Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia

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


It looks like CIA got its Dhekelia map wrong. The area to the north of the UN buffer zone is not under the control of the Republic of Cyprus but under turkish occupation (or Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus administration, according to your PoV) Mavros

No, its just that no country recognizes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, except Turkey. Takeshi

My statement above refers to an older version of the map which was wrong. The map has been corrected. Mavros 15:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Split question[edit]

Why aren't there separate articles for Akrotiri and Dhekelia? They are listed as separate entities in the CIA Factbook. —Cantus 21:01, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Could somebody create a map of all Cyprus with dots to indicate where these territories are located? RickK 09:45, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

See UK sovereign base and/or Image:Cy-map.png. - Hoshie/Crat 00:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

City question[edit]

As for this edit, I am interested to know if Akrotiri and Dhekelia are cities. Thanks. — Instantnood 21:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are villages really Mavros 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote to split this article.[edit]

Here's a section where you can cast a vote on whether or not you are in favour of 2 separate articles - Akrotiri Sovereign Base Area and Dhekelia Sovereign Base Area.One vote per person please. - (Aidan Work 01:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Votes in favour of splitting this article.[edit]

I have always been in favour of 2 separate articles under the 2 above-mentioned names. The lists of the Administrators of the 2 S.B.A.'s should be included. - (Aidan Work 01:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Votes not in favour of splitting this article.[edit]

  • Despite what the CIA lists, Akrotiri and Dhekelia is considered by the UK to be one entity not two. Shocktm | Talk | Contributions 15:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shocktm, constitutionally, Akrotiri & Dhekelia are 2 separate entities. Legislation made for Akrotiri has no legal force in Dhekelia & vice-versa. This is why there should be 2 separate articles. - (Aidan Work 01:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Everything I have seen including indicates that the SBAs are one entity. They have one administrator (Currently Peter Thomas Clayton Pearson ), one capital (Episkopi), one police force, etc. I could be wrong but it does not apprear to be seperate entities to me. Shocktm | Talk | Contributions 02:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[1] suggests there may be a few local ordinances for Akrotiri, but that almost all ordinances apply across the SBAs. --Henrygb 19:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The local ordinances relating to Akrotiri actually relate to the Greek Cypriot village of Akrotiri. They probably come about because the village is the only civilian Cypriot community within the SBAs sizeable enough to warrent a measure of local government. All the villages inside the Eastern SBA boundaries were actually made Republic of Cyprus enclaves and subject to that country's rule of law. I believe that at the time of the setting up of the SBAs, the villagers of Akrotiri were paid compensation to relocate. For one reason or another they didn't, they were never forced to leave and have remained to this day. Incidentally, Akrotiri is the name of;
  • The Greek Cypriot village
  • The peninsular that forms the southern most part of the Western Sovereign Base Area (and of Cyprus)
  • The bay to the east of the peninsular, and south of Limassol
  • The Salt Lake in the middle of the peninsular, winter home to flocks of flamingos
  • The RAF base, RAF Akrotiri on the southern edge of the peninsular, that takes up 15mi² of the Western SBA's 47.5mi²
--Dashers 06:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Schedule 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (as amended) lists all the British overseas territories. The SBAs comprise a single territory, not two. JAJ 00:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this article is to remain as one, it should not continue with its current title- it is basically an article on the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus, and should be titled as such- ie Sovereign Base Areas (Cyprus), with the current Sovereign Base Areas article retained for disambiguation purposes. The article is basically expanding on what is written in that article anyway. To make Akrotiri and Dhekelia the title of the article is misleading when there is more in it than just those 2 bases. There are multiple entities within the sovereign base areas, but the SBAs themselves are governed together- by the Sovereign Base Area administration, which has civilian governance over all areas outside the Military installations. All areas within the military installations come under military governance.--Dashers 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As mentioned previously, the Sovereign Base Area administration with civilian resposibility for both SBAs is based in Episkopi, the British Army Garrison positioned at the northwest of the Western SBA on Cyprus' south coast. Military command for the Western SBA is in the hands of the Station Commander, RAF Akrotiri; military command for the Eastern SBA is the reponsibility of the Garrison Commander at Dhekelia; and the HQ for British Forces Cyprus is at Episkopi. The Commander for British Forces Cyprus based at the HQ in Episkopi is also the administrator of the SBA administration. The garrison of Episkopi is a few miles to the west of the Cypriot village of Episkopi, situated just north of the Western SBA's northern border.
--Dashers 06:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed change of name for article[edit]

I would like to reiterate my belief that the title of this article should be changed to "Sovereign Base Areas Cyprus". This is the name of the administritive unit that both these areas fall under, as per the Sovereign Base Areas web site [2].Locally the areas are known as Western Sovereign Base Area and Eastern Sovereign Base Area, rather than Akrotiri and Dhekelia- these names refer to the RAF base and the Army garrison of the same names, each constituting just a part of their respective base areas. It concerns me that the CIA World Factbook is being used as the definitive authority on this issue rather than British Government material such as the SBA website and the British Forces Cyprus web site [3]. There are a number of inaccuracies in the CIA source- for instance, it states there are no indigenous inhabitants; however, there is the Cypriot village of Akrotiri in the WSBA that is under the governance of the SBA administration, not the Republic of Cyprus (unlike the villages in the ESBA). No where on the British Forces website does it refer to Episkopi as a Cantonment (however, Dhekelia is). Episkopi, as an army garrison, hardly qualifies to be called a capital- it is an Administritive Centre. --Dashers 03:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fully agree, having lived in the ESBA for a year and the WSBA for almost four years, neither are referred to in the ways outlined in this article. The WSBA includes the RAF Base called Akrotiri and the British Army Garrison of Episkopi, each of which are named after nearby Cypriot villages. The ESBA includes the military bases of Dhekelia and Ayios Nikolaos. Both of the SBAs comprise areas of land which are not inside the military bases. Contrary to what it says in the article Episkopi is not the capital of anything. I think the CIA Factbook could do with a lot of updating. If it can get this small area so fundamentally wrong then I wonder about its other articles. * Support. Fatspoonwiki 22:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whether the name is changed or not (and whether there are separate pages for WSBA and ESBA, and/or one page uniting them), the important thing is to scrap the separate page for "Sovereign Base Area" - see my comments and edits on that page and my edits here. The point is that the "SBAs of Akrotiri and Dhekelia" is one British Overseas Territory, split into two parts, but there is no "Sovereign Base Area" anywhere else in the world now or at any time in history, nor will there be, because SBA is just a unique name for this set-up rather than a general concept. I too lived in WSBA for four years, and Wikipedia's failure to get this right has bugged me ever since. Waldronfan (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guantanamo Bay[edit]

I'm not seeing any reasion in the article for the see also link to Guantanamo Bay. If there is one, it really should not point to the disamb. article, it chould point to the correct mainspace atricle. Should I remove it, point it to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base or Guantánamo Bay, Cuba? Zvar 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just delete it I think. It's enough that both belong to Category:Overseas military bases, no real need to refer to it in the "See also" section. --Mathew5000 07:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where do you see a link to Guantanamo Bay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki74o (talkcontribs) 01:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What percentage of land is taken by the UK bases on the Greek Cypriot land?[edit]

From the maps of this article - it looks like a significant percentage/. Reaper7 15:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None! The UK Bases are on British land not Cypriot land Greek or otherwise. YourPTR! 22:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't be ridiculous YourPTR, the land belongs rightly to us, the Cypriots, you are just leasing it and a request for you to leave would have to be accepted. --Robandrew (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overseas territory[edit]

The SBAs seem to be listed frequently on Wikipedia (and the CIA Factbook) as separate British territories, but the article seems to infer (or even state outright) that they aren't anything more than British military bases, albeit not located on British soil (I would imagine that Akrotiri and Dhekelia aren't the only British bases overseas, though.) Why are these bases usually listed as territories? True this is probably a discussion for the talk pages of the various lists of countries on Wikipedia, but since the ones that list the SBAs all link here, might as well discuss here. --Canuckguy 13:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The SBAs comprise a single British Overseas Territory. They are the only bases in the world that are the sovereign territory of the operating nation (although British sovereignty is restricted by the terms of the treaty with Cyprus). Guantanamo Bay is an American base on Cuban sovereign territory, albeit leased to the United States. JAJ (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This website shows a separate flag for use on Akrotiri and Dhekelia rather than the UK flag, is this just unofficial? [4] - J Logan t: 21:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inofficial fantasy flag. —Nightstallion 01:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to second what Nightstallion has said. The flag sold by is bogus. See the deletion debate for these images on Commons. - Thanks, Hoshie 12:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What is it with the people here, the soldiers were sentanced to 25 years and released after 13 years NOT the 2 years lie, that is on this wikipedia page see BBC source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockybiggs (talkcontribs) 11:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Why is this comment mentioned on this page. It is not helpful or needed.

This is British land, the same as Buckingham Palace is British Land. Therefore why are these comments here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is mentioned because it suggests the government of Cyprus may challenge British sovereignty over the base areas. That in itself is notable. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What it surgests is irrelevant. As the Republic of Cyprus has no ownership of this land. In legal and international legal terms this is British land, unless Britain decided to give this land to the Republic of Cyprus. This is not an arguement but a fact as per Zürich and London Agreement (1960 Treaty of Guarantee). (talkcontribs) (Rockybiggs (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

We know what it is now. The paragraph refers to a possible change in its status at some point in the future. The way this may be brought about is unclear, but it is a prospect that is still worth mentioning. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is to be left submitted, then British Sovereignty, must also be mentioned. To present a fair and balenced view. Leaving these comments as is, indicates the land can be taken back at anytime. Rockybiggs (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How you mean? British sovereignty is mentioned throughout the article. Hint: look at the flag if you can't be bothered reading it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a irrelevant remark, and should be removed or amended (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further more the source is in Greek, how do we know what the scource states. This is the English Language Wikipedia and Sources must only be in English. A new source in English must be added or comments must be removed Rockybiggs (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be removed. It doesn't matter if the Cypriot President thinks the status of the bases is "under review" because it is nothing to do with him and the British point of view is the bases are not under review and Akrotiri and Dhekelia remain British forever. If the bases were under review than so would Cyprus' status as an independent state, but it is not. YourPTR! (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree. There are ways, both legal and political, in which the Republic of Cyprus could contest the sovereignty of the base areas, if it so desired. Your point about the British view being the only relevant one is not quite convincing, either. It was also the British view at the turn of the last century that Cyprus would remain British forever, as would the rest of the Empire, for that matter. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since Tassos Papadopoulos has failed to be relected anyway, surely the point is moot? --Arwel (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It remains to be seen how his successor will deal with Britain. The frontrunner, Dimitris Christofias, is the leader of the communist AKEL, after all. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deals with Britain ? whoever it is they have no power to deal with Britain. This was a silly comment, to boost Papadopoulos pre-election propects. This is UK soil period. A stupid comment which is not needed or worthy of any comment.Rockybiggs (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In a section titled "Dispute with Cyprus", the comments of the Cypriot president are relevant and notable, unlike your British nationalism. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NO they are not relavant, stop putting your Greek POV on this page.
This British Land and will remain so. Please see WP:DBF
Rockybiggs (talk) 09:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The CIA has made no bother to mention these base areas as an "international dispute". The President has not made any real threats to close any bases, be they British, Turkish, or a within the Green Line. His threat of stagnating a good economy does not seem to have happened. I swear I have not been drinking, and that the UN is not an actual country, but why does the Green Line seem to be larger than the UK Sovereign Base Areas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is getting very boring and tedious now.

I am not the only one who has stated the comments of the President of Cyprus, are not of merit. I am not imposing my views on this i am being neutral, I have a real problem with the Greek point of view being made, and the comments `has cast fresh doubt on the continued British presence`. These comments imply that the President of Cyprus can kick the British out anytime, which of coarse is not the case. Surely you can see the NPOV here !? The base is British, so why does, the comments of the Cyprus President matter ? Except to make the Greek POV feel better.(also the source doesn`t mention any comments). (Futher point why can`t you use the talk page instead of Reverting all the time. )Rockybiggs (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have made my points on the relevant talk page, if you'd bothered to read them. The stance of the President of Cyprus, whether you like it or not, does affect the future of the bases. The real question is, if British sovereignty is as unassailable as you claim, why are you so intent on censoring the so obviously inconsequential Cypriot view? If we followed your argument elsewhere, we wouldn't mention the Argentine claim on the Malvinas either, as according to you the sun never sets. Whatever. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again you miss the point, Yes the Argentines claim the Falkland islands, BUT it doesnt`t mater what their President states, as Legally they are British. As per the U.N surport for the U.K when they Invaded.
I dont think your POV comments about the sun never sets are helpfull either.

I propose a compromise, that the comments `has cast fresh doubt on the continued British presence`, are removed. Rockybiggs (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further more i await your reponse to avoid any silly revert war Rockybiggs (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly. Although you as a Brit may think it doesn't matter what Argentina says, the mere fact that British sovereignty is disputed by another country is notable in and of itself. You can't just ignore it. I have reworded the paragraph to reflect the source more accurately. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for Argentinas claims, Nestor Kirschner once urged/demanded/threatened/whatever the Government of Uruguay to ceace the producing of pulp-mass in the town of Fray Bentos. As I was mistaken to think that Uruguay was a part of Argentina, I soon learned that the production of pulp-mass would be geared up with business as usual. No news seems to have arrived from that "controversy" since 2007.( (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Well, in fact, both countries have a treaty about the Uruguay River (that they shared) and about what production can be made in his coast152.170.24.22 (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok i agree with your partial amendments (despite my own reservation as i dislike the left wing guardian, but thats my own POV.) Thank you for being a Gentleman. Rockybiggs (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers, matey. And just out of curiosity, why do you rail against the "Greek POV" when you identify yourself as a "Greek Wikipedian"? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that is a bit unfair to say i rail against Greek. As i fully supoort the efforts to re-unite Cyprus from the Illegal Turkish occupation. I consider myself Britsh,
but i do have Greek Ancestry through my Greek Great-Grandfarther. Rockybiggs (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I would consider you British too, which is why I found your inclusion in the "Greek Wikipedians" category rather puzzling. But I guess it does that automatically when you put the Greek ancestry userbox in your profile. All good. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for international disputes, they happen only once a year: All the time. No one noticed that Turkey protests Cypriot Government creating hydrocarbon blocks and maritime boundary with Lebanon in March 2007. Anyone can tell that this is plagitarianism from a CIA document. I am supposed to have heard that Hugo Chavez disputes Dutch sovereignity over the ABC Islands, but CIA has not noticed. There is no copy and paste routine from the CIA to what Cyprus actually says on Akrotiri and Dhakelia. BTW Discussions are on to what sort of Communist Chritofias happens to be. I guess the Greek discussion page is better than that.( (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Egyptian guerrillas were flown into Larnaca for interrogation[edit]

The scouce for this is bogus (i.e the website doesn`t exsist).

Why are these comments here, when there is no proof or need. this a guess and not fact ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockybiggs (talkcontribs) 11:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International controversy[edit]

Votes for this section to be removedRockybiggs (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why? It is sourced entirely from mainstream news sources. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because the International controversy title alone in name is irrelevant. Not only was there no Interntional Controversy, and the comments are only suited to a cypriot propaganda agenda.

First paragraph: 1956 Suez crises comments

1) This first paragraph is plagiarism from the alleged source.

2) How can this be called a source, when these are not facts but one journalists opionion being raised in a newspaper article.

3) Which have been taken out of total context.

4) Plagiarism alone is a Wikipedia offence in its self.

British soldier rape case

1) There is already a Wikipedia page devoted to this rape case Louise Jensen.

2) I can`t see any reason why this case should be mentioned on this page, apart from a cypriot view, and as this is UK soil and the offences took place on cypriot soil,please tell me why they shouldn`t be omitted. Rockybiggs (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rockybiggs, please consider the following: the British military bases in cyprus are not exactly UK soil, they are sovereign! At the same time they are liable to the Republic of Cyprus laws in regards to Freedom of Access, Legislation, Public Services,Education, Agriculture, Co-operative Development, Labour and Social Insurance, Social Welfare, Health and Medical Services, Postal Services, Forestry Services, Customs, Currency and Exchange Control, Civil Proceedings, Criminal Proceedings, Prisons etc etc. They are a distinctive case. SBAs are meant to be military bases only. The laws of the UK do not apply to Cypriots in the SBAs. Regards Meander —Preceding comment was added at 13:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi 3meandEr, I accept your valid point on the soldiers rape case issue. Rockybiggs (talk) 14:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i owe you a smiley :). Please also consider the following: The existance of the Republic of Cyprus (through its treaty of establishment) reinforces and does not hinder the sovereignty of the military bases, as they are bound by the same treaty. It is the cooperation of the two which makes possible the SBAs sovereignty. It is for the same reason Rockybiggs that the infobox of cyprus was added. To be honest i was bewildered when i saw it removed. Without the treaty, and the republics infrastructure the SBAs would not be the same. Kindly reconsider, thanks Meander 14:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having the infobox only on the Republic of Cyprus page should be the correct and proper place. As Akrotiri and Dhekelia already has infobox, and is a Sovereign base (UK administered). From a presentational point of view as well. Rockybiggs (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh ok, Your are right, it doesnt look nice. Meander 15:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any chance these areas will be settled by civilians in the future?[edit]

They already are. Christopedia (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not by British civilians. Britain is under a treaty obligation with Cyprus not to use the bases for anything other than military purposes. JAJ (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bases belong to the European Union[edit]

I read, at the end of the article, that they adopted the euro despite they are not part of the European Union. I think this is not correct: they are not part of the Euro Zone, but they do belong to the European Union, as part of the United Kingdom. Am i correct or is there some special status I am not aware of?--Nebu87 (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They use the euro; see link: [5]. They are not part of the E.U --Rockybiggs (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can just say that the Vatican became a member of the EU, but the Pope was mistaken to believe that Europe was to turn up in the gardens of the Vatican. Then we end up with one enraged Monarch who wants out of the EU.......As If. ( (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]
British overseas territories: "The British Overseas Territories are fourteen territories that are under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, but which do not form part of the United Kingdom itself[...]Gibraltar is the only Overseas Territory that is part of the European Union[...]the main body of EU law does not apply and, although certain slices of EU law are applied to those territories" Apokrif (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That article is not correct. The colonies, now "overseas territories" have always been considered part of the British state and part of the United Kingdom. Only the Crown Dependences are not fully part of the UK, but form a federacy with it and are treated as part of the UK for some purposes such as nationality. A&D are part of the UK but not part of the EU. The bases belong to the British and no one else! Christopedia (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, BOTs are not "part of" the United Kingdom. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are under British sovereignty but not part of the UK itself. -- (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the EU had any say about the management of these areas, that will be the same day the EU is allowed to dictate or limit the defence policies in each EU country. When I say dictate, I dont mean by just telling....Poland to mind it's exterior towards Belorussia. What if both the Finnish and the Greeks were obliged to ceace using conscripts? I believe Greek conscripts are made to sing songs of wounding Turkish soldiers....cutting of his noble parts....and letting him choke on it. If the EU dares to ban these things, that is a cultural loss which we can not allow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Post address[edit]

Having read the article I wondered, how would I address a letter to one of these places? GB, Akrotiri? CY, Akrotiri? Is there a postcode? -- (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Does any one have pictures like these: [6] [7]. There's hardly any pictures on this article. -- (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flag and anthem[edit]

Is it not a bit of overkill having GSTQ as the anthem and the union flag in the infobox, there is none in the Guantanamo Bay. BigDunc 18:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don`t think so, if you read the Guantánamo Bay`naval base` page it states ``The Cuban-American Treaty gave, among other things, the Republic of Cuba ultimate sovereignty over Guantánamo Bay while granting the United States "complete jurisdiction and control". Where as the UK ``retain sovereignty`` over Akrotiri and Dhekelia (effectively part of the UK).--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's ridiculous, unsourced and being removed in a few days unless sources are provided. There is no evidence that Akrotiri and Dhekelia has a national anthem and flag, other than the designated UK ones. Some places do have a distinct national anthem or flag which remains GSTQ or the Butchers Apron, but they retain the constitutional ability to change them. Including them on this article is equivalent to including them on Bognor Regis. That's not a nation, it doesn't have its own flag or national anthem, and neither should this article. Either provide sources that show Akrotiri and Dhekelia has a distinct national anthem and flag which are GSTQ and the Butchers Apron, or I'm removing them. Thanks. 2 lines of K303 12:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Erm, as you know full well, before you come to this page with threatening behaviour and hostile remarks and stating you will remove this and that, you know full well the wikipedia process. Why dont you start reading the British overseas territories page for starters and you will see the coat of arms for starters apply. Furthermore EACH overseas territory mentions the national antham on each page and the coat of arms, such as Falkland Islands, and even the little Pitcairn Islands population 50 !. source - covers flag, head of state etc CIA World factbook --Rockybiggs (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you've provided no sources for the so-called national anthem or coat of arms, I've removed them. 2 lines of K303 14:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have reverted. See this one near bottom `British Sovereign Base Areas`--Rockybiggs (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further note-Please also see the fully sourced wikipedia page List of anthems

Imprecise Language[edit]

The article refers to a "number of controversies" involving the British, but describes only two. The article should either say "two controversies," or describe the rest of them to avoid misleading imprecision or exaggeration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bases are split into[edit]

They're not really. There are two bases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Akrotiri surely isn't surrounded by Cypriot territory. Also, is Dhekelia in two parts, connected by the buffer-zone, or is the link also British? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the link is also British, see this map. Apcbg (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Dispute with Cyprus"[edit]

The whole first paragraph under this heading "Dispute with Cyprus", about the UK Govt failing to pay money claimed by the Govt of the Republic of Cyprus, is unreferenced - basically because it is largely wrong. It appears to come from a story based on a mis-reading of the 1960 Exchange of Notes on Financial Assistance to RoC (commonly referred to as "Appendix R" from the grouping in the set of papers presented to the UK Parliament). From the Republic of Cyprus's own Government website at you can see that this is about the former colonial power giving financial aid "by way of grant" to the new Republic on a tapering basis - a total of £12 million, with £4 million in the first year, down to £1.5 million in the 5th year. Then there are other very specific payments related to the arrangements for independence. Then there is at (c) a provision that the UK is every 5 years to review & determine, in consultation with the Republic, the amount of financial aid to be provided over the next 5 years "taking all factors into account, including the financial requirements of the Government of the Republic" - clearly linking it to the needs of the new government, not to anything that the UK is paying for. The common mistake (or deception) is to claim that the money was rent for the bases, but the bases were not rented, and a tapering rent is an odd concept. Instead it is financial aid - and on a reducing basis, with no guarantee of anything after the first 5 years - it is entirely for the UK to decide how much, which means the supposed "estimates" of something actually owed are entirely fanciful. The paragraph does not reference any demand made by the Government of the Republic, motions have been passed in the Republic's Parliament, but it must be significant that the Government has never taken them up with the UK, let alone with any international court (even with the excuse that the Turks must be dealt with before the Greek-Cypriots take on the British). If there has been no demand, and there is no document to back up any such claim or even put any figures on it, then what is this paragraph doing on Wikipedia? Waldronfan (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just edited the offending paragraph to add some of this material (without the argument). But now that I look at it, it brings home the point that the financial assistance was never related to the bases in the first place, so this page is not the natural Wikipedia home for information about this story. It would fit more appropriately on the existing "Cyprus–United Kingdom relations" page, where the detail could be set out and whoever promoted the original paragraph could find and show evidence about when the RoC Parliament (not Government) has passed resolutions urging the RoC Government to claim money from the UK. Waldronfan (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If as you say it is unrelated, then it would be better on the relations page, where it should probably be anyway. CMD (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, just in case not clear - I mean the whole paragraph on the alleged financial dispute should be moved to the relations page, not just the bits I have added. I am not sure about the etiquette of moving it myself, particularly as I see it as a non-story anyway.--Waldronfan (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:Bold, there's no etiquette issue. If anyone objects they'll discuss it here as well. CMD (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just an acknowledgment is needed under GFDL when it moves to the new destination, in the edit-summary field of the destination article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed it does. I've been bold and moved this, citation needed tags and all. CMD (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. Thank you CMD. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flag in infobox[edit]

Chipmunkdavies restored [8] the UK flag and CoA in the infobox with the argument that "It seems standard, both in external sources, and in wikipedia, to use state flags for dependent territories that lack their own". I respectfully disagree: what we are doing in this infobox is not "using" (displaying) a state flag, in the way we would "use" it in, say, tables of sports teams with {{flagicon}} sugaring. The infobox is supposed to convey encyclopedic information. The question to which it is supposed to provide an answer is not: "what national flag would be flown in this territory?", but: "what is the flag of this territory?". If this territory has no flag of its own, then there is no encyclopedic value in displaying some other. The fact that British flags are in use on this territory is trivial, given the fact that it's a British possession; the space at the top of the infobox is too valuable to waste on such trivialities. Fut.Perf. 07:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've always seen flags in infoboxes as more a description of "What flag is used to represent this territory?". I feel that this does have encyclopaedic value. In places where dependencies represent themselves, such as sports (although I very much doubt this ever applies to A&D specifically), or political meetings, usually one specific flag is flown. Showing the reader what flag would be used to represent dealings by a certain territory is helpful. An analogy would perhaps be French territories, although in many cases they have specifically legislated that the French national flag is also their official flag. CMD (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does any one know (by reference to sources) why this territory is not included on the above mentioned ISO list? Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There seems to be confusion about the name of the Administrator of these bases. The panel at the top of the page gives the name Air Vice Marshal (AVM) William Stacey but under the heading "Politics" in the main body of the text, the name of AVM Graham Stacey is given. Are these the same person? Haynestre (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article points out that there are no elections to any A&D Government instutions, but that generally British people living there can vote iN UK Elections as overseas/service voters, what about Cypriot Inhabitants? Do they vote in Republic of Cyprus Elections? If so where are A&D part of a Geographic Constituency in the Cypriot Parliament, or local government unit etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As lots of tourists visit Cyprus - so will I do soon - I have a question about access to the zones of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Are they totally closed, for military reasons? Will Cypriots residing in the zones freely travel in and out? What about us visitors from other countries? Yes, myself I am not even British ... TorSch (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can freely transit in and out of the SBAs with no passport controls, indeed some of the island's main roads go straight through them. The only places you're not allowed are the actual military installations (such as RAF Akrotiri), which are well signposted and don't block off transit routes to anywhere else. The obvious exception, of course, is the ESBA-TRNC border on the Famagusta Road. SalopianJames (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Then I will soon be able to add one (or two) of "European special status areas" to my list of visited countries and areas. TorSch (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is an image on this page captioned "The UK's potential claim to 2 EEAs off Cyprus". What is an EEA? Is it the same as (perhaps typo for?) exclusive economic zone (EEZ)? Naomhain (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Postal services[edit]

Does anyone know who operates the A&D postal services? British Post Office? Cyrus postal services? I know they don't have their own stamps, but do they used British or Cyprus stamps? Or something else? Ptilinopus (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criticisms and speculation[edit]

The paragraph on criticisms and speculation starts with: "On 29 August 2013". Further on it reads: "on 27 August 2013". This anti-chronological way of writing here makes it hard for me to follow the discourse. Is there a purpose for it, is it an error, or could it best be rewritten?Redav (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 29th August date is a bit overly precise. The particular reference that has been made was published on that date but the ariticle is making a more generalised point. Probably "During August" would be better? Naomhain (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the explanation about the publishing date, I also realized that the tense used was confusing to me. I changed one sentence to: "Two days earlier, on 27 August 2013, the Cypriot foreign minister, Ioannis Kasoulides had moved to calm Cypriot concerns, saying that the British bases were unlikely to play a major part in any intervention."Redav (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Territorial waters[edit]

The description of territorial waters is unclear and probably contradictory:

The northern part is an enclave, like the two villages, whereas the southern part is located by the sea, and therefore not an enclave, though it has no territorial waters of its own. Territorial waters of three nautical miles are claimed, and the right according to the laws of the United Nations to extend the claim of up to twelve nautical miles is reserved.

Please clarify this. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:UK SBA EEZ.png
The potential EEZ of Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) of United Kingdom (UK) around Cyprus island

@Alexyflemming: what are your sources for this image? (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I have removed the map as unsourced. All material added must be supported by reliable sources, regardless of if it's text that is being added or a map. Thomas.W talk 13:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Territorial waters of 3 nautical miles (5.556 km) are claimed, and the right according to the laws of the United Nations to extend the claim of up to 12 nautical miles (22.224 km) is reserved. ( ; Hansard "Parliament of the United Kingdom" 25.03.2013). The UK has a potential claim to an exclusive economic zone out to 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) (that could include the Aphrodite gas field), as the treaty establishing the Republic of Cyprus (Annex I, Section III) specifically excluded any Cypriot claim to the two maritime areas adjacent to the bases.( International Boundaries, A Geopolitical Atlas.), (US State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, International Boundary Study 1972, )
I will extend this. Alexyflemming (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So this is your own interpretation of what a potential claim might look like. (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @Alexyflemming: A potential claim is very different from an actual claim, which you presented it as when adding your map to the article. Your source, as presented above, is also ten years older than UNCLOS (which is from 1982), meaning that your source only refers to the 3nm territorial water zone, and can not be used as a reference for the map you've drawn. Which in turn means that your map is original research/synthesis of published sources, and can not be used in the article. Thomas.W talk 14:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A. The Parliament of United Kingdom[edit]
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the UK's sovereign base areas in Cyprus have a territorial water and a claim to a continental shelf; and if he will make a submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, in accordance with article 76, paragraph 8, of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea on this matter. [149606]

Mr Lidington: The adjacent territorial sea boundaries between the two sovereign base areas and the Republic of Cyprus are defined in annex A of the treaty concerning the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, 19 August 1960. Presently, both sovereign base areas claim a territorial sea out to three nautical miles but we have reserved our rights to claim up to 12 nautical miles on their behalf, as provided for under the UN convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS).Alexyflemming (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

B. Ewan W. Anderso: "International Boundaries: A Geopolitical Atlas"[edit]
Maritime boundaries: The only maritime boundary settlement reached is with the UK over the sovereign base areas: Akrotiri and Dhekelia (1960).

Cyprus-United Kingdom (Sovereign Base Areas) (1960): The four territorial sea boundaries define for each of the two bases, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, the areas within which Cyprus may not claim territorial waters. They are equidistant or modified equidistant lines, constructed from simplified perpendiculars to the general direction of the coastline. These boundaries were directly influenced by security concerns.

There is a map in page 221! The openings of territorial waters of SBAs of UK is just the same as the one that appears in the right map! Alexyflemming (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Having reserved the right to extend the territorial waters to 12nm is very different from claiming the full EEZ, as you imply they do in your map. Thomas.W talk 14:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not claim/state UK claims the whole 200-nautical mile territorial sea. I state "potential" EEZ that UK can claim at most according to UNCLOS 1982. See the informatory text below the map. Is it OK for you that an extra word "potential" added to the map?Alexyflemming (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Alexyflemming:Are you deliberately trying to make your posts impossible to read/follow? Cut down on the bolding, underscoring and subheadings, and indent your posts properly. Thomas.W talk 14:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

C. US International Boundary Study, SBAs of UK in Cyprus island, 1972[edit]

When Cyprus became independent in 1960, the United Kingdom retained, as sovereign British territory, certain base areas on the island. These non-ceded lands did not pass to the new state. The limits between the base areas and Cyprus were precisely delimited as international boundaries, and provisions were made for the demarcation on the lines. In addition, Section 3 of the Treaty Concerning the Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus provided for territorial sea boundaries between the Republic and the U.K. Sovereign Base Area (SBA). These limits also may have a potential influence on continental shelf boundaries although the possibility is not dealt with specifically in the treaty.
Section 3 states:
1. The Republic of Cyprus shall not claim, as part of its territorial sea, waters lying between Line I and Line II as described in paragraph 2 of this Section, or between Line III and Line IV as described therein.
2. The lines for the purposes of paragraph 1 of this Section shall be as follows:-
Line I: From the position of the low-water line lying in a 163º direction from Point No. 57 D/1, as defined in Schedule A to this Annex, in a 163 direction for 6.85 miles; then in a 207 direction for 3 miles; and then in a 204 direction.
Line II: From the position on the low-water line lying in a 108-1/2º direction from Point 59 A/5, as defined in Schedule A to this Annex, in a 108-1/2 direction for 7.8 miles; and then in a 136 direction.
Line III: From the position on the low-water line lying in a 170 direction from Point No. 41 B/10, and defined in Schedule B to this Annex, in a 170 direction for 3.8 miles; then in a 136 direction for 3.1 miles; and then in a 156 direction.
Line IV: From the position on the low-water line lying in a 103º direction from Point No. 42 B/3, as defined in Schedule B to this Annex; in a 103 direction for 0.9 miles; then in a 150 direction for 6.3 miles; and then in a 176.
3. In paragraph 2 of this Section, the distances quoted are in sea miles reckoned at 1,582 international metres to one sea mile, and the bearings are referred to the True North and are given in degrees reckoned clockwise from 000 (North) to 359.

The Schedules A and B cited in the Section list the various United Kingdom base sites mentioned in the agreement. The specified points were plotted on large-scale maps which were deposited with the treaty but never publicly printed. The U.K. Government, however, has informed us that the values of the four points are as follows: 57 D/1 48401098 Cyprus Metric Grid; 59 A/5 71971008 Cyprus Metric Grid; 41 B/10 564009.7 E UTM Grid Coordinates; 3871228.2 42 B/3 582264.6 UTM Grid Coordinates; 3869698.3
The four specific lines have been printed on the attached charts and represent the limits between the territorial waters of the U.K. SBA and the Republic. The former would follow the United Kingdom claim for territorial waters of 3 nautical miles while Cyprus claims 12. The distances as measured from the normal baseline have been noted on the map. Directional alignments of the boundaries change at distances greater than 3 nautical miles from the baseline. Azimuths do not, however, change beyond 12 nautical miles. In each instance, the terminal limits in the sea boundaries have not been designated; presumably they may be continued indefinitely or until the adjacent lines connect. Since the 12-mile limit from the baseline could have been determined precisely, the non-termination must have been deliberate. Logically, the decision could be based on: a) the concern that one party might extend its territorial sea to a distance which would envelop or enclose the sea of the other; or 2) the anticipated need for the limits to serve as a continental shelf or seabed boundary beyond the territorial sea. The 100-fathom line on the chart, which is situated within the 3-mile limit (along the boundaries), approximates the 200-meter depth limit cited in the Convention on the Continental Shelf.

What I mean is that: I did not draw the limiting boundaries in the map according to my guess or thoughts, I draw them according to international agreements.Alexyflemming (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • George Kerevan (Beware Cyprus repeat at Faslane, 12.07.2013): "...the Cyprus SBA also claims control over territorial waters to three miles out, and conceivably can claim access to an exclusive economic zone out to 200 miles, reaching the lucrative Aphrodite Gas Field...." (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* 1. No British Claim? See the followings:
Mr Lidington: "Presently, both sovereign base areas claim a territorial sea out to 3 nautical miles but we have RESERVED our rights to claim up to 12 nautical miles on their behalf, as provided for under the UN convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS)"
So, UK says "I have right up to 3 NM, and RESERVED up to 12 NM". UK says RESERVED, not RELEASED!
Also: :
Cameron asks whether Cyprus can have an exclusive economic zone before the solution of the Cyprus problem
It was reported that during the EU summit in Brussels, where Greek Cypriot leader Nikos Anastasiades could not attend due to his illness, UK Prime Minister David Cameron asked "Can Cyprus have an Exclusive Economic Zone before the solution of the Cyprus problem?" and opposed to the Exclusive Economic Zone unilaterally declared by Greek Cypriot Administration in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Greek Cypriot daily Fileleftheros gave the news with the headlines "London and Ankara hand in hand... Cameron objected to the Exclusive Economic Zone of Cyprus Republic at the EU summit". The paper furthermore alleged that, UK tried to force South Cyprus to suspend all its activities concerning the hydrocarbon drilling in the Eastern Mediterranean. Fileleftheros also reported that, in the absence of Greek Cypriot leader Nikos Anastasiades, UK Prime Minister Cameron challenged and opposed the existence of Exclusive Economic Zone of Cyprus in front of all the leaders who attended the summit.Alexyflemming (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* 2. Everybody can calculate the max potential EEZ of UK SBAs. There is already an agreement and drawn lines up to 3NM towards the sea between Rep. of Cyprus and UK. UNCLOS 1982 says max is 200 NM. Hence, "extending the straight lines from 3NM to 200NM" is not that difficult!Alexyflemming (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We still don't do speculations, and "calculating the max potential EEZ of UK SBAs" on your own is original research, and not allowed. Also note that your sources only seem to support that the UK has reserved the right to claim territorial waters to 12nm, not the EEZ you've added to your map. And stop using <ins></ins>, it makes your posts very difficult to read, and is very irritating. Thomas.W talk 18:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Max potential EEZ is 200NM" is not my WP:OR; It is one of the laws of UNCLOS-1982.
  • Hector Kolonas (16.03.2014): "And the plot thickens: SBA could claim Aphrodite Gas Field in their own EEZ"
  • Dan (13.07.204): "We have a theoretical right to claim a 200mile EEZ into an area..."
  • FHGWS (30.09.2013): "The UK also has a potential claim to an exclusive economic zone out to 200 miles (that could include the Aphrodite gas field), as the treaty establishing the Republic of Cyprus (Annex I, Section III) specifically excluded any Cypriot claim to the two maritime areas adjacent to the bases." Alexyflemming (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All this is nonsense. Your sources are either WP:PRIMARY or unreliable. Random websites like Hector Kolonas and forums are junk sources. Actually Hector Kolonas is referring to the edit added by blocked sock Gasmonitor:

The extract from wikipedia below caught the attention of Polys C who shared it, with the simple but understandable comment of “WHAT!?“ "Territorial waters of three nautical miles are claimed, and the right according to the laws of the United Nations to extend the claim of up to twelve nautical miles is reserved. The UK has a potential claim to an exclusive economic zone out to 200 miles (322 kilometres) (that could include the Aphrodite gas field), as the treaty establishing the Republic of Cyprus (Annex I, Section III) specifically excluded any Cypriot claim to the two maritime areas adjacent to the bases."

This is typical of the garbage you want to add to Wikipedia. Nothing new here. The rest is pure speculation from primary sources. Do not waste the time of good-faith editors with your incessant attempts at propaganda and defence of the edits of blocked socks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This SPA is supporting the edits of sock Gasmonitor who added this synthesis into the article before he got blocked by checkuser. Sock Gasmonitor used exactly the same arguments and sources as this SPA. I can hear a lot of quacking. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, Gasmonitor uploaded an image that was named almost exactly the same ('EEA' for 'EEZ') that was deleted. (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to have been the first image here, taken from the blog post Alexy's linked to above, where he also left a comment. The plot thickens.... (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed it does. Thank you very much IP editor for your excellent investigation. I'll look into this further. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just saw the comment on that website from someone with a very similar name:

Alexy flemmings • 12 hours ago Greedy Greek Cypriots think that they can steal the natural gas and oil of BOTH Englishs and Turks.They will awaken from their dreams very soon!

Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dr.K., there is 100% regression that the user IP31 and IP213 have the same baseline. Is this coincidence?
Dr.K., whenever you have weak arguements, you distort to two paths: 1. WP Policy tag bombardment 2. Sockpuppet accusations. I clearly gave the sources above. If Prime Minister of UK (who speaks and acts on behalf of UK) has no importance in this issue, what should I do more??!!! David Cameron should be an arbitrary man according to you just as Olly Rehn is arbitrary man. All are arbitrary...?
Notice, there are NO natural gas and oil exploration of Rep. of Cyprus within 12 NM of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (the area RESERVED by UK). Is that coincidence as well?!! I am sure some other IPs other than IP31, IP 213,...will participate in supporting you in this as well! What a coincidence, no proper Wiki user with a username-set participates in you.Alexyflemming (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's not coincidence. I'm the same person as IP31. I even say so on my talk page. Each one of my talk pages has a link leading to my previous IP. (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noone is agreeing with your synthesis and original research on this page. Your record supporting the blocked sock and his original research is also clear. As far as your attacks and continuing harassment of the IP editor and myself, I have the answer for you. I will give you yet another harassment warning on your talk. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OK, then. Let's keep the discussion open so that the others may participate and express their views. I hope, some new views will appear as well.Alexyflemming (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You can ask at the WikiProjects if you'd like (see the WP banner at the top). (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Akrotiri and Dhekelia. 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) 17:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Akrotiri and Dhekelia. 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) 08:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Singular or Plural[edit]

Princeton wu, you made three edits yesterday that significantly changed the lead. The edits were interconnected, some changes fine but most not, so it was simpler to revert them all rather than pick through each one. I gave the main reason for reverting and asked you to take to talk if you wanted, as you should have as your edits had been reasonably disputed. I have reverted you again for the same reason. Please do not re-revert again before getting consensus here first. "A and D" together form one BOT, which is the subject of this article. That makes them, in this context, a singular noun, requiring 'is', not 'are'. For further debate about this please see the Falkland Islands talk page where a similar dispute occurred recently. Rollback, as I will now do, does not allow a edit summary, which I have given here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roger 8 Roger, my edits had NOT been reasonably disputed, since you are the only one disputing it (by unilaterally reverting everything). The lead paragraph has long run-on sentences, and the "Reviews" section is out of place it's nebulous what this paragraph is trying to achieve (A review of A&D?). A lot of other information on the page are redundant as well. If one has to take to the Talk page everytime one makes an edit, nothing will get edited on WP. I have no intention on embarking on an edit-war so if you like keep the status quo (which I think is a poorly written article), go for it. Princeton wu (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Military Use[edit]

I note that the following is currently at the very end of the Page, under the heading of criticisms etc.

  • "Ayios Nikolaos Station, in the ESBA, is an ELINT (electronic intelligence) listening station of the UKUSA Agreement intelligence network.[54] The UKUSA signals intelligence system is sometimes known as "ECHELON".[55]"

This is not really anything to do with the paragraph it is in, but I suggest it is part of what the Page should have a section on- its Military Use. I suggest a brief summary of the kind of things it is known to be used for and instances of action. IceDragon64 (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]