Misplaced Pages

Talk:Cyprus problem: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:23, 1 May 2012 edit23x2 (talk | contribs)436 edits →Polls← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:38, 28 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,899,192 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(197 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Turkey|class=B|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Turkey|importance=Top}}
{{WPMILHIST|class=Start|Balkan=yes {{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|b1=n|b2=n|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Balkan=yes}}
{{WikiProject Greece|importance= Top|politics-task-force = Yes}}
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
{{WikiProject Cyprus|importance=top}}
|B-Class-1=no
{{WikiProject European history|importance=mid}}
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Greece
|class = Start
|peer-review =
|old-peer-review =
|importance = high
|attention =
<!-- B-Class parameters -->
|B-Class-1 = no
|B-Class-2 = no
|B-Class-3 = yes
|B-Class-4 = no
|B-Class-5 = yes
<!-- Task force parameters -->
|politics-task-force = no
<!-- Other parameters -->
|small =
|nested =yes
|needs-infobox =
|auto =
|listas =
}}
{{WikiProject Cyprus|class=start|importance=top}}
}} }}
{{GR-TR}} {{GR-TR}}
{{Controversial}} {{Controversial}}
{{Round In Circles}} {{Round in circles}}
{{Backwardscopy|title=From U Thant to Kofi Annan: UN Peacemaking in Cyprus, 1964-2004 |url=http://www.sant.ox.ac.uk/seesox/occasionalpapers/ker-lindsay2005.pdf|year=2005|id=
|title2=The Government and Politics of Cyprus|url2= http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AzIXtVdDDwgC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=1990+denktash+cyprus+negotiations&source=bl&ots=DHGfBQ9zmq&sig=QuW18SClLiNqEiU3V11ERyxzrPY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PRs0VIDFB-q07QbHt4FY&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=1990%20denktash%20cyprus%20negotiations&f=false|year2=2008}}
{{merged-from|Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots|24 May 2014}}
{{old moves|date1=30 November 2021|from1=Cyprus dispute|destination1=Cyprus conflict|result1=moved|link1=Special:Permalink/1057941053#Requested move 30 November 2021
|date2=8 February 2022|from2=Cyprus conflict|destination2=Cyprus problem|result2=Moved|link2=Special:Permalink/1072289646#Requested_move_8_February_2022}}


== "good offices" vs "...Good Offices ..." ==


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Good Offices" is the title of a novel (w/ a WP article) because that is our and most of the world's coventional practice, and some UN body set up to use its good offices to settle disputes has a WP article that probably follows UN conventions for naming most of its kinds of subordinate parts, for mostly the first reason, which are probably close to those of English names for such parts. But when the Sec Gen decides bigger guns are needed, he may choose to notify that body, i 'spose, but he is using his own good offices (inherant de facto influence in the context of his role as SG), to accompllish an end. He knows abt that office, and might have reason to keep them informed, but he can use his own "good offices" bcz of two facts: very few people want to cross him, and when gets in touch with you, just blowing him off is almost never a good plan. We have an article on the novel and on the committee, which are titled to reflect those two proper names, but (when you get a job bcz some with more influence backs you, or) when the SG nudges one or both parties, he's "using his good offices" as a prod, not speaking on behalf of a less influential part of the UN, and paradox tho it is, the lower case kind is far more likely to be effective than the pretentiously upper-case bureaucratic kind.<br><!--
==Untitled==
-->&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Now, ya wanna go write a WP article on good offices, well, not a terrible idea as long as someone does the dog work (including mention of that not necessarily trivial UN office), i promise that i or some like me will make you look like a fool if the title's spelling doesn't begin with "Good offices", OK? A ''wikt'' entry (we follow lexicographic, rather than encyclopedic practices over there) would be yet another case.<br>--] (]) 00:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)<!--
Discussion Archives: ], ], ], ]
--><br>


== Basic decision == == Annexation of Cyprus ==
Because of these edits , , . , Gr.Britain declared the annexation of Cyprus on 5 November 1914. See:
Hi people,


*Bernhard Hofstötter, Chinese Journal of International Law, Volume 7, Issue 1, March 2008, Pages 159–196, https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmm047
I would prefer not to go back to edit warring. Now we have to decide what we should ''do'' now. Should we work on an existing version to enhance it, or create a new version (I started basic work on ])? Opinions? - ] 12:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Volume 9, Issue 1 January 1915 , pp. 204-205 Annexation of Cyprus by Great Britain DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2186866Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017


In 1925, Cyprus became a Crown Colony. ]] 10:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
== New Version of Cyprus dispute ==


== Requested move 30 November 2021 ==
Well, due to recent developments (e.g. creation of the ]) and controversy about versions (] is "too neutral", Argyro's version is too one-sided), I would like to start this article completely anew, with a basic structure that is topic-oriented (not time-oriented). I will start this at ], ''without filling it with content yet''. First of all, we need a "skeleton" of the article. When we have agreed on a structure, we will start filling the new version with content. If we see that at any point, editing seems to go smoothly, we may propose the unlocking of the article, with the agreed-on version becoming the starting point of the new article.


<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
As soon as we have a working version, ''the structure of the article must stay the same until agreed otherwise'' in the future.
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''


The result of the move request was: '''moved.''' <small>(])</small> ] (]) 17:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
That at least is my idea of how we could work productively, moving from a deadlock that is of no benefit to anyone. - ] 12:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
----


] → {{no redirect|Cyprus conflict}} – The proposed title is the clear common name and in line with all other frozen conflicts like ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] etc. ] (]) 10:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
''']'''


:'''Support''' - Agreed. The Cyprus conflict is an open-ended conflict that is effectively still a ceasefire. ] (]) 15:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
:Ok - the page is unlocked, and Argyro went back to edit-warring instead of discussing. Has been blocked for this behaviour, obviously, as well. Nevertheless, I would like to know if anybody is interested in '''creating a new version''' of the page, that could be more complete, and less timeline-centered (thus a bit less likely to create friction). Link is above. If I do not see any reaction on this new version thing within a week, I will simply request it for deletion. - ] 23:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
::Perhaps there should be two pages: Cyprus Dispute (Turkish Cypriot view) and Cyprus Dispute (Greek Cypriot view). The current page can simply have basic data and have links to the other sites so that constant rewrites on one page will be unnecessary. - ] 23:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>
:::Wow, ''discussion''! (grin) Well, I would certainly like to see that some day as a project on Cyprus, but in an encyclopedia ... ? In this case, we would have two extreme POV articles heavily violating wikipedia's NPOV policy. And tiresome to the potential reader, to say the least. I would prefer the approach of the ] article (I might be biased coz I put the structure there, however) - put appropriate information in appropriate sections, and keep historic information as short as possible. - ] 11:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


== Requested move 8 February 2022 ==
==Unprotecting==
Discussion seems to have stagnated. Unprotecting. --]|] 23:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Argyrosargyrou==

Dont try and turn this into the RoC explanation of the Cyprus dispute, this article is a political overview of the situation, if you want to talk about murders and death rates put it in]. Quoting what you saw on the TV is also not very encylopedic.

== ] ==

Hello all.
] has made a number of edits with a Greek Cypriot POV that I have reverted. I'd like him to post the changes he wants, and we can discuss them case by case. They don't appear to be the copy and paste jobs that our dear friend Argyrosargyrou prefers; nevertheless, they are controversial. I'm wondering if he would cite his sources here, please. --] 23:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:He raised some interesting points, yet destroying NPOV in some changed sections. For instance, calling it "EOKA '''and TMT'''" campaign in the pre-1960 period is not completely out of line. Yet I would prefer some more neutral term like "extremist campaigns 1955-1959". Later on, he changed the '74 violence history to mentioning the deaths in single villages, which might be introduced - but I think and overall picture is more helpful. (cf. also ) - ] 23:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*I agree that the section title could be changed, but I would much rather stay away from individual massacres, because a) this article is an overview and b) that's an invitation to the kind of insanity we want to get away from. There are a number of documented abuses on both sides, and I fear getting into them would result in permanent edit warring. Still, let's wait and see if OOOklahoma has anything to say before decisions are made. --] 23:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*I like this persons changes with some small revisions like mentioning the end of enosis but should also mention that the Turks, for the time being have achieved their objective of Taksim or division. Extremist campaigns is a good title. I want to read the source of these changes and also if true this may call for some cautious revisions of other related articles.(])

== Case by Case edits ==

=== EOKA / TMT in the 50s ===
Okay, as far as I can see, OOOklahoma's edits can be divided into four main parts:
1) Specifically wording "the Turkish invasion of 1974" as opposed to just "since 1974" in the opening paragraph
2) Information on Mehmet
3) Events of late October/early November 1967
4) Retaliatory murders of Turkish Cypriots.

I'm leaning towards including 1 and some of 3. If 2 and 4 can be verified, I think a brief mention of those would be appropriate as well. What do you guys think?
--] 15:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::I disagree with the change from EOKA campaign to Extremist campaigns. The EOKA campaign was the major organised violent campaign between 55-59, the TMT was ill equipped, unorganised and barely possesed any firearms in that period. Other than rousing diplomatic support in Turkey, it barely had a campaign to speak of. We shouldn't 'soften' titles to the point of distorting major incidents. --] 16:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::It may have been poorly organized and ill-equipped, but it still qualifies as a counter-campaign, does it not? --] 17:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::Well it depends what you class as a campaign, the EOKA campaign was a carefully planned system of violence to achieve enosis. TMT used words more than action, see here: http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/renewal_of_violence%20-%20'57-58.htm

::::The only reason "The EOKA campaign" had its own title was because it was the major event of that period, we shouldnt try and dilute it for the sake of political corectness and say TMT was just as bad. I suggest "1955-59 EOKA campaign and creation of the TMT" - I think this title highlights more that TMT was a response to EOKA and enosis. --] 18:16, 23 Jun

:::::I would agree with that title. --] 19:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::Sounds ok to me as well, but waiting for a GR/GC point of view. - ] 19:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::As far as I know, both EOKA and TMT are considered extremist campaigns(at least I do), regardless of the organizational aspects. (The Greek-Cypriots are more specific and consider EOKA-2 to be the real extremist group and EOKA, which immediately disbanded and had originally fought against the British for self determination, which the British did not allow, but later compromised on Independence. TMT entered the fray in the 1950s with EOKA though.) One wanted one extreme - enosis or union with Greece- and the other wanted the other extreme - taksim or division of the Island. Labeling it as only EOKA campaigns does not fully reflect everyone involved in where during the 1950's.(] 00:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC))

::Well if anyone can actually give evidence of a concerted TMT campaign in the 50's to achieve Taksim then go ahead. As it stands the article only mentions their creation and purpose, not enough to justify they ran a terrorist campaign. --] 11:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Okay, so about the OOOklahoma edits that I proposed we adopt- does anyone have any objections to me instituting them the way I suggested? --] 13:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Yeah, just mentioning Turkey as the reason of the split doesn't take into accout the Greek coup or the violence in the 60's. With regards to the 67 period, those edits were too specific. --] 22:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== The Tierra del Fuego solution ==

I apologize to the Cypriots for the displacement and the division that Turkey's invasion against Cyprus and ongoing occupation has caused.

Cyprus cannot be divided as Greek and Turkish Cypriots have properties and homes in all the areas of Cyprus.

Sorry to the Cypriots. I guess that Turkey has a long way ahead before becoming a democratic state.

::Not that Turkey finished its struggle towards a perfect democracy, though I'd like to invite people to think about
::the number of wars started by more "democratic" countries. This dispute doesn't have anything to do with democracy
::in Turkey. There were also times Greece was ruled by the Army during this dispute. See the article for 21 April 1967
::coup d'état in Greece ). Both sides have done things that require apology.

== The interim peacekeeping force 1963-64 ==

"on December 27, 1963, an interim peacekepeing force, the Joint Truce Force, was put together by Britain, Greece and Turkey. This held the line until a United Nations peacekeeping force, UNFICYP, was formed..."

There was an initial agreement between Britain, Greece and Turkey to form an interim peacekeeping force, but in the event neither Greece nor Turkey participated and the interim peacekeeping duties fell entirely to the British until the arrival of UNFICYP.

I propose to make the appropriate edit if nobody objects to this within the next few days.

--] 8 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)

== There was no Turkish bombing in 1967 ==

"Responding to a major attack on Turkish Cypriot villages in the South of the island, which left 27 dead, Turkey bombed Greek Cypriot forces..."

The Turkish Air Force did not bomb during the ] crisis in 1967. They bombed during the ] crisis in 1964.

I propose to make the appropriate edit if nobody objects to this within the next few days.

--] 8 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)


I am surprised to see no reference concerning the Akritas plan. Something that has been proven as having a direct connection to the Greek Cypriot Enosis Extremists planting bombs and Turkish cigarette butts in order to inflame the situation and lay the blame for the bombs on the Turkish Cypriots. The current President (Tassos) is directly linked to this organisation and there has been documented proof presented of his original long term plan for the island. Something which appears to have, unfortunately, worked perfectly for him.

== Population Table ==

I went ahead and added a population table from the book specified. The table requires some work as I am not an expert in wiki coding but all the information is there verbatim from page 11. If someone sees more fit, place the table in a more appropriate location. Hopefully this wont cause too much of an uproar from either side of the fanatics that some real info was added instead of POV edits. --] 06:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

== Grivas: founder of modern guerilla warfare ==

first time at wiki, unsure if this is useful, however, somewhere there is a quote from Fidel Castro in which he attributes this fact to his own tactics at warfare . Needless to say,if true, interesting with the evolution of this form of warfare to its present state, used by terrorist most effectively.

Also, it is important to refine the history of Cyprus, by dating its origins to the time where its name originated: a word meaning copper in the language spoken in Egypt over 4000 years ago. Also, how did Cyprus get so many village names in Arabic, mostly obliterated by Turkey's recent efforts to completely change the toponomy of the land they occupy.

==Arabic names==

That's very interesting. Though I think that most of the town and province names in the republic have been gven Greek names, too? Seeing as you know so much could you give us a list with their root origin. I'd be interested to read about that.

== POV Push ==

I have re-added the ROC's OWN document detailing how many of its citizens were displaced in 1974. If people wish to challenege the accuracy of the Republic of Cyprus Government how about discussing it before placing other, less accurate, citations live. Or does a third party know better than the ROC how many people lost their homes that year. ] 19:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Seems that some admit what the Republic of Cyprus says ONLY when it happens to benefit the other side... Anyway, the link u have provided from the Cypriot government says ''more than 160,000''. i've added the third party source. it doesn't mean that the Cypriot government's source contadicts this one... the US Congress says about 200,000 and Cyprus says more than 160,000... Clear enough why we should include both. ] 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:: I would argue that neither number benefits either side as there are still many thousands of displaced Greek Cypriots (and Turkish Cypriots for that matter). I thought there was a certain Irony in using ROC documents to contradict Aristovoulus's edits which are probably the most one-sided and partisan I have seen of any editor on Misplaced Pages (and Ive made edits on some English rugby articles and those guys are pretty one-eyed). Anyway I am not going to bother reverting cypriot related articles from now on. If people are prepared to honestly claim that Turkish Cypriots all moved into the enclaves for all those years JUST to get partition then their slight grip on reality cant be debated with and its pointless to try. I'm dissapointed that blatant nationalism can come to bear on wikipedia (not in your case, whilst we've disagreed in the past Ive found your edits common sense). It kind of makes a mockery of the concept of a wiki, plus its taken up too much of my time and I have, frankly, better things to do. I'd hate to see what it says about Cyprus on the Greek Misplaced Pages, I bet thats a riot. All the best. ] 23:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Talking about that period, the thousands of GCs who were living in the northern part of the island, the about 5,000 deads of the turkish invasion, the about 1,500 missing, the about 1,500 (or more?) trapped in the north, all we can say is '''about '''. i think it is obvious why... I suppose u added the 160,000 number as ''exact'' (though the source u found was talking clearly ''approximately'') because this was the lowest number u found, but that may be just my imagination... U are the second person who says that my edits are on the grounds of "common sense", and i tend to consider this a compliment:). Talking about the 'TCs in the enclaves' (implying EOKA-B) as if this was a reason for the invasion, u should go further back in history to see which was the reason for the enclaves... With this travel in the past, i bet u know ] u will find youself... I am not justifying or legitimising the enclaves (nor i think any other greek does)... '''such a short historic memory''' does not apply to the Greeks... but, applies to others... Try the greek article about Cyprus in interwiki... it is short, no pictures, and if u can understand the greek alphabet, u may be able to recognise some of the words... It is not as NPOV as this one, but it is by all certainty more NPOV than one... Be fine and wish u all the best too. ] 23:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:::: With regard to the specific number of displaced Greek Cypriots. What brought my attention to that number is that is was different in most of the articles on Misplaced Pages, some mentioned 160,000, some 180,000 and some 200,000. So I went through the ROC websites until I found a number which was 'Over 160,000'. So thats the term I used. I was looking for consistency (and the irony of using an ROC document was amusing). Of course 'Over 160,000' could mean any number at all but if the number was far higher then the figure quoted would be closer to the higher figure. When it comes to these acts I think most of the world doesnt comprehend the figures anyway, most of the world has forgotten Cyprus, and whatever we write and argue about here isnt going to get one GC back their property, or bring back one murdered cypriot, Greek or Turkish. ] 01:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::::: You serious? :-) ] 16:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Number of refugees ==

Neither the "Country studies" site, nor the cited U.S. ] are 'inaccurate' sources. I expect Aristovoul0s and Adam777 to find a way to add both inside the article. If it is not done by tomorrow, I'll do it myself. Thanks. ] 09:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Ceyhan and the Port Crisis ==

I think it could be interesting to mention that the current crisis between Turkey and the EU over the ROC's access to Turkish (air)ports can be linked to strategic Turkish energy policy concerns. This is at least what somebody in the ] article suggested. Any thoughts on that? ] 20:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

== Correct this, please ==

"This call for enosis grew louder after Britain took administrative control of the island in 1878, to prevent Ottaman homeland from Russia following the Congress of Berlin."

to prevent Ottoman homeland from Russia following the ..? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

== Origins of Votes in the Referenda ==

Does anyone have more precise information on the exact origins of the vote percentages? The text says that certain percentages of Greek and Turkish ''Cypriots'' voted with yes or no. The numbers in the tables do however correspond to ''Communities''. As far as I am concerned it is not clear whether this is the same. If I am not wrong the Turkish Cypriot region is home to a large number of Turkish settlers. Were the settlers allowed to vote? How many mainland Greeks were allowed to vote in the Republic-controlled area? ] 14:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

== Recent Developments==
These links were added, because they seemed appropriate.

If someone(s) belives it belongs somewhere else, feel free to move them.

''']]''' 03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

== Can we soften the tone on Britain? ==

There's the odd hint of what seems to be anti-British bias in this article.

Use of words like 'dictator' in reference to the Governor, the reference to Britain's promise to SATISFY the demand for enosis, the suggestion that Macmillan deliberately aggravated the situation by provoking Turkey to take a more aggressive stance, and the suggestion that by applying a nomenclature to the two high-level ethnicities Britain was some way implicit in laying the grounds for the dispute.

Unless these comments can be substantiated by reference, can I suggest:

1. The Governor assumed legislative and administative powers, empowered (by who?) to rule by decree.
2. Britain's promise to CONSIDER demands for enosis.
3. Macmillan canvassed Turkey's views on Cyprus.
4. Leave mention on the British creation of 'Turkish Cypriot' and 'Greek Cypriot' but delete the commentary.


Thoughts?

I agree, feel free to balance it.


<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''


The result of the move request was: '''Moved''' &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 23:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
---- ----
Anti- anybody is POV. I would first like to say that my only interest in one side or the other is that I was nearly blown up by Greek Cypriots while laying over in Nicosia and our mom stuck us in between the mattresses while the British fought to regain control of the streets. I have since been an anti-terrorist.
My comments: After the British failure to control the American colonies, they changed the way they controlled separatists. elements of the policy included supporting the less powerful group against the more powerful. The establishment of paramilitary forces based in "police Fortresses", the establishment of Paramilitary forces Officered by British and manned by locals. It is well documented that the British, as late as 1948, wanted to keep many of their colonies and used tactics we now consider inhumane. In Cyprus as well as in other colonies, groups that got along before the British were there, end up fighting with each other after they left. The British created an environment in Cyprus which has led to many of the problems that are now there. A comparison to Israel and India is illustrative.
] (]) 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

==Weasel words==
there is a lot of weasel words, like "most Greek cyriots would hypothize"

== Bad and aimless writing ==

It would be best for folks who are really bad writers or incapable of editing own work, seek help rather than defile these pages ruthlessly. Even a Greek would be ashamed of the blatant propagandistic and random clippings without little connection to the topic. Needs much clean up.--] (]) 01:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

== Refs etc ==

Hi

I have made a start on the refs which are mostly wrong format, and so have bot generated titles. I will come back to it in a couple of days.

Thanks--] (]) 01:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

== Article title is terrible ==
It suggests that there is only one dispute in all of Cyprus. ] (]) 23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

==Jewish claims on Cyprus==
I have read about claims that extremist Jewish groups are targeting Cyprus as a possible area of settlement once they feel they have defeated the Palestinians. For instance, there are Zionist organizations that have drawn a map of what they feel is ], the entire Middle East as it was inhabitated by ancient Judaic tribes during the Bronze Age. There are also claims that these same groups are presently targeting the current kingdom of Jordan for possible settlement expansion. ] (]) 04:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
:Your links do not correspond to your (rather fantastic) claims of claims. This all seems to be a bit of anti-Semitic scare-mongering which you, unfortunately, seem to have taken seriously. The article about Jordan merely claims that some Jews want to be able to own land in Jordan, to return to Jordanian lands they once inhabited by purchasing these lands as private owners, which they are currently forbidden from doing. Information about the modern ] is in the corresponding Misplaced Pages article. Cyprus was indeed, like Germany, the Philippines, and Alaska, thought of by some as an alternative if Jews could not achieve self-determination in Israel. But they did, and I don't think there's a serious movement to split off a fifth piece of Cyprus for Israel.
:] has written about the "Greater Israel" paranoia, including a comment about Cyprus: "" ] (]) 20:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In essense you can say that there is no such thing as Turkish Cypriots Or Greek Cypriots they are Turks and Greeks which lived happily together. It was created by British propaganda to cause a ethnic dispute and thus a reason for their involvment in the invasion to the island. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Do you really think Greeks needed a British "invention" to fill their lives with hate and Turkophobia? They lived happily ever after because Ottomans knew how to run things and their millet system. When will Greeks take some responsibility for all they have done? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


::People need to read hitory - the "Jews" never settled here, but there were civilisations which encompassed Cyprus and others, such as Levant and Assyria
::] (]) 00:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

== Problem areas ==

Intro - needs working on as is jumbled and some statements are very POV

Before 1960 section needs a lot of reworking, some things are out of time such as para starting 1954 followed by para starting 1950

Generally a lot of refs are not current and some are from VERY dodgy sources, I will try and give this some time to bring back into sanity

] (]) 00:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

== Really biased presentation ==

I'm an American, and I have no "dog in this fight," but I know the history, and I have to say that this article is heavily biased toward the Greek Cypriot position. I recommend serious edits to give a fair shake to both sides to this complex dispute. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be a vehicle for one-sided propaganda. Thanks. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

A very concise but extremely interesting comment, by all accounts. While I have no reason to doubt the person who made this comment has no '''personal''' "dog in this fight", he / she does, however, volunteer he / she is in fact an American; a country which has one of the largest 'dogs' in this fight, and has very publicly and consistently backed Turkey in this dispute, despite its complex relations with the United Nations and Greece (a NATO member) whose position on the illegality of the 1974 operation is clear. The foreign policy motives for this, have been relatively transparent (for a review of this see http://www.erpic.eu/index.php?view=article&id=260 by Sherle R. Schwenninger, former editor of World Policy Journal). I would argue that the history that you "know" is the history you are presented in the US education system and media, and articles you read in predominantly American or US-centered publications, which by extension are themselves politically biased in the opposite direction to what you suggest. Therefore, your generic assessment of a bias would have to be expected, even in a perfectly neutral text.

Regrettably though, this comment in itself sounds more like a strawman argument to me, or at best a rant. "Recommending" that "someone" make "serious edits" is not a particularly useful or constructive suggestion in my opinion. If you have particular suggestions or edits to make, that correctly identify statements as biased, and then offer alternative phrasing complying with wikipedia's policy on neutrality and backed by evidence, then please do so, and be assured they will be most welcomed. Crying 'foul' over "Misplaced Pages being a vehicle for propaganda" in the most abstract manner, because somehow the tone of an article doesn't fit with your pre-established point of view, however, isn't. Apologies if this sounds harsh. "Thanks". ] (]) 13:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What is regrettable is that the original commentor hit the nail on the head. Misplaced Pages has ceased to be a genuine source of unbiased information on any topic that relates to Greeks or Armenians a long time ago. They have marshalled armies of cyber thugs to recreate a version of history more to their liking and defend their ethnic prides against all facts. Articles such as these are striking examples. They have more humor value than anything else at this point. The above so-called response exposes the problem well.] (]) 03:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


] → {{no redirect|Cyprus problem}} – The above requested move was carried out with very minimal participation so a strong consensus for the actual name is not present. The ] for this topic is clearly "Cyprus problem", as evidenced by these results: Google Books - vs vs vs ; Google Scholar - vs vs vs . Google Ngram Viewer that "Cyprus problem" is the most popular term, far ahead of "Cyprus conflict", which comes in fourth and places behind even "Cyprus question", nowadays a somewhat antiquated term. The ] argument above doesn't hold water. The examples given are too selective, a number of similar articles use various terminology (see ], ], amongst others); and it's apples and oranges anyway - the Cyprus problem has seen an incomparably greater use of diplomacy than all of those other conflicts, not least involving referanda and EU accession talks; such that calling the whole thing a "conflict" feels somewhat awkward. ] (]) 02:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I came here looking for information and what I see is basically something that looks copy/pasted from a pro-Greek-Cypriot partisan website. Sorry that I do not have the required information myself to suggest NPOV edits. The page needs rebalancing. ] (]) 13:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
*'''support''' hu, it really is the common name in scholarship—] 03:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


*'''support''' common name web related searches use the cyprus problem more than cyprus conflict.] (]) 14:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
==Futures==
* '''Oppose'''. Differences are not overwhelming and it is less clear. "Problem" is not sufficiently informative of what it pertains to. EU has a "Cyprus problem", archaeology has a "Cyprus problem", etc. This article is referring specifically to the conflict or dispute. Current title makes that more immediately clear. ] (]) 23:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
This article is about the history of the Cyprus dispute. It does not predict what happens in the future. See ]. Do not make statements that predict the future or offer a "percentage chance" of what might happen in the future. <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 10:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
*:Not really {{u|Walrasiad}}. It's not ''a'' Cyprus problem, it's ''the'' Cyprus problem in pretty much all sources. E.g. . There is no ambiguity whatsoever. A Google search for "a Cyprus problem" this - literally no one uses the phrase "Cyprus problem" to refer to anything but ''the'' Cyprus problem. In fact, "conflict" is much less specific and misleading, not least because the dispute involves stuff such as EU accession talks, but also because there are many "Cyprus conflicts" e.g. the "1974 Cyprus conflict" , "1964 Cyprus conflict" , "1967 Cyprus conflict" . And for ] there is no need for an overwhelming difference (although I would argue a 2:1 difference in Google Books is pretty overwhelming), it simply requires it to be "the name that is most commonly used", which it is. --] (]) 00:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
::: "The" vs. "a" is not specified in your searches, nor differentiable. Your Googlebook numbers are full of ghost-hits (non-existent). There aren't "132,000" references. Typically, you need to scroll to last page to get real number, but we reach the page limits on both. Since you are removing clarity in wording, making it less recognizable, I would like to see a more lopsided difference in usage rather than a marginal one. It seems to me to be a toss-up, and I'd prefer to go with the more informative title to help our readers. EDIT: Following the comment below, I wouldn't oppose a move to "dispute". But not to "problem". Much too vague. ] (]) 00:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Walrasiad}} The ghosthit argument doesn't hold for the Google Ngram viewer however, and that also clearly reflects a significant difference in usage (it shows that "Cyprus problem" is 3x more common than "Cyprus conflict"). Is there any alternative data to suggest that "Cyprus problem" is not the by far most common name, or, as you claim, that this is a toss-up? And are there any examples of RS that use "Cyprus problem" to refer to anything but ''the'' Cyprus problem? I don't think it's helpful to speculate that there may be ambiguity, over my many years of reading about Cyprus I simply don't remember ever coming across such usage. And how about the idea that "Cyprus conflict" is also unclear as explained above, do you disagree with this? If so, on what grounds? I should note that my preferred title is "Cyprus problem" but I ''would'' support a return to "Cyprus dispute" over retaining "Cyprus conflict" - even if this isn't the common name, it removes the problems associated with the "Cyprus conflict" name. --] (]) 01:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
:::::: It's still an ambiguous matter-of-fact phrase that could pertain to EU budgets or archaeology. Ngrams can't tell the difference. Keep the audience in mind. You may read a lot on Cyprus or international affairs. But Misplaced Pages readers typically don't. This article is for casual readers from the general public, not specialists or scholars, someone who might see something about the conflict on the TV news and may want to look more into it. "Cyprus problem" isn't likely how it will be referred to, nor would he know to look under that title. "Conflict" or "dispute" is more precise, informative and helpful. ] (]) 01:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
* '''Support''' either this move to '''Cyprus problem''' or a revert to '''Cyprus dispute'''. I'm not sold that the google hits refer to a common name, but even from a descriptive title view, "conflict" is quite misleading as GGT mentions above. ] (]) 00:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


* '''Strong Support''' per others.] (]) 10:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
* Existence of observers suggesting partition is not an opinion. This is reality. This is given in Oxford University Press book, April 2011.] (]) 10:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>


== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
::Misplaced Pages does not do futures. See ]. It is not a historical event. It doesn't make a difference how good the reference is or how good they are at predicting futures. Until it actually happens it is only hearsay. <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 12:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
::: Existence of observers suggesting partition is not something belonging to future; "Existence of observers suggesting partition" is PRESENT. "Existence of observers inceasingly suggesting partition" is not a prediction; This is a fact (as emphasized by the Neutral Source: Oxford University Press Book written by the neutral UN Special Advisor on Cyprus).] (]) 12:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2023-05-06T15:38:17.874909 | Coat of arms of Cyprus (2023).png -->
::::It doesn't matter what existing observers speculate when they are speculating about the future. Nor is a Misplaced Pages article an opportunity for the Economist to speculate on what might or might not happen because it is still speculation:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 15:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
::::<blockquote>"The chance of a settlement to end the division of Cyprus in 2011-2015 is only 20% (Economist Intelligence Unit)." <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 13:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
</blockquote>
:::::It is not Misplaced Pages speculating the future, but it is other reliable institutions. We even have ] on speculations. --] (]) 17:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::It is obvious that Misplaced Pages is not doing the speculation. It is the Economist that is doing the speculation. It still fails to pass ]. <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 17:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::: Existing observers SUGGEST about the PRESENT CASE; they do NOT SPECULATE about the future. One cannot qualify the suggestions about a particular topic as speculation. If for a while, we accepted the sentence with "chance", then why did also delete the UN Special Advisors information on the existence of observers? There is no chance in the existence of people.] (]) 20:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
: Dr. K reverted based on "WP:OR" (original research). ] (]) 20:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
:: Dr. K., "many observers" is not my claim. "many observers" is written in the book pressed by Oxford University Press book, April 2011 written by James Ker-Lindsay (UN Secretary-General's Special Advisor on Cyprus). Do I have to still show the list of many observers?] (]) 20:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
::: "The Cyprus Problem: What Everyone Needs to Know" (Product Description)
For nearly 60 years--from its uprising against British rule in the 1950s, to the bloody civil war between Greek and Turkish Cypriots in the 1960s, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in the 1970s, and the United Nation's ongoing 30-year effort to reunite the island--the tiny Mediterranean nation of Cyprus has taken a disproportionate share of the international spotlight. And while it has been often in the news, accurate and impartial information on the conflict has been nearly impossible to obtain.


== new intro is FAR from neutral ==
In The Cyprus Problem, '''James Ker-Lindsay'''--recently appointed as '''expert advisor to the UN Secretary-General's Special Advisor on Cyprus'''--offers an incisive, even-handed account of the conflict. Ker-Lindsay covers all aspects of the Cyprus problem, placing it in historical context, addressing the situation as it now stands, and looking toward its possible resolution. The book begins with the origins of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities as well as the other indigenous communities on the island (Maronites, Latin, Armenians, and Gypsies). Ker-Lindsay then examines the tensions that emerged between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots after independence in 1960 and the complex constitutional provisions and international treaties designed to safeguard the new state. He pays special attention to the Turkish invasion in 1974 and the subsequent efforts by the UN and the international community to reunite Cyprus. The book's final two chapters address a host of pressing issues that divide the two Cypriot communities, including key concerns over property, refugee returns, and the repatriation of settlers. Ker-Lindsay concludes by considering whether '''PARTITION''' really is the best solution, '''AS MANY OBSERVERS INCREASINGLY SUGGEST'''.


The actual reality on the ground, which is what the intro should be about, has nothing to do with such pettifogging details such as treaties and resolutions which can never be enforced. And, indeed, have not been over 49 years.
Written by a leading expert, The Cyprus Problem brings much needed clarity and understanding to a conflict that has confounded observers and participants alike for decades.
About the Author


"presumably", "pretense" and "Turkish Occupation Zone" are also not neutral. ] (]) 16:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
James Ker-Lindsay is the Eurobank EFG Senior Research Fellow on the Politics of South East Europe at the London School of Economics. He is the author of Crisis and Conciliation: A Year of Rapprochement Between Greece and Turkey and EU Accession and UN Peacemaking in Cyprus. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==Many Observers==
* '''Hugo Gobbi''' (Former United Nations Secretary General's Special Representative on Cyprus): Cyprus Mail - February 26, 1996 "Partition may be the only solution" is written in "Hugo Gobbi's book: Rethinking Cyprus".
Page17: "After the failure of the Boutros-Ghali initiative, Gobbi (1996) viewed ‘separation’ as the best solution for Cyprus."
* '''James Ker-Lindsay''' (expert advisor to UN Special Advisor on Cyprus) (03.Sep.2007): An arch-populist in word and deed, Matsakis's comments are ''actually a far more realistic'' reflection of Cypriot thinking than many of the established political leaders would like to admit. Of course, partition would not be an immediate panacea, nor could it come about overnight. It would require negotiations to settle a number of outstanding issues.
* '''Dr. Michael Moran''' (Sussex University): "In the context of my book, for unification and solution, ''the necessity to existence of two distinct states'' is defended"
* '''Riz Khan''' (Al-Jazeera) (18.Nov.2010): "Cyprus: time for formal partition? If Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders cannot agree on reunification, is a two-state island the only solution?"
* '''Jack Straw''' (UK's foreign secretary) (08.Nov.2010): "Cyprus should be partitioned"
* '''William Chislett''' (Real Instituto Elcano, Spain) (05.Jul.2010): "Cyprus: Time for a Negotiated Partition?"
===Many Observers of Cyprus island originated===
* '''Marios Matsakis''' (Greek Cypriot MEP in European Parliament): "The unmentionable solution - part 2" (James Ker-Lindsay, expert advisor to UN Sp Ad on Cyp):
..Marios Matsakis..broke new ground on the debate about the Cyprus problem when he suggested that partition was perhaps a better option.
* '''Hermes Solomon''' (A Greek Cypriot columnist, Cyprus Mail): "A permanent partition"
* '''Loucas Charalambous''' (A Greek Cypriot columnist, Cyprus Mail) "Christofias unforgivable crimes make partition the only solution"
* '''Nicola Solomonides''' (A Greek Cypriot academician) "One state or Two? The search for a solution to the Cyprus problem" "However, an acknowledged two-state solution may be unavoidable. It would naturally involve partition, predictably along similar lines to those which already exist, and measures would need to be taken regarding the issue of property."
* '''Rauf Denktas''' (Founder of Northern Cyprus): "Cyprus Problem Will Be Solved When The Existence Of Two Separate States"


== linking to a related article I'm working on ==
::It does not make any difference how many observers think that partition is the best solution for Cyprus. The fact remains that it remains speculation until it happens. This observation does not meet the ] standard and therefore should not be part of this article. Moreover, the columnists of the Cyprus Mail, can only be described as propaganda-merchants that favor Turkey and British POV and they are doing no favors for Cypriots who gain nothing from partition. Partition is an unjust solution which just re-enforces the illegal apartheid solution inflicted by the Republic of Turkey. Your intentions clearly dissipate propaganda that legitimizes this unjust, apartheid solution. <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 11:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
hi all, this conflict is a major example of a topic I'm currently working on (protracted social conflict), so i added a link to that article in the intro. ] (]) 19:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
the Greeks had it coming, for
destabilizing in 1974 the constitutional order of the Cyprus Republic,
which Turkey, as a guarrantor power was expected to rebalance
===Polls===
1. '''Noverna''': (March.2007)(on behalf of the Institute for Social and Political Studies): Jean Christou, "ONE THIRD of Greek Cypriots would like to see the two sides separated"
2. '''KADEM''' (March.2011): "77.1% of Turkish Cypriots prefer two-country solution in Cyprus island"


==Revelation of the facts on the ground==
==Turkey / Cyprus==
As for the fact revalation on the ground, Fiona Mullen of Sapienta Economics, a consultancy in Nicosia said "We might have reached a point where it’s no longer possible to put the island back together again". Source: https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/11/18/putting-cyprus-together-may-be-impossible
The Cyprus dispute is between Turkey and Cyprus, not between TC and GC. Both GC and TC are citizens of the Republic of Cyprus per the country's constitution. , Cyprus Vs Turkey, the court held that Turkey exercised effective overall control of northern Cyprus through its military presence there, with the result that its responsibility under the Convention was engaged for the policies and actions of the “TRNC” authorities. In the instant case, the Court stressed that Turkey’s responsibility under the Convention could not be confined to the acts of its own soldiers and officials operating in northern Cyprus but was also engaged by virtue of the acts of the local administration (“the TRNC”), which survived by virtue of Turkish military and other support. ] ] 18:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Permanent partition? Putting Cyprus together may be impossible (18 November 2021). <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)</small>

Latest revision as of 16:38, 28 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cyprus problem article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconTurkey Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Balkan / European Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
WikiProject iconGreece: Politics Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Politics and politicians task force.
WikiProject iconCyprus Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cyprus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cyprus on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyprusWikipedia:WikiProject CyprusTemplate:WikiProject CyprusCypriot
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEuropean history Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article may be within the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:
The contents of the Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots page were merged into Cyprus problem on 24 May 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

"good offices" vs "...Good Offices ..."

   "Good Offices" is the title of a novel (w/ a WP article) because that is our and most of the world's coventional practice, and some UN body set up to use its good offices to settle disputes has a WP article that probably follows UN conventions for naming most of its kinds of subordinate parts, for mostly the first reason, which are probably close to those of English names for such parts. But when the Sec Gen decides bigger guns are needed, he may choose to notify that body, i 'spose, but he is using his own good offices (inherant de facto influence in the context of his role as SG), to accompllish an end. He knows abt that office, and might have reason to keep them informed, but he can use his own "good offices" bcz of two facts: very few people want to cross him, and when gets in touch with you, just blowing him off is almost never a good plan. We have an article on the novel and on the committee, which are titled to reflect those two proper names, but (when you get a job bcz some with more influence backs you, or) when the SG nudges one or both parties, he's "using his good offices" as a prod, not speaking on behalf of a less influential part of the UN, and paradox tho it is, the lower case kind is far more likely to be effective than the pretentiously upper-case bureaucratic kind.
   Now, ya wanna go write a WP article on good offices, well, not a terrible idea as long as someone does the dog work (including mention of that not necessarily trivial UN office), i promise that i or some like me will make you look like a fool if the title's spelling doesn't begin with "Good offices", OK? A wikt entry (we follow lexicographic, rather than encyclopedic practices over there) would be yet another case.
--JerzyA (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Annexation of Cyprus

Because of these edits , , . , Gr.Britain declared the annexation of Cyprus on 5 November 1914. See:

In 1925, Cyprus became a Crown Colony. Cinadon36 10:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Cyprus dispute → Cyprus conflict – The proposed title is the clear common name and in line with all other frozen conflicts like Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Abkhaz–Georgian conflict, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Western Sahara conflict, Rohingya conflict, Kashmir conflict, Korean conflict, Arab–Israeli conflict etc. Northumber (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Support - Agreed. The Cyprus conflict is an open-ended conflict that is effectively still a ceasefire. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 8 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Cyprus conflict → Cyprus problem – The above requested move was carried out with very minimal participation so a strong consensus for the actual name is not present. The WP:COMMONNAME for this topic is clearly "Cyprus problem", as evidenced by these results: Google Books - 132,000 for "Cyprus problem" vs 66,300 for "Cyprus conflict" vs 56,300 for "Cyprus issue" vs 16,200 for "Cyprus dispute"; Google Scholar - 8,580 for "Cyprus problem" vs 6,630 for "Cyprus issue" vs 5,260 for "Cyprus conflict" vs 2,130 for "Cyprus dispute". Google Ngram Viewer confirms that "Cyprus problem" is the most popular term, far ahead of "Cyprus conflict", which comes in fourth and places behind even "Cyprus question", nowadays a somewhat antiquated term. The WP:CONSISTENCY argument above doesn't hold water. The examples given are too selective, a number of similar articles use various terminology (see Category:National questions, Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, amongst others); and it's apples and oranges anyway - the Cyprus problem has seen an incomparably greater use of diplomacy than all of those other conflicts, not least involving referanda and EU accession talks; such that calling the whole thing a "conflict" feels somewhat awkward. GGT (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  • support common name web related searches use the cyprus problem more than cyprus conflict.194.146.156.12 (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Differences are not overwhelming and it is less clear. "Problem" is not sufficiently informative of what it pertains to. EU has a "Cyprus problem", archaeology has a "Cyprus problem", etc. This article is referring specifically to the conflict or dispute. Current title makes that more immediately clear. Walrasiad (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    Not really Walrasiad. It's not a Cyprus problem, it's the Cyprus problem in pretty much all sources. E.g. . There is no ambiguity whatsoever. A Google search for "a Cyprus problem" confirms this - literally no one uses the phrase "Cyprus problem" to refer to anything but the Cyprus problem. In fact, "conflict" is much less specific and misleading, not least because the dispute involves stuff such as EU accession talks, but also because there are many "Cyprus conflicts" e.g. the "1974 Cyprus conflict" , "1964 Cyprus conflict" , "1967 Cyprus conflict" . And for WP:COMMONNAME there is no need for an overwhelming difference (although I would argue a 2:1 difference in Google Books is pretty overwhelming), it simply requires it to be "the name that is most commonly used", which it is. --GGT (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
"The" vs. "a" is not specified in your searches, nor differentiable. Your Googlebook numbers are full of ghost-hits (non-existent). There aren't "132,000" references. Typically, you need to scroll to last page to get real number, but we reach the page limits on both. Since you are removing clarity in wording, making it less recognizable, I would like to see a more lopsided difference in usage rather than a marginal one. It seems to me to be a toss-up, and I'd prefer to go with the more informative title to help our readers. EDIT: Following the comment below, I wouldn't oppose a move to "dispute". But not to "problem". Much too vague. Walrasiad (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Walrasiad: The ghosthit argument doesn't hold for the Google Ngram viewer however, and that also clearly reflects a significant difference in usage (it shows that "Cyprus problem" is 3x more common than "Cyprus conflict"). Is there any alternative data to suggest that "Cyprus problem" is not the by far most common name, or, as you claim, that this is a toss-up? And are there any examples of RS that use "Cyprus problem" to refer to anything but the Cyprus problem? I don't think it's helpful to speculate that there may be ambiguity, over my many years of reading about Cyprus I simply don't remember ever coming across such usage. And how about the idea that "Cyprus conflict" is also unclear as explained above, do you disagree with this? If so, on what grounds? I should note that my preferred title is "Cyprus problem" but I would support a return to "Cyprus dispute" over retaining "Cyprus conflict" - even if this isn't the common name, it removes the problems associated with the "Cyprus conflict" name. --GGT (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
It's still an ambiguous matter-of-fact phrase that could pertain to EU budgets or archaeology. Ngrams can't tell the difference. Keep the audience in mind. You may read a lot on Cyprus or international affairs. But Misplaced Pages readers typically don't. This article is for casual readers from the general public, not specialists or scholars, someone who might see something about the conflict on the TV news and may want to look more into it. "Cyprus problem" isn't likely how it will be referred to, nor would he know to look under that title. "Conflict" or "dispute" is more precise, informative and helpful. Walrasiad (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support either this move to Cyprus problem or a revert to Cyprus dispute. I'm not sold that the google hits refer to a common name, but even from a descriptive title view, "conflict" is quite misleading as GGT mentions above. CMD (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

new intro is FAR from neutral

The actual reality on the ground, which is what the intro should be about, has nothing to do with such pettifogging details such as treaties and resolutions which can never be enforced. And, indeed, have not been over 49 years.

"presumably", "pretense" and "Turkish Occupation Zone" are also not neutral. 180.150.38.126 (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


linking to a related article I'm working on

hi all, this conflict is a major example of a topic I'm currently working on (protracted social conflict), so i added a link to that article in the intro. Grackle.cackle (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Revelation of the facts on the ground

As for the fact revalation on the ground, Fiona Mullen of Sapienta Economics, a consultancy in Nicosia said "We might have reached a point where it’s no longer possible to put the island back together again". Source: https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/11/18/putting-cyprus-together-may-be-impossible Permanent partition? Putting Cyprus together may be impossible (18 November 2021). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.175.237.186 (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Cyprus problem: Difference between revisions Add topic