Talk:United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus

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

Neutrality[edit]

This article seems neutral now--Slogankid 10:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were a Greek Cypriot, I would agree with you. However, since there were no entries pertaining to the T/C side of the dispute, it was added in. --Expatkiwi 03:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expatkiwi's additions[edit]

They are a copyright infringement and they are a repetition of information already in the section. Were or were not the two GCs killed by Turkish mobs? The answer is either yes or no. Both sides agree yes; anything beyond that is irrelevant. Thulium 19:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia in my talk page even though I've been a member since 2005. :) Nah I'm not trying to pull rank, I'm not that type, it just struck me as odd. :) (And yes, I am aware of templates)
As for the subject matter, you are right in that copyrighted material cannot be posted word-by-word without permission from its author, so a major rewrite of this recent material is in order. However I do not share your belief about "anything else being irrelevant" part and support a properly sourced and written section about it. I think whether it's relevant or not is not for any single person to decide, so let's just see how it turns out after a rewrite. (Which I unfortunately cannot do personally due to my busy schedule these days. Perhaps we can bring this up in the cooperation board?). Take care --Xasf 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Developments[edit]

These links were added, because they seemed appropriate and it is belived that they talk about the UN Buffer Zone that is mentioned in this article.

If someone(s) belives it belongs somewhere else, feel free to move.

Φilhellenism 01:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a few links. One is enough because they create the misleading impression that the Green Line and the Buffer Zone are being dismantled - which is not the case. The "wall" is/was actually on a tiny piece (maybe 4 metres long) of the Green Line fortifications and has been replaced by a new (possibly) temporary barrier. The dismantelment of the wall is only a symbolic gesture and not a real break-through. If any when a Ledra Street crossing is opened, please add a link about that happening in the same section. Travelbird 10:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where happy with that :)
Φilhellenism 23:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing facts[edit]

1. How many troops monitor the line? (1200, I believe)

860. Abuklea (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. At what cost? (~$1.5 bil/year, I believe) Biruitorul 21:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

take a look at www.unficyp.org Travelbird 10:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Green Line (Cyprus)[edit]

I think Green Line (Cyprus) and United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus should be merged. Especially because there is currently no consistent use and sometimes the link United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus is used in combination with the text Green Line.

Van der Hoorn 18:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Green Line" is a historical term which refers to a division made in 1964 by a British officer. It only extended through Nicosia, whereas the Buffer Zone is island-wide. To state the obvious, the Green Line was a line, whereas the Buffer Zone is a zone which is widens out considerably beyond the old Green Line in many places. And the actual line the Turkish reached in 1974 doesn't exactly match up with the Green Line drawn in 1964, so the northern border of the BZ isn't identical with the Green Line.
No-one in the UN or Cyprus diplomatic community uses the term "Green Line" any more; the Buffer Zone is the reality. Casual use of the term "Green Line" applied to the current situation results in the lack of consistent use, but that is an error; there is a clear distinction.
That said, I would agree with this proposal. A single article, redirected from the Green Line page, which covers both and explains the distinction, would help clear up the confusion.
Abuklea (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, there is room for both articles, with the slightly different slants they now show. As there are internal links, there is no difficulty navigating from one to the other. --Ipigott (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two articles about the same thing with different titles, seems pretty clear cut to me, Merge ----GreatestrowereverTalk Page 14:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals for improvement[edit]

I think that the article could be improved if the following points were elaborated in a more neutral way:

The Republic of Cyprus offered the land to the UN after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus to protect the Republic from further Turkish hostilities -- Citation needed.
Done.

Separation of people according to their ethnic background was not widespread prior to the Turkish invasion of 1974, -- Inconsistent with Cyprus intercommunal violence (inter-ethnic conflict between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots on the island of Cyprus from 1963 to 1974).
Information not relevant anyway. See Cyprus dispute and Cyprus intercommunal violence instead.

The "Green Line" is also referred to as the Turkish Cyprus barrier -- Citation needed.
Information not relevant anyway. See Green Line (Cyprus) instead.

On the northern side of the Buffer Zone, there exists a barrier constructed by the Turkish military. It consists mainly of barbed wire fencing, a few concrete wall segments, watch-towers, anti-tank ditches, and minefields. -- Citation needed.

Deaths within the Buffer Zone -- Is there a Turkish-Cypriot point of view on these events? Why shouldn't it be mentioned here?

See also the relevant discussions about:

References and external links should be expanded.

Please assume good faith. -- FrancescoMazzucotelli 15:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph[edit]

I have reverted a deletion of my carefully edited opening paragraph to this article. The information that I took out is covered in the articles with the links. Of course everything that somebody put back in might be true, but in the context of this opening paragraph it is just tendentious and off-putting. It lacks balance. Let us not have an edit war over this, please. Thank you very much; I know that the most recent editor was acting in good faith, but surely he must see how this wording is "expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, esp. a controversial one." Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I don’t see any controversy in stating plain facts. The fact that the regime installed in northern Cyprus is internationally unrecognised, is universally accepted and not controversial in any way. Furthermore it could not be more relevant than in such an article on a ceasefire line that has split a country into two. So I am afraid that by removing verifiable facts, you yourself are creating controversy. I would therefore highly recommend you refrain from erasing plain facts to avoid an edit war; if one ensues it would only be of your own making… StephP (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The remark above is extremely unfortunate. I am sure that the writer is a good person, but it would be best for one editor to avoid addressing another editor in a personal manner. I bring a neutral viewpoint to this piece, and I find the original opener to be, as I said, tendentious. Everything that was in the original article should be placed farther down in the piece. What the casual researcher is looking for in the opening paragraph is some indication as to what the article is about. One really doesn't need to cram all of the information into the lead. From the viewpoint of the Turks, the line has not "split the country in two"; it has provided a border for a legitimate nation. (I only mention this to illustrate that there is a controversy going on and that the original wording took just one side of it.) Sincerely yours, and with great good will, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I think this info is integral to the article in question and is relevant enough to be included in the opening paragraph. I am sure GeorgeLouis is a lovely person, but I am afraid I will have to continue to disagree with his attempts to disguise the fact that the puppet state in northern Cyprus is internationally unrecognised.StephP (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian administration[edit]

Are there any villages in the UN Buffer zone? Is there some UN civilian administration? What laws govern civilian activities in the zone (if any - eg. agriculture, etc.)? Alinor (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there are villages... but they are empty. The Buffer Zone is off limits to anyone from both sides. I only know this because I worked there once.. Jez t e C 14:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Run-on sentence[edit]

Under "The buffer zone" section, the 2nd last sentence of the section (1st sentence in its last paragraph) is terribly run-on. It is a single sentence consisting of 101 words, thus:

Since October 15th 2011 a peaceful movement of youths have created a spinoff of the occupy movement and adapted it to suit the problem of division on the island, known as Occupy the Buffer Zone in Cyprus, and the No Borders encampment is located at the green line section of Ledra St. in Nicosia and is henceforth moving for unification of the island away from the political system and at a more personal level in order to bypass the political talks for faster action, whatever the action may be, because of the common belief that a divided Cyprus benefits certain political systems.

Surely this can be re-written, no? I count 3 or 4 concepts in that single sentence, so I don't see why it can not be re-written into at least 2 or 3 sentences. Can the author please do that? Thanks.
--Atikokan (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And and?[edit]

In the buffer zone some 10,000 people live in several villages and and there are farms located within. That's written in the introduction of the article. It that right grammar with these "and and?" I'm not a native speaker but it seems wrongly to me . . .--31.17.153.69 (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for the point-out! SalopianJames (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Nations Buffer Zone in 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Nations Buffer Zone in 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) 17:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So is this buffer zone a part of the European Union or not?[edit]

I'm confused, Wikimedia Commons says yes (at least c:Template:Countries of the European Union), europa.eu may said no, and several UNSC documents said either yes or no. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who can answer this? This really affects the content quality of this article. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Nations_Buffer_Zone_in_Cyprus&oldid=1208272425"