Talk:Cyprus/Archive 4

message: This article was recently changed from consistently using BC for years to using BCE.  I was unaware of any discussion on this and note that the editor who did doesn't usually edit this article.  Is there consensus for such a change?  If not I'll change it back.  --Siobhan Hansa 14:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC --> BCE change 

message: I know this has probably been discussed before but can we not have an article for the island and then two different ones for the seperate state?Someone write below and tell me what they think of my proposal.
I agree. Dermo69 12:33, 19 November 2006
I don't agree. All information about Cyprus should be collected together.
I don't know. If you are suggesting something like Cyprus, Republic of Cyprus and TRNC, I can see the logic behind it, however I can also see many problems that can come along with such a seperation, the most prominent being huge debate that will follow on what would be in each of these articles. If you are trying to address concerns for different aspects of Cyprus, such seperate articles already exist, such as History of Cyprus, Geography of Cyprus etc. What do you mean by a seperate article for the island and for the country(ies)? Can you elaborate on what would be included under these articles? Baristarim 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 
PLEASE JOIN THE GROUP: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cyprus. It will serve to unify these aspects as regards to Cyprus in all matters.  There is much work to be done!!!	
 (UNFanatic 01:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seperate Articles

message: Is there a reference on this? From my past experience ordinary Sunday church attendance is a tiny fraction of e.g. attendance of the Christmas service. And what are the numbers on church attendance in countries like Poland or indeed Britain? Mavros 20:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church attendance 

message: The population of TRNC is 264,172 which is dominantly Turkish. The claimed population of the Cyprus Republic is 704,301 which also includes this population. 264,172 / 704,301 = 0.375 which means 37,5 % of the population is Turkish. Even if we assume, the claim of 704,301 includes the southern part only, it results in a Turkish Percentage of 264,172 / (704,301 + 264,172) =~ 28 % of the population. How in the world this can be calculated as 18%? I think there has been an intented miscalculation to decrease the Turkish Population. Therefore I am correcting the ratios.--Ogulsev 10:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Percentages 

message: What would people think of splitting this article between Cyprus (the island) and the Republic of Cyprus (regime/government/state)? Kind of like China and People's Republic of China for example. I am only suggesting this since the geographical region also carries the same name as the country as well, which is quite peculiar as far as many countries are concerned. Italy/Italian penisula, Spain/Iberian peninsula, Turkey/Anatolia articles exist, but with Cyprus that's not the case. And maybe the history section should be tightened up as well, it is too long. Since Republic of Cyprus is the official govt for the whole island, there is no problem with basing the sections on that premise (geography etc). I know that it is a long hard slog to get Cyprus-related articles in encyclopedic order, however such a split might help with dividing up what is political and not-political about Cyprus (geography, history (before the 60s :)), climate etc)I was just perusing through China articles, and they seemed to have done a good job organizing them. So, what do people think? Baristarim 18:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible split?

message: I have moved the dispute warning sign away from the head of the article, and to the start of the paragraphs which i believe are disputed or have problems. Most of this article is very good, and does not deserve to be slandered because of a few stupid things written at the end. Hopefully putting the sign here will give people a better understanding of what the problems are and make it clear where the dsisputes lie.Mattlav 18:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute Warning Sign

message: Please offer your comments here Template talk:Cyprus-stub Aristovoul0s 17:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute stub

message: :I think the TRNC universities should be restored to the article.  Not being recognised by the EU is no reason to censor their existence, though the dubious utility of the qualifications they hand out could be noted.  Also, why single out private secondary schools?  Surely these should be split off into a sub-article, Schools of Cyprus? Vizjim 11:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Universities and educational establishments

message: I honestly can't fathom the kerfuffle over the "island nation" terminology. Cyprus is an island and it is also an internationally recognised sovereign nation, is it not? Even the Turkish Cypriots have acknowledged that a united Cyprus is the ultimate aim of any solution to the Cyprus dispute and that the "TRNC" is by extension a temporary arrangement until the Greeks smarten up and accept the Annan Plan, so what's the beef? The size of the British bases on Cyprus relative to the US base at Guantánamo cannot be a serious argument, surely. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote from the linked article, "Some island countries share their islands with other countries", so there is no need for this argument at all. Vizjim 05:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Island nation 

message: Isn't this technically in Asia?? --SunStar Nettalk 15:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: mmmmm, I'd suspect that question alone is hard enough to answer, but as to being in the EU, geographically it doesn't have to be literally part of europe for member states to agree to it being part of the EU - but without getting out a map and just guessing - isn't it right on the edge of the eurasian plate? --Streaky 23:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: it's part of Europe. I have a National Geographic Magazine's Europe map hanging right here before my eyes. It's in all other books and geographical dictionaries. ISasha 10:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is where ever you define the Europe/Asia borders to be, which is quite lame of a debate (like as if Asia is inferior or something?). Many geographers adopt different definitions and different borders for these two adjacent continents. Cyprus being an island makes things even more vague. I'm sure we could reflect that trivial issue neutrally within the article with proper wording. NikoSilver 13:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Union 

message: Anon  made the following changes:
*deleted "the Anatolian peninsula (Asia Minor) or modern-day [Turkey]"
*moved a picture awkwardly in the beginning, leaving a huge blank space on the left
*moved  to the beginning of the article without specifying what he/she disputes.
I'm reverting all changes. NikoSilver 13:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes by anon 

message: I have a question.  I wanted to change the grammar of a sentence to make it more clear.  The change got reverted, and I don't really understand why.  The sentence as originally worded said 'This concern was highlighted by the UK's Telegraph Newspaper in 2006 when the wife of Britain's prime minister, Cherie Blair, touched a diplomatic nerve;'.  As currently worded, the grammar does not make it clear that 'Cherie Blair' is the wife.  It sounds like 'Cherie Blair' is the prime minister.  I changed the sentence to say 'This concern was highlighted by the UK's Telegraph Newspaper in 2006 when Cherie Blair, the wife of Britain's prime minister, touched a diplomatic nerve;'  
I know that this change is a very minor point, and I am not overly concerned about this particular sentence.  However, this is my first attempt at editing something on Wikipedia, and my edit was not accepted, so I am wondering what edits will be accepted? Khollings 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my error Khollings. Apologies. I'm inserting your sentence. It's the fact that I was first using a watchlist tool that I didn't know that it cuts off part of the edited preview! I thought you had deleted something. Please do not let this discourage your future editing! NikoSilver 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Khollings 22:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar change

message: i think  wiki  should  prepare  itself  this  kind  of  disputed  issues.we can  clearly see  that  this  page  edited by some nationalists.   I  could  understand  that greek cypriots  want to defend  their  case  it  is  normal  thing  but  no one  have lux  to change  realty. i can  hear   the  empty boos  already —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilybaeum (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this page totaly smells racism  

message: First off I am very new to posting anything on wikipedia so please forgive me if I am not following conventions I should know about.
I should also say I am part Cypriot (Turkish) and currently live in northern Cyprus.
I wish to add to the discussion re lack of NPOV in this article and specifically to the "Post-independence" section where it reads
"In November 1963, Archbishop Makarios, the first President of the Republic of Cyprus, proposed thirteen Amendments to the constitution in his desire to improve the situation, amendments not involving any radical changes but designed rather to remove some of the more obvious causes of friction."
I can not see how anyone with a NPOV could say that the proposed ammendments did not make 'any radical changes'. One has only to read the proposed ammendments to see that they radicaly and fundamentaly changed the whole basis of the agreements that created the Republic of Cyprus. In my humble view the statement that these amendments did not involve 'any radical changes' is not just a NPOV issue but actually just factualy incorrect.
http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/www.cyprus-conflict.net/13_points.html
It is also my view that stating as fact that Makarios's intention in these ammedments was merely to 'remove causes of friction' is itself a contentious and baised statement. Certainly this was the claim of Makarios but there is much well documented evidence that his real intent was far from this and it can not be in dispute that the result was far from this.
Having started I also have to say something about the following part as well
"Unable to reach a solution, the government of the Republic of Cyprus brought the matter before the UN."
Actually Britain was the first to make a call on the UN security council to convene a meeting to discuss the unfolding crisis in Cyprus in a tactical move to get in before Makarios did. A more serious failing of the above description however is the idea that the UN action and subsequent miltary intervention was concerned with wrangling over the Cyprus consitution and that they got involved simply because the Republic of Cyprus wanted them to resolve the issue of the Cypriot consitution. The reason why the UN became involved was not to settle a dispute over the Cypriot consitution, for which it had no mandate to get involed in any case, but in fact to deal with the threat to regional peace and stability that the intercommunal violence in Cyprus threatend. So the above is in my humble view factualy incorrect - it was Britian that first called on the UN security council to meet , closely followed by Makarios government and the purpose of the UN meeting and involvment was not to settle issues on the consitution of Cyprus but in fact to try and stop the intercommunal fighting that threatend regional peace and stability. You do not send a peace keeping force to a place to resolve a dispute over the constitution. 
Erolz 14:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious npov issues 

message: In the above discussion I said I would try and provide some hard sources re impled inaccuracies in the main article section "Post-independence" and specifically the claim that "Unable to reach a solution [to the consitutional ammedments proposed by Makarios], the government of the Republic of Cyprus brought the matter before the UN."
Below is a link to a UN document on a UN website that details the sequence of discussion on this subsequent resolution. The document is in pdf format and the relevant section starts on (pdf) page 18, where first the resolution is listed and then the discussion leading upto this resolution
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/repertoire/64-65_08.pdf
In summary of the above document
Britian spoke first at this meeting, refering to its letter of the 15th Febuary to the Security Council detailing the serious deterioration of internal secruity in Cyprus and serious acts of violence in intercommunal fighting.
The RoC spoke second reffering to its letter, also of the 15th Febuary, to the Security Council in which it raised a complaint against Turkey, alledeging that Turkey was perparing for an imminent and obvious invasion fo Cyprus.
My point here is that is that the current description on the main page of who made recourse to the UN over the Cyprus situation and why they made that recourse is simply factualy inacurate. Both the UK and the RoC both made calls on the UN to become involved in the situation not just the RoC as the main page currently state. Neither of the countries did so in order for the UN to resolve the dispute over Makarios' proposed ammendments to the consitution as the main page implies and nor would the UN have a madate for such a role in any case. Both countries brought the matter to the UN under the UN's mandate of maintaing international peace and stability yet there is no mention of this in the main page description. The UK did so re the issue of the break down of internal security in Cyprus and the intercommunal violence that was occuring there and the RoC on the issue of allegations of Turkish preperations for an invasion against Cyprus. These were the submissions made to the UN that lead finaly to resolution 186.Erolz 05:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources re the involvment of the UN in Cyprus in 1964 

message: Ok I went ahead and boldy made my first edit od wikipedia main page. I believe this latest version is more factualy correct and less POV laden the the old one, but of course would welcome input and improvements from others. Erolz 04:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  major rewrite of the 1st 1/2 of Post-independence section 

message: There is a problem with the demogrpahics section, which has long been an area of propaganda re the Cyprus issue. However as the section stands atm we have it saying that "about 150,000 Turks from Anatolia were transferred or decided to settle in the north" and then a referance to here http://www.observercyprus.com/observer/NewsDetails.aspx?id=1180 that contradicts the earlier figure of 150,000 mainland turks. I am not sure how to fix this problem but it is certainly inconsistent. Maybe we need to say that the number of settlers introduced into north cyprus by the TRNC is highly disputed by both sides ? Erolz 19:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The demographics section 

message: Look, the opening paragraphs simply do not need to describe the multitudinous legal ramifications of the TRNC's pariah status, the Republic's recognised control etc etc et bloody c.  That's why they were so confused and gave such a bad picture of the island before.  Just a brief note of the de facto state of things (which is, by the way, why it says "de facto" in the paragraph above the list of areas), and on to the main article.
:I disagree. If you want to dumb things down to such an extent, go to http://simple.wikipedia.org. There is nothing that complicated in stating that the Republic of Cyprus is internationally recognised as the legitimate authority of the whole island, and that the "TRNC" is recognised only by Turkey. These are fundamental parameters of the island's division that shouldn't be buried in obscurity further down the article. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  but that Turkish military action in Cyprus was precipitated by the Athens backed coup in Cyprus should be burried in obscurity futher down the article? Erolz 08:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The Republic is indeed internationally recognised as the legitimate authority of the whole island, but at the same time the TRNC exists.  The de facto situation is generally recognised, and the intricacies can be explained in their proper context. Vizjim 09:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraphs 

message: I think it is time the history section was split off into a separate article.  It is ridiculously long and overly complex for this article.   What do others think?  Vizjim 04:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if it needs to be split off or left here but what is needed is something about the period 64-74. The post independence section jumps from UN troops arriving in 64 to coup and Turkish military action in 74 with nothing about the period 64-74 (which in fact has 2 distinct parts 64-68 and 68 -74). At the end of the day the situation in Cyprus toaday and it's historical roots IS complicated Erolz 08:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's Cypriot Civil War, which for me is a model of what should happen with the rest of the history sections - split off into better articles with a bare-bones brief summary in the main article.  Cyprus is a lot more than the sum of its various invasions, more even than the result of the Cyprus Problem, and this article buries that fact. Vizjim 09:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: If anyone knows a good resource or would like to offer to help sort out the various municipality names for the map I made, I would greatly appreciate it! :)  Rarelibra 19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Municipalities

message: Base Areas
The base areas are an integral part of the Republic of Cyprus. The existance of the base areas is based on the Treaty of Establishment of the Republic Appendix "O". Should the Republic of Cyprus collapse there is no legal standing (international law) for the british bases in Cyprus. 
The islands official (accepted and recognized internationally) name is Republic of Cyprus an island country. For short Cyprus. Thus the intro part should read "...has contributed to the Republic of Cyprus de facto partitioning into 3 main parts: " 
Even American foreign policy, a traditional Turkish Ally states that. I am more than willing to provide UN references should the need exists, multiple evidence have been offered to this articles talk page, just skim the archives. 
Turkish reublic in Cyprus
It is self styled as such. For ECHR, the UN, the EU it is called "area not under effective control of the Republic of Cyprus, or area administered by the Turkish Cypriot community (of the Republic of Cyprus).
The intro part now is well balanced according to internationally accepted view (UN EU ECHR), before it was not Aristovoul0s 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Get off the soapbox: you and you alone continue to insinuate this subjective text/perspective without any consensus, and (in this instance) without discussion until now, despite prior agreement above concerning an equitable introduction.  This information already resides in this and other articles.  As well, please read the introduction carefully: the SBAs are among the four parts into which the island has been split -- the SBAs are not responsible for the dispute.  Unless compelled otherwise, the prior introduction will be restored. Corticopia 16:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your kind words. Nice of you. I take pride in all of the above.  And NO the SBAs and the republic are one. the SBAs are NOT a colony, simply military bases and for military purposes only. Are there references to back up your stance? Independent... verifiable.... reliable...Aristovoul0s 16:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't mention it: pride is a sin, after all.  This has been already been discussed above -- despite your POV-pushing, you were absent and not involved in recent discussions (for reasons I don't need to care about), and you seem to have overall difficulty comprehending.  And there's a reason why the SBAs are Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom, comprising one of the four parts of the island in fact.Corticopia 16:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sin is in the eye of the beholder. Whats next hell? Since i do not understand and you are so kind explaining please elaborate on the reasons in fact that SBAs are called "Sovereign" with evidence that are at your disposal, unless it is a secret!!!. Let me provide the link for your easy reference  and we take it from there Aristovoul0s 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please note the TLD in that URL.  As repeatedly indicated in recent discussions, this information is already in the article and or wikified.  The evidence at your disposal is also at our disposal and has already been discussed.  Read recent discussions and or get involved in them; otherwise, refrain from continued Greek-POV pushing without any modicum of consensus. Corticopia 17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats it? I am afraid you are POV pushing Feast your eyes Aristovoul0s 17:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's it!  Au contraire: in particular, please read your own reference -- that the SBAs "remain under the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom".  You have added no new facts to the article, only redundant text, and these items have already been discussed -- do I stutter?  Corticopia 17:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This needs to have more discussion before you 'tweak' it. The 'soverign base' areas are admin areas of the UK, not part of the 'divisor' of the Republic/island. Also keep in mind you are one editor in question, there are at least two who disagree with you - this calls for a consensus, then. Rarelibra 17:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't you read, Carnac? This was already discussed and agreed upon -- look far above. The fact that an editorial 'ally' of yours nor you were involved in those discussions is not my problem. The SBAs are sovereign areas of the UK (not merely administrative) and, therefore, comprise one of the four main divisions of the island. Also keep in mind that, per discussions, other editors supported this, so desist. I'll be back later to correct. Corticopia 17:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coriticopia - I will give you one chance to either remove or strike your personal attack, or report you to an admin, if you like. Unless you know, wiki doesn't allow insults in any language or euphimism. It's up to you. Rarelibra 17:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You reap what you sow.  Read first, edit war not.  Corticopia 17:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot justify your actions. Your failure to understand indicates either a lack of education, lack of intelligence, or belligerence to the rule. Rarelibra 17:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor can you -- I have been involved in this discussion throughout, unlike you and yours.  And you are whining about personal attacks?  Either contribute constructively or remain silent.  End communication. Corticopia 17:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro part

message: I have added in lots of unreferenced tags, because the lack of sources for this entire article is lamentable. I propose that all editors actively contributing to this page should spend the next few weeks - up to mid-June, say - adding in sources wherever possible. This will help long-term toward reducing the edit wars that have been going on, and enforcing a higher level of debate. What do others say? Vizjim 21:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhhh, a great idea! NikoSilver 22:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced (aka A Whole New Can Of Worms

message: I've gone ahead and reworded the intro to do away with the list. Everything is still there minus the factual innacuracies, poor writing and pov. Hope people can agree to this, I certainly see nothing wrong with it. --A.Garnet 01:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't see anything wrong with it, but still I'd prefer the previous claus by claus writing. Your version looks ok, but (I think) the situation there is too complex to explain with this paragraph style. The mass usage of conjunction words (which is definately needed) makes it very hard for the people who are not familiar with the subject. Even I had to read it slowly to digest it. That was why it was styled like that couple of weeks ago. I am sure you put your time on it, and I respect that, but I still think the previous wording was more clear (I wouldn't say better since what you've written says the exact same stuff) Regards, Kerem Özcan 07:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the bullet points, which have been worked on for ages and are there in response to independent editors' concerns regarding clarity and incomprehensibility.  The aim is to split off, as much as possible, the brief overview of the Cyprus dispute (paragraph 2) from a factual description of the human geography of the island (paragraph 3 + bullets).  Your point about the description of the TRNC is well made and I think correct, so I have amended that.Vizjim 09:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand people have been disputing the list for ages, that is probably why it has imo turned out ugly. That is why I integrated all of it into a couple of sentences which puts everything in a much more concise and readable way. As I've said I know you've all been wrangling over this for ages but that imo proves why the list needs to go and something more stable brought in. --A.Garnet 10:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I just find it unnecesarrily complicated and hard to read, and I believe other readers will think the same. The use of certain phrases seems more concerned with appeasing the various pov's here than creating something concise and readable. e.g. "The internationally recognized state of the Republic of Cyprus", "the area under the effective control", "styling itself". The intro has gone into too much detail, that is why it has become so unstable. I'll wait and see what other editors think also. --A.Garnet 13:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the fact is that the intro you were reverting to was actually queried by other readers, whereas this intro format (which does not seem unstable, though it has taken a while to get here) is only being queried by yourself so far. Vizjim 15:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur with Vizjim: 'ugliness' is in the eye of the beholder.  In response, the reworded intro is inferior to the predecessor: that version is harder to read (since it doesn't clearly delineate entities on the island) and also gives more of a (false) impression that the island is equivalent to the nation-state and unified.  The current intro, awhile in the making and with relatively minor disagreement about content -- like the first line of the third section, which still seems wordy for not what to me -- gives due treatment to everything while itemising main points; however, the alternate is unclear and not consensually arrived at.  I'm all for being concise, but when it's at the expense of being clear, it becomes counterproductive.  Corticopia 21:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Done what? nothing is changed. DenizTC 19:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is.  Vizjim 22:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:OWN. You are reverting each and every edit of mine (as far as I can see). If we need discussions, we need  discussions for all edits. Considering that this article had tens of edits on May 4th only (my first edit was probably today), I don't know whether it is plausible to do that. I have so many questions. The least, if you want it shorter, why did you restore & n b s p ; 's. Why did you remove 'as'? More importantly, why do you remove all those tags, that are quite necessary? Most importantly, why do you restore POV? Please do not do such things. Now please revert yourself (most of the edits). The article has seen so many edits (more than 100 by you), but it still is lacking encyclopedic content, all POV statements with no sources, in so many sections. Let's improve it. DenizTC 23:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what this means: why did you restore & n b s p ; 's..  Presumably a copy & paste went wrong.  Would you care to restate those concerns?  As for POV, please explain where your edits combat this?  Your edits to the introduction broke the continuity of the three paragraph structure (described at exhausting length above and arrived at by rough consensus) and added overly precise information that could be left in a footnote (thus keeping the length of the introduction down).  Your fact tags are unnecessary since the entire section is tagged as "unreferenced". "Styling itself" is better English than "Styling itself as".  I am now restoring your other edits. Vizjim 07:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nbsp thing was aimed at your "shorter is better" comment. nbsp might appear as blank space but it's 5 characters more. Anyway, fact tags will be helpful (they are not 'evil' things), they will indicate where we need resources. We should not delete fact tags just because we have the unreferenced tag up there. For instance one might just add a few sources to the section and remove the "unreferenced" tag, instead of replacing it by the "more sources" tag (there might still be sentences that need sources). Anyway, i still don't see why we should have "raided and attacked the peoples of Cyprus at will" instead of " raided and attacked Cyprus many times.", neither do I see why we reverted my changes on te section "Notables". There are some more things that missed my eyes earlier. We should not have phrases like "In a fit of sardonic irony" imo. DenizTC 14:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also the only extra infos in that footnote are the percentages, adding them won't make the lead much bigger, in fact we should add them in my opinion, the reader should know about it from the start. DenizTC 17:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reworded Intro

message: If you find this excessive, don't hesitate to revert me. NikoSilver 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: I think the map is excessive for the introduction; it may also crash into the text.  Maybe just a piped link in the intro to the appropriate section would suffice?  In addition, maybe the locator map (the prior one of which I've restored) can be jerry-rigged to more exhibit the same thing, but not as detailed?  Corticopia 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looked way better than the word-spagetti but if it has any chances to crash, I am also not so sure about that. Though I didn't think that it was very excessive. Though the map seemed a little bit TMi for the beginning, it gave a quick idea about the proportions of the areas and the general layout of the island. I also think that maybe a simplified version can be merged with the locator map. Regards, Kerem Özcan 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive? 

message: There are POV and other issues with the 'nicely drawn, nicely detailed' locator map -- as opposed to the 'simpler' PNG map -- that is supposedly used in other EU/Europe articles; while innovative to some, there are a number of detriments to using such a map here.  First of all, the 'enhanced' map does not clearly exhibit Cyprus' location (perhaps partially due to the odd map projection (Mercator)): an image the needs a caption to explain topic matter is clearly flawed.  As well, it doesn't even exhibit the Levant on mainland Asia (to the east of Cyprus).  Relatedly, it places undue weight on the island's inclusion in the EU and, hence, Europe, despite its proximity to Turkey (Asia Minor) and many sources which reckon Cyprus as part of Asia.  Lastly, there is no clear consensus on the use of these maps in EU and other articles, and I dare someone to point this out.
While not as detailed, the original 'simpler' PNG map is far more functional as a locator map and (per the country wikiproject) consistent with the locator maps used for most other countries.  Until these issues are addressed point for point and satisfactorily, I see no reason to maintain the 'enhanced' map and will continue to restore the 'simpler' PNG map. Corticopia 16:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [2x edit conflict] I gave the wrong link in my edit summary. This is the correct one: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#Final_survey. (I haven't read your comment yet, will look into it.) NikoSilver 16:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  As you may recall, the results of this survey are in dispute (hence there being no clear consensus), and really have no authority here.  Other points remain unaddressed.  Corticopia 16:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. No need to get angry over this. First, the consensus exists where I point you in respect to the issue of highlighting the EU for member states, which is the one reason for your objection. Second, all EU members have the same map. See France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, UK... to name a few. Last, I agree with it being too small, so maybe we should bring it forward in the proper venue for discussion. Maybe there should be a zoomed window or something. That does not mean we are going to change it in the meantime. EU is considered a big thing, not a POV. For most in that poll at least. NikoSilver 16:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. As you may recall, the conduct, interpretation, and results of that poll/survey are in dispute (hence there being no clear consensus), and iterate that this has no authority here. If a genuine consensus materialised from that survey, it should be east to demonstrate; conversely, the consensus implied through the use of the 'simpler' maps can easily be demonstrated since they were in place for months -- more than a year? -- before they were willfully changed. Importantly, if one is to believe that Cyprus is Asian (e.g., geographically) or of Eurasia, also a big deal, highlighting its inclusion in the EU to the exclusion of other viewpoints is a point-of-view assertion and reason enough to change it. Corticopia 16:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Norway a non-EU uses the same map as all EU countries. El Greco (talk • contribs) 16:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As does Switzerland. El Greco (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EU is not highlighted in these. Thanks for illustrating further the issue of consistency. I quoted what has been decided for member states. The others are indeed ambiguous, as Cotricopia says. NikoSilver 16:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I maintain that what has been decided for EU member states has not been obtained through a clear consensus: PNG maps were in place for all of these territories for months beforehand, with no clear consensus for the changes.  And non-Eu European states were changed to bring them inline with nonconsensual changes, despite the PNG maps per the over-arching Country Wikiproject.  And most other countries use other maps.  Again, if a clear consensus exists, point it out succinctly. Corticopia 16:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The options with no highlighting gained minimum support. The ambiguity remains in the rest. Read the poll, and we both know how messed up that was (for other reasons). Anyway, as it seems, you are the only one here with another version, so consensus in this page at least is not an issue. NikoSilver 16:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinion: ambiguity prevails throughout. How can something decided among merely a handful of editors -- many more of which were probably exasperated by the skewing of the polls -- and challenged y others usurp a prior state (the 'silent majority', if you will, regarding the PNG maps) which was unaltered for months and prevails across even more articles now? This has been lost amid accusations of consensus in support of the ass'enhanced' maps. Read the page on consensus. As well, a sufficient number of editors must clearly assert this or that before a clear consensus materialises. So, a clear consensus here and elsewhere IS an issue; as it is, this is unclear at best and arguably nonexistent. Corticopia 16:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't point me to an unclear and subjective interpretation of the results of the 'final' survey.  In Wikipedia, nothing is final. I'm still waiting, and will wait for Godot if necessary.  Corticopia 17:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Do you also agree with Corticopia's comment that Cyprus appears too small and my proposed solution to discuss inserting a zoomed window in the picture? (or vice versa, i.e. window with small EU and Cyprus in large background of zoomed map). NikoSilver 12:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Congrats! It is the perfect implementation of Corticopia's original idea. NikoSilver 20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes: nice work.  If only other suggestions above were embraced, things would be copasetic.  Anyhow,  some neither here-nor-there suggestions: include a dashed line demarcating TRNC north and de facto RoC south.  Also a circle should inset/expand to a circle or rectangle to rectangle, not a circle expanding to a rectangle.  Lastly, the right of the map looks rather cramped (and this seems due to the original map); perhaps the inset can be off to the left in the Atlantic?  Of course, I am also in left field, so do or don't with the above as needed.  Thanks. Corticopia 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Locator map

message: I noteiced the "four parts" intro includes the SBAs within the "de facto partition" of Cyprus. Does that mean the Republic disputes the UK's right to control these areas? If that's the case surely it should be mentioned further down? Moyabrit 11:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've found the dispute covered in Akrotiri and Dhekelia, but not in Sovereign Base Areas. Does anyone else agree that combining those articles would make sense, with a separate article (linked from the top of the page) on the former SBAs in Ireland? Otherwise they cover exactly the same subject, but the text has diverged rather confusingly. Moyabrit 11:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sovereign base areas 

message: You're invited to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New European vector maps