Template talk:History of Northern Cyprus

Template items

[edit]

If this template is going to work out, it is necessary to discuss which items to include. The top of the template says "Part of a series on the History of Northern Cyprus". Ideally it should only contain links where the template would naturally be included in the target article. If the template fits in the article, then the article fits in the template.

It is obvious that articles like "Ottoman Cyprus" cannot be "part of the series". (If there in the future should be an article on "Ottoman Northern Cyprus" (which is rather doubtful), it would fit, but not the general article.) Links to "Northern Cyprus" and even to "Cyprus" are also obviously not "part of the series". In the first case, the link should go to "Northern Cyprus#History" (or "History of Northern Cyprus" if that article ever reaches main space), in the second case, it is a non-starter.

I have stripped the non-starters from the template, reorganized the rest (and added one). There is more to do, but this may be a start.

I would also suggest to find a more elegant illustration on top than the rather ugly "look, we have our own map and our own flag". Regards! --T*U (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully with your well-considered comments. This is just another POV-push from the usual account. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that articles like "Ottoman Cyprus" cannot be "part of the series".
The demonym of Northern Cyprus is "Turkish Cypriot". Hence, naturally, the "History of Northern Cyprus" includes not only that of "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" but also that of "Turkish Cypriots". See, inter alia, "Template:History of Armenia", "Template:History of Abkhazia", etc.
If there in the future should be an article on "Ottoman Northern Cyprus" (which is rather doubtful), it would fit, but not the general article.)
There will be no "Ottoman Northern Cyprus". There is already a "Ottoman Cyprus"
Links to "Northern Cyprus" and even to "Cyprus" are also obviously not "part of the series". In the first case, the link should go to "Northern Cyprus#History" (or "History of Northern Cyprus" if that article ever reaches main space),
There will be link to "History of Northern Cyprus" article.
I would also suggest to find a more elegant illustration on top than the rather ugly "look, we have our own map and our own flag".
The fantastic art of Lefkara goes back to 1000 years ago, any many tourists got attracted from Lefkara arts.
The map is one of the frequently used items in this template: See, inter alia, Template:History of Abkhazia
Template:History of Canada: Only the flag of Canada.
Template:History of Greece: There is a relevant map.
You wrote: You changed "Events/hostilities of 1974" to "Turkish invasion of Cyprus". "Events/hostilities of 1974" already redirect there.
But, the scope of "Events/hostilities of 1974" is larger than the latter: The latter began on 20.07.1974 whereas the former began 15.07.1974, and even earlier (See, inter alia, Makarios' letters). Alexyflemming (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About Ottoman Cyprus: If there had been anything in the Ottoman Cyprus article that was relevant for Northern Cyprus specificly, it might have been possible to link to that. But there isn't, since the concept of Northern Cyprus as a separate entity didn't exist at the time.
About the illustration: Local traditional artwork? Certainly. Flag? Certainly. Map? Certainly (but notice the clean simplicity in most templates that use a map). But all three at the same time is completely overkill. I would suggest the artwork alone, since the map has no history before 1974 and the flag not before 1983.
About "Turkish invasion": The template is constructed of links to WP articles and the relevant WP article is named "Turkish invasion". Writing "Events/hostilities of 1974" when linking to "Turkish invasion" is just pov-pushing an euphemism. --T*U (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Writing "Events/hostilities of 1974" when linking to "Turkish invasion".
Nope, I wrote "Events/hostilities of 1974" to refer/link "(15.07.1974(even earlier)-later)", not to refer/link "20.07.1974-later". The methodology I used is exactly the same methodology of United Nations. I showed you already.
  • But all three at the same time is completely overkill.
The demonym of Northern Cyprus is "Turkish Cypriot". Hence, once you got this (the isomorphism of "Northern Cyprus" and "Turkish Cypriotism"), then all the rest makes sense. Alexyflemming (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not understand your comments: 1) We are talking about links to existing articles, so there is no way you can link anything to "(15.07.1974(even earlier)-later)". 2) What has the demonym to do with the illustration in the template? --T*U (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. There is a way to link "Greek coup" to an already existent Wiki article: 1974_Cypriot_coup_d'état. The "coup" article is already existing for a long time (since 2005!). Hence, what is more natural to link "a coup" to "an already existent coup article": "(15.07.1974(even earlier)-later)" to 1974_Cypriot_coup_d'état.
2. The demonym of "Northern Cyprus" is "Turkish Cypriot". Hence, in the template, the characteristics of Turkish Cypriots appears: The map of their sovereign areas, their flag, their distinguishing characteristic from mainland Turks. Turkish Cypriots are more green-lovers and protect the nature when compared with the mainland Anatolian Turks. Also, the template is "History of Northern Cyprus". It must therefore include the items from the history of Turkish Cypriots, just as it was so in many other templates of the same category. See, inter alia, Armenia's one. It includes more further than Rep. of Armenia, and includes the history of its people as well.Alexyflemming (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered 1. below. As for 2.: You just have put far too much into the illustration. Most other "History of"-templates have just one element, and often a rather subtle one. You have three. That is what I mean by overkill. In my taste it is ugly and rather vulgar. The traditional artwork alone would, still in my opininon, be very nice. As it is now, you hardly notice it because it is killed by the map and flag. --T*U (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You just have put far too much into the illustration: Only 3 objects! Look at "Template:History of France" (3 objects), Template:History of Indonesia (3 objects over the flag), Template:History of Malaysia (3 objects over 2 flags!), Template:History of the Philippines (countless objects and a flag), Template:History of Macau (3 objects)
Most other "History of"-templates have just one element In some "History of"-templates, there is only coat of arms. However, coat of arms of Northern Cyprus is 99% same with coat of arms of Cyprus. Hence, not a distingushing item, even does not represent the characteristics of Turkish Cypriots much.
,.. and often a rather subtle one No, there are many concrete examples in "History of"-templates as well.
you hardly notice it because the traditional artwork is killed by the map and flag Lefkara art is not peculiar to Turkish Cypriots. It is performed by Greek Cypriots as well (like Hellim, Halloumi). Hence, there must be some other things that will reflect something only peculiar to Turkish Cypriots. Also, when clicked, it is completely accesible.Alexyflemming (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suit yourself, use all three if they are so terribly important to you. But allow me then just to give you some suggestions on how to improve the illustration: You could remove the copyright notice, which is disturbing the picture. You could remove the blue background colour that gives the impression that NC is an island surrounded by sea. You could use a lighter colour on the map, green if you prefer, but a more pastel green. You could shrink the map and blow up the lefkara, preferably with the lefkara centered above the map to make a better balance. --T*U (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could remove the copyright notice, which is disturbing the picture.
Thanks for your improvement suggestion, I applied your advice. See updated image.
You could remove the blue background colour that gives the impression that NC is an island surrounded by sea.
Even though NC is not totally surrounded by sea, it is mostly so: there is a huge coastline of NC: It covers 51% of all the coastline of Cyprus island!
You could shrink the map and blow up the lefkara, preferably with the lefkara centered above the map to make a better balance.
Flag being the pivotal point, Lefkara and Karpas peninsula is in balance.
TU-nor, what about the following image in "Template: History of Cyprus"?
Though I am not an artist to inquiry to artistic value of the painting, I thought that there may be some Greeks who will not enjoy that as@ in such a main template. Any idea? As@ is in the center. Full balance! If a Turkish Cypriot put it there for devilment, shame on him...Alexyflemming (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? 213.7.147.34 (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid he must be. I give up. Artistic value ... --T*U (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I were (in place of) Greek Cypriots, I would not put that mosaic. I am sure the Helen culture in the Cyprus island has more artistic mosaics than this one. If they regard that especially that mosaic represent their History better, then that is their business, of course.Alexyflemming (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The demonym of Northern Cyprus is "Turkish Cypriot". Hence ... Ah yes, the good ol' argumentum ad etymologum. Don't be offended if people don't take you seriously. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The demonym of Northern Cyprus is "Turkish Cypriot". See the infobox at right in Northern Cyprus (even, it is the only demonym of "Northern Cyprus"). Since the beginners lack some elementary knowledge like this, it is sometime difficult for the experts like me to explain the Cyprus dispute thoroughly to the novices. Alexyflemming (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no established demonym. You'll see 'Northern Cypriot' used quite often, especially when distinguishing the citizens of Northern Cyprus from Turkish Cypriots is desirable. But this is besides the point; I was commenting on your illogic. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Northern Cypriot?!", Huh? The two people living in the island are foremost separated according to the race, not according to geography. "Northern Cypriot" also not that much prevalent if compared with "Turkish Cypriot" (Google Search: "Northern Cypriot": 9,750 links; "Turkish Cypriot": 1,380,000 links.) and used by some foreigners that are not familiar with "Cyprus" and "Cyprus dispute". Northern Cyprus is not the country of "Northern Cypriots", but the country of "Turkish Cypriots"! Alexyflemming (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are the expert. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(the isomorphism of "Northern Cyprus" and "Turkish Cypriotism") This "isomorphism" has no historical basis prior to 1974 and is POV and abuse of WP:OR to relate the term "Northern Cyprus" with "Turkish Cypriotism" throughout history. "Turkish Cypriots" existed long before the entity known as "Northern Cyprus" or "TRNC". In addition "Turkish Cypriots" did not live in "Northern Cyprus" but throughout Cyprus for most of their history. "Northern Cyprus" came into existence after the 1974 invasion and is the result of forcible population evictions which changed the historical demographics of the northern part of Cyprus which for most of its historical existence had a Greek-Cypriot majority. There was not even a "Land of Northern Cyprus" where "Turkish Cypriots" could aspire one day to return to, like the Jews of Israel. So to create an article on "History of Northern Cyprus" and try to also accommodate in it the "History of Turkish Cypriots", while ignoring the fact that the location had a Greek majority for most of its history and that Turkish Cypriots were not located in it for most of their history, is ahistorical propaganda. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "isomorphism" has no historical basis prior to 1974 and is POV and abuse
Bro, did you ever notice that the "Northern Cyprus" is the abbreviation of "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". Hence, the demonym of Northern Cyprus is "Turkish Cypriot".
  • "Turkish Cypriots" existed long before the entity known as "Northern Cyprus" or "TRNC".
That's why, "The History of Northern Cyprus" must cover that long before period as well since the Templates not only cover the history of countries but also the history of people of that countries.
  • "Northern Cyprus" came into existence after the 1974 invasion".
Nope, there were Turkish Cypriot sovereign areas in Cyprus island before 1974 as well!
There were Turkish Cypriot sovereign areas in northern part of Cyprus island pre-1974.
"Provisional Turkish Cypriot Administration" that was established in 1967 was fully sovereign.
Also, note that:
In the past, "Turkish Cypriots were sovereign in 1960-RoC with veto rights".
In the present, Turkish Cypriots are sovereign in TR of Northern Cyprus.
For future, "Turkish Cypriots accepted (by Greek Cypriots) to be equally sovereign in future United Cyprus Republic (see Joint Declaration)".
  • "...and is the result of forcible population evictions"
Broooo, please, please, ..., please, please, I am expert!:
Greek Cypriots in Rizokarpaso chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.
Greek Cypriots in Agios Andronikos chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.
Greek Cypriots in Agia Triada chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.
Maronites in Asomatos chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.
Maronites in Karpasia chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.
Maronites in Kormakitis chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.
Turkish Cypriots in Lemmossol chose to stay in southern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Cyprus in 2014.
All the rest chose voluntarily to switch the sides in 1975 according to "Voluntary Population Exchange Agreement in 1975" under the auspieces of the United Nations.
i.e. if all of the Greek Cypriots in Kyrenia had chosen to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and all of them now would be living in Northern Cyprus in 2014.
Since this is so, the Greek Cypriots (who want to return Northern Cyprus) were/are/will be always rejected wherever they go:
USA Federal Court (09.10.2014): "..Greek Cypriots CANNOT CLAIM here that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots...."
The news of the decision of the Court: (13.10.2014): http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/13/72392.htm
The website of the case of the Court: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002
The decision of the Court.....: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002/53
NOTE: Previously, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rejected Greek Cypriots' request to return Northern Cyprus.
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (27.05.2010): (Tasos Asproftas: [Application no. 16079/90] and Marianna Petrakidou [Application no. 16081/90]).
“The houses which the Greek Cypriots left in North Cyprus are not their homes any more because they have lived almost for all their lives in another place and they have no concrete and persisting links with the houses they claimed. Therefore Greek Cypriots have no right to return to the North.”
  • "....of the northern part of Cyprus which for most of its historical existence had a Greek-Cypriot majority"
Helens are in Cyprus since 1400BC. There were no Helens before then. However, there are settlements in Cyprus island since 10,000 BC.
Second, Turkish Cypriots were majority (even to the 75%) in Cyprus island in the history as well. See: Talk:Demographics_of_Cyprus#The_Data_to_be_added_Population_Census_Table with referrences even from Greek sources!
  • "... and that Turkish Cypriots were not located in it for most of their history..."
Turkish Cypriots were located in Cyprus since 1570 (even earlier). Hence, comparing it with Aussies in Austrilia, and Anglo-saxons in US, the duration is fairy much enough.
Alexyflemming (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that the Greek Cypriots in Rizokarpaso, Agios Andronikos and Agia Triada and the Maronites in Asomatos, Karpasia and Kormakitis now are Turkish Cypriots?
Couldn't you now stop misrepresenting sources? As you by now have been told several times, your quote is not a quote from the court, but from the Courthouse News Service, and the CNS you are quoting from does not emphasize the "cannot claim", neither in italics, as you have done before, nor in all caps, as you do here. Earlier this might have been written off as mistakes, now it is difficult to see it as anything else than dishonesty. --T*U (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What T*U said. And I see you have not addressed any of my substantive points. Now you have also resorted to calling me "bro" including in your edit-summaries. Please stop your trolling. Except if that's a clumsy (and failed) attempt at being trendy. In any case, doesn't work with me. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. (03.03.2014) island nation of Cyprus;
3. (03.11.2014) "forcible eviction".
Looking at the dates of the miracles you created (09.02.2014, 03.03.2014, 03.11.2014), it seems as if you are learning objectivity/neutrality slowly slowly. Previously, your taking rabbits out of hat was more frequent!Alexyflemming (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three things: 1. Can you please talk in English so that you can be understood? Your sentence structure, syntax and grammar are virtually non-existent. 2. Stop the personal attacks. 3. Ditto for the trolling. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις
I'm sorry, but do we really need this sidebar? I think {{Northern Cyprus topics}} has already got it covered. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"History of Northern Cyprus" is only one of the items of "Northern Cyprus topics". The "History of Northern Cyprus" has its own items, all related with history somewhat. Hence, "Template: History of Northern Cyprus" is really needed.Alexyflemming (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two links that were missing, and now, with the exception of UNFICYP, there's complete overlap. There simply isn't enough material for a History nav template. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about the guidelines concerning multiple navigation templates containing overlapping information. I feel that the history template is quite handy and more easy to use, but would welcome more experienced editors to comment on the suitability of having both boxes. --T*U (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. Sidebars are usually placed at the top, so they're more visible, and, since this one's got less links than the navbox, it should also be somewhat easier to navigate. But there's also clutter to consider; this template will be placed in articles that have already got other sidebars. I've seen articles with sidebars longer than the text. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is another good point. In fact, most of the relevant articles already have at least one sidebar, so there will be heavy competition. Maybe the NC Topics template is more useful after all. --T*U (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It overlaps with this one too. I've no idea how the Cyprus dispute is a matter of foreign relations, but there you go. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greek coup in template?

[edit]

I cannot quite see how the Greek coup is part of the history of Northern Cyprus. The coup as a precursor to the Turkish invasion is well covered in the "Turkish invasion" article, and the "1974 Cypriot coup d'état" article does really not add anything at all relevant to the division of the island. I feel that this template would be completely malplaced in that article, and therefore the coup is malplaced in the template. --T*U (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The frequently used phrase of UN (i.e. "Events/Hostilities of 1974") covers all events of 1974; not only the Turkish military operation, but also Greek coup. Cherrypicking is POV.
TU-nor, you previously reverted the phrase "Events/hostilities of 1974". That phrase was covering both the 15.07.1974-Coup and 20.07.1974-military operation. You did not make any good in that reverting.Alexyflemming (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot link one text to two articles at the same time, so you need one text to each link. If you insist on having the Greek coup as an item in the template, I will not fight against it, even if I disagree. The point of the template is for navigation, so the text must mirror the title of the linked article, so "Greek coup" and "Turkish invasion" it must be. Terms like "events" and "hostilities" will not give the user any information. --T*U (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:History_of_Northern_Cyprus&oldid=1231750768"