Jump to content

Talk:Cyprus/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Yet MORE on criminal Turkish behaviour in Cyprus

Simply disgraceful.

Hadjisavvas, S. (2015). "Perishing Heritage: The Case of the Occupied Part of Cyprus" (PDF). Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies. 2 (2): 128–140. Open access icon

--YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent find. Yes, some mention about the destruction of Cyprus' cultural heritage is definitely in order in the article. The hard part would be to not overdo it. Athenean (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Athenean that the tragic losses and looting of cultural heritage should indeed be mentioned, albeit without overdoing and with careful referencing. Hadjisavvas seems to be an expert from the Department of Antiquities, but he has no actual access to the sites, so the reliability should be judged accordingly - please do not take my words as a comment dismissing the reliability of the source, a few of the books I had previously encountered in Greek Cypriot libraries suffered from a lack of access and claimed the destruction of sites while that did not reflect the reality (the ancient city of Enkomi for example). This does not necessarily apply to this source. However, this does not change the fact that the destruction of cultural heritage is a fact well-documented in even Turkish Cypriot resources (e.g. this). Would anyone with access to the article be interested to expand the section in the relevant article with the source? A separate article or a list of destroyed cultural heritage may be great improvements in the future. --GGT (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree that we second-guess reliable sources such as Hadjisavvas. His paper published in a peer-reviewed academic journal such as the Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies is a top-notch source. Trying to second-guess the findings of a paper of this calibre is original research. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Dr. K. regarding Hadjisavvas. In any case there is a plethora of sources on this, it is a very well documented phenomenon. Athenean (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) I am thus proposing the the following text be added:

Widespread destruction and looting of Greek Cypriot cultural heritage has occurred in Turkish-controlled northern Cyprus dating from the immediate aftermath of the Turkish invasion and continuing to the present day. This includes but is not limited to destruction of churches, conversion of churches into mosques, stables, and storehouses, desecration of cemeteries, geographical name changes, and plundering and sale of cultural items such as antiquities and icons on the black market. The destruction is motivated by a policy of obliterating the Greek presence in northern Cyprus within a framework of ethnic cleansing by the Turkish authorities, as well as greed and profit-seeking on the part of the individuals involved. These acts are in violation of the Geneva conventions which Turkey has ratified.

Proposed. Not sure about where the best location for this would be. Perhaps right under the "Human rights" section? Athenean (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal and the location you propose. An alternative location could be somewhere after the "1974 coup, Turkish invasion and division" section. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, just seen this. Feel free, Athenean, to add what you've typed out above and delete what I've put. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 08:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, cool that our two efforts coincide so well—almost word-for-word in places ("includes but is not limited to", the choice of examples)! I swear I hadn't read what you'd written before I edited the article. Anyway… --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I lack access to source and cannot comment appropriately, but I am accepting it as reliable anyway. However, the proposed version has too much detail. I would like to remind all that country articles are supposed to be written in a concise summary style. As a precedent, the article on Turkey, a good article, makes no mention of the destruction of Armenian heritage at all, but instead links to the relevant article where it is elaborated upon. Athenean, feel free to add the paragraph to the section in the article Turkish invasion of Cyprus please. However, I oppose any further elaboration in this article beyond the first sentence (which needs to be revised so as to avoid implying that the looting continues to this day), per WP:SS: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it." This article's history section is already too long as it is (the prose size is currently 61 kB and the article actually probably needs to be shortened for the comfort of the reader per WP:LENGTH and WP:TOOBIG) and we simply cannot afford to have this much description of an issue that, although is important and heartbreaking for any lover of cultural artifacts, is rather a minor topic politically. Instead, we should actually be discussing how to summarize the article and make it more concise while preserving due weight for all topics and background details. --GGT (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:SS, summary style, does not mean that we have to dedicate a mere one sentence to such acts of cultural cleansing. Athenean's proposal fairly captures the main elements of this attack on the cultural identity of Cyprus and against humanity's cultural heritage, and this being the article on Cyprus, should fairly cover it. By the way according to the source the looting continues to this day: Today, 40 years after the Turkish invasion and the establishment of a “Department of Antiquities” in the occupied territories, looting continues to flourish. I personally observed recent large-scale looting in the necropolis of Agia Irene in northwest Cyprus (Figs. 3–4). Also your comparison to Turkey's article about the coverage of the Armenian cultural elimination is off the mark. A more proper comparison would be if some occupying force of Turkey's north proceeded to loot and destroy its cultural heritage. The acts of such a hypothetical occupying country would indeed merit inclusion in Turkey's own article. Finally, your comment about this being a "minor topic politically" is irrelevant because political considerations are not taken into account in an encyclopedia and in any case this is a huge point ethnoculturally. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@GGT: The article is actually open access. If you click the pdf link I included, you will get taken to a gateway page, then just click "Accept JSTOR's terms and conditions", then the pdf will load. Cheers. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, source is def reliable: the journal is published by Penn State Univ Press. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@GGT: I understand your concerns and I agree that WP:SS is an important guideline and that the history section is quite long as it is. However I was proposing to make these additions to the Human Rights section since destruction of cultural heritage is a human rights violation. As for Turkish invasion of Cyprus article, I would add much more about the destruction of cultural heritage than just these four sentences. Athenean (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
YeOldeGentleman, thank you for pointing that out, I automatically assumed that the page was actually a redirect without reading it. @Athenean: Firstly, I think inclusion in the human rights section is inappropriate unless we have reports from third-party neutral observers pinpointing the looting of cultural heritage as a human rights violation. Otherwise, it would border on, if not constitute, original research. In any case, WP:SS applies to the whole article, I only referred to the history section as it was the obvious place for this paragraph for me. Given that the article has some serious issues in the "culture" section in the form of a near-complete omission of Turkish Cypriot culture (apart from cuisine, which is identical, the only reference to Turkish Cypriot culture is an Ottoman poet), which can only be rectified by adding material, I believe that we simply cannot afford to add this paragraph anywhere (apart from the fact that the history section needs some summarizing).
Again @Athenean, but also to whomever interested in adding material on this: we apparently have a large section on the looting of Cypriot heritage here. As there is a limit to the depth that we can go into in the Turkish invasion of Cyprus article as well, I believe that this could be used as a starting point for an independent article e.g. Looted art in Northern Cyprus. I would be keen to contribute to such an article and supplement it with Turkish-language resources.
Dr.K., I believe that a more analogous case would be the extensive looting of German cultural heritage by the occupying Soviet troops. This was in addition to widespread destruction in the bombings, of course. While the former is not mentioned, the latter is only mentioned in one sentence in the article of Germany, which is a featured article that sets an appropriate precedent for this one: "Germany suffered the destruction of numerous cities and cultural heritage due to bombing and fighting." Again, Polish cities and cultural heritage suffered much more extensive damage in WW2 in a campaign of destruction accompanied by looting of items still not returned to Poland. This is also only described in one sentence. These would be analogous to the destruction of the entire walled city of Nicosia (the entire city of Warsaw was razed), and have much greater ethnocultural significance. Based on this, I believe that the case in Cyprus cannot be justified by any means to merit such a large paragraph; one sentence must be enough. --GGT (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Destruction of cultural heritage is very much a human rights issue. Destruction and ill-treatment of places of worship is a violation of the rights of the people that worship there. Desecration of cemeteries is a violation of the rights of the relatives of the deceased. There is a world of reliable sources out there to the effect that destruction of cultural heritage is a violation of human rights violations. I find this line of argumentation highly disingenuous. Secondly, this is an ongoing issue, so it's not merely historical. In any case, I don't think the three sentences that have now been added are a length issue. There is after all WP:PAPER. As for Turkish Cypriot cultural heritage that's what the Northern Cyprus article is for. You can't have it both ways: Turkic Cypriot heritage both here and there. Or, like Karagiozis says, "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine". No way. But this is anyway off-topic. Athenean (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I will not comment any further on this topic. Athenean, your argument about cultural heritage of "Turkic Cypriots" is not only invalid, but also saddening, given that it is coupled with a cultural figure that is shared on both sides of the divide. Please note that this is not an issue of "yours and mine" and refrain from such ad hominem statements in the future; and "No way." is not exactly the collaborative style that makes Wikipedia what it is. The culture section in Northern Cyprus is about the culture of Northern Cyprus. Turkish Cypriots are not synonymous with Northern Cyprus and Greek Cypriots are not synonymous with Cyprus. We have separate articles for the two groups, and both are accepted by the law of the Republic of Cyprus to be the main indigenous communities of the island. The culture of Cyprus is the culture of the peoples of Cyprus, that being both Greek and Turkish Cypriot cultures - and adequate references to the Maronite, Armenian and Latin communities are more than in order. Any other attempt to define Cypriot culture and limit this article strictly would unfortunately be bordering on POV-pushing, and the systematic exclusion of Turkish Cypriot and Ottoman heritage, art and architecture pervading in both sides would be a gigantic loss to the article and a deterrent for a holistic approach to Cypriot culture and its shared elements and amalgamation of influences over centuries - a step that could not be farther from development. Even the designer of the flag of Cyprus was a Turkish Cypriot. The current status quo favours the inclusion of Turkish Cypriot heritage and an extensive debate, which could not be possibly considered constructive IMHO, would be required to change that status quo. "Northern Cyprus" is also by definition a subset of "Cyprus", as shown by the categorization, and thus deserves due inclusion. And I find it ironic, to say the least, to include Northern Cyprus when it comes to the destruction of culture, but use its existence as a pretext to exclude the very presence of a major cultural component of Cyprus. --GGT (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
What I find highly ironic is how you were complaining that the 2-3 sentences on destruction of cultural heritage I was proposing were "too much" because the article is "too long", yet now you are arguing for the inclusion of a whole bunch of content that is already included elsewhere. I take your silence on the destruction of cultural heritage issue to mean that this question is settled. As for the inclusion of Turkish Cypriot heritage in this article, that is a completely separate issue, all I'm going to say is that it would be a violation of WP:CFORK. Please try to base your arguments on wikipedia policy in future. I have no time for sophistry, elaborate hand-waving and original research. Athenean (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
And btw Turkish Cypriot heritage is mentioned in the article already (Hala Sultan Tekke, lokum, Hasan Halim Effendi, etc...). Athenean (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutral alternative for sentence on cultural heritage?

I noticed some contention over this sentence in the section Turkish settlement policy and destruction of cultural heritage:

The destruction is motivated by a policy of obliterating the Greek presence in northern Cyprus within a framework of ethnic cleansing by the Turkish authorities, as well as greed and profit-seeking on the part of the individuals involved.

I propose that we take the direct quote from the article, which I believe follows WP:NPOV while keeping the sentence easily readable. Specifically, I think this is a suitable alternative:

These actions constitute "the deliberate destruction of heritage as an instrument toward the obliteration of an identity of a people in the framework of ethnic cleansing."

Fern 24 (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I must register my strong disagreement here. This sentence should make it clear that it is the Turkish "authorities" that are trying to obliterate Greek presence, and it should also mention that personal greed is also involved, since that is in the source as well. What you are proposing is too wishy-washy and vague. Athenean (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I would like to find a neutral, verifiable sentence that we both agree on, and I think the best way to do that is to incorporate quotes from the source - including the aspects you mentioned. If you can give me the specific quotes about personal greed and Turkish authorities, I'd happily make a new sentence and work on it with you. Fern 24 (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Please read the source provided in the article, it's freely available. I don't see anything wrong with the sentence in its current form, and it's fully backed by the source. Athenean (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I read the source, and I cannot find anywhere that it specifies "greed and profit-seeking" as the motives. The closest quote is "Whether guided by the passion of discovery or the greed for profit, the result in both cases was destruction."
I believe that the sentence as it is is biased towards the Greek Cypriot point of view, and I think the best way to ensure that we do not misrepresent the source, which we both agree is reliable, is to use quotes. My proposal is:
These actions, taken by Turkish and Turkish Cypriot authorities, constitute "the deliberate destruction of [Greek] heritage as an instrument toward the obliteration of an identity of a people in the framework of ethnic cleansing."
Fern 24 (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, "...or greed for profit...". I don't see how it could be clearer. It is also quite obvious that the Turkish "art dealer" that was arrested in Germany that is discussed in the article is motivated by greed. Again, I don't see anything wrong with the sentence or that it's biased in any way. I appreciate your efforts here, but so far no one has objected to this sentence except you. Athenean (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that the sentence is clear. As I read it, Hadjisavvas is not saying that both of these are motives, but rather is giving the reader two possibilities that would both lead to the same result, regardless of the motive that is actually there. Additionally, whether or not the Turkish dealer is motivated by greed is not mentioned in the source, so such an assertion is WP:OR, in my opinion.
I also disagree that "no one [else] has objected." In the discussion above, GGT objected to this very sentence, albeit for different reasons.
Thank you for your appreciation. Because it seems that we disagree on both the content of the source and the neutrality of the current sentence, I think the best action now is to compromise: I think my sentence above meets midway. If you still disagree, I would recommend bringing in a WP:3O to weigh in on how well both my and your sentences adhere to WP:NPOV. Fern 24 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I will also read the source and write my thoughts here as well. Fern 24 has a good point. kazekagetr 19:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
That the art "dealers" that engage in this trade are motivated by greed is painfully obvious from reading the source. Your proposed sentence does not lay blame on the Turkish authorities, and seeks to conceal that the heritage being destroyed is Greek. Both these points are egregiously against NPOV and totally unacceptable to me. Athenean (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all your points. For clarity, this is the sentence I am proposing:

These actions, taken by Turkish and Turkish Cypriot authorities, constitute "the deliberate destruction of [Greek] heritage as an instrument toward the obliteration of an identity of a people in the framework of ethnic cleansing."

I believe this sentence uses a quote from the article, therefore ensuring NPOV, while also indicating the role Turkish authorities played and that the heritage is Greek - both of which are in the source. I still maintain that the fact that the dealers are motivated by greed is not in the source and is therefore OR. I agree that it is obvious, but it is nonetheless WP:SYNTHESIS in my opinion. I hope that this sentence is an acceptable compromise. Fern 24 (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) Then we should seek dispute resolution in the form of WP:3O or an RFC. I still the greed claim should be in there. Athenean (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Came here from WP:3O. I strongly disagree with the inclusion of the quote: articles should be written in our own words, not quoting other people except when we're concentrating on what they themselves have said. For example, "Greek Cypriot archaeologist Sophocles Hadjisavvas calls it a 'deliberate destruction...'" is fine, but it's simply bad form to use other people's words as part of the running text. On top of that, consider the copyright — when we use someone else's words, it's only acceptable if we're following the standards of fair use, and simply merging someone else's text into our article is not at all fair use. Of course it's fine if this journal is freely licensed, but I see no copyright statements except "© PSU Press". Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. The quotes never sat well with me either. Athenean (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. In view of your comments, I have slightly changed the current sentence, but without using the quote or (IMO) significantly changing Athenean's words. Although I still believe that the source does not explicitly state that greed is a motive, I don't think it's a major issue since it is implicit in the article. Additionally, I added the relevant quote to the reference so that interested readers can judge for themselves. Fern 24 (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I, too, dislike the "obliteration" sentence, and the "ethnic cleansing" is also unnecessary. It's surely obvious what the Turkish Cypriot authorities are attempting to achieve (I opted for the word "erase") by leaving Greek/Christian heritage to rot or by letting it be flogged off.
Also, I would go still further: pointing out that people looting artefacts is motivated by "greed" and "self-interest" is surely unnecessary. I'd honestly be quite happy to see the whole sentence go. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you, YeOldeGentleman, but I believe we are at an impasse over this section. There have been two lengthy discussions over this sentence without reaching mutually acceptable solutions. I suggest opening an RFC on this section/this sentence, since the current situation is devolving into an edit war. Fern 24 (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixing the population density figure

Hello,

The infobox figure for population density is grossly wrong (it divides a census population that doesn't include North Cyprus by an area that includes it). I opened a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cyprus#Problem with the density figure, input welcome. Place Clichy (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, ideally we would find a reliable secondary source that gives a figure for population density in Cyprus rather than using our own figures. I'll look around for such a source, but I'm not sure I'll find one. I'd appreciate any help. Fern 24 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Fern 24: I found this page from the World Bank, which gives 124 per km² for population density in 2013, a figure consistent with its 2013 estimate for the population at 1,141,000. Source of the data is the 2012 Revision (the latest available) of the World Population Prospects (from the United Nations Population Division). The full figure (also used at Wikidata) is found in the full CSV file (28 MB) at line 7715: population 1,141,166, density 123.356. As this estimate is more recent than the current figure in the article, itself sourced by a previous version of the same WPP, now a dead link, I will change it in the article. Oh, and by the way population density is just a different way to look at a population figure, it is not "our own figures". Place Clichy (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks a bunch! I'm really glad this article as people prepared to do in-depth research like that. Fern 24 (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing and cultural heritage

The sentence on the destruction of Greek Cypriot cultural heritage within the framework of ethnic cleansing has been a particularly problematic one, as evidenced by the discussion above. I have recently encountered this source, pointing out to two reports by the European Commission in 1989 and 2002, both of them refuting this assertion and one of them dismissing it as outright "propaganda". It also explains how the claims of cultural destruction within a framework of ethnic cleansing are perpetuated by both sides to vilify each other. I would like to point out that this is not a denial of the policy of ethnic cleansing that existed in 1974 or such a policy that continued to exist afterwards.

The one-sided nature of the statement (note that this does not imply that Hadjisavvas' paper is biased as it chooses to focus to the north) is further revealed by an article by Sam Hardy, an archaeologist at the UCL specializing in destruction of cultural and community property, particularly in Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, published in a book by Palgrave Macmillan. While it supports the idea that "the issue of Turkifying and Islamizing Cyprus" are at play when it comes to destruction of cultural heritage, it also elaborates upon a policy of "enforced neglect" by the Greek Cypriot authorities that results in the destruction of Turkish Cypriot and Islamic heritage. In another paper, he states:

Neither the Turkish Cypriot administration, nor the Turkish state, nor even the Turkish army, per se, “plunders” northern Cyprus; the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot nationalist gangs that do, however, are incredibly powerful and constitute a “deep state”, similar to the Greek and Greek Cypriot nationalist deep state that operated throughout the island between 1960 and 1974.

Greek Cypriot extremists’ destruction of mosques both demonstrated they shared the nationalist logic for Turkish Cypriot extremists’ later destruction of churches, and established religious desecration as part of the practice of ethnic cleansing on Cyprus.

These explicitly refute the idea that the destruction is motivated by a national policy of ethnic cleansing ("Turkish policy of erasing the Greek presence in Northern Cyprus within a framework of ethnic cleansing") - a very fine distinction exists between that and what Hardy is pointing out to (see deep state), and a similar destruction, albeit at a smaller scale, occurs at the south, and when it comes to cultural heritage, one cannot ignore the other side of the coin because it is at a smaller scale (WP:POV). Yes, the report cited in the article is very reliable, but these are equally reliable sources that explicitly refute its assertion. Thus, the issue should be treated as any scholarly debate is treated and the views presented in these sources should be given due weight.

In the light of these sources, I believe one of the following course of action should be taken: Either the assertion by Hadjisavvas should be attributed to him per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, due weight should be given to the deliberate neglect and destruction of T/C cultural heritage, the ideas given in the above sources added and the implication that the destruction of heritage is part of a policy of ethnic cleansing is an established fact avoided by any means; or the reference to cultural heritage completely removed.

A notification to users involved in the discussion in the section above: Athenean, Fern 24, KazekageTR, Nyttend, YeOldeGentleman; any input would be very appreciated!

--GGT (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

My input was not on the kind of content that should be included, but the text itself: we should be paraphrasing the guy if we're including his opinions, not quoting him. No opinion on whether he should be included, or who else should be. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Busy now but will look at the sources and comment sometime in the near future. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your research, GGT. I'd like to add another source to be considered, regardless of the course of action we choose. The ECHR issued a ruling in 2001 about the various human rights violations that, in its estimation, Turkey had committed. Although this does not discuss the motivation behind Turkey's actions (as far as I can ascertain), I think it is an excellent summary from an extremely reliable source for this section. Fern 24 (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out to that. If we are to cover Turkish-instigated violations, believe that other issues arising due to the Cyprus problem, such as the violations of the right to property, violations of the civil rights of enclaved Greek Cypriots (and Turkish Cypriots in the south, per the ECHR case Aziz v. Cyprus) should be discussed, though caution should be taken as the decision for Cyprus v. Turkey is from 2001 and there have been notable improvements in the conditions for the enclaved since then (per US reports). I would even say that these issues should take precedence over cultural heritage. But without digression, I believe we should currently concentrate on removing the existing bias in the section. --GGT (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not at all impressed with Sam Hardy's scholarship or publication record, which is minimal. Neither of the papers you link to appear in peer-reviewed journals. He is also extremely partisan, seeking by various means to equate the wholesale and ongoing plunder of Greek Cypriot antiquities with the far more limited destruction of Turkish Cypriot heritage in the heat of the aftermath of the 1974 invasion. Much of what is written in his publications has nothing to do with antiquities and the destruction of heritage, but are rather devoted to portray the Turkish Cypriots as victims of Greek Cypriots (he writes on and on about how the Turkish Cypriots were pushed into Gaza-like enclaves, and other similar claims far outside his area of expertise), and he even goes so far as to blame the Greek Cypriots for the plunder of their own antiquities. The lack of impartiality in his work has been pointed out by Hadjisavvas, so it's not just me saying this. Based on his minimal publication record and partisanship, I thus cannot consider him an equal source to Hadjisavvas, and he does not invalidate what Hadjisavvas says about the plunder being motivated by a policy of ethnic cleansing. The bit about the distinction between Turkish policy and the Turkish deep state is a piece of sophistry. Mr. Hardy is an archaeologist and not an expert in international law, thus this claim falls far outside his area of expertise and does not merit consideration. That said, I have no problem with attributing the ethnic cleansing sentence to Hadjisavvas, with one caveat. If another reliable source can be found that makes a similar claim, then the attribution should be removed. Athenean (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I rather considered those papers to be supplementary to the reports by the European Commission in question, whose reliability, I believe, in such matters cannot be second-guessed. Given that these reports are in stark contradiction to Hadjisavvas and that Hadjisavvas has failed to respond to them, I would like to see an opinion with regards to those reports.
I wonder whether your claim of Hardy being "extremely partisan" is your personal view and as such original research, as that seems to be the case - and this is something that does not affect the evaluation of its reliability. Hadjisavvas does critique the work of Hardy by saying "Though well documented, Hardy’s work is largely devoted to criticism of Jansen’s publication and seeks to equate the organized destruction of Greek and Christian heritage in the north—executed by a foreign country— to vandalism and limited destruction of Islamic religious buildings in the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus that occurred during the conflict at the hands of a small group of extremists", but that is all he says and this has nothing to do with your claims of extreme partisanship. He also calls Hardy's work an "important contribution" to the field of the destruction of Cypriot heritage. It is equally evident that Hadjisavvas has been critiqued by Hardy. We are not in a position to judge the partisanship of a given author whose articles have been published in a peer reviewed publishing house; which Palgrave Macmillan is (Hardy also has an article on Cypriot heritage published in the peer-reviewed European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research). What this seems to be is a usual case of an academic dispute between two reputable scholars in the field of archaeology, to claim that Hadjisavvas is the only reliable source and use this to diminish the value of Hardy's peer-reviewed research (which is further dismissed as "minimal" in number) is a clear form of argument from authority. I do not see how the distinction between the deep state and the Turkish national policy is sophistry, that seems to be an unsubstantiated assertion as the distinction between the two has been made quite clear in the work of Hardy and the relevant articles. I would also like to point out to Hardy's evaluation of the destruction, especially in the south, in this article in a peer-reviewed journal. (However, with regards to the second paper I have linked in my first comment, you are indeed right that it lacks peer review, though that does not change the reliability of Hardy's peer-reviewed papers or his position on the issue.)
I would also like to point out that Hadjisavvas is also an archaeologist and has no expertise in international law, and that if we were to apply the idea that "this claim falls far outside his area of expertise and does not merit consideration", it should be equally applied to the legal-political evaluations of motives and violations made by Hadjisavvas. Alessandro Chechi, an expert in art law, has an article published in the peer-reviewed Ashgate Publishing House regarding the issue of cultural heritage in Cyprus. As I said before, the source points out to the reports by the European Commission and argues that there is no policy of ethnic cleansing at work when it comes to cultural heritage by either side, and that this is a piece of propaganda perpetuated by both. He elaborates upon both the destruction of Christian/Greek and Islamic/Turkish heritage and argues that the responsibility falls jointly upon Turkish and Greek Cypriots. To me, it appears that Hadjisavvas is the lone holder of the opinion that the destruction in the north is utterly incomparable to that in the south and is the result of a policy of ethnic cleansing, a view that is negated by the European Commission, Chechi and Hardy. --GGT (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's not that simple. The European Commission is a political body, not an academic body. Its reports are not subject to peer-review, and as a political body it has a political agenda (which at the time that those reports were written was supportive of Turkey's EU admission). As such, it cannot be considered equal to an academic source like Hadjisavvas. If Hadjisavvas says "A", and the EU Commission says "not A", I'll take Hadjisavvas. Regarding the shodiness of Hardy's work, you should read what Hadjisavvas says further down: "The mere fact that I reviewed Jansen's manuscript for mistakes in the archeological record presented was taken by Hardy as an attempt by me to dictate to the author the official Greek point of view.". This is outrageous and calls into question both the impartiality and quality of Hardy's scholarship. His publication record is also minimal, thus I do not consider him in any way the equivalent of Hadjisavvas. So it's Hadjisvvas vs. Chechi, but there is also a vast body of literature on this subject out there, e.g. [1], which unfortunately I do not have the time to investigate at the moment. Nevertheless, in the interest of resolving this dispute, I re-iterate my proposal to attribute the sentence to Hadjisavvas, to which you did not respond in your previous post. Athenean (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That vast body of literature incorporates a significant amount of Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot propaganda (Chotzakoglu, Hellenic Parliament, Sabahattin). I would truly be interested in other literature though (and will look to investigate it further), and especially given this dimension of the issue, I can by no means support the inclusion of the point of view of Hadjisavvas alone. I fully support, however, the attribution of the statement by Hadjisavvas, and consider that part of the debate settled, though this by no means settles the issue. Chechi and Hardy are perfectly reliable sources per WP:RS: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Any attempt to dismiss these peer-reviewed sources published in very reputable publishing houses is not grounded on Wikipedia policies and what is exhibited above is, again, an argument from authority. "Minimal publication record" does not in any way indicate that Chechi is less reliable than Hadjisavvas in the evaluation of the destruction of cultural heritage, given that Hadjisavvas' "extensive" publication record does not in any way relate to the question that we are discussing (see [2]: his publications are mostly concerned with the ancient history of Cyprus), and his publishing record with regards to the destruction of cultural heritage and ensuing legal issues is, to say the least, as "minimal" as Hardy or Chechi. Indeed, Hadjisavvas is an archaeologist and any legal evaluation that he makes, including the assessment of legal responsibility for the cultural heritage, falls outside his area of expertise. This is, however, precisely Chechi's area of expertise and thus, if it is Hadjisavvas vs. Chechi, Chechi must be given at least the equal weight. Thus, I believe, the argument from "publication record" is invalid and misleading, not only because it is not a prerequisite for reliability, but also as most of Hadjisavvas' publication record is irrelevant and as he is by no means an authority in the area of art law. As to the sentence that you quoted, in the light of the view I have expressed, I believe that it compromises Hadjisavvas' reliability as much as Hardy's - it must be noted that this is the response of Hadjisavvas to some assertion that we have no access to and we cannot possibly assume that Hadjisavvas presents a neutral account of the criticism, and we cannot evaluate Hardy's actual assertion without accessing it; and that statement is rather cherry-picked as if Hardy's work could not be considered reliable or was not worthy of academic consideration, Hadjisavvas would not call it an "important contribution". --GGT (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Currency & calling codes

I have tried editing the Cyprus page to show that there are TWO currencies and TWO calling codes for Cyprus but someone keeps removing my edit.

The two currencies are Euro (EUR) in the South and Turkish Lire (TRY) in the North.

Likewise there are two calling codes: +357and +090

Jojobookreader (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)jojobookreader

"Greek Cypriots"

Currently the article uses the term "Greek Cypriots" to refer to the populous in the Republic of Cyprus–controlled area. Is this accurate? Surely some native Turkish Cypriots still reside in the controlled territory? Or have moved back since? Rob984 (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the article Turkish Cypriots, the number of T/Cs in the south is around 2000 (around 0.2% of its population), which I would say is negligible. That said, using "Greek Cypriot" as a demonym for the south seems to be commonplace anyway ([3] [4] [5]). --GGT (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Cyprus has been Greek in Character for over 3000 years

Briefly: Cyprus has been Greek in nature for over 3000 years, Since at least 1200 BC. This is evident from various Archaeological discoveries of Mycenaean and Minoan (early Greek civilisations) Structures and objects, being found in Cyprus, dating back to the ancient times.

In addition, there are many references from countless ancient authors, (including Herodotus, Homer and Plutarch to name a few)regarding Greek colonisation and civilisation in Cyprus from as early as 1200 BC. Therefore, Greek people and culture have definitely existed in Cyprus form these ancient times.

Greek language has also been widely used in the island from the ancient times, this is apparent from various sources. e.g the Cypro-Minoan tablet (early Greek language) uncovered in Cyprus dating back to approximately 1500 BC.

In modern times, there is no need to explain why Cyprus is Greek in nature, but I will list these points nonetheless. The majority of people living in Cyrus are Greek, the island's main religion is Greek orthodox, the main language spoken is Greek, the character and culture of the majority of people is Greek.

From the ancient times up until now, Greeks have lived in Cyprus (making up the majority of the population). Greek has been the islands main used language. Greek religions have dominated the island, from the worship of Aphrodite to Greek orthodox and Greek culture has flourished.

In conclusion, I have briefly highlighted a few main reasons why Cyprus has been Greek in character for over 3000 years. Of course these points could be immensely expanded upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.231.212 (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing on EOKA?

Why is there an almost total gap between 1955 and 1960, i.e. the EOKA period and the armed struggle against the British? Nor does the EOKA article carry much more detail. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

POV, UNDUE OR at the lead

The following edit is being edit-warred to be added to the lead:

The territory of the island of Cyprus of 9,251 sq. kms is currently tetra partitioned under four different jurisdictions: The Republic of Cyprus controls around 56% of the territory in the South, the "TRNC" 37% in the North, Britain 2.8% (2 British Sovereign Bases) and the United Nations control the so-called buffer zone or green line of around 4% "Cyprus". The World Factbook (2024 ed.). Central Intelligence Agency..

Aside from the unsourced hairy terminology ("tetra-partitioned" - who writes like that?), which is indicative of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, the facts of the quotation are already included in the lead and therefore the edit is redundant. The detailed percentages are also too much detail for the lead and the terminology "partitioned" for the bases and the UN-buffer zone is pure WP:OR. Such repetitive emphasis on the UN buffer zone and the bases, which are also small percentages of the total area of Cyprus, and the definition for them as "partition", is bad editing and also WP:UNDUE original research. Characteristically, the CIA factbook source does not make any mention of "tetra-partitions". This edit is being added by an account who has caused disruption adding unsourced original research across many Cyprus-related articles. This disruption has to stop. Dr. K. 14:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Aphrodite

Having a look so as to replace the cn tag in the etymology section with a reference, I feel that the details about Aphrodite need not be mentioned here, since Aphrodite got the name Kypria by the virtue of her being associated with Cyprus (source), which does not have much to do with the origin of the name Cyprus (though it is obviously related to the history of the name). We already talk about Cyprus being the legendary birthplace of Aphrodite in the history section and I think the part about Aphrodite should be removed from the etymology section. Do other users have other ideas? --GGT (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus' continent in the lead

"National Geographic, BBC, World Atlas and numerous other sources place Cyprus in Europe. Notably, the UN classification of world regions places Cyprus in Western Asia. Some sources, even place Cyprus in the Middle East or in mixed categories." Do we really need all this in the lead, naming all sources putting it in Europe and then using some editorialising? Can't we just avoid the issue altogether in the lead and leave it to the geography section, just shorten and say "numerous sources place Cyprus in Europe, while some place it in Asia or the Middle East" or something of the like? The lead it long enough already without this and all this listing does seem a bit undue to me. --GGT (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree, it's not lede worthy. Moved it to the geography section. Athenean (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Help me

Please could someone add the Turkish national anthem to the anthems section for (Turkish Cypriots) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikethebeast228 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's appropriate in this article. As Turkish Cyprus is a different territory, and Cyprus means Greek Cyprus which has one official anthem in Greek. Also there's no such section as "anthems" (you're referring to the infobox). —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 19:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I will say that the map on this article is fairly unhelpful especially compared to Northern Cyprus. Also the naming conventions and article scopes are completely screwy. Half this article seems to be talking about the island, and not the political entity. The NC article does seem to be mostly talking about the political entity, but for some reason mentions the island in the lead and wikilinks to Geography of Cyprus. TimothyJosephWood 20:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It is a pro claimed territory and the United Nations recognise Cyprus as one country island they also recognise Turkish Cypriot diaspora and soon they will reunite both sides claim that the whole of Cyprus is There's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.243.72 (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the above is supposed to mean, it seems fairly evident, even by this very article, that for most of human history, Cyprus was a geographic feature. So it's not entirely clear why the default article is not one on the island, and is instead the article that is ostensibly about one part of the political division of the island, while actually mostly being about the island. TimothyJosephWood 20:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOV Problems with Human Rights section?

When reading the article, I noticed a NPOV tag in the Human Rights section of the article. I see no discussion about the neutrality of this section on this talk page and am having trouble figuring out whether the tag is still valid or not. Could anyone point me to some of the issues of this section, or is it safe to say that the tag is no longer needed? Asm20 (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The issues have been discussed here previously. Personally, having had further chance to review the literature on this topic since that discussion (I have gained access to further resources, a noteworthy one being an article with different implications from our presentation of the topic in the very issue of that journal we cite at the moment), my concerns still stand and I think that the NPOV tag is still necessary. I do not, however, have the time a discussion on this necessitates at the moment. --GGT (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2017

81.4.168.250 (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you didn't specify what you wanted changed, so there's nothing we can do here. —C.Fred (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2017

81.4.168.250 (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 Not done No request was made. Please state your quested edit in the form of Please change X to Y or Please add X and provide reliable sources for the content you would like changed or added. TimothyJosephWood 14:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Russian Cypriots

Can someone explain why we have mentioned that there were "10,520 people of Russian origin living in Cyprus" at the time of the 2011 census in the second line of the demography section? Why is this significant? There were 24,000 each of British and Romanian residents in Cyprus in 2011? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2017

This article is not linked to the German version. The German version instead is wrongly linked to the English article "Ile de Chypre" 87.152.206.119 (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. As currently written, your request is unclear. Both this article and the article on German Wikipedia appear to be linked to each other correctly. As far as I can see, the English Wikipedia article Ile de Chypre, which is about a horse, doesn't appear as a link in the German Wikipedia article at all—but even if it does, that would need to be solved at German Wikipedia, not here. RivertorchFIREWATER 22:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2017

The traditional folk music of Cyprus has several common elements with Greek, Turkish, and Arabic music including Greco-Turkish dances such as the sousta, syrtos, zeibekikos, tatsia, and karsilamas as well as the Middle Eastern-inspired tsifteteli and arapies. There is also a form of musical poetry known as chattista which is often performed at traditional feasts and celebrations. The instruments commonly associated with Cyprus folk music are the bouzouki, oud ("outi"), violin ("fkiolin"), lute ("laouto"), accordion, Cyprus flute ("pithkiavlin") and percussion (including the "toumperleki"). Composers associated with traditional Cypriot music include Evagoras Karageorgis, Marios Tokas, Andreas G Orphanides, Solon Michaelides and Savvas Salides. Among musicians is also the acclaimed pianist Cyprien Katsaris and composer and artistic director of the European Capital of Culture initiative Marios Joannou Elia. A.g.o. (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. If you want this paragraph added verbatim to the article, please specify where, e.g., in section X before/after paragraph Y. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2017

Capital and largest city Nilorgio 35°10′N 33°22′E 64.201.166.121 (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The infobox already says that. What change are you asking for? RudolfRed (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Alashiya

I recently added "In the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, Cyprus, or a part of it, was known as Alashiya, and exported copper to other countries."

This was promptly removed by user:Dr.K. with the comment, "Reverted good faith edits by Eric Kvaalen: This is only a conjecture and cannot be stated so firmly. It also does not belong at the very top of the Bronze Age section."

I don't think it can still be called conjectural that Alashiya was Cyprus or part of Cyprus. It is certainly known that Alashiya exported copper, and that gives only a few possible places. An analysis of the composition of clay tablets which were written in Alashiya and sent abroad showed that the clay did not come from the other hypothesized areas, but was compatible with Cyprus.

As for where I put the sentence, I put it at the top of the Bronze Age section because the rest is talking about the Late Bronze Age, whereas Alashiya was Middle and Late Bronze Age.

Dr K also deleted the links to Geology of Cyprus and Wildlife of Cyprus which I added to the See also section.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The Alashiya stuff was uncited, so your point is moot. If we were to add Geology of Cyprus and Wildlife of Cyprus to the See also section, then there are dozens of other articles one could equally add. This is why there is a Cyprus template, {{Cyprus}}. Edwardx (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Eric Kvaalen: I agree with Edwardx, but I also add the following: I don't think it can still be called conjectural that Alashiya was Cyprus or part of Cyprus. Not so. From the Alashiya article:

Some scholars have suggested sites and areas of Syria or Turkey, but it is now generally (although not universally) agreed that Alashiya refers to at least part of Cyprus.[5]

That doesn't look to me like a ringing endorsement of your statement. Second, when you add this to the top of the Bronze era, you give it WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Perhaps, you can add it to the history article rather than the main Cyprus article. Third, just saying that Cyprus was called Alashiya, disputed as it is, without mentioning by whom, you give the false impression that that was the universally-recognised name of Cyprus at the time. That fact, has not been proven. We don't know if that was the native name or the name the Egyptians gave to the place. Until these questions are answered, there is no point in advancing unproven theories in this article. Dr K also deleted the links to Geology of Cyprus and Wildlife of Cyprus which I added to the See also section.: Please see what Edwardx said. And no pinging, thanks. I have the article watchlisted. Dr. K. 21:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Introduction and missing basic infos

Phrase: The international community considers the northern part of the island as territory of the Republic of Cyprus occupied by Turkish forces.Who is the international community and which man and woman belongs to this strange organisation, that has no article in wikipedia by now? If there should be one, please make a correct hyperlink. An other basic info that is missing per now, it the fact that the Great Breaton or more its Governement has 2 millitary base areas, the Akrotiri and the Dhekelia. That makes 254km2 of the hole island. --77.56.116.13 (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to tell exactly what you mean by what you write, but the lead section briefly summarizes the content found later in the article. Information on exactly who is meant by the "international community" (which is a common phrase in the English language) is found in this section. RivertorchFIREWATER 19:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Cyprus geographical position

The geographical position of Cyprus should not be defined only in terms of Anatolia, Turkey. The stable version included all its neighbours, Syria, Israel, Egypt, etc.. Recent changes, referring only to Anatolia, Turkey are POV and improper. Edit-warring this new edit into the article should stop. Dr. K. 02:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree. One user has taken it upon themselves to impose their POV by removing all other nearby countries and defining Cyprus' position solely in terms of Turkey. I find that highly POV and therefore unacceptable. Khirurg (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see what is POV about adding Anatolia, but I think the current version is fine. It would be better even to just say "in the Mediterranean Sea" which is itself located south of Turkey and west of Syria. It is a bit redundant to say this, though, so I would support changing its location to "an island in the Mediterranean Sea". Seraphim System (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Its position is related to too many places, breaching the requirements of the lead. Referring to two, possibly three, is enough. Further detail about its location should be made in the main body of the article. The obvious references are, in order, 1/ in the eastern Mediterranean, 2/ south of Turkey (closest land - Anatolia probably doesn't need a mention) 3/ close to Syria or the Middle East (second closest and strategically important). This is based on geographical position and, for point 3, on a possible above average mention in the media. It has nothing to do with a POV, except by those claiming removing the long list is based on a POV! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it should just mention that it is south of the Turkey and southeast of Greece because those are the two countries that have claims to the island. As for the other countries of the Eastern Mediterranean, I think it is enough to say it is located in the Eastern Mediterranean. The lede map could be improved to show this, instead of the current map of Europe where you can barely see Cyprus. Seraphim System (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with a POV, except by those claiming removing the long list is based on a POV! I don't think you understood what I wrote. I did not write anything about removing the long list. What I wrote is: The geographical position of Cyprus should not be defined only in terms of Anatolia, Turkey. So, please don't put words in my mouth and spare me the exclamation marks. As far as mentioning only Greece and Turkey, I disagree. The geographical position of the island should not be defined based on claims, legal or illegal. Dr. K. 04:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The distance from the nearest mainland is important to mention in my opinion. I agree with other editors, all nearby Countries up to Greece may be mentioned in lede. Khestwol (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
It's good we seem to getting to a consensus regarding countries. As far as numerical distances, I think that is a bit too much detail for the lede. Khirurg (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: There's no need to get snippy and make POINTY comments about legal/illegal claims - I could not care less and it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. The only thing I am concerned about is that listing the various cardinal directions of various countries in relation to Cyprus is not an effective way of communicating important geographical information. But while I do agree that the geographic position should not be described in terms of a dispute between countries, then why is Greece mentioned at all? The current version is fine, but the geographic location is important and would be communicated more effectively with a better map.Seraphim System (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to get snippy and make POINTY comments about legal/illegal claims Please, relax. My remarks were thorough, not "snippy". Don't always try to score points when you talk to me. Just relax. And how did you find your way here exactly? Dr. K. 04:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I have the article on my watchlist, is that a problem?Seraphim System (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
There may be, given you never edited it before I started a thread at this talkpage, and joined in as soon as Khirurg replied. Too much of a coincidence, given similar coincidences in the past. Dr. K. 05:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
He did the same thing at Anatolia yesterday. Reverted me within minutes. I told him to knock it off but here we go again. Perhaps this should be brought to admin attention. Khirurg (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I would rather you do that if you feel my interaction is inappropriate, rather then continue to try to intimidate me into not participating in discussions or improving articles, which is not going to work. IBANs are not ideal but at least they set boundaries, where we can still participate in the same discussion and work on the same articles. However, I am not the one who has made this discussion personal. All I said was the text is fine but the map could be better. If you want to report that to ANI, you are both free editors. You don't need my permission. Seraphim System (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
No worries. You have not acted disruptively, and this is the second time I agree with you on something. If this continues, it may become a pattern. That's a good thing. I also think you write good articles. That's another plus. We can build on that. Dr. K. 04:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Size

We should probably add the actual controlled size of Cyprus, with the size of Cyprus displayed minus Akrotiri and Dkhelia, the TRNC, and the Buffer Zone. The Size in kilometres is 5,296 km squared, and 3291 miles squared. ~Skylar (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

As you know, TRNC is not a recognised state by the International community, so the international community recognises TRNC as a part of Cyprus; thus it cannot be subtracted from the size of Cyprus. The buffer zone is still part of Cyprus, and, similarly to TRNC, it cannot be subtracted. The bases are under a complex legal arrangement with the UK and the republic of Cyprus considers them part of the republic. Dr. K. 21:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2018

I would like to add the national slogan that exists in the Greek version but not on the English or the French version. In English it would be: "I know (or perceive), I do not forget, I fight and I reclaim!" In French: "Je sais, je n'oublie pas, je me bats et je réclame!" Thank you. Neofytou (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that it is the national slogan? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Other than it already exists in the Greek version, so I guess some evidence of its accuracy must have been provided for that, no. We had a school book that provided relevant info on the subject. But I'd have to check if it exists online and get that evidence for you.Neofytou (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Neofytou:, Thank you for your response. The problem is that different language Wikipedias are separate projects, with different editors, different administrators, and different rules. What exists in one is not automatically accepted in another. We still need reliable sources presented here that verifies the information requested. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2018

I was hoping to add the greek name of cyprus (Κύπρος) (Greek: Κύπρος) Magiko Kavouri (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. That name is already included in the Etymology section. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Dr. K. 13:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2018

In the history section of Cyprus, under the sub-section of the Ottoman era, it is mentioned that there were <<converts>> to islam on the island during the turkish invasion; however, it does not mention whether these are the Linobambaki mentioned later, willful conversions, which I doubt, or forced conversions, as well as the numbers of these converts.

I suggest either remove this segment, or ask the person who wrote this that he include some additionnal information in order to clarify this. Carlo le Calamar (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Just to clarify with the edit request request templates we can't go and ask the editor who added a certain piece of information to clarify it. A lot of people are able to edit articles on Wikipedia and it would be extremely hard to find the exact person who wrote a particular piece of info.

If you have reliable sources that clarify or would dispute the statements that would lead to their removal please feel free to start a discussion here or open another edit request. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 14:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Geography

I have edited the lead to include that Cyprus is located in Asia, however it’s omission may have been more than a mere accident and I could not find anything in my search (albeit brief and quick) thru this talk page. Any clarifying comments will be helpful. Luxure Σ 22:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything to include that Cyprus is in the Middle East or the Mediterranean or Eastern Mediterranean? If not, why not? Nargothronde (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Republic of Cyprus name in Turkish (and then some)

Why do we reference the Turkish: Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti, when 1) the Turkish Cypriots do not recognise the current Republic of Cyprus, 2) the "Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti" that the Turkish Cypriots refer to was the pre-1974 coup Republic of Cyprus, which to them no longer constitutionally exists and which the current Republic of Cyprus cannot represent, 3) this manipulates the term and the views of the Turkish Cypriots to pretend that they recognise the current Republic of Cyprus as the legitimate name for what they also regard as a legitimate government, which one must naturally assume they do, neither of which are true? Surely if such naming is to be applied it must be done so with a relevant explanation?

And why is there no mention of the Republic of Cyprus' recognition by international society and to what degree that recognition goes, or that its recognition as a legitimate state and even more so its claims to sovereignty over all of Cyprus etc are not recognised in any shape or form by the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Turkey, in the first paragraph? My point is that surely if these ARE to be mentioned (which they have been though in a very POV and provocative manner), they should not be sidelined to an obscure region of the page where they are not given due voice; they should instead be put in the first paragraph, where they are most relevant and necessary.

It can be agreed that such an important thing be mentioned in regards to Northern Cyprus, where the very first paragraph states:

"Northern Cyprus (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs), officially the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC; Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti), is a de facto state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus. Recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community to be part of the Republic of Cyprus."

Why not for Cyprus?

AND on a second note: the following part of the third paragraph states:

"a separate Turkish Cypriot state in the north was established by unilateral declaration in 1983; the move was widely condemned by the international community, with Turkey alone recognizing the new state. These events and the resulting political situation are matters of a continuing dispute."

1) why is time being given to explain that Northern Cyprus "separated" from Cyprus but not that it was removed and isolated and forced into it (read the Declaration of Independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus[1] for reference) or what it was in response to etc? 2) why is time being given to explain that it was condemned, instantly branding and portraying it as something malicious or at least probably wrong, but not explaining that Greek Cypriots had hijacked the government (and then some) but that that was not condemned? or 3) that the point behind question 2 contributed to the "response" mentioned in question 1?. AND 4) why is it's separation being politicised to describe that "These events and the resulting political situation are matters of a continuing dispute", which is just following the Greek Cypriot master narrative that the Cyprus Conflict and all of the countries woes began with the Turkish intervention of 1974, among other things?

This is all such blatant misuse of information. This is all such blatant selective disinformation. And this is all such blatant pro-Greek Cypriot POV pushing and even more so anti-Turkish Cypriot POV pushing.

This needs to be seriously looked into and it needs to be carefully changed to reflect the fact that neutrality is to be respected on Wikipedia and it cannot be used as a platform to push any POVs or discourse of any degree or manner. Nargothronde (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Declaration of Independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (PDF).
Even though TRNC does not recognize RoC, the Turkish language is still an official language of the RoC, so I guess that is the reason.Cinadon36 (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Cinadon36. But that is woefully overlooking the fact that, atleast according to the Languages of Cyprus page, Turkish only encompasses a measly 0.2% of the languages of government controlled areas, making it the smallest of all recognised languages. I think that makes it very likely that calling it an "official" language and doing what I've described above could very well possibly be just another political expedience on their part, that is otherwise redundant and, like I pointed out, very demeaning and offensive, to say the least. Thoughts? Anyone else have any contributions to make on this? Nargothronde (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
What of my other comments? Does anyone have anything to contribute to the problems I've just outlined? Any ideas? Any assessments? Any suggestions? Thanks! Nargothronde (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you mind summarising them? If you're proposing to remove the Turkish equivalents from this article, the answer is a plain nope. Turkish is an official language of the Republic of Cyprus, full stop. --GGT (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
GGT For a start, I'm proposing: 1) an explanation of its usage in referring to the Republic of Cyprus; 2) a statement regarding Cyprus' international recognition i.e. who recognises it and who does not, and I think this is very relevant, justifiable, and necessary, and it needs to be where it needs to be, at the forefront, as I highlighted above; and 3) I'm suggesting we take a serious look at paragraph three, for the four explanations I gave, and to prevent allowing Wikipedia to harbour any misuse of information, selective disinformation, pro-Greek Cypriot POV pushing, and even more so anti-Turkish Cypriot POV pushing. Nargothronde (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
To put this in a gentler way, wouldn't it also be advisable to consider that: 1) the points I have highlighted would likely be referring to and using the Greek Cypriot official discourse, rather than taking a neutral standpoint, which essentially has the effect of POV pushing or providing misinformation, and 2) in light of the above and the Cyprus issue in general, it can be expected that political expediency may be considered in these edits before what is neutral or factually right? Nargothronde (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The article has to present the well sourced fact that there are two official languages in Cyprus. It is mentioned in the infobox and expanded in the section "Languages". When the official name of the state is presented in the lede, it would be utterly POV-ish not to mention the official name in one of the official languages. This is really a non-starter. As for "a statement regarding Cyprus' international recognition", it would read something like: "Cyprus is recognised by all UN member states except Turkey". Do you really find that relevant for the lede?
Attempts at "balancing" the presentation of Cyprus and NC by treating them symmetrically is bound to fail for the simple reason that there is no symmetrical situation. Cyprus is a UN member country recognised by all UN countries save one, while NC is a break-away state with no international recognition except by the country that invaded Cyprus in 1974 and later created the break-away state. What you call "the Greek Cypriot official discourse" will be dominating the presentation, simply because it is generally accepted by the international society. --T*U (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"As for "a statement regarding Cyprus' international recognition", it would read something like: "Cyprus is recognised by all UN member states except Turkey". "

The subject is already covered in List of states with limited recognition. UN members whose status is disputed by other member states include South Korea (no formal recognition by 1 member state), North Korea (no formal recognition by 3 member states), Israel (no formal recognition by 31 member states), China (no formal recognition by 16 member states), Cyprus (no formal recognition by 1 member state), and Armenia (no formal recognition by 1 member state). Dimadick (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Dimadick: Yes, I know the subject is covered elsewhere, but Nargothronde insists that this info belongs in the lede of the Cyprus article. I disagree, and I was only trying to show what it would look like. I will just add that the fact that Pakistan has not recognised Armenia is not even mentioned in the article about Armenia, far less in the lede. --T*U (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I think we can leave Kıbrıs and remove Kıbrıs cumuriyeti. In fact, I think the Greek can be removed for the official name also because they are both in the infobox. Maybe take a moment to review some of these sources also, recognition and percentage of speakers is one issue, but what are the sources? The best thing is to post them in the discussion so newcomers can review them. There are other issues that need to be addressed [6][7][8](this argument in this last source is important but will need multiple sources)Seraphim System (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it's absolutely correct and absolutely relevant to include that in the lead, T*U. I agree with your comment that "The article has to present the well sourced fact that there are two official languages in Cyprus", and I totally understand where you're coming from with "it would be utterly POV-ish not to mention the official name in one of the official languages" too. I also think that to be the case, but this is again just sidelining what I've mentioned above regarding its usage in trying to legitimise something that is simply not correct and certainly not right i.e. POV pushing the Greek Cypriot narrative i.e. not being neutral i.e. not being in good faith i.e. politicising and polarising content i.e. manipulating content i.e. undermining the article and the Wikipedia community in general... and basing an article on "well-sourced fact" should not mean "well-sourced bias" or "well-sourced denialism" or "well-sourced malintent" etc... also, about mentioning the recognition, it's not a competition about who recognises who, it's about giving fair and equal representation and mutual reciprocation to the articles where its due, and not manipulating content or trying to expediate or damage another article/country/community etc by picking and choosing what you think is appropriate to suit your rhetoric and attempt to justify your malintent... But another thing that I'm trying to put across here is that if it's relevant enough to include in the lead of the article on Northern Cyprus, which is at the very least very very strongly related, if not that by all other accounts (except for those that follow the Greek Cypriot official discourse i.e. POV pushers etc) should be of direct equivalence. Nargothronde (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not just out of systematic logic, but fairness, equality, neutrality, the right of both these articles to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and be protected by them, the right of both these articles to contain information that does not cause offense or contain malintent to another, the right of both these articles that where one represents a certain point or claim regarding the other etc that this should be justified in writing and it shall be civil and not "civil" (notice the 'so-called quotes' on " civil") or manipulative or fuelled by malintent; that though I agree there is no "symmetrical" (= EQUAL) situation, I disagree that "balancing" the presentation of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus by treating them symmetrically (= EQUALLY) is bound to fail for that reason; if "the Greek Cypriot official discourse will be dominating the presentation, simply because it is generally accepted by the international society", that does not justify it, nor its inclusion in a Wikipedia article where it will be read and believed by most, its usage in POV pushing etc on Wikipedia, be it blatant or civil, nor does it justify politicising content on Wikipedia, using Wikipedia as a point to spread malice or manipulation using political expediency as a premise to attempt to justify said malintent etc, nor does it justify the usage of such things without a neutral or very well warranted account that strongly considers and clearly outlines its implications... that just otherwise leads to confusion and even more misleading, incorrect, and ultimately appalling information i.e. you believe Turkey created Northern Cyprus, and that Northern Cyprus is a break-away state (where you wrote: "the country that invaded Cyprus in 1974 and later created the break-away state")... Wikipedia should not be used "in civility" (again, notice the 'so-called quotes' on "in civility") to become a platform for these kinds of things... I think I'm just trying to keep things neutral, equal, fair, correct, and accountable here. I still haven't seen anything to convince me that what I'm calling out here is otherwise correct, justifiable, well-intended, or not purposely misleading. Nargothronde (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Nargothronde: In your rather verbose posting, it is a bit difficult to extract what exact suggestions you are making, but I will try to answer them as I have understood them:
  • You still insist on mentioning the non-recognition by Turkey in the lead. I disagree per WP:UNDUE. I suggest you raise this question as a Request for comments. That way you will get more input from other editors, and the discussion can hopefully be concluded with a consensus.
  • I am not quite sure what you really want to do with the official Turkish names that you find "demeaning and offensive". Do you want to remove them? If so, I disagree per WP:OFFICIAL. This would also best be discussed in a RfC. If you have other suggestions, please specify them. I also wonder what you mean by "I totally understand where you're coming from". Can you expand on that? (Just inserting here a comment to Seraphim System: It is not usual to remove info from the main article because it is mentioned in the infobox. The infobox is an addition to the article containing at-a-glance-info, it is not supposed to replace any part of the normal textual presentation.)
  • As for your other comments ("POV pushing", "malintent", "misleading", "incorrect", "appalling" etc.), it would be helpful if you could specify exactly what changes you want to make, preferably in short, clear statements. --T*U (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@TU-nor: I think you may be confusing political recognition with NPOV/UNDUE per discussion in RS. I would suggest looking over the main Korea article as an example. Northern Cyprus is recognized as a disputed territory[1] Our articles are not written based on political recognition...I want to be sure I understood you correctly. It sounds like you are saying the political posturing of the international community determines the correct WEIGHT we assign to viewpoints covered in the article? We actually have to go to secondary sources like the one I posted above to see what is UNDUE. It may be a "pariah regime", but that doesn't mean the secondary sources that discuss it are UNDUE.Seraphim System (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Huth, Paul K.; Allee, Todd L. (2002). The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80508-7.
Seraphim System: I am afraid you lost me here; I do not understand what tree you are barking at. My last posting was meant to explain that it is necessary to discuss things separately and not lumping everything into a long wall of text. Nargothronde wants to include a sentence about the non-recognition of Cyprus by Turkey. I disagree and suggest an RfC. --T*U (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This is what you said: What you call "the Greek Cypriot official discourse" will be dominating the presentation, simply because it is generally accepted by the international society.. Maybe pay attention to the stuff you post here? Sorry I forgot to excerpt it. I agree the walls of text aren't helping, you guys can ping me as a past participant if this RfC materializes.Seraphim System (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Seraphim System: You must forgive me for not immediately grasping that you were commenting not on my last posting and on not the one before that, but on one before that again. Since I never mentioned "UNDUE" in that posting, I still am confused. --T*U (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@TU-nor: In that case, I am confused about your justification for saying this is UNDUE. Turkey's position is covered in some detail in WP:reliable sources.[1][2][3][4][5] However, I think an Rfc about adding it to the lede is premature unless it is already covered in the article (if it is, I don't see it...) Seraphim System (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "European Commission report warns Turkey over its relations with Cyprus - Xinhua- English.news.cn". Retrieved 2018-11-17.
  2. ^ "The Editor briefing: France tells Turkey: accept Cyprus or no EU". The Guardian. 2005-08-07. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2018-11-17.
  3. ^ "'Turkey reaffirms non-recogntion of Cyprus Republic'". Cyprus Mail. 2015-12-06. Retrieved 2018-11-17.
  4. ^ "The Cyprus Issue - Hellenic Republic - Ministry of Foreign Affairs". Retrieved 2018-11-17.
  5. ^ Finkel, Andrew (2012-03-02). Turkey: What Everyone Needs to Know®. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-993910-7.
Even if it is covered in the article, Turkey's non-recognition of a state everyone else on the planet recognises, is the very definition of WP:UNDUE. Calling an RfC over this is wp:disruptive. Dr. K. 22:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Turkey's non-recognition of a state everyone else on the planet recognises, is the very definition of WP:UNDUE is not accurate. It is a really big problem if editors do not understand this because it is fundamental to resolving disputes that may arise over article balance: all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Turkey's refusal to recognize Cyprus is covered by many WP:RS that I have already cited in this discussion. The lede should be a summary of the article content, so if it is not already covered in the article it would have to be added first.Seraphim System (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Maybe this will help for those who are still confused: The majority view in this case would be that "Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus". In fact, this seems to be undisputed. I don't think anyone can find a secondary source arguing that Turkey recognizes the Republic of Cyprus (ok, I did find one, but it was a student webpage). That is how we, as editors, remain neutral - the question here is not how many people agree with Turkey's position, but how it is represented by secondary WP:RS. I hope that makes sense.Seraphim System (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Nope. We cannot pick Turkey out of all the UN members so that we can highlight its non-recognition of Cyprus. Not unless we then pick every other UN member on the planet and individually highlight its recognition of Cyprus at the lead by name. Something like: "Cyprus is recognised by Austria, Algeria, Australia, Andorra, Azerbaijan, etc., etc., all the way to the bottom of the list. Something that, of course, would be absurd. But this hypothetical example just helps highlight the immense POV of this proposal. Dr. K. 22:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Just because something can be sourced, doesn't mean it belongs in the lede of a country article. Pakistan does not recognize Armenia. We do not mention in the lede of Armenia that Pakistan does not recognize it, even though it is sourced. Khirurg (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg: I had a feeling you were going to chime in here. There are five sources and that is only wat I was able to find on short notice. Turkey's non-recognition is a major issue per WP:RS, the above argument by Dr. K is an appeal to false balance. To exclude this content would be a violation of WP:NPOV.Seraphim System (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It's just as easy to find sources that Pakistan does not recognize Armenia. What's less easy is making the case as to why that is lede-worthy. Which is perhaps why you keep repeating "muh sources", instead of explaining why this is lede-worthy. Khirurg (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you VERY much *Seraphim System for all your comments. I think I have a problem of trying to explain too many things in too much detail. I'll look over everything again and try to be as concise and to-the-point as possible. I don't think you've missed anything out at all. Your comments are incredibly helpful. Khirurg and Dr. K, I very strongly agree with everything what Seraphim System has said here. I'd also like to mention a few points about including something to do with recognition in the lead: 1) the article for Northern Cyprus also includes a statement about recognition in the lead, 2) there are only two sides to this: 1. Turkey & the TRNC doesn't recognise the Republic of Cyprus, and 2. the Republic of Cyprus and by that effect the rest of the international community doesn't recognise the TRNC, so there is no redundant information to be included here, and it's very black and white. I'd also like to raise this for discussion in a RfC. Khirurg and Dr. K, I hope you could join in that discussion too. I'll ping you into it when I've got it sorted out. I'll try to be as concise and to the point as possible. Thank you again Seraphim System. Nargothronde (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Military

Military facts of every country do have a place in WP, but here are some problems: a)the section is without a source, b)listing the names of the battalions doesn't provide any meaning information to the reader c)It is a double, the article Cypriot National Guard does has the exact same text d) the article is already big enough. I suggest we remove the whole section. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Country articles generally include a "Military section", so removing it wholesale is a non-starter. However I do agree with that it could use a trim and that listing battalion names is not particularly useful. Khirurg (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I 'll remove the batttalions and leave a citation template for the rest. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Data to be added Population Census Table

Year GCs TCs Total
1777 37.000 47.000 84.000
1790 47.500 67.000 114.000
1793 46.392 67.000 118.000
1800 30.524 67.000 97.524


The following have the same format with the table in the article:

Population of Cyprus according to ethnic group 1777–1960
Ethnic
group 		census 17771 census 17902 census 17933 census 18004
Number % Number % Number % Number %
Greeks 37,000 44.0 47,500 41.5 46,392 39.3 30,524 31.3
Turks 47,000 56.0 67,000 58.5 67,000 58.8 67,000 68.7
Armenians
Maronites
Others 4,608 3.9
Total 84,000 114,500 118,000 97,524
1 Source: [http://]. 2 Source: [http://]. 3 Source: [http://]. 4 Source: [http://].
Distribution of Turkish Cypriots (1891, 1911, 1931)
Distribution of Turkish Cypriots (1946, 1960, 1973)
Distribution of Turkish Cypriots (1891–1973)
Population of Cyprus according to ethnicity (1881–1960)
Ethnic
group 		1881 census[1] 1891 census[1] 1901 census[1] 1911 census[1] 1921 census[1] 1931 census[1] 1946 census 1960 census
Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %
Greeks 137,631 73.9 158,585 75.8 182,739 77.1 214,480 78.2 244,887 78.8 276,572 79.5 361,199 80.2 442,363 77.1
Turks 45,458 24.4 47,926 22.9 51,309 21.6 56,428 20.6 61,339 19.7 64,238 18.5 80,548 17.9 104,333 18.2
Armenians 174 0.1 280 0.1 517 0.2 558 0.2 1,197 0.4 3,377 1 3,686 0.8 3,630
Maronites 830 0.4 1,131 0.5 1,130 0.5 1,073 1,350 1,704 2,083 2,752
Others 1,738 0.9 1.364 0.7 1,327 0.6 1,569 1,942 2,068 2,598 20,488
Total 186,173 209,286 237,022 274,108 310,715 347,959 450,114 573,566

In the census from 1881 to 1960, all Muslims are counted as Turks, only Greek Orthodox are counted as Greeks. There were small populations of Greek speaking Muslims and Turkish speaking Greek Orthodox.[2]

During (1955-1960) 6,759 Turks and 31,844 Greeks emigrated.[3] During (1961-1973) 9,760 Turks and 39,192 Greeks emigrated.[3] In total, during (1955-1973) 16,519 Turks and 71,036 Greeks emigrated.[3] Of the emigrated Turkish Cypriots in this period, only 290 went to Turkey.[3]

According to the 2011 census, combined with 2006 Northern Cyprus data, the ethnic composition for the entire island was 60% Greek, 24% Turkish, and 16% other

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f https://books.google.com.cy/books?id=6jH4Xy4KFrYC&lpg=PA21&dq=cyprus%20census%20turks%20greeks&hl=nl&pg=PA21#v=onepage&q=cyprus%20census%20turks%20greeks&f=false
  2. ^ A Handbook of Cyprus, Hutchinson, Joseph Turner, page 57, 1907
  3. ^ a b c d Is the Turkish Cypriot population shrinking?: an overview of the ethno-demography of Cypus in the light of the preliminary results of the 2006 Turkish-Cypriot census, Mete Hatay, International Peace Research Institute, 2007, page 64

It is impossible in a few years time for a population to have completely changed like that, with out a war and ethnic cleansing. So the first table is just completely false, since the second is proven to be completely reliable.Jazz1972 (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Struggle for self-determination is the NPOV and not nationalistic violence, which is a POV

EOKA had socialists and centrists inside and was welcomed by almost all Greek Cypriots. Self-determination is what is called in all other cases. A referandum aso took place before that, where almost all voted for Union with Greece, the communists as well. The ones that haven't voted, were not enough to change it. 3 from the 4 traditional political parties were run by members of EOKA. Centre, centre right, and centre left.Jazz1972 (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

A)As for the ideology of EOKA, RS are mentioning that it was nationalistic. It is not upon us to decide whether it was a socialist, communist, fascist, centrist, right, left party. B)There was no referendum in 1950. The church was collecting signatures. A person could sign for all members of his family. C)Not everybody had the right to vote: ie Turkish Cypriots.Cinadon36 (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Classic Greek Cypriot nationalistic POV that conveniently skips the role the Turkish Cypriots played in that period in history. Boiling it down to a "self-determination struggle" -the quintessential Greek Cypriot POV- introduces great inaccuracy in that the activities of the TMT are completely omitted. It also painfully omits that this was seen as a self-determination struggle by Greek Cypriots only. EOKA was natonalistic (that really is like saying that the sky is blue) and so was the TMT. They were also both violent. "Nationalist violence" is succinct and neutral. --GGT (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen any real argument yet to answer what I have written on the above. In addition team work is forbiden according to Wikipedia rules, as you have done in deleting my NPOV edits. If no one gives any real argument to counter what I have written, then I will revert it again in an NPOV fashionJazz1972 (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"raiders from the Levant"?

The article says that Cyprus was subject to attacks, over centuries, which destroyed cities and killed or enslaved large numbers of the people of the island - the attackers are described as "raiders from the Levant", is that the P.C. way of describing the Islamic attacks on Cyprus from the late 7th century onwards?2A02:C7D:B41D:C800:44B0:9A6B:7CEC:CAFF (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2020

Add "The Republic of Cyprus is becoming more popular among the digital nomad and online entrepreneur community. The country is fast becoming an hub for businesses which has always been a priority for Cyprus, especially since the countries divide in 1974. The country still relies heavily on its tourism industry, though the country offers an attractive tax incentive for entrepreneurs from around the world." [1] AmyRaw (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://johanneslarsson.com/living-in-cyprus-8-reasons-to-move-here-entrepreneur-perspective/
 Not done. The proposed text is a WP:copyright violation from the source. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2020

2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. Delete part in bold, it will grammatically improve the sentence: Archaeological remains from this period include the well-preserved Neolithic village of Khirokitia, and Cyprus is home to some of the oldest water wells in the world. Ninety3til (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. What's there is maybe a bit awkward, but what you're proposing would change the meaning to indicate that these wells are part of the archaeological remains. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

Hello Russian is not minority language in cyprus officialy i am cypriot. If you have any reference i want to know thank you Fitos96 (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

According to Languages of Cyprus, Russian is widely spoken but not official. Should it be in the infobox here? Leaving this matter open to get other editors' input. —C.Fred (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Russian as an unofficial minority language is supported by sources already in the article and the related Languages of Cyprus article. If you have sources that contradict those, you need to provide them instead of asserting personal knowledge per the original research policy. I hope this helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Κύπρος

@Dellankss: I'm not sure exactly what your question was in your previous edit comment. Are you implying that there should be two separate IPA's from SM and Cypriot Greek? –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

Permission to edit page Dracopoetic (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for editing permission. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected page; however, you can do one of the following:
  • If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other pages.
  • If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this page.
  • You can request unprotection of this page by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. A page will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the page in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox: president of the house

Syllouris is no longer president of the House of Representatives. The new president is Adamos Adamou: http://www.parliament.cy/en/presidency-of-the-house/president-of-the-house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.199.199.124 (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2020

Please change Orthodox Christianity (~89.1% Church of Cyprus[3]) to Orthodox Christianity (~89.1% Church of Cyprus[3]) and Islam to the religion list Turkish Cyprus population lives in the North Cyprus and their major religion is Islam Edittingtruth (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 10:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 2020-01-13

Currently, Russian is listed as a minority language of Cyprus in the infobox. It can be argued that it is, it's one of the most popular non-official languages. Nevertheless, that section in the infobox concerns *recognised* minority languages, of which only two exist (Armenian, CMA). If we are to use a looser definition, we will have to include other long-standing minority languages too (and do it for all other country pages). In other words, lets remove Russian from the infobox, and only keep it in the Demographics subsection --Libresociety (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Picture order

The picture order doesn't seem to match the headlines. Beshogur (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Religions in Infobox

Hello. I'm new to this page, so forgive me if I am not aware of all discussions that may have gone on around this topic, but I notice an item in the archived Talk section where a request has been made to include Islam alongside Orthodox Christianity as religions in the Infobox. It seems the request was not fulfilled owing to a lack of reliable source. Does this source (referenced elsewhere on the page) provide an adequate source? http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/countries/cyprus/religious_demography#/?affiliations_religion_id=0&affiliations_year=2020 ClivePIA (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

On should statistics include not controlled territory

GGT Usually Wikipedia only values de facto territory, I think Cyprus should be united that's completely not the point. Areas that are controlled by a country even when claimed aren't counted in statistics, another user has stated that not controlled territory should be included in statistics, but it shouldn't. As an example North Korea and South Korea, Somalia with Somalia land etc... Des Vallee (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a distinction to be made here. For statistics about the economy and elections etc., those are generally understood to be referring to the Republic of Cyprus, which of course practically equates to the south. But for anything geographical, be it physical geography such as climate, or human geography such as demographics, it has to be the entire country and the entire island, as that is what the term "Cyprus" encompasses. That is the way we have always done it when it comes to Cyprus. Anything less would be misleading, inaccurate and frankly Turkish nationalistic POV. --GGT (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021

79.182.19.198 (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Cyprus don't have any straigt line to the palestinian territories. Israel is between both.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. WikiVirusC(talk) 12:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is unclickable in the intro text, perhaps edit that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.116.68.196 (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2021

plz can i edit this article. it would be a huge pleasure to edit. if you see this request may you proceed and give me permissions to edit 213.149.170.19 (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is indefinitely semi-protected. This means that only users registered for more than 4 days, and with at least 10 edits can edit the article directly. Anyone else may suggest changes using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template as you did. For that please mention your changes in a X to Y-format along with references. – NJD-DE (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2021

Need to edit please? Travis R. Jaico (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. – NJD-DE (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

no section on science and technology

Hi, just a suggestion, many country articles have sections on science and technology, could one be added to the article for Cyprus? I'm sure there would be content for it.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Makarios Amandments

"constitutional changes" find this, change its link to " https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Thirteen_Points. ". That sentence about "change" not about "treaty" or "constitution". That sentence is the first sentence for suntopic and has same link.78.180.29.198 (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dekhelia part of Cyprus?

I added a topic to the talk page of this map, however got no answer in 1,5 year. Why are those two areas marked as Cyprus? Would also tag the last editor @Thom.lanaud: if you have some comments. Beshogur (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested Move

I think the page should be moved to Republic of Cyprus. This is because there is a page called Northern Cyprus which may confuse readers, and Republic of Cyprus is also the official name, so I think it should be moved. If there is any consensus then it should be moved. Thanks! --Jishiboka1 (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 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: Not moved.

A large part of the argument in support seeks to state that the situation is similar to that of the Ireland dispute, but I am ultimately unconvinced by that argument, as:

  • The evidence that the country that has de facto possession of most of the southern half of the island (and, under international law, de jure possession of the northern half) is sufficiently coterminous with the island itself is a lot more convincing.
  • The Ireland naming dispute on Wikipedia was a long protracted affair which ended up with a 250-user community poll which ended up with a consensus enforced by ArbCom; for that reason, I don't see that much precedential value of that poll outwith Irish topics.

Secondly, on the issue of Akrotiri and Dhekelia: the presence of a military base that takes up 3% of the island does not, in my view, weaken the coterminality of the island and the country, in the same way that Guantanamo Bay does not mean that the Republic of Cuba is not sufficiently coterminous with the island of Cuba.

Thirdly, on Macedonia: the Prespa agreement defused the naming dispute in real life, but even discounting that, the naming dispute was a different kettle of fish. Nobody disputed the boundaries or even existence of North Macedonia, just the name. Whereas in this case, the international community minus Turkey agrees that Northern Cyprus is Cypriot territory under Turkish occupation.

On the issue of Turkey, I do note that there was some blatant sockpuppetry and meat puppetry from a range of IPs from Istanbul, and one or two experienced editors may have voted with their heart instead of the head. I have discounted the former, and have evaluated the latter in the best faith possible.

So where does that leave us? To help decide how to weigh the arguments in support and opposition, I went to the well of institutional memory to perhaps the most similar country/land mismatch: China. About ten years ago, there was a rather long discussion on whether the historical concept of China, or the sovereign state which is situated there, is the primary topic. And the consensus there also mostly applies here: practically, the primary topic for "Cyprus" is indeed the republic, and not the island. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Cyprus → Republic of Cyprus – I am proposing the move because of Northern Cyprus, and Cyprus (island). Similar to Ireland, I think This would work. Jishiboka1 (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I Believe, the republic is the primary meaning when tells about Cyprus. 125.167.58.198 (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - there are significant issues with using the term "Cyprus" to refer exclusively to the republic that occupies the southwestern part of the island of Cyprus. I presume that Cyprus would become a disambiguation page - or better yet, a WP:CONCEPTDAB that covers the entire island and includes the sordid history of how it got that way. Red Slash 09:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Clear common name and primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support moving to Cyprus (country) and Geography of Cyprus -> Cyprus (island). Beshogur (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I know we do not work on precedent, but isn't this a similar situation to the island of Ireland and Republic of Ireland? —C.Fred (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support this move, and then move Geography of Cyprus to the "Cyprus" title. In my opinion, the island is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per long-term significance, and the example of Ireland demonstrates the feasibility of this structure. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support and Move Geography of Cyprus -> Cyprus. This is very similar to Republic of Ireland (the country) and Ireland (the island) situation. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per C.Fred and Rreagan007. This is similar (but not identical) to the situation of Ireland. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this situation differs from Ireland (country) in that Cyprus (country) is often treated as covering almost the entire island. This treatment leaves the island and modern country largely coterminous, similar to many other island countries. The article covers this topical overlap, and disambiguation will not aid it. As for the Geography of Cyprus article, I would oppose moving that as it suggests a much different scope than the current title, a scope which would duplicate that of this article. CMD (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah, the good old perennial proposal. Apparently the last time this was actually proposed was in 2014, so I would say it's actually worth it to have a look at this in some more detail now. The central question here is whether Cyprus is simply a shorthand for the Republic of Cyprus, or whether sources that cover the island in more detail tend to distinguish between the two. Historically, this question was answered with a mixture of Google search results and personal insights - the former is unlikely to give a definitive answer to this question and the latter is, well, anecdotal. Generally, I would say that the assumption that Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus are essentially synonymous has often been not very useful to my work as an editor predominantly focusing on Cyprus - it leaves one in the awkward position of always having to clarify that it's not simply Cyprus vs. Turkey/Turkish Cypriots in the Cyprus dispute. The relevant guideline is WP:WIAN, which states 'A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity".' and then lists resources that are likely to be useful in terms of identifying this. Well, let's have a look around:
    • The CIA World Factbook lists Cyprus as the conventional short form for the Republic of Cyprus. The same applies to the EU profile. However, these are hardly disinterested sources - they are naturally bound by their respective authority's position on the Cyprus dispute.
    • Britannica's coverage of Cyprus appears to support this proposal - its article covers Cyprus as an island and distinguishes between the island and the Republic of Cyprus (see their infobox, for instance, which gives a balanced overview of the south and the north).
    • Encyclopedic World Atlas of the Oxford University Press (2002) does use the two interchangeably.
    • Works on Cyprus usually assume a lot of prior knowledge and it's difficult to find works that introduce the island from scratch. One that I was able to find was Europe, A Political Profile: An American Companion to European Politics from ABC-CLIO, which, again defines Cyprus as an island, with a clear distinction between the island and the Republic [9].
    • The one true introductory work that I know and recommend about Cyprus: James Ker-Lindsay's The Cyprus Problem: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press, 2011) clearly makes a distinction between Cyprus as an island and the Republic of Cyprus and does not use Cyprus as a shorthand to refer to the Republic.
    • News outlets don't usually have consistent approaches regarding this distinction. Al Jazeera is a good example. When talking about the Cyprus Papers, they will use Cyprus as a shorthand for the Republic. When talking about the Cyprus problem, they will not. Again, the New York Times talks about Cyprus as an island and introduces the Republic of Cyprus as a separate concept in [this article. In this one, that distinction seems less clear-cut.
  • The bottom line is that the sources can be used to argue either way, but on Wikipedia our article names have to account for all contexts, and when talking about the Cyprus problem, this article's name is incredibly unhelpful. Per WIAN, Britannica's approach is a good reference point and I would support this move, though with some reservation. --GGT (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate Moving base name into disambiguation page, moviing Cyprus article to the Republic of Cyprus, and moving Geography of Cyprus to Cyprus (island). These pages are not primary topic for each other. 182.3.70.231 (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Republic of Cyprus is internationally recognised to have territorial ownership of the entire island, in these cases we just make one article for both the island and the country such as Jamaica, Mauritius, Cuba, Madagascar, Iceland, Sri Lanka and many others. Ale3353 (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ale3353: to have territorial ownership of the entire island that's entirely untrue. What about Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Beshogur (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Beshogur, it’s similar to Guantanamo Bay and Cuba has the island and the country at one article like I mentioned above. Ale3353 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah the British isn't "leasing" those two areas. It's part of the UK legally. Beshogur (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. There is a need to talk about the 1) political entity and 2) the entirety of the geographical island. The proposed move solves this issue. Vizjim (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (Wikpedia pageviews [10] and Google Trends [11] clearly show that most people who search for "Cyprus" on wikipedia and Google, are searching for the country, and not the island.). Sources about the Republic of Cyprus refer to it as "Cyprus", not by the longer "Republic of Cyprus". (e.g. [12], [13], [14]) This is not only for brevity but also because of international legitimacy (the Republic is the sole recognized entity on the island). The situation is totally different from Ireland, where "Ireland" is generally not synonymous with the Republic of Ireland, and there are two internationally recognized polities on the islands. As for the "Cyprus (island)" issue, that is adequately addressed by Geography of Cyprus. There is no compelling reason to move the article, and creating a disambiguation page would cause all kinds of headaches to no encyclopedic benefit. Khirurg (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
That is incorrect. The British bases are sovereign British territories. Vizjim (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
the Republic is the sole recognized entity on the island British sovereign bases are not Cypriot territory, also the fact is they do not control the territory in north for 40 years. Beshogur (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
So? None of this nitpicking contradicts that sources commonly use "Cyprus" to refer to the Republic Cyprus, WP:COMMONNAME. Khirurg (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@Khirurg: how do you know that Cyprus is the main topic everywhere on the internet. That's impossible to find out, even with ngram. Republic of Cyprus is a relative new entitiy, the island was referred as Cyprus for way longer time. Beshogur (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Because page viewing history [15] and Google Trends [16] clearly show that most people who search for "Cyprus" on wikipedia and Google, are searching for the country, and not the island. Couldn't be clearer. Khirurg (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I doubt most people use "Geography of Cyprus" (wiki article title) to search Cyprus's history, geography, etc. This ngram doesn't prove anything, because we can not prove in what context Cyprus was used. From Crusaders to Ottomans, from the British to today, everyone is using "Cyprus" on their works. Beshogur (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Per the undisputed WP:COMMONNAME in the RS. This is also is a perennial move request. Perhaps we can add a FAQ list at the top of the page addressing the British bases, the UN green line, etc.. All this stuff has been discussed to death in multiple move requests in the past, along with the same proposals regarding the articles of the Geography of Cyprus etc. and the proposals and move requests have been defeated multiple times in the past. Nothing new here. Dr. K. 09:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The short name of the Republic of Cyprus is just Cyprus. The Wikipedia's naming guidelines encourage the use of short names that are also the WP:COMMONNAMEs for these countries over lengthy official ones, (in Cyprus's case, the majority of sources, including newspapers, academic scholarship, bibliography, documents and so on, prefer using the short name "Cyprus" more than the "Republic of Cyprus") and the short name is also WP:CONSISTENT with how it was done in Wikipedia for the other countries in the area: Greece is preferred instead of the Hellenic Republic, Turkey instead of the Republic of Turkey, Egypt instead of the Arab Republic of Egypt, and Northern Cyprus instead of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Israel instead of the State of Israel, Syria instead of the Syrian Arab Republic and so on.
Considering the naming guidelines, and considering that the short name "Cyprus" full-fills both the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT criteria, and considering that (unlike what the RM's initiator has argued) the geographical article related to the island of Cyprus is already unambiguous (see: Geography of Cyprus) and considering how the current article titles Cyprus and Geography of Cyprus are also WP:CONSISTENT with how things were done for the other countries in the region and their geographical articles (Greece and Geography of Greece, Malta and Geography of Malta, Turkey and Geography of Turkey, Egypt and Geography of Egypt, Israel and Geography of Israel and so on), I see absolutely no reason to support this move request. The RM's proposed title doesn't solve really any issues of clarity, is inconsistent with how things were done around there, and is not even the WP:COMMONNAME for the country.
PS: reading now the RM again, I can't help but express my skepticism over a part of the OP's statement, where they stated that they initiated the RM to make it "Similar to Ireland". I am not sure what exactly do they mean by that, considering that Ireland's case is totally different to Cyprus's case, both semiologically, legally and politically. While the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland both are internationally recognized entities, and have de-jure control over the island, the Republic of Cyprus on the other hand, is the sole recognized entity on the island with de-jure control over it (foreign military bases do not matter for Wikipedia, I am afraid), and for the international community, Cyprus not only it represents the whole island of Cyprus (unlike the Republic of Ireland) but also treats the name Cyprus in intertwinedly with the Republic of Cyprus. The RM ignoring the facts about the island of Cyprus, as well as Wikipedia's common practices and naming guidelines, including WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT, by trying to do it "similarly to Ireland", doesn't constitute an actual improvement for Wikipedia IMO.
Edit: even the relevant category concerning the island country, is also called Category:Cyprus and it encompass all the related topics which too are using the short name Cyprus. This, I believe, is a good reason for the article to keep its current title for wp:consistent reasons. To not mention that across Wikipedia, the common name "Cyprus" is already being used more often than the full official name "Republic of Cyprus" ever was. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 05:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
IP with no edits prior to !voting here, also edits tail fat, same as IP above. Khirurg (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I suppose we have to live with this regular repetition of the same debate. The suggestion has been shot down several times before. Nothing new this time. 'Cyprus' is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME for the Republic. The Republic is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term 'Cyprus'. End of story! --T*U (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. As one user points out above, this has not been formally discussed by the community on this page since 2014. The "Sigh, I've heard it before/it's perennial" discussion point is probably not useful here.Vizjim (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Vizjim: If that comment was meant for me, it misses its target. Firstly, no Sigh from me, just an acceptation that this has been and will be repeated. Secondly, my point was Nothing new: Nothing significant has happened since the latest discussion, and the OP has not brought any new arguments. --T*U (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Really wasn't pointed at any individual. Several contributors to this discussion have made the same point. While each person is making the observation in good faith, in aggregate it's disrespectful to new editors and people who have not previously engaged in this discussion. There are currently 13 votes supporting the move (including the nom and a disambiguate) and 9 opposing, with strong arguments being made on both sides. Consensus has not been reached, but it's distasteful to watch people trying to make the argument disappear with the comment that they have seen it all before.Vizjim (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, but then it would have been equally problematic if earlier discussions were not mentioned. So I suggest we leave it at that and refrain from using words like disrespectful and distasteful about arguments that you yourself say are made in good faith. --T*U (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
T*U is right, IMO. Past consensuses shouldn't be ignored if data/evidence concerning the usage of the term in sources, has not changed significantly since these past discussions. Wikipedia reflects on the majority of sources, and for the consensus to update, there has to be a valid reason to do so, such as a reasonable change in the sources. As far as we know, Cyprus remains the common name used in the English world for the island country. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Dismissing the factual comments by multiple editors (that this is a perennial move request) as a "sigh" is WP:CLUEless. To add insult to injury, nobody "sighed" or used words to that effect. Finally, that this move request attracted new editors who make exactly the same points as were made in 2014 does not change the fact that this is a perennial move request with no additional information being discussed since earlier moves which were rejected. If anyone is looking for respect, they should achieve it by reading the previous perennial move requests and then deciding not to raise again the same rejected points. Dr. K. 21:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC).
IP with identical editing history as 93.182.73.53. Khirurg (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I see that there are more arguing whether the Republic of Cyprus as primary topic for base name Cyprus or not. One side arguing that the Republic of Cyprus as primary topic, while others arguing that Geography of Cyprus (island) is primary topic. In this case, it dan be declared as WP:NOPRIMARY due to different opinions regarding it and at least, the discussion can be end with no consensus. 116.206.35.16 (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I am afraid it is not the editors who can decide solely based on their personal views on what constitutes primary for the common name Cyprus. Per WP:VERIFIABILITY, Wikipedia has to reflect on sources, not on editorial opinions, and since the vast majority of WP:RS are referring to Cyprus in contexts more than just plainly geographical ones, this should be reflected accordingly. For this reason alone, the RM simply shouldn't be endorsed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment Looks like the RM is being spammed by a range of similar IPs, all from the same geolocation (Istanbul metro), all within a very short time interval, all making similar arguments, all editing the same topics (tail fat, Kyrgyzstan, shish kebab, etc...): 93.182.109.189, 93.182.73.53, 95.0.32.95. One of these IPs has no edits prior to this discussion. Likely that these are the same individual editing from different IP addresses. Khirurg (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  •  Comment: just a kind reminder for everyone, including the RM Closer: Cyprus remains a politically sensitive topic in Wikipedia and due to the long history of recorded IP disruption and off-wiki IP WP:CANVASSING. RM outcomes about such sensitive articles should weight more on: 1) the sources, 2) the Wikipedia's naming guidelines, 3) the strong points the auto-confirmed users made, and 4) the long-standing consensus from the previous discussions/RMs on the matter. To prevent the ambush of the consensus-building progress by suspicious WP:SPA and IPs who come just to vote, without actually contributing to the discussion, their !votes should not be given weight towards (or against) the consensus-building. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Some participants have raised a fair concern about the same arguments being repeated in the discussions over the years. I feel a need to elaborate. I am well aware of the arguments raised in the previous discussions and should have probably referred to them explicitly in my original comment. The last one in 2014 was initiated by Alexyflemming, a notorious sockmaster known for his nonsensical walls of text - I don't think his arguments there hold much water and frankly they make a reasoned conversation impossible. A much more reasonable discussion was held in 2012, where Dr.K. compiled numerous references about Cyprus being a shorthand for the Republic. He then compiled 31 more sources to support this argument. That is clearly a lot of effort and his frustration is understandable. I do, however, take issue with this compilation. For one thing, a selection of 31 sources that mention that Cyprus is an "island nation" does not definitively establish that reliable literature as a whole does not distinguish between the island and the republic. As I exemplify above, there are sources that do, there are sources that don't - I would not have an issue reproducing a similar list of 31 more sources to "prove" the opposite, but I just think this would not be an efficient use of time. This is usually context-dependent, the same news outlet will refer use Cyprus as a shorthand for the Republic if talking about its economy, but will not do so if talking about the Cyprus dispute. Note the preponderance of news outlets in those 31 sources, similar principles as the NYT and Al Jazeera would generally apply. We can focus entirely on academic papers and books, but a similar approach will often be found: my copy of Archaeology of Cyprus (Bernard Knapp, Cambridge University Press, 2013) distinguishes between the island and the Republic when explicitly discussing the impact of politics on archaeology (p. 31) and yet talks about the Cypriot Department of Antiquities (Cyprus serving as a shorthand for the Republic, pp. 22-23). Such variation also occurs between books: Sepsos (The Europeanization of Cyprus, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008) consistently uses Cyprus as coterminous with the Republic, whereas Ekici (The Political and Economic History of North Cyprus, 2019, Palgrave Macmillan) or Ker-Lindsay (specifically in his 2011 book, see above) never do so. The bottom line is that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the WP:COMMONNAME arguments do not hold water because clearly Cyprus is understood to be referring to the Republic in some contexts, but cannot be understood as such in other contexts, which is why a lot of sources will actually switch between the two, and why source dumps don't establish much. The problem is that our article titles cannot be context-dependent, they need to have WP:PRECISION, be unambiguous. That's why the proposed move would serve us better than the status quo. I should also note that I'm concerned about the influx of SPAs/IPs, I trust that the closer would take the necessary care - flooding here like that won't do much to further your argument, people. --GGT (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
As an addendum, the literature on Cyprus has expanded since the 2014 discussion, and the greater consideration of the bicommunal nature of the island is more apparent in more recent works, which will define Cyprus explicitly as an island and distinguish the Republic from that. Examples include Ekici's book in 2019 (cited above), Contemporary Art from Cyprus (Bloombsbury Academic, 2021, pp. 1-3); Sovereignty Suspended: Building the So-Called State (Rebecca Bryant and Mete Hatay, 2020, University of Pennsylvania Press). Music in Cyprus (2015, Taylor & Francis), again, switches between the two in a context-dependent manner. These are some of the best books to come out on Cyprus recently in their respective fields, and I would say that there is overall a palpable shift. --GGT (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
No one has doubted that the perception of Cyprus depends on the authors themselves. For example, it is no secret that the sources by Greek authors tend to consider the country of Cyprus as being synonymous to the island of Cyprus while Turkish authors, such as Ekici and Mete Hatay, treating the island of Cyprus separately from the country Cyprus. After all, the authors are influenced by the respective views in their countries, whereas in Greece (and the international community) Cyprus is viewed as a country island being victim of invasion and occupation by a neighboring country in response to undemocratic actions of another country, while in Turkey they do not even acknowledge that there is division and occupation on the island (with the mere exception of Turkish leftists, academics, scholars and even oscar-winning intellectuals ofc, who in the last decades distanced themselves from the government's propaganda and acknowledged that there is indeed an invasion and occupation). In the Turkish consciousness, the Cyprus Question has already been resolved in 1974 and two states on the island, a view not supported by the international community. For obvious reasons, I wouldn't rely on sources by Greek or Turkish authors to make a point here, because their perceptions aren't exactly independent, are often influenced by their national narratives. I would rather see what the majority of the third-party sources (by non-Greek and non-Turkish authors) do on this matter. Like I and TU-nor have said above, there is no substantial change in the use of the term Cyprus for the island country from 2014 to 2022 that would justify the RM. Sure, sources treating the island synonymously with the state, or separately, have always existed. But it is indisputable that the Republic of Cyprus remains the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term 'Cyprus'. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from, but I find it unacceptable to disregard works by Greek/Turkish/Cypriot authors merely on the basis of ethnicity. We would certainly not follow such an approach with any other country. It's an ad hominem argument that may have had some truth to it in the lobbyist-driven world of the 1990s, but in the last two decades, some of the most definitive works on Cyprus have been published by authors of Greek/Turkish/Cypriot origin. I'm very careful when it comes to which works I cite as I'm aware of the pitfalls you described (note how I'm avoiding Stella Soulioti or Sabahattin İsmail!), these are well-reviewed works published in top-notch academic presses; if arguing against their use, one must at least cite a negative review. I cannot prima facie accept that Ekici, Hatay or Sepsos have been influenced by their respective national narrative - their work has the intellectual depth to suggest they have overcome this. On the contrary, some of the most egregiously biased work on Cyprus has been produced by people nominally ethnically unaffiliated (one only needs to glance at Gibbons' The Genocide Files). At any rate, we're looking at usage in English-language reliable sources, and these sources suggest a shift in the English-language use. I don't see how merely asserting that something is "indisputable" provides evidence that it is the case, though. Dr.K.'s 2012 evidence is the only data that could be reasonably argued to support this, I've explained why I find it inadequate. The core of my argument is to say that any WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument is pretty much impossible to prove anyway, mine is a WP:PRECISION and WP:WIAN-based argument: I find the current title ambiguous and frankly a nuisance when I'm writing about Cyprus, the title needs to be WP:PRECISE. --GGT (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry to see the wp:primarytopic's name is causing inconveniences to you. Yes, WP:PRECISE is a policy I am familiar with, due to my recent participation in several other page moves, but, since you brought WP:PRECISE here, I would like to highlight what this policy does state (I am copy pasting it here for everybody's convenience): "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. On the other hand, Horowitz would not be precise enough to identify unambiguously the famous classical pianist Vladimir Horowitz. Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles. (emphasis in bold) and, as you see, GGT, the sentence I am emphasizing is about 1) Primary Topics and 2) Geographic names, both of which already are in compliance with Wikipedia's naming guidelines.
1) Primary topics: It is understandable that the primary topic, "Cyprus" is ambiguous and a nuisance to you considering that the island, for you is a place where more than one entities exist: Cyprus and the breakaway Northern Cyprus. But even in this case, (and pretending that Northern Cyprus is internationally recognized as a state) you can see that how things are done here is no different than how things were done for other internationally recognized entities, be it independent ones: Sudan and South Sudan, or administered regions of other entities: California (a state in the United States of America) and Baja California (a state in the United Mexican States). I understand your inconvenience but when you are writing about Cyprus but mean something other than the primary topic (the republic), then you can word your sentences accordingly to give them more clarity and reflect on that reality: i.e. "Geography of Cyprus" when referring to its geography, or "Northern Cyprus" when referring to the northern part of the island, just like how everyone already does and there isn't any problem with that.
2) the geographical article of Cyprus is already precisely titled: Geography of Cyprus and follows consistently the Wikipedia's standard practices and naming guidelines about geographical articles just like how it was done about every other article in this area: Geography of Turkey, Geography of Greece, Geography of Malta, Geography of Israel and so on.
So far, the sources confirmed that Cyprus is not just a name (and mind you, not a whatever name, is the name of a whole country we are talking about there), but also wp:commonname and wp:primarytopic, is consistent with the standard practices in the Wikipedia project, and is policy-compliant with the project's naming guidelines. Perhaps if things change in the future, we can look at it again. But right now, I personally do not see a valid reason to support the RM. By the way, since the name Cyprus is causing inconveniences to you, then perhaps you can see how things were done elsewhere. I.e. if you see my edit contributions, I have been editing articles that too were (albeit not anymore) prone to cases of semiological confusion, such as the case of the Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia, where the careful wording allowed for the plain name Macedonia to be used for the state even though this would otherwise cause semiological confusion with the region of Macedonia or other entities with the same name, such as the Kingdom of Macedonia, or the historical Greek province of same name. Just it is upon us the editors to accomplish that. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 10:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I would like to add that posting individual sources that draw a distinction between "Cyprus" and "republic of Cyprus" proves nothing and is a form of WP:CHERRYPICKING. I could just as easily do the opposite ((e.g. [17], [18], [19]). Of course, books that focus on the dispute will naturally distinguish between the two, but that is a special case (Ker-Lindsay's book is from 2011 by the way and predates the 2014 discussion - it it not "new information" by any stretch). However, any source whose focus is the country of Cyprus will naturally refer to it as simply "Cyprus". Khirurg (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Khestwol: sorry but this "per the Ireland" argument doesn't stand, both statistically and in sources which confirm that Cyprus's case is closer to Malta's case than to Ireland's, both in terms of notability and geography, with the majority of the sources and the available statistics confirming that Cyprus is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME and enjoys far more WP:NOTABILITY than Geography of Cyprus ever did, something reflected even in Wikipedic terms of content (200kb vs 16KB) and visits (5.410 vs 81 visits; recent peak times). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment: The RM goes not only against the vast majority of the sources and the Google trends (see Google Trends) which confirm that Cyprus is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the WP:COMMONNAME here, but also against these aforementioned Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, besides ignoring the Wikipedia Project's statistics (see: Wikipedia statistics) which confirm that the article Cyprus with its 200kb of data and the 5.410 visits recently (peak times) if far more notable and primary than the article Geography of Cyprus (about the island) which not only lacks content (only 16KB of data) but also does not interest the visitors as much (peaked only 81 visits). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    Huh? The article on the geography of Cyprus isn't really about the island at the moment. It only addresses its geography. As it stands, we don't have an article on the island; if we had one, it would need to be about more than its geography, as per Ireland. Using pageviews is a circular argument - people searching for the island will also search for the term Cyprus and end up in this article. This sort of argument would only be valid if "Cyprus" was a disambiguation page, with two articles named "Cyprus (island)" and "Republic of Cyprus". The Google Trends data is also meaningless - these two are the same search term and Google automatically comes up with the "country in the Middle East" definition when you search for Cyprus. I tried specifically to search for "Cyprus (island)" but I haven't been able to. I don't know how people manage to search for that one but presumably you'd need to go out of your way. --GGT (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Dismissing the data and evidence the others provided, without presenting any evidence on your own to back your own positions or to counter theirs, isn't helpful. Wikipedia reflects on sources and facts, not on personal opinions. You argued that you are seeking info about the island, but what exactly is there to seek that isn't covered in the articles Cyprus and Geography of Cyprus? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@SilentResident: perhaps it's because people are visiting Cyprus to see the country's history (predating 60s), rather than seeking information about Republic of Cyprus. Beshogur (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Cyprus is successor state of British Cyprus; the history of the country prior to 60s still belongs there, not on a separate article, I am afraid. The current Cypriot state is officially the successor of British Cyprus which gained its independence from the United Kingdom. If I were you, I wouldn't go down the road as to make such WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims that the history of the country doesn't belong here in the article about that country. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I already voted once but I'm going to comment a second time to endorse GGT's support vote and to reply to the oppose voters. Regarding "PRIMARYTOPIC" - if the political situation in Cyprus resolves with the Republic of Cyprus rejecting claim to the territory of Northern Cyprus, would you then say that "Cyprus" does not refer to Northern Cyprus? Of course not. The primary topic is the island, not the republic. Regarding COMMONNAME - yes, we use short names of countries when they are non-controversial. You may disagree with me on the primary topic, but you cannot disagree that this is controverisal. When names are controversial, we tend to use the longest common name. Both Ireland and Macedonia are precedents here. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@力:, this is really unfortunate of your part to say. Your statement "Regarding COMMONNAME - yes, we use short names of countries when they are non-controversial" sounds like an attempt to challenge how the country is known to the world, which is no different than what the official Turkish government propaganda that there is no Cyprus except the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Turkey's view that there is no country called Cyprus is not shared by the international community and the rest of the UN's 200+ members. Wikipedia reflects majority views, not minority views, and was careful to avoid giving a light of legitimacy to Turkey's propaganda against Cyprus until this problematic RM came. You argued that "Both Ireland and Macedonia are precedents here" but I am afraid this wrong and red herring as well, since Ireland and Macedonia were internationally recognized states that shared names with, again, internationally recognized entities that were part of other countries (North Ireland in the UK and Macedonia in Greece) while in Cyprus's case the republic of Cyprus is the only internationally recognized entity on the island and it was always known as Cyprus. The breakaway state is unrecognized by anyone except its creator, Turkey. To hear an experienced author claiming that Cyprus's name is controversial, is really unfortunate, considering that no one ever has challenged the country's name besides the Turkish government (which however didn't just challenge just the country's name, it denies the state's existence all together). A view that no third parties, not even the scholars and experts on the Cyprus question do share, at all. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
only internationally recognized entity on the island so UK is not recognized on the island? And if we were going to apply what everything UN said, we should use DPR Korea, instead of North Korea. We're not disputing name of Cyprus, Cyprus is currently divided into three, and Cyprus may refer to the history and geography of the island rather than Republic of Cyprus. Beshogur (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Like how many times we have repeated: Military bases do NOT count. Had we gone down with this problematic logic of yours, then Cuba shouldnt be called by its wp:commonname now, and a separate article should about the island of Cuba because... of the American base there (and mind you, it is also disputed territory)! Sorry but such flawed logics where editors point to disputed territories or military bases to make a point against a country's name, is frown upon and have no place here. Wikipedia relies on WP:VERIFIABILITY and I have yet to find any evidence by any editors here to back their claims that "Cyprus" shouldn't be Cyprus's name. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
by using CAPS, I don't get convinced. You can not compare Guantanamo with legally UK territory on the island. Also my proposal includes moving to Cyprus (country). Republic of Cyprus is my second choice. Beshogur (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Ofc whether a base is legitimate or not is not relevant, it is still a territory not controlled by the authorities of the country. The reason I noted the base's legitimacy in parenthesis ( ) in my above comment was to highlight how territorial disputes or foreign-controlled territories precisely do not affect common names or primary topics) Correct me if I am wrong but I looked around and I wouldn't any precedence in Wikipedia where a military base's presence (in Cyprus's case, the UK military bases of Akrotiri and Dekhelia) is a reason for challenging the country's common name which is Cyprus. Nor is the occupation of that country by another country, Turkey. Editorial arguments in a RM, pointing to issues of sovereignty, history, or even the presence of military bases are not helpful when discussing about a country's common name or primary topic. WP:VERIFIABILITY is a core pillar of Wikipedia. Any changes to the article title about a country ought to reflect on the sources and facts and be compliant with the criteria set by the Wikipedia's naming guidelines, not on such arguments. Edit: Re-reading my above comments, I realized I haven't addressed a question of yours: In our earlier comments, you partially quoted me: "only internationally recognized entity on the island", but the quote is missing the most crucial part: "and it was always known as Cyprus". I am referring to the fact of Cyprus not just being the only internationally-recognized entity bearing that name on the island, but also its name not being disputed before. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:01, 5 January 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.

Anatolian

Cyprus is not part of the Anatolian peninsula as Anatolia is turkey not Cyprus, Cyprus is in the levant region in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. 77.102.113.146 (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

History

Was it colony of many empire 27.34.16.38 (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian Language in Cyprus

A big plus for Russian-speaking tourists in Cyprus is the fact that they do not need to know Greek, Turkish and even English to feel comfortable on the island.

Russian is another very common language in Cyprus. And every year its popularity on the island dramatically grows.

Why Russian? On the one hand, because of tens of thousands of tourists from Russia, Belarus and Ukraine who arrive in Cyprus every year. On the other hand, because of the massive migration of Russian-speaking people to the island, the Cypriots began to study the Russian language.

In addition, there is a large Russian-speaking diaspora in Cyprus, whose members do business on the island and raise their children. According to various estimates, the Russian-speaking population of Cyprus is about 50 thousand people. Most of them prefer to settle in Limassol, wh ere they breathe easily, and life is also safe and calm.

This city deservedly bears the title of the "Russian capital of Cyprus". It is comfortable to relax and live in, if you don’t know foreign languages, almost everything is adapted for Russian speakers: café, entertainment and hotel staff speak Russian, menus and price list, newspapers and magazines are in Russian, as well as signs on stores, offices, souvenir kiosks. 82.102.65.167 (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Cyprus official position

An editor has added Cyprus to a list of countries that are violating international law by supporting Morocco's autonomy plan on Western Sahara. Since the sources used are all Moroccan and given their history of twisting peoples' words when it comes to Western Sahara, I was wondering if anyone can check whether Ioannis Kasoulidis (who held the Presidency of the ad hoc Committee for Human Rights in Western Sahara) actually said what is attributed to him or whether they are simply distorting what he supposedly said about "supporting Morocco's integrity" (a hollow statement that has nothing to do with their occupation of Western Sahara). Normally, given his position, I would expect such a controversial view (if true) to be widely shared, especially in his country. Any help or comments on the article's talk page would be highly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Cyprus is orthodox

Cyprus is orthodox not christian Ruihis (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

And you don't consider the Eastern Orthodox Church to be Christian? Dimadick (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Introduction

Voice concern 117.215.234.198 (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022

195.25.61.43 (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Cyprus is not in western asia is in Europe

 Not done - the article clearly states "is an island country in the eastern Mediterranean Sea" - it is also part of the European Economic Community. The sentence on continentality is correct, however, as it is nearest Turkey, which is part of Western Asia. - Arjayay (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

"Ὀφίουσα" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ὀφίουσα and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 30#Ὀφίουσα until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay 💬 18:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Eurozone

The map in the "Eurozone" section should be adjusted that Croatia uses € when the date is 01/01/23! 46.34.243.223 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Work to be done

This version of the article is around 20 kB longer than the featured article on Germany. It's clear that this article needs a big trim in certain places, and an entire rewrite with proper academic/up-to-date sources in other places. I'll try to work my way through it. GGT (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Unclear map

The map at "Administrative divisions" is poorly explained. Firstly, there are several colours on the map that are not named, and whose meaning is not made clear. Secondly, the highly important question of which parts on the map are Greek-administered and which Turkey-administered is not even mentioned. 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:615D:FC0C:E74A:AED4 (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Cypriot Republic

Surely the country's name in Greek, Κυπριακή δημοκρατία, translates as "Cypriot Republic", not Republic of Cyprus. Artcyprus (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Artcyprus: This is the English name. Beshogur (talk) 09:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

As English is not an official language of Cyprus, the English name, as you put it, does not seem relevant.

My point is if you translate both the Greek and Turkish names, which are in the official languages, it is Cypriot Republic, not Republic of Cyprus.

So, as the English translation appears to be wrong, should we not correct it so it tallies with the two official language names of Cyprus? Artcyprus (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Artcyprus: The Turkish name translated into the Republic of Cyprus as well. Also countries do use English in diplomacy, like Cypriot MFA uses the Republic of Cyprus. It doesn't need a direct translation from Greek, even if English isn't an official language. Beshogur (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Beshogur. And to not mention that per Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME guidelines, it is Republic of Cyprus, not Cypriot Republic. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Because this is the ENGLISH Wiki, the English name is overwhelmingly "relevant." HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Open Questions

Why is the war of independence against the British labeled "nationalist violence in the 1950s" in this article? This seems kind of ridiculous. Even the article linked to recognizes it as a war for independence.

It appears you only have one question, not "questions." Also, sign your posts with four tildas. It was nationalism that brought about the war in the first place. Note the inline citations in the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

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) 14:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Political parties

Since 2015 E.L.A.M is the 4rth largest political party in the island .. why you havent mention it ? 31.153.85.31 (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyprus/Archive_9&oldid=1255246445"