely rare. Nagorno Karabakh, Transnisteria, South Ossetia are not the same since their "claiming" entities carry a different name. I gave examples of this somewher above. That's why I am giving an example of China. It doesn't have to do with the partial political recognition/non-recognition of Taiwan/RC. Moreover, if there was a different geographic name for Northern Cyprus, such as "Turkland" etc, then there wouldn't be a problem with having two articles, one for Cyprus and one for "Turkland". The problem is there is no such name. They both carry the same geographical name. Baristarim 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... I don't buy that... one claims to be "Cyprus" (all of it) and the other merely claims to be "northern Cyprus" (the north part of the island). If they both claimed to be Cyprus, it would be called the "Turkish Republic of Cyprus". This contrasts with the China situation where both regimes claim the whole of their own and their opponent regime's territory. If "TRNC" is the short form of "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", how is "Nagorno-Karabakh" the short form of the "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" (what about "NKR")? Sockul 18:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. The finer point is that the Republic of Cyprus also claims Northern Cyprus via its official name. There are no other examples other than TRNC/Cyprus and RoChina/PRC where two entities/breakaway states/whatever use the name of a geographical region in their names in a way that puts them, syntax wise, in direct confrontation. NG is claimed by Azerbaijan, an entity that doesn't incorporate the NG name in its official name. If Azerbaijan was called "The Republic of Nagorno Karabakh", then the current article of Nagorno-Karabakh would have to be moved to NGR, or some other name. Baristarim 18:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Will the anonymous, User: 213.149.169.173, please, please stop 'cleansing' the article; that is no way to erase anyting on wikipedia. Thanks. Politis 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I blocked him/her for 31 hours. Khoikhoi 19:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop 'cleansing' the article, argument (usually) works best

message: I read resently that about 1.0% of all North Cipriots and 1.5% South Cipriots were ether British (ex-pats), Malties and/or Italians. 
--Lilidor 17:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The ethnic %

message: For a few days this article read very well and was as close to balanced and neutral as its ever been since the Nationalists got hold of it. Since then we have Aristovoulus claiming that Makatrios's changes to the constitution were the maintain order (man I dont know WHAT you are smoking) and the arrival of a new Sock Puppet Thurium (or something)...a new user with a two day old account that jumps straight into the Hellenic arguments and adds 'Turkish sources say' to make this article, once again, not worthy of being on Wikipedia. Disgusting behavior all around from those two users. I would edit things but I have better things to do than lower myself to their level. Adam777 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It was a good article for about 3 days 

message: I think history section is not well-written. Especially the intro of it. I think it should be written in a language that can appeal also to the people that are not familiar with it. It lacks the basic info and even a simple chronology about the events, but directly starts from the middle of a debate-like structure. Ombudsee 12:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I see our rabid hellenic nationalists were not happy with the article as it was an had to keep pushing their hate filled agenda. That intro to the history section is a joke as is any claim that Makarios was acting for TC best interests when he attempted to usurp the constitution. Honestly I don't know how some of you can function with so much hatred to contend with. Adam777 14:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: How is that supposed to be drawing a conclusion for the readers? It's a piece of accurate information regarding the source. Are you saying that if I loaded a set of dubious claims backed up with Greek sources they would be readily accepted as WP:INDY and WP:RS like this one was? I don't get it! Thulium 16:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already qualified by "reportedly".  By stating "Turkish sources" you are insinuating that they are biased.  The link can be clicked on to see what the source is (and it is noted as Zaman in the footnote as well, with a link to that paper's article).  No need to pound it into the head of the reader—presumably they can read for themselves. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying I can load "a set of dubious claims backed up with Greek sources they would be readily accepted as WP:INDY and WP:RS like this one was" (quoting my first post in this section)? Thulium 18:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know how dubious these claims are.  They're actually fairly weak as it is currently worded.  If your claim is obviously dubious, then obviously it won't be considered a reliable source.  However, if it is simply a question of weight to be given to the claim, and the claim is from a generally acceptable source (such as a major daily newspaper which is the case here), and you make it clear that it is a report and not a fact, and the subject is actually relevant, then there may be a place for it in the article. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to work something out in the text to reflect what I mean above. Visits can, or cannot be considered as "steps towards recognition" depending on how you want to see them. Thanks for the general cleanup Oz! Feel free to reword my text. NikoSilver 21:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Arguably" works fine with me. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. My intention was to move the dispute from the fact that the visits indeed took place (which is indisputable no matter how partizan the source), to those visits being a gesture towards recognition or not. Hence, I replaced reportedly with arguably. NikoSilver 22:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but are we talking about whether a visit of an official of a state equals recognition? Sorry, (again), but are we serious?! could we also include the fact that Rauf Denktas could not and cannot visit the UK (or any other EU state), cause he may have the fate of Augusto Pinochet? this constitutes absolute non-recognition and comparison with dictatorship for the TRNC. To me, this is more important for the Cyprus issue than the visit of an official of Gambia in the TRNC... Hectorian 00:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawing conclusions? 

message: Once again biased entries citing non neutral sources are sliding the article away from the neutral point of view. I specifically refer to the History section where unspecified 'abuses' of the Cypriot constitution by Turkish Cypriots made the constitution unworkable. Even if you believe that the language, copied verbatim from a ROC report on the issue is not neutral. I would think that the editor in question, just back from a ban, would have chosen to take a more reasoned approach to this article. If (and its a huge if) those abuses can be substanciated from a reliable source then that paragraph can STILL be written in a less antagonistic tone. Your thoughts? Adam777 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you suggest then that this sourced information be accommodated? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Find a neutral source that specifies these 'abuses' or revert the text back to the neutral text that preceded it. Its vague and POV right now. Adam777 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well its been a little while and this has not been addressed. I would add a 'citation needed' tag but the issue isnt with the lack of a tag, the issue is with POV vague items being introduced via a POV and vague citation. So I will revert this section back to the non neutral former text at the end of this month unless the 'editor' that put this 'edit' in place chooses, or any editor chooses to remedy the faults.  Adam777 21:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is sliding to POV yet again 

message: Unlike most here that support TRNC as the title, I don't have much problem with changing it to Northern Cyprus, but I prefer TRNC. Likewsie, I also prefer NKR to Nagorno-Karabakh. I think the title of all de facto countries should reflect this key feature (i.e. through the conventional longform). I also think that, crucially, it needs to be comprehensive for it to work. So I'd like to broaden the scope of this, but before taking it to centralized discussion venue, I'm interested in some brief impressions. Many thanks for your patience. El_C 05:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I see it El_C, when talking about non-recognised entities, we are not conveying information on a geographic location (as Northern Cyprus would imply), but rather a defacto governmental entity, its institutions, politics, economics etc. In this case it is the TRNC that is notable and not simply the north of Cyprus. Furthermore, as Wikipedia:Naming conflict cleary states, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We use the term TRNC because that is what it is called and what we are describing, not what people think it should be called. --A.Garnet 10:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but my main point is about consistency elsewhere. I'd like to see that addressed, too. El_C 10:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking about non-recognised entities in general. So yes, I agree the other should use their long form also. --A.Garnet 11:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, good. I think it would be best to start a centralized discussion on renaming those currently using the conventional shortform into the longform and leave a refractored note in those entries talk pages. El_C 11:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. I had said from the beginning that it should be a standard practice.. But obviously it will need to be a centralized discussion because the case is not only about the TRNC. Hmm.. Maybe we can get WP Countries or something else involved to create such a discussion.. Baristarim 11:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to facilitate a centralized discussion about this during the following week. Also, I'm wandering if any editors from the 'Greek side' have any input to offer. El_C 13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistent title

message: Why isn't this page locked? There seems to be so much vandalism from both side and so much arguing nothing is ever going to be achieved by debate. My suggestion is to get a 'neutral' strips the article down to the bones and rebuilds it, not necesserily to it's current length, just stating facts rather than using evocative language. Might be a rubbish idea but thought I'd put it forward. Cls14 17:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock? 

message: Is this a joke?  --Kanuni Sultan Suleyman 18:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus before today.  But your edits appear to be promoting one point of view, and we strive here for neutrality.  Try thinking about what wordings for the section are factual enough that both sides would agree that the article is correct. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it recognized by UN or not? --Kanuni Sultan Suleyman 18:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Is just means that its legal status is in question. Travelbird 18:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well,...it is not...OK, since it is not, that means that it doesn't need infobox like UN-recognized countries. --Kanuni Sultan Suleyman 18:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're entitled to request such a change (would have to apply to all non-recognized countries though). Feel free to start a discussion below - just try not to make controvertial edits without discussing them and reaching a consensus with other editors beforehand. Travelbird 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I just did..Show me UN report please.--Kanuni Sultan Suleyman 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested a block for Kanuni Sultan Suleyman for disruptive edits in this article.  I hope he'll use the time to read up on Wikipedia policy, so he'll be better able to help if he decides to return to this article when his block expires. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The so-called TRNC

message: I start this discussion here.
PRO
* My conclusion is that the Cypriot conflict has entered a very delicate period in its protracted and troublesome history characterized by a deadlock game. Strong domestic and international factors have created the conditions for each side to follow a non-cooperative strategy aimed at unilateral victory rather than a compromise.--Kanuni Sultan Suleyman 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No need for infobox for UN not recognized countries

message: The main issues dividing the Greek Cypriots from the Turkish Cypriots are: 
*(i) the future political system; 
*(ii) guarantorship; 
*(iii) freedom; 
*(iv) the military status of Cyprus;
*(v) displaced persons; 
*(vi) Turkish settlers; 
*(vii) territorial adjustment; and
*(viii) EU membership. 
Among these (ii), (iii), and (viii) have direct relevance to EU-Cyprus relations. Kanuni Sultan Suleyman 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The main issues 

message: "The United Nations Secretary-General at the time describes the outcome of the efforts in this way"...The UN Sectretary General says no such thing. The report you have linked to is written by the Republic of Cyprus, the full version of which is available here. Do not manipulate sources. --A.Garnet 13:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Garnet if in doubt simply request the report from the UN. It is Secretary-General of the United Nations report S/6426 of 10.6.1965, p. 271 Aristovoul0s 15:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so it is a quote by the SG from a report that we have no access to. If you wish, we can fill this page with reams of quotes supporting our respective pov's. Perhaps one by Sampson threatening to annihilate the Turkish Cypriot population, or Ioannides urging Makarios to attack every TC on the island, or Makarios stating independence was the first step to enosis etc. As it is, you've made no effort to integrate this text or provide a npov accout of what is being said, if you choose to do so, then I will be more than happy to include a reference to this statement. --A.Garnet 21:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since readers won't have an access to the UN report (or do they?), we should not use it as a source. But it is the Greek Cypriot government's report, we can have it. If you want to, you can check the UN report or someone (Aristo?) can e-mail you an image. Meanwhile, we should maybe indicate that the source is actually a Cypriot government report where they refer to U Thant's statement. DenizTC 22:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where are you leading the conversation? Garnet the Secretary Generals statement is NOT a "reams of quotes supporting our respective pov's". I refute all your statements as irrelevant. Aristovoul0s 04:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support including this information. It has to be written though that these words of the UN SG are taken from the "report submitted by [the Republic of] Cyprus". This note could be removed after someone will have found these words in some other source that's not associated with the parties of the conflict. Alaexis 13:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You mean you like paraphrasing quotes? That's odd - I have been in other disputes where an acceptable paraphrase couldn't be agreed on so we just included the massive quote instead. I doubt Aristovoulos would have a problem with using a consise summary of the quote instead.--Ploutarchos 14:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Niko, I did not delete the sourced material. I paraphrased it and added a counterpov within the same paragraph. Either you have compeletely ignored what I wrote, or your only intention here is to revert for Aristov (along with his sock/meat puppets) --A.Garnet 20:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Check my last diff for an excuse. ok now? NikoSilver 21:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Can somebody without danger of technically violating 3RR undo this rampant idiocy? This is the version we want. NikoSilver 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristov 

message: I'm not arguing if it is right to include the UN declaration in the intro, but it is definitely sourced. I am referring, of course, to this edit summary. One source is already linked in the article.here Some more sources exist in this simple search (click HTML if you don't have access to the UN site). I can't imagine why this does not add to the article (we're not saying it's "legally invalid" ourselves, we're saying UN calls it that; which is 100% accurate and WP:ATTributable). NikoSilver 13:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I hate becoming WP:bold with the article for people to notice comments in talk, so please comment. NikoSilver 10:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The UN's position is already given in the intro, the legally invalid term is best suited where it is already mentioned i.e. International Status. --A.Garnet 15:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? NikoSilver 15:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The United Nations considers the declaration of independence by the TRNC as legally invalid in several of its resolutions." Under International Status and Foreign relations. --A.Garnet 15:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If your referring to the intro "The United Nations recognizes the de jure sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the whole island." --A.Garnet 15:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gah, the diff I provided is from Cyprus! NikoSilver 00:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Legally invalid" 

message: Is it in UN list? No.--193.223.98.186 17:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: they keep warning me but they don't speak here... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.223.98.186 (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Because you're over WP:3RR. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 17:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: 1. de facto independent republic: I don't understand howcome you people have a problem with that. It's an independent (independent in terms of independent from Republic of Cyprus, since ROC doesn't have any control in the area), republic (so says the constitution), and since it's described as "legally invalid" by UN, we gotta put "de-facto" in front of all these definitions. CIA world book here has a whole section here about Turkish Republic of Cyprus' independence (of ROC), adding that TRNC is "heavily dependent on transfers from the Turkish Government" . So once more; a) TRNC is independent of of the RoC. b) Since rest of the world doesn't "legally" accept this, it's de facto.
2. I don't understand how you come to the conlusion that the reason for the Turkish Cypriot immigration is due to its "legally invalid" status. If it was so, they'd rather immigrate to Roc right? Plus I don't understand how you put it there like that without any source, interpretting UNs statement as so.
Anyway; out of this subject. I think that Greece should've won the Eurovision last night. I really liked the songs and performance there. And you guys also should start to vote for us too. All the world is holding their neighbours there, we could also use a friend ;) Regards, Kerem Özcan 09:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked Russians better, but their songs were too Britney'ish, I felt like I heard their song before. DenizTC 23:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last edists by Aristovoul0s

message: It seems that another edit war has broken out. I have filed a request for page protection of this article. This would be the sixth time this article has been protected. Discuss changes to an article. Assume good faith. Don't try to push pov's, and don't accuse others of pushing pov's. Use this talk page. Don't engage in a back-and-forth revert war. Noone is entitled to an edit war, no matter how right you think you are, no matter how strongly you feel about this subject. I'm this close to filing an RFC on the behaviour of all of you. AecisBrievenbus 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I explained my points above, and tried to open up a discussion about it, but all I get is blind reverts. Kerem Özcan 22:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another edit war, another request for page protection 

message: I see that the differences of opinion that led to the protection of this article are not being discussed on this talk page. I would like to urge you to discuss and settle the issue, otherwise this will start up again after unprotection, leading to a new edit war and a new protection, and another one, and another one, and another one. AecisBrievenbus 10:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which are those? Can you specify or give a link? (I certainly think that the title should be first and foremost, I find it preposterous given that "Northern Cyprus" redirects to that. It's like pointing Western Sahara to Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.) --Polyvotis 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please discuss 

message: Why we include .nc.tr as TLD for 'TRNC'? Internet Assigned Numbers Authority does not recognize such a TLD ? In fact, .nc.tr is not even a TLD, because TLDs are by definition the part after the final full stop (dot). It is propaganda -the TLD of websites ending in .nc.tr is the .tr.--Ploutarchos 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[.nc.tr]]? 

message: Why is it that these Greek Cypriots, who were once murdering the Turkish Cypriots, and getting Murdered themselves by the Mainland Greeks.. Still find the time to give such detested hatred to Turkish Cypriots. Everyone Knows that the 1974 was actually started by the Greek Cypriot Genocide Files... and we all remember the fact that they even went far enough as to kill British Soldiers at them time (Archived by Birtish Papers), lets all look at the BBC timeline: [www.bbc.co.uk] for Cyprus, and remember the facts before listening and actually diluting the credibility of a Turksih Cypriot community. 
This is all part of a unsuccesful coup by the Greeks, and this is still carrying on today not with guns but with words... if it wasnt for Turkish intervention the innocent people of Cyprus (Turkish) would all now be dead! STOP IT and GET OVER IT.. otherwise you are just proving your hatred, and murderous attitude to the world! As for victimisation.. you had 30 years to get over a war.. 30 years to forget that you once had hatred for the turks..but yet in an EU vote you still said NO TO PEACE! we all know what the facts are.. so stop this nonsense!! RO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.161.169 (talk • contribs) 
:Moved down from Talk:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus#Comments. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use this talk page to discuss the article, not the subject of the article. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I strongly believe there was a genocide against Turkish people in the island of Cyprus to get them out of the island. I think it sounds a lot more sensible and reasonable then other "officially accepted" genocides. Thelorien 18:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use this talk page to discuss the article and to suggest improvements. This talk page is not the proper place to discuss the subject of the article. AecisBrievenbus 18:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't hear about any source supporting Thelorien's affirmations.--MariusM 19:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GENOCIDE AGAINST TURKISH CYPROTS 

message: Article has been stable for a while, so if no one opposes I propose to remove the tags in the beginning. Kerem Özcan 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. The Cyprus-related entries are always amongst the worst on Wikipedia regarding bias. Innocent or uninformed users of Wikipedia should be given a clear warning that this entry falls far short of even Wikipedia's low standards. Meowy 23:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What exactly don't you like in the article? Alæxis¿question? 06:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I renew my proposal. I'll take it as a consensus if no voices are raised. I am sincerly open to any solid and constructive criticism. Regards, Kerem Özcan 21:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, being busy with my "real life", I totally forgot about my proposal. Since the tag-in/out edits just started, I'll remove the tags soon, if no solid concerns are voiced here. Regards; Kerem Özcan 11:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: well, though you say it's absurd, I claim the article is fairly NPOV. What exactly you think is pov/unsourced? bring it here, and we'll discuss. Regards, Kerem Özcan 13:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags out? 

message: Here's another source for you guys:
This info is notable imho and should be mentioned in the article (with the proper attribution, that is, until more sources supporting  it are found). Alæxis¿question? 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont really see a need to include Mr Durduran statement since a)we have no reason to give his estimate (which do not how he came to) more authority than the TC census b)what he says and the TC census says are rougly the same anyway i.e. an almist 50/50 split between natives foreigners.  --A.Garnet 15:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another source 

message: Some user(s) attack to the template of . I warn the members of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please take care. Kaygtr 10:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User Template

message: A permablocked 3RR-violating SPA sockpuppet created Wikipedia:WikiProject TRNC yesterday.  Since its creator is now blocked, we have a WikiProject without a leader.  I think Wikipedia would be better off with just WikiProject Cyprus, since that's a place where Turks and Greeks can (or at least should) work together—however, since the TRNC project has already been created, I'm asking here if there's anyone (who's not a crazed fanatic who will ignore policy like the creator) who would like to take over leadership of this project.  If not, I'll put the project up for deletion soon. Lexicon (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How was the WP started in the first place? El Greco (talk · contribs) 15:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, a sockpuppet created it.  I don't think it would be a problem to just delete it outright since a now-banned user created it just yesterday, but I'm mentioning it here because if someone can find a genuine use for it and wants to take on the responsibility for it, then they should probably be allowed to do so. Lexicon (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll speedy delete it, as is required if it's solely the work of a banned user. I see this has occurred already, and that it has been revived by User:HonorousGreek, who appears to be another sockpuppet (and, pending confirmation it is not, I have blocked). ProhibitOnions (T) 14:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject TRNC|WikiProject TRNC]] 

message: With this pointless adding/removing of tags going already for some time may I ask what is the purpose of them? Alæxis¿question? 19:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contributors do not agree with the title, and/or feel the article is not on a neutral stance. --Vonones 12:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you explain what exactly don't you like here? For instance I don't see any disagreement over the title. Alæxis¿question? 13:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: ) I don't dislike anything here there was discussion about the title and information in the talk so tags were necessary, if no one else replies than they should be tooken down. --Vonones 13:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Huh, ok. Let's wait for a couple of days for other people to respond here. Alæxis¿question? 13:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Now I see that there is indeed a slow-burning dispute over the article's name. However no justification has been provided for the  tag. I'll remove it now. As usually if you want to restore it please explain here your reasons. Alæxis¿question? 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: The list of the entities that now make up Cyprus would be appropriate in the article about Cyprus (island) (if it existed) or maybe in the Cyprus article. I'm sure that it's enough to write that TRNC is within the internationally recognised borders of RoC and isn't recognised by any countries or int'l organisations (save for Turkey).
* No it is not. First of all when we are talking about an island nation "within borders" is a bit weasel. Should be "on the internationally recognised sovereign territory of the Republic of Cyprus" and how the rest of the woorld views it. The Republic of Cyprus northern teritory under occupation, in line with the UN. 
*If TRNC is to be mentioned as a de facto partition of the Republic of Cyprus, then all de facto partition need be mentioned. Why remove them?
** Well, I can imagine the rationale behind mentioning UN-administered line but the British bases are totally irrelevant and mentioning RoC for n-th time is also redundant. Alæxis¿question? 16:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you think it's important could you summarise it in like one sentence? Every part of the intro can be expanded (that's why there's also an article below) and undue weight shouldn't be given to anything. Alæxis¿question? 16:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other problems with the proposed version

message: It seems that another edit war has broken out on this article. I have brought this matter to the attention of other admins, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. AecisBrievenbus 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a full protection is not needed this time since there's been only two reverts or so. I know the article has a notorious past of edit wars but I believe this time we can solve it by discussing it (or at least hope I should say). I'll ask for halting the protection for a little while. Regards; Kerem Özcan 23:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another edit war 

message: I would like to recommend that all editors on this article read Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers thoroughly. Aec·is·away talk 13:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beware of the tigers 

message: :Huh... So I guess it's OK for some people as long as the tags stay there, since nobody takes time to explain why they are there in the first place;
:First, Title was being disputed, and some people were fiercely advocating that it should be moved to Northern cyprus. Title tag comes in, I make my points and come with a proposal, and then some user says that "it shouldn't be moved" without giving any reasons, not answering a question as simple as "why?", then nobody takes any action and the dispute stays unresolved...
: Then Another user comes in, turns the whole intro into repetetive "TRNC is illegal" verbiage, claiming that before it was all Turkish-bias, rejecting half a dozen perfectly valid sources along with the proper wording that is used in all articles alike. Same user, after seeing that those claims of his are irrelevant, puts two more tags in the article and stops posting, leaving another dispute unresolved. (Yet he still has time to revert back the tags)
:As I said before; I do not care what it says in Wikipedia about TRNC or Cyprus or anything. But it is really irritating when I (or somebody else) try to discuss something, and it is just like discussing it with a wall (Actually wall is even better, since it doesn't respond at all. In this case, my counterside, aside from not responding, is actually taking time to drive things to a deadlock)
:Now; somebody, anybody... Why do we need to have this tags? Let the other wikipedians discuss and fix the stuff that doesn't look alright to you.
:Regards, Kerem Özcan 19:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there was a consensus on title change to "Northern Cyprus", but it was later changed back to TRNC by User: Vonones. Moving this to "Northern Cyprus" might help us get rid of one of the tags. Don't see any reason for keeping the other tags. The 'dispute' sections (eg history, int status-foreign relations, military) are well sourced, but the 'innocent' ones like the geography and climate section aren't sourced. They should be well-sourced as well, though I don't think this is the cause of the tags. DenizTC 23:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since the only opposing user is blocked indefinetly, I made the changes according to prior consensus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerem Ozcan (talk • contribs) 14:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags in general

message: Would it be possible for someone to create an administrative map of Northern Cyprus? I cant find an image from which to copy, I'm hoping others with graphic skills could find and develop one. Thanks, --A.Garnet 15:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrative map 

message: Please stop revertwarring over this article. Try and find a consensus here. Continuing the editwar will result in the article being protected from editing. AecisBrievenbus 14:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop editwarring, part 225 

message: The article has been protected... again... The protection will expire in two weeks time. In the meantime, use this talk page to come to a consensus over the article. Don't revert back and forth between two completely different versions every hour. AecisBrievenbus 22:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Where was the discussion about renaming this article? I don't see it on this page. El Greco(talk) 21:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be #Article title above. -- ChrisO 21:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it now. This talk page has become so large you can get lost in it. Thanks! El Greco(talk) 00:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article rename