Talk:Nicosia: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nicosia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nicosia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cyprus C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cyprus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cyprus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyprusWikipedia:WikiProject CyprusTemplate:WikiProject CyprusCypriot articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cities C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Template:WP1.0

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, without prejudice to my resentment on other users for their stubborn and, at times, haughty national selfishness. For me, go on. Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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