This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cypriot refugees article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on October 20, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article may be within the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks.

The Third Vienna Agreement - August 1975

“On August 2, 1975 the two parties reached in Vienna the Voluntary Exchange of Population Agreement, implemented under United Nations auspices.”

Utter rubbish! No such thing as a “Voluntary Exchange of Population Agreement” EVER took place! What you seem to be (intentionally) confusing is the…

The Third Vienna Agreement - August 1975

http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa2006.nsf/All/0658E5B2F4D1A538C22571D30034D15D/$file/August%201975.pdf

Where you’ll find that the words “population” and/or “exchange” are not even mentioned in this document! It was a temporary humanitarian UN facilitation for broken families and missing persons and certainly not a “population exchange”!

Get your facts right and article credible!

All references to “agreement” in political articles should be escorted by a credible link to that agreement, so the reader may observe what you’re talking about! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.182.112 (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs updating

Bits like The human rights of the refugees wishing to return to their former homes and properties are currently being violated as their return is denied by the Turkish army.

Is now out of date, as under a order from the ECHR, . So far I believe that 3 cases have been concluded so far (Despite oposition from the Greek Cypriot government)

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=34015 --SolDrury 11:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference claims exactly the opposite of what you describe, please read your reference.

issue, a Greek Cypriot must recognize TRNC thus recognizing properties that have been expropriated by the Turkish authorities multiple examples (university campuses, roads etc etc).
Issue An owner has to sit in a court room for what is rightfully his/hers!!!!
Issue 3 and i quote from your ref: "The commission sent the offer to Arestis’ lawyer, and said returning the property would be possible only after the Cyprus problem is resolved". Thus even after recognizing the TRNC with all that it encompasses, sitting in a courtroom for what rightfully you own you will still be deprived of your property!!!!!! ...untill there is a solution to the issue. (One might think, hold on, isnt the solution de facto aiming in satisfying issues such as property and property rights?) ????

It seems that this mechanism aims in recognizing TRNC and not offering properties back to rightfull owners.

The ECHR has yet to decide whether the commission set up is a means for what you describe as a fact and i quote your words : there is a mechanism for the return of property and the payment of compensation pasted from your external ref: In the light of the commission’s recent decision, the ECHR will announce its verdict shortly in the case of Ksenides-Arestis. There are two options in the issue.

In Short, Bits like The human rights of the refugees wishing to return to their former homes and properties are currently being violated as their return is denied by the Turkish army. are the essence of the article, true and verifiable. I think the link you have supplied needs to be added in the externals for reference. Aristovoul0s 15:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus Refugees

Please contribute freely Aristovoul0s 18:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

disputed tag added

Another great nationalist contribution to Wikipedia. Greek Cypriots are not the only refugees in Cyprus. TC's became refugees long before 74 when the Greek army under Grivas was terrorising their villages. Inflated GC figures, original research, words like "Turkish Brutality", accusations that TC ministers shot GC protestors, usual legal documents criticisng Turkey etc etc. Need i say more. --A.Garnet 19:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to pinpoint what is not cited. Feel free to add about TC's refugees. If you are willing to give me a hand lets also write about Cyprus refugees and displaced people during the Ottoman Empire. Aristovoul0s 22:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons

I've deleted the "comparisons" section as it was unencyclopedic. It's like having an article about the Iraq War and having a section saying "imagine if America was invaded - here's what it would be like". —Khoi khoi 22:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although some encyclopedias do have "comparisons" i can live with that. Aristovoul0s 15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added another image

Turkish Cypriot man at the opening of the mass grave containing the bodies of the former inhabitants of the village of Sandallar in Northern Cyprus (TRNC today). *Source: "The Voice of Blood", book and film by Antonis Angastiniotis.*

There were too many images depicting the Greek POV, so I decided to add one that is well-known to most Turks. Hopefully this won't cause any problems. —Khoi khoi 23:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just so beautiful

I just don't get where all this animosity comes from, it is because of this very reason that Wikipedia's standing takes a hit.. Maybe the world doesn't merit an open encyclopedia because there are way too many people who harbor so much animosity and have agendas.. Ditto A. Garnet Baristarim 23:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in my person. I do not want to confront you both like this but seeing your comment and your edits to this article someone could say that it is YOU who have an agenda. Why dont you add constructively??? Aristovoul0s 15:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict

Doesnt the content of this article fall in the older article Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict? --A.Garnet 08:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does 100%. Anybody interested in performing the merge? •NikoSilver• 11:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Plus, this one has an ugly title... --Michalis Famelis (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict covers the civilian casualties and displacements that occurred between 1963 and 1975 — from the outbreak of the intercommunal fighting until the end of displacements following the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus. "Cypriot refugee" though focuses with the still ongoing strife of cypriot refugees, from 1974 onwards. 87.228.212.10 19:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons

changed "occupied" to "controlled", as the latter seems to be the more NPOV option here. Compare to articles about Nagorno-Karabakh (Azeris called it occupation, Armenians probably saw it as liberation), therefore we just say that NK is controlled by Armenians.

The map shows up to where the Turkish forces extended during the invasion of Cyprus in 1974. For the time of the invasion occupied should be the NPOV term. Please see the related articles. Aristovoul0s 21:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "illegal" before "TRNC". It's an unecessary aspect about it, and is not the most important factor in it being what it is. Perhaps 'de facto' is better? —Khoi khoi 23:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it unecessary? It is one of the most important factors here. The international community and the UN (~200 member countries) do not acknowledge a legal right of either Kenan Akin or Erdan Emanet to prevent a cypriot from entering Cyprus territory. Not only they have shot and killed (murdered) Solomou, but also their presence as officials shooting was illegal. It is the UN aspect Vs Turkey aspect. Which one is closer to NPOV? Aristovoul0s 21:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- De facto is closer to NPOV, also, many people dispute that the TRNC is illegal. You have to be in other people's shoes to understand why. —Khoi khoi 22:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only country that does so is Turkey and in doing so she violates her obligations against the charter[1]

And i quote : Charter of the United Nations Article 2 "The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles".

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Both Turkey and Republic of Cyprus are members. Turkey has obligation under the charter to respect the Sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus. If otherwise then she is violating her obligation. I hold that the word illegal should be used and i back it up by the UN member countries take away Turkey. How many countries hold your view? Aristovoul0s 18:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

I agree with the addition of this article to the Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict article as a separate section, cause Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict is more general than this one. E104421 12:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Cypriot refugee covers different period.80.250.128.5 12:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the periods. After the merging the content would be enhanced to cover all. Merging does not mean removing! So, it would be better to present all the information given in these articles under a single general one. E104421 12:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment for user 80.250.128.5, you should first discuss your reasons here in the talk/discussion page before removing the tag. E104421 12:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove the dispute tag

This article is highly biased. —Khoi khoi 15:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate khoikoi... or at least justify your comment... Aristovoul0s 15:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will soon. —Khoi khoi 17:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

This page is contentious because of the ingrained bias of the Greeks and Greek Cypriots against anything Turkish. Turkish Cypriots can never feel safe in a unitary state, and their having to become enclaved refugees between 1963-1974, and the pushing out of the T/C's to the north as part of the population 'exchanges' of 1975 means that there is plenty of blame that can be laid at the G/C's door. Expatkiwi

The irony :)

A refugee by UN definition is someone forced to flee their country's borders, therefore this article implicity recognises two countries in Cyprus :) --A.Garnet 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IDPs are not technically refugees because they have not crossed an international border, but are sometimes casually referred to as refugees., from the article Internally displaced person. If an attempt of possible future recognition of TRNC will be based upon such arguments, we'll laugh a lot!:) Hectorian 23:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The UN defines refugees as those people who: "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality..."

I'm not using this as an argument for anything, just saying its ironic that for people who play with words so much that you would use a term which implies the existence of a border in your own country, or that you reside outside the country of your nationality ;) --A.Garnet 23:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'refugee' casually refers to every person who has forced to leave his homeplace. Now, if the official UN definition is something that proves to u that there are 2 states in Cyprus, better have a look in the UN resolutions that have repeatendly asked from Turkey to withdraw its occupation forces immediately... In fact, it is ironic indeed! cause some may be playing with words (that have dual meaning) and others with laws (that have one single meaning...):) Hectorian 23:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing casual about the term refugee, it is clearly defined by international law. The only casual thing i see is the usage of terms which most suit those wanting to play the victims! --A.Garnet 23:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! U concentrate your attention on the official definition of a word(!), but u say nothing about the UN resolutions and the Geneva Conventions and Turkey's entrance to the EU after fullfiling all the criteria (Cyprus included), according to the EU laws and protocols... But it seems normal, right? Trying to find some confort in lexicons, instead of looking at things as they are... Some are indeed the victims of those who never respected any treaty they signed (starting with the Treaty of Lausanne, the Protocol of Ankara 1932, the Protocol of Ankara last year, bla bla bla)... U know, that i am not wrong... Hectorian 00:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see a treaty that was broken, try this one: 1960 Treaty of Guarantee. --A.Garnet 00:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U are right! it was broken on July 20, 1974...! The 1960 Treaty of Guarantee was a pact designed to preserve the territorial independence of the Republic of Cyprus... the coup d' etat had already failed, so... one more violated treaty for those who violated all the treaties they signed... Hectorian 00:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No my friend, the coup had not already failed. The Treaty was broken on July 15 with the Athens backed coup and installment of Nicos Sampson, literally a known murderer, who had already taken the Presidential oath. Turkey intervenes July 20th, junta and coup fail July 23rd. Therefore praise be to Turkey for being the liberators of Greece! :) --A.Garnet 00:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek junta was in steady collapse orbit after 17 November 1973... and the turkish invasion of Cyprus lasted long after 14 August 1974, id est long after not only the coup in Cyprus, but also in Greece had long collapsed... Perhaps the Turkish state wants to "feed" its subjects with quotes like 'we liberated Greece'... lol... look at history, my friend, not on political lies... Turkey occupied Greece (and many other countries) and still occupies part of Cyprus. This is what the whole world sees, and this is what the turkish "deep state" hides from its people... I can understand them, though... they feel that they have to attract public's attention from the real problems (e.g. PKK)... U are right about one thing: Sampson was a murderer... just like Denktaş was and is... But this is not something that u are willing to admit, right? Concentrate on the facts, please: Turkey has violated all the Treaties and Protocols she has signed... There is no room to dispute this, knowing that it can be proven... Regards Hectorian 02:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, any critcism of Greece and/or Greek Cypriot people is avoided by talking about Turkey. Let us be clear, your country through its nationalist and jingoistic policies installed a murderer as leader of Cyprus and brought havoc to the island. Many Greek Cypriots i know despise Greece for this, and blame them for at the very least giving Turkey a legitimate right to intervene. So do not tell me Turkey broke the Treaty, Greece had already sent at least 10,000 soldiers to Cyprus as far back as the 60's in vioation of the treaty and launched them against Turkish Cypriot towns and villages. I know it is difficult for Greeks brought up on anti-Turkish sentiment to accept that you acted in a manner worse than what you accuse Turkey. This is invariably why discussion falls back on Ottoman Turkey, another way of playing the victim! --A.Garnet 10:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear those greasy Greeks smell bad, is it true?--Tekleni 10:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion does not fall back on Ottoman Turkey... It falls back in the very moment when nationalistic turkish policies installed a mass murderer as first leader of Turkey (u know... the one worshipped as god there...). and once more (after having said it a billion times): i have nothing against the Turks (as people), but against Turkey (as governing system), so i have not brought up on anti-Turkish sentiment... I guess u know how politics work: the Turkish state provoked the Istanbul pogrom, using the name of the Turkish Cypriots... so sad to be used for such a reason, isn't it? Hectorian 10:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is POV about this article

Please list your cited arguments and we will discuss them all, one by one. Thanks Aristovoul0s 17:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you before. GC's were not the only refugees, and this problem did certainly not start in 1974. The whole thing either needs rewriting, or merging with the other civilian casualty article. How you can create an article like this, and not expect people to significantly change it is beyond me. --A.Garnet 18:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues so far (please contribute to the list preferable if you provide sources, Thanks) Aristovoul0s 20:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Cypriots not the only refugees
Cypriot refugees go further back than 1974.
numbers - refugees more like 160,000, not 200.
Greek Cypriot slant to whole article - Greek Cypriot demonstrations, Solomous Solomou, Greek Cypriot women.
Unfounded allegations - demonstrators shot by ministers, women sexually assaulted by TC's etc
No mention of the TC property commision set up on orders of the ECHR
No mention of the difficulties TC's face in getting property back
No mention of abuse of TC property e.g. Larnaca airport
Pictures only showing GC victims

Really Aristovolous, what you have done in my opinion is gone to the kypros website, absorbed all the rubbish there (i have come across that before, and you will be hard pushed to find one mention of a TC casualty there) and regurgitated it here. How can you create an article like this and not feel ashamed that you will be accused of nationalist pov pushing? Do you not even realise that Turkish Cypriots were victims in this conflict also? --A.Garnet 20:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any more concerns? Please list them Aristovoul0s 15:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed them, now what will you do about them? --A.Garnet 23:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak on behalf of all? If you dont let others contribute as well otherwise we can begin discussing points top down. Aristovoul0s 16:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Turkish military occupying 37 or 38% of the island? Trantellinas 23:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Trantellinas[reply]

You have no intention of sorting this article out. I've added {{fact}} tags for now, will decide how to resolve this later. --A.Garnet 13:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be said

That 1963 background paragraph is the biggest load of BS on wikipedia. Are you (Aristovouls) SERIOUSLY suggesting that the TCs abandonned their homes to live in horrible conditions JUST to get Turkey to invade and seperate the island. YOu fail to mention the TCs that were being murdered by EOKA (A&B) at the time. Im not going to touch this article as Ive given up editing Cyprus related articles on Wikipedia but your blatant and hateful re-writing of history is desicable. Its shameful, really and truely shameful. I also notice that none of our less nationalistic greek editors have seen fit to attempt to balance out that entry. This is why Wikipedia is a flawed concept and will only ever be of use for non controversial subjects. Adam777 16:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats one good reason why some people like myself should count to ten before editing, however whilst I take back the vitiriol in the paragraph above I stand by the message. If there is one entry in Wikipedia that is more biased than that then let me know cause I could use a good laugh. Adam777 21:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam777, The reason TCs were being murdered by EOKA A is quite justifiably because the TCs sided with the British when GCs took up arms to fight against British colonialism (1955-1959). The murdered TCs you're refering to are actually TMT members are they not? When GCs eventually won independance from Britain (with blood, sweat, and tears) the TCs were understandably left looking rather uncomfortable! Wouldn't you? (Posted by Marios Polycarpou)

Jesus the spin is disgraceful. So Women and Kids were in the TMT were they?Adam777 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know you tell me, but what about the Turkish Cypriot thug hired by Turkey who on the 7th June 1958 placed a bomb outside the Turkish press office in Nicosia and ended up sparking the inter-communal fighting? Was that a kid too? (Posted by Marios Polycarpou)

Yasou Marie. Maybe you want to create a user account. It has many advantages, and absolutely no disadvantage. Read WP:WHY to see why. •NikoSilver• 00:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. As much as I'd like to contribute I'm already full-on with letters/articles on the Cyprus issue in various other places :) Regards MP.

I insist Μάριε. You don't lose anything. You only gain:

Anonymity: your IP doesn't appear in history from where you could be traced.
Signature: you don't have to write your name everytime, you just type four tildes (~~~~)
Watchlist: you get to see if those articles you're interested in are changed
Polls: you are allowed to vote
Contributions: your changes (good or bad) are logged in your account. See mine!
Abilities: start new pages, including your user page, edit semi-protected pages, rename pages and upload images.

Hit WP:WHY for details, and join the club! :) Click on my name to see my userpage: •NikoSilver• 00:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niko, unfortunately I would need to enable cookies to log on and I can't have that on my system for security reasons but feel free to write at marios-polycarpou[at]cytanet[dot]com[dot]cy An thelete obote ehete provlima me kapion gia tin kipro mborite na mou stilete to keimeno tou kai ego tha sas stilo biso abantisi gia afto tin idia mera. Me katalaves?

I see. I tweaked your address to avoid spam. Thanks. •NikoSilver• 23:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1960 Treaty of Guarantee

Turkey currently does not recognize the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee This statement is false, infact Turkish policy about Cyprus is based on Treaty of Guarantee.--Hattusili 06:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major reorganisation

I believe only now the article resembles something morelike an encylopedia entry. I tried to focus it just on displacement and property, removing all repeated information concerning casualties and the conflict from other articles. Removed all the politically charged pictures, Greek and Turkish, added relevant info about the Annan plan, EU accesion and Turkish Cypriot property commision. --A.Garnet 14:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time i am reverting what you personaly dont like seeing. The first time was right before you took the article to afd Aristovouλos ^(T) 16:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User after user has told you this page is pov, read the comments on the afd, everyone has accepted it is grossly pov. You have made no attempt to correct it, no attempt to find citations, no attempt to improve it in anyway. Unless you can come up with a better suggestion, i see my version as the only version fit to be here. --A.Garnet 17:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral?

"Tasos Isaak beaten to death within the Buffer Zone, have a close look at who gives the final blow."

- Francis Tyers · 18:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U are right Francis... this is not neutral... So, lets say things as they really were, id est "Tasos Isaak beaten to death within the Buffer Zone by, among others, Turkish Cypriot policemen.". Isn't that right? (btw, i am sure that if there was no picture, many would have said that this was a greek "lie"...). Hectorian 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and btw, is this neutral? "despite repeated warnings not to do so^{[citation needed]}"... It has been like this for a long long time... maybe it is time to remove it (afterall, his murder occured in the buffer zone, so, only the UN forces has the right to tell him what and what not to do...). Hectorian 18:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is better, What do you think? Aristovouλos ^(T) 18:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hector, de jure only the Republic of Cyprus can tell him what to do. Aristovouλos ^(T) 18:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is incredible Francis, is that in the two months this article has been here he has changed absoloutely nothing. Every edit by myself or other people gets reverted, not only by him, but by other Greek editors too. User after user has made clear the entire article is a complete mess, but he wont do anything. I placed the fact tags some weeks ago and still no attempt to source anything, imo the whole thing has been lifted from a propoganda site such as kypros.org. That is why i rewrote the whole thing today only for him to revert back to the original...

The quote you provided is not the only example, have you seen the doctored CIA map with "illegal Turkish military occupation" scribbled on it? Or the accusation the Turkish Cypriot president was photographing a man as he died? Or the claim Turkish Cypriot police raped demonstrators? Or the absoloute zero mention of displaced Turkish Cypriots...Its a mess! --A.Garnet 18:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least no-one can take the article seriously, with or without the tags. You have that much. - Francis Tyers · 18:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously now Garnet, did you read the references? Aristovouλos ^(T) 18:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are ok, others are laughable (come on, "hri.org") lol. - Francis Tyers · 18:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no ones laughing aristovoulos...anyonce can throw a few references into a pile of tosh. And you have the cheek to remove the totallydisputed aswell...--A.Garnet 19:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL: http://www.hr-action.org/ — looks "reliable" to me. Haha, and another one: "http://agrino.org/humrights/hr06/derynia.htm" - Francis Tyers · 19:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garnet, we all know that articles have come to a place to be "protected" by users... Does the Ataturk article remind anyone of anything? and, come on, info from ataturk.com?! how ridiculous that can be? but, of course, we are only talking like that for this, greek-related article, isn't that right?

Francis, u haven't replied... Do u want to write under the picture what i had said? (well, in fact, this is what everyone can see in the picture...). or maybe u want it deleted? (btw, a previous attempt to insert the picture some months ago, failed, since some users did their outmost best to delete it... but now, thanks to Aristovoulos, it is tagged properly, and it will remain, no matter how much we may argue on what it is written beneath it:)). Hectorian 19:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the articles you work on should suck because the articles he works on suck? Nice argument. - Francis Tyers · 19:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording is fine. I think he deserves his own article though. Along with the political response, fallout etc. - Francis Tyers · 19:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the reference to ataturk.com in the Ataturk article, and while i cannot speak for other editors, i myself added a section on criticism of his reforms recently. I do not see anywhere near the same degree of compromise on this article, it is the same extreme trash as it was two months ago. I dont know how you can try and come across as a credible editor, and back this article at the same time. Your excuse is simply "we all know that articles have come to a place to be "protected" by users", I dont see any effort on your part, or any Greek editor to sort this article out. --A.Garnet 19:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comparison between this article and another one. no article should suck, Francis, and this one also needs work to be improved. A.Garnet, i did not revert your edits, nor did i revert back to your version. so, u cannot say that i am "backing this article up". my contributions on this are mostly in talk, with minor in the article itself. and i guess, everyone knows by now, that i am using cynic and ironic language in talk from time to time-sorry if that bothers anyone-. as for the Ataturk article, are u kidding me? this is not a section. these are 2 paragraphs, hidden in 'Reforms' (so as to be looked possitively by the readers?) with a slight, tiny touch of criticism.... (no Armenian Genocide, no Turkification of the Kurds-relegating cultural and ethnic distinctions to the private sphere... sorry, too weak sentence-, no mention of the command of death penalty on everyone who would pray in arabic-isn't that so?-, no mention of the violation of the Treaty of Lausanne, by him, in 1927, regarding Imbros and Tenedos). but, i have abandoned the idea to insert actual critisism in that article, for it is considered "sacred" by some users (and i do not mean u), and this is why that article will never ever come to a feature status... As for here, i am willing to work with u and anyone else in order to solve disputes, although its content is not in the centre of the sphere of my interests. Hectorian 19:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your reluctance to criticise this article as piece of extremist trash, forgive me for not seeking advice from you on how to edit Ataturk ("no Armenian genocide"...). --A.Garnet 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am offering advice for everyone who asks, and u, apparently have not. I can judge and criticise any article i want, and in this case we are talking about two articles i've hardly editted. Quite the contrary, u seem to be keen on double standards, judging from your contributions on both... Hectorian 22:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, please tell me exactly what you think is double standard about my contribution. --A.Garnet 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More or less the same things that made u believe that i am reluctant to criticise this article and agree with your view that it is a piece of extremist trash. and honestly, the way u appproached these two articles: u consider this one as extreme trash and mess (i am using your words), and on the other hand u put one more brick in Ataturk's hagiographic article-no real criticism exists there (and not stick only to the Armenian Genocide-i've also mentioned other things above, things that have been mentioned in the article's talk as well-however, those who undertook the effort to create a section and add them, did neither added them, nor created a section). U are a valuable contributor, think about it... When u condemn an article as "useless" u should at least be ready to accept other people's views on other articles. Hectorian 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look Hectorian, your a man who has called Ataturk a mass murderer and you seem to want the Armenian genocide and Pontian "genocide" to be blamed on him, so i really cannot take you seriously when you criticise the state of that article (i'd dread to think what your version of a fair and balanced Ataturk article would be). But your really clutching at straws if you try to compare Ataturk with this rubbish here. Sorry, but there really is no other word for it. This is not an encylopedia entry, its a piece of nationalistic mumbo-jumbo, written off the back of a few Greek Cypriot crackpot sites to make Greek Cypriots look the innocent victims. There are no academic sources here, no serious attempt to explain the property situation in Cyprus, no mention of Turkish Cypriot refugees. Just a bunch groundless, factless, trumped up accusations. --A.Garnet 23:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I am comparing the attitudes towards articles, not the articles themselves. I have called Ataturk a mass murderer, i believe he was and i find no reason to believe the opposite. but this may be just my POV, i express it in talk pages and i have not editted articles according to it. I know that the term "genocide" has become rather sensitive in Turkey, but i will have to remind u that i was not only refering to that. i also mentioned the Treaty of Lausanne (which Kemal himself signed and also violated); i mentioned the turkification attempts against the Kurds; i could go on by refering to the restrictions the Alevis faced when he was in charge... Unfortunately, there is no real criticism on that article. as for this one (which does have nationalistic POVs), as i've said, it can be worked out, even if all parties are not willing to cooperative in "neutralizing" other articles... Hectorian 23:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but the version by A. Garnet seemed right to me in the sense that its structure had a better relation with the title. I mean, some of the stuff in the main in this article doesn't have much to do with the title, Cypriot refugees and they should clearly be moved to Cyprus dispute or something. Look, how about we try to settle this here, you think that A. Garnet's version is not correct or is not comprehensive enough. Ok, there could be something to work with there. What would you like to be mentioned? Personally I have only made minor edits to this article until now like Hectorian, so I am just trying to see what poses a problem and how it can be solved. Baristarim 21:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious.

There is a void during the period of 1963-1974. I believe there were peaceful attempts to resolve this deadlock over the functioning of the government, the enclaves and with both side tantalizingly close to an agreement in the months before the 1974 events.

I am anticipating that people may argue that the "void" is due to the fact that there was Turkish-Cypriot non-participation in the government of the Republic of Cyprus. Nevertheless, events between these years reflect, either significantly or insignificantly depending on apparent point of view the diligence of Cypriots to try to resolve the constitutional differences.

(UNFanatic 20:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Pictures

Why were the pictures removed from the page? Chaldean 06:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures were removed along with much of the article. The current version appears to me to be an attempt to whitewash the parts of the story that some pro-Turkish editors think are unpalatable or best ignored. Their main argument is that the old version was skewed in favour of the Greek side, but such a radical sizing down of the article can hardly be the solution. They are welcome to add more information about the displaced Turkish Cypriots if they are concerned about maintaining a sense of "balance". --·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be nice if you didn't try to call names like "pro-Turkish" etc. It migth be better if you tried to get involved in Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board instead.. Please follow the discussions there and try to follow the project, nobody is trying to "whitewash" anything.. However, the title of an article has to be consistent with the content, and there was a lot of info in there that had nothing to do with "refugees" considering that there are many other articles about every aspect of the Cyprus dispute, there is no need to duplicate tons of info across tens of articles.. If you have particular suggestions, you are welcome to present them. However, the earlier version was really in a horrible state, just from an encyclopedic point of view, I hope that we can reach some sort of concensus to improve the article so that it doesn't look like one of those "ethnic battleground" articles.. That's all.. In any case, we sorely need good and impartial references whatever the view point. Baristarim 13:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article got protected again? Gees.. Baristarim 13:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have visited the Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board and haven't seen much discussion at all, I'm afraid. The only posts concerning this particular article were those by User:A.Garnet who was behind the current revision. One stating that s/he didn't like the old version and another informing the board of his/her new version. By the way, I don't consider terms like "pro-Greek" or "pro-Turkish" to be name-calling; they are a simple observation of the reality that there will be Greek and Turkish, and by extension pro-Greek and pro-Turkish, editors involved in these articles. You cannot seriously expect them to "neutral", however you choose to interpret that term, but that does not mean that they cannot contribute to achieving NPOV articles. As for concrete suggestions, I think the information on the deaths of Isaak and Solomou and the women demonstrators should be reinstated. They deserve more than just a cursory mention. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain what is happening here. I am trying to create an article on internally displaced Cypriots (the correct term, refugee is a piece of political rhetoric), which encompasses Greek and Turkish Cypriots who lost their property and the trouble they face in getting them back. Aristov's article is concerned less with creating an encylopedic entry on a serious problem, and more on portaying Greek Cypriots as opporesed victims. Both communities suffered from displacement in the conflict, and as a Turkish Cypriot myself, i lose my rag when people try to propogandise the conflict. A serious article has to step back from the accusations and look at the bigger picture, one piece of accusation can easily be countered with another from the other side, reducing the article into a tit for tat "they did this, we did that" etc. I would ask serious editors to look at the two versions and judge for themselves which is most relvant, factual and neutral. --A.Garnet 14:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I don't consider your version to be much of an improvement. Apart from the numerous spelling and grammatical errors and the palpable pro-Turkish bias vis-à-vis the background to the 1974 invasion and its aftermath, it also contains an entire paragraph about Turkey's EU accession bid. So much for relevance and neutrality. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the bias in the background: Makarios did seek to remove constitutional safeguards, he did view them as problematic. Turkish Cypriots were displaced by Greek Cypriot paramilitaries...There is no bias here, these should have been referenced by myself. As for Turkeys accession, it is more than relevant, firslty because most commentators understand a solution to the Cyprus problem is closely linked to Turkeys accession, and second, had the Finnish plan suceeded Greek and Turkish Cypriots would have been able to return to Marash, a now abandoned tourist resort. So it is entirely relvant. As for spelling and grammar, lets not be picky. --A.Garnet 14:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem lies in your wording. "Turkish Cypriots were opposed to the proposal since it sought to remove their constitutional safeguards which Greek Cypriots claimed to be problematic in the conduct of government" is just your POV, frankly. Note that your wording accepts the Turkish interpretation of events without question, while relegating the "problematic" nature of the constitutional "safeguards" to the status of a mere Greek "claim". A neutral wording would simply state the facts: Makarios proposed several amendments to the constitution which Turkish Cypriots viewed as a threat to their constitutional status. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording is better, and i have no problem in changing that. In fact i'd appreciate more suggestions on anything you view as problematic. Thanks, --A.Garnet 15:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would second that.. Such concrete and precise proposals and suggestions are what is needed.. That's all I am trying to say for my part.. Baristarim 15:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And all I am trying to say is why could the same not be done with the previous version? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was less of an article kekpros, and more a piece of propoganda, surely you could recognise this. Its content, its style, its wording, everything was geared towards portraying Greek Cypriots as the only victims. If it was to resemble anything regarding an encylopedic artcle it had to be rewritten from top to bottom. As i have said, i am more than willing to compromise, hopefully having the article locked on a version aristov does not like will force him to discuss changes instead of relying on other Greek editors to revert for him. --A.Garnet 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, things aren't as self-explanatory as you think. Which specific parts of the article did you disagree with, and why? You can't simply reject it in its entirety and replace it without a consensus on this talk page. I have already suggested that the sections on the women protestors and the murders of Isaak and Solomou should be reinstated as they are more than noteworthy. I am sure you'll agree that what happened to them wasn't simply a figment of the Greeks' imagination. As for the specific wording, that can be hammered out here if you find the existing wording objectionable. I eagerly await your proposals. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that whole articles can be rewritten if need be if the older version is not salvagable. In any case, I just wanted to ask something since I am not a Cypriot.. Shouldn't this article be about the Cypriot refugees only? I don't know the story as well maybe, but how are the deaths of those two guys that you mentioned more relevant to this article rather than another article? I mean this article should talk more about the demographics of the refugees, where they are now (if they immigrated etc) and (non)resolution of property disputes if need be.. No? Baristarim 18:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The demonstrations are of course notable kekrops, but not so notable that they reduce the issue of 200,000+ displaced Cypriots to two Greek Cypriot demonstrations. What i propose is a section entitled "attempts to regain property" as in this site. There we can talk about the demonstrations, the lobbies, the court cases etc, but within a larger context of the overall problems faced by Cypriots in regaining their land and property. --A.Garnet 19:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why in this case less is not necessarily more. We certainly need a lot more information about the refugees, but that doesn't need to be at the expense of the demonstrators, who are themselves refugees after all and represent an important facet of the overall issue. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how you can agree and at the same time support Aristovs version. I dont know if you mean to imply that my article provides less information about the displaced than Aristovs version, because if you do then i compeltely disagree. I have mentioned the opening of the border crossing, the annan plan and its implications, cited the origins of refugee figures, the condition of displaced Cypriots, mentioned the Turkish Cypriot property commision and the issue of Marash. I did not of course remove the killing of the demonstrators, or the mention of the women demonstrators. I also plan to write about the court cases and the recent Orams case supported by Cherie Blair. Also want to include the difficulties Turkish Cypriots face in gaining their property back, as well as notable cases where their land has been appropriated e.g. Larnaca airport.

Now compare that to Aristovs version: "Turkish reply to a demonstration" and "Greek Cypriot Women Demonstrating against Turkish Occupation". Is this your idea of more information on the status of dispalced Cypriots?--A.Garnet 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The specific wording is open to debate, as I have already stated numerous times. And I remind you that your wording is hardly neutral either. You have reduced the murders of Isaak and Solomou to a single sentence while giving undue weight to the "property commission" whose legitimacy is not recognised by anyone but the Turks, and to Turkey's failing EU bid, which is a matter for another article; that is clearly unacceptable. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 04:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with Aristov's version was not just his wording, but the fact that 2/3 of the article was devoted to two Greek Cypriot demonstrations, with no explanation whatsover of the status of displaced Cypriot refugees as a whole. The Turkish Cypriot property commision is the direct result of a ECHR ruling for Turkey to find a means of redress, my inclusion of it does not suggest legitimacy, only notability for the issue of displaced Cypriots. And again, as any Cypriot refugee will know, especially a Greek Cypriot refugee, it is that any chance of returning to their property is tied to Turkeys EU accession. So stop going on about irrelevancy, because they are completely relevant. As i have said i am open to suggestions, so you tell me and how and to what extent you would like the death of the protestors expanded. --A.Garnet 13:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, then lets reinstate the previous version and expand it, to include sections you state above. Aristovoul0s 06:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, read what i've said above. While their deaths are notable, they are not so notable as to dominate an article on displaced Cypriots. You simply provided a narrative of two demonstrations, much of it of no significance to someone who wants to find about the political, economic and social status of refugees. --A.Garnet 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so, lets reinstate the previous version and expand it Aristovoul0s 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the rewrite? Why don't we expand A. Garnet's version? As I said in one of my posts above, I fail to see how the deaths of two people would be relevant for this article rather than one of the other myriad articles about Cyprus... Baristarim 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is wrong with reinstate the previous version and expand it???? Aristovoul0s 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the latest version is much more encyclopedic and has a better formal tone as well as a better restructure.. It is more workable than the previous version.. Baristarim 15:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

much more encyclopedic^{[citation needed]} and has a better formal tone^{[citation needed]} as well as a better restructure{{batter}}.. It is more workable^{[citation needed]} than the previous version. why? Aristovoul0s 16:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense (citation not needed since this is something that humans generally possess naturally) Baristarim 16:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense? Why is it common sense? Common to whom? Aristovoul0s 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense to the majority of non-Greek editors it seems. --A.Garnet 16:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, WP:NPA. User:Aristovoul0s is not subhuman for disagreeing with you. Far from having a "better formal tone", the current version is rather poorly written, with Turkish POV throughout and consistently bad spelling and grammar. The old version simply has more raw material to work with. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar, spelling, tone, these are trivial. What is more important is my version addresses the issue of Cypriot refugees. Since my question was directed to you and not aristov, i will ask again, how and in what way do you want to expand the section on the death of protestors in a way that is informative and relavant to the situation of displaced Cypriots? --A.Garnet 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the entire premise of having to correct your errors and omissions, frankly. I have already pointed out just one example of your biased wording; there are many more. As for the murders, I would rather debate the old version than your rather offensive whitewashing of the issue, which has a special resonance for Greek Cypriots. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask you to correct my "errors and ommissions", there are plenty of other editors who can do that. Since you already proposed earlier that you would like the section on the protestors expanded, i asked you to tell me how. But it appears your only purpose in this debate is to revert to Aristov's version, with neither care nor regard for displaced Cypriots. --A.Garnet 16:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After you failed to delete the article, you have vandalized the contents, wrote from scratch what YOU think the article should look like, stating that it was of a “less article” because it was propoganda = (POV specific) while editor Kekrops has proved and you and baris acknowledged that what you wrote is POV specific =propaganda. Baris continued changing the grounds saying its “more encyclopedic^{[citation needed]} and has a better formal tone^{[citation needed]} as well as a better restructure^{[citation needed]}.. It is more workable^{[citation needed]} than the previous version.. only to be refuted by you that there issues are trivial. Then personally attacking Kekrops for NOT having care nor regard for displaced Cypriots. Now why dont we have a break from all these, calm down with the accusations.

Now, asking both Garnet and Baris why don’t we reinstate the original version and expand it. That’s a compromise Aristovoul0s 17:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On an important note to everyone involved, the ECHR ruled today that the property commission setup in the north "responds to the requirements of the court" to deal with the property issue of the refugees and sending the 1400 complaints by Greek Cypriots pending to this commission.. I cannot put my hand on a better English reference for it since it just came out, but I got this for now [2]. From the judgement of the court:

The Court welcomes the steps taken by the Turkish government in an effort to provide redress for the violations of the applicant's Convention rights as well as in respect of all similar applications pending before it. It notes that the new compensation and restitution mechanism, in principle, had taken care of the requirements of the decision of the Court on admissibility of 14 March 2005 and its judgment of 22 December 2005. Baristarim 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the property commision should be more than a side note since it is set to become one of the major structures to deal with the property problems of refugees.. That's all... Baristarim 18:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus

Question: I know that Turkey was one of the guarantor powers, the others being Greece and the UK. Thus within this role as a guarantor power, it recognizes the Republic of Cyprus, to which it is a signitory of the treaties of the establishment of the country. When did Turkey withdraw recognition of the Republic of Cyprus? From my understanding, not recognizing the Republic of Cyprus entails an abandonment of the role as both a guarnator power and an abandonment of the right to intervene to return the country to the original status quo of the treaty, to which it has never done.(UNFanatic 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Improvement

The current version is an improvement, although tilts the balance over to the other POV. I think this version is a much better starting point for improving the article. The references are good (nothing from hilariously propagandistic Greek sites). Many more (reliable) references are required, and the bit about Turkey joining the EU should go. This version reads much better than the previous version in terms of style and neutrality, although there are a number of spelling mistakes (although possibly not more than the previous version). I think that Kekrops suggestion is good, wrt. "Makarios proposed several amendments to the constitution which Turkish Cypriots viewed as a threat to their constitutional status".

Also, the "1963-74 background" summary needs to be neutralised a bit. All-in-all a much better article to start work with. It would be great if you guys could work together here to improve the article with a view to getting the protection lifted. You might try raising issues, or making suggestions for expansion, and then see how the others see it. I'll start off:

In the paragraph starting "Through the years multiple demonstrations and rallies...", I'm curious, were the womens protests for the same reasons (e.g. return of property?) I thought there were some protests due to "disappeared" husbands and sons. If there were, these should be mentioned. This might not be a specific thing about refugees and might to better in one of the other articles though. - Francis Tyers · 14:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm all for working on it. I asked Kekrops for suggestions, all i got from him was a request to revert the article. However now it seems the Greek Cypriot demonstration has been given its own articles so there should be no complaint about this version. --A.Garnet 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

im not a Turk first of all but statements made in this article does not at all reflect the reality and show no parallellism to what I've been teaching and learning throughout my teaching career on European History. To depict Turkish army and policy of the time in such negative terms must be what you should re-consider before warning anybody who edits these inaccurate and non-real, non-academic free-writing drafts; you should not call them articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.189.39 (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cypriot refugees. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]