Cyprus-Forum.com

[CopperLine]

Piratis,
Whether you like it or not you have painted yourself into an untenable and illogical position. For you to say so categorically and with such self-assurance that the PRIO figures are biased, unreliable or otherwise untrustworthy you have got to be able to make a comparison with another set of figures. (You are making a comparative argument so you have to show a comparator). What is your alternative source of data by which you attempt to make a comparison ? You have said, via CoE Assembly report (which is not itself a democgraphic investigation, but is a call to end immigration and to 're-patriate') that the RoC data are the reliable sources. BUT the RoC has not conducted a census in the north and therefore cannot possibly have census-generated data.

You haven't got a leg to stand on when you say 'the fact that it is well known that the numbers of Settlers that TCs publish are intentionally way less than the truth.' Unless you can tell us what the truth is and how it was generated, and that this was methodologiccaly more robust than the census, you should keep quiet.

And you have the nerve to day that 'the CoE report doesn't just eat and repeat the Turkish propaganda, but instead makes a true independent investigation of the issue.' NO IT DOES NOT. It eats and repeats RoC figures instead. I think that RoC figures are pretty reliable for the south, as they are based on census data. I think that RoC figures for the north are little more than guesses or crude estimates, precisely because (a) that is what the RoC statistical agency says (that they made estimates and projections) and (b) beacuse RoC itself admits that it didn't carry out a census in the north (how could it, after all ?).

Moreover, you are simply wrong about PRIO - it doesn't 'simply adopt'.

As I said before the PRIO sources include RoC data but also have other data. It has more, and more varied, data sources than the CoE Assembly report. You seem, in contrast, to think less is better. You seem to think that anything from north Cyrpus is inherently unreliable. Are you, Piratis, actually saying that no census data is better than census data produced in north Cyprus ?

Now if you came along and were able to demonstrate that the census was methodologically flawed or that it was conducted in a problematic way then you might have something worth discussing. Still, so far, your only objection has been to the use or non-use of scare quotes. I think now, on this issue, I'll finally leave you with the conspicuously empty hands that you have.


Nikitas,
I stand by the "thousands of organisations and millions of dollars think otherwise," it is not hyperbole and it is proprtionate. Official government agencies and other international organisations, including commercial organisations, routinely use population data in their basic operations. That TRNC is not diplomatically recognised is irrelevant to the need for such organisations to use some data or other. So, for example, when HSBC is thinking of opening operations in the north it wants to know how big the market is, what the age composition is, what the residency structure is etc. Is it going to use TRNC census data, or nothing, or RoC guesswork ? It uses amongst other sources TRNC census data. Same goes for every UN agency and every serious international business outfit including the tourism sector. Following that, it is unquestionable that the level of business is into the humdreds of millions of dollars if not, over the years, billions.


......

Let me add that all I am trying to do here is to overcome the absolutely absurd position proposed by many people in this forum that anything and everything that emanates or is produced by north Cyprus, TRNC/'TRNC' and Turkey is inherently and necessarily corrupted and bad. Equally I am trying to expose the similarly absurd position that any organisation which uses data from these entities is necessarily contaminated and corrupted.

It is frankly astonishing that one has to even need to reject such asburd and indeed racist assertions.

[Piratis]

Cooperline, there are two reports: One by a private organization with a turnover of 5-6 million Euro every year funded by undisclosed entities, and another report by the Council of Europe.

You prefer the first one because for a very obvious reason it adopts your Turkish positions, while I trust the report by the Council of Europe which has made an independent research instead of just eating your Turkish propaganda.

And I ask you this (again): If the numbers that the Turkish side gives about the Settlers could be trusted then what would be the need for an independent research on the issue?

If you want to read what the sources of data are then go read the CoE report here:

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/Worki ... OC9799.htm

Everything is very well explained and documented.

[zan]

Cooperline, there are two reports: One by a private organization with a turnover of 5-6 million Euro every year funded by undisclosed entities, and another report by the Council of Europe.

You prefer the first one because for a very obvious reason it adopts your Turkish positions, while I trust the report by the Council of Europe which has made an independent research instead of just eating your Turkish propaganda.

And I ask you this (again): If the numbers that the Turkish side gives about the Settlers could be trusted then what would be the need for an independent research on the issue?

If you want to read what the sources of data are then go read the CoE report here:

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/Worki ... OC9799.htm

Everything is very well explained and documented.

And your choice comes by divine intervention

[CopperLine]

Even though I'm pretty bored with this part of the thread, here's my response to your various errors and fallacies. In no particular order :

1. You say that PRIO is funded from undisclosed sources. See the following statement, which discloses its sources of funding, from its main website :

http://www.prio.no/page/About/PRIO_menu_buttons/9346/9350?PHPSESSID=edbc00313f81ee2d92c8c3d0699af31b

Since you'd already been to its website to quote the turnover figure you could have read this yourself. Not 'undislosed' as you claim.

2. You could also read on this webpage the typical disclaimer on (a) research and (b) funding that any respectable independent research organisation publishes. Your allegations as to the legitimacy or independence of PRIO publications and research (i) simply ignores those disclaimers and (ii) is based on nothing more than innuendo and false association i.e, that you have no evidence that either TRNC or Turkey has funded PRIO and thereby compromised its integrity. Your strategy is simply an ad hominem attack on PRIO through a 'throw enough mud and some of it will eventually stick' kind of logic. What next from you, Piratis, the Turkish Government funds the World Bank thus making the masses of World Bank data, including on Cyprus, an instrument of Turkey ?

3. I fail to see how the value of turnover in and of itself has any bearing on the reliability or legitimacy of data or publications ! Should we conclude that Fox News is more reliable because it has a turnover of hundreds of millions ? Or that Amnesty International is less trustworthy because it has a much lower turnover than the US State Department ?

4. You say, repeatedly, that I 'prefer the first one [PRIO report] because for a very obvious reason it adopts your Turkish positions'. Of course I can't stop you saying that repeatedly despite the fact that (a) I have never said any such thing, and (b) that I have explicitly and repeatedly argued that the reason for preferring one demographic study over another has to do with method, comprehensiveness and novelty of data sources and NOT whether it is Turkish, Cypriot or any other 'nationality'.; and (c) you make another ad hominem logical fallacy about alleged Turkishness.

5. You repeat that 'the report by the Council of Europe which has made an independent research'. You are simply wrong. Look at the footnotes and appendices to the report - that is where the Rapporteur (not the Council of Europe) got his information. It is those sources which did the demographic research not him, not the CoE. All the Rapporteur did was ...err... report (probably by cutting and pasting, and probably done by one of his research assistants) to a committee of the Assembly. I repeat : He did not do any demographic research. Mpreover, I repeat, a committee of the assembly is NOT the Council of Europe, any more than testimony to a select committee of the House of Commons is a statement of HM Government in the UK. You seem to be trying to elevate that report - the population data on north Cyprus which is largely provided by the RoC statistical agency which says itself that these are estimates and projections, not census data - to a status that it simply does not possess.

6. The CoE Assembly committee report that you have repeatedly referred to and which I have repeatedly read to check that I hadn't mis-read or misunderstood says, amongst other things, that it got its data from RoC statistical agency (Dept of Statistics and Research) or where necessary, 'All population figures (except 1960) are extracted from Turkish Cypriot publications.'

These paragraphs pasted below (with the appendix tables) are the most pertinent, I think, to the issue at hand . The inclusion of this information in the report simply reflects the opinion of the Rapporteur (not the CoE Assembly, still less the Council of Europe) - who chose not to even travel to the north to independently check the robustness of the demographic data. I highlight key phrases and add in square parenthesis my own observations :

The figures provided by the Department of Statistics and Research of the Cypriot Government are based on the assumption that Turkish Cypriot demographic variables have gone through the same changes as that of the population in the Government controlled areas. There are serious discrepancies between the figures advanced by the Turkish Cypriot administration concerning population of Turkish Cypriots and of Turkish mainland settlers in the occupied areas . Analysis of the figures reveals spectacular divergences between the two communities, especially in the 1975-1981 period and, to a lesser degree, as from 1981.[Doesn't tell us what these divergences are, why they are 'spectacular' or what the comparative data is]

20. According to the Government estimates, taking into account Turkish Cypriot emigration and given the comparable rate of annual natural increase of the population, the total population of Cyprus should be 695 000 at the end of 1989 including 556 000 Greek Cypriots and 130 000 Turkish Cypriots.5 (see Appendix 3, Table 2).

21. However, according to the Turkish Cypriot sources, the figures concerning the occupied part are considerably higher. The number of Turkish Cypriots in 1989 amounted to 169 000, and in 1997 to 203 046 (see Appendix 3, Table 3).

22. Given the comparable rate of natural increase of the population in both parts of the island (1,3%), and the high emigration of the Turkish Cypriots, which took place after July 1974, it may be assumed that the difference between the figures comes from the introduction of settlers from Turkey to the occupied area of Cyprus.

23. The introduction of the settlers [What was only an assumption in paragraph 22 has become a conclusion and fact in paragraph 23] has changed the demographic structure of the island in a considerable way: the Greek Cypriots who constituted over 78% of the total population in 1973, and 77% in 1992, now stand for 76 % of the total population of the island (see Appendix 3, Table 4).


24. The exact figures on migration in the northern part of the island are unavailable and are based on estimations. Figures for settlers vary according to the source. Turkish figures show at least 31 000 settlers. The Turkish Cypriot and Turkish press have given far larger estimates for Turkish settlers in the occupied area including figures as high as 50 000, 80 000 or even 100 000. The figure advanced by the Government sources is 115 000 (see appendix 3, Table 5).

So to repeat for emphasis the key words : estimate, estimations, 'it may be assumed', 'variables' .... Piratis, I could have assumed and estimated and plotted out the variables that Manchester United would win aganist West Ham at the weekend. But the fact is, they lost. Assumptions and estimations are no substitute for hard data. The CoE report admits to not having hard data on the north and so what does it do ? It uses 'where necessary' TRNC data.

In fact far from coming to the conclusion that TRNC data is unreliable the Rapporeteur quotes TRNC data as that upon which to name and condemn 'settler policy' - hardly the balanced conclusion of an independent researcher who had misgivings about data reliability !

7. Table 4 of the report is just plain silly. It gives a list of origin of settlers, exclusively Turkish provinces, but doens't provide any numbers nor any information as to how this list was compiled. Notably missing from the list were Birmingham, Brighton, Bristol, Barnet, Burnley, Bonn, Bremen, .........


8.

And I ask you this (again): If the numbers that the Turkish side gives about the Settlers could be trusted then what would be the need for an independent research on the issue?

And I shall tell you again that this is a leading question and should not be answered to the extent that it contains a false premise. You might not trust the TRNC census data (though you still don't give a reason other than bigotry and use/non-use of scare quotes), the rapporteur might not trust the census data - although that doesn't stop him using it by proxy - but many others do effectively trust the data. So the demand for independent research is not so deafening as you seem to imply.

For my part, any demographic study can always be tightened up and refined (and most census agencies are constantly looking at new and better ways of undertaking their work). No - or very few - independent organisations have the capacity to undertake census research, but what they can do is spot-test, sample test, or triangulate with other research methods and data to assess the robustness of census data. Some of that the latest PRIO report did, none of that did the rapporteur do.



Piratis, I'm off to get a life now, but you can puzzle away at your empty hands for another week or more if you wish.



[/code]

[Piratis]

Of course I read that page, but apparently you can't read otherwise you would have found out that:

1) In the "about us" page they include only a few examples of their sponsors
2) There is nowhere in their website that they disclose all of their sponsors.

They specifically claim that they receive "support to individual projects from sources both inside and outside Norway". So who funded them to make the pro-Turkish project about Cyprus? It is apparent that they wouldn't do it for free, and it is also apparent that their report is pro-Turkish. Beyond that everybody can come to his own conclusion, and I have come to mine. It is your option to deny the obvious in an attempt to pass your pro-Turk report as independent, but sorry we don't buy it.

Here we have two reports: One from a private organization which will not do anything unless it is funded by undisclosed sources, and another one from the Council of Europe.

The PRIO report trusts the information given by your pseudo state while the CoE report does its own independent analysis taking into consideration all sources, but also the obvious fact that the Turkish side is trying to hide the amount of Turkish Settlers currently in Cyprus.

Maybe your occupation regime illegally prohibits Cyprus to contact a valid census over the north part of the country but this doesn't mean you can publish any numbers you want and expect to be believed.

[zan]

Of course I read that page, but apparently you can't read otherwise you would have found out that:

1) In the "about us" page they include only a few examples of their sponsors
2) There is nowhere in their website that they disclose all of their sponsors.

They specifically claim that they receive "support to individual projects from sources both inside and outside Norway". So who funded them to make the pro-Turkish project about Cyprus? It is apparent that they wouldn't do it for free, and it is also apparent that their report is pro-Turkish. Beyond that everybody can come to his own conclusion, and I have come to mine. It is your option to deny the obvious in an attempt to pass your pro-Turk report as independent, but sorry we don't buy it.

Here we have two reports: One from a private organization which will not do anything unless it is funded by undisclosed sources, and another one from the Council of Europe.

The PRIO report trusts the information given by your pseudo state while the CoE report does its own independent analysis taking into consideration all sources, but also the obvious fact that the Turkish side is trying to hide the amount of Turkish Settlers currently in Cyprus.

Maybe your occupation regime illegally prohibits Cyprus to contact a valid census over the north part of the country but this doesn't mean you can publish any numbers you want and expect to be believed.

Please don't give up Copperline....He does this to wear people down...He really can't believe the rubbish he writes. I m rubbish at maths but even I know that if you are going to use a rule for two sums then hat rule applies to both....He uses the negative for anything remotely in the TCs favour and positives for GCs every time......So please don't give up on him...t best he is making him self look foolish by contradicting himself....

[Piratis]

Where did I contradict myself Zan?

Everybody knowns that the Settlers in the occupied areas are way higher than what the Turkish side claims. Even many of your own journalists and politicians admit this.

Here is a recent one:

Turkish Cypriot daily Kibris newspaper (19.12.07) reports that Izzet Izcan, general secretary of the United Cyprus Party (BKP), visited yesterday the occupied Mia Milia village and said that population is brought to the occupied areas of the island under the pretext of “bringing working force”. He noted that the Turkish Cypriots have become minority in their own country and added: “By saying Turk comes Turk goes, they are trying to annihilate our community, our identity and our culture”.

[Viewpoint]

Where did I contradict myself Zan?

Everybody knowns that the Settlers in the occupied areas are way higher than what the Turkish side claims. Even many of your own journalists and politicians admit this.

Here is a recent one:

Turkish Cypriot daily Kibris newspaper (19.12.07) reports that Izzet Izcan, general secretary of the United Cyprus Party (BKP), visited yesterday the occupied Mia Milia village and said that population is brought to the occupied areas of the island under the pretext of “bringing working force”. He noted that the Turkish Cypriots have become minority in their own country and added: “By saying Turk comes Turk goes, they are trying to annihilate our community, our identity and our culture”.

Turks vs GCs, Turks win hands down everytime.

[Piratis]

The PRIO report itself was written by a Turkish Cypriot Mete Hatay, with the help of his wife, other Turkish Cypriots, and some foreigners.

From the report Acknowledgments page:

THIS REPORT (which is a part of a wider project) would not have been possible without the substantive help of a number of individuals. Deep appreciation is owed to PRIO Director Stein Tønnesson and to Ann-Sofi Jakobsson Hatay, a peace and conflict researcher at Uppsala University, for providing important advice during the course of the project; to Gina Lende, Centre Manager of the PRIO Cyprus Centre, who worked very hard to facilitate my work; and to Ayla Gurel of the PRIO Cyprus Centre and Altay Nevzat of the Eastern Mediterranean University, who spared their precious time to provide invaluable volunteer work for this report. I also extend my deepest thanks to John Carville for editing the language of the manuscript.

Mete Hatay
Nicosia, Cyprus
12 August 2005

Does anyone still want to claim that the above report is an independent one?

[zan]

Where did I contradict myself Zan?

Everybody knowns that the Settlers in the occupied areas are way higher than what the Turkish side claims. Even many of your own journalists and politicians admit this.

Here is a recent one:

Turkish Cypriot daily Kibris newspaper (19.12.07) reports that Izzet Izcan, general secretary of the United Cyprus Party (BKP), visited yesterday the occupied Mia Milia village and said that population is brought to the occupied areas of the island under the pretext of “bringing working force”. He noted that the Turkish Cypriots have become minority in their own country and added: “By saying Turk comes Turk goes, they are trying to annihilate our community, our identity and our culture”.

So you want us to accept everything the disgruntled TCs in the TRNC says then.....Is that right......Then how about you accept what the disgruntled GCs say on your side and swear here and now that you will not vote for Tpap because they are right and you are wrong....How about it.....This is what I meant by saying you contradict yourself. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander Piratis....

How about you let us worry about ow many Turks we have in the TRNC/KKTC and you look after your own shit....