Talk:2004 Cypriot Annan Plan referendums

message: Argyro, are you trying to use multiple IPs in order to instate your version? A new trick?  - Snchduer 14:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Issue resolved. Argyro is using Asian open proxies to circumvent the block effective against him due to the violation of the WP:3RR rule. - Snchduer 17:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous edits 

message: The so-called referenda were carried out between the Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots and Turkish colonists NOT between any so-called sectors which DO NOT EXIST. The Cyprus government opposed the participation of Turkish colonists in these referenda.--Argyrosargyrou 14:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do know about these things... Why you accuse me of not knowing it is strange... However, there were two referendae: one in the north and one in the south. So people in the north would go in the northern sector (north of the Green Line) to vote, people in the south in the southern sector (south of the Green Line). The fact that in the north live mostly Turkish Cypriots and Turkish settlers, and in the south mostly Greek Cypriots in my opinion is of no concern to the partitioning of the island in two voting sectors for the purpose of the referendum. Disprove me with official sources other than RoC. - Snchduer 14:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designation of sectors 

message: People, do NOT get into another editing war. Let's discuss it here. Main issue is: Designation of voting sectors in the voting results table. Argyro, it might be possible that your designation is correct by the standards you mentioned, but they might still be offending to some people. "northern/southern sector" however seems - at least to me - offensive to no one and still correct, as you already have the note below the table for information about what you want to include. Another possibility would be "Turkish Cypriot north/Greek Cypriot south" - Snchduer 16:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: I find this assertion in the article a bit questionable:
:"On top of this the finalised plan had not been made public until 24 hours before the referendum was due to take place so everyone on both sides was voting on something they had not even seen and whose consequences could not be fully analysed."
My understanding was that the Annan Plan was published on 1 April, 3 weeks before the referendum. Can anyone substantiate the assertion above? -- ChrisO 18:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember -from the news- that some points were still in discussion and open to modifications up to minus 24 hours before the vote, and they were quite crucial points, too. Anyway, there was quite a lag between official presentation and public disclosure (people of both sides were only informed by hearsay and speculations, up to 24hours before the vote). EpiVictor 12:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable assertions

message: I removed the quote from the ECHR case because the statement was not an official statement or decision on the referendum, it was a statement made during the admissability of a case against Turkey - not against the referendum itself. --E.A 16:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed ECHR case quote 

message: Why change this title suddenly after so many years? This was not just any referendum as the title would imply, it was a referendum on reunification. Lets make that perfectly clear. --A.Garnet 14:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristov. 

message: Does anyone know what question was asked during the referendum?--Domitius 00:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you Approve the Foundation Agreement with all its Annexes, as well as the constitution of the Greek Cypriot/Turkish Cypriot State and the provisions as to the law to be in force to bring into being a new state of affairs in which Cyprus joins the European Union united? http://www.pcr.uu.se/publications/other_pub/Jakobsson_hatay_Oxi%20and%20Evet2_040505.pdf --A.Garnet 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's hardly a generic mention of "union", they're not only asking them "do you want union" which is what the current title implies. It's union within the meaning of the Annan Plan which is what they are being asked; there are many possible versions of a "United Cyprus", the Annan Plan was just one of them.--Domitius 00:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The question is clear "Do you Approve the Foundation Agreement with all its Annexes, as well as the constitution of the Greek Cypriot/Turkish Cypriot State and the provisions as to the law to be in force" and the consequences ... "to bring into being a new state of affairs" and the consequence of "the new state of affairs" ..."in which Cyprus joins the European Union united?" Hardly a "reunification referendum" but a referendum on a comprehensive plan aimed to resolve the Cyprus dispute, a new state of affairs. The United nations never stated that they would have a reunification referendum, but the final revision of the plan would be put into a referendum. That is a "Referendum on the UN plan". Sure an objective of the ongoing dispute is to bring an end to the de facto partition of the Republic of Cyprus, but the referendum was on the specific plan asking whether Cypriots accept or not the speciific plan, as a means to do that, not whether Cypriots want reunification in general as the current title implies. Aristovoul0s 19:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: This page was protected due to move warring. Discuss the title change. --A.Garnet 15:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Garnet the reasoning for the title change: It was a referendum on the final revision of the settlement plan. The UN did not call it "reunification referendum". Calling it "reunification referendum" is misleading the audience. As for the question itself, see above Aristovoul0s 15:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristov 

message: It's perfectly fine as it currently is. The current title is clearly neutral and meets the usual format for election articles. —Nightstallion 22:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Does it really matter whether it has diplomatic relations with Members of the UN or not? The Cyprus dispute is between the Greek and Turkish communities on the island. It seems that both communities sometimes argue like they want to have their cake and eat it. For example, Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus, and yet insists that whenever oil is found, half of the proceeds belong to the Turkish community, under the terms of the 1960 Zurich agreement. Greek Cypriots claim their government represents all Cypriots, and yet are not prepared to use that 1960 constitution which is supposedly in place. E.g. when the Supreme Court rules that a TC is NOT entitled to their property. The truth is that there is not a working Republic of Cyprus.
Interestingly actually Azarbaijan does also recognize the sovereignty of the KKTC, and at one point so did Pakistan and Bangladesh, although the reasons for their withdrawal are not clear. 
The recognition by 56 UN Members of Kosovo as a sovereign entity, against Serbian law, is an indication that you never know what could happen in future, and there is that possibility this could happen with the KKTC, unless there are in the immediate years compelling and extraordinary reasons why this should not happen. 
If the Greek Cypriots really want to show that the Turkish community would be better off coming back into the Republic, I would suggest they should focus on the following : 1) Insisting that half of the six MEPs are from the Turkish community, wherever they are based; 2) Insisting that Turkish be made an official language of the EU, and used more extensively in official documents/websites; 3) Allowing TCs to play sports for the national team, wherever they are based; 4) Insisting that TCs can get their property back, whether this appears to be entirely fair or not; 5) Allowing TCs to take up their reserved seats in parliament, wherever they are based. This will do much to undermine the raison d'etre of the KKTC.
I may add that strictly speaking, the Republic is already in violation of the constitution by aceding to the EU anyway, due to the fact she cannot acede to IOs without first Greece AND Turkey having done so. 
I am simply trying to illustrate how, from a GC perspective, I actually don't care whether you call the KKTC legal or not; I care about the quality of negotiations in the dispute resolution, and of course the settlement we all dream about. Eugene-elgato (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TRNC 

message: After rejection of this referandum, accession of Cyprus to the EU in 2004 was the biggest mistake ever made of the EU because Greek Cypriots had no motivation, courage and most importantly necessity to say Yes knowing that they would be a member of the EU months later. And EU had no regret or consideration for the consequences in letting CY as de facto partitioned country into the Europe and it is not fair to say Turkey invaded EU territory.I guess Hristophias could resist the pressures and show the will to unify two communities, based on who experience an unfair divide for 33 years.
   
As this situation goes on, time keeps going for the disadvantage of Greek Cypriots. Day by day, eventually Turkey moves towards the European Union membership, this dispute will be the major stuckpoint and world community will not be able to close their eyes and not see the situation of an isolated community. I hope a two community based solution could be settled, guaranteeing the rights od both communities.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncdvc (talk • contribs) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the biggest sin 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cypriot Annan Plan referendums, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101210081344/http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/turkish_cypriot_community/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/turkish_cypriot_community/index_en.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cypriot Annan Plan referendums, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050210171448/http://www.ktto.net/english/protocolno10.doc to http://www.ktto.net/english/protocolno10.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: All of those points are cited from either a letter written by the president of the republic at the time (who was against the referendum from the start), or from a book written by Van Coufoudakis on behalf of the Pro-Greek Cypriot Lobby for Cyprus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.91.194 (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and it reads like a manifesto, to be a little blunt. While a wiki is a good place to relate verifiable information about a topic, I'm not sure it's a good idea at all to try to address why hundreds of thousands of people voted the way they did. Feels speculative. 91.74.45.74 (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for Rejection of Refendum - Come from only two questionable sources 

message: The title of this page is very similar to one: Annan Plan for Cyprus. Is there a reason for this? How does one differentiate between the two, and how can the focus of each article be made clear in the titles? Nargothronde (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title almost identical to another page: [[Annan Plan for Cyprus]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion