Talk:Cyprus

Template:Vital article

The Data to be added Population Census Table

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

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

Population of Cyprus according to ethnic group 1777–1960

Ethnic group	census 17771		census 17902		census 17933		census 18004
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
Greeks	37,000	44.0	47,500	41.5	46,392	39.3	30,524	31.3
Turks	47,000	56.0	67,000	58.5	67,000	58.8	67,000	68.7
Armenians
Maronites
Others					4,608	3.9
Total	84,000		114,500		118,000		97,524
1 Source: [http://]. 2 Source: [http://]. 3 Source: [http://]. 4 Source: [http://].

Distribution of Turkish Cypriots (1891–1973)

Population of Cyprus according to ethnicity (1881–1960)

Ethnic group	1881 census		1891 census		1901 census		1911 census		1921 census		1931 census		1946 census		1960 census
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
Greeks	137,631	73.9	158,585	75.8	182,739	77.1	214,480	78.2	244,887	78.8	276,572	79.5	361,199	80.2	442,363	77.1
Turks	45,458	24.4	47,926	22.9	51,309	21.6	56,428	20.6	61,339	19.7	64,238	18.5	80,548	17.9	104,333	18.2
Armenians	174	0.1	280	0.1	517	0.2	558	0.2	1,197	0.4	3,377	1	3,686	0.8	3,630
Maronites	830	0.4	1,131	0.5	1,130	0.5	1,073		1,350		1,704		2,083		2,752
Others	1,738	0.9	1.364	0.7	1,327	0.6	1,569		1,942		2,068		2,598		20,488
Total	186,173		209,286		237,022		274,108		310,715		347,959		450,114		573,566

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

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

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

References

Fixing the population density figure

Hello,

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

Well, ideally we would find a reliable secondary source that gives a figure for population density in Cyprus rather than using our own figures. I'll look around for such a source, but I'm not sure I'll find one. I'd appreciate any help. Fern 24 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fern 24: I found this page from the World Bank, which gives 124 per km² for population density in 2013, a figure consistent with its 2013 estimate for the population at 1,141,000. Source of the data is the 2012 Revision (the latest available) of the World Population Prospects (from the United Nations Population Division). The full figure (also used at Wikidata) is found in the full CSV file (28 MB) at line 7715: population 1,141,166, density 123.356. As this estimate is more recent than the current figure in the article, itself sourced by a previous version of the same WPP, now a dead link, I will change it in the article. Oh, and by the way population density is just a different way to look at a population figure, it is not "our own figures". Place Clichy (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a bunch! I'm really glad this article as people prepared to do in-depth research like that. Fern 24 (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutral alternative for sentence on cultural heritage?

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

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

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

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

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

I must register my strong disagreement here. This sentence should make it clear that it is the Turkish "authorities" that are trying to obliterate Greek presence, and it should also mention that personal greed is also involved, since that is in the source as well. What you are proposing is too wishy-washy and vague. Athenean (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to find a neutral, verifiable sentence that we both agree on, and I think the best way to do that is to incorporate quotes from the source - including the aspects you mentioned. If you can give me the specific quotes about personal greed and Turkish authorities, I'd happily make a new sentence and work on it with you. Fern 24 (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read the source provided in the article, it's freely available. I don't see anything wrong with the sentence in its current form, and it's fully backed by the source. Athenean (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I read the source, and I cannot find anywhere that it specifies "greed and profit-seeking" as the motives. The closest quote is "Whether guided by the passion of discovery or the greed for profit, the result in both cases was destruction."

I believe that the sentence as it is is biased towards the Greek Cypriot point of view, and I think the best way to ensure that we do not misrepresent the source, which we both agree is reliable, is to use quotes. My proposal is:

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

Fern 24 (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, "...or greed for profit...". I don't see how it could be clearer. It is also quite obvious that the Turkish "art dealer" that was arrested in Germany that is discussed in the article is motivated by greed. Again, I don't see anything wrong with the sentence or that it's biased in any way. I appreciate your efforts here, but so far no one has objected to this sentence except you. Athenean (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the sentence is clear. As I read it, Hadjisavvas is not saying that both of these are motives, but rather is giving the reader two possibilities that would both lead to the same result, regardless of the motive that is actually there. Additionally, whether or not the Turkish dealer is motivated by greed is not mentioned in the source, so such an assertion is WP:OR, in my opinion.

I also disagree that "no one [else] has objected." In the discussion above, GGT objected to this very sentence, albeit for different reasons.

Thank you for your appreciation. Because it seems that we disagree on both the content of the source and the neutrality of the current sentence, I think the best action now is to compromise: I think my sentence above meets midway. If you still disagree, I would recommend bringing in a WP:3O to weigh in on how well both my and your sentences adhere to WP:NPOV. Fern 24 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I will also read the source and write my thoughts here as well. Fern 24 has a good point. kazekagetr 19:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That the art "dealers" that engage in this trade are motivated by greed is painfully obvious from reading the source. Your proposed sentence does not lay blame on the Turkish authorities, and seeks to conceal that the heritage being destroyed is Greek. Both these points are egregiously against NPOV and totally unacceptable to me. Athenean (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Came here from WP:3O. I strongly disagree with the inclusion of the quote: articles should be written in our own words, not quoting other people except when we're concentrating on what they themselves have said. For example, "Greek Cypriot archaeologist Sophocles Hadjisavvas calls it a 'deliberate destruction...'" is fine, but it's simply bad form to use other people's words as part of the running text. On top of that, consider the copyright — when we use someone else's words, it's only acceptable if we're following the standards of fair use, and simply merging someone else's text into our article is not at all fair use. Of course it's fine if this journal is freely licensed, but I see no copyright statements except "© PSU Press". Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The quotes never sat well with me either. Athenean (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. In view of your comments, I have slightly changed the current sentence, but without using the quote or (IMO) significantly changing Athenean's words. Although I still believe that the source does not explicitly state that greed is a motive, I don't think it's a major issue since it is implicit in the article. Additionally, I added the relevant quote to the reference so that interested readers can judge for themselves. Fern 24 (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I, too, dislike the "obliteration" sentence, and the "ethnic cleansing" is also unnecessary. It's surely obvious what the Turkish Cypriot authorities are attempting to achieve (I opted for the word "erase") by leaving Greek/Christian heritage to rot or by letting it be flogged off.

Also, I would go still further: pointing out that people looting artefacts is motivated by "greed" and "self-interest" is surely unnecessary. I'd honestly be quite happy to see the whole sentence go. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, YeOldeGentleman, but I believe we are at an impasse over this section. There have been two lengthy discussions over this sentence without reaching mutually acceptable solutions. I suggest opening an RFC on this section/this sentence, since the current situation is devolving into an edit war. Fern 24 (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing and cultural heritage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My input was not on the kind of content that should be included, but the text itself: we should be paraphrasing the guy if we're including his opinions, not quoting him. No opinion on whether he should be included, or who else should be. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Busy now but will look at the sources and comment sometime in the near future. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your research, GGT. I'd like to add another source to be considered, regardless of the course of action we choose. The ECHR issued a ruling in 2001 about the various human rights violations that, in its estimation, Turkey had committed. Although this does not discuss the motivation behind Turkey's actions (as far as I can ascertain), I think it is an excellent summary from an extremely reliable source for this section. Fern 24 (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out to that. If we are to cover Turkish-instigated violations, believe that other issues arising due to the Cyprus problem, such as the violations of the right to property, violations of the civil rights of enclaved Greek Cypriots (and Turkish Cypriots in the south, per the ECHR case Aziz v. Cyprus) should be discussed, though caution should be taken as the decision for Cyprus v. Turkey is from 2001 and there have been notable improvements in the conditions for the enclaved since then (per US reports). I would even say that these issues should take precedence over cultural heritage. But without digression, I believe we should currently concentrate on removing the existing bias in the section. --GGT (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not at all impressed with Sam Hardy's scholarship or publication record, which is minimal. Neither of the papers you link to appear in peer-reviewed journals. He is also extremely partisan, seeking by various means to equate the wholesale and ongoing plunder of Greek Cypriot antiquities with the far more limited destruction of Turkish Cypriot heritage in the heat of the aftermath of the 1974 invasion. Much of what is written in his publications has nothing to do with antiquities and the destruction of heritage, but are rather devoted to portray the Turkish Cypriots as victims of Greek Cypriots (he writes on and on about how the Turkish Cypriots were pushed into Gaza-like enclaves, and other similar claims far outside his area of expertise), and he even goes so far as to blame the Greek Cypriots for the plunder of their own antiquities. The lack of impartiality in his work has been pointed out by Hadjisavvas, so it's not just me saying this. Based on his minimal publication record and partisanship, I thus cannot consider him an equal source to Hadjisavvas, and he does not invalidate what Hadjisavvas says about the plunder being motivated by a policy of ethnic cleansing. The bit about the distinction between Turkish policy and the Turkish deep state is a piece of sophistry. Mr. Hardy is an archaeologist and not an expert in international law, thus this claim falls far outside his area of expertise and does not merit consideration. That said, I have no problem with attributing the ethnic cleansing sentence to Hadjisavvas, with one caveat. If another reliable source can be found that makes a similar claim, then the attribution should be removed. Athenean (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I rather considered those papers to be supplementary to the reports by the European Commission in question, whose reliability, I believe, in such matters cannot be second-guessed. Given that these reports are in stark contradiction to Hadjisavvas and that Hadjisavvas has failed to respond to them, I would like to see an opinion with regards to those reports.

I wonder whether your claim of Hardy being "extremely partisan" is your personal view and as such original research, as that seems to be the case - and this is something that does not affect the evaluation of its reliability. Hadjisavvas does critique the work of Hardy by saying "Though well documented, Hardy’s work is largely devoted to criticism of Jansen’s publication and seeks to equate the organized destruction of Greek and Christian heritage in the north—executed by a foreign country— to vandalism and limited destruction of Islamic religious buildings in the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus that occurred during the conflict at the hands of a small group of extremists", but that is all he says and this has nothing to do with your claims of extreme partisanship. He also calls Hardy's work an "important contribution" to the field of the destruction of Cypriot heritage. It is equally evident that Hadjisavvas has been critiqued by Hardy. We are not in a position to judge the partisanship of a given author whose articles have been published in a peer reviewed publishing house; which Palgrave Macmillan is (Hardy also has an article on Cypriot heritage published in the peer-reviewed European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research). What this seems to be is a usual case of an academic dispute between two reputable scholars in the field of archaeology, to claim that Hadjisavvas is the only reliable source and use this to diminish the value of Hardy's peer-reviewed research (which is further dismissed as "minimal" in number) is a clear form of argument from authority. I do not see how the distinction between the deep state and the Turkish national policy is sophistry, that seems to be an unsubstantiated assertion as the distinction between the two has been made quite clear in the work of Hardy and the relevant articles. I would also like to point out to Hardy's evaluation of the destruction, especially in the south, in this article in a peer-reviewed journal. (However, with regards to the second paper I have linked in my first comment, you are indeed right that it lacks peer review, though that does not change the reliability of Hardy's peer-reviewed papers or his position on the issue.)

I would also like to point out that Hadjisavvas is also an archaeologist and has no expertise in international law, and that if we were to apply the idea that "this claim falls far outside his area of expertise and does not merit consideration", it should be equally applied to the legal-political evaluations of motives and violations made by Hadjisavvas. Alessandro Chechi, an expert in art law, has an article published in the peer-reviewed Ashgate Publishing House regarding the issue of cultural heritage in Cyprus. As I said before, the source points out to the reports by the European Commission and argues that there is no policy of ethnic cleansing at work when it comes to cultural heritage by either side, and that this is a piece of propaganda perpetuated by both. He elaborates upon both the destruction of Christian/Greek and Islamic/Turkish heritage and argues that the responsibility falls jointly upon Turkish and Greek Cypriots. To me, it appears that Hadjisavvas is the lone holder of the opinion that the destruction in the north is utterly incomparable to that in the south and is the result of a policy of ethnic cleansing, a view that is negated by the European Commission, Chechi and Hardy. --GGT (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not that simple. The European Commission is a political body, not an academic body. Its reports are not subject to peer-review, and as a political body it has a political agenda (which at the time that those reports were written was supportive of Turkey's EU admission). As such, it cannot be considered equal to an academic source like Hadjisavvas. If Hadjisavvas says "A", and the EU Commission says "not A", I'll take Hadjisavvas. Regarding the shodiness of Hardy's work, you should read what Hadjisavvas says further down: "The mere fact that I reviewed Jansen's manuscript for mistakes in the archeological record presented was taken by Hardy as an attempt by me to dictate to the author the official Greek point of view.". This is outrageous and calls into question both the impartiality and quality of Hardy's scholarship. His publication record is also minimal, thus I do not consider him in any way the equivalent of Hadjisavvas. So it's Hadjisvvas vs. Chechi, but there is also a vast body of literature on this subject out there, e.g. [1], which unfortunately I do not have the time to investigate at the moment. Nevertheless, in the interest of resolving this dispute, I re-iterate my proposal to attribute the sentence to Hadjisavvas, to which you did not respond in your previous post. Athenean (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Currency & calling codes

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

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

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

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

"Greek Cypriots"

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

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

Future Work

This section is designed to discuss the future work of the article.

We should seek to extend the Culture section to include a new subsection regarding the traditional clothing worn in Cyprus, given that there was a distinctive dress amongst men and women, such as the Vraka. Indeed, these are no longer worn except for dance performances and celebrations of Cyprus' history, but I think it's worth including if possible. This new section may be titled as 'Folk Costume' to relate to the following article: Folk costume.