This template is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting, an attempt to bring some sort of order to Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to improve/expand the articles containing this stub notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Stub sortingWikipedia:WikiProject Stub sortingTemplate:WikiProject Stub sortingStub sorting
This template 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
This template should under NO CIRCUMSTANCES use the flag - the stub is designed to be used for the entire island of Cyprus, and as such the flag is highly inappropriate. Grutness...wha?23:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The flag of the Republic of Cyprus is internationally recognized but Turkish Cypriots find it offensive. Two flags will on the other hand offend Greek Cypriots. Apparently a neutral depiction of the island was also considered inappropriate. In that case, no image at all will be better. The scope of this template is the entire island of Cyprus, but it is not intended to offend any community, and its scope has nothing to do with politics. WP:WSS tries very hard to avoid stub images or stub template scopes that can be offensive. A no-image solution will probably not be loved by everybody, but please see it in good faith. Alas, I have no ideas myself as to an image that both sides will only associate with something positive. Valentinian(talk) / (contribs)15:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Cyprus wikilink to Geography of Cyprus, the last article is pretty good and talks about the article and has links to the articles of both states/entities/whatevers :) I was being bold, so if it poses any problems it can be modified or reverted. This way we can avoid any future tensions I think. I used [Geography of Cyprus|Cyprus] format. So it still appears as Cyprus at first sight. Geography of Cyprus gives a relatively good overview in its lead with links to both Cyprus and TRNC articles. Maybe it might be a good idea to split Cyprus article into Cyprus and Republic of Cyprus similar to China and et al, but that's for another day :) Baristarim20:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree with changing the link. The stub is for Cyprus, not for its Geography. Cyprus article covers whole island and it is said that Republic of Cyprus claims as the whole governor of it. You can change the article for Cyprus since it covers whole island. Even a Republic of Cyprus article will cover whole island. So we will have to similar articles. KRBN 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It is about both entities. If not, there needs to be another stub for TRNC. This issue was already raised in WikiProject Countries. Cyprus needs to be split into two articles, one for the island as geographical region, and one for the Republic, like is the case for China etc. Geography covers both parts of the island, so what is the problem? Unless Cyprus article is split or there is a seperate TRNC stub, then there is no problem with having it at Geography. Baristarim00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article about Cyprus covers whole island. It belongs also to categories of islands and it is said also that it is a republic. Geography of Cyprus is absolutelly a not at all related issue with the stub since it is said about geography. For every country it links to the country's article directly. Even the article is subcategory of category cyprus, not its geography. Geography just covers geography; no entity or anything else. As for the split of Cyprus article, is another issue (which I disagree). If it is splitted, then sure the Cyprus stub will link to the Island. Hoever the whole Cyprus is one island and one country. An article about Island Cyprus will describe whole Cyprus, and Republic of Cyprus, again about whole Cyprus. So we will have two articles with same content.
Cyprus is a considered ONE nation by European Union and UN. Some people can't (or don't want to) understand that the "TRNC" is an unrecognized by UN & EU, self declared and illegal nation which forced 250.000 Cypriots to leave their homes (or the turkish troops would kill them) and possess (illegally) the 38% of the island. Also , if you don't know it, Turkish Cypriot's settled policy is to reckon "offensive" anything that objects their angle (such us the real and only flag of Cyprus ). My conclusion is to restore the Cypriot flag for this template. --KaragouniS14:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lool. There is a difference between wanting it to be one country and the de-facto reality. There are two different entities. There are different articles for China and People's Republic of China, by the way. And Karagounis, whatever man... Or the Turkish troops would kill them, righhht.. Just like EOKA-B that was killing Turkish Cypriots.. The flag won't be restored, otherwise there will be a different stub for TRNC. That's all. If there is to be the Cyprus flag on this, then there will need to be a different stub for TRNC. Take the rest of the banter to the talk pages of other articles please. Stick to the topic, and it is about the stub. Geography of Cyprus was a common sense solution to prevent future edit-wars. Baristarim14:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol again. Cyprus IS one country according to UN & EU, whether you like it or not. And the things you said about EOKA B actions, are just lies and you know it. I repeat: Cyprus is ONE nation for EU & UN and this stub is about Cyprus, not the thing called "trnc", and Cypriot flag must be immediately restored --KaragouniS14:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TRNC is there, and you know it. As I said, there is a difference between wanting it to be one country and the de-facto reality. Its status is a different matter. For Wikipedia to ignore the reality will be a deficiency for it as an encyclopedia.
It is common knowledge what EOKA-B did, if you are not aware of them, then I wonder how you consider yourself knowledgable about Cyprus to begin with. In any case, take all this banter to the relevant talk pages. This is about the stub, and the encyclopedic structure. There is a TRNC article and related articles. If there won't be a stub to regroup them, then this stub shouldn't use the flag either. The map is fine. What is this "oppose Turkish POV" at all costs? The map was put in place by non-Turks, if I might add. Baristarim15:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above is very interesting, but also quite pointleess. Sure, you can argue all day about whether one flag represents both the Greek and Turkish parts of the island, but the island o Cyprus - as represented by this stub - includes both the Greek and Turkish communitiesand also sovereign British bases.These bases cannot be represented by the flag of the Republic of Cyprus. As such, even if it were acceptable to use the flag to represent the Turkish community - which is, to say the least, a matter of opinion - it would not be acceptable to use i forr Cyprus as a whole. As such the choice is simply between a map and no icon - the flag is not acceptable. Grutness...wha?02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We know that there is the Turkish Occupation in Cyprus, that what we know. TRNC does not exist either as de facto or de jure. De jure, is not recognized by any country except Turkey and de facto is not governed by T/Cypriots but by Turkey. The reality which is their, is that there is the Turkish occupation in north part of Cyprus which is illegal.
As about our knowledge about EOKA-B did, I want to tell you that it is you that you have no knowledge. EOKA-B was fighting all the Cypriots, the Republic of Cyprus itself and their victims even were more G.Cypriots than T/Cypriots. For what was proved, Turkey cared to captured Cyprus for strategical interest than they cared for EOKA B or Turkish Cypriots. Even it is so strange a murderous country, which many so many genocides, which violates the human rights even of its own citizens to care for human rights. Personally recently I have read a book written by a Turkish Cypriot politician (he is also supporter of Atraturk) and he says a lot that T/Cypriots suffered more even in 1963/74 by Turkey and T/cypriot leadership than by Greek Cypriots. It is Turkey that forced them to leave their houses and make them live under poverty. Everyone that was buying anything from G/Cypriots was murdered as traitor. The same happened to those who disagreed with T/Cypriot leadership. And all of these which for you Baristarim are considered lies I read them in a book written by a T/Cypriots. (Personal attack removed)
It is your own right to believe that Grutness, however this flag de jure is representing whole island. Cyprus Republic has de jure sovereignity in whole island. And the flag sure represents whole island since Republic of Cyprus, accepted by whole world except Turkey, legally represents whole island. A village in occupied territories is a village of Republic of Cyprus, so flag represents it, any person from there is a citizen of this Republic, so the flag represents it. There are also T/Cypriots who believe in this flag. I know personally many; people and politicians.
Even the description of the flag if you read what does represents - and was designed firstly by a T/Cypriot artist - is both communities and the peace between them. And the most important point that the flag must remain; ALL the countries' stubs are represented by their flag, even the countries which have disputed territories use their own flag. It is very offensive against the Cypriots to exclude their own flag. If we exclude the flag from Cyprus stub, then we must do that for Turkey as well. Even there are people who feel that flag does not represent them, like Kurds.
User:KRBN18:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, the same old coffee-house banter I see :))) Is this relevant to this stub? please keep in mind that this is not a forum, nor a MySpace or Google discussion group. And watch for WP:CIVIL, and avoid using terms like "you like reading only Turkish nationalist books" - you don't know me. And even if you did, it is still not relevant - this is a Wikipedia page that belongs to Wikipedia: it is not a blog. In any case there are territories in Cyprus that fall under British sovereignty as well. In that case, let's add the British flag :) The map is fine. Baristarim17:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flag of course. The map is not fine. The link should be restored. The flag represents the island nation of Cyprus, i wonder when this revisionism will end. The TRNC's article is currently under dispute. And i mean the exact articles name. I see it being merged with Cyprus article as the only solution out but then again thats my POV. Now why such a bold move of changing an island nations template to remove its flag. Which international law does wikipedia endorse? Are there any grounds or who ever can do whatever?
To User:Grutnessbut the island o Cyprus - as represented by this stub - includes both the Greek and Turkish communitiesand also sovereign British bases.These bases cannot be represented by the flag of the Republic of Cyprus.. Isnt the sovereignty of the british bases based on the Republic of Cyprus constitution? If there is no Cyprus then automatically the bases have no legal standing. Since the british bases are based ipso facto on the contsitution of the republic and the republics flag represents -the constitution- then the flag of Cyprus represents in effect the british bases again based on the constitution Aristovoul0s17:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KRBN, please be careful.. You posted messages, in Greek, to the talk pages of seven users about this discussion. That can be considered as disruption. Doesn't matter for now since the article is already protected, but try to avoid this in the future. I can also spam the talk pages of thirty Turkish users, would you like that? No.. So stick to the topic, stay civil, avoid irrelevant banter and personal attacks. If you had posted a message to the TR-GR coop board or to the talk pages of Turkish users in a good faith effort to join in the discussion, that would have been a different matter.
As for the British bases. Not quite.. It wasn't the Republic of Cyprus government that gave those bases to British sovereignty, doesn't matter what word game is used. Those bases are under British sovereignty and are represented by the Union Jack, period. Do not confuse Cyprus the island with Republic of Cyprus. Wikipedia doesn't endorse international law or any "argument from authority". The rules are clearly defined, and Wikipedia exists to give information, and that based upon rules governing the inclusion of information in Wikipedia. If you think that TRNC should be merged to Cyprus article, then I wonder if you care more about Wikipedia or a political agenda. Nearly every factbook, encyclopedia and news organization have different guides that cover the TRNC/Northern Cyprus entity. If it were to be merged, than it would be a grave deficiency for Wikipedia as an information source. Baristarim17:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Baris, i remember you saying being a jurist. Then you must remember all the above since you are knowledgable in the history of Cyprus.
Of course it is the Constitution of Cyprus that gave the British bases its sovereignty. look it up. And of course the flag represents those british bases based on the constitution. The island of Cyprus is an island nation by its constitution, dont be confused. Now as for grave defficiency and all that well thats your POV Aristovoul0s17:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not relevant to this article, but why do you think that TRNC should be merged to Cyprus? Shouldn't there be an article that talks about "it", no matter if it is called TRNC/pseudo-state/Disneyland? That's what I mean by info deficiency. Listen, the only reason why this debate came up is because there is not a stub for TRNC. That's all. Baristarim18:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, our friend Baristarim tries to persuade the victims (Greek Cypriots) of the turkish propaganda that this weird turkish playground called "TRNC" is a legal nation and that WE HAVE TO ACCEPT IT!!!Hahaha, how funny --KaragouniS22:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least I don't post messages to the talk pages of all Turkish users and tell them "it is goin' down here, we r gonna take down that gang, dawg!!". If I want, I can get thirty Turkish users here in the space of two hours. If you noticed, I am still sticking to the topic.
Anyhow, still not relevant. Please take the irrelevant banter to some place else: this is not the UN, nor the talk page of Cyprus related articles. It is about a stub. You can call it Disneyland if you want, but it is still there - its existence is not dependent on anyone accepting it or not. It is simply there. Therefore, the question is about organizing TRNC related articles together for encyclopedic purposes. As a compromise for not having a different TRNC stub, it was decided to use the map instead. That makes sense since British bases are under British sovereignty and are represented by the Union Jack. This stub should be able to group all those together, and the only way to do it is with the map and the geography link. Baristarim23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, really weird thing happen it this talk page. What are you trying to prove? You think you are right? The island of Cyprus is a SINGLE nation with it's own flag and history. Actually trnc does not exist in papers and first of all it is nothing more than a turkish satellite state. You see, we don't care about inexisted nations and it's people. The rest lies you have been told to say about Republic of Cyprus is mere details.
Whatever. You have no idea what we are talking about, do you? This is what happens when people are spammed to join in the "fight". "a Turkish satelite state" - still a state. The question is about having a stub to organize related articles. Cyprus stub is ok, there is still no reason why we shouldn't use the map. Pff... Baristarim07:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you don't seem to understand that the ISLAND of Cyprus is a island nation with it's own recognized (and accepted by UN) flag. This turkish satellite state "trnc" has no rights to complaint about it, as it is illegal and it's citizens live in Greek Cypriot stolen houses. Your altitude is provocative and it's time to understand that Greek Cypriots and Greeks are not altruists about this subject.--KaragouniS09:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there exist a pseudostate, it happens to be in a territory of Cyprus. All the countries'stub are represented by their own stub whatever happens in Cyprus it happens in an island nation. It is very unfair to not have our own flag in our stub since others have it. If it is going to be removed then remove the turkish flag since it is disturbing us that you come and reject to use our flag and on the other hand you will use yours. As for the so called TRNC, it is as i said in the territory of Cyprus and must be under Cyprus-stub since it happens in Cyprus. While it is not recognized, it cannot have its own stub like the other pseudostate do so.--KRBN00:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(trnc) is still thereand as a result the whole island is split and suffered, and we are waisting money on buying weapons instead on investing upon education and technology something that will benefit all the citizens. We should make a fresh start, I understand that the T/C has suffered a lot, as well as the G/C, and it is time to put an end. "TRNC" is not a step forward toward peace and prosperity
Since the discussion seems to be getting nowhere, I will leava note of this at the Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board to see what others think. Please do not stray off the topic - I know that there are many political issues involved here, but let's try to make sure that we contribute to the creation of a healthy working environnement. Baristarim18:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is one internationally recognised flag for the island nation of Cyprus. This flag should appear on the article devoted to "Cyprus". I honestly cannot see any reason to divert from this logic. Vizjim09:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be the map of cyprus on the stub. though personaly in favour of the republic of cyprus flag (being g/c) and agree with most of the people who want it with me, the map would cause less offense to those invaders and is a lot prettier :P--Slogankid18:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (btw eoka is a terrorist orginisation denounced by the government whilst the turkish government is a government of a country. the cypriot government was powerless to stop eoka much like the former palastinien gov and hezbolaa if i have my facts right about hezbolla)[reply]
IMO it is not a matter of "offence" for certain citizens of the island or not; it is whether we accept that there is just one legitimate and internationally recognized government on the island or not. I am in favor of the flag, I think that its not-inclusion disregards the principles of the international community set by UN and international law, and that it results in setting an international recognized state (recognized as the sole legal government of the island and thus being the government of all the island and of all its territory, despite the fact that a part of its territory is occupied) at the same level with a non-recognized state constituting an "international pariah" (its head is only recognized as the leader of the T/c community and as nothing more) according to EU, UN and the grand majority of stated around the world that have not recognized it; a state-pariah having no legal territory according to EU and UN. I will further elaborate on my viewes during the weekend. I expect more users of all sides to voice themselves here, and I believe that we may need to set a poll here.--Yannismarou21:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only reason this question came up is because there is no TRNC-stub that will help group together TRNC related articles. As a compromise for not having such a stub, the map was adopted. The question is not about the status of Cyprus or anything. TRNC is a subject in its entireity and there is nothing wrong with having a seperate stub. Personally I think we need a new TRNC stub. What is wrong with the map and using the Cyprus stub? Baristarim21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's somewhat of a misrepresentation. Stub types are only created for countries that are internationally recognised by a large number of countries, and very very rarely for those where there is some strong possibility of international mediation creating one united country. Stub types are also only created when there are a large enough pool of articles to warrant splitting separate countries off from larger regional categories (which si the reason there is no Liechtenstein-geo-stub, for instance). Given that neither the Turkish nor the Greek dominated part of the island would have sufficient stubs for a separate category, recent attemts at creating more of an agreement between the two governments, and the largely unrecognised status of the TRNC, the creation of a separate stub type for northern Cyprus has repeatedly been rejected. This, however, has very little to do with the use of a map as the icon - it is, however, a reason why a flag should not be used. Maps and other symbols are used for stub icons for a large number of countries (about 25% of country-specific stub icons use maps - have a lookatsomeexamples). So the use of a map for this stub type is not contrary to the spirit of normal stub templates. Grutness...wha?22:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As was discussed before, I concur. It was jsut my personal opinion that we could have a TRNC stub, but obviously I realize the potential problems. So I am ok with the Cyprus-stub. Baristarim22:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that the flag of the Republic of Cyprus is inappropriate to be used for the entire island of Cyprus as Grutness argues. It is appropriate to be used for the whole island in UN, EU, all the athletic events, the Olympic Games etc. and not in a minor stub of Wikipedia?! This is absurd, and I insist in my stance exposed above. The issue is still open.--Yannismarou09:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, why? Do the opinions or feelings of Turks not count? They can also feel offended by the inclusion of the flag.. It still hasn't been explained what is wrong with the map. The island also includes sovereign British bases too, not to mention the TRNC. Baristarim10:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are far more Greek Cypriots than Turkish Cypriots. My point was about the number of people, not the quality of the offense. I can say with near certainty that not one single British bases resident will give two hoots either way.Vizjim12:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the peace dove? It is an identical symbol on both the RoC and TRNC coat of arm. Perhaps someone could create an accurate representation, the one on the right is taken off the GR-TR template but you get the idea. I know Yannis has asked for Cypriots to voice their concerns, well as the only Cypriot in this discussion, i am telling you i find it far more appropriate to reach a middle ground instead of imposing the RoC flag on Turkish Cypriot related articles. --A.Garnet14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I find it quite distasteful to ignore Turkish Cypriot concerns based on their numerical minority. Next thing I know you'll be proposing thirteen amendments to the TRNC article ;) --A.Garnet15:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cyprus is an island nation recognized by all countries less the invador. User Garnets suggestion above to alter the flag of an island nation is not the NPOV -iest way to go. There are precedents to the case at hand, and the Cyprus flag (created by a Turkish Cypriot by the way- Greeks at the time were using the Greek flag) has been fluttered in UN, EU amongst other organizations since 1960. If and when the flag comes down from all international organizations then Cyprus can be represented by any other means map or dove or deer, lions are nice. user Baristarism - Turkish feelings? What are you talking about? What do Turkish feelings have to do here? "Imposing the Republic of Cyprus flag on Turkish Cypriot related articles"... says Garnet. WHAT? Turkish Cypriots are citizens of the Republic of Cyprus, they get passpords, free medical treatment in hospitals, and as all citizens have all their rights established. There are other minorities in Cyprus as well and no other minority is complaining than the turks. Now to change the flag from the here just to satisfy the expasionist craving of turkish ambition is un heard of and un precedented. Turkish concerns weight as much as Greek concerns. just because turks are minority it does not mean that turkish concerns should weight more. Equality... thats what it means... 80.250.128.515:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt matter where its fluttered, or how many countries recognise it. Wikipedia isnt a political mouthpiece, articles arent based on political resolutions, otherwise we would be using the term "terrorist" all over the Al-Qaeda and PKK articles, which we do not. There are two entities on the island, one may find the the RoC flag offensive (yes it was designed by a TC in 1960, but feelings have changed somewhat in wake of the war). Like you said, "Turkish concerns weight as much as Greek concerns", therfore lets be reasonable and find a middle way instead of trying to impose one flag which in practice represents one community on the island. --A.Garnet15:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt matter where its fluttered --A.Garnet 15:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC) With arguments like these wikipedians can change any flag of any country not just the flag of an island nation. Is wikipedia prepared to make Garnet argument a norm? I dont think so because then ~2,000,000 minority of turks in Germany can change Germany's flag into a star (so as to be neutral), Kurds can change the Turkish flag (so as to be neutral) to kermit the frog etc. how many countries recognise it and where its fluttered as the editor above mentions creates a precedent,a weight to count towards acceptability. Garnet i would refute your argument it falls under Logical fallacy and more precisely Argument from fallacy.Aristovoul0s16:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Garnet, but these two entities of the island are not equal; whether we like it or not that is the reality and that is how the international community treats the two states. And this has nothing to do with people. I really don't see why the T/K should be offended by a flag:
1) Designed by one of their own.
2) Depicting the island and having nothing offending for the T/C (I wouldn't say that for the flag of the occupation government in the north).
3) The flag features a map of the entirety of the island, with two olive branches below, symbols of peace. Thus, its whole concept serves the purposes of a non-offensive stub.
I don't "ignore Turkish Cypriot concerns based on their numerical minority." But I insist to ignore a de facto state with no international legitimacy and I insist not to ignore the existence of just one state on the island being internationally recognized, and whose sovereign territories cover the whole island despite occupation.
In any case, I want other users here to express themselves about the "middle" solution with the peace dove Garnet proposes. Personally, I'll be honest; I need to think about it and I don't feel ready to comment on it.--Yannismarou16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally i highly object the dove issue proposed. The Cyprus flag concept and creation provided for all issues discussed by Turkish editors. If it was a greek flag then it would be different. The majority of the island during 1960s were using the Greek Flag and as a compromise accepted the Cyprus flag so to satisfy all issues that have been raised here. Whats next? A crescent and a star? Aristovoul0s17:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yannis, you may not see why it is offensive, but at least acknowledge that the potential for offense is there. Yes it was designed by 'one of our own', but its not the flag which offends me personally, but rather the suggestion as implied that it represents us (which for thirty years it has not). We do not vote in GC leaders, nor are we represented in its democratic process. For the thousands of Cypriots who have been born since 1974, there is absoloutely no attachment to this flag whatsoever, it is an entirely different state with a different administration who for thirty years they have been preparing to go to war against (on both sides). On the basis of this, to insist the RoC flag represent "the purposes of a non-offensive stub" is simply unrealistic. So like i say, let us try and reach a middle route, you do not see any Turkish editors here pushing for a TRNC stub, we are prepared to compromise with a symbol which can represent us both in practice. --A.Garnet17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On one Hand: "but rather the suggestion as implied that it represents us (which for thirty years it has not)User:A.Garnet.
On the other hand..."but does not concern the personal rights of Turkish Cypriots as EU citizens, as they are considered as citizens of the Member State Republic of Cyprus"[1]
Please aristov, give me the name of one democratically elected Turkish Cypriot politician in the south? If we are such citizens then provide me with evidence of our democratic participation in that state. --A.Garnet17:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Garnet, for me to do so you need to provide a specific period in time after 1963 that Turkish Cypriots in their totality decided to return to their seats which are still empty in the parliament as well as the vice president seat which is not taken by any. Aristovoul0s17:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is the point. We have not in our totality decided to return to those seats. Therefore, we are not in practice part of the RoC, nor do we wish to be represented as such. --A.Garnet17:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there is another point. The fact that one of the many minorities decides not to be represented by the Republic is not a basis to change the flag of an internationaly recognized island nation. One minority decides to partition the island. hat about equality though and the desire of the majority? Through the UN the majority of the world, views the island nation of Cyprus being represented by a single flag. Doesnt wikipedia endorse worldwide view? If Cyprus for the whole world is represented by its flag ( a flag designed by a T/C, and accepted as a compromise that does not offend etc etc) why should wikipedia have a different flag/icon here? Aristovoul0s18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Garnet: try to understand that your unwillingness to be represented in the constitutional organs of RoC does not influence the international recognition of RoC as representative of the whole island.--Yannismarou18:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish Cypriots continue to have the right to vote in Cypriot elections. That they choose not to do so is neither here nor there. Vizjim06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Grutness:
Your examples about other stubs are very irrelevant. It is natural that country-specific-stub can be represented by another image which is really more appropriate, like the russia-geo-stub. As about Ireland, Ireland is not a country. It is de-jure divided so since it covers whole island which is two countries, it is natural to be represented by a common image. That does not happen with Cyprus which is an island-nation. However you should have given us the relevant example, country-stub, where every country-stub is represented by its own flag. For this reason, we demand wikipedia to be fair with Cyprus, and to have right to use our own flag as the others.
Baristarim, the problem is not that map is offensive or whatever image. The offensive of us while you all people from other countries you will use your own flag about stubs. And that because few people find the flag offensive. To understand well the answer "what is the problem with the map", I am suggesting you to use the map for Template:Turkey-stub. Then you will understand our problem too. I don't wanna make further comments about the map.
I personally find the peace dove very provoking and irrelevant since it has nothing to do with Cyprus and it is irrelevant with article like Cyprus. If the suggestion was the coat of arms of Republic of Cyprus, I would have understand it. Better use a map rather than a rediculous dove.
Also another argument, in many countries you can find people who do not aprove their flag or means nothing. But the flag in the country-stub is still used. And in Soviet Union there were people in the country's flag but it was used as a flag of the country and logically the ussr-stubs have the flag of ussr. You may find offensive the flag of cyprus, however the use of flag is internationally accepted except Turkey. The administration that Garnet refers is an illegally and not internationally accepted, and it exist illegally in Cyprus which is our country.
Even if there is not Turkish Cypriot politician in the Government of Cyprus, their rights as citizens and as officials is still there and they can have them whenever they want. With this, the Government of Cyprus and the flag represents whole island. Also other facts:
I know many Turkish Cypriots (including journalists and politicians and friends) who consider Cyprus as a whole country and accept the Flag of Cyprus.
To Turkish Cypriots, they were given the right to vote to all of our elections until the solution, except presidential elections. With that, we had candidates in euro-elections and parliament who were Turkish Cypriots. A turkish cyp. poet was close to be elected as legislator and became FIRST in votes in her political party which was candidate (the party didn't achieve to elect a legislator).
I can understand your feelings, since you consider Cyprus as two countries, however internationally it is accepted as one country covering whole island. TRNC-stub cannot at all been created for reason that Grutness said, and I find it non-necessary to begin this discussion again.
All the countries-stub use their flag, even countries with disputed territories, countries with seperatist movements, or countries where their flag is controversial. With this Cyprus flag cannot be removed, since we find it very unfair all the others to use their flag and for us not. Otherwise, if our flag is going to be removed, we demand the Turkey flag to be removed from Template:Turkey-stub, since we also find it offensive. It doesn't represent Kurds and mostly PKK, Armenians and other ethnicities rather than the Turks. It is a flag which is offensive to us since it occupies our country and we see this flag every day and we hate it. Also we find it even more provoking to get the pride to have your own flag (turkish) in this wikipedia and on the other hand by your own request, we will be not able to see our flag rather than any other image, while we will see all the other countries to use their own flag
KRBN18:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the countries-stub use their flag - As I've already pointed out a couple of times above, KRBN, this is simply not true. A considerable number of coutries use maps for their stub icons. Others use other national symbols (such as the stylied kiwi used for NZ-stub). Some countries use no icon at all on their stub templates. Maps are frequently used to represent countries in stub template icons and - as was decided before this stub type was created - this stub type should be one that uses a map to avoid just these problems. Grutness...wha?23:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness, I have already seen and commented what you have pointed out. As I said your examples about other stubs are very irrelevant. You have pointed for country-specific-stub ut not for country stub. It is natural that country-specific-stub can be represented by another image which is really more appropriate, like the russia-geo-stub. As about Ireland, Ireland is not a country. It is de-jure divided so since it covers whole island which is two countries, it is natural to be represented by a common image. That does not happen with Cyprus which is an island-nation.
I am sorry for having to repeat my comments again but unfortunatelly you insist, since you have not. Tell me about country-stub that does not use a national symbol or flag. I am sure you will hardly find. Don't insist to compare very different examples like country-geo-stub or ireland-stub. NZ may not use its own flag, however it uses a national symbol. So what u said that those examples are frequent, is not at all true!!! And that includes countries with disputed territories.
KRBN14:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want me to give you a few more examples? I only gave a couple because I didn't want to clutter up the page with them. And you still haven't answered my question. How does the map not represent Cyprus? This is a "common image" that represents the Republic of Cyprus. it is a common image that can be used by Turkish Cypriots without feeling any slight. Hell, it's such a representative image that it is part of the flag! If it isn't a national symbol, I don't know what is! Grutness...wha?23:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't answer the question because it is irrelevant. I was asked for a stub that didn't use either a flag or a national symbol. Why? The map of Cyprus is a national symbol of Cyprus - it is even featured on the national flag. As such, it doesn't matter whether or not any other countries don't use a national symbol. It would have made more sense to ask for a country stub that does not use a flag, and I have already done that. Grutness...wha?05:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cyprus map is just a map. Our national symbols are our coat of arms and flag. For map, it just happens to be in our flag, however is not a national symbol. Cypriots feel the same when they see their map just like other people in the world. However, No YOU HAVEN'T DONE THAT to give us more examples. You just gave us very irrelevant examples by saying for country-specific-stub or island-stub. I have already explained why those examples can't be examples. Since then you avoid answering on that since it happens what I said; Cyprus is the only country without its flag or national symbol. How does the map not represent Cyprus?. How do the other map do not represent their countries? And I give an example. Why map of Turkey is not used for Turkey-stub? Armenians, Kurds and Greeks of that country will see that image without feeling any slight. It happens what I said Grutness. You want Cyprus to be treated differently from other countries.
Either a map or a dove is more suitable, and less likely to cause edit wars. So either you can all keep wasting your time here, or make a compromise and be done with it. --A.Garnet19:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well how about {{Japan-stub}}? Just another example off the top of my head. Not a national symbol or a flag or a map. Far less of a national symbol than a map is, in fact. {{Montenegro-stub}} uses a compromise solution - it has a map containing part of the country's coat of arms. {{Indonesia-stub}} uses a map alone. "Cypriots feel the same way when they see their map as other people in the world" - exactly - they take pride in it as something representing their nation. Are you telling me that Cypriots are not proud of their island's map? As I said before - I do not want to fill this page up with examples, but if you look you will see that there are many of them. Please stop shouting, by the way - it doesn't make any of what you have said any more acceptable or any more correct.
If you want a national symbol other than the map,why not the dove on the yellow shield as used by both the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities - but without any date. Would this not make a perfectly acceptable symbol to both sides, surely? Grutness...wha?11:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Grutness, those examples are also irrelevant, let me show you why
Template_talk:Indonesia-stub This is something you created-no one objected to date, and your justification then says a lot contrary to your current arguments -> "I've used the map rather than the flag on this template because in some skins the white stripe of the flag disappears completely, leaving only a red rectangle Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)"
Stop shifting the goalposts. You initially wanted an example, I gave you one. then you wanted another example, I gave you more examples. So now you want more examples.
As to me being the creator of indonesia-stub, yes I was - I have personally created about 90 country-stubs, which is why I know how they are formed and what images are and are not used, and the reaons why. If you want examples from ones I haven't created, you should have said so, since it reduces the pool of possible stub templates by over half. And the reason why it uses a map rather than a flag is irrelevant...how exactly does using a map not a flag there run contrary to my arguments that some countries use maps not flags? You simply wanted an example that used a map not a flag. And let's face it, the reason given is because the white part of the flag's background is not clearly visible. Luckily the background colour of the Cypriot flag is... oh dear. If anything, the fact that it wa done for other than political reasons is even more support for what I have said here.
As for the Japanese flag, the situation seems pretty similar to the one here - certainly the idea that the use of a particular flag for a stub icon was addressed 35 years before stub icons existed, and 23 years before there was any de facto separation of the island into two states is pretty laughable. To quote User:Taku at Template talk:Japan-stub - "It is true as I said above that the use of the flag often leads to a dispute." So you think that has been addressed for Cyprus-stub? Oh, good - I'm glad that there is no dispute over the use of the flag on this icon; that explains why the template talk:Cyprus-stub page is empty.
Basically what you are asking me can be expressed very simply: "I want you to give me an example - no, not that one, another one. No, not that one either - one that I can't reject out of hand as being an example you give me." There is no way possible that I can do that if you keep on rejecting the examples I give you. And exactly what does who the flags designer was have to do with it? The Italian flag was designed by a Frenchman, but that has little bearing on whether or not it represents France, Italy, or Mongolia. More examples, huh? I suppose you won't accept {{NI-stub}} either - yet another example. Grutness...wha?21:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness that {{NI-stub}} was already addressed by KRBN above. Fact is that the majority of the world does not recognize two states on the island. Instead it recognizes an island nation and its flag is perfectly acceptable by the overwhelming majority of the world, international organizations etc etc to represent all communities of the Republic of Cyprus. The flag, yes it is very relevant, was created by a member of the minority community under strict, specific guidelines so that the result would NOT be offensive to any citizen of the Republic of any community. (There are more than two communities in Cyprus). Solid. Now, i understand your concern re edit warring, it is my concern also, if you agree and we reinstate the flag, i would go as far and guarantee that a minority view(in global terms) will aggresively attempt to revert it. You are right. That is why we need to specifically state on the stub that the stub represents a worldwide view and should not be edited unless agreed upon here at the talk page with supporting evidence, i.e. evidence that it is not a worldwide view that the specific flag represents all communities in the island nation of Cyprus Aristovoul0s21:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, KRBN did not address NI-stub - his comments were directed at {{Ireland-geo-stub}}, which he rightly pointed out is a stub type is for two de jure countries. NI-stub is a non-geo type - a plain Country-stub - for one of those two de jure countries. And the stub type uses a map, just like Indonesia-stub does, and just like Cyprus-stub does. A map - a perfectly acceptable symbol to use on a country-stub. I'm beginning to think that if every country had a country-stub using a map, you would still try to argue that Cyprus should use a flag "like everywhere else".
The concern re-edit warring is valid and real, that is true - but the concern is on both sides, not just on the Turkish Cypriot side. If there were no risk of edit warring it would not have been necessary to protect this template in the previously agreed form using the map. Unfortunately, it seems that there are a very small minority of editors who do not agree with the use of the map and will no doubt attempt to remove it and replace it with the flag should the protection be removed. This is equally edit warring. If the protection is removed, it would be very much a minority view in global terms that would see the map as unacceptable as a stub icon. I count about five of you arguing for the reinstatement of the map. The majority of Greek Cypriot editors seem quite happy with the situation, as do the Turkish Cypriot editors, as does the Stub-sorting community. All are willing to accept this as an effective compromise, except for about five editors - all of them arguing that the rest of the world is marching out of step with them. It is a worldwide view that the flag represents the one officially accepted sovereign government of Cyprus, yes, but this is not the same thing as being an accepted view that it should be used for a stub icon, nor that it represents all the communities of the island. If it did, then the north would not have created its own flag to be used in place of rather than as a complement to this flag. And, as pointed out, the flag of the Republic of Cyprus came into being over 20 years prior to the de facto split of the island. The political situation has changed, and thus the conditions under which that flag was created are no longer relevant to the current situation. As such, any argument that when it was created it was seen as non-offensive no longer apply to today's Cyprus. Grutness...wha?22:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As already explained, this stub template and its icon were the result of discussion with both Greek and Turkish Cypriot editors. It was only after agreement had been reached on an icon that was acceptable to both sides that it was used. Grutness...wha?21:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness, stop lying about the fact that you represent the majority and we represent the minority. To not include the flag of cyprus is not by the accept of the greek cypriots. We all Greek Cypriots want the Cypriot flag in the cyprus-stub and the map was by the approve of no Greek Cypriots. About minorities, oppositelly, there is a fact that Cyprus is represented everywhere in the world by its own flag and is not accepted just by a small minority. Even between Turkish Cypriots, there are people who believe in this flag. It is worldwide accepted as the flag that represents both communities on the island and this is the reason that was created. About the creation of the TRNC flag, it was crated to represent the illegal turkish administration in the north, as a purpose to strengthen the occupation in Cyprus. It was not created because it was found offensive to T/Cypriots. Stop saying we are five editors because I can find you too many who do not accept this. I say the opposite, the flag will be removed because few editors want it. "As about what you said I'm beginning to think that if every country had a country-stub using a map, you would still try to argue that Cyprus should use a flag "like everywhere else".", be sure that if you do that I will be the first one who will support the remove of Cyprus flag too. However I dislike that idea but it will be acceptable if you do it. Actually, as I have said before, if you remove just the turkish flag from turkey-stub i will support the remove of cyprus flag from cyprus-stub as well. And believe me, if our flag will be removed from cyprus-stub, I will ask to be the same for turkey-stub.
As already explained, this stub template and its icon were the result of discussion with both Greek and Turkish Cypriot editors. It was only after agreement had been reached on an icon that was acceptable to both sides that it was used. This is not a lie, neither is it a lie that only five editors have expressed any objection to this agreed solution. If you wish to pursue the idea of removing the Turkish flag from Turkey-stub, I suggest that you propose it at Template talk:Turkey-stub. This is not the place for that discussion. I am perfectly willing to agree to the return of the flag to this stub template if you can assure me that there will be no edit warring if it is returned. You cannot do that, and neither can anyone else. Aristovoul0s has gone so far as to guarantee that edit warring would occur. Under those circumstances it would be ridiculous to put such a stub icon in place, and a less provocative one, such as the map, is a clearly preferable (from the point of view of Wikipedia's functioning) alternative. Grutness...wha?23:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easier said than done - it was on user talk pages, Wikiproject talk pages, talk pages of some relevant articles, and - at least on my part - by personal correspondence with other editors via email, and in face to face discussions with local Greek Cypriots that I know here. I'm sure that looking throught he archives of various talk pages will find it if you'd like to look. Grutness...wha?22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So basically there was no formal central discussion? This page, in fact, represents the formal, central discussion of this issue? And on this page there is a clear majority for using the flag, as far as I can see. Vizjim12:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was before WP:WSS had really developed into a central discussion place, which is why getting so many different views from different places was important. And yes, there were a lot of views canvassed, which is why the five editors objecting here clearly still indicate a very small minority. Grutness...wha?23:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Montenegro_stub.svg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Montenegro.svg){kind=link}
