Jump to content

Talk:Cyprus problem

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

"good offices" vs "...Good Offices ..."

[edit]

   "Good Offices" is the title of a novel (w/ a WP article) because that is our and most of the world's coventional practice, and some UN body set up to use its good offices to settle disputes has a WP article that probably follows UN conventions for naming most of its kinds of subordinate parts, for mostly the first reason, which are probably close to those of English names for such parts. But when the Sec Gen decides bigger guns are needed, he may choose to notify that body, i 'spose, but he is using his own good offices (inherant de facto influence in the context of his role as SG), to accompllish an end. He knows abt that office, and might have reason to keep them informed, but he can use his own "good offices" bcz of two facts: very few people want to cross him, and when gets in touch with you, just blowing him off is almost never a good plan. We have an article on the novel and on the committee, which are titled to reflect those two proper names, but (when you get a job bcz some with more influence backs you, or) when the SG nudges one or both parties, he's "using his good offices" as a prod, not speaking on behalf of a less influential part of the UN, and paradox tho it is, the lower case kind is far more likely to be effective than the pretentiously upper-case bureaucratic kind.
   Now, ya wanna go write a WP article on good offices, well, not a terrible idea as long as someone does the dog work (including mention of that not necessarily trivial UN office), i promise that i or some like me will make you look like a fool if the title's spelling doesn't begin with "Good offices", OK? A wikt entry (we follow lexicographic, rather than encyclopedic practices over there) would be yet another case.
--JerzyA (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annexation of Cyprus

[edit]

Because of these edits [1], [2], [3]. , Gr.Britain declared the annexation of Cyprus on 5 November 1914. See:

In 1925, Cyprus became a Crown Colony. Cinadon36 10:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 November 2021

[edit]
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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus dispute → Cyprus conflict – The proposed title is the clear common name and in line with all other frozen conflicts like Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Abkhaz–Georgian conflict, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Western Sahara conflict, Rohingya conflict, Kashmir conflict, Korean conflict, Arab–Israeli conflict etc. Northumber (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Agreed. The Cyprus conflict is an open-ended conflict that is effectively still a ceasefire. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 8 February 2022

[edit]
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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus conflict → Cyprus problem – The above requested move was carried out with very minimal participation so a strong consensus for the actual name is not present. The WP:COMMONNAME for this topic is clearly "Cyprus problem", as evidenced by these results: Google Books - 132,000 for "Cyprus problem" vs 66,300 for "Cyprus conflict" vs 56,300 for "Cyprus issue" vs 16,200 for "Cyprus dispute"; Google Scholar - 8,580 for "Cyprus problem" vs 6,630 for "Cyprus issue" vs 5,260 for "Cyprus conflict" vs 2,130 for "Cyprus dispute". Google Ngram Viewer confirms that "Cyprus problem" is the most popular term, far ahead of "Cyprus conflict", which comes in fourth and places behind even "Cyprus question", nowadays a somewhat antiquated term. The WP:CONSISTENCY argument above doesn't hold water. The examples given are too selective, a number of similar articles use various terminology (see Category:National questions, Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, amongst others); and it's apples and oranges anyway - the Cyprus problem has seen an incomparably greater use of diplomacy than all of those other conflicts, not least involving referanda and EU accession talks; such that calling the whole thing a "conflict" feels somewhat awkward. GGT (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • support common name web related searches use the cyprus problem more than cyprus conflict.194.146.156.12 (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Differences are not overwhelming and it is less clear. "Problem" is not sufficiently informative of what it pertains to. EU has a "Cyprus problem", archaeology has a "Cyprus problem", etc. This article is referring specifically to the conflict or dispute. Current title makes that more immediately clear. Walrasiad (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really Walrasiad. It's not a Cyprus problem, it's the Cyprus problem in pretty much all sources. E.g. [5]. There is no ambiguity whatsoever. A Google search for "a Cyprus problem" confirms this - literally no one uses the phrase "Cyprus problem" to refer to anything but the Cyprus problem. In fact, "conflict" is much less specific and misleading, not least because the dispute involves stuff such as EU accession talks, but also because there are many "Cyprus conflicts" e.g. the "1974 Cyprus conflict" [6], "1964 Cyprus conflict" [7], "1967 Cyprus conflict" [8]. And for WP:COMMONNAME there is no need for an overwhelming difference (although I would argue a 2:1 difference in Google Books is pretty overwhelming), it simply requires it to be "the name that is most commonly used", which it is. --GGT (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The" vs. "a" is not specified in your searches, nor differentiable. Your Googlebook numbers are full of ghost-hits (non-existent). There aren't "132,000" references. Typically, you need to scroll to last page to get real number, but we reach the page limits on both. Since you are removing clarity in wording, making it less recognizable, I would like to see a more lopsided difference in usage rather than a marginal one. It seems to me to be a toss-up, and I'd prefer to go with the more informative title to help our readers. EDIT: Following the comment below, I wouldn't oppose a move to "dispute". But not to "problem". Much too vague. Walrasiad (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Walrasiad: The ghosthit argument doesn't hold for the Google Ngram viewer however, and that also clearly reflects a significant difference in usage (it shows that "Cyprus problem" is 3x more common than "Cyprus conflict"). Is there any alternative data to suggest that "Cyprus problem" is not the by far most common name, or, as you claim, that this is a toss-up? And are there any examples of RS that use "Cyprus problem" to refer to anything but the Cyprus problem? I don't think it's helpful to speculate that there may be ambiguity, over my many years of reading about Cyprus I simply don't remember ever coming across such usage. And how about the idea that "Cyprus conflict" is also unclear as explained above, do you disagree with this? If so, on what grounds? I should note that my preferred title is "Cyprus problem" but I would support a return to "Cyprus dispute" over retaining "Cyprus conflict" - even if this isn't the common name, it removes the problems associated with the "Cyprus conflict" name. --GGT (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's still an ambiguous matter-of-fact phrase that could pertain to EU budgets or archaeology. Ngrams can't tell the difference. Keep the audience in mind. You may read a lot on Cyprus or international affairs. But Wikipedia readers typically don't. This article is for casual readers from the general public, not specialists or scholars, someone who might see something about the conflict on the TV news and may want to look more into it. "Cyprus problem" isn't likely how it will be referred to, nor would he know to look under that title. "Conflict" or "dispute" is more precise, informative and helpful. Walrasiad (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either this move to Cyprus problem or a revert to Cyprus dispute. I'm not sold that the google hits refer to a common name, but even from a descriptive title view, "conflict" is quite misleading as GGT mentions above. CMD (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

new intro is FAR from neutral

[edit]

The actual reality on the ground, which is what the intro should be about, has nothing to do with such pettifogging details such as treaties and resolutions which can never be enforced. And, indeed, have not been over 49 years.

"presumably", "pretense" and "Turkish Occupation Zone" are also not neutral. 180.150.38.126 (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


linking to a related article I'm working on

[edit]

hi all, this conflict is a major example of a topic I'm currently working on (protracted social conflict), so i added a link to that article in the intro. Grackle.cackle (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revelation of the facts on the ground

[edit]

As for the fact revalation on the ground, Fiona Mullen of Sapienta Economics, a consultancy in Nicosia said "We might have reached a point where it’s no longer possible to put the island back together again". Source: https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/11/18/putting-cyprus-together-may-be-impossible Permanent partition? Putting Cyprus together may be impossible (18 November 2021). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.175.237.186 (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyprus_problem&oldid=1264229387"