Talk:Fazıl Küçük

incomplete sentence

the sentence "Following Greek Cypriot attempts to modify the constitution (see Cyprus dispute)" in the last paragraph is incomplete and I don't know what the original author wanted to say about it. Could someone fix it, please? Lorangriel 19:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sidelined?

From the article: "...until sidelined by Rauf Denktaş in 1973." The Rauf Denktaş article does not say anything about this unsourced statement... Can someone clarify please? Seksen? --E4024 (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Misprints and factual errors

The semicolon in "Kıbrıs Adası; Türk Azınlık Kurumu" should surely be deleted, since it's a single phrase in Turkish. And 'a Westminster hospital' (with a spurious link to 'the City of Westminster') is just as surely nonsense; Küçük died in London's Westminster Hospital, where my own father died five years later. It's not as if the Westminster was full of hospitals with different names.92.65.168.206 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sidelined?

Nargothronde: Your edits to this article are problematic. The information you removed was that Küçük was "sidelined" by Denktaş in 1973. That refers to the succesion of Küçük by Denktaş as Vice President in 1973 when the new presidential period started. The word "sidelined" was introduced instead of the word "succeeded" in an edit way back in 2007, obviously indicating that Denktaş somehow managed to push his way to the Vice Precidency and pressing Küçük out. I have no idea if that was the case, but after the "citation needed"-tag was put there in 2013, no one has managed to (or tried to) give any source for "sidelining". That means that we may safely reinsert the word "succeeded" and get rid of the tag.

What you have done, however, is something completely different. You are claiming that Küçük only was Vice President of the Republic of Cyprus until armed Greek Cypriot thugs physically prevented him from entering his office in December 1963. This seems to contradict what is presented in the infobox of this article, in the article about Denktaş and in the article Vice President of Cyprus.

Also, the source you use for this edit is hardly what Wikipedia would call a reliable source. "PERCEPTIONS: Journal of International Affairs" is a journal published by SAM (Center for Strategic Research) under the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, hardly a third party NPOV source as required by WP:RS. As for the author Harry Scott Gibbons, he is a rather elusive journalist(?) whom I have not yet managed to find out much about. His credentials are not obvious, to put it lightly.

I have removed your addition and replaced the "sidelining". If you want to follow up the "physically prevented him from entering his office" part here or somewhere else, it would be best to do that in the talk page in question, accompanied by reliable sources. --T*U (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I think your fix is a good way to deal with it at first, but the thing with it is there's still a contradiction, like you said. Is there a better way to deal with this that doesn't shift the focus away from the actual events and shine the light on politicalities and Denktaş? It's fair enough that the infobox and other articles don't mention these events, but they are in other articles; isn't there a way to include that information without assuming it changes the overall meaning? Nargothronde (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Nargothronde: According to you there's still a contradiction. I fail to see where the contradiction is. Also, I wonder what you mean by the actual events as opposed to the 1973 change of Vice President. By a way to include that information, I take it that you want to include something about what happened in 1963 in this article, which is fine, but only if it is relevant and well sourced. Looking at the articles Bloody Christmas (1963) and Cyprus crisis (1955–64), I can not find a single mention of Küçük in this context. Being prevented from entering his office in December 1963 can hardly be a significant event in the life of Fazıl Küçük. If you want to expand the article, there must be more significant things to mention. --T*U (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the contradiction is that under the 1960 constitution of Cyprus, the vice presidency is reserved for a Turkish Cypriot, but the Turkish Cypriots (incl. the vice president i.e. Küçük & his successor Denktaş) have not participated in the government since December 1963. I think that's the contradiction here; they were recognised as the vice president but at the same time prevented from doing the duties of the vice president. I think that bears alot of relevance to this article. ALSO, I remember it being mentioned that we shouldn't use primary sources i.e. Wikipedia itself as a reference. Why are you doing so here? Nargothronde (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the following information could be included somewhere: Inaugurated: 16 August 1960, Prevented from duties: December 1963, Left Office: 18 February 1973, if this can be supported by reliable sources? Nargothronde (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Nargothronde: First I will urge you to learn more about reliable sources. If you believe that Wikipedia is a primary source, you obviously have not understood what primary, secondary and tertiary sources are. Please take some time to study carefully WP:RS and make sure you understand this very important guideline.

I have, of course, not suggested to use Wikipedia as a source for anything. My observation was that Fazıl Küçük's name has not been mentioned at all in two central articles about the events of 1963, which is why I find it strange that these events should become prominent in his biography article. They would, in my opinion, have a more natural place in the articles about the events rather than in an article about one person.

I think, however, that I am now starting to see what you hope to achieve: a mention of the Turkish Cypriot withdrawal from the government following the crisis of 1963–64. That will, of course, be fine to include, provided it is supported by reliable secondary sources. Since the Cyprus situation has been thoroughly analysed by scholars, this will here mean scholarly sources published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. It will also be important that not only the general withdrawal from the government is covered by the sources, but that the Vice Presidency is especially mentioned, since this is what is relevant in this biography.

Your suggestion about presenting this in the infobox is probably not so good. I think it will be difficult to make a precise, neutral description in one word or two, and I think your suggestion shows this clearly. While the source you cite says that Turkish Cypriots have had no participation in the government, you suggest to use the formula prevented from duties, which is hardly the same. I take it that you do not intend to claim that the "armed EOKA thugs physically prevented the vice-president ... from entering his office" for 11 years? It will be much better to explain the situation in the main text. --T*U (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I was asking because that's what has been cited against some of my contributions here and there in the past.

I see what you mean by its inclusion in other articles, but I don't think that should be an issue? 1) surely it would be a very easy thing to add to each related article so long as we follow the right process? and/or 2) not every related article needs to mirror each and every specific piece of information i.e. the article on Northern Cyprus mentions that it is a country with limited recognition, but the article on Cyprus makes no mention of its limited recognition... on that, the gatekeepers there seem to be very strongly against including that & other things against their agenda, that's the main reason why, but beyond that, the Cyprus article is also not obliged to include such information just because its sister page includes it... atleast, that's what is consistently argued there...

And are you suggesting that the "Journal of International Affairs" is not a "scholarly source"? or that because the Journal of International Affairs is affiliated with the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that means it is not a third party NPOV source, as you pointed out, but Short description Dr Fazıl Küçük's life (an obscure Turkish Cypriot Website) and Halkın Sesi (Turkish Cypriot Newspaper in Turkish) in this article is fine? ALSO, I'd go through and mention every other source used in Cyprus and related articles that are dominated by Greek or Greek Cypriot authors or published by Greek or Greek Cypriot journals and there affiliates etc... so again, I'm not seeing where lines are being drawn here?

And I quote my source again: "During the night of 20-21 December 1963, the Greeks launched a series of attacks on Turks throughout the Nicosia area... Within days, Turkish civil servants throughout the island had been ousted from their positions and Greeks now ran the entire governmental administration. Armed EOKA thugs physically prevented the vice-president, a Turk, Dr Fazõl Küçük, from entering his office...". I'm not including any original research or suggestion or claim or idea here, I'm simply stating things more or less as they have been mentioned in the source provided, just as has also been reported by other journalists and newspapers and scholars etc in god-knows-how many sources on the subject. I just chose the most appropriate source for the occasion here.

The source provided has been published with a reliable publication process, the author and the work itself is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, and it is largely a response to questions etc about his other works, which are also reliably published and starkly authoritative on the subject... so once again, I'm not seeing where lines are being drawn here... but maybe I could include some more sources? Nargothronde (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Just for the record, the two links you mention ("Short description" and "Halkın Sesi") are not used as sources at all, they are just "External links". This article actually has no sources. But that is an aside...

As a general comment, I would suggest that a source without connection to the Turkish foreign office would carry more weight regarding issues connected to the Cyprus question.

Regarding the author, you state that he is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. I must ask you to show evidence of that. He is described in his obituary as a journalist and author. It seems that he at one point was a reporter/journalist in the Middle East, possibly for Daily Mail and/or Daily Express. I have, however, not been able to find one single reference to his work as a journalist, and I have not found any example of his being cited as a journalist. If he is regarded as "authoritative", I am sure there must exist something, somewhere. As for his work as an author, you mention his other works, which are also reliably published and starkly authoritative on the subject. He seems to have published two books, Tall woman and The Genocide Files. We can safely disregard the first one (a novel set in early North America). The Genocide Files was published in 1997, but the information about the publisher is a bit contradictory. Some places the publisher is given as "Charles Bravos", other places as "Savannah Koch". The ISBN, however, is the same in both cases, so we are obviously talking about the same edition. Trying to find out more about the publisher(s), I find that they have published two crime novels by M.C. Beaton Death of a Gossip in 1989 and Death of a CAD in 1990, and that seems to be it. (Both these books also have the same ISBN with both publisher names.) M.C. Beaton is the pen name of Marion Chesney, who was married to Harry Scott Gibbons. The "starkly authoritative" Gibbons (with one book written on the theme) is "reliably published" in a way that looks very much like self-publishing.

A sign of an "authoritative" author would be that he is cited by other authors. It is not easy to find many such cites, but I have found some, and I will quote a few:

• For two detailed accounts, albeit with a Turkish-Cypriot bias, see Henry Scott Gibbons, The Genocide files in this book
• Turkish journalist Mehmet Ali Birand in Thirty Hot Days gives a very readable account from the Turkish perspective, whilst British journalist Harry Scott Gibbons does the opposite in his very one-sided book The Genocide files and Much of Gibbons' writings is no more than Turkish propaganda and more from this book
• Although the following sources are at the service of a purely propagandistic effort and not to be taken seriously, the reader can still find a perfect representation of the official Turkish viewpoint in them about the 1963-64 conflict: Harry Scott Gibbons, The Genocide Files in this doctoral thesis

My advice is that you, before you present your suggested changes to the article in the talk page together with reliable sources, discuss your sources at WP:RSN. People with knowledge about sources are there to help. --T*U (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The info about the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is a godsend, and the explanation and info about "Sources" and "External Links" is also really helpful. Thanks T*U!

I think the main point for now is that I could find more "recognizable" sources/links etc to support what's being said by Harry Scott Gibbons & co. Nargothronde (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)