Talk:Northern Cyprus/Archive 2

message: The history as you want it doesn't go far enough in explaining the Turkish presence on the island. The article didnt even mention how Turkish Cypriots appeared on the island, hence beginning from 1571. Also the reasons for the creation of the TRNC go far beyond 1974. As it was it was too simplified. --E.A 14:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we were attempting to create a whole section on Turkish Cypriot history i would understand your point, but as it was there was 1 paragraph on how Turks came, 1 paragraph on how the Republic was created and 1 paragraph on how it broke down and TRNC was created. We were hardly 'wondering all over' Cyprus history were we? --E.A 11:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its this simple, i think the material is very relevant (and judging by Turkcyp contribution so does he) and will continue to reinstate it. Either we come to a compromise or we'll both waste our time, but i wont accept the complete removal of it. E.A 13:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Its a shame you will not adopt a more constructive attitude. I see no reason why a reader reading about the TRNC will not want to know how the Turks came, how the republic broke down and how the TRNC was created. If you want to carry on being stubborn go ahead. --E.A 13:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: You will find that many articles on states summarise small parts of their history from their main history article. Considering this is an article about the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, that is why there is an explanation (1 paragraph!) on how the Turks came to the island, if people want to find out how Greeks came, then they can follow the links i placed at the bottom. Also to not include a short summary (only 2 paragraphs) on how the TRNC came about from the 1950/60/70's violence is absurd. If we had it your way readers would be hopping from article to article to find information which they may only want in a summarised form. --E.A 15:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We can have a summary, but I agree with Adam that the overall length you have in mind is excessive and can be linked (it's a wiki, after all), and that duplication and un-topicality should be avoided. I'm sure some sort of compromise can be reached here. El_C 02:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds reasonable; I also note that the additions suffer from reduandancy which can be improved through concision. Pertinent material need not and should not be lost, better structuring and organization (including linking), and presentation can end up doing wonders. El_C 05:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: As far as I can see, you are not disputing the necessity of this information for a better understanding of the TRNC; so why don't we include this information directly until the article is edited to have links to provide the information which I am sure you can do very competently? at0 05:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, the order in which the summaries are authored, links added, other pertinent material from these additions integrated into those, etc., isn't that key. So long as we agree on this as the approach to follow. El_C 05:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Right, it does not appear to amount (yet) to formal diplomatic recognition. El_C 22:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: *Why does Greece contain information on Prehistory, Roman and Ottoman rule? Why does that article not start in 1829?. Why does Germany contain information on the Holy Roman Empire? Why does that no start in 1945? Israel has a wealth of information before 1947 on its history. 
*In fact look at the History of Cyprus and you will see no mention of the history of its republic. Why dont you move those to the history of Cyprus? 
*None of the material myself and Turkcyp posted are irrelevant or off topic, it is part of Turkish Cypriot history on the island. --E.A 10:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we were attempting to create a whole section on Turkish Cypriot history i would understand your point, but as it was there was 1 paragraph on how Turks came, 1 paragraph on how the Republic was created and 1 paragraph on how it broke down and TRNC was created. We were hardly 'wondering all over' Cyprus history were we? --E.A 11:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its this simple, i think the material is very relevant (and judging by Turkcyp contribution so does he) and will continue to reinstate it. Either we come to a compromise or we'll both waste our time, but i wont accept the complete removal of it. E.A 13:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Its a shame you will not adopt a more constructive attitude. I see no reason why a reader reading about the TRNC will not want to know how the Turks came, how the republic broke down and how the TRNC was created. If you want to carry on being stubborn go ahead. --E.A 13:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: You will find that many articles on states summarise small parts of their history from their main history article. Considering this is an article about the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, that is why there is an explanation (1 paragraph!) on how the Turks came to the island, if people want to find out how Greeks came, then they can follow the links i placed at the bottom. Also to not include a short summary (only 2 paragraphs) on how the TRNC came about from the 1950/60/70's violence is absurd. If we had it your way readers would be hopping from article to article to find information which they may only want in a summarised form. --E.A 15:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We can have a summary, but I agree with Adam that the overall length you have in mind is excessive and can be linked (it's a wiki, after all), and that duplication and un-topicality should be avoided. I'm sure some sort of compromise can be reached here. El_C 02:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds reasonable; I also note that the additions suffer from reduandancy which can be improved through concision. Pertinent material need not and should not be lost, better structuring and organization (including linking), and presentation can end up doing wonders. El_C 05:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: As far as I can see, you are not disputing the necessity of this information for a better understanding of the TRNC; so why don't we include this information directly until the article is edited to have links to provide the information which I am sure you can do very competently? at0 05:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, the order in which the summaries are authored, links added, other pertinent material from these additions integrated into those, etc., isn't that key. So long as we agree on this as the approach to follow. El_C 05:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Right, it does not appear to amount (yet) to formal diplomatic recognition. El_C 22:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of sections

message: Due to Truth Seeker's cogent observations, new pages dealing with specifics of TRNC politics have been created on Wikipedia by myself: Foreign Relations of TRNC, and Politics of Northern Cyprus. Expatkiwi 22:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently created TRNC sub-articles 

message: *The article (Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus) reads like biased political commentary emphasizing and focusing on issues that have more to do with the Cyprus_dispute. For example: there is no section describing the People of the TRNC, but there is an entire section devoted to Property Issues (surely, this section should be in the Cyprus Dispute). The section on Communications and Transport has three paragraphs and each paragraph describes problems such as visa issues rather than giving facts and figures about airports, roads and so on. The History section is factually wrong (see below) and focuses on the non-recognition of the TRNC, rather than giving useful information on why and how the TRNC came into existence.
*It is factually wrong and misleading to say that quote- The independence of northern Cyprus was proclaimed in 1975 under the name Turkish Federated State of Northern Cyprus -unquote. In 1975 Northern Cyprus declared its federated status as part of the Republic of Cyprus. It did not declare its independence until 1983, and that was after years of failed negotiations with South Cyprus and the international community. The article continues quote- The name was changed to its present form on 15 November 1983 -unquote. This is misleading. It was a lot more than a name change. It was the creation of a newly declared independent political entity called the TRNC. The Turkish Federated State of Northern Cyprus was a different political entity. The article needs to be corrected. 
* If the aim is to create a NPOV objective description of the TRNC, which describes its Geography, People, Economy and so on, then such an article must include a History section which helps us understand how and why the TRNC came into existence; and a People section that explains who the Turkish Cypriots are and where they came from.
--Truth_Seeker 15:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TRNC Article contains Factual Errors and is POV 

message: There seems to be no substantive discussion here, so I've unprotected the article. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: The TRNC is free democracy with a freely elected President and Prime Minister. The leaders of the TRNC operate independently of Turkey therefore the TRNC is NOT occupied by Turkey
:If stationing 35,000 troops on the island (despite countless condemnatory UN Security Council resolutions demanding their withdrawal) isn't a military occupation, I don't know what is.--Theathenae 15:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your knowledge of recent Cypriot history appears rather deficient, I'm afraid. Denktaş and the generals opposed the Annan Plan from the beginning; the fact that Erdoğan and Talat endorsed it does not mean the generals would have done the same when it came to the nitty-gritty of actually putting it into practice.--Theathenae 18:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Britain invaded and occupies the sovereign nation of Iraq, flouting international law in much the same way Turkey did in 1974.--Theathenae 09:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, being a Yank you'd know all about "illigitimate" (in strong Kiwi twang) invasions and occupations, wouldn't you?--Theathenae 09:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Even if what you say is true, the Turkish-Cypriots had no such authority to invite a foreign power to invade, whether under Cypriot or international law.--Theathenae 12:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course not. The fascists that ruled Greece at the time bear as much responsibility for the tragedy of Cyprus as the Turks. But they are long gone, while the Turks haven't budged an inch.--Theathenae 12:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: So you would support the Republic of Ireland invading and occupying 37% of Northern Ireland, then? After all, the Irish Catholic minority should have the right to live free of British Protestant rule.--Theathenae 12:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TRNC occupied by Turkey? 

message: here is the link and the text is below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia_%28region%29/archive
 
And, when you already got a part in this conversation, explain why Greece runned away 300000 Macedonians and 100000 Bulgarians from Greece during the last 50 years, people that are still not alowed to enter Greece? Why did you burn my grandfathers house and shoot at him? --I sterbinski 17:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take a look at this! 

message: No wonder the international community is sick of this endless petty squabble between two sets of childish nationalist zealots over one small island. If I was Kofi Annan I would say "the UN is leaving in six months, so come to an agreement by then or I will leave you to massacre each other." At Wikipedia, I am sick of endless Greek-Turkish edit wars at this article. I will continue to revert all POV edits, no matter whose. Adam 02:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that Theathenae doesn't seem to have heard of the right to self-determination which is guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Theathenae seems to think that what the Turkish Cypriots think is irrelevant and if they are being oppressed by a foreign nationalist government that they don't have the right to establish their own state (with or without foreign influence). This sounds like the Greek was of Independence. A minority is oppressed in its own land; the revolt and establish their own state. Another example of Theathenae's double standards. REX 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why don't you people grow up?