Talk:Annan Plan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Entire article needs to be rewritten

The current form of the article does not provide factual information for the plan from an objective point of view. It rather appears to be a defense statement of Greek Cypriot nationalism trying to validate/defend their rejection of proposal. The article should certainly not imply "Good Turks approved the Good Plan but Bad Greeks rejected it", but it shouldn't either imply "Good Greeks rejected Bad Plan that favors Bad Turks", but unfortunately it does. I believe that the article has to be rewritten to simply imply "This is the plan with its basic points, Greek nationalists critisized the plan for these reasons, Turkish nationalists critisized the plan for these reasons, majority of Greek Cypriot population rejected it while majority of Turkish Cypriot population approved it".

In this respect, here are some specific examples that led to my conclusion about this article:

1. The Proposal section does not state basic lines of the proposal, but rather presents an interpretation of it from a Greek Cypriot nationalist POV. Examples are:

1.1. The article states "It would also have established a limited right to return between the territories of the two communities; however, the effect of these restrictions would have been far greater on Greek than on Turkish Cypriots." This is not true. The proposal assigns equal rights (in terms of proportion) to boths sides to limit return between territories until Turkey joins EU. I believe that the conclusion stated in this sentence is derived from the observation that the number of Greek Cpyriots that would be allowed to return would be less than that of Turkish Cypriots, since the population of Turkish side is far less. I thinks this concern should rather be stated in the section that deals with reasons of Greek Cypriot critism, with attribution to Greek Cypriots rather than stating it as a mere fact. On the other hand, if equal number of people would be allowed to move between territories, that the Turkish Cypriots would lose majority on the Turkish side. I think this should also be noted.

1.2. The article states "Many of the Turkish settlers from Anatolia who settled on Cyprus after 1974 would have been given citizenship of the UCR." This is not a fact, it is an interpretation. The proposal allows Turkish citizens to make up upto 10% of the Turkish side and assigns the right to not authorize remaning mainlanders to founding states (Same applies for Greek citizens in the south). The statement about the number of stayers being "many" is an interpretation and should be discussed in Greek Cypriot critisism section, with attribution to Greek Cypriots.

2. Most of the critisism in "Reasons for Greek Cypriot Rejection" section are stated as mere truths, without attribution to the supporters/followers of the opinions.

3. Turkish Cypriot nationalists, led by Rauf Denktash also critisized/rejected the proposal. The points raised by them should also be discussed with proper attribution.

4. While being somewhat speculative, it is accepted by the common sense that the Greek Cypriot rejection and Turkish Cypriot approval were also greatly influenced with EU accession issues. Turkey supported approval as this would ease the process of becoming an EU member by themselves, Turkish Cypriots approved because the plan gave them the opportunity to become EU citizens, while the Greek Cypriots rejected because they were expecting to be able to get a better deal after becoming a member of the EU, given that Turkey was trying to become an EU member. I believe that these are important and well-establisged enough to be mentioned.

AldirmaGonul 22:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Bold textThe Annan Plan was not balanced - The Greek Cypriots had not any interest to accept that - The Republic of Cyprus will join the E.U. in the 1st of May - The U.N. must start again negotiations with the two sides in order to have a better result in the future.

It was very sad to see the last three sections removed...this info was hardly avaiable anywhere else and removing it just enforces the "official" point of view of the plan, which IS heavily biased. I don't think there were any POV references, quite the opposite. Was it POV to mention that NO SIDE completely and objectively presented the plan to the Cypriot (and not only people)? Or that nearly 36% of Turkish Cypriots had voted NO? Or that there WAS a Grey Wolves involvement in promoting the "NO" side among Turkish Cypriot? And who can deny Mr. George Papandreou's involvement? It was very POV removing them and doing it only enforces the idea of a bias and the existence of an anti-democratic background to the Annan plan and many of its promoters. Shame! EpiVictor 09:12, 21 June 2004 (UTC)

The text of yours that was removed was so horribly POV that I can't even start explaining the depth of it-- for starters not only you did stuff like label "pro-Turkish" all the media who supported the plan and "pro-Greek" (or "neutral") all the media that opposed it, you actually went so far as to call "pressure" the statements of Papandreou.

Neutral and pro-Greek according to you?? Pro-turkish according to you? You didn't even know when facts ended and your opinions began. And what kind of false dichotomy is that? What about the people that want the good of both Greeks and Turks and thus are both pro-Turkish and pro-Greek?

If that earlier version of the article wasn't POV, then nothing is. In fact even the current version of the page is POV, even if more mildly so.

Aris Katsaris 04:08, 15 July 2004 (UTC)

      • The Whole Question***

Came up with this many years ago while teaching political science. Send the Greek Cypriots to Greece, send the Turkish Cypriots to Turkey, and give Cyprus to Israel so they can relocate the entire country to a place of definable borders. And lastly give Israel to the "Palestinians". really, this Cyprus stuff if utter nonsense. If it weren't for the agitations of a few hardliners on each side this would have been taken care of long ago. And the people who caused most of the problems aren't even around anymore. How bout bothe the Greeks and Turks withdraw and let the the Cypriots sort it out. The Greek Cypriot government is no more in charges of the whole island then the EU is in charge of Europe, saying that it is so doesn't make it so.--68.80.223.233 15:01, 25 August 2004 (UTC)

  • An Unbiased view is almost impossible

The politics and interests of major international forces (namely the U.S. and the U.K.) behind the Cypriot dispute are so great that go way beyond a limited and obsctructionist view of the Annan Plan as "a Good Plan rejected by the Bad Greeks and accepted by the Good Turks". Such ideas are greatly reductive and only serve to conceive the true nature and purposes of the Annan plan,and that's why they were promoted by the media.

A careful study of the Annan plan reveals that the most important things settled down by the plan are the issues with the British military bases. It will also allow Turkey to "enter" the U.E. by the back door. What prevents Turkey from moving 1000000 of people to the northern part of the island overnight,and then claim that they were all NOrthern Cypriots which will become "european" as soon as the plan is approved?

There HAS been (and there will be a LOT more) pressure on the Greek community,hoping that the plan would be accepted BEFORE Cyprus officially entered the E.U.,which was just a matter of days! I'm quite sure that even if the Greek side officially recognized The Turkish Republic Of Northern Cyprus as an independent and legal state, the U.N. wouldn't accept that anymore but would INSIST for the Annan plan to be adopted!

If the plan passed,then Cyprus would be a non-state with an undescribable political status,controlled by -not better specified- "international" forces,Bosnia or Kossovo style,and would not have ANY of the EU member privileges and PROTECTION. Maybe the Turkish population wouldn't mind (they lived and live in a non-state anyway) but the more socially advanced (and living under a proper sovereign state) Greek Cypriots would suffer the most! In other words,by voting "yes",At least Greek Cypriots would say "no" to a European future for their country,and would accept turning their island into a Turk-U.S.-U.K. military base and protectorate. (Again,the Turkish population probably wouldn't mind that). EpiVictor 09:45, 7 September 2004 (UTC)

About percentage reversal

I will have to defend User:Ferrara on this one. Insisting on stating that 75.83% is "nearly" and not "over" 75%, just seems like a thinly veiled attempt at saying, once again "How preposterous, the 'Good Turks' accepted 'The Good Annal Plan' while the 'Bad Greeks' rejected it!". Seeing how User:Khoikhoi also declares of being a Cyprus Reunificaation supporter, and calling "over 75" a "Greek POV", I cannot help but think that there's a certain degree of pro-Turkish bias, in his edits. EpiVictor 09:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Aside from Greek nationalist POV this page has ESL problems. PMA 04:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to Annan Plan text

The external link at the top, the most important one, is dead - we need a link to the source text of the plan and its changes, so if anyone can find a copy of it on the web and repair the link that would be great. I tried googling it but I couldn't see anything resembling the plan, or find a link to the issue on the UN website. Maybe someone more familiar with the area would know where the details of the plan can be found? Perhaps it could also be uploaded to Wikisource? Richard001 22:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violations

The section that deals with the resons for the greek rejection of the plan is a slightly edited version of the article at the Hellenic News of America site (http://hellenicnews.com/readnews.html?newsid=3374&lang=US). Can the original editor get a fair use agreement for this please? Adam777 00:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Tags

Mustafa, what is your problem? Fix it, no one's stopping you... lazily slapping an unexplained tag on and doing nothing else approaches trolling.--Tekleni 16:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Are we ready to unprotect this page yet? There hasn't been any discussion for awhile... —Khoikhoi 17:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I've unprotected the page. Khoikhoi 20:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sports?

Does anyone know what sports under the Annan Plan would be like (i.e. two national teams?)?

One, most likely. —Nightstallion (?) 16:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Tag

I removed {{totallydisputed}} by anon editor, pending comments here regarding the (total) dispute. NikoSilver 00:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Genocide?

The claim that Turkey is comitting a Genocide against Greek Cypriots by limitting their birth rates borders the absurd and is in the realm of science fiction. As it is now, the article spends more time on why Greeks rejected the plan (on mostly false premises about the Greek interpretation of the plan, rather than its actual content). I think the article is extremely slanted and biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.180.4.109 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 25 November 2006.

  • Agreed. The latter half of this article is little more than a point by point rant of various grievances against Turkey and Turkish forces disguised as a list of reasons why the plan was rejected. I think its obvious that there were atrocious human rights abuses on both sides of the conflict. Listing various grievances in order to turn the article into a long anti-Turkey rant isn't a good way to go. --Pudduh 20:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriot reasons for approving/rejecting the plan?

To make the article more neutral and complete, shouldn't a section be added about the perceived benefits for Turkish-cypriots, even if they sound trivial or rhetorical ? Also, since a non-indifferent 35% of Turkish Cypriots voted against it, and the Grey Wolves advocated a "no" vote, weren't there some perceived disadvantages in the plan at least for a part of the Turkish Cypriot population ? EpiVictor 10:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Tags

Could the Turkish users quit messing about with tags and do something useful (for a change), e.g. adding those elusive reasons for which TCs accepted the plan. There already is a tag at the head of the article; overusing tags is article-sabotaging and POV-pushing by stealth. I can add the TC reasons if you want, but with my style of writing and presentation, I'd probably be accused of POV-pushing, something I don't do.--Euthymios 20:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition this is down right racist

"The Plan would have the effect of protecting those British citizens who illegally bought Greek Cypriot property from settlers or persons who are not owners; in the occupied north of Cyprus. They would, in effect, not be held responsible for their illegal action. "

There are ex pats from many EU countries who have brought property in Northern Cyprus, why pick just on the British? In addition suggesting that it is illegal has not been bore out by case law. Preceding unsigned comment added by SolDrury (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Effort. Really Objective.

This article is a good effort and states some good points regarding the plan. Comments are abscent - as they should be. The reasons for Greek denial are given from a very neutral point of view, it is a proper aproach for an encyclopaedia like that. More information is always welcomed, mainly by those who could be considered unprejudiced (not Greeks, Turks). A Cypriot point of view would be useful either in the article or in the talk page. Petros The Hellene 21:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


Questions

How does the Annan plan, differ from the legal set-up of Cyprus in 1960? I believe that the Turks then were given a disproportionate vote in the legislative then. And it was part of the Aktsis plan to remove that. If then the new plan were to involve fewer votes for the Turkish community then the Aktsis plan would have worked.

Also I believe the final draft of the Annan plan limited Greek and Turkish troops to 900 and 700 respectively. Perhaps in any new plan they could be put under NATO command as a compromise.

Unluckily, these statements are way far from reality. Cyprus "original" status was that of a Greek island which underwent Ottoman and British dominion over the centuries, and was effectively partially occupied by Turkish forces in the 70s. The bulk of the Turkish settlers were brought on the island when still under British dominion, and the Annan plan did not, unluckily, force the Turkish side to withdraw any troops, and no Cypriot Greek wanted 40000 Turkish troops to be left ignored.... EpiVictor 09:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually Cyprus was ruled by the Venetians (1489 - 1570) before the Ottomans, before that it was ruled by a French Knight 1192 ) the English (1191), So it has not been under Greek rule for a long time. It is intersting that after 389 years of Ottoman control it still retained its Greek charater.--SolDrury 12:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you think about it... the island was ruled by the Romans and the Egyptians and many other peoples in the olden times. 69.92.37.159 23:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

it has not been greek since the 3rd crusade... but the language is greek and so is religon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.78.92 (talk) 21:06, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

??????????

"Following Annan 5 plan the Greek Cypriots would not have been allowed to make up more than 6% of the population in any single village in the Turkish controlled areas in the north thus they would have been prevented from setting up their own schools for their children and would not have even been able to give birth once this quota was reached. "

Can who ever put this up provide proof of this?

search for annan plan on google —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.78.92 (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

As a casual visitor, this article gets a 'wow' from me. Obviously this is a controversial issue, but also it is obvious that a real solution is needed (to the real-world issue), which means people will have to learn to be neutral themselves (both in the real-world and here). Just one example is the use of 'us' in the Recent Developments section - who exactly is 'us'? Are these Greek Cypriots, or Cypriots in general? I won't bother editing the article, as there is little point - but please, if this is to be a Wikipedia article, at least make the effort to make it *look* neutral even if motivations are not. If a judge is to be quoted, actually make it clear what following text is being quoted, even if it is translated. POV is allowed if it is clear who exactly is saying what, because it is their POV rather than Wikipedia's - please don't pretend to be writing a NPOV article by assembling particular vague POV comments. Currently neutral editors will stay well clear of this article, which ironically will keep a lot of us ignorant, as many of us are unaware of the existence of the Annan Plan. See you all around. Stevebritgimp 15:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article as a whole is quite good, but the "Recent Developments" section is clearly written from a Greek point of view. Turkish concerns, and if possibly each side's answer to the other's concerns, need to be present, too. Also, international reactions perhaps exist which would fit nicely in the article. I've tagged the section for POV. Amorim Parga (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Referendum section

The original research arguments have stayed too long (the barely existing sources seem to be supporting only some 'facts' in the statement, not whether it is used as an argument or not). I suggest the following:

{{main|Cypriot Annan Plan referendum, 2004}}
The main reason for the 75 percent "no" vote among Greek Cypriots in the referendum was their perception that the Annan Plan was unbalanced and excessively pro-Turkish, and that it would not safeguard Greek Cypriot rights in the north. source here
On the Turkish Cypriot side, the plan was felt to be excessively pro-Greek, but most Turkish Cypriots were willing to accept it as a means of ending their prolonged international isolation and exclusion from the wider European economy. source here
The political leaders of both sides (Tassos Papadopoulos and Rauf Denktaş) campaigned for a 'no' vote.

DenizTC 15:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts? DenizTC 21:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Done DenizTC 19:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think readers should be able to find a little bit more information than that? 3meandEr 18:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If so, you can add some more info, but be careful to observe Wikipedia rules doing that (at least the ones you know, I believe you know WP:NPOV, WP:OR). When an article gets large, then some part of will be splitted to another article, and a summary will stay. Here we already have the article for the referendum, no need to have a POV copy. Besides this, at this current state, that section is utter mess, it is full of original research. A few sources may exist, but those sources are to other factoids, not to whether they were arguments at all, not to the essence. DenizTC 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to accept this without verifiable sources : " On the Turkish Cypriot side, the plan was felt to be excessively pro-Greek " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.13.243 (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

BS

Just another do gooder attempt to make two peoples live together who don't want too. IE Northern Ireland/Ireland. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just read this ""If the Greek-Cypriots say 'no' to the Annan plan, we will take them to a new referendum, until they say 'yes'. Lord Hanney, the British architect of the Annan plan"". That's a disgusting show of imperialism coming from the British side. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Greek

The quote from Daniel Fried in the beginning of the "proposal" part (and nearly beginning of the articles) is a pro-greek view and it can be written in "Opinions by experts and commentators" section, not the "proposal" part. It is a prejudgment that comes before all other neutral and historical data. --""Dr.Hamed"" (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if it is an actual quote or a fabrication, mind you. I've only been able to find it on Greek nationalist/anti-Anan plan sources and nowhere else. Greeks are notorious for believing anything that conforms to their particular prejudices (see the ridiculous "Kissinger anti-greek statement" myth), so I wouldn't be surprised to find this, too, to be an alteration or outright fib.
Have added a scholarly reference. Thank you for highlighting that. Refer to "M.L. Evriviades, An International Relations Debacle: The UN Secretary-General's Mission of Good Offices in Cyprus, 1999-2004 Mediterranean Quarterly, 2006, Duke University Press". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The statement has been claimed to be a fabrication, and Fried himself has apparently denied making it. There's some interesting background about it here. Since Evriviades isn't apparently quoting any first-hand witnesses who heard the remark, we can't treat it as a reliable source overriding Fried's own statements. The claim therefore goes out, per WP:BLP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I too have confirmed through an independent source that Fried himself denied making the above statement (and it is disappointing that Evriviades published the quote in the Mediterranean Quarterly). However, the background article that you have noted above was written by a journalist from the Cyprus Mail. Using the word tabloid for the Cyprus Mail is far too generous. The Cyprus Mail is a propaganda machine and cannot be quoted with any seriousness. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

See also http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/mgsa-l/2004-August/003996.html. --Nychtopouli (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Against the plan

I've added some quotes to this section to give more balance. Hope nobody objects.--Nychtopouli (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The section "Support for the plan" seems to me way too long, and it would take a lot of work to add a citation for each quote. If whoever put up the quotes would like to add citations, fine. Alternatively I propose to search for some citations, and delete any quotes for which no citation is found.--Nychtopouli (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at the section "Support for the plan" more carefully, it seems to me that most of the quotes are not about the Annan Plan per se but have been selected because they praise the Turkish Cypriots and/or blame the Greek Cypriots. For example I just removed this quote which is not a comment on the Annan Plan:

The Secretary-General applauds the Turkish Cypriots, who approved the plan notwithstanding the significant sacrifices that it entailed for many of them. He regrets that the Turkish Cypriots will not equally enjoy the benefits of EU membership as of 1 May 2004, but he hopes that ways will be found to ease the plight in which the people find themselves through no fault of their own.

and replaced it with this one which is from the same source and is a comment on the Plan:

Together with a broad cross-section of the international community, the Secretary-General remains convinced that the settlement plan put to the two sides in today's referenda represents a fair, viable and carefully balanced compromise--one that conforms with the long-agreed parameters for a solution and with the Security Council's vision for a settlement, and meets the minimum requirements of all concerned.

--Nychtopouli (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The first quote seems more of a reaction to the failure of the plan, rather than on the plan itself. Perhaps some sort of aftermath/progress section is needed, with Greek, Turkish, and other opinions on how to proceed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think an aftermath section may be a good idea. Also I've discovered that the source of all those quotes in the section "Support for the plan" is the MFA (www.mfa.gov.tr), which is hardly a neutral source. I propose to replace them with relevant quotes from the main players, and a paragraph in an appropriate place describing the international reaction.--Nychtopouli (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure it's not neutral, but it's a good source of quotes. I doubt any government would intentionally misquote anybody, so their neutrality is not a problem in this case. What main players are missing? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes but the quotes are not about the Annan Plan as such. They have been selected to show that the "good" TCs were promised rewards. I'm proposing to replace them with quotes about the Annan Plan itself, and to have an aftermath section, as you suggested, which will include information about attempts to reward the Turkish Cypriots. Also I think that as a matter of principle it is best to give quotes direct from their source to ensure accuracy. You may be too trusting of governments. :) Main players missing are the GC leaders and TC leaders, for starters.--Nychtopouli (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to access UNSG reports from http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/sgrep04.html but get a message that I have no authorisation. Are these not public access documents?--Nychtopouli (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that this is one of those rare articles which was biased towards Northern Cyprus, and that this need sto change. We should be careful not to go too much the other way, but I can't disagree with the specifics of any of your fixes, fairly good so far. I wouldn't say I trust them per se, but that I trust they won't misquote someone out of fear for their own reputation. And yes, no matter what state the current quotes are, we need both Cypriot governments opinions.
I can access all of the reports there, connection problem? Try [1], [2], [3], [4]. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This quote: "We join the Secretary General in regretting the outcome of the Greek Cypriot referendum on April 24.The Secretary General's plan is a fair, viable, and carefully balanced compromise that conforms with the long-agreed to parameters of a settlement and with the Security Council's vision for a settlement." is attributed to the Security Council, but its original source is actually here: http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/6645bc8e70e73e2cc2257076004d01c1/48ffa982227ed1e5c2256e86003e2523?OpenDocument&print and it is a statement made by Stuart Holliday representing the USA, not the UN Security Council. The SC statement is much more restrained--see the first lines in English. The rest is a question and answer session.--Nychtopouli (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It is, but again this is still aftermathy. I think that the sections currently in the article should refer only to opinions made before the referendums were taken. Quotes like the above should be in a new section titled "Effects and results" or something similar. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

But all the quotes are post referendum... I was treading carefully so as not to upset anyone, but you seem to want something more drastic. I'm inclined to agree. The quotes sections are a waste of space really and do not belong in such an article. It would be better to replace the lot with two new sections talking about attitudes to the Plan and the aftermath. However I also have a nagging feeling that the aftermath section really belongs in the referendum article.--Nychtopouli (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is a problem that needs solving somehow. I don't mind the quotes at the moment. While I'm sure there might be a better way to include information, and would be quite willing to discuss any proposal, the current article is only just over 32KB, so no space is really lost through them at the moment. I feel an aftermath section would be more appropriate in this than the referendum article, as the scope is slightly larger here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Redrafted the opening paragraph to give it a neutral point of view: Notes

Reference to “the Southern Republic” is illegitimate. There is a Republic of Cyprus technically representing the whole island, and a breakaway state created through military force and ethnic cleansing. (Prior to that the population of the island was mixed.) Using the terms North Cyprus and South Cyprus implies acceptance of the Turkish point of view which disputes the internationally accepted status of the Republic of Cyprus, and recognises the TRNC.

Most of the references I have read claim that the Annan Plan was devised by Britain and the US. I’ve deleted the claim that it was devised by Annan and Didier Pfirter. It can go back if a citation is found.--Nychtopouli (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted this (except for removing the Annan Pfirter sentence). The current version already states that what was divided was the nation of Cyprus, which although crude does take into account both views. Saying it was a plan to dissolve the Republic of Cyprus is misleading; that was not the primary goal. I've reworded the "Southern Republic" though, as that was as said rather POV, and shifted the North to the front, so it notes that it reunites the north with the south rather than the other way around. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a plan to dissolve the Republic of Cyprus and replace it with a federation. That is an indisputable fact, and a significant one, since it involved the dissolution of an internationally recognised state. It is in no way misleading or non-neutral to state the facts. What is misleading is your attempt to suppress them. Moreover, what was and was not a primary goal is a matter of (subjective) interpretation. One could assign any number of primary goals to the Annan Plan, but there can be no dispute as to the consequences of its implementation with regard to the existence of the Republic of Cyprus I think there is some confusion over what NPOV means. As I see it, it should mean presenting the facts in a neutral way. Some facts seem to favour one side or the other, but if they are facts then they should be presented. Suppressing them is not being neutral--quite the converse, it is disinformation.--Nychtopouli (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My attempt to suppress them? Dissolution is a word with rather strong connotations in terms of states (used mainly for yugoslavia and the soviet union). It shouldn't be used here without amazingly strong sourcing. The plan was meant to reunite Cyprus. That is what the lead should start with. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I take back the phrase “your attempt to suppress them”, and apologise. I will be a good Wikipedian and assume good faith. :) However I stand by my point about presenting the facts in a neutral way—all the facts, that is--and the way the lead is phrased seems to be avoiding certain facts and chooosing the terminology adopted and promoted by Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots. Bear in mind that prior to 1974 the population of Cyprus was mixed and that more Greek Cypriots were forced to leave the north of Cyprus (approx. 200,000) than there were Turkish Cypriots in the whole of Cyprus (approx. 120,000). Identifying the north solely with Turkish Cypriots implies acceptance of the results of an invasion that was roundly condemned by the international community and the UN when its real purpose became apparent.

Below are some of the sources, but I have changed the wording of the opening paragraph to avoid the word dissolution anyway.

“... it was only the Annan Plan which provided for effective disappearance of the the Republic of Cyprus, with its replacement by the ‘United Cyprus Republic’.” (From An International Relations Debacle: The UN Secretary-General's Mission of Good Offices in Cyprus 1999-2004 by Claire Palley, p. 82. Hart Publishing, 2005. ISBN 1-84113-578-X.)

“The plan dissolved the internationally recognized Republic of Cyprus and replaced it by a loose confederation of two largely autonomous states. This new state would be known as the "United Republic of Cyprus", with a new flag and anthem.” (From “A Briefing On Cyprus A Year After The Referendum, A Year After The EU Accession” by Van Coufoudakis at http://www.helleniccomserve.com/prospects_for_a_solution_presentation.html. Accessed 7 October 2011.)

“The Annan Plan would have led to a Turkish north, a mixed south and the dissolution of the Republic of Cyprus. The Greek Cypriots rejected it because it not only legitimized the outcome of 1974, but would also have created a situation which would be worse for them than the status quo.” (From “Reflections on the Report ‘The Cyprus Stalemate: What Next?’” by Andreas Theophanous at http://www.rcenter.intercol.edu/Newsletter/issue13/art01.htm. Accessed 7 October 2011.)

“Controversial points in the Annan Plan included Turkey’s intervention right; the immediate dissolution of the Greek Cyprus government but a slow withdrawal of Turkish troops and return of territory; and the acknowledgement of all treaties between Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.” (From “Cyprus: Reversing The Drift To Partition,” Europe Report 190, 10 January 2008 at http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/190_cyprus___reversing_the_drift_to_partition.pdf. Accessed 7 October 2011.)

--Nychtopouli (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Two of your sources are from Greek authors, one is a footnote giving Greek reasons for voting against (and talks about government dissolution not state dissolution anyway). Not very good sources. I can't access the first book other than snippet, so I am unable to verify the context. Can you see the context? At any rate, I can't think of how this would improve the first sentence at all. If you want to add to the lead, a proposal here would be nice. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I am disappointed. I have in good faith improved the lead-in paragraph, giving bare facts and avoiding the terminology used by the Turkish side. I explained my reasons for so doing. I took into account your concern about the word “dissolution” and changed it to the neutral word “replaced”. I provided you with sources as requested.

In return, instead of discussing any further changes, you once again undid my edit and put up a BRD notice. I am happy to follow BRD procedure, but with my edit in place while we attempt to reach a concensus. I say this bearing in mind that on the WP:BRD page it states the following: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes... BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting..."

I would like you to explain to me 1) what is still wrong with my edit given that I changed it in line with your objection; and 2) why Greek sources are not good sources, whereas a Turkish MFA source is acceptable. (See a previous posting of yours.)

The Claire Palley book is essential reading if one is to gain an understanding of the nature and purpose of the Annan Plan. Perhaps you could do what I did and buy a copy, or borrow one from a library.

Lastly, perhaps I should mention that I changed the lead-in as a prelude to making the "drastic" changes which you seemed to want in another discussion.--Nychtopouli (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't my only objection, and as I said the sources don't cut it. Do you understand that by following BRD procedure, your edit will not be in place? The whole point of BRD is that your edit was reverted, leaving the text in the pre-changed version. That's the point of BRD. If you wish to follow it, then follow it without asking for exceptions which defeat the point of it.
1) The plan does not 'replace' the republic, it simply changes the republic's form. Basically just a constitutional update, like fourth to fifth French Republic. You also replaced North and South with Greek and Turkish Cypriots, which is an unnecessary change from terminology used in the first sentence. Perhaps most tellingly you basically remove all note that the island is actually divided, taking away the whole context of the plan.
2) I specifically said the Turkish MFA website was good for direct quotes. I would equally accept a Greek website, and equally find a Turkish writer as prone to bias as a Greek one.
If the Palley book is so important, more context about the quote would help. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for exceptions. I made the bold edit, you reverted it. I made it again with changes attempting to satisfy your stated objection, you reverted it again. The guidelines say "BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting..." I repeat my objection to the north south terminology--it is not neutral. I propose the following compromise lead in:

The Annan Plan was a United Nations proposal to settle the Cyprus dispute of the divided island nation of Cyprus, reuniting the breakaway Northern Cyprus with the Republic of Cyprus as the “United Cyprus Republic”[1] It was revised a number of times before being put to the people of Cyprus in a referendum. It was opposed by the leaders of both the Greek and Turkish Cypriots, but was approved by a majority of Turkish Cypriots and rejected by a majority of Greek Cypriots. In sum, most of the population of the island voted against the plan.

--Nychtopouli (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You were asking for an exception; I reverted not just for reverting, but because I saw the same problems in the second bold edit. As for north south terminology, that is what's used in sources. I would have thought it to be more proturkish POV to say it was reunited with the Republic of Cyprus as that imply the north is not part of it. Anyway, for the sentence about support, it's better to just use north and south than Greek and Turkish Cypriot, there being some greek cypriots in the north and some turkish cypriots in the south. The final sentence shouldn't go in, it's pointy and doesn't add anything, and isn't completely supported by the text. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot accept that using the terminology used in the Annan Plan itself is not NPOV whilst using the terms North and South, which are the terms promoted only by the Turkish side and its supporters is NPOV. There is no logic to your position. Repeating what I said above: prior to 1974 the population of Cyprus was mixed and more Greek Cypriots were forced to leave the north of Cyprus (approx. 200,000) than there were Turkish Cypriots in the whole of Cyprus (approx. 120,000). Identifying the north solely with Turkish Cypriots implies acceptance of the results of an invasion that was roundly condemned by the international community and the UN when its real purpose became apparent. The separate referenda were not separate because of geography but because it was the views of each ethnic group that were being sought. Not using the terms Greek and Turkish Cypriot as used in the Plan itself muddies the issue.

If you have alternatives to propose, please do so, otherwise I will have to fix what is clearly not a neutral point of view in the lead in.--Nychtopouli (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You're shooting your Greek POV in the foot with this insistence on formal names. It clearly implies one is not part of the other. Anyway, those numbers don't seem relevant to anything really. There are Greek Cypriots in the North and vice versa. I'm sure the Cypriot government would agree on this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeking a Greek point of view, just a neutral one, and a clear delineation of the facts. I cannot see what your objection is. The "numbers" are relevant because they show that the north should not be associated solely with the TCs and the south with the GCs. This was an arbitrary imposition following an invasion and a forced separation of the two communities. As it stands the lead in consolidates this forced geographical separation. Do you have any specific alternatives to propose?--Nychtopouli (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking for? Your comment "the north should not be associated solely with the TCs and the south with the GCs" is exactly what I've been saying, this whole conversation. It supports my argument. What do you take issue with and why? As for POV, I noted your edits would give the start a Turkish POV slant, not a Greek one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be at cross purposes. If when you mean TCs you say north Cyprus and when you mean GCs you say South Cyprus you are creating in the minds of readers an identification of North with TCs and South with GCs. I am opposed to this identification for reasons already given. However the Turkish side encourages this identification because it wants the world to forget that prior to the invasion and forced division the north of Cyprus was, like the rest of Cyprus populated mostly by Greek Cypriots. The correct point of view is that all of Cyprus belongs to all Cypriots.

Your point about there also being GCs in the north is valid, but there are very few enclaved GCs left, thanks to the policy of Turkification which encouraged their harassment until most of them left. They voted in the Greek Cypriot referendum. ("Voting in Cyprus is compulsory for all Greek Cypriots over 18, including those enclaved in the Turkish occupied north, Latins, Maronites, Armenians and others who are citizens of the Republic of Cyprus through naturalisation." [5] I did come across a reference on the web about still waiting for their votes to come in, but can't locate it again.)

[Found one: http://www.hri.org/news/cyprus/cna/2004/04-04-19.cna.html --Nychtopouli (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)]

I've just finished the negotiations and Referendum Sections. I'd welcome any constructive comments and suggestions.--Nychtopouli (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's the exact opposite of what I mean, which I've repeated multiple times. That is why these terms shouldn't replace North/South in the lead. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a new proposed lead in:

Ever since the Turkish invasion of 1974, the northern part of Cyprus has been occupied by Turkish troops, and populated by Turkish Cypriots and settlers from Turkey. Prior to the troubles and the invasion, Greek and Turkish Cypriots constituted a mixed population, and no part of the island was exclusively Greek or Turkish. The Annan Plan was a failed United Nations proposal to resolve the Cyprus dispute and reunite the island through the creation of two constituent states, one Greek Cypriot and one Turkish Cypriot, which together would make up a federation to be called the “United Cyprus Republic”. According to its critics, it was incompatible with international law and human rights, and its effect would have been to entrench and legitimise the militarily enforced partition of the island, but according to its supporters it was the only way forward given the realities of the situation.--Nychtopouli (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not. The lead fails on multiple counts. It needs to start with a discussion on the subject, it goes into tangential information, has weird wording like "the creation of two constituent states", and places a huge emphasis on critics over supporters. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking through what you have written so far leads me to these conclusions: 1) You want to say that the plan “was meant to reunite Cyprus” 2) You want to use the terms North and South rather than Greek and Turkish Cypriots. 3) You want to say that the island is divided. 4) You don’t want mention of the fact that most people on the island voted against the Plan.

The revised lead-in satisfies 1 3 & 4. With regard to 2 there is a good reason for not using the terms North and South which I have carefully explained to you, and you have not come up with any counter-arguments. If and when you do, I’ll reconsider. Regarding 3, it is not enough just to say the island is divided. In fact just saying this conceals the fact that it has been invaded, and that the invading force is still there. In other words, it is a country that is partially occupied by a foreign army. The full implications of the Annan Plan, and of the concessions being demanded from the Greek-Cypriots, only become clear if the reader is made aware of this, and that is what the proposed new lead-in does. However I have taken into account your point about tangential and relegated this information to a footnote. The wording is not “weird”, in any normal sense of the word “weird”, but I have changed it and if you make further suggestions I will consider them. Finally, if you think the supporters statement needs strengthening suggest something that can be added.

All in all, I think the new lead-in is a fair compromise. It satisfies 3 of your previous demands (4 if we count the omission of dissolution), and in revised form takes into account two of your new objections. I have put it up with revisions. Please do not undo it without first suggesting alterations.--Nychtopouli (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Your reason for not using 2 doesn't make sense to me, as it supports my argument for 2. Your talk of the concessions being demanded from the Greek Cypriots shows a clear POV, and placing things in a footnote doesn't solve any problems. I can't propose any alternative to the lead because you haven't noted any real problems with it other than whether to use Greek/Turkish Cypriots or North/South. If you specifically identify a problem, we could reach a solution. Please stop posting new leads till you have agreement here, either through further discussion with myself and other participant of through another method of WP:DR. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Now THAT is not nice. It's bad enough that you simply make assertions without any reasoning to back them up, which makes it impossible to progress in discussions with you, but making accusations of Coatracking is uncalled for. Coatracking is the section "International opinions: Support for the plan" which was just a bunch of quotes from the Turkish MFA about how the "good" Turkish Cypriots should be rewarded, and not about the Plan itself. Yet that didn't seem to bother you. Explaining in what way Cyprus is divided is simply giving necessary information without which the full implications of the Annan {Plan cannot be understood. I have explained repeatedly what is wrong with the lead in, but you just claim my arguments support current phrasing without explaining why that is so. How about offering some clear logical explanations. And also how about explaining why understanding the GC position is not neutral. Surely we need to consider and understand the position of all the parties. As I said before I'm committed to a neutral presentation of the facts, are you?--Nychtopouli (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There's reasoning scattered throughout the above discussion, which you are free to address. Opinions on the plan on an article about the plan falls far from the definition of coatracking. I apologise for not seeing the exact problems for the lead, and if you could spell them out here again that would be appreciated. I'd also like to know where I opposed placing the Greek position in the article, because I haven't. Please stop placing your lead in while discussion is ongoing. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

For starters, how about a reasoned argument from you justifying the use of north and south in the lead in and answering my argument in the very first post.--Nychtopouli (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

North and South are common english ways to describe the two parts of Cyprus, and avoids the implication that everyone in the north is turkish and everyone in the south is greek. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. I'm suffering from a very bad flu at the moment...--Nychtopouli (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"Cypriot people"

There are people (including some WP editors) who wish we could speak of a "Cypriot people". Regrettably we do not have one. We have the Turkish and Greek peoples in Cyprus, referred to as "Turkish Cypriot community" and "Greek Cypriot community" by the United Nations, terminology which is universal and objective.

As a matter of fact, the Turkish and Greek nations have such a tumultous history of relations that it is -regrettably- difficult to talk of a "mixed" people of the two. Under the UK colony period in Cyprus one could "theoretically" talk of the "people" of the island, as they were all in the same status vis-a-vis the colonizer. However, even before the wake of colonisation the Greeks of the island began a struggle of "union" with Greece, called ENOSIS. This meant to downgrade the Turks of Cyprus to -hopefully- a "minority" status -at best- within Greece. The Turks, thus, were not left with any other choice than division.

Let us make our minds fly: Let's suppose -although looks utopic- that towards the end of colony in Cyprus, the Greeks and Turks came together and said: "We, as the people of this colonised island let us unite our efforts against the coloniser and gain independence (not the one they did at the end) forgetting about ENOSIS or Taksim (division). Because the coloniser is only trying to divide us to continue with its domination of the island of Cyprus. It could even retain parts of our island as bases under its sovereignty. Let us forget about Greece and Turkey and the tragic past of those two countries. Let us give an example of civility in this island and form a new country of Cyprus which will also be an example to Turkey and Greece and not be influenced or affected by them or by their bilateral relationship. Let us create the "Cypriot" people."

Could they be able to do that? We cannot know. It is pure imagination.

The way union was tried in Cyprus (the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus as it was until the end of 1963) did not function. That we know for sure.

I know these pages are not a forum for general discussion. I am only writing these lines in the context of not accepting the use of the concept "people" for the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities in (the island of) Cyprus. --E4024 (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "the people of Cyprus" is a simple way to describe all of those who live in Cyprus, which, as far as the UN is concerned, covers the north and south. It's like using "the people of France", or of any country really, including all communities, ethnic, religious, etc. There are people, and they are in Cyprus. CMD (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
And you are wrong. Regrettably you are not after the truth but see these pages as a competition (edit fight) arena. What a pity...--E4024 (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC) If not you would not forget that they made 2 referendums for the two "communities", not one for the "people". --E4024 (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Greek Cypriot rejection

The British military bases are not illegal, they are recognised under the agreement under which Cyprus became independent in 1960. Oh, and the UK would have ceded large parts of the SBAs to both the constituent states' governments. The stuff about Turkey being a US client state is baloney, whatever Kissinger's track record.

According to the article "The Plan gave Turkish Cypriots a disproportionately large number of seats in Parliament (a quarter of seats in the Chamber of Deputies and half of the seats in the Senate).". If the Greek Cypriots rejected it for this reason then there is great need to mention how many Greek and Turkish Cypriots there are. As far as I can tell, it's something like 300k Turkish and 780k Greek but I'm a bit confused by the figures. But if these are right, this would suggest the Senate seats are a bit unbalanced in favour of the Turkish Cypriots but the seats in the Chamber of Deputies are not, in fact Turkish Cypriots should get more seats in the Chamber of Deputies. If this I am correct then either this point needs to be mentioned somehow as well IMHO. E.g. "half of the seats in the Senate although they only get a quarter of seats in the Chamber of Deputies" 60.234.141.76 22:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, you are sadly mistaken, the legal northern population does not make up 300,000 (in numbers). Check out any kind of census for a report on this. 81.153.100.249


Acording to Wikipedia page on Cyprus the entire population of the island is 780,000, if there are 200,000 Turkish cypriots that gives the 25% of the population.

You are both using different statistical sources from different dates. The 780,000 is an ancient figure. --Tco03displays (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I think a broader article ahould be created called Cypriot reunification, that would focus on the reunification movement as whole. Charles Essie (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Would that cover information that wouldn't be covered in Cyprus dispute? I'd expect the dispute article to include detail on moves for unification. CMD (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a better title would be United Cyprus. I think the page should about the concept of a United Cyprus, the United Ireland page could serve as a model. Charles Essie (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Strongly Against:Trust me, you don't want to go there. The term "United Cyprus" indicates a new state emerging out of a reunification agreement. A significant number of Greek Cypriots are fanatically devoted to some idea of the Republic of Cyprus being transformed after the Cyprus Dispute, but refuse to accept a new state name, or a new state forming and the death of the Republic of Cyprus. The statement "reunification" indicates division and separation. You'll have TC nationalists saying of course its a correct term, there are 2 states on the island, and the GCs arguing that there is nothing to reunify, there is no division, only illegal occupation. Personally I think both of these points are silly and nothing but baseless rhetoric to control people politically, but there is no reason to enter into that discussion for a page that will add little new information. You'll just never reach consensus over such abstract things on a Cyprus article.--Tco03displays (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Answer is simple

The answer to the problem is simple. Let Turkey annex the Turkish part of the island and let Greece annex the Greek part of the island. Maintain a UN peacekeeping force on the border. Then everyone will be happy. Keraunos (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We are neither Greek nor Turkish. We are greek-speaking and turkish-speaking Cypriots. If only Cyprus wasn't in such a strategic position so that all these foreigners would get their silly text books out of our schools and let us live in peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.200.33 (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It is suggested that "Turkish Cypriot State" be merged into this page. The fact that the article in question really only has to do with certain provisions outlined in the Annan Plan for Cyprus and the fact that Greek Cypriot State already redirects here leaves, IMO, little room for any legitimate reason to keep the merger from happening. Should the article be used in a broader sense, as in "Taksim (politics)" or even "homeland for the Jewish people," it would warrant an article on its own, but as it stands, that article at present on even in the future would only contain information that pertains to either "Taksim (politics)," "Annan Plan for Cyprus," or "Cyprus Problem." Plot Citizen (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Where is neutrality?

I stumbled on this page and was surprised to observe the apparent bias in favor of one side. Though it has become common for controversial topics to instigate ideological editors to engage enthusiastically, it is still disappointing. After each paragraph it seems an effort was made to put the "blame" for failure on the Turkish side. Even after Greeks reject the UN plan by a large margin the very plan they have negotiated, the very plan that would have reduced and maybe eliminated all troops, still the article here makes it look like Turks were solely responsible for the negative outcome. This hardly helps the cause of firstly peace and stability in Cyprus, and secondly the reputation of this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.141.39 (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Please remove all reference to ILLEGAL "TRNC"

While the self declared republic is not regonised. it is not illegal under international law. It was declared bt the UN as legaly invaldi. Saying that it is ilegal is emotive and suggests a highly POV position

The invasion was legal but the U.N. has time after time regarded the occupation as illegal.76.103.37.34 (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevent Factoids

This article is a flaming mess. It starts out okay, but in the section entitled Referendum it degrades into a mess. The first Turkish reason is okay, the second is a little shaky, but by the third the wheels are off this vehicle.

The Turkish Cypriot component state would still, even after territorial cessation of some areas to the Greek Cypriot component state, make up 28.5 percent of the total area of Cyprus, including large economically important areas that were inhabitated exclusively by Greek Cypriots prior to the division of Cyprus in 1975.

This is just a thinly-veiled attack. A more Neutral POV version would probably read:

The Turkish Cypriot component state would retain much of the territory it currently controls.

Agreed 76.103.37.34 (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

This is much more Neutral POV 

  --- Disagree...Neutral POV expresses not only facts but also results of an agreement for further surmising and inference by the reader.  
      If a reader is not informed that economically important areas were to be given to the Turks, the reader is not fully aware of the situation 
      to formulate full judgement.  It's like saying you had a game, and you loaned it to your friend, only to have it return with 3 pieces missing 
      such that you can no longer play.  If you simply state:  "The game was returned mostly the way it was originally sent" you are ignoring the 
      fact that it can no longer be played, rendering it useless regardless.  -- NJDevils1087
Agreed 76.103.37.34 (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

4th point:

The right of return of Greek Cypriots to their homes in the areas coming under the control of the Turkish Cypriot component state would be strictly limited if not, in some cases, forbidden, thus the possibility of Turkish Cypriots becoming a minority in their respective component state would not exist.

Right of Return is not an easily recognizable phrase, and is very prejudicial, as is the phrase 'their homes.' Denying 'Rights' and 'stealing' property is a very powerful emotional appeal - rhetorically useful, but has no place in Wiki. Better would be:

The Turkish Cypriot component state would have control over the Greek Cypriot's ability to move to and live within the portion of Cyprus that they would control. Thus, the possibility of Turkish Cypriots becoming a minority in their own state would not exist.

Agreed 76.103.37.34 (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Final point is just horrid.

The guarantor powers to the constitution of Cyprus would retain their powers as such, thus Turkey would still have the arguable right to intervene in Cypriot affairs, most definitely on behalf of the Turkish Cypriots and vice versa.

I don't even know how to fix this.

LOL. Agreed. Tragically agreed 76.103.37.34 (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

On the Greek side its little better, with the first point being reasonable, the second has a distinct problem.

Note that the United States abandoned its original confederal structure because it was unworkable. In 1789, a federal constitution was established containing a clear federal supremacy clause. The Supreme Court composed of equal numbers of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot judges, plus three foreign judges; thus foreign actors would cast deciding votes.

Well said and agreed. 76.103.37.34 (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The US abandoned this because of issues with unity being necessary to force firm opposition to the British military. The original setup of the US was very much a confederation of separate countries. As most of the component states of the original 13 were vastly larger than all of Cyprus, the political situation very different, the situation seems to bear at most a very tentative relationship to Cyprus's. It's pretty clearly an emotional appeal to US readers.

Indeed 76.103.37.34 (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Third point:

The Plan did not include a settlement regarding the repatriation of Turkish settlers living on Greek Cypriot owned land in the 'Northern Cyprus', while after 19 years, the possibility of abolishing the derogation of 5% of Greeks and Turkish citizens who could settle in Cyprus, is obvious, and the danger of a permanent mass settling of Cyprus by Turkey is visible.

Wish this even made sense. Derogation seems meaningless in context, its not even a word the average reader would know, and frankly this entire bit seems like some talking point copied in the entire. Moreover, the entire thing is not Neutral POV. At a minimum, it should have 'seemed obvious to the Greek Cypriots' as many in the UN and EU apparently overlooked this 'obvious' danger. At a minimum, therefore, it is only obvious to citizens of Cyprus.

Agreed 76.103.37.34 (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


Next:

Nearly all the Turkish settlers would be granted citizenship or residence rights leading to citizenship. The central government would have limited control towards future Turkish Immigration. Those settlers opting to return to Turkey would be compensated by Cyprus and Greek Cypriots. Even though Turkey systematically brought in the settlers to alter the demography of the island, it had no responsibility for their Repatriation.

This is suggesting that the Greek Cypriot component would be granted asymmetrical rights with the Turkish Cypriot component in regards to the ability to control citizens of the other component from settling within its borders. In and of itself, asymmetrical rights are a fine reason for rejection. Unfortunately the final clause reveals this is another 'talking point.' This one can't even be editted, therefore.

I'm willing to give this a go at trying to make something reasonable, but since this is really my first foray into Wikipedia editing, I would like to see some positive feedback, and maybe kick around a list in the discussion before I simply stick it on an article as obviously controversial as this one.

TheoreticalString 10:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, I have just read your comment on the edit history. I don't want to spend much time on this article now, and I'll be just a vandal patrol. I am a new editor myself, so it might be better to hear the experienced ones, but I'll go ahead and tell you what I think. Currently the article does not have references in the necessary places, the arguments seem like comments of the wiki editors who edited those parts. There are several 'see also' links, we might need to check and read them, as the 'comments' might be sourced there (they should have indicated that, but still). If they are just comments, their comments are not necessarily better than yours and vice versa. If what you want to add is sourced, then yours is better. Now in some 'hot' articles, the articles with a lot of archives, any edit can cause a big edit war. This is not the best reason not to edit, but there are other reasons, like because of the arguments they've had with each other, they might know better, they might have researched better; another reason is at some places that needed compromise they might have reached some consensus that we should respect.

Here we don't have any archives, the discussions here on this page are the only discussions, you probably have read them. The article is like that only because other people were here before you. The current situation of the article made you want to make your first edits, and you spent maybe an hour to prepare that. As a sign of good will, you also put it on the talk page, unlike most of the previous editors. Wikipedia is encyclopedia anyone can edit, and any article can be improved. Certainly this one can be improved. I'd say, be bold and go for it after checking the 'see also' links. If the others also show good will, it won't cause an edit war. Another possible solution is put fact tags {{fact}}, on the comments that you don't think are true.

Good luck denizTC 22:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you have some valid points in regards to the wording of certain points detailed in the reasons for the Greek-Cypriot rejection of the plan, however, I still believe that the vast majority mentioned are valid points and can be sourced if needs be (I have already sourced a few), so if you want to go ahead and reach a consensus to reword some of the points go ahead.--EOKA-Assasin 10:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Annan Plan for Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

New Section: After the Referendum

I've added a new section titled: After the Referendum, describing what happened immediately after the Annan plan, based on previous feedback. Please review and feel free to provide some thoughts and/or criticism etc. Thank you! Nargothronde (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Annan Plan for Cyprus → Annan Plan – Overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME, and is doubly-more concise. wumbolo ^^^ 14:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

AKEL was for No

Officially it was for "No" at the referendum. But it kept a rather vague stance. Cinadon36 13:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annan_Plan/Archive_1&oldid=1145795077"