Talk:Northern Cyprus/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Misplaced Comment

new editor place the following at the top of the talk page:

the headline is unnacceptable cause noone recognises this part of cyprus in the whole world except turkey!this is totaly turkish pov. it is written:"The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti, KKTC), commonly called Northern Cyprus (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs) though its tourist office advertises as North Cyprus, is a de facto independent republic[2][3][4] located in the north of Cyprus." it should be written i think like this:"Northern Cyprus (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs)is a de facto independent republic[2][3][4] located in the north of Cyprus." commonly called by turks as The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti, KKTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.4 (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this article about the Northern part of the island or about the TRNC? Think about it. This article IS about the TRNC and so it should be named as such. The article should be called: The Turkish Republic of North Cyprus.WillMall (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been hashed out extensively above, and there is no consensus for changing the name. Also please place all new comments either in the appropriate section, or at the bottom of the page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There will never be a consensus, but the article should be objective. The Article is about the ‘Turkish Republic of North Cyprus'. Its non-recognition by the UN is the poltical stance that the UN takes toward the TRNC. It is objective to point out that only Turkey recognises the TRNC whilst everyone else recognises the south. But that very fact proves that the TRNC exists and so the article should be named properly. WillMall (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In a different comment, you said "us", so I gather you're a Turkish Cypriot. It is interesting to note that other very vociferous Turkish Cypriots that have edited here have preferred "North Cyprus". That tells me that there's not consensus even amongst folks for that part of the world. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please address the points I am making. We are not here to discuss consensus. Consensus is a point of view. We should state facts. And the fact is obvious. The fact is that there is a country called 'The Turkish Republic of North Cyprus'. It is NOT recognized by most of the world but it DOES exist. This article is about that country. Furthermore, why is it that you moved my comments from the top and into this section but you left the unsigned anti-TRNC comment at the top? Such actions and your statements about my purported nationality undermine your impartiality. WillMall (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

First, we are here to discuss consensus. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Go read our policy on consensus. Second, I've already explained why your comments were moved, and again, you haven't taken the time to read what has been written to you, and to understand how Wikipedia works: new comments go at the bottom of a talk page. My comments about your nationality were specifically to point out that not even all of the editors from TRNC agree on what it is to be called, so again, there is no consensus. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the official name of a country, regardless of its international recognition, is NOT a matter of consensus. That is the point I am trying to get through to you, but you fail to acknowledge and discuss it. Secondly, the unsigned statement at THE TOP OF THE PAGE was made in 08:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC) and it has not been moved. It is in a section called ‘Re-protected’. It is out of place. But you moved and placed my comment under the title ‘Misplaced Comment’. Clearly a double standard. Are you Greek or Greek Cypriot? WillMall (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a Texan-Australian mix, if you really need to know. If you want to move the comment you're referring to, have at it. I actually moved yours so it would get seen rather than lost in the old stuff. All that not withstanding, this subject has been discussed extensively, and one person's opinion, yours, does not trump all that. Sorry, that's just not how it works around here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have moved the misplaced unsigned comment into this section. Feel free to move it again if its still misplaced. By the way, the 'us' I use in my other comments refers to 'we - the readers of Wikipedia'. We the readers/users = us. Final word, I still hold that genuine facts are Not a matter of consensus. WillMall (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

North Cyprus or Northern Cyprus?

I hate to ask, but since I've got a massive problem to fix anyway, I'd rather fix it right.

A user has been changing all references to Northern Cyprus through Wikipedia to North Cyprus, with the rationale 'The phrase "North" legalized. So, all "Northern" are converted to "North"'. He cited various NC websites as his source that the name was formally changed. However, this article currently notes that although North Cyprus is used for tourism branding, the formal name is still Northern Cyprus.

Is there a formal source (newspaper story, publication in the legislative record) to support this name change? In the absence of one, I have to go with what this article says and move everything back to Northern Cyprus. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• To the best of my knowledge, there has been no "legal" decision to adopt "North Cyprus" in preference to "Northern Cyprus". "North Cyprus" is sometimes used in tourist office publications, but this is not binding. The onus of proof is on the user who makes the massive bold changes (presumably User:-Zeus-) and claims that 'The phrase "North" legalized.' Until the user provides such proof, we should stay with the established consensus, i.e., "Northern", as in the main article. I would also suggest that you look at this user's contributions, which look unusual, to say the least. --Zlerman (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• It proved out that the editor in question—not -Zeus-—was a sockpuppet of an indefinitely-blocked user. The changes have been reverted. I wanted to confirm that not only was he disruptive in his means of making the changes, but he was acting against consensus, which it appears so. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Here are two official links to government sites, which clearly show that the official name is "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", not "North Cyprus": Office of the President and TRNC State Planning Organization (click on Links). Have fun. --Zlerman (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

---

=== Proofs of NORTH Cyprus ===

Disproofs of Northern Cyprus

• 1 The official name is of course, "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". But, this is long form. The Short form is "North Cyprus", not "Northern Cyprus". Let's examine the counter-examples given above:

--Zlerman gave the example Office of the President for proof of "Northern Cyprus". In this presidential site, look at the menu: PRESIDENT - PRESIDENCY - PRESS OFFICE - DOCUMENTS - CONTACT - NORTH CYPRUS - E-DIRECTORY E-LIBRARY: Hence, Zlerman's reasoning for "Northern" Cyprus is disproving itself even in the site he cited!! In the site TRNC State Planning Organization, NO "Northern Cyprus" expression appears! The links from that site includes .pdf documents in which both "North Cyprus" and "Northern Cyprus" expressions appear.

The Country registers itself as NORTH Cyprus in membership to international organizations

• 1 Here is my proofs from international fora: The "North Cyprus" is a full member of European Countries Biologists Association (ECBA). If you click ECBA - members - full in the Official site of ECBA, you can see the countries NORTH Cyprus and "South Cyprus"! I do NOT care which way you call the country in the North of Cyprus island, but the correct one is NORTH Cyprus (This is short form of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus). (I will give the second example in a little while) Gercekkaynarca (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• 2 The Official name is Billiard Federation of North Cyprus - (BFNC) and BFNC is a Prov member of European Pool Championships. If you click European Pool Championships - People - Members, you can see Billiard Federation of North Cyprus is listed in the table. North Cyprus is the only representing country of Cyprus Island in EPC. Gercekkaynarca (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In official web sites of the country's organizations and ministeries, NORTH is used

• 1 In the North Cyprus' state 's easykart federation web site, you can clearly see the NORTH Cyprus expression everywhere in the site.
• 2 In the country's Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Do Ctrl+F North Cyprus in the site), North Cyprus is used. Gercekkaynarca (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Country Registers itself as NORTH Cyprus in international sportive tournaments and championships

• 1' World Easykart Champion (in year 2008, 125cc Light) is Zeka Ozteknik of NORTH Cyprus [1]. You can see the expression North in his announcement of top degree in the site [2] as well. Gercekkaynarca (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• 2 In "International Bocce Friendship Tournament" in Hungary (4-9 of February 2009), North Cyprus played the Final game and took 2nd place in the tournament. Gercekkaynarca (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Country's officials use NORTH Cyprus when international communications and writings

• 1 Again a proof from international fora: Even the North Cyprus officials are using the term "North" when citing their country in international communications as in [3] in which North Cyprus Bocce Federation president invites a foreign president to a tournament in North Cyprus.

Countive proofs (not official proofs, but giving enough idea)

• 1 This proof in fact is NOT an official proof, but gives the idea: Just Google "North Cyprus" and "Northern Cyprus" (Note: Put in quotation marks, and in advanced search select the language English). The results are: North Cyprus: 1.190.000 hits and Northern Cyprus is 676.000 hits. When the language is set to Turkish: The results are: North Cyprus: 94.800 hits and Northern Cyprus is 32.500 hits. Gercekkaynarca (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, although I myself clearly acknowledge up front that not all the hits on these pages necessarily use the capitalized "North Cyprus", Google scholar here, Google books here, and Google news here all seem to return at least a number of sources which do use the capitalized "North Cyprus". On that basis, I have to say that, whether or not it is the name that the page itself should have, the name does seem to be used often enough to be included as a variant name in the lede. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that these Google hits are not being selective or evaluated discriminately enough. As I have said before, a raw presentation of numbers without critical analysis is not really valuable. For example, the first hit I got from the link on Google Scholar links to an article published in 1976, before there was a Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. It talks about flora in north Cyprus, meaning the north half of the island, not "North Cyprus", meaning the de facto country. And the first five hits on the Google news search (see bottom of page) actually used "Northern Cyprus" or "northern Cyprus" in the body of the article itself and the one that did consistently use "North Cyprus" also used "Turkish Republic of North Cyprus", which all parties agree is not standard. I clicked on the Google Books link and the second book only uses "Northern Cyprus". As I clicked further though, I started to see guide books that mentioned "North Cyprus". I still haven't seen it used in atlases or encyclopedias at this point, so I still oppose the renaming of the article, but there seems to be enough evidence now to include it as an alternate name in the first sentence. (Taivo (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

I must disagree. I do not think guidebooks can be considered reliable, verifiable sources. Remember, common usage must be determined by using verifiable English language sources, and those only. --Athenean (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, at no point did I ever say that what I presented was sufficient reason to rename the article. In fact, I think I more or less said I wasn't speaking to that idea at all. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. No one's talking about renaming the article right now--that's a done deal as far as I'm concerned. We're only talking about listing "North Cyprus" as a name that is occasionally used in English. And it is occasionally used in English--it's not the most common name by any stretch, but it is occasionally used in English-language publications. (Taivo (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Personally I don't think this is much of an issue and I wouldn't try to push WP:RS too agressively here. Just compromise and move on to better things please. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This, for example, would be considered a reliable source. Some of the academic articles use "Northern Cyprus", some use "North Cyprus". The fact that both are used in this academic setting shows that the setting itself is neutral. Most of the articles use "Northern", but "North" is also used. (Taivo (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

I've added a cite to the above source (an essay in a book) to substantiate the mention of "North Cyprus" in the article's lede. Again, we are not talking at this point about renaming the article — only documenting a name which appears to be used at least sometimes to identify the TRNC.

I've actually been wondering here whether this squabble over "North" vs. "Northern" may be seen by partisans as validating vs. repudiating the TRNC's legitimacy as a distinct entity. Perhaps people on both sides are viewing "North Cyprus" as a proper title of an independent state (compare, e.g., "North Korea", "North Yemen", or "North Vietnam") — and, by contrast, seeing "Northern Cyprus" as denoting a non-independent region within a larger political entity (compare, e.g., "Northern California"). This could explain why the advocates we've seen here of "North Cyprus" seem to be Turks and/or Turkish Cypriots, whereas those opposing this term appear likely to be Greeks and/or Greek Cypriots. If this is what's happening, a compromise may be difficult or impossible, since each name is going to be seen as unacceptably POV by some people. But, for the moment, I think we should just wait and see if a passing acknowledgment of the name "North Cyprus" in the lede will be good enough. Richwales (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, this is nothing compared to naming Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

I would just like to remind everyone that the user who started this whole thread, Gercekkaynarca, is someone who is indef blocked for severely disrupting Wikipedia. Yet, to my amazement, instead of immediately rolling back his rants, people are willing to lend an ear to him in good faith! As an example, his above posting from April 2 is still standing! People, there is absoultely no good faith to assume here. Why do you think he was indef blocked in the first place? In this instance, his sheer tenacity and manipulative tactics have paid off handsomely, as his beloved "North Cyprus" has made it right into the leading sentence. This small success will do doubt encourage him, so rest assured that he will not stop there. This is precisely why such users need to be rolled back immediately. From now on, I intend to immeditaly roll back all and any contributions from this user with extreme prejudice, and hope that the community will join me in enforcing the ban. I have two years experience on wikipedia now, and I know enough to know that this is the only way to deal with such individuals. --Athenean (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Make no mistake — the only reason any mention of "North Cyprus" belongs in this article at all is because it was mentioned in an impartial, reliable source (having no connection to the banned user). As far as I'm concerned, this is sufficient, unless there is a consensus that we ought to devote a new section to all the various names applied to the territory of the TRNC (as I suggested recently). The banned user's quest to have the article itself renamed has gotten nowhere, so I don't see him as having won anything. As for his posting from April 2, leaving that intact was an oversight on everyone's part, and I for one am glad you noticed it and struck it out. The passing reference to the name "North Cyprus" in the lede — again, with a cite to a legitimate source — is a very different matter, and it should remain (or, if appropriate, go) on its own merits without regard for anything a banned user may have said on the topic. Richwales (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Richwales. "North Cyprus" occurs in neutral reliable sources. It should not be the title of this article, since that requires another whole magnitude of proof that it is a more common English name than "Northern Cyprus", but it does occur and therefore should be mentioned. Just a single mention is all it deserves, however. This isn't a reward, it is just a recognition of a fact. We should not be blind just because a criminal points out a fact. And we can point to WillMall, who isn't a banned user, if we need a "good boy" to credit with pointing out the need to add "North Cyprus". And why should the banned user's contributions even be allowed to stand here with just a strikeout? Why not just delete them? (Taivo (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

Good points both of you. I'm still toying with Richwales' idea of a separate "name" section, but haven't decided. Typically such sections are necessary if there are three or more names, but I can't think of a third name here. As for striking through the banned user's comments, since legit users responded to them, it would look weird and discontinuous if I removed them altogether, so I opted to strike them through. Next time though we need to be sure to remove them before anyone responds. With these users, it is extremely important not to give them any sort of encouragement, to make them feel that all their efforts are futile. Otherwise they never stop. --Athenean (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding lining out banned comments (as opposed to deleting them entirely): When I decided the "voting" section of the talk page needed a cleanup, I felt some people might have seen massive deletion of this stuff as overly aggressive — and I also wanted to be sure others agreed with my identification of exactly which comments were illegitimate — so I chose to use strikeouts. Now that the dust has settled, I think the idea of just deleting the banned user's material makes more sense — though I see Athenean's point about needing to preserve context after people had responded to the illegitimate stuff. I agree that if a banned user's sock-avatars can be identified quickly enough, those comments could and should be deleted right away, but in a case like this one, that could turn into an exhausting game of whack-a-mole.

As far as what could go into a separate "names" section, I can easily think of several. In addition to the official English name of the disputed state (the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) — as well as "Northern Cyprus", and apparently also "North Cyprus" — I believe there have been several expressions used by officials of governments which are trying to be extra-careful not to seem to be conceding even an infinitesimal degree of recognition or acknowledgment of any legitimate existence of the TRNC. I think we can probably find reliable sources documenting such euphemisms as "the north", "Turkish Cypriot territory", "the Turkish-occupied region", and the like. I believe I've even seen some officials refer to "the 'TRNC'" — with an extra set of quotation marks around "TRNC" in an attempt to lend a "self-styled" or "so-called" connotation to the name which the de-facto government in the north has invented for itself. (Everyone please note that I'm not trying to adopt a public position here, and if what I just wrote seems POV, I'm just trying to convey the fact that the entities who insist on using such names are unquestionably advancing a POV.) So I think there's probably enough material to be had along these lines to make a decent-sized paragraph or two — not only inventorying the various names, but also touching on the reasons why people have been unable/unwilling to agree on a name. Richwales (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your proposal is a good one and I'm for it. Now let's see what other people think. --Athenean (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Voting for Moving the Article To North Cyprus

Archived content

legal status of North Cyprus

I am restoring comments made by anon user. I think there are some interesting points being made, so i put the points here for discussion. I have also noticed on other articles the use of terms such as 'partially recognised'. Looks like lots of food for thought here:

• Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States states that "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states". Article 3 of this same treaty states that "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states".

• The European Union, in the principal statement of its Badinter Committee, has also declared that it follows the Montevideo Convention in its definition and found that the existence of states is a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory and not a determinative factor of statehood

• It would be more neutral to state the legal facts surrounding the establishment of the TRNC before stating that the TRNC is not "recognised by the International community". This implies that the TRNC requires recognition under International Law for it to refer to itself as a sovereign state. This is clearly not the case under International Customary Law. WillMall (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The above is a condensed version of comments originally made on this page by 122.148.209.236 (06:35, 21 March 2009). --Zlerman (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Locked?

Why is this article locked? There are so many things that need updating. There are also error that require attention. ΕλληνΚύπριος (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC).

Please write about these errors and outdated things here first. Alæxis_¿question? 17:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you keeping it locked? What i meant to say was, are you involved in keeping it locked? Can you pls explain why?ΕλληνΚύπριος (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in "locking" this article, but as best I can tell, it has been on indefinite "semi-protected" status since last December. This means that only "established" users can edit it — meaning you have to be logged in using an account (not an IP address), and your account must have been around for at least four days (probably the issue here — your account appears to be only three days old), and you must have done at least ten edits in other Wikipedia articles (I'm not 100% sure if edits to talk pages count toward this requirement or not). See WP:SEMI for more details on semi-protection. Additionally, the article is locked against attempts to rename it. These steps were taken because of repeated vandalism of the page by people with strongly held views on the subject who were unable or unwilling to have the article reflect a balanced, neutral treatment per Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy (WP:NPOV). Please keep in mind that even when your account becomes "established" and you're able to edit this page, you need to respect all of the different viewpoints (some of which might be very distasteful to you, but remember that your opinions might be very distasteful to some others, and we're trying to write an encyclopedia here, not a partisan piece). It looks like your account may qualify as "established" in the next day or two, so please try again and see if you can edit the page now — but please keep in mind that Northern Cyprus is a hot-button topic, and one person's "updating" or correction of "errors" may (rightly or wrongly) be seen by some other people as pushing a view they don't want to accept. If necessary, please try to get people to talk it out here on the talk page. Richwales (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time, that was helpful. ΕλληνΚύπριος (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I was involved, and it was semi'ed because of a huge problem of POV editing by a prolific sockpuppeteer. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Army enjoys support?

The article states that the presence of the Turkish Army meets with the approval of much of the Turkish Cypriot population. I think I may have been responsible for that edit. But my point is, is this true today? The population may support close ties with Turkey and see it as a protector but 'much' of the population can also be against such a large military presence. There has been no census and we do not know. The result of the elections (20 April) simply indicates support for a party, not necessarily for the army. I suggest we modify that phrasing.Politis (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

de jure

It is nice to see someone revert a text I edited to a text I had edited. But explain why de jure is redundant or keep your distance from thing you ignore. Politis (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Maxim of quantity. If you stress, on first mentioning a country, that it is "de facto independent" (which denotes a minor, restricted form of independence), then you are already implying that it is only de facto independent, and that entails non-de-jure. It's like describing a thing as "half-finished" (which implies: not completely finished), or another thing as "purported to be X" (which implies: not proven to be X), or a person as having "tried to do Y" (which implies: didn't yet succeed doing Y). You wouldn't say: "A is half-finished (but not yet completely finished)", or: "B is purported to be X (but not proven to be so)", or: "C tried to do Y (but didn't in the end do Y)". Because a reader understands that if something is finished you wouldn't bother to say that one half of it is also finished, or that if something is proven you wouldn't bother to say that it is also purported, or that if someone has succeeded in doing Y you wouldn't bother to say that he previously tried. If the larger thing is true you would go straight for saying the larger thing, so if you stop to say the smaller thing, a reader automatically understands that the larger thing does not apply. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Concentrate please. The word in question is de jure. The first definition of de facto in wikipedia is "De facto is a Latin expression that means "concerning the fact" or "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law". It says 'not necessarily in law'. Therefore, the additioni of 'de jure' is appropriate in wiki context. If you disagree, then go change the definition of de facto in wikipedia and come back again. Until then, de jure stays. The important thing is, what do other editors have to say? Politis (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please pay attention and answer the above question before reverting de jure. On another article you just commented, "I would neither want to push through without prior discussion, nor do I have the time and inclination to fix it". Discussion is needed if not abstain from editing. Politis (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What question? You didn't ask any. I explained why it's redundant, if you don't understand what people tell you, that's not my problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Read carefully what you have written, the definition for de jure and follow my instructions (or argue around them). Easy. And only one person has answered, You. That is not people. Politis (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What I notice is that you have in no way responded to my initial argument. Probably you haven't even understood it. Which wouldn't surprise me, honestly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with FP here. It's perfectly clear from the rest of first paragraph that TRNC isn't de jure independent. And, of course, we wouldn't call a widely recognised country de facto independent but rather simply independent. Alæxis_¿question? 17:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Alaexis. My querry was, "The first definition of de facto in wikipedia is "De facto is a Latin expression that means "concerning the fact" or "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law". etc, etc. But if you are happy with it, no problem. Lets move on.Politis (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Using the terms ‘de facto’ or ‘de jure’ is pushing the pov of the UN and the EU. The article is supposed to be balanced and give equal weight to all sides of the argument. That is achieved in the intro to this article which states : The trnc ‘has received diplomatic recognition only from Turkey, on which it has become dependent for economic, political and military support. The rest of the international community, including the United Nations and European Union, recognises the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the territory of the TRNC’. Using the terms ‘de facto’ or ‘de jure’ is pushing the POV of the UN and the EU and is overkill considering the previous sentence. WillMall (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. We only say in the intro that TRNC is de facto independent. That, by itself, does not mean that it's de jure not independent. Its status is anyway clear from the rest of intro.

Regarding the rest of my revert I believe that the first lines of the article is not a good place to assert that a particular country is democratic. Check the article about any country widely regarded as democratic. The ref itself is valuable enough imho but it should be used in the 'Government and politics' section rather than in the intro. Alæxis_¿question? 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"northern Cyprus" is not a recognized country

"northern Cyprus" is not a recognized country. Kindly check the United Nations member states website, http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml, to see the UN member states list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.9.147 (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the article claiming otherwise for Northern Cyprus. —C.Fred (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus is a de facto independent country as are South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, etc. While these countries are not members of the U.N. and are not recognized as independent by most countries of the world, it is de facto independent since it has its own police force, government, laws, etc. and does not recognize the de jure country that others recognize it belonging to. (Taivo (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

I agree with Taivo. The Turkish Republic Of North Cyprus is a country. WillMall (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the name of this country is Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, not "Turkish Republic Of North Cyprus". --Zlerman (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Good to see that you agree it is a country. I have no idea if the English speaking world has an official translation for it but the actual name is: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti. The word Kuzey translates as North, so that makes it: The Turkish Republic Of North Cyprus. WillMall (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"North" and "Northern" in this context are synonymous. "North" is not just a noun, but an adjective, so we have "North Pole", "South Pole", etc. The standard translation of the name of this country is "Northern Cyprus". That is the most common English usage, I do believe, not "North Cyprus". (Taivo (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

How exactly do you propose to establish common English usage in this case? Google returns more results for North Cyprus rather than Northern Cyprus. Try it yourself and see. So if Google is to be believed, the most common usage is North Cyprus. Do you have a more scientific method that can be applied in this case? Failing that, the standard dictionary translation (Langenscheidt,1983) is as follows : North = Kuzey. Northern = Kuzeye ait or kuzeyli. So I have offered you two verifiable methods both supporting North Cyprus. What do you offer? WillMall (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

First, Google hits are worthless as measures. They measure the number of times web designers embed phrases in their coding and in keywords. A good web designer puts every possible phrasing for an item into keywords whether or not that phrase actually occurs in the visible page or not. And the phrase "Northern Cyprus" will show up as a hit for "North Cyprus" if the search engine has any guts whatsoever since "Northern Cyprus" and "North Cyprus" are exactly synonymous and "North" is contained within "Northern". So a simple Google search is worthless as any kind of measurement. And it doesn't matter what the Turkish phrase translates as. That's not what Wikipedia policy focuses on. Wikipedia policy focuses solely on "most common English term". What you need to look at are a combination of the following things to determine what the most common English term is for Northern Cyprus. 1) What is it called in the most popular English-language encyclopedias (Britannica, Comptons, World Book, etc.)? 2) What is it called in English-language maps and atlases (especially those published by National Geographic, Rand McNally, Hammonds, and Oxford)? 3) What is it called in English-language news media? Get the facts and figures for what it is called in those English language sources and you will have a strong foundation for what the most common English usage is. Turkish doesn't matter. TRNC politicians don't matter. International organizations don't matter. All that matters in Wikipedia is most common English usage. Period. (Taivo (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

Firstly, you are wrong about Google. It counts the words used in the displayed text of the page NOT in the embedded code. Secondly, you have offered NO proof that Northern Cyprus is more commonly used than North Cyprus. WillMall (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no, WillMall, you are clearly not familiar with Search Engine Optimization or keywords if you think that Google only counts things that are displayed in text. Read up on web page design. Keywords are a very important element in search engine placement and recognition for every web page and part of every Google (or Yahoo! or AltaVista, etc.) search engine's search parameters. Google searches are worthless when asking the question of what is common usage. I don't have to prove anything about Northern Cyprus--that is already the current article's title. It is incumbent upon you to prove that North Cyprus is used at all by English speakers and then that it is the most common English usage. I have given you three avenues of research that are widely accepted in Wikipedia as indicators of common English usage. You have to prove that Northern Cyprus is not the most common English name for Northern Cyprus and then build a consensus for that before an article move will be approved. I oppose the move because I have never, ever, ever heard the name "North Cyprus" for Northern Cyprus. (Taivo (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

There have been many countries that were not members of the UN, I hardly find that a good argument for the officialness of a country. And what of suspended members or expelled members? 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Taivo, whatever way Google counts the words, the fact is that North Cyprus is used more times than Northern Cyprus. Period. Whatever way you want to describe how search engines work and how web pages are created. The simple plain fact is that, and this is by your by your own reasoning concerning web design and search engines, North is more commonly used than Northern. As far as other sources goes: a search of Google Books [4] produces higher results for North Cyprus. A search of Google News [5] also produces higher results for North Cyprus. Google News and Google books are both designed to search content, that’s the whole point of them. Check it yourself. WillMall (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Google is an unreliable source for determining usage. WP:NC states that Wikipedia "determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject" - and plainly a very large number of Google hits are on unreliable sources. To determine naming, we look at reliable sources such as news outlets, encyclopedias, atlases and maps. I haven't had a chance to look at the latter three categories of sources but there does seem to be a clear preference among news sources for "Northern Cyprus" ([6] vs [7]) by a margin of about 10 to 1. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

WillMall, until you actually get out of your armchair and look at actual atlases, maps, and encyclopedias, your assertions about Google hits and Google Books are unreliable and not authoritative. Too many people on Wikipedia think that a search of Google Books is somehow actual research. It's not. You have to handle paper and look at what the encyclopedias and atlases actually have printed. And, as I stated before, "Northern" will come up as a positive when you search for "North", so your searches are doubly unreliable. (Taivo (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

Nope, I get the following results when searching all news archives in google: [8] and [9]. So not sure how ChrisO got his results, but the google news archives show equal use between the two, with North being slightly more than Northern. As far as google books goes. It does prove that books using 'North Cyprus' do exist as do 'Northern Cyprus'. I really have nothing more to say on the matter. Taivo is blindly ignoring the evidence. WillMall (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't "blindly ignore" real evidence, but Google searches aren't evidence as both ChrisO and myself have pointed out. We have both very clearly pointed out where you could find real evidence, but you seem to be ignoring that and are simply pushing your internet searches as some sort of valid research. (Taivo (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

I made the change in the main article. WillMall (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to WillMall's edit (adding "or North Cyprus" to the lede). I'm still curiously concerned over whether this naming question might be the tip of a political iceberg (i.e., if some people on one or both sides see the choice of "North" vs. "Northern" as affirming or repudiating the status of the TRNC — whereas others don't see it this way and can't comprehend what the fuss is all about). Since our goal is to be balanced and neutral, this might suggest that we should consider renaming the article after the full, accepted English-language form of the country name (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) — with both Northern Cyprus and North Cyprus as redirects — and possibly also edit references to the country in the text to use either the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus or the TRNC wherever possible. Richwales (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection either to WillMall's edit. If TRNC nationalists are having a fuss over "North" versus "Northern" I don't get it since the two terms are exactly synonymous in English as adjectives. (Taivo (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

That would not be a good idea, I'm afraid. We use common names by default - see WP:COMMONNAMES. We avoid formal names wherever possible. As the page I cited says, "Using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more." Remember, we're trying to optimise Wikipedia for ordinary readers, not specialists. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I for one have never seen a verifiable English-language source use the term "North Cyprus". Common usage is always "Northern Cyprus". I thus cannot agree with WillMall's edit. --Athenean (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

While I don't have a problem with WillMall's edit, I've also never seen a verifiable published source that had "North Cyprus". WillMall, do you have an actual source? Or just Google searches? (Taivo (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

Well, I had a chance to have a quick look in Waterstones. I had a look at maps, atlases and guidebooks, of which there were plenty, since Cyprus is a very popular holiday destination for Brits. Maps and atlases invariably called the entire country Cyprus and displayed it with a dashed line down the middle representing the inter-entity border. The Turkish north was typically marked as "under Turkish administration" or similar words. In a couple of cases, a footnote was shown in the margins mentioning the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" and its lack of international recognition. Guidebooks almost all called it "Northern Cyprus" or "northern Cyprus" (note the initial "n" - some used the term as a proper name, others as a description). The only exception I found was the Bradt travel guide North Cyprus (ISBN 1841621471). I also had a look at a number of reference works (encyclopedias, chronologies and dictionaries). The term "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is used by an overwhelming majority of the 41 works I consulted - 39 (95%) in total used this terminology versus only two (5%) for the "Turkish Republic of North Cyprus". On the basis of these verifiable published sources I would have to say that it looks like "Northern Cyprus" is by far the most common informal variant. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone sent me some off-Wiki email with a variety of on-line references where they searched for "North Cyprus", but not "Northern Cyprus". Pretty lame on first glance, but I'll examine them in more detail later. But they also claimed that the president's statement was the most important evidence, which means that they have failed to understand that the president's statement is immaterial, only common English usage works. I'm not going to respond to him off-Wiki because I don't want personal contact with him. If there is anything of note, I'll post it here. (Taivo (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

In looking over the email I was sent, I think it was meant as a post here, but was not put here. Perhaps it is from a banned user? I'm not going to waste my time on it (and I'm not going to be a proxy and post it here). The fact still remains that other than in this discussion, I've never seen Northern Cyprus referred to as anything other than Northern Cyprus in all the years of its existence. I trust ChrisO's work with actual verifiable sources (published books and not someone's Saturday afternoon website project). (Taivo (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

45,200 news articles use the expression ‘North Cyprus’ and as Taivo says we are looking for common English usage. Some of the sources that use the expression ‘North Cyprus’ are the New York times, The Independent and so on . Just take a quick scan of the google news results [10]. This is supposed to show that the term 'North Cyprus' is commonly used in the mass media. Nothing else. The debate here is about ‘common usage’ not any substantial facts concerning the TRNC. Facts about the TRNC need to be supported by published reliable sources, but the common usage of the term ‘North Cyprus’ is supported by its use in the mass media.

We need to go through the article and remove every factual sentence supported only by news articles or independent websites. Also, we need to remove every factual sentence that is not supported by reliable sources. [User:WillMall|WillMall]] (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC) . WillMall (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your addition of "North Cyprus" for two reasons. 1) A Google search is not a reliable source by any definition. 2) I actually read the available text of the first page of results on that Google search and discovered that all but one of the articles actually used "Northern Cyprus" (sometimes capitalized) when they mentioned it in the body of the article. One article used "North Cyprus" exclusively, but also called it "The Turkish Republic of North Cyprus". The author seems to have been a non-native speaker of English. (Taivo (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Whilst I liked how it was phrased (covered both sides of this argument), it is true that a google search link such as that is not a reliable source. Keep up though on trying to sort it. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected

• Protected until you boys can sort out 100% what to do as the frequent addition and then reverting must end. As noted directly above, there should be compromise by finding a decent enough source and putting the two terms in. I wouldn't worry strict adherence to WP:RS in this small situation as it's becoming more of a nuisance than a help. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Nja, thanks for looking out for this article, but the situation has been resolved to everyone's apparent satisfaction (excluding sock puppets perhaps). Those who were pushing to include a mention of "North Cyprus" have been satisfied and those pushing to exclude it have been satisfied that there is at least one source that unequivocally meets the definition of WP:RS. I would suggest that total protection is a bit much now, but that semi-protection is always a good idea on articles that might attract anonymous IPs. But, of course, it's your call as an admin. (Taivo (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for that most obvious edit! There was so much on this page I missed it. I do hope everyone sticks with this, as personally I think what's now there makes sense. Happy editing. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The "TRNC" officially promotes itself as North Cyprus [11] [12]. But you decide. Politis (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Common English usage is the prevailing norm in Wikipedia. "Northern Cyprus" is the most common English form. (Taivo (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Change to North Cyprus seems compelling

OK, I have read and gradually acknowledged the evolving arguments. This common English usage baffles me. The elected authorities of the "TRNC" present it as North Cyprus, the travel agencies advertise trips to North Cyprus and people book them. 'Northern Cyprus' is also used especially if you make a google search but then often if is in the TRNC context. Just search factiva. However some fellow editors in wikipedia insist blindly on Northern because... No problem. By the way Taivo, you might think 'North' is a Greek plot (if anything, it could be a 'Turkish' plot - just kidding Turkish friends) but go on, have another field day in wikipedia. Politis (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Including both is much more compelling, and is the compromise that's been made over a long period of discussion. This is a trivial matter, and your talents could go to much better use on Wikipedia. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You are too kind Nja, the discussion was about changing the name of the article, not just including both in the article. My position is neutral. Subject closed until someone else picks it up. Politis (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Phrase "less commonly" in the lede

Personally, I cannot see how this phrase should be included without a specific citation to support it. Otherwise, it qualififies as WP:OR, which is prohibited. I would think also that the standard usage, of putting the more common name before the less common one, would be sufficient to indicate which name is considered more common. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't encourage restarting this long, drawn out, and silly dispute. To me this is a case where the rules should be ignored to prevent a ridiculous dispute over a trivial matter. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong suspicion the new user Ceteris Paribus xcs is a sock of the banned Gercekkaynarca. It'a new account created on May 17, with a strong, permanent focus on POV-pusing in TRNC related articles. --Athenean (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is sock suspicion, then by all means report it. However, like I said, the phrase is also basically redundant to standard usage of putting the more common name first. I would think removing the nonsourced phrase would be the simplest way of resolving any potential dispute, by, in effect, removing what could reasonably be seen as a gratuitous, non-sourced, POV, phrase. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook

The CIA World Factbook says this (emphasis added by me):

A former British colony, Cyprus became independent in 1960 following years of resistance to British rule. Tensions between the Greek Cypriot majority and Turkish Cypriot minority came to a head in December 1963, when violence broke out in the capital of Nicosia. Despite the deployment of UN peacekeepers in 1964, sporadic intercommunal violence continued forcing most Turkish Cypriots into enclaves throughout the island. In 1974, a Greek Government-sponsored attempt to seize control of Cyprus was met by military intervention from Turkey, which soon controlled more than a third of the island. In 1983, the Turkish-held area declared itself the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" ("TRNC"), but it is recognized only by Turkey. The election of a new Cypriot president in 2008 served as the impetus for the UN to encourage both the Turkish and Cypriot Governments to reopen unification negotiations. In September 2008, the leaders of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities started negotiations under UN auspices aimed at reuniting the divided island. The entire island entered the EU on 1 May 2004, although the EU acquis - the body of common rights and obligations - applies only to the areas under direct government control, and is suspended in the areas administered by Turkish Cypriots. However, individual Turkish Cypriots able to document their eligibility for Republic of Cyprus citizenship legally enjoy the same rights accorded to other citizens of European Union states.

Hope this helps resolve the dispute. Webbbbbbber (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)