Talk:2015 Northern Cypriot presidential election

Third and fourth candidates in the infobox

The infobox election is intended to be minimal, therefore, especially in the elections with a run-off, we only use the run-off results and picture first two candidates. In most cases the rest are irrelevant anyway, and two is the reasonable cut-off point for the number of candidates two show. However, seeing the vote was split roughly equally between four candidates in the first round, and the rest of candidates were irrelevant with percentages less than 0.5%, in this particular instance four candidates seems like a more natural boundary point, and appears to me to achieve a better compromise between minimality and informativeness. So I went ahead and added them back, feel free to improve it and let's discuss it if you think they should be removed.--Cfsenel (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In two round elections, only the candidates who participate in the second round are shown in the infobox. Number 57 07:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Says who? You basically said what I already stated my first sentence and presented no other arguments, or link to a discussion which resolved this must be so in all cases.--Cfsenel (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

While the norm is indeed that way, I am inclined to agree with Cfsenel about this case. These two candidates were two very important participants in the election who nearly got as many votes. This is reflected by the fact that the lead section talks about them quite a bit. --GGT (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Cfsenel, this is standard practice. If you need links, see this as an example. Number 57 16:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Number 57, that is not a link to a discussion that established a rule, that shows one user reverting another user's edit on a different election. One discussion is here. In the end, new parameters for different rounds were not added, but it was suggested that blank fields may be used if two rounds are to be shown. I agree that infoboxes should be minimal, they should not be swamped with too many information. And in most cases two candidates is the natural point to limit, when there is a run-off phase. But we should not mistake this for a hard and fast rule. The important thing is being most informative without being overcrowded. Not obeying some custom that only the candidates in the runoff should be shown.

I will yield if we agree that this makes the infobox too complicated and the additional info (two other very relevant candidates) is not worth the additional complication. But "this is how we usually do it" just don't cuts it.--Cfsenel (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a case of "this is how we usually do it", it's a case of this is how we always do it. It's an important difference. Number 57 22:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Seeing you refuse to present any argument other than you want it to be that way, I added them back. I understand that you are interested in election articles and you want them to be consistent across countries, and I respect that, but that is no reason not to improve Wikipedia. I believe this article is more successful at conveying information that way and at least one other user is inclined to agree. Please don't attempt to revert it again based on some non existent rule. If you like, start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox election to make it a rule that only the candidates at the run-off must be shown, regardless of what the circumstances are, and see if there is consensus on that.--Cfsenel (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have presented the argument that it is always done this way, not that I "want it to be that way" – personally I don't like using infoboxes at all (I never add them to articles I create or edit), but if they are being used, they need to be used correctly and consistently; I have also demonstrated that it is not a "non-existent rule" with the diff above – you, however, have failed to demonstrate that it is not always done this way. So, as you are the one who wants to go against normal practice, and therefore the one that needs to get consensus to do so. Please start a discussion at the template talk page, or at WP:E&R. Number 57 07:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No, you have not demonstrated that it is not a "non-existent rule". It seems you have a very fallacious understanding of what a rule is. A rule does not come about when everybody does something in a certain way. It would at best create a custom. A rule comes into existence either as a result of a discussion (like an act of a parliament), or as a result of the decision of a person in authority (like a court ruling). You certainly are not an authority here and you failed to point to a discussion where such a decision was taken. I do not need to find an example and say "look, they do it this way in Swaziland!" which would presumably be followed by you removing it from the Swaziland page using the argument "we always do it this way". And, for future reference, please do not use that argument, we have at least one example we do not do it that way, which is Northern Cyprus presidential election, 2015, as was decided on the talk page of that election.--Cfsenel (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

And no, we do not need to be that consistent in infoboxes. I can imagine another Brit complaining on Turkish general election, 1995: "No, ANAP is not the second party, DYP is, DYP got more seats, this is how we do it in UK." Well, countries differ, in Turkish politics nobody would even think that DYP is the second party in the election in any sense of the word. It just happened to have the second greatest number of seats in the parliament, despite ranking third in the election. This would be the understanding within the context of Turkish politics. This doesn't mean Turkish people should go and modify the infobox at United Kingdom general election, 2015, placing UKIP in the third place.

At any rate, I was not very passionate about adding the third and fourth candidates, it was just an opinion, which another user happened to agree. Maybe there is some merit to strictly limiting the number of candidates in the infobox to two when there is run-off, I don't know. But I have not seen any such argument, nor have I been directed to a discussion page that includes one. And I do not accept the article changed into what I believe to be a worse compromise between minimality and informativeness, only because people were able to impose it on other articles (without basing it on a rule or discussion result).--Cfsenel (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't care if there are two or four candidates in the infobox, but please stop adding the round one map to it; Eroğlu did not win the Mağusa vote in round two. Alakzi (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Cfsenel, it has not been "decided" on this talkpage that the infobox should be different to normal – you have failed to gain any kind of consensus that this should be the case. The fact that you seem to be suggesting that people from certain countries should not edit election articles for those of other countries is disturbing in the extreme, and smacks of WP:OWN. Number 57 11:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Number 57, I don't know if you are deliberately attacking a straw man or just seriously do not comprehend what is said. I am not from Cyprus and I edit Cyprus election articles. I am not from UK and I edit UK election articles. Except, unlike you, I know that countries are different, and they need not be consistent in all aspects, and I know that I should not try to impose my understanding of how election articles should be presented in all cases. I don't know how much more consensus do you want: 2 users expressed the view that that the article is better with four candidates in the infobox and 0 users expressed the view that the article is better with two candidates in the infobox. You are yet to present your opinion on the matter. And actually I am very much interested in hearing it: Why do you think this article is better off when only two candidates are shown in the infobox? Or, since you prefer to keep it general, why do you think every single election article on Wikipedia with run-offs is better off with only two candidates are shown in the infobox, without exception? Over the last two weeks you have been insisting on not presenting an argument, or even mentioning in passing a slightest pettiest reason why it should be that way. And if you continue doing this, I am afraid you appear to be the one who thinks he owns the article.--Cfsenel (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You were very clearly inferring that people from some countries shouldn't be editing articles on elections in others; how else can the sentence "This doesn't mean Turkish people should go and modify the infobox at United Kingdom general election, 2015, placing UKIP in the third place" be interpreted?

As I said, I don't have a particularly strong opinion on infoboxes (I'd rather not have them at all) and consistency is my main concern. But if you push me, I think it's fairly obvious that in a two-round election, only the second round candidates should be in the infobox, as they are the only ones who could actually win the election; the inclusion of the candidates who didn't contest the first round just confuse things, particularly if you include only some of the first round candidates. Number 57 09:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Reaction on social media

@GGT: Should we write a few words about the #eroglutumba hashtag that's been making the rounds or this, or would they be WP:UNDUE? Papadopoulos' comments on Twitter can come after Christofias' letter. Alakzi (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Those comments by the leaders of political parties or influential people deserve being mentioned, by all means. I looked for sources to insert the hashtag, but there seems to be no reliable sources that actually support the idea that it was a popular reaction (at least by some segments of the society) to the election. I have found only this, which does state that some CTP supporters used the hashtag to support Akıncı before the second round. --GGT (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"Northern Cypriot"

@Number 57: "Northern Cypriot" as an adjective does not exist, it is only found in literature written by authors with little grasp of the Cyprus dispute. As a native of Northern Cyprus, the title of the article is an eyesore to me at the moment... The demonym is "Turkish Cypriot" as stated in the article. However, within the context of the Cyprus dispute, international actors would often make a distinction between Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Another important point is that the electorate of Northern Cyprus contains many Turks from the mainland (of course I would say that many of these people now identify as Turkish Cypriot, but that's a discussion for another time...). As such, I think it's best to keep "Northern Cyprus" in the article names due to the exceptional circumstances. Otherwise, the still acceptable option is to name the articles using the demonym, "Turkish Cypriot". "Northern Cypriot" is simply wrong. May I kindly ask you to make the necessary corrections? --GGT (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

"Northern Cypriot" clearly does exist as an adjective, as a cursory web search shows. Examples of its usage include the New York Times and the BBC. And it is used by people and organisations familiar with the area, such as Anadolu ("Northern Cypriot parliament headed for early elections", "UN Security Council’s press release on Northern Cypriot town of Maras") and Hurriyet ("Lately, Akıncı, a devoted federalist, appeared to have been sidelined by Ankara and the conservative spectrum of Northern Cypriot politics" or "Soon the Turkish and Northern Cypriot electricity grids will be connected"). As such, I don't believe there is a case for avoiding its usage – we already use it on Wikipedia for Northern Cypriot passport or Northern Cypriot identity card. "Turkish Cypriot" would only be appropriate if the country was named Turkish Cyprus (which it isn't). Number 57 12:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Northern Cyrpus: Limited Recognition

@Number 57: Could you elaborate? Other articles mentioning de facto states such as Northern Cyrprus like the COVID-19 pandemic, although the article itself is not political in nature- still adds notes for the defacto status of territories to not mislead others into assuming these are widely recognized countries. Other articles such as the president of Somaliland, another self declared/ de-facto state, Muse Bihi Abdi list the self-declared status to let users know. I'll remove the the edit once their is a concensus, although until then, you have not provided any reasoning for the removal of the information that is still complies with WP:NPOVHOW. ChaoticTexan (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I am willing to settle with a note on the side. As long as users are not being misled. ChaoticTexan (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone is being misled. The opening sentence simply states that there was a presidential election in Northern Cyprus. The status of the territory has no bearing on that fact. Similarly, 2017 Somaliland presidential election has no mention of the status of the territory, nor does 2020 Abkhazian presidential election or 2020 Artsakhian general election. GGT also reverted your addition at 2020 Northern Cypriot presidential election for the same reason. Number 57 21:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: Fair enough, I concede. Although, I will go ahead and apply similar statements of self declared states for topics similar to other de facto states in regards to their current presidents, and any similar topic that consistently mentions the fact. Although for the case of presidential elections I will leave that out. We had a similar talk for the COVID-19 pandemic where people kept edit warring and claiming that the discussion was political and irrelevant. Regardless, the consensus was to add at a minimum, a note of their statuses. ChaoticTexan (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Lastly, for future reference if anyone else gives their view, and their is a consensus to proceed with a note or statement of the statuses of de facto states in any other article relating to presidential elections. Then whoever does the edit has the right to proceed, even if you personally disagree it is irrelevant ChaoticTexan (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)