Talk:Northern Cyprus/Archive 3

message: Take a look at the history section: why is it ok to talk about the 'aftermath of the Turkish Invasion', but NOT about the 'aftermath of the Greek backed military coup'. Why is no mention made of the 1960 Treaty? 
The history section should include the following points that should be explained in NPOV language. This is a rough outline:
*1960 independence from Britain
*1963 constitutional breakdown
*1963 Turks live in enclaves and are blockaded by the Greeks
*1974 Greece backs military coup in Cyprus, removes Makarios from office and places Nikos_Sampson in charge.
*1974 Turkey militarily intervenes under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee and the island is partitioned
*1975 Federated state and 
*1983 TRNC UDI 
--Son of the Tundra 09:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now Son of the Tundra, you are been unfair. Theathenae obviously believes that the Turkish Cypriots don't have the right to establish their own state without asking for permission from the Greek Cypriots and their extremist leader Makarios III and that that wouldn't be a violation of their right to self determination. He is obviously around the twist with Greek nationalism, we can't blame him :-))))))))))))))))) REX 10:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section needs improvement 

message: The TRNC article keeps being reset to the version some keeper has in their computer. You correct a spelling error, or supply a missing symbol like a $ sign and soon after your corrections disappear! This behavior makes me question the neutrality of the article.
Hey Guys would it be possible to discuss the content of this article and come to agreement. Huh? is that possible? --Son of the Tundra 10:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your latest edit rather incongruous with your previous posts. If you agree so wholeheartedly with the Turkish invasion and occupation, why would you object to mentioning them in the opening paragraph? What are you ashamed of?--Theathenae 12:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It can, as this article is specifically about the "TRNC", not the Cyprus dispute in general. And the "TRNC" was a direct result of the Turkish invasion and occupation, without which it could never have existed.--Theathenae 12:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The coup and treaty should be mentioned as they are important aspects of this country's history. REX 12:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets Talk 

message: I have protected the article for now. Please find a way to discuss the issues at hand in a civil manner, and negotiate a way forward that both sides can live with. I would remind editors about No personal attacks, and staying cool when editing. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Things have gone a bit quiet over the past couple of days. I'll unprotect in the hope that feelings have subsided a bit and all are willing to work together. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Dear Greek-observer, please stop adding those twenty-something images to the article. Most of them don't serve any encyclopedic purpose, and there are simply too many; the article has enough images currently. If you want, you can add two or three in appropriate places, but certainly not that many; it'd result in a layout and loading time nightmare. Cheers!  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of images 

message: 1. All wowturkey.com images are free for use. If your going to revert a POV, dont be so careless as to remove all the images which other people have taken time to upload.
2. Why is the section on Economy considered POV?
3. Why are the airports and harbours considered POV? --A.Garnet 21:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling the TRNC a "country" is POV - especially when all countries on earth bar one view it as part of another country. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Signomi, kyrie, but many countries in the Organization of Islamic States have given de facto recognition to the TRNC, Azerbaijan has given de facto recognition as well, and Naxcivan Autonomous Republic and Turkey fully recognize it...TRNC is NOT part of another country...68.100.160.15 21:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Really, well the UN don't. Also, de facto recognition means nothing - formal recognition is what is required. The Republic of Cyprus has given it de facto recognition. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, that's why they don't recognise it :-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 13:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not my question, I wanted to know why some editors felt the need to remove entire sections. What is POV about information on its economy or harbours? --A.Garnet 23:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. It's my mistake. I have re-added them. --Khoikhoi 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a sec - that info that Inanna added is copyvio from . I'm going to remove it unless she states she has permission. --Khoikhoi 01:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note to the constant reverters 

message: For those supporters who wish to show it on their user pages
 For those who do not support the South Cypriot Government as the 'sole ligitimate government' on the island.
:How tasteful. Not sure how ligitimate, though.--Theathenae 17:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those templates need TfDing. They are provocative and serve no useful purpose. The second one especially is plain silly. I'd propose it myself if I could be bothered. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: How is this NPOV? I don't really see anything noneutral. Explain.
-Alex, 12.220.157.93 22:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you mean how is this POV? NPOV stands for "Neutral Point of View", which this article isn't. --Khoikhoi 23:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In the article everything is clear, you don't need to add any adjectives in front of TRNC. Only if you took the time to read it all instead of getting stuck with the first sentence.--Kagan the Barbarian 19:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I went through your history, you are adding so-called in front of every TRNC you find. This is vandalism. Look, it doesn't matter whether UN recognizes TRNC or not, it is a de facto state, it has its borders, military, parliament etc, in practice IT EXISTS, you can't name it so-called. How old are you?--Kagan the Barbarian 07:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: Added for this:
nine years after the Greek Cypriot coup d'etat and the ensuing Turkish liberation of Cyprus.
- FrancisTyers 19:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: The port names should remain, they are private names. Greek word for other locations can be used but what about the Cyprus page and Turkish names for the cities? Either neutrality or an edit war.--Kagan the Barbarian 12:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, you give their Greek name once, you don't have to write "Girne/Kyrenia" 245275056 times. Ports have private names, it is ridicilous to use a Greek name for a TRNC airport or port. Forget about ports and airports, Turkish for the GC city names should be mentioned like they are here. I don't care how much it pisses off Greeks but Cyprus does not belong to just GCs.--Kagan the Barbarian 19:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course Greek names of TRNC cities have to be mentioned but same with GC page. Difference between Cyprus and other problem regions is current Cyprus border between North and South is not natural, just like there are GC towns in North, there are TC towns in south as well, am I wrong? As for ports and airports, I still think it is stupid to give the Greek name for the city when talking about a TRNC port, give the Greek name once, not 12414 times. When you say it is occupied, people get the message really.--Kagan the Barbarian 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok,lets point the issues at that have arisen:greek names in the north are mentioned,as well as turkish names in the south.u are not wrong,the border is not natural and the GC and TC cities in both nort and south are mentioned.there are resemblances with the other unrecognised territories,since they share sort of common status.i do not mind the names of the cities mentioned in both languages when talking about airports and ports,and i recomment the same thing to happen in a future list about Cyprus.lastly,i did not mention the word 'occupied' in the article,although it is my POV.--Hectorian 20:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish-Greek names 

message: Although the paragraph starts balanced, the reverts by 85.97.143.5 keep adding POV in the article.it is not a case of contemning the greek-cypriots or the leaders of that time.it is a case of the article to be NPOV.we are talking about a civil unrest,so both communities suffered.--Hectorian 14:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reverts 

message: The Politics section begins with this note: Note: The TRNC is not recognized by the international community except Turkey and, as such, the terms associated with politics (President, Prime Minister, elections, government, parliament) remain controversial when used in relations to the TRNC (see Cyprus dispute). However, the Turkish Cypriot authorities are internationally recognized as the representatives of the Turkish Cypriot community and negotiate on its behalf.
I think that this statement is ridiculous for two reasons: 1) The controversial nature of the history of the TRNC was well established far earlier in the text of this article; and, 2) regardless of whether the TRNC is recognized by one state or one hundred, there is no debating the fact that it is, in all actuality, a functional democratic entity.  This entity has a President, a Prime Minister, a parliament, etc, etc.  That is fact.  That is what wiki is supposed to record without hiding behind unnecessary disclaimers.  However, I'm not going to remove this note until I hear back from some of you, so... let me know what you all think.  --(Mingus ah um 21:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out the disclaimer. There's nothing controversial about using terms like "president", "election", or even "parliament". The only term mentioned in the disclaimer that might possibly be controversial is "government" but even then the disclaimer is unnecessary because the rest of the article explains the international status of the TRNC. For comparison see the articles Taiwan and Republic of China. --Mathew5000 12:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see that others agreed with me.  I am fairly certain that similar disclaimers exist on other TRNC pages...  When I have a little time away from work, I will look into removing those as well. --(Mingus ah um 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful when removing some of them though. While the disclaimer was not necessary in this case, it may well be warrented in other cases. Travelbird 21:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this disclaimer really necessary?

message: Just a small note on the flag : it's not really painted on the moountain but  rather it consist of thousands of stones painted white or red, which were placed on a field adjacent to the village. But I don't quite know how to phrase that into the article without it being to long/akward. Travelbird 22:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TRNC flag on Pentadactylos 

message: Why are there so many "citation needed" footnotes in the article? Doesn't this discredit some of the information posted?--Theodoros 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. And rightfully so, if there's no reference for it, it's not verified. If you want to change something about the information being "discredited", I'd suggest finding some sources. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 13:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nightstallion is correct.  In fact, all of our pages should be riddled with 'citation needed' requests, but they only seem to pop up on controversial pages or pages which are on the verge of 'good article' status.  --(Mingus ah um 20:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Editor Kaihsu has added a military section which contains nothing but a link to a highly POV article on the Turkish actions in 74. I see this as just  another asinine POV edit by a non neutral party. I will revert unless anyone has any better ideas. Adam777 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to correct the article he claimed neutral by cleaning a lot of POV entries and claims.  However it's still a mess.  I know Turkish Military is still there but also TRNC (KKTC) has its own military. That part could reflect this information with more details.  --Gokhan 11:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV MIlitary Section 

message: VikiProje KKTC :tr:Türkçe Vikipedi de başladı./ WikiProject TRNC starting in :tr:Turkish Wikipedia.--Absar 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VikiProfe KKTC/WikiProject TRNC