Talk:Nicosia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Move page

If anyone is opposed against the move they can give reasons against it here. Masri145 (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You'd better learn "Reguest moving" with seeing other samples, for example Talk:Son Goku (Dragon Ball)#Requested move. Takabeg (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox and Turkish Municipality of Nicosia.

I would like to bring up the subject of whether this entity should be represented in the infobox as it seems that a number of users (including myself) disagree with including this in the infobox. The infobox is supposed to have only official information.

We currently have one very vague reference about this issue (the constitution article 173) which mentions that separate municipalities should be created. The historical fact is that this separation was never formally implemented (see this historical study on the Municipalities Issue).

The constitution alone should not be used as a reference for the Turkish Muncipality of Nicosia as it isn't clear that there is any association between the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus and the particular entity that was referenced in the infobox.

Until we find any information that links the particular entity with the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus it should not be mentioned in the infobox.

I have changed it to my proposed version of the infobox which includes some additional official information. Masri145 (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, see this. "WHEREAS the Turkish inhabitants of the towns of Nicosia, Limassol, Famagusta, Larnaca and Paphos did, during the month of July, 1958, set up a body of persons in each of the said towns for the purpose of performing municipal functions within the municipal limits of such towns..." This municipality was legally established during the British era, and the constitution recognised it. That is it. I cannot understand while we are so obsessed with this municipality. --Seksen (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We should read history properly and not be quick in making assumptions. The recognition part is simply your naive interpretation. It isn't even mentioned in the text you provided. You presented us with a text from the british collonial era - that is something that ceased to exist in 1960 with the creation of the Republic of Cyprus. The provision in the constitution is that separate municipalities ...shall be created... - which means that new municipalities would be formed and maintained ...'Provided that the President and the Vice-President of the Republic shall within four years of the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution examine the question whether or not this separation of municipalities in the aforesaid towns shall continue. '

Now if you had read this article you would see that the creation of separate municipalities was being negotiated in the first 3 years, but instead they seemed to have been close to agreeing the creation of unified municipalities. In particular that:

All municipal negotiations failed, over the first two years of the Republic, but as time went by, an important change of emphasis evolved so that, by the end of 1962, Makarios had persuaded not only Kutchuk but the British High Commissioner and the American Ambassador that municipal partition was impracticable and that municipal reunification was possible. Although in the autumn of 1960 Greek and Turkish municipal committees in all the towns were beavering away at the unenviable task of trying to delineate mutually acceptable boundaries, by December 1962, the negotiations, which nearly succeeded, were for municipal unification

Any local government has to be controlled by the laws of the state it belongs to. This entity doesn't belong to the Republic of Cyprus. Thus your claim that this entity is recognised by the constitution is simply your personal interpretation.Masri145 (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It really bothered me doing so but, I think for the first time ever, I reverted Seric, with an apology of course, because I think that the passage I undid is a WP:OR interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source. Are there any other reliable sources which can be used to support the contentious statement? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. K. I found another reliable source (Federal Research Division - Library of Congress)which supports the view that the provision in the constitution was never realised. Passage from Country Studies: Cyprus - Ch. 4 - 1960 Constitution

While the constitution called for their establishment, implementing legislation was never passed, because the Greeks were convinced that such laws could lead to partition. Turkish Cypriots have long cited this issue as evidence of the Greek Cypriots' intention to undermine the Turkish Cypriots' separate communal identity.

Thus, it remains that this entity was never recognised by the Republic of Cyprus. I have removed all references in the article. Thanks. Masri145 (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If we read the source I have given, it says: "for the lawful exercise of certain municipal functions in the aforesaid towns by the Turkish Municipal Committees..." That legislation means that the British administration recognizes the Nicosia Turkish Municipality - calling it "lawful" is recognizing it. We can see that the Nicosia Turkish Municipality was founded in 1958 from its website, and if we read that legislation, it says, "the Turkish inhabitants of the towns of Nicosia, Limassol, Famagusta, Larnaca and Paphos did, during the month of July, 1958, set up a body of persons in each of the said towns for the purpose of performing municipal functions within the municipal limits of such towns..." They did set up the municipalities. And the constitution recognizes it, it does not matter whether it was implemented or not, but legally it is recognized. The sources given also does not say that they were not recognised. --Seksen (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Seksen you're making two important mistakes in my view: 1) The 'British administration' does not exist since 1960. So the term 'lawful' has no meaning. If anything this should be added in the History section. 2) The infobox should contain only official information about the city. From the given sources it seems that a body was created in 1958 with the intention to become the lawful Turkish Nicosia Municipality, but it never did. This again is interesting stuff for the History section. And please stop making your own interpretations of the constitution and legislation and try to find some sources instead. Masri145 (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It did, I am not making my own interpretions, if the constitution says it, it is lawful, whether it is implemented or not is not important. --Seksen (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You did what, exactly? Found a reference saying that the entity by the name of 'Turkish Nicosia Muncipality' as established in 1958 is recognised by the Republic of Cyprus and its lawful today? So far you only found a clause in the constitution calling for its establishment. That is an important difference when it comes to being an official representive of a city. Masri145 (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And you did what? You just found that the law was not implemented, but that does not mean it is de facto, or unrecognised, or it is not lawful. However, I found laws recognising them - the constitution obviously recognizes it as it calls for its establishment, which means that is is de jure and lawful. By the way, I am having problems with the keyboard, so there might be mistakes in my comments, even though I try to fix them, sorry for this. --Seksen (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Seksen, there is absolutely no evidence that the Nicosia Turkish Municipality (est. 1958) is a lawful entity (according to any existing law) or recognised by the constitution. All there is currently is an amateur interpretation from your side that when the constitution calls for the establishment of a turkish municipality it means that this entity is automatically recognised and becomes lawful. That is exactly what WP:NOR is about. No worries about spelling mistakes. Masri145 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC).

No, it is actually what you do what is "amateurish interpretation". Your only argument is that the law was not implemented, but I am linking laws. Let's go further if you do not believe. It is not my own interpretation. The municipality is a member of Eurocities, as you can see it from the link of "members" at the top of the page linked. Here, in the official website, the mayor says that the Nicosia Turkish Municipality is recognized, and it is a member of many international organizations: "LTB’nin tanınmış kimliğini de kullanan Başkan Bulutoğluları, ...": "Mayor Bulutoğluları, using the fact that the Nicosia Turkish Municipality is internationally recognized..." and "Belediyecilik alanındaki önemli uluslararası kuruluşlara da üye olduklarını dile getiren Bulutoğluları ...": "Bulutoğluları explained that they members of many important international municipal organizations..." --Seksen (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Forget about lawful, unlwaful. The infobox should show the facts - who controls each sector. We can not just have one seal which only represents half the city! Chesdovi (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The infobox does include facts (see 'Status'). When looking for 'official' representatives of a city, you can't ignore the amount of recognition they have,you simply cannot have any self-appointed entity in the Infobox. If no-one recognises the Turkish Nicosia Municipality then it is not an official representative. And so far we've not seen that this entity enjoys any amount of recognition. Masri145 (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not about international or "official" recognition. It is about who controls the city. Half the city's residents are administered by the turkish council. They have a mayor who is active within the northern sector. You can not whitewash this fact in the infobox. This article is about the whole city. If you want to split it between sectors, then do so. Until then, both sides will be represented. Thank you. Chesdovi (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about what the infobox is. I suggest you read Template:Infobox settlement which is the template used. It says that this box should contain official information, not information on who controls what. The word official cannot be used for any self-proclaimed entity. Masri145 (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And to which municipality do foreign companies who invest in NN deal with? Chesdovi (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Which foreign companies are you referring to? When you say foreign I dont suppose you mean Turkish companies? Any serious company knows that any agreement made with an illegal entity is automatically invalid and so they risk not getting paid and not even being able to take them to court. Any serious company checks who they deal with. So when they look for information for official entities in the city they go to Nicosia Municipality which is the only officially recognised and legal representative of the city. I prompt you to have a look at these sites about foreign relations of Nicosia Municipality European Office Cyprus and Union of Capitals in EU. The self-proclaimed Turkish Nicosia Municipality, a de facto entity, has none of that officialty over any part of the city. Masri145 (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. We're not 'whitewashing' anything. There is a section in Municipalities about this entity which says that ...the Nicosia Turkish Municipality has become the de facto local authority of northern Nicosia. Which is true, no-one disputes that. Any reader who wants to deal with this entity and northern Nicosia can look it up further in other articles. Masri145 (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"There are two separate municipalities on the two sides of Nicosia. The Nicosia Municipality is responsible for all the municipal duties and responsibilities on the southern part of the city, while the Nicosia Turkish Municipality carries out the respective duties for the northern part of the city. Having two separate municipalities is per se a consequence of the de facto division of the city after 1974…. In mid-1958 first attempts were made to establish a separate Turkish Municipality in Nicosia, which gained legal status when the British Colonial Admirations passed the “Turkish Municipality Committees” law in October 1959. Furthermore, the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus gave the right to Turkish and Greek Cypriots to establish their own municipalities’." Water Resources Allocation: Policy and Socioeconomic Issues in Cyprus, pg 70. --- Chesdovi (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel we're going in circles. The argument of legality has already been dismissed, yet your bringing it back. The 'British Colonial Admirations' ceased to exist in 1960 so the word 'legal' in that context has no meaning in today's terms. The Republic of Cyprus never recognised the entity named Turkish Nicosia Municipality that was established in 1958. It was invited to establish one by the constitution, however it never did. I've repeated these same things about 3 times now! Masri145 (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The ROC may never have recognised the TMN as a legal organisation, but at the time, the British did. That the constitution of the ROC provided for the establishment of the TMN, but did not in fact manage to pass its own legislation legalising it, is just too bad. The Turks went ahead and did it themselves with British legal support. This is nevertheless inconsequential. The fact is that the TMN acts as the representative of the northern sector of the city. To prove it, the Mayor of the Nicosia Turkish Municipality received the Ambassador of Italy Alfredo Bastianelli on 22nd of February, 2011. The Golden Tulip Hotel is a foreign owned business which deals "officially" with the TNM. Do not link non-recognition of the TRNC by the UN with the various Turkish municipalities which were functioning well before the Turkish invasion occurred. Don’t think that just because the ROC is recognised as the legal titleholder of Northern Cyprus, it’s mere position on the existence of the TNM is what is to be considered “official”. Today, there are two separate councils which tend to the two sectors of the city, whether this is “legal” or not! This should be clearly represented in the infobox. Chesdovi (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Status

The status section in the infobox is consistently added by some users citing Golan Heights. However, Golan Heights is a whole region, if we think of someting similar to Nicosia, that would be cities in the Golan Heights, for example Afik. Can you see a status section there? A much more similar example, closer than the Golan Heights is Nagorno Karabakh. The situation is similar to Cyprus, and I think Stepanakert is the most closer article to this one, since it is capital of another unrecognized state along with being considered occupied by the UN etc. Do we have a status section there? No. As a result of the analysis, we can say that there is no such article on a settlement which has such a section in the infobox, and there is no example for this. And as it is being discussed at the moment, the page should be reverted to the pre-discussion version until there is a consensus, just like not deleting an article during an AfD. Therefore, I request the removal of the status section from the infobox, which was placed without any discussion or consensus, per WP:FAITACCOMPLI (this is obviously a controversial edit). --Seksen (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The status section is added because its the most important fact about the city and also because the Infobox Settlement template supports it. Whether its a village, an area or a region it makes no difference. It's still a piece of land where people live and we need to present the most important information about it in the infobox. In my view the status section should stay in as it provides a fuller picture of the current situation of the city. If it's a verifiable and important fact about the city and the source is provided there's no reason for removing it, doing so would be hiding the most important fact about the city. Masri145 (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If it was the most important fact, it would have been added until yesterday, wouldn't it? As I said, and as you know, making controversial edits without waiting the result of the discussion is unacceptable. Also, there should be a standard. If we add this section to the article of Nicosia, we should add it to the article of Stepanakert, otherwise, it would be POV-pushing. --Seksen (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Stepanakert is not split between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan. It's a completely different case. The closest parallel I can think of is Jerusalem. There is an article on Jerusalem as a whole, and a separate one for East Jerusalem, just like we have Nicosia and North Nicosia. Athenean (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That is not what this section is about. And Jerusalem is not effectively divided, it is actually controlled only by the Israeli government. And none of them, no city article has a "status" section in its infobox, neither does Jerusalem or East Jerusalem. --Seksen (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There's absolutely no point for removing valuable and sourced content apart from satisfying personal POVs. Nicosia is a unique case of a partly-occupied city and should be treated as such. Removing such important information is not going to add anything. Masri145 (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually there has not yet been a consensus supporting the edit. It should be discussed and then changed, not changed and then discussed. --Seksen (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, talking about consensus, if you check the history of this article you'll see that it was evolving cooperatively until a couple of months ago when edit-wars started erupting for about everything. In particular with this highly controversial edit that was added without consensus and was in fact based in unsourced content. From the version history of the page you can see that the current version is the closest to the established and longer term consensus. Masri145 (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

User Chesdovi

I call for an administrator to interfere.

User Chesdovi is continuously creating political tensions regarding the article on Nicosia.

His disruptive behaviour includes deleting pictures, removing material and in general deteriorating repeadetly the article on Nicosia. I urge other users to warn the aforementioned user so as to amend his behaviour. Marcobadotti (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Marcobadotti

List of Mayors

Re. this removal, please explain why we should not list the acting mayors of Northern Nicosia? Chesdovi (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Marcobadotti (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)== Turkish mayor in infobox ==

Re. this remival, please explain why the Turkish mayor should not be featured in the infobox. Chesdovi (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You should use the North Nicosia section on Wikipedia to carry out your project of eliminating anything that is modern, greek or shows that Nicosia is a proper city. You have done nothing more than eliminating most pictures from the Nicosia article and create tensions as you do in the Israeli pages. I call for administrators to interfere and ban user Chesdovi. Marcobadotti (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Marcobadotti

Nicosia is not a proper city. It is divided. There are two functioning mayors. Am I missing something? Until this page is moved to South Nicosia, both mayors should feature. Chesdovi (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicosia is a proper city and may I remind you that according to U.N resolutions it is ONLY the Republic of Cyprus that has control ALL over the entire island. Turkey is an illegal invador on the island according to United Nations and Security Council Resolutions and it is the ONLY country in the world along with some extremist muslim states of dubvious sovereignty that talks about Southern and Nothern Cyprus. Unless Wikipedia is based in Turkey and is destined to Turkish readers then I am afraid that this is a blatant violation of International Law and the article is legally invalid. Marcobadotti (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Marcobadotti

The Republic of Cyprus does not have de-facto control over the North of the island. This must be mentioned in this article which is about a city physically divided between both claimants. You ar tuching upon the wider issue. please remember that the local municipality is disimilar to the TRNC. Chesdovi (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

First the North Nicosia article will be eliminated and then we can discuss. You cannot have everything. Use the North Nicosia space OR eliminate that one and then we can share the Nicosia webpage constructively. But using both and destroying with such a great passion the Nicosia article will simply NOT happen my dear Turkish friend. Marcobadotti (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox picture

Why do people keep adding that ugly picture of Nicosia in the infobox? Its dark and shows absolutely nothing of the beauty of the city! There are so many interesting monuments, parks and much nicer skyline pictures to have there! That picture is not representative of Nicosia as it really makes it look like a third world city which is clearly not. The city deserves something better. Seriously why do you keep adding it? What are you trying to proove? Masri145 (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is about the entire city, not some specific building; if you can provide a pic that is in your opinion better and shows the entire city, bring it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Collage looks excellent, good job. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Masri145 (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTVANDALISM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
CONTINUOUS VANDALISM BY USER SERIC2 Undid revision 454530404 by Seric2 (talk) You need to explain why you did so. This is vandalism. You are deteriorating the quality and information provided by the article. You wish to present a city that is underdeveloped, has no historical squares and monuments and introduce low quality pictures. This will not remain so. It is clear what your views are and where you are hailing from. Unfortunately we cannot twist reality in otder to satisfy your views about Nicosia. Nicosia is what it is and an encyclopedia must represent it the way it is not the way a fanatlic nationalist dreams it should be. Marcobadotti (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

File:APOEL FC-Chelsea FC.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:APOEL FC-Chelsea FC.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

NPA and all that...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Continuous Vandalism by several users such as Seric2 and Chesdovi Undid revision 454530404 by Seric2 (talk) You need to explain why you did so. This is vandalism. You are deteriorating the quality and information provided by the article. You wish to present a city that is underdeveloped, has no historical squares and monuments and introduce low quality pictures. This will not remain so. It is clear what your views are and where you are hailing from. Unfortunately we cannot twist reality in otder to satisfy your views about Nicosia. Nicosia is what it is and an encyclopedia must represent it the way it is not the way a fanatlic nationalist dreams it should be. Seric2 and other users such as Chesdovi used arguments such as the Greek flag is appearing in the infobox pic or in the Eleftheria square or Faneromeni Square articles (while they do enjoy throwing in pics with the ILLEGAL TRNC flat as well as the Turkish flag). We are including pictures (infobox and monument section) not containing the Greek flag, hence twisting reality as the Greek flag whether some people like it or not IS omnipresent in every single cornern in the Republic of Cyprus. We are including pictures of the monuments in the occupied part so that the article is representative of the current situation. So please do not vandalise. Marcobadotti (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC) You need to tune down on the word "vandalism" (WP:NOTVANDALISM) as it can easily be interpreted as bordering peronal attacks if continued. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)I see that edit warring appears to have resumed as soon as protection expired. I'd like to exhort all editors to stop reverting each other and start discussing or the article is going to end up protected again. Furthermore, Marco, please familiarise yourself with WP:NOTVAND: not all edits you disagree with are vandalism. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC) How about protecting it again right now? :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC) @Marcobadotti for each rant and attack that follows, be it here or in edit-summaries, I'll escalate the warnings until you'll get blocked. Now behave yourself. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

If we are going to improve this page we should take examples from the already established consensuses in Cyprus and North Cyprus. This article should only about the whole of Nicosia which is internationally recognised as the capital of the RoC. North Nicosia should be about the de facto political capital of self-proclaimed TRNC. Nicosia is globally known as the capital of RoC (not the self-declared TRNC). Having "de facto" in the infobox is a lie, it says that "Nicosia is the de facto capital of TRNC" which is wrong. The TRNC doesn't claim that its capital is the whole of Nicosia - only northern Nicosia, so it should not be mentioned at all (just like we dont mentione TRNC in the Cyprus infobox). We should follow the same example with local authorities, only the globally recognised municipality of Nicosia should be mentioned. Please don't start again about recognition of turkish municipality from RoC again. We've already seen why its a self-proclaimed entity and not recognised by anyone (exept TRNC and Turkey) several times now. Masri145 (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I see some users (i.e. Chesdovi) don't want to discuss controversial changes and want to force their POV without achieving consensus first. This is a highly controversial edit that's already been discussed in a different section. If you have a good reason for changing the current consensus you need to discuss first. As explained above all information about the separate political entity that exists in northern Nicosia (seals, flags, etc) should go to the North Nicosia article. Masri145 (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It is absurb to include in an article on a whole city, only stuff that relates to the one sector. Chesdovi (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, its the same concept as Cyprus and North Cyprus. Nicosia is divided in the same way as Cyprus is. We're not hiding any information about the political situation, history (after 1974) and geography of both sides. The infobox should contain only official information about the city and the only official representative of the whole city is the Nicosia Municipality and the Republic of Cyprus. North Nicosia is the capital of the self-proclaimed TRNC (North Cyprus). Currently the status and footnote parts explain that the city is divided and point to the specific articles. The information in the infobox about TRNC and the turkish municipality of Nicosia should be moved in the North Nicosia article with adequate explanation. Masri145 (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe I understand Masri145's position, but the current text seems to me to be going too far in this direction. The lead should at least acknowledge the existence of the TRNC as the de facto controlling entity in the northern part of Nicosia. I would propose changing "the northern part" in the second paragraph of the lead to: "the northern part (currently controlled by the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" — with "northern part" wikilinked to North Nicosia.

I also believe that the portion of the infobox saying "northern half of the city occupied by Turkey" should be rewritten as something like "northern half of the city is controlled by the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". The question of whether the TRNC's existence reflects to any degree the will of Turkish Cypriots or is purely an expression of Turkish territorial aggression — or of whether the TRNC has any right to exist even if it is what the Turkish Cypriot community wants vs. what the Greek Cypriots want — is a dispute more properly addressed in other articles (such as Cyprus dispute and Turkish invasion of Cyprus). The NPOV policy says we are to "describe disputes, but not engage in them" — and in my opinion, simply reducing the description of the situation to the phrase "northern half of the city occupied by Turkey" is going too far in assuming the correctness of one viewpoint to the complete exclusion of all others. Richwales (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to removing the word "occupied" from the infobox. Especially when we speak about "international recognition" of RoC. Not mentioning it would simply be leaning toward the small minority-view while ignoring the mainstream view of the world. I won't go through the whole list of UN resolutions with references to "occupied" again to prove my point.

Just as some side info that you might not know, a large number of Turkish-Cypriots who live in north Cyprus believe that they're under occupation as their self-proclaimed state is not recognised by anyone and they're entirely dependent on Turkish support (financially and militarily); not to mention that they're in fact a minority of the population in north as compared to Turkish-settlers.

If you want to include a mention on the existence of TRNC I wouldn't object to something along the lines of "northern half of the city occupied by Turkish forces since 1974 and currently administered by the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, recognised only by Turkey." Perhaps this should be moved to the footnote section.Masri145 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Richwales, there is the need to at least mention the TRNC there (but not as a footnote if the status section is going to stay there). Maybe we could also mention Lefkoşa District (as de facto, of course). Masri, I personally know that the amount of Turkish Cypriots (excluding Turks settled after 1974) which would describe the current situation as occupation is below 1%. They accept that they are financially dependent, but not because evil Turkish colonization, but embargoes by the world. And there is a great discussion about the number of Turks settled after 1974, claims range from small numbers to 500,000 (which is the view of far leftists) and we would have better not get into that, and use figures in reliable sources. --Seksen (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Seksen the 10,000 turkish-cypriots who were protesting a few months ago (see this) were not protesting against the world (no country imposed any embargoe on North Cyprus). The protests were aimed at Turkey and the imposed austerity measures and the fact that they want to be independent and manage their own affairs. So effectively they feel they're not independent but under occupation (or if you don't like the word, under the "control" of Turkey). Back to the issue, the Nicosia article should have the same information/structure as the Cyprus article. In fact the the TRNC (or the occupation for that matter) isn't even mentioned in the Cyprus infobox. That's why North Cyprus exists. We have to be consistent. Otherwise what's the point of having North Nicosia? Lefkoşa District should be mentioned there. To me it makes sense for Nicosia to represent the RoC (as it officially does) and North Nicosia to represent the TRNC. You can't have both. Masri145 (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that, in their point of view, the embargoes are imposed because of an ECHR ruling. Because of the embargo, their only way to live is to have support from Turkey, and as former Turkish Cypriot governments were extravagant and they wasted some money, the Turkish government started to interfere with how the money was used, and this is what was protested (by the way, most of them protested the government of TRNC, it was a fraction who actually protested Ankara). The island is something different, this is a city. It uses country infobox, and we obviously do not have "country" or "district" there. And as I said before, this article represents the whole city, including the TRNC-controlled area. By the way, thanks for the admirable collage. --Seksen (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead

I would like to comment about the undiscussed, silent removal of the information about TRNC in the lead. The current sentence in the second paragraph reads "Nicosia is the capital and seat of government of the Republic of Cyprus, which is considered as the sole legitimate Government of the island by the international community" The removal is so obvious, that even the full stop has been forgotten. This sentence is obviously incomplete. It is like saying "Havana is the capital and seat of government of the Republic of Cuba, which is considered as the sole legitimate Government of the island by the international community" in the article of Havana. Without mentioning the TRNC, the whole sentence remains incomplete and meaningless. It leaves a question mark and it is as if it says "be careful, you might come across with another state but that is illegal, don't take that seriously". And anyway, there is no reason why the TRNC should be removed from there. Is there? I cannot see. --Seksen (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

As I've already said here and in other places, I believe the factual existence of the TRNC should be acknowledged — while at the same time acknowledging the fact that the TRNC's legitimacy is disputed (and formally rejected by most of the rest of the world) — but without having Wikipedia articles either support or oppose one side or the other in the dispute. So I would propose reworking the above sentence as something like this: "Nicosia is the capital and seat of government of the Republic of Cyprus. The northern part of the city functions as the capital of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, a disputed breakaway region whose claim to independent statehood is recognized only by Turkey." We might be able to work something about the opinion of the international community into this text, but IMO we need to be very careful not to go so far as to make it sound like we are taking sides. Quoting WP:NPOV, "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them."

As for the current text in the infobox, it may very possibly be true that the TRNC is really nothing more than a puppet state, disingenuously providing superficial cover for a foreign occupation of the northern part of the island by Turkey, but presenting this as an undisputed fact would mean we are taking sides in the dispute, which we must not do per NPOV. Saying (in the infobox) simply that the northern half of the city is "occupied by Turkey" gives, in my opinion, the impression that we are accepting a particular point of view and discounting the others. I would propose a rewording saying that the northern half of the city is "occupied by Turkey and controlled by the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" — which, I believe, adequately explains the situation without endorsing either the view that the TRNC is truly independent or that it is merely a manifestation of Turkish occupation. Richwales (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Richwales, I agree with your suggestion for the lead, only that we should make it clear that its a dispute between Turkey and the international community (i.e. independence vs. occupation). So it would be: "Nicosia is the capital and seat of government of the Republic of Cyprus. The northern part of the city functions as the capital of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, a disputed breakaway region whose claim to independent statehood is recognized only by Turkey, while the rest of the international community considers it as occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus."

With regards to the infobox. Firstly, I think that if we're going to keep a description of the political situation we should move it from 'Status' to footnote. But IMO, if we going to have the above in the lead, another same description in the infobox is redundant. In the same way that the infobox of Cyprus doesn't mention the dispute, the Nicosia infobox should not do either. The infobox is there to present official information about the city (telephone codes, official population statistics, etc.), not to describe the complicated dispute. Its up to the reader to read the lead and find out the details. Masri145 (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I will not oppose any of the proposals above, although I prefer Richwales' proposal since that is also explained in the article of Northern Cyprus. Infoboxes of the articles of Cyprus and Nicosia are not comparable. In that case, Cyprus is the short name for the Republic of Cyprus, at least that is the case for the infobox, but as there is no article about the island as a whole, and the article is named "Cyprus", Turkish Cypriot culture etc. are and should be mentioned in the article. In this case, Nicosia is the name of the whole city. And do we have a "country" or "district" parameter in the country infobox? I do not think so. --Seksen (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Banks

Has anyone - or any Cypriot Wikipedian / Wikipedian that has been to Nicosia - recognized the bank at the front in this picture? I think it is Laiki Bank, but I am not sure. --Seksen (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added the bank names. Masri145 (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Modern history section

There are two problems about the modern history sections. These are:

1) Information not directly related to the subject. These are already present in the articles linked. An example is the "condemnation of invasion". What does this have to do with Nicosia? Yes, it is related with the Cyprus dispute, but it has no place in the article of Nicosia - if the aim is not POV-pushing. It should be removed accordingly to WP:SUMMARY.

2) Use of official sources of the government of the Republic of Cyprus. An example is this. Would you expect the government of the Republic of Cyprus to be neutral about such an issue? The answer is obviously no. This is actually nothing but the official history of the Republic of Cyprus, which has no place in a neutral encyclopedia.

--Seksen (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

1)In my opinion the section as a whole is pretty neutral. It gives a fair summary of all the events that led to the division in chronological order and the current perceptions of the status-quo. The "condemnation of invasion and self-declaration" fits perfectly since we mention the coup, invasion, occupation and self-declaration. The intention of the last paragraph is to summarize the perceptions about the status-quo. This is not POV, but essential information which completes the picture. Of couse there's a lot more to say about everything, and that's why we're providing the link to Modern History of Cyprus, but this section as it currently stands gives a good summary of all important information.

2)I think that source was originally added by Seric so I didn't think you would have a problem either. However I think I can understand your frustration. For example the mention in the article of "Turkey's expansionist plans", might be considered as a greek interpretation of the invasion as opposed to the turkish view of "peace-operation". Despite the fact that all historical facts (continuous occupation and self-delcaration of TRNC) support this view, this has not gone in the article for obvious reasons. The parts that have gone in are carefully selected so that the section maintains its neutrality. I can't see anything in the current text which might be considered POV. It presents simple facts, nothing more.

Masri145 (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fact that condemnation has taken place, but it is not related with Nicosia. We are not explaining the dispute here, and this is not an essential detail. The facts can be used in some ways that can create a certain POV.

To be neutral, it needs to cite neutral sources. The Nicosia Municipality of the RoC is not neutral. The official history of the RoC have no place on Wikipedia.

And if personal attacks such as "frustration" or "no playing fair" continue, they will be reported.

--Seksen (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Seksen, please accept my apologies if my comments were taken as a personal attack. It certainly wasn't intentional. One thing I want to mention, is that there's a big difference between telling all the facts (giving the whole picture) and expressing one-sided POVs. POV is an opinion/interpretation about a fact (why it happened, its consequences etc). Whereas these POVs should be balanced to maintain neutrality (e.g. expansionist invasion vs. peace operation), there's no reason to hide facts from an encyclopedia otherwise you end up presenting a diluted picture. You simply cannot speak about the self-proclamation of indpependence of the turkish-cypriots without saying that this action was condemned internationally.

With regards to the content of the section, perhaps the most important fact about Nicosia is that it is divided. Not many cities in the world are divided in such a way. This relatively small section gives a quick summary of the events that lead to this division and what the current political situation is. Its the history of the city and it's directly with the history of the island. If it was any other city of Cyprus (like Limassol or Paphos) that were not affected much from the invasion, you could argue that such information is irrelevant. But Nicosia is divided exactly because of these events and for that they should be mentioned. Masri145 (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Using a source which only includes one POV does not give the whole picture. If you can only see the Greek POV in the sources, you will write from the Greek POV, intentionally or unintentionally. And we cannot call it a "fact" if it is from a certain POV. There is no guarantee that the RoC tells the truth. It is as unreliable as the TRNC in this case, since it was a belligerent of the conflict.

It might be divided, but still, we are not explaining the dispute in depth and condemnation has nothing to do with Nicosia directly. And we can talk about the self-proclamation without mentioning that it is condemned.

--Seksen (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing POV in the current text. The source does not matter as long as everyone agrees that the text that has gone in the article is ok. Similarly I would not have a problem if it came from some TRNC site if I found it useful information (as I did with Saray Square). I can't see anything in the current text which is an interpretation of a fact. Mentioning the existence of TRNC without mentioning the international condemnation is simply telling half the story and giving the false impression. If we're going to have any sort of integrity in this article, things must be told clearly. There's absolutely no interpretation or POV in simply mentioning this fact and thus no reason for removing it. Masri145 (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Order

Okay Masri145, let's hear why you don't like putting the history section first. Seric2 (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I am also confused here. It's not immediately obvious to me why the changes in question are controversial. I do see there are a few changes aside from the simple rearrangement of material; perhaps these other things are what Masri145 is objecting to. In any case, I would strongly suggest we should have some discussion before making further changes along these lines. Richwales (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you don't you like about the current ordering. If you want to change the ordering, you'll have to justify why you think the current one is bad.Your proposed ordering does not make the page any better than it is. Having the landmarks section at the top makes the page much more interesing to read as it has nicer and more interesting pictures and also because each landmark presented is associated with some history in the text. So if the reader is interested more in the place, they will move to the next history section and find out more. With your proposal, the first thing you see when you land on the page is a huge history section (starting from pre-history!). This is enough to put the reader off. You have to invite the readers to the read all the content and not trying to push them away. Masri145 (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

To sum up your argument

1. The landmark section has nicer pictures for people to look at.
2. Makes article more interesting due to order.

Sorry If I have missed any of your points,

1. An interesting, yet insignificant coment. Perhaps you could clarify why this will influence a person's choice to read the article?
2. So what? Are you suggesting that people are incapable of looking at the contents and finding the sections they want to read in the order they want?

I'm concerned that you are trying to present the city for tourists. Your primary concern is bolstering the number of tourism to the city, secondary concern are presenting the facts, and even then they are only what you consider legitimate facts. As far as I can tell its standard for most other wikipedia pages on cities to place the history section first. Its what people are familiar with, what they have come to expect. Now I have found exceptions, such as placing etymology section first, ect. Ultimately I assume the decision is made on a per page concession. If I am the only one who does have a problem with this and no one else, I will quite happily except the changes made some time ago and move on. Masri145 thank you for your comments, I think I know where you stand in this. I was wondering if I could get anyone else's opinion?
Thanks Seric2 (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Seric, please save your interpretation of my arguments for your self and stop adding bullet-points of what you think I've said. You should start respecting other editors; they can read my text themselves, they don't need your bullet-points (i.e. this isn't primary school). Now to put things right, my argument is that the landmarks page presents some basic information about the long history of the place to get the reader started and this makes the article more interesting to read in contrast with having a huge history section (starting from pre-history) with almost no interesting pictures. I didn't mention "tourist" by the way, that's your interepretation of why I'm trying to make this a good article (if that was the case Seric every edit we make is considered tourist-oriented). I'll assume good faith that you're trying to "standarize" the article with what you think is right. But your only argument that "its standard" is pointless according to WP:OTHERSTUFF. So if your change doesn't make the article any better I can't see the reason for enacting it. I've tried looking at WP:LAYOUT and WP:MOS but I can't find any guidelines on the specific ordering. Masri145 (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Masri145 if you have had a problem with the way I presented my arguments, because of my dyslexia it helps me. Let's be honest it wasn't much of an argument to begin with. In future if you want I may change the way I present an argument if it bothers you that much, which it clearly has.

Now this is for my own benefit so don't get angry. Now obviously history first might be considered as standard. As I have said 'I assume the decision is made on a per page concession'. Standardisation has a few benefits. It sets a level of consistency people are familiar with, I don't know about your opinion but in mine that means less confusion. It may also sets a standard for quality. On the other hand it could also make the article less unique.

But let's be fair and once more for my own benefit, the argument you have is it more intresting, to give the reader a flavor of what's to come to get people interested because the history section is very long. How do you know a person won't find the clubs section more interesting? Are you going to place the clubs section first? That's how I have been able to interpret it, if i'm wrong please correct me perhaps in a less aggressive manner if you are capable. What I am trying to say is that you can't please everyone, its best to go with what appears to work. I admit I could be entirely wrong and placing the history section first could be a terrible mistake and you're entirely right.

If I am the only one who does have a problem with this and no one else, I will quite happily except the changes made and move on by Sunday. No you didn't mention tourist, I did, it would be illogical to deny it.

I also wanted to take the time to ask two quick qustions, did you have a problem with the information added to the history section? If you think the history section is too long, would you like me to try and shorten down the history section somehow?
Thanks Seric2 (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Twinning section

Can people please stop deleting the northern Nicosia twinning section. I am about as neutral as can be on the issue of the divide and Northern Nicosia is part of the city geographically and thus is referred to in the article. If the northern part itself choose to twin with other willing settlements then why delete? Cls14 (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Cls, please have a look at North Nicosia article. Does that have twinnings of Nicosia? The separation is there for a reason. Masri145 (talk)

Yes there is a page for North Nicosia. But that is a page just for North Nicosia as part of the geographic city of Nicosia as a whole. If you were to get rid of the section I keep in then by default any mention of the North in the Nicosia article would be got rid of. Anyhow I'm not as fussed as you are so if you feel the need to delete again for whatever reason I'm not going to start an edit war over it Cls14 (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

We should be consistent with the way this is dealt with in Cyprus and Northern Cyprus (TRNC) articles. We don't include the inner political dealings and international relations of the TRNC in the Cyprus article however we do mention it's existence as a self-declared and unrecognised entity. Same should hold for the municipalities. Masri145 (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Seric2 is thinking along the same lines as me. As I said though I don't want to get into an edit war about it, perhaps we need a mediator in? Cls14 (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

These "lines" have been extensively discussed in Cyprus and Northern Cyprus. The same paradigm should be followed. There's no reason for duplicating the same information in both articles. Masri145 (talk) 10:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Is Nicosia the last divided capital in the world?

Is the above a true claim? What about Jerusalem being a divided capital as well? Nicosia is the last divided capital in Europe, not the world. Find more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem

Any thoughts?

As the page is semi-protected at the moment due to vandalism, I will only be able to do the change after the release on 8 December 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.27.63.184 (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's because Jerusalem is not widely recognised as the capital of Israel as per [1], whereas Nicosia is recognised as the capital of Cyprus. Besides there are plenty of references to Nicosia/Lefkosia as the "last divided capital in the world" (see google results. Perhaps we should just provide some more good references when mentioning this statement. Masri145 (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Masri, Jerusalem is not recognised as the capital of Isreal by the vast majority of states. Outback the koala (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Rome is also a divided capital city - between Italy and the Vatican City. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.33.87 (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

Can anyone please explain the logic of this edit to me? To list my worries about this edit:

1) First of all, GPS Stadium is not the largest stadium in Cyprus. This is simply misinformation. The fact that Nicosia Atatürk Stadium is in the northern part does not change this fact, and it does not change the fact that it is the largest stadium in Cyprus.

2) North Nicosia is a part of Nicosia. Removing bits of information relevant to North Nicosia because they are irrelevant is simply not an acceptable reason to me. Now, I know what will be coming. The article of Cyprus is supposed to include Turkish Cypriot culture and etc., and it does that to some extent. The difference between the articles of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus is that the article of Cyprus covers the politics, economy, and everything related to the Republic of Cyprus in depth, whilst the other concentrates on Northern Cyprus. But this does not mean that Northern Cyprus and/or Turkish Cypriots should be ignored (except districts of Northern Cyprus and things like that), and the fact that they are underrepresented in the article does not mean that they should not be represented. This is the same in the article of Nicosia, as seen from population. One cannot just simply ignore one part of Nicosia because it is the northern part.

--Seksen (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, when you see that there's disagreement with your edit you need to try to achieve consensus first, instead of edit warring. I've reverted back to the existing consensus before your edit. If we reach agreement, you can make the agreed change.

There are many problems with your edit:

1)You're editing the Football section and mentioning a non-football stadium.

2)Your duplicating your reference

3)In your explanation you said you're correcting information, but that's simply lying. You did not correct anything. There was no mention about stadiums in the text and there was no mention of largest or smaller stadiums.

4)The information you're adding is irrelevant to this article. First of all the comparison is invalid. There are no common sports events between Nicosia and North Nicosia. In fact there are more common events with Nicosia and European cities rather than North Nicosia. The comparison you're trying to make is even less relevant than saying "the Nicosia GSP stadium is the 100th largest in Europe" which could be added if we wanted to add random and irrelevant information. The only relation that the Nicosia article should have with the occupied northern part of the city is its history. The same analogy with Cyprus and Northern Cyprus. We don't mention new big buildings or illegal tourist complexes or politics of the TRNC in the Cyprus article. The separation exists for a reason. You can't constantly keep mixing both.

We've gone through this a thousands times Seksen, this article relates to Nicosia - Republic of Cyprus. Historical information about Nicosia (before the separation) should be included but TRNC infromation relating to the breakaway state and unrelated with the Republic of Cyprus (such as new buildings, roads, developments, trnc politics) should go the relevant articles of Northern Cyprus and North Nicosia Masri145 (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• 1) Nicosia Atatürk Stadium is a football stadium.
• 2) The two links go to two different pages. If you could just bother to have a look...
• 3) The article says "GSP Stadium is the largest football stadium in Nicosia." Am I really lying? Am I just wasting time adding pointless misinformation?
• 4) Even if there are no common sports events, this does not mean that GPS Stadium is the largest stadium in Nicosia. Wikipedia does not care about the legality of buildings. These buildings do exist. In Cyprus. In Nicosia. It is as relevant as the GPS Stadium, and even more relevant if we come to the issue of the largest stadium. Why are we adding the population of North Nicosia or Northern Cyprus then? They live in the occupied areas in "illegally" built houses, so they must be completely ignored. Sorry, but this sounds unacceptable.
• 5) Please show me where we have gone through this. This article does not simply relate to the southern portion, I have never accepted that and we have never reached a consensus on that issue. I remember discussing whether the article must be split, but there was no consensus.
• 6) We are not mentioning the politics of the TRNC because it belongs to Northern Cyprus. But a building is a building. It is permanent. Even if it was built and is used by Northern Cyprus, a stadium in North Nicosia is a stadium in the city of Nicosia. Simple logic. And we already do have landmarks in North Nicosia in this article (on which we both agree). This is the same thing. But we are not going to explain services in North Nicosia such as public transportation as they are provided by Northern Cyprus. --Seksen (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Still waiting for an answer. And by the way, now that I have noticed that details about the Turkish Cypriot economy are given in the article of Cyprus, I disagree with the sixth point I have made. Public transportation and economy can be included in this article. Everything except for politics. --Seksen (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

North Nicosia

The constant removal of any addition involving North Nicosia is completely unjustified. There is no such consensus regarding this issue in the archives. The article of Cyprus is shown as an example, but indeed, it is not. The article of Cyprus includes details about Turkish Cypriot economy, Turkish Cypriot culture, and I could give other examples. The article of Economy of Cyprus is also a very good proof that there is no such example. Come on, even a slightest addition North Nicosia meets with this, which is actually a contradiction of the article itself, where the northern part is mentioned several times. The population figure includes North Nicosia anyway. So I would like to remind that any removal of content about North Nicosia is completely unjustified, and is done in parallel with personal views, which, of course, is against the basics of Wikipedia. Articles are not shaped around personal views. Both sides must be given a due weight. When I have more time (hopefully soon), I plan to start a discussion about the very existence of this separation which I find very meaningless (Northern Cyprus is a separate political entity, Nicosia Turkish Municipality is a separate political entity as well, whereas North Nicosia is not, so I think there is no reason for all this), but anyway. --Seksen (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Seksen, the North Nicosia article exists for a reason. The person who decided to create this article thought that all information about North Nicosia (post-1974) should be included there and leave this article for Nicosia-RoC. That's been the consensus for as long this page exists, and I strongly oppose to breaking it. If you start including details for the illegal entity in the north someone else will definately do the same to North Nicosia. So you end up with 2 identical articles. What is the point of having both articles describing the same thing. That's why a similar separation exists for Cyprus and Northern Cyprus. You're right, some information is given (in fact, a couple of sentences) about the northern part of Cyprus in the Cyprus article, but only in the context of "turkish-occupied areas" or "turkish-controlled areas". I would not object if your edits had this level of accuracy. Masri145 (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? To begin with, the expressions of Turkish-controlled areas and northern part mean completely the same thing. The fact that the separation of northern part is against all of that is already mentioned several times so I think the reader is able to get it. Over-emphasis is not Wikipedia's job. You are not responding to what I am saying. I am saying the the Nicosia Turkish Municipality corresponds to Northern Cyprus here. Now, there is definitely not a consensus for the removal of North Nicosia-related content. The article of North Nicosia exists just because the previous discussing failed to reach an outcome, and there is nothing about a removal en masse. For a consensus we need to have a discussion. Without a discussion you cannot declare your own consensus, especially when other practices already exist. Show me where we have reached that consensus, and I will not object, and seek a consensus. --Seksen (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, by the way, the article of North Nicosia was created in 2008. For the years before, it was a redirect to this page. It was suddenly changed without any discussion and consideration of consequences. Then, as I mentioned, discussion got stuck, it remained that way. But this is no excuse for giving undue weight to the RoC-side in this article. There needs to be a consensus on that, especially when we already have details about the northern part in this article (the Atatürk square paragraph agreed and expanded by you, I remember). I mean, look at your own comment: "The person who decided to create this article thought that all information about North Nicosia (post-1974) should be included there and leave this article for Nicosia-RoC. That's been the consensus..." A person decided on his/her own, and now that is the consensus. I am sorry, but that sounds unacceptable. Existence of the article of North Nicosia does not affect the fact that both sides have to be given due weight here (I have acquired the urge to repeat that there is no consensus on the contrary, and North Nicosia and Nicosia is not at all the same case with Cyprus and Nicosia as N. Nic. is not a political entity, but Nic. Tur. Mun. is and all), even if it means repeating the same thing (which is why I am planning to propose the merger, but even if my proposal is not accepted, what I have just mentioned would not change). --Seksen (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Finally, to summarize it: 1) A user creates the article of North Nicosia without any discussion. 2) Discussion about the article gets stuck, so the article of North Nicosia remains. There is no discussion regarding the removal of content related to the north (see this, by the way, Masri's last proposal seems feasible as well). 3) A user cites the existence of North Nicosia, claims that the separation exists for a reason, and says that there is a consensus for removing North Nicosia-related content. 4) When another user comes and adds details about North Nicosia, he is told that he cannot add because it is against consensus, he is asked to reach a consensus before adding details about North Nicosia. (meanwhile, the largest stadium in South Nicosia becomes the largest stadium in the whole of Nicosia in the article, although there is a larger one in North Nicosia)

I know that I am talking too much :) --Seksen (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Images

I want to note that WP:DUE applies not only to the content, but also to the images. Currently we have only one image of North Nicosia in the article (i.e. not in the gallery), and that is a photo of the Kyrenia Gate, and we have no photo of the modern part of North Nicosia. I added a photo reflecting this, but it was removed. Whilst I think there is no problem with this, I do accept that the photo is truncated (actually, this place has a nice view of the two highrises, but there were some electric wires and tree branches, so I had to cut out the rest), and I do not want to get involved in an edit war, and accept being truncated as a reason to remove to some level, I am not re-inserting the photo, but prejudiced comments such as "ugly 80s buildings" (one was built in late 90s and the other one was opened in 2008 if my memory does not fail me, and I find them quite nice, at least compared to white buildings which are very common in Nicosia), especially said in the tone of "there is no place for your photos of ugly 80s buildings here! go to the article of North Nicosia and insert them there!" (has some other implications such as removing all north-related content, of course) are very annoying and uncivil, and are examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so I also want to note that this is unacceptable. I think that a park does not reflect the city itself and it is not even clear that it is a park when one looks at that image in thumbnail, so have replaced it with another photo, --Seksen (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits, edits, edits

Now, let's see what is wrong with this edit:

1) Why are these details about the crossings are constantly removed and copyrighted material from the website of the Nicosia Municipality constantly added?

2) Any reason for shortening the notables section? (Actually there seems to be a few names added by Mmatso lost due to these revisions.)

3) See the section above for the status parameter of the infobox. That does not contain any factual inaccuracy, but adds essential edits instead.

4) Two, at most three images of historical Nicosia houses are enough. More than three is just redundancy in my opinion. There used to be around ten of them, and I reduced them to two, but if you would like to change those images used, I have no problem.

5) We have a policy called WP:DUE, which means that the two sides of the cities must be given due weight - and that applies to the gallery, especially when we have photos from the both sides. And the northern part is not just inside the walled city, the walled city is just a region of the northern part, so I think it is crucial to include some images of the city outside the walls.

5) Believe it or not, the Merit Hotel is the highest building in the northern part, (as verified by Hasan Hastürer, he says "the Yüksel Ahmet Raşit headquarters was the tallest buildings in the northern part of Nicosia until very recently; now, the Merit Hotel rises higher up beside them" - and for some time I have been trying to identify the highest building in the northern part myself, and I came to the same conclusion) which is something important.

6) Not only that he/she removes that image, he/she also removes this. Now, I think this image is a very good one to have there - not only that it shows the town hall of North Nicosia, it also shows the Atatürk Avenue, one of the main - and busiest, though this is certainly not the rush hour - avenues in the northern part.

--Seksen (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Full protection 3 days

At the request of an editor, I've fully protected the article from editing for 3 days to allow discussion without the fear of edit warring. Please discuss the changes to the article and seek consensus during this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I have tried to discuss as seen above, but there has been no response. See this for further details about my opinions. And I am not quite sure if a civil discussion is possible when we have edit summaries such as "No Sir OCCUPIED NICOSIA IS ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED and any photos should be directed to the non occupied areas. If you are so anxious to promote Northern Turkish occupied nicosia edit North Nicosia article. Your behaviour is arrogant sir." I think the situation is obvious. --Seksen (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Status

The current "status" section of the infobox does not even mention the existence of the TRNC. This implies that the TRNC is a puppet state established in the areas which are actually under the control of Turkish military, which is a POV. Wikipedia's aim is to write about what exists there, and so, the TRNC must be mentioned there. This was discussed before and I think nobody (including Masri145) would object to this (the disagreement is more about the form), but nobody made the edit back then. I am adding this detail to the status section. --Seksen (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Masri, I have explained my view here and in the infobox, the previous discussion is linked here, could you please express your opinion? Preferably without making assertions such as " the "it is simply a puppet state" because that really does not help. If it was widely considered to be a puppet state by the international political and academical community, we would refer it like that. It is a de facto state and I advise you to edit on that basis because otherwise this is not going anywhere. --Seksen (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit War Discussion

Here is my ideas about the Gallery war:

1) I think pictures without any regards of what part they are from should be displayed as long as they give an idea of the life or culture of Nicosia; or they are unique structures etc. in Nicosia.

2) I totally disagree of removing pictures just because they are in the North, South, East or West. I am however against pictures just put to make a political point. Pictures such as "Nicosia Turkish Municipality headquarters in Atatürk Avenue" don't represent Nicosia and are just put to promote divison and make tension in this article. (PS:honestly only a fool will think that they are not put here to make political tension or start an argument.)

3) I am also against Nicosia being talked as 2 different cities since it is only one city that is divided into two. Captions such as "Highrises in Bedrettin Demirel Avenue, the one on the right is the highest building in the northern part" give the misbelief of two different cities while the article is about 1 city only since another Nicosia doesnt exist in Cyprus. I wrote a caption to this photo which read "Bedreddin Demirel Avenue viewed from Dereboyu" or something like that and my caption was constantly removed by a fellow editor so i kept changing it back whenever he changed it to this.

4) Lots of false information was also presented under the pictures. The building presented here: "Highrises in Bedrettin Demirel Avenue, the one on the right is the highest building in the northern part" which is claimed to be the highest building in the "north" is actually not the highest building in the "north". It was the highest for a brief period in 2007-2008 I think. Golden Tulip Hotel building (located on Dereboyu/opened in 2010) is the highest building in "north" Nicosia. (Maybe some Turkish editors didnt account this fact because Merit is owned by a Turkish company while Golden Tulip is owned by a Cypriot-Dutch company.)

5) I think people who have visited Nicosia only once or twice shouldnt edit the pictures. They should let people who live and care about Nicosia do the picture editing since in my opinion those people have more knowledge on the city and how to present it.

6) If pictures are going to be put from the north part they shouldnt be named in their Turkish names. Most parts in the north have traditional Cypriot names (who sound almost the same in both Greek/Turkish Cypriot languages). In the picture "Venetian Column in Atatürk Square" the square depicted is Sarayonu Square. All Turkish Cypriots call it "Sarayönü Meydanı" and the Greek Cypriots call it "Platia Seragiou" and English people call it "Sarayonu Square". Only Turkish settlers, the very right wing Turkish Cypriot politicians and media of Turkey call it "Atatürk Meydanı". Therefor the real caption should have name it "Sarayonu Square".

Here is my idea of the article war:

1) Just because only Turkey thibks the invasion is a "peace opearation" or "intervention" doesnt mean the article has to call it something like that. An invasion is an invasion and it should be written like that; without any sugarcoates on it.

2) Some historical facts are distorted. The Ottoman invasion is called the "Ottoman Takeover" which is very wrong. A single word can change everything. There is no such thing as "Ottoman Takeover" there is "Ottoman Invasion" and "British Takeover".

3) I think the article part should not be editted by people who cannot even show Cyprus on a map; but edit for the sake of making politics. I think people who are highly knowledgeable about the topics should edit in a NON BIASED way. (Given that almost every Cypriot takes Cyprus History lessons for 10 years in school I think Cypriots have better knowledge than someone who only follows Cyprus and its politics from the media).

About me: I am a 19 year old, 100% Cypriot (from the Turkish speaking community). I lived in Nicosia all my life. Have taken Cyprus history lessons for 10 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmatso (talk • contribs) 23:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, comment on content, not users. You have just received your first warning on that. You may find more information on my background in my user page, talk page, and activity on Turkish Wikipedia. Just to note, because I do not want to deal with more personal attacks, my ethnic background is the same as you, I can show Cyprus very well on a map, I have lived in Nicosia throughout my life (that is already public knowledge) - and you are expected to respect different views, even if they do not belong to a Cypriot. So, it seems like I have found another fellow country(wo)man after all :) Glad to see Turkish Cypriots being interested more in Wikipedia these days.

2) I have explained why the Nicosia Turkish Municipality headquarters and Atatürk Avenue is important above. Please read it. I think that it gives "an idea of the life" in Nicosia and the building is a "unique structure". But I will be stepping back and not insisting on this.

3) Nicosia is of course not two different cities. Some users have previously claimed that "North Nicosia is a different city" and used this reason to remove details regarding the northern part from the city - and as you could have seen if you just bothered to read what is written above, I opposed this. But there is no need to deny the division of Nicosia and that there is a distinct northern part.

4) I am not responding to the personal attack part. Yes, I had previously thought that Golden Tulip was the tallest one as well. But after reading Hastürer's article linked above, I decided to have a more careful look, looked at it from the International Fair area and decided that Merit is slightly taller (well, including those extensions above).

5) I think I have already answered to this.

6) Well, to be honest, in my real life, I have never called it Atatürk Square as well. I have always called it Sarayönü. But Atatürk Square seems to be more common in reliable sources, so there is nothing we can do if not proved otherwise, see Talk:Atatürk Square.

1) There is no need to deny the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, an unrecognized sovereign state, a reality. The TRNC (i.e. not the Turkish military, but this civilian administration) is what is sovereign, its politics and the Turkish influence on it are already explained in the Northern Cyprus.

2) Yes, you have a point, it is really not a takeover. Conquest is the appropriate word without political connotations.

3) I have already answered this.

--Seksen (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Flea or not?

Could anyone explain how "The Turkish invasion, the continuous occupation of Cyprus as well as the self-declaration of independence of the TRNC have been condemned by several United Nations Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council. The Security Council is reaffirming their condemnation every year." is related to the history of Nicosia? I think this goes very much off-topic and is a perfect example of WP:Flea. We are not explaining the international reactions to the TRNC UDI here. Anyone interested would go there to read.

And apart from that, is there any sources for this repetition of condemnation? This is the source given and I can see nothing there. If these are the resolutions which "reaffirm the condemnation every year", there is no such thing stated there, they do not even use the word "occupation". --Seksen (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to understand your point. The head section is History and the sub-section is Independence and Division. Are you saying that the division of Cyprus is a different topic than the division of Nicosia? What would be a perfect example of WP:Flea is if we went off saying "Military occupation is effective provisional control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual..." or "An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity...". The text your trying to remove speaks about the political status of the the division (of Nicosia and of Cyprus). The two are inextricably linked and this piece of information is hugely important for the reader to understand the political situation. Masri145 (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. If you say "the northern part is considered to be under Turkish occupation by the UNSC", that is not irrelevant, if you say "the Turkish Cypriots declared the TRNC in 1983", that is still not irrelevant, if you say "no country apart from Turkey recognizes the TRNC", that would not be irrelevant as well, since these three reflect the status of Nicosia. But what we are doing goes beyond explaining the status. Condemning something is a political reaction, not status. There is a difference between the two, a huge difference. The (dubious, see above) fact that the UNSC repeat their condemnation every year is not important for understanding the political situation, unless of course the aim is to put emphasis on a point. We do not have such details in Stepanakert, for example. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 62/243 called for "the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan", and yet there is no mention of that in the history section (even the word "occupied" is not used). --Seksen (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nicosia and Berlin

I'm not comfortable with the reference to Berlin in "After the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Nicosia remained the only divided capital in the world". Berlin really wasn't a "divided capital" during the Cold War, because the seat of the West German government wasn't in West Berlin (it was in Bonn). The last time Berlin was anything like a "divided capital" would, I believe, have been between 1945 and 1949, when Berlin (the German capital, though in name only) was split into the four Allied occupation zones, and before the East and West German states were officially established. I think I would prefer to see this article say something like "Nicosia is the only divided capital in the world" — thus avoiding the whole Berlin issue altogether. — Richwales 17:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Richwales. Very good observation. We have to eliminate that reference. --E4024 (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Athenean, what do you think about this? As best I can tell, you were the last person to insist that this article should refer to Berlin. And I can certainly see that there is some sort of analogy potentially worth making between these divided cities (Berlin and Nicosia). Can you think of some rephrasing here that might allow us to capture this comparison without tripping over the nit-picking issue of whether Berlin was a divided capital (and not merely a divided city)? — Richwales 07:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rich, I think you might be mistaken, I never insisted that the article refer to Berlin. In fact I think the reference is entirely superfluous and unnecessary, and am perfectly ok with its removal. Athenean (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I had based my (mistaken?) assumption on the first half of this edit. But if you don't feel a Berlin reference is needed, I certainly won't argue. :-) — Richwales 08:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If you review the previous edition to that edition, Richwales, you will see that the user was editing "me" not the "contribution". There must be a blue underlined WP acronym (policy or principle) about this, but just as now, then also I did not know all these rules and regulations and that cost me a ban of 2 weeks for "edit warring", all by myself. Alone in war, lonely in the exclusion cell...

Here I have learned one principle that I have been following loyally, although still not know how to write it in blue letters with an acronym, but I think it is something defined as "F... all the rules if you are only trying to develop the encyclopedia (in goodwill)". --E4024 (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Ignore All Rules" (WP:IAR). To quote the policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This policy should, however, be used with great care and should be resorted to only when absolutely necessary. Different people have different understandings of it, but my own interpretation (for what it may or may not be worth) is that we need to focus our efforts on improving Wikipedia material and not allow mindless, slavish following of rules to get in our way. I'd even go so far as to suggest that if you really think Wikipedia's policies are keeping you from doing the "right thing", you are probably either misunderstanding the rule in question or are misinterpreting / misusing the rule in a way that wasn't really intended. In any case, anyone who ever does try to justify an action via WP:IAR is (pretty much by definition) certainly going to be challenged, so you really need to be sure you're on solid ground, have a consensus of people agreeing with you, and are prepared to defend your conclusion that what you ended up doing was the only reasonable thing to do. It's almost always going to be better to find a way to do the necessary things within the confines of the accepted policies. — Richwales 16:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

More thoughts on status in infobox

I agree that, if possible, a short summary of the status of Nicosia should be included in the infobox, rather than simply a reference to the article text.

However, I'm concerned about the current wording, "northern half of the city occupied by Turkey" — a wording which I see as slanted toward the view that the TRNC is a client/puppet state and that the real player is Turkey. I understand many people hold this opinion, and it may perhaps even be true, but it is definitely not the only mainstream view, and WP:NPOV doesn't allow us to declare this interpretation as an undisputed and indisputable fact.

I would prefer a summary more like "Divided between the Republic of Cyprus (southern half) and the de facto Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (northern half)". This might require the use of a different source, but other sources presumably do exist. I fully realize that no matter how the summary is worded, people will object, because (depending on their viewpoint) they will feel the TRNC is being given either too much or too little acknowledgment. I would urge people to look for a middle ground here which emphasizes the day-to-day reality of the situation (i.e., less de jure and more de facto). — Richwales 17:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeing this revert makes me want to reiterate my concerns (see above) over the wording in the infobox. We should look for something short, sweet, and middle-of-the-road — probably some compromise wording that no one will be really comfortable with. — Richwales 18:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree. So put your suggestion in; it's a good one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree partially. Why should the Turkish Cypriots would be "not" really comfortable? Due to embargo policies they have been enough uncomfortable for so many years. On the other hand, they had their own Mayor of Nicosia from time before but due to these confusing information(s), everywhere that the poor guy goes he is seen -due to Greek Cypriot brainwashing- as some strange seat-occupier. We cannot all be experts of Cyprus but yes impartial between the two societies, states and, yes, countries. It is high time to lean a bit towards the always treated unfairly. This is my POV... --E4024 (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

My point is that a good indication of the effectiveness of a compromise is that everyone feels they got something, but no one feels they got everything. In the extremely limited space available to describe Nicosia's status in the infobox, we simply don't have room for multiple competing views representing all the different viewpoints (the way we are normally supposed to achieve NPOV). All we really have room for is a short statement of basic facts. Hence my suggestion that we go with something that succinctly describes the reality of the situation, and leave detailed discussion of the nature of the TRNC to the main body of the article, where we will have room to elaborate.

E4024, what do you think about my proposed summary — "Divided between the Republic of Cyprus (southern half) and the de facto Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (northern half)"? — Richwales 22:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Support. I support every move you are trying to do around here, in the Cyprus-related articles, because I am convinced of your goodwill and appreciate your efforts. (contentious comment removed at editor's request)

For me, go on ahead. Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Masri145, what do you think about this proposed edit? I know you have been very outspoken against any wording (in the infobox or elsewhere) which might be seen as making the TRNC appear to be anything other than a puppet state totally beholden to Turkey. At the same time, I do note that the lead section of the article currently states plainly that the territory claimed by the TRNC is considered by the rest of the world to be occupied by Turkey — so it would seem to me that what I understand to be your position is adequately (and prominently) represented in the article text, even if it isn't reiterated in each and every reference to the political situation in the north. — Richwales 07:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Or should I say go ahead? --E4024 (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Rich, I hope you realise that statements by E4024 such as: without prejudice to my resentment on other users for their stubborn and, at times, haughty national selfishness. in his reply above, make it exceedingly difficult for the targets of his "resentment" to participate in any kind of discussion. I suggest an immediate removal of this inflammatory, battleground comment and a reminder by you to him, since you are an admin, that we are here to discuss not to attack other users as he usually does in his comments and to stop comments directed against Greek editors which he does quite often. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree that all of us need to be very careful here to express ourselves in a constructive fashion, discussing the subject of the article and avoiding (as much as possible) personal criticism of other editors. This is a very emotional topic to many people — a verbal minefield where the slightest misstep can easily have major (even if unintended) repercussions. At the same time, we should all try to defuse arguments wherever possible, by forgiving and overlooking comments that could reasonably be attributable to general frustration rather than actual malice — though this rationale shouldn't be used as an excuse for hotheadedness.

Even though I am an admin, I've been involved in content discussions on this topic to an extent that (per WP:INVOLVED) it would be improper for me to act in an administrative role on this or related articles, except perhaps in cases of clearly disruptive misbehaviour. The Arbitration Committee has come down hard in recent weeks on administrators who have crossed the WP:INVOLVED line, so I know I need to be careful even in situations where I might think I could easily justify my actions against a WP:INVOLVED accusation.

And yes, E4024, "go ahead" would more accurately express what I'm sure you were trying to say. English is a strange language, full of potholes and booby traps, and at times difficult even for native speakers to master. — Richwales 17:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In what way do you think that all of us need to be careful? Please indicate one instance where I have made a personal comment of the type E4024 frequently makes against Greek editors. And no, I don't agree that WP:INVOLVED disqualifies you from cautioning E4024 about these blatantly incivil comments and also removing them. Also frustration is no excuse. If someone is frustrated let them take a wikibreak. E4024 doesn't need to insult Greek editors every time he gets frustrated. But I take it that you think these comments are no big deal. I disagree and I will not participate in this discussion until these comments are removed and E4024 is cautioned not to make them again. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) E4024's inflammatory comments are completely unacceptable. Here he is sarcastically referring to Greek users as "the gods of Olympos" [2]. This is ethnic baiting and trolling, not "frustration" and "hot-headedness". There is no need to make excuses for this person, Rich. He has a long history of ethnic trolling, which is the reason he was blocked for two weeks (in addition to the edit-warring). His trolling and incivility is documented in several WP:ANI threads [3] [4]. This user has a serious ethnic/civility problem. You may be reluctant to warn him, but I'm not: One more instance of ethnic baiting, and it will be WP:ANI again and most likely and even longer block this time. Clear? Athenean (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As one more attempt to increase outside involvement on this issue, I've submitted a wikiquette assistance request (you can find it here). Procedure requires that I notify all of you (E4024, Dr.K., and Athenean) that I've named you (and myself) as parties in the dispute. I'll consider my mentioning the matter here to be sufficient notification — though if E4024 doesn't say anything in the next several hours, I'll notify him on his user talk page just to be sure. — Richwales 19:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have declined participation and submitted my rationale for declining there. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

At E4024's request, I am redacting the comment by E4024 that gave rise to this immediate complaint. I am keeping my request active at WP:WQA because I feel the need to get outside feedback regarding how to deal with situations of this sort in future. — Richwales 23:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Now — since you guys are done with the mud, can we now make the change to the infobox? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Seb, I never deal in mud, but if it is thrown at me you will have to excuse me if I call it out. Since E4024 did the honourable thing and retracted these comments I intend participate if it would be helpful, but my role will be on the sidelines rather than the forefront, providing advice or comments as needed, if needed. So please don't wait for me. Contrary to what Rich says about this infobox edit being an emotional issue, for me it is as emotional or exciting as watching paint dry. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and changed the status line in the infobox per this latest proposal. I made one small addition — I wikilinked the expression "de facto". It seems pretty clear to me that no one who has been participating here lately is opposed to this wording; and if someone else shows up and objects, please remember that (per WP:CON) "consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable)". — Richwales 02:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The proposed wording is unacceptable. The "de facto" word is simply pointless in the status box. De facto as compared to what? Legality of RoC? Why isn't this part mentioned? The wording favours entirely the turkish view which is that the city is divided between two independent states. The occupation is not simply a "view" that you can balance with the turkish propaganda of a "de facto state", but a commonly accepted fact by all countries as declared through a series of UN resolutions. Please see all relevant resolutions here [[5]]. If you check the latest UN General Assembly resolution in 1983 it says "Deploring the fact that part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus is till occupied by foreign forces". This resolution is reaffirmed each year by the UN security council. There's no mention of "de facto" in these resolutions. So yes, even if you think its one sided, unfortunately the truth is that the northern part of the city is occupied. This is the status and it's also reliably sourced. Masri145 (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I realize no wording here is likely to get unanimous support, but I will remind everyone that "consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable)". No matter what I or anyone might say, not everyone is going to agree; but since I was the main advocate this time around for the current infobox formula, I'm going to take this opportunity to put my views on the record.

As best I can tell, this new wording does represent a broad consensus — including the acquiescence of at least two editors openly supportive of pro-Greek views. A one-liner in an infobox presents a difficult situation, in that (unlike elsewhere in an article) it is simply not possible to give exposure to multiple alternative mainstream viewpoints; the most we can do is choose a single compromise wording (which almost certainly won't be fully satisfying to anyone), and allow the main body of the article's text to represent (in the words of the WP:NPOV policy) "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources".

The controversy over Greek and Turkish involvement on the island of Cyprus in general, and in the city of Nicosia in particular, is certainly covered in the rest of this article (though I imagine improvements can still be made), as well as in related articles such as Northern Cyprus, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Modern history of Cyprus, and Cyprus dispute. I really don't believe anyone who reads the entire Nicosia article — even if they don't bother to look at any of the other articles on the subject — is going to come away with the impression that the TRNC is an uncontroversial, full-fledged member of the community of nations. I would certainly not have supported the current infobox wording if it did not qualify the mention of the TRNC with something at least as strong as "de facto". Some will, of course, argue that de facto isn't strong enough, or not strong at all, but if you read the De facto article (which is why I decided at the last minute that it needed to be wikilinked), you'll see that the term specifically encompasses situations that are "created or developed without or contrary to" laws or regulations.

We need to acknowledge here that there is an ongoing controversy on the island of Cyprus, but (as I understand WP:NPOV) we need to do so without making Wikipedia take sides in the dispute. It is indeed true that the UN and most of the international community has taken a position on the legal status of the TRNC, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia must (or even should) present this same position as a settled fact with which no one on earth may legitimately disagree — any more than Wikipedia can or should do such a thing w/r/t Kosovo, South Ossetia, Palestine, Taiwan, Transnistria, or other unresolved territorial disputes. If a broad consensus can be formed for an alternative description of the division of Nicosia in the infobox, that would be fine — as long as it really is a consensus. — Richwales 16:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Rich can you specify which editors you had in mind when you said: ..including the acquiescence of at least two editors openly supportive of pro-Greek views...? In case you meant myself and Athenian could you please retract this unabashed and untrue accusation of POV against two editors in good standing who need not be maligned or painted this way? Also don't confuse acquiesence with fatigue or indifference. I also hope you understand that your status as an American does not really make you neutral if I have to judge from your careless and prejudicial remarks against Greek editors. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You also rushed to call consensus without waiting for others' input and fine-tuning. I was just reticent to further get involved in this mudfest and so I did not react. But don't mistake this as approval for your action which was hasty at best. Consensus is not formed by silence but by lively debate and compromise. Your hasty action provided no chance for either. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις}

Since, despite my honest efforts, I appear to be causing more harm than good here, I believe the best thing for me to do at this point is to un-watch all these pages and withdraw from any further discussion of the Cyprus conflict. I wish you all well, and I hope you will all be able to work together to improve the situation — both on-wiki and in "real life". — Richwales 21:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, Richwales, thank you very much. --E4024 (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Per my comments on NYB's talkpage I have reverted to your preferred version just to indicate my appreciation for your overall efforts and that whatever disagreement has occurred between us is not substantive enough to put a dent in the value of your contributions on this topic and in the general area of Cyprus. In short, I value your efforts here and hope you change your mind. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

As much as Rich's efforts are appreciated that doesn't mean the text represents any form of consensus since, judging from the discussion above, there's not been much discussion on the subject.

If the single minority (in this case the invading country) disagrees with a commonly accepted view, it doesn't mean we are allowed dilute historical facts such as the occupation. Especially when these facts are reliably sourced. The status of Nicosia since 1974 is that it has been divided by force by the Turkish army and remains occupied since then. The UN votings which represent the view of the world do not mention anything about "de facto" or "TRNC". This view has remained unchanged since 1974 (even if TRNC has been self-declared and recognised by nobody) - that the northern part of Cyprus (and of Nicosia) are occupied territories and nothing else.

The "de facto" wording is not strong enough to cover both sides simply because doesn't tell anything to the common reader. Almost no-one will bother clicking on the wikilink to find out what it means. What this suggestion achieves is to completely ignore the commonly accepted view (minus 1) that northern Nicosia is occupied territory. Masri145 (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)