Talk:Cyprus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cyprus article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Cyprus is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
December 15, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Archive
Archives

Archives:


Contents

[edit] Bewildering IMF Results

The new date for April 2008 concerning Cyprus showed a GDP PPP projection of 38.535 billion and a GDP PPP per capita of 48,990.660! Either this is due to the conversion of the EURO bringing in fact a massive increase in purchasing power or the data are simply flawed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.32.101 (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change of President

I have changed the president of the Republic to Dimitris Christofias according to the election results with 53.5% of the vote. User:Whitemagick 16:12, 24 February 2008

[edit] Different "Military" Image Required

Under the "Military" section, please can someone replace the image of a US marine helicopter (captioned oddly "The US embassy in Cyprus") with something more directly related to the Cyprus National Guard? Occamy 14:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southwestern Asia

Can someone please clean up for me the confusion between Southwest Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Central Eurasia, all of which regions seem to include Cyprus. Is one or both of these articles incorrect? Or are all these areas overlapping? Or is it something else? Thanks Vizjim 08:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus culturally belongs to Europe, geographically it's south-eastern Europe or western Asia, any of the two. But politically and generally, Cyprus is the southeastern border of Europe.Nikosextra 12:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I am new at this, so please forgive me if I don't enter my comments in the correct way. After reading various iterations of this article, I still question the term "styling itself". Why not use the simpler phrase "calling itself"? "Styling itself" carries POV connotations that are not necessary. There is nothing gained by hinting that the TRNC government is playing at pretense or dressing itself up. If "calling itself" is too weak, then further clarification can be added without using loaded terminolgy. I could suggest "calling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (although recognized by no nation other than the Republic of Turkey)." Saraalan 01:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Given no replies, I made the change and removed the loaded terminology. Saraalan 04:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section cleanup

In reference to the responses I have been receiving after tagging this section for cleanup, my rationale is quite simple. In addition to the overall cleanup temp at the top of the page, this section has no sub-headings and really, to be honest, needs some smaller text in bolder referring to the next paragraph. At the moment, the section looks like an essay and is really quite simple to fix by the people who do actually know what they're talking about. And seen as I don't know much about post-war independence in Cyprus, I'd appreciate someone who does to add further sub-headings. You can do so by adding ====Sub-section heading====. Also one more thing this section would also benefit from sub-section headings. Thanks. Onnaghar tl ! co 15:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 13 amendments and subsequent intercommunal violence

Stylistic editing of this section has been the most difficult so far. The timeline of the previous version had the 4 March 1964 Security Council resolution sending the peacekeeping force, followed by other factors that precipitated the 4 March 1964 Security resolution sending the peacekeeping force, so I tried to straighten that out. Please let me know of any issues or problems with my editing. Thanks. Saraalan 01:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what happened between 1965 and 1974? Thanks, Saraalan 02:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel phrase alert

Some smart ass had written the following in the beginning of the second paragraph of the main article: "Greek military junta and genocide against Turkish Cypriots of that period,". The claim that Greeks committed a genocide against the Turks is ludicrous, to say the least, and I will not even go into who has committed what genocides over the past aeon. In short, I removed the offending text so it reads "Greek military junta".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.4.62 (talk • contribs)

It looks like a simple case of vandalism by User:Aslanerh, who has no other edits. Thanks for reverting. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 23:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Invasion (1974)

This section of the Cyprus article includes the phrase, "In the process over 160,000 Greek Cypriots who made up the overwhelming majority of the population of these areas were ethnically cleansed." The term "ethnically cleansed" is unclear, as is the fate of the 160,000 persons. The Sunday Times article referenced discusses mass killings (as well as the torture and rape) of Greek Cypriots and says that 170,000 persons became refugees, unable to return to their homes in the north.

Given this, I would prefer to say something like, "In the process, large numbers of Greek Cypriots were victims of mass killings, and 170,000 were evicted from their homes and forced to move to Greek Cypriot-held territory."

If "were victims of mass killings" is too strong or considered unsupported, then perhaps "lost their lives".

This proposed change is an attempt to clarify and not to change content. Please let me know if you have any issues with this proposed change. Thanks, Saraalan 03:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Given no response, I have made the change as outlined. Saraalan 02:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction issue

The fourth paragraph sort of makes it sound like the U.K. bases are not de jure, while the bullet says the U.K. maintained jurisdiction, which would seem to be de jure. I'm not sure how that could be fixed without some clumsy language, but I may be able to come up with something. If you have thoughts regarding this, please let me know. Thanks, Saraalan 04:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Change made with minor change to the wording. Please let me know if you don't think this is satisfactory. Thanks, Saraalan 16:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gini Coefficient

After a lot of search I have finally found the Gini Coefficient for Cyprus. It stood at 29 at 2004 which is very good since the optimum is considered to be 25 (?) Please add it.

Link: http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/3FF386B73F87AF46C22572F00028C49D/$file/EUSILC_05.pdf?OpenElement (In greek) User:WhiteMagick 11:40 16 Oct 2007 (GMT)

I started to do that, but decided to leave it to someone who is more invested in this article than I am. I don't think that this info belongs in the Economy section unless it is mentioned in that WP:SS article, and the info may not fit in there. Outside of that section, I didn't see a natural home for the info in this article. Incidentally, my understanding is that it is "gini index" when expressed as a percentage. -- Boracay Bill 11:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think is a valid enough resource for the Gini coefficient for Cyprus, which stands at 29. http://www.poverty.org.uk/L14/a.pdf User:WhiteMagick 01:09 14 April 2008 (GMT)

[edit] English language in Cyprus

The article states that the English language is widely spoken & understood all over Cyprus, exactly to which extent is it spread (ie - are textbooks in schools in the English language) and is there any chance in the future that it may be adopted as a third official language? - Soprani 09:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Textbooks, no, but quite a few government documents, work contracts from most large companies, street signs, labels in supermarkets and fourni, etc, all are in both Greek and English. There are two English-language newspapers and numerous English-language magazines. There's also a very large population of British ex-pats who have only the most rudimentary command of Greek, and the workers from Eastern Europe and the Indian sub-continent usually communicate with their employers in English. Although, given that my Greek is still awful, I'd like to see English established as a third language thus recognising the de facto situation on the ground, I very much doubt it will ever happen (unless there's a two-state solution and Turkish stops being the second official language). Vizjim 03:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Somebody placed English as an official language which is wrong. I will remove it by tomorrow! User:WhiteMagick 00:20 27 February 2008
  • I think english language is established as an official language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.101.218 (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It is not an official language in the constitution of the Republic. User:WhiteMagick 01:08 14 April 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Cyprus

The article states "Cyprus is the only country to display its land area on its flag". Christmas Island is another country to do so. (The flag of Antarctica also displays its land area, but Antarctica is in no snse a country.) Maproom 21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Christmas Island is a territory of Australia and not a country. That may still leave some ambiguity. In the article, I linked the term "country" to the Wikipedia entry defining it. Do you still think this is too unclear? Maybe the statement isn't really useful? Thanks, Saraalan 00:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you are right, Christmas Island is not a country. I was misled by its having a domain code. Maproom 09:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been wondering (not only about the flag of Cyprus, but also about country flags in general): what is on the back of Cyprus' flag? Is it plain white, or the same design in reverse, or what? (I ask because some countries' flags have an abstract pattern, which then gets shown in reverse on the back, like the US flag, while other countries with a pictorial design, like Albania's symmetrical design, can be shown in reverse on the back without any problem. But when the design is 'pictorial' (not an abstract pattern) and not symmetrical -- what is the default for the back of the flag?) Wikiway (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The back of the flag is the same as the front of the flag - otherwise in the wind it would look kinda funny don't you think? :) As for being the only country - well that's a tricky one. Kosovo, albeit not yet recognized by the UN tho recognized by quite a few different countries not including the Republic of Cyprus, has its map on the flag as well. In fact, this is mentioned over at the Kosovo article. --Ubardak (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction location issue

Given the changes over time to the introductory wording about location, I have attempted to clarify the location of Cyprus in a manner similar to other island country articles (see Malta and Jamaica) and tie the opener to the geography section of the article as well as to the Geography of Cyprus article. Looking at a map, Cyprus is in the corner of the Mediterranean surrounded by Turkey, Syria, and Lebanon, so I think those would be the best reference points. Please let me know if you see any problem with the wording. Thanks, Saraalan 01:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. I considered using the phrase "geographically part of the Middle East while politically more a part of Europe", but I decided to use "European Union" instead. I'm interested in what others think about this. Thanks, Saraalan 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, I see little sense in cluttering up the opening paragraph with these details when there's a map next door, but clearly given the political history it would be more tendentious to give only Turkey as a reference point. Therefore, I will support your wording. Vizjim 12:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the entry on Malta, it seems that such triangulating countries is indeed standard. Vizjim 12:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, though shouldn't it be "geographically part of Asia"? The Middle East is more a cultural/historical/political than a geographic entity. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've fudged it to "Eurasia". Europe isn't technically a separate continent, but to describe Cyprus as Asian would seem ludicrous: hopefully anyone following the link will be able to discern that this is one of those odd cases that fall through the faultlines of Europe (political entity), Asia (political entity) and Eurasia (continent). Vizjim 14:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it works. What does everyone else think? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted this verbosity. Fudging and unsourced opinionating aside, recent edits have merely added unnecessary, redundant, even misleading details and have the potential of further politicising the introduction. Debatably, Cyprus isn't part of the Middle East (see that article); as well, some sources identify Cyprus as part of Europe (which is commonly reckoned as a continent, technically or otherwise), perhaps because Cyprus is a member of the EU (which, with the prior edit, is now duplicated in the introduction.) Physiographically, not geographically (which is rather general), Cyprus is part of Asia. Is it truly difficult to grasp or note that Cyprus is closest to Turkey (per Geography of Cyprus et al.), without throwing in the kitchen sink as is proposed? If extreme brevity is warranted remove that notation, retaining that it is in the eastern Mediterranean. Note that my changes have been minor; however, others have not been and seem not to be an improvement and therefore, require a lot more consensus than has been demonstrated so far. Before reverting again to a "factually correct" -- and fallacious -- version, please provide evidence to justify why. Corticopia 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia, three editors have expressed one opinion and as yet you are the single voice arguing against them. Not sure you're in a good position to lecture on consensus. There is one, and so far it's not in your favour. Vizjim 20:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you even read or address the comments above, or do you blindly persist in supporting substandard original text for the hell of it? Anyhow, I shall return thrice every day until something more agreeable materialises ... and, no, the above is not it. Corticopia 20:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am rather sorry to have played a part in precipitating such a firestorm. To be honest, my intention upon returning this evening was to try to be accomodating to Corticopia, taking to heart his(her?) initial response to my comments yesterday. I especially considered his counsel regarding assuaging the editors and respecting political realities. But his later comments appear to belie such motivations, and a threat to revert three times a day until he gets his way is highly questionable. I certainly wouldn't expect that my opinion should govern, and I would guess that no one should within Wikipedia.

One thing -- I fail to see what is "fallacious" about what is written in the opening at this point. The word "Eurasia" is back in, and "Middle East" is out, which means that the "Geography of Cyprus" article will have to be changed. I'll try to get to that tomorrow (if anyone has suggestions, please go to it). I don't think I can be objectively helpful this evening. Also tomorrow I will try to digest the numerous changes entered by Diego -- some of which appear helpful but others not so much, and some even appearing to be random additions or subtractions of links. Thanks, Saraalan 03:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I do apologise for the brusque attitude, but I see little evidence of a ground-swell of consensus for the edition discussed above. For those who invoke consensus (erroneously) regarding the proposed lead, please re-read that policy: a long-standing version, by virtue of its longevity, has more legitimacy as consensual than a concoction among few editors that hasn't even lasted a day.
So, why is the current lead 'fallacious'? It is definitely wordy; let's dissect:
  • 'geographically part of Eurasia': This is a tautology since, 'geographically', it cannot be anything but Eurasian. The prior edition also indicated this but with more economy. Within the field of geography there are two major subsets: physical geography and human geography. Precisely, physiographically, it is Asian (in Western Asia), due to its proximity to Turkey; regarding the latter ...
  • 'Politically part of the European Union': no argument but, in juxtaposition with the prior sentence, it is arguably also Asian, European, and or Eurasian from a geopolitical perspective: it is a member of quite a few bodies, 'European' (e.g., Council of Europe, Commonwealth of Nations) or not (e.g., Non-Aligned Movement, World Trade Organization). As well, redundant notation in the introduction of it being in the EU is arguably partial to that perspective.
  • details regarding location and numerous approximate territories: superfluous, given their iteration in the subsection and subarticle: for instance, the CIA Factbook only notes that it is "south of Turkey", without listing other territories ad nauseum, as does the concise entry in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Why not list Israel, Egypt, Greece, and Libya too?
So, read the introduction and ask yourself: is it something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia? I feel the version discussed above is not and wordy for not what, whereas the long-standing, concise, preceding version is closer to that and consistent with summary style.
It is ironic that certain editors invoke brevity herein, only to exhibit the opposite. So, again, please justify whythe introduction and subarticle must be changed as proposed? Corticopia 14:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It is becoming hard to assume good faith here, particularly given Corticopia's "brusque" attitude and attempts to bully others into accepting his point of view. He is trying to overturn a style of introduction that, as Saraalan has indicated, is in operation on other articles for island nations (which argument, incidentally, was enough to change my opinion from my original preference for brevity). He is trying to do this against the opinion of every other editor who has so far voiced an opinion. On both definitions of consensus, Corticopia is acting against it.
To tackle those long-winded points in turn:
  • "'geographically', it cannot be anything but Eurasian" - well, it could be African, as is a part of the Eastern Med.
Let me rephrase: saying it is geographically Eurasian implies that it is something else in some other respect. The long-standing edition indicates this very simply. Corticopia 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I genuinely don't understand Corticopia's second point. European Union membership is far more important than the other bodies you mention from virtually any standpoint, affecting laws, alliances, economy, trade, borders, etc.
I genuinely don't understand yours: I see redundant mentions of it being in the EU (and de jurede facto the TRNC is not), but none indicating upfront that the island is of or approximate to Asia -- that's arguably imbalanced editing. Corticopia 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
De jure there is no TRNC and the whole Republic is in the EU Quote: "The whole of the island is considered to be part of the EU. However, in the northern part of the island, in the areas in which the Government of Cyprus does not exercise effective control, EU legislation is suspended" Notice there is no mention of TRNC 3meandEr 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What the CIA Factbook does is not germane to Wikipedia house style. As previously noted, the consensus across United Kingdom, Malta, Jamaica and others is to give multiple points of reference.
You use the term 'consensus' very liberally, and I wonder whether you actually know what it means. You compare with other Wikipedia articles -- which of those articles are featured? -- while I compare with other reliable, authoritative sources to demonstrate the advantage of being concise as before. Corticopia 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I am using the word in the sense of WP:CON, which I re-read after you pointed me to it, and which reinforces the importance of established practice across multiple articles. Again, I urge you to read WP:CIVIL (for the first time?) before questioning other users' understanding of basic English and/or basic WP policies. Vizjim 12:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the justification for describing Cyprus's position solely in reference to Turkey is non-existent and against both standard practice and the consensus among editors on this page. I hope that all editors will try to achieve a consensus for change here on the talk page rather than resorting to a tedious edit war. Vizjim 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
So, you say it is hard to assume good faith. Droning aside, doubly so: you obviously didn't seem to have difficulty with the simpler version six months ago, so who knows -- or cares -- what your motives are. In any event, given your precipitous commentary, I may comment hereafter when others decide to weigh in. Corticopia 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
As already explained, my opinion has changed as per the good argument of Saraalan and the consensus elsewhere in Wikipedia. I know that you have a problem with the idea of changing your opinion, but not everyone is as inflexible! (joke). Vizjim 11:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
As regards the specific question "Which of those are featured articles?": Hong Kong, Isle of Portland and Japan are former featured articles on islands, all of which use a similar triangulating method of describing location with reference to multiple surrounding points. United Kingdom is a good article [1]. Vizjim 12:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
While I still maintain that this point in the introduction is longer than it needs to be, the current edition seems an agreeable compromise: it's still rather concise, without redundantly listing a litany of territories to satisfy various editorial viewpoints. I also corrected the figure, per Geography of Cyprus, indicating the distance to the Asian mainland (75 km from Turkey). Shall we consider this issue resolved? Corticopia 09:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corticopia "minor"

Corticopia - could you please stop marking edits to disputed areas as "minor"? That function is meant to enable people to filter out unimportant and uncontentious grammar or spelling tweaks. Given the length of the discussion above, it's clear that almost any change to the opening paragraph will be considered contentious. Also, changing the facts on the page (for instance the change from East to east-south-east) would normally not be considered as minor. It's a pain for other users, who would as a matter of course ignore minor edits. Vizjim 09:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

These are minor edits, your hyper-reaction makes them major. So I will edit and tag at my discretion, thank you. Corticopia 09:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
"A check to the "minor edit" box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the version with your edit and the previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." From How to edit a page. It's sort of the way things work here. ;) Another way that things work is to not use inflammatory langauge like "hyper-reaction". Please consider your words more carefully in future. Vizjim 09:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
They are superficial: if you think these edits differ significantly from what is being discussed, that is not my problem. And I always consider my words carefully, and I stand by them: your response to a statement of hyper-reaction is with, well, another hyper-reactive, condescending statement. So, you should also consider your words more carefully. Now I am ending this ... thread. Corticopia 10:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You are modifying content: the policy clearly states that this is not minor. Please try to work with other editors: if somebody has indicated that your choosing to tick the "minor" box is inconvenient, why persist in ticking it? Vizjim 10:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This is debatable: since this content is elsewhere in the article, tweaking or removing unimportant, redundant content in the introduction is anything but major ... particularly given the prior consensual state. No comment regarding other comments. Corticopia 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Certainly it will form part of the discussion at the complaint against you (here): no sense in pursuing this any further on this page. Vizjim 11:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map / contradiction

The map of Cyprus in the infobox shows all of the areas claimed by the Republic of Cyprus (including the areas controlled by the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus), but the map of PRC shown in the infobox at PRC only includes the areas controlled by the PRC (the areas claimed by the PRC but controlled by the ROC are left out). This seems inconsistent. (Stefan2 (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC))

Cyprus is internationally recognized as the country of the entire island. Not what it de facto is. It's not claiming anything, unlike China. El Greco(talk) 16:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the situation is similar, the island of Taiwan and other ROC controlled territories are considered by the international community as part of the PRC, although in reality it isn't.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  07:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a significant division of opinion on the ROC & PRC, with quite a few countries recognizing the former. There is no such debate over the TRNC, where only the occupying power recognizes the state it created. In a speech given earlier this month, the TRNC president repeated his position that the UDI could easily be reversed, which reinforcesd the perception that this is just a bargaining tool (albeit one that looks to have backfired badly, in my opinion, as opinions in favour of partition continue to harden in the South and in other European nations). Vizjim (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
True, but aren't we talking about lines of actual control. (btw...my position is that we should maintain the status quo aka the current map).  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  09:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and Education sections

I have added some citation requests in the religion section, mostly because I am interested in seeing that data. I have added some general warnings in the education section because of things such as:

  • "The high quality of instruction can be attributed to a large extent to the above-average competence of the teachers"
  • "State schools are generally seen as equivalent in quality of education to private sector institutions."
  • "The government is trying to eliminate this problem but this seems impossible at its current state."

which surely constitute original research or subjective claims. Also, mentions of the need for private tuition in the case of public school students could really use some evidence, despite the fact that it is well-known to Cypriots. In fact, the whole Education section could do with a re-write. AstarothCY (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ottoman history section

The Ottoman history section is strongly biased against Cyprus' Ottoman rule period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.175.51.146 (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction in intro

The Republic of Cyprus, the internationally recognized state, has de jure sovereignty over 97% of the island of Cyprus and all surrounding waters, and the United Kingdom controls the remaining three percent. The island is de facto partitioned into four main parts:[1]
* the area under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus in the south of the island;
* the Turkish occupied area in the north[2], calling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognized only by Turkey);
* the United Nations-controlled Green Line, separating the two; and
* two Sovereign Base Areas (Akrotiri and Dhekelia), over which the United Kingdom retained jurisdiction after Cypriot independence.[3]

I think this text needs reworking. First it says the island is de jure split in two, between Cyprus and the UK. But then it says the UK part is a de facto separation. It's either one or the other.

I humbly propose:

The Republic of Cyprus, the internationally recognized state, has de jure sovereignty over 97% of the island of Cyprus and all surrounding waters, and the United Kingdom controls the remaining three percent. The territory under the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus is de facto partitioned into three main parts:[4]
* the area under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus in the south of the island;
* the Turkish occupied area in the north[5], calling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognized only by Turkey); and
* the United Nations-controlled Green Line, separating the two.

☆ CieloEstrellado 09:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is no contradiction. de facto means something like 'in practice'. Which is true, because the island is divided in practice like the article states now. On the other hand, the text you propose reads a lot easier, so I'm in favour. Van der Hoorn (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but "in practice" (hehehe) de facto is used in contrast to de jure. You cannot, or shouldn't, attribute both terms to the same thing. This is why I say it's a contradiction. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No mention of the Sovreign Bases in the proposed intro? El Greco(talk) 22:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music section rewrite

This section seems to be irrelevant and uninformative. I also suspect that some people may be using it as "advertising space". The section should mention relevant things, such as what traditional Cyprus music is like, how it relates to the culture, what sort of music is popular on the island today and only mention very few names of very important artists. The main Music article should elaborate on details and can list more artists, but notability standards should be maintained. AstarothCY (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section, please help improve it and add citations. Also someone should add the Turkish Cypriot aspect of it as I am unfamiliar with it. Please refrain from adding any more artist names unless necessary, for the reasons mentioned above. Also, I know I have missed out a couple of genres so please add them. AstarothCY (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spam edits from MyCyprusWeb

This has been going on for long enough. What can be done to end this ridiculous situation? AstarothCY (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1974: Invasion or Intervention

Recently IP 86.143.172.123 has changed the state of the article in a way that it uses the term intervention rather than invasion. I am wondering, if that makes the article more or less POV. Tomeasy (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia facts about "Communism" in Cyprus

The fact that Cyprus is the only country with a communist president in the EU shouldn't be in the first paragraph. It's just a trivia fact and not so important to be included in the begining of the article, if you still want it in the page then you could put it somewhere else maybe at the politics of the country. Cyprus having a communist leader doesn't mean that it's like USSR or China or all the other communist countries. I never herd of anyone getting food with coupons and also as far as I know I still own my house and have all my bank accounts and Cyprus always and even now has capitalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankateif (talk • contribs) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ankateif. I agree with you that this piece of information was misplaced in the lead of the article. About trivia sections you might be interested in taking a look on WP: trivia section.
You made many statements to what Cyprus is not and to which I certainly agree. However, the piece that we are talking about did not make such claims. Therefore, let me recall what the article stated before you removed it.
Cyprus is, at present, one of only two countries in the world to have a democratically elected communist government (the other being Moldova), and is the only European Union member state currently under communist leadership.
As you can see, nothing has been said that Cypurs would be like the USSR, China or nonreligious. Quite the contrary, it is stated that the government was democratically elected. Please be more careful in the future, when you oppose something. Make sure that your opposition does not go out of bounds and that you do not imply things that have never been said. Tomeasy (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extensive rewriting today

Thank you for rewriting the article in order to make it smaller. I should say, however, that the rewrite unfortunately has extensive grammatical errors and does not read very well. I really appreciate your effort but I am not sure whether we should revert to the version before the rewrite and attempt the rewrite again, or try and fix this one. Is anyone willing to help review the whole article closely? AstarothCY (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Why don't you point the grammatical errors? I reviewed and didn't find any.Maybe i missed sth in the process. The previous history section was a real mess. Inaccurate , POV, way too long and in every word culminating about the 1974 invasion. To be honest i can't imagine a single reason to be reinstated again. This one maybe not perfect it's way way better. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well there are grammar problems throughout the article, pretty much. Especially with missing punctuation (pretty much throughout, but for example paragraph 3 of the History section), some awkward wording (e.g. first sentence of 5th paragraph in History), and some wording that is unsuitable for an encyclopedic article or contains POV words (e.g. second-to-last paragraph in History), but there is a lot more. Once again, I really appreciate your effort but the fact is that even though the article is now shorter, it does not read as well as it did before the rewrite. I am just not sure whether I will end up having to do extensive rewriting all over again if I have to go through and fix these problems, and whether that means that it would be best to revert. AstarothCY (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"As of today, there are 1,534 Greek Cypriots [15]and 502 Turkish Cypriots [16] missing with the events of the summer of 1974 dominating the politics on the island and the Greco-Turkish relations."

"In 1878, on the aftermath of the disastrous Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), administration but not sovereignty of the island, was ceded to British Empire, as a base in case of a renewed Russian aggression."

  • Maybe i speak Congolese.Can you please show me the mistakes? Anyway saying that this version is POV compared to the previous one, is travesty at least.You can improve it.I mean so many months i didn't see anyone bother doing anything to change that mess and now..Weird --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence is confusing. You are saying two different things in one sentence. "As of today, there are 1,534 Greek Cypriots [15]and 502 Turkish Cypriots [16] missing as a result of the invasion. The events of the summer of 1974 dominate the politics on the island, as well as Greco-Turkish relations."
The second sentence has awkward wording as well as POV words, and could be rewritten as "Administration (but not sovereignty) of the island was ceded to the British Empire in 1878, in the aftermath of the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878). The island would serve Britain as a base of operations in case of renewed Russian aggression."
There is no need to get agitated. My intentions are good, and when you make an edit you should expect scrutiny and constructive criticism. Please try to assume good faith when dealing with fellow Wikipedians. AstarothCY (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Who says i am not (assuming good faith)?If i didn't i wouldn't be here. I just said sth obvious.That this is a better base for further improvement than the last version and everyone is free to contribute. I can see your objections (and to same extent i agree) but they are not grammatical mistakes. Anyway it's good that there is someone to work with, about this article.Cheers --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The page has been vandalised with severe inaccuracies. Please find out who it is who did this. This include 1)mehmet ali talat being presient, 2) independency from Greece. --WhiteMagick (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The vandal was Ali SarpTurk. I strongly advise that this person is suspended. I am also given the impression that previous vandalism may have also been done by this person who appears to have made a Wiki account recently. Including the corrections above I also corrected the name of the Republic, Capital and currency. It is obvious that this person is an extremist since he replaced the english name of the capital, Nicosia, with the Turkish name.--WhiteMagick (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)