Talk:Cyprus/Archive 2

message: Population
- Total (June 2004) 	Ranked 155th
775,927 3
3 Of which 771,657 is in the south and 323,657 in the north
These numbers are obviously wrong!
:So fix it, its wiki! We need your sources for the numbers though. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population info 

message: To clear some confusion... Cyprus belongs to the Eurasian Tectonic plate (more detail: USGS), not the Arabian (ie. according to Physical Geography, it's either Europe or Asia). Considering Human Geography, there is no doubt Cyprus is Europian (Europian language, culture, heritage, etc.). Is there more convincing needed between the Asia/Europe camp?
It's an asian country geographically. 209.90.162.13 23:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Cyrpus does belong to Europe right now, but it is still geographically in the Middle East.--Gramaic 02:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Asian Country

message: I'm adding a cleanup tag based on the latest round of edits added by 214.149.188.164 (and a few other things I noticed).  Some of this appears to be lifted from http://allfreeessays.com/student/Cyprus_History_Of_Conflict.html but just reworded a bit.  I'm not going to edit this as I don't really have much knowledge about Cyprus, but here are the problems I have with the history section:
*"The people early learned to work..." - poorly worded English; revised
*"The Mycenæan civilization of the West seems to have reached the island around 1600 B.C." - Based on archeological evidence?  If so, it should be stated that way.  The phrase "...seems to have reached" is too vague.
*"The Greek and Phœnician settlements belong to the Iron Age." - Probably could be better stated as "the Greeks and Phœnicians settled Cyprus during the Iron Age."  Current wording seems to indicate that the "Iron Age" owns those settlements.
*"Around 1200 B.C. we observe the massive arrival of the Mycenaean Greeks as permanent settlers to Cyprus, a process that started and lasted for more than a century."  - Who is "we"?  Should be stated 3rd person.  Also "started and lasted for more than a century" is poorly worded.  Maybe rephrase the sentence as, "Around 1200 B.C., the Mycenaean Greeks began to permanantly settle Cypress; a process that lasted for more than a century."
*"This migration is remembered in many sagas rehearsing..." - Not the right usage for "rehearsing"; consider revising to "concerning".
*"...their advanced technology" - Can you cite a source for this?  
*"When the Ionian Greeks revolted against Persia (499 BC) the Cypriots except for Amathus..." - Who is Amanthus?  This is the first mention of him in the article, yet it is never explained who he is, or why he did not wish to revolt against Persia.  Either explain who he is and why he is important, or remove the reference.  Also, who did the Cypriots join?  The Ionian Greeks or the Persians?  It's not clear from the section as written.
*"They won despite Ionian help."  - Who won?  It's not clear at all from this statement who won the conflict.  Was it the Cypriots, the Ionians, or the Persians?  At this point I'm not even sure who was fighting?
*"After the Persian defeat, the Greeks mounted various expeditions against Cyprus in order to liberate it from the Persian yoke, but all their efforts bore only temporary results."  - So the Persians lost, but retained control of Cyprus and were the target of Greek efforts to liberate Cyprus?  This is all very unclear.  It should be clearly defined who "won the war" of the Greek revolt against Persia in a military sense and who retained control of Cyprus when all was said and done.
*"No doubt the most important event that occurred in Roman Cyprus is the visit by Apostles Paul and Barnabas having with them St Mark..." - Should probably be worded "the Apostles Paul and Barnabas accompanied by St. Mark..."Isotope23 16:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 213.149.188.164 Edits

message: I wonder why the British part of the "ownership" of Cyprus is so truncated? As part of that history - being stationed as a British soldier on the island between 1954-58 - it seemed to me that what was happening was very much part of the scheme of things, not least because it brought to head the business of enosis. I should be grateful to know why it seems to be omitted - is it part of the controversy surrounding the whole thing?  And again - should we not be including stuff about the antiquities on the island - mosaics etc? Or are we too wrapped up in politics? Peter Shearan 19:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Cyprus

message: I've removed a few external links that are either not informative, linking to a site selling material/goods/property and/or having a 'anti-greek pro-turkish' outlook.  I very much would like to remove rentcyprusvillas also, and if anyone finds the information they have posted as copy pasted from any other site, please go ahead and replace the links.  I'm surprised that such 'anti-greek' propaganda links were left up for as long as they were.  
Instead of overloading the links section in the front page, maybe their should be a completely different page with links and a description.  For example, the recent discovery of the perfume and wine factories in cyprus. All the best of the web's links that give information about this can be provided on that page, with any other 'informative' and non-commercial links added to that page.
edit:  I've removed the controversial tag on this page.  We shouldn't always feel that our editing is biased to one side.  If it belongs in this page, stick to the facts and it wont be controversial.  Any controversies belong in the cyprus dispute page where the POV thrives.  Come on people, sooner or later these two communities are going to have to come closer together.  Their is no reason to instigate and promote hate.  Cyprus can be a model community for all the other communities once the two ethnic groups reconcile and the politicians decide to work together instead of against each other.--Kakonator 09:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning up External Links

message: In 1967 a military junta took over the Greek government and enosis went out of favour - even the most fervent Greece-lovers didn't want union with such a repressive regime
I'm not going to get heavily engaged in assessing this whole article, but this sentence stood out for me as needing attention - it's lazy history and poorly expressed, and smacks of bias. 'Even the most fervent Greece-lovers'?! Unless anybody objects, I will amend this to be a bit more balanced and thorough, on the following grounds:
* the term 'Greece-lovers' is immature, simplistic and possibly meant to be insulting
* Enosis did not suddenly go 'out of favour' as a result of the 1967 coup. In fact, Makarios's foreign policy had clearly stalled on the issue since 1960. The only substantial political change on the Enosis issue caused by the 1967 coup was that, if anything, the Greek colonels were impatient with Makarios's failure to deliver Enosis and were now prepared to take radical measures to unite Cyprus with Greece. 
Comments? (Please be civil - my aim is to be historically balanced and authoritative, not to rub people up the wrong way or cause an edit war..!). Peeper 09:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV statement - suggested amendment

message: I've just fixed a number of syntax problems in the infobox (mostly missing '|' characters at end of line).  Doing so, I noticed multiple footnote references without corresponding text.  Someone with more knowledge than me of the article should fix these. (nb: i deleted footnote '4' from the area datapoint as it was breaking the infobox syntax.)  Ferg2k 00:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Infobox footnotes

message: I'm not sure where the figure for 323,657 people in the Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus came from. According to the estimates of the ROC, the population in the north is approx. 230000. About 65000 of them are Turkish-Cypriots (people born in Cyprus by Cypriot parents), 40000 are Turkish soldiers, and the rest are settlers from Turkey (or their children; the Republic does not recognize people born in Cyprus with Turkish parents as Cypriots). --Pantelis Panayiotou 16:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  population in the north 

message: It is possible that name "Cyprus" is related with the names 
# "Cabirians" (or preciously, Cabeiroi, or else Cabiri), a people who was appearing in Mycenean Greece
# Caphtor (or Kafthor, or Kaftor, or Keftiu), a people who is mentioned in Bible.
# Cythera (or Kythira), an island between Crete and Laconia, Peloponnesos.
# Cebriones, an Trojan, who was a son of Priam (according to Homer). Rationalistically, most of "sons" of Priamus must have been, simply, his allies.
Caphtor is the land of the Biblical Caphtorim (Egyptian Keftiu, Mari Kaptara), said in Gen. 10 to descend from Ham's son Mizraim (Egypt). It has been, etymologically, linked to Cyprus while other suggestions identify it variously as Crete, and the nearby coasts of Southestern Asia Minor (i.e the posterior Caria). By some accounts, both islands, Cyprus and Crete, together were known as "the isles of the Caphtorim", and perhaps of significance is the fact that the earliest Minoan script used on Crete seems to have been hieroglyphics. [ From the Wikipedian article, Keftiu ]. 
Note: In Crete, according to Homer (Odessey), there was four peoples and one of them, Cydonians (or Cydones), a people who lived in western Crete, in Cydonia (modern Chania).
These, perhaps, were "Keftiu", who migrated to Crete from Cyprus.
--IonnKorr 21:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of Cyprus 

message: I removed "Following the independence of Cyprus from the UK, the Greek Cypriots held three referendums on the issue of whether they wanted to be annexed by Greece. On all three occasions there was a vote in favour of annexation but Greece had agreed not to merge with Cyprus under the terms of the independence treaty and Greek Prime Minister Konstantinos Karamanlis did not seek to do so. "
As far as I know there was no referendum on Enosis after the one organised by the church in 1950 Mavros 00:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enosis referendum 

message: There are 2 Sovereign Base Areas - Akrotiri Sovereign Base Area &
Dhekelia Sovereign Base Area. As they are not part of the Republic of Cyprus, they have their own constitutional status,
which is guaranteed under the terms of the 1959 Independence Agreement. - (Aidan Work 01:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sovereign Base Areas.

message: It is still required. The history section does not even make mention of the 63-74 period where Turkish Cypriots were forced into enclaves. The article states Turkeys invasion was illegal, which is not true. The Treaty of Guarantee allowed for Turkey to invade to restore order. What is considered illegal is that Turkey stayed there. The history section also suggests that Turkey had ulterior  motives by saying for example "Turkey invaded Cyprus by violating international laws by sea and air on 20 July, 1974, presenting the invasion as an act of protection for the island's 18% Turkish Cypriot minority" - this is a highly POV sentence. --A.Garnet 19:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saddly, this entry seems to tow the southern ROC government line; it arguably exonerates the ROC, it excludes the Turkish Cypriots from the main picture and can be considered as biased against Turkey and, to a lesser degree, against Greece, hence it is a POV.Politis 15:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the post-independence section is an entirely Greek Cypriot account of history. Since it has been changed in such a one sided way, i'm going to put a totallydisputed tag on until a more impartial and accurate even of history is given. --A.Garnet 17:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: Recently there has been a lot of interference with this article.  I appologize for my actions but I forgot that there were the other more in depth sections.  I was trying to counter arguments that were being written in the body of this article, which now I have seen, did not belong in this article but in the other "sub-articles" as I call them. My arguments should have gone to the other articles in a better fashion.  Finally, I am monitoring all these articles for Turkish POV and Greek POV and skillful literary remarks which quite frankly should be kept out (and as a corollary, I should not have added what I put because it was counter to something someone else tried to write in a POV way - as a point of honor and with my heart I apologize).  (UNFanatic 21:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of POV tag 

message: Well, I am waiting for your answer. We lived the same disscussion in Adana and all of you put the Adana massacre or rebelition. So I am here to ask you not to delete pic. It is not important whether you like or not , but it is true. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there are copyright implications - see Wikipedia:Fair use. --Latinus 18:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you trying to be funny ? --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why don greek editors revert the pic. version ? 

message: Rarelibra,I will take your threat as a joke:)...I am aware of the rules.i had a discussion with the user who made the changes. I have no problem in saying that Cyprus is geographically in Asia, cause this is the truth and no one denies it. I still cannot see what is your problem...but do not challege me in a revert-war, cause the 3RR aplies to you too... also, about the 'tenuous African roots' of Cyprus, i guess this goes to the Ptolemaic period. Fine by me, as long as it is well worded and not POVish. --Hectorian 03:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a threat - the 3RR will be something to hold users to - including you. Something that we all need to be reminded of, especially after recent events. My point was that it was discussed and, yet, you chose to immediately revert it. Cheers to E Pluribus Anthony for such a great wording and approach. Rarelibra 04:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: E Pluribus Anthony, did a good job indeed.but Cyprus article is yet to be 'done'. it is not a featured article yet, so be patient... Regards --Hectorian 05:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you all for your praise.  Now, I will proceed to move/add distance details from the intro (save for generalities) to the geo sxn.  And let's remember that we needn't throw in the kitchen sink in the intro ... particularly when a subarticle exists for that very purpose.  Merci!  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: User:Globo is inserting anti-TRNC content into Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (diff). I'm not sure about the neutrality of his edits, so if you're interested in the topic, please come and join the discussion. -- ran (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus