Talk:Northern Cyprus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Kokkina & Kofinou

• The following paragraph has been removed from the main article because Kokkina is on the north coast of Paphos District while Kofinou is close to the south coast of Larnaca District.

In 1967, Turkey and Greece came close to war during the Kokkina/Erenköy incident when attempts by the local Turkish commander to expand control of the Agios Theodoros and Kofinou enclave into the main road route passing through the area prompted a National Guard attack to restore the status quo ante.

Demographics are Nonsense

There are claims of a population of 220,000 Turks on the island, this seems like nonsense to me. From the votes on the Annan plan, with 88% turnout, there should only be around 80-100,000 Turks on the island, unless there is something I am missing, e.g. women or Anatolians are unable to vote, or each family has an immense number of children.

I don't know what you are missing my friend but women can surely vote in north and so can any "Anatolian" that carries a TRNC identity. That's as far as I know.

History Section needs improvement

Take a look at the history section: why is it ok to talk about the 'aftermath of the Turkish Invasion', but NOT about the 'aftermath of the Greek backed military coup'. Why is no mention made of the 1960 Treaty? The history section should include the following points that should be explained in NPOV language. This is a rough outline:

• 1960 independence from Britain
• 1963 constitutional breakdown
• 1963 Turks live in enclaves and are blockaded by the Greeks
• 1974 Greece backs military coup in Cyprus, removes Makarios from office and places Nikos_Sampson in charge.
• 1974 Turkey militarily intervenes under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee and the island is partitioned
• 1975 Federated state and
• 1983 TRNC UDI

--Son of the Tundra 09:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Now Son of the Tundra, you are been unfair. Theathenae obviously believes that the Turkish Cypriots don't have the right to establish their own state without asking for permission from the Greek Cypriots and their extremist leader Makarios III and that that wouldn't be a violation of their right to self determination. He is obviously around the twist with Greek nationalism, we can't blame him :-))))))))))))))))) REX 10:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Lets Talk

The TRNC article keeps being reset to the version some keeper has in their computer. You correct a spelling error, or supply a missing symbol like a $ sign and soon after your corrections disappear! This behavior makes me question the neutrality of the article.

Hey Guys would it be possible to discuss the content of this article and come to agreement. Huh? is that possible? --Son of the Tundra 10:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

We have been through this before. This article is about the TRNC, not the History of Cyprus or the Cyprus dispute. It should mention the 1974 coup and invasion as the events immediately preceding the establishment of a Turkish state in north Cyprus, but not go into details or discuss events before that. It is perfectly possible to arrive at a factual and non-POV article if both Greek and Turkish nationalists desists from imposing their views. Adam 10:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. That is exactly what I would like to see, A NPOV article giving all the relevant facts. I’m happy with the opening section as it was at this point [1] Any references to military coup and invasion should go in the history section. Words like ‘aftermath’ are emotive and can be equally applied to coup and invasion. Better to drop the word, NPOV articles should not be emotive. Also, Please keep in mind that in the history section we should be discussing the events that lead to the creation of the TRNC, i.e. the reader should gain an understanding of why the TRNC was created. Those events began in 1960 when Cyprus won its independence from Britain. No reader will understand why Turkey invaded/intervened, unless the reader also knows about the constitutional collapse in 1963, the TC enclaves, the military coup and the 1960 treaty. --Son of the Tundra 11:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Every event in history flows from previous events. The difficulty is knowing how far back to go. A previous editor wanted to go back to the Ottoman Empire (see at top of this page). I suppose 1960 is OK but it needs to be kept brief, because this is all covered in other articles. Adam 11:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if we start from 1960, then the reader has a chance of understanding why all this happened. Also, do you accept my points about the word 'aftermath' (it is emotive and can be applied to both coup and invasion), and also my points about the intro section (I am saying that the 'invasion' cannot be mentioned without ALSO mentioning the 'coup' and the 'treaty', and all that should go in the history section, not in the intro). What do you think? --Son of the Tundra 11:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Adam 11:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. --Son of the Tundra 11:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I find your latest edit rather incongruous with your previous posts. If you agree so wholeheartedly with the Turkish invasion and occupation, why would you object to mentioning them in the opening paragraph? What are you ashamed of?--Theathenae 12:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The 'invasion' cannot be mentioned without ALSO mentioning the 'coup' and the 'treaty', and all that should go in the history section, not in the intro section. Adam has agreed with this. Take another look at the points made above. --Son of the Tundra 12:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It can, as this article is specifically about the "TRNC", not the Cyprus dispute in general. And the "TRNC" was a direct result of the Turkish invasion and occupation, without which it could never have existed.--Theathenae 12:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The coup and treaty should be mentioned as they are important aspects of this country's history. REX 12:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

They can be mentioned but not written about at length, because that has already been done elsewhere, and certainly not editorialised about. Adam 13:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The 'invasion' cannot be understood without also mentioning the 'coup' and the 'treaty'. The three things go together. --Son of the Tundra 14:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like no one is going to leave the intro alone. So I have added some relevant information. This article should not be biased--Son of the Tundra 01:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

just want to say hi i am new to this site www.northcyprusexists.co.uk

Invasion

There is clearly a concerted attempt being made by pro-Turkish (or anti-Greek) partisans to sugarcoat the Turkish invasion by using the euphemism intervention instead. It will fail.--Theathenae 18:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you prove that? Do you have any sources which call it an invasion? The CIA World Factbook calls it an intervention. Who calls it an invasion except anti-Turkish Greeks? Wikipedia polcicy requires the use of this name. NEXT! REX 19:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

All right REX, explain something to us then. If Turkey's actions in July 1974 were really an intervention that was necessary due to the 15 July coup instigated by the Greek military junta, then why didn't Turkey withdraw its forces as soon as the military governments in both Cyprus and Greece fell? What purpose was served by the raping and killing of Greek Cypriots? Why was it necessary for Turkey to take over more than 30% of the island's area, when Turkish Cypriots comprised less than 20% of the population? And once that area came under Turkish control, why weren't any Greek Cypriots allowed to return to their homes? At some point it starts sounding less like a "peace operation" and more like a conquest, with some ethnic cleansing thrown in for good measure. And then you have to call it an invasion. If you can't make up your own mind by looking at the facts and need a source to tell you what word to use, try [2] and [3] Csymeonides 19:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you get acquainted with Wikipedia policy. I quote WP:V:

• Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research.
• The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable resource, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors.
• One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher.
• It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources.

You see, it doesn't make any difference what I think. The mere fact that the CIA World Factbook calls it a millitary intervention (quote):

• 1974, a Greek-sponsored attempt to seize the government was met by military intervention from Turkey, which soon controlled more than a third of the island. In 1983, the Turkish-held area declared itself the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus," but it is recognized only by Turkey.

The CIA World Factbook is a Wikipedia:Reliable source according to Wikipedia policy. That is why their statistics are used almost on every demographics article on Wikipedia. The mere fact that they call it a military intervention proves that that phrasing can be used as opposed to the trouble-making, hate-promoting military invasion. Personally I am appalled at the behaviour of Turks, Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots in this whole affair. Genocide attempts! Disgusting! Anyway, the bottom line is that we are looking for verifiability, not truth (according to Wikipedia policy). It is not important what the editors think. NPOV remember. The brutality of both sides should be mentioned, there is no doubt about that, just Wikipedia policy is above all. REX 19:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The CIA factbook is a reliable source on statistical matters, but it is also a US government publications and reflects US diplomatic usage. Turkey is an important NATO ally of the US (much more important than Greece), and the language used reflects a desire not to offend Turkey. The fact is that if you send your armed forces into another country without the consent of that country's government, that is an invasion. It is an invasion even if you do it with the best of intentions (eg, the Allied invasion of France in 1944). Adam 01:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly! REX quotes from the CIA World Factbook; I gave references from UN and EU websites. Which do you think is more likely to be impartial and hence reliable? You have to remember that we're not discussing a statistical figure but an issue of wording. Did you follow the links I posted or did you just ignore me? More importantly, what exactly are you trying to achieve by replacing "invasion" with "intervention"? Do you think either one of those words gives a complete description of what happened? Of course not. But you have to admit that "invasion" suggests violence while "intervention" is more associated with peacekeeping. Which is closer to the facts? I think we both know.

One of the biggest problems with the Cyprus-related articles is that there is no clear division of topics. The invasion should only be discussed in the article about the invasion (and that's where you should state that some describe it as an intervention). The TRNC article should be used only to describe the TRNC. Please stop abusing this article and make your edits where they ought to be made. Csymeonides 09:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Even the Greek (Greece) Government has declared it as "intervention" and I have posted the relevant judgment including case number in the history section. Let us not forget that Greece was heavily involved during the 1963 to 1974 war in Cyprus so if they call it an "intervention" I believe that the matter is settled and as Csymeonides suggests "stop abusing the article" and leave it at "intervention". Eric:Guest 11.50 15 October 2005

Well, "Eric:Guest" (I have to wonder if you're just REX's sockpuppet): first of all I find it hard to believe that the passage you quoted is true and accurate, because I've only been able to find it in Turkish and Turkish Cypriot websites. Secondly, we would need to see the original Greek to know if the word used was indeed the equivalent of "intervention". And finally, even if it was, so what? Since when does the Greek government, or some Greek court, get to decide what we call Turkey's military action on Wikipedia? Look at the links I posted above, which are definitely much more impartial and objective. Csymeonides 17:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

If anyone here is in Greece, I suggest that they go and buy the school book Ιστορία Γ' Λυκείου τεύχος Β'. Go to the index and go to the Τα Εθνικά Προβλήματα (or something like that, I cannot remeber well, but it is near the end) section. It is about the military intervention. That book calls it ανοικτή επέμβαση της Τουρκίας. Which means an open intervention by Turkey. You see, if Greek school books call this an intervention, and we know how propagandistic school books can be, then who would call in an invasion. Only someone who detests Turkey and wants to demonise them. REX 14:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

REX, I find it very irritating that you continue to ignore the links I posted, which clearly refer to an invasion. Or do you actually think that the UN "detests Turkey and wants to demonise it"? Csymeonides 17:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Having been to both Turkey and Greece I have nothing but positive feelings for both countries, although I find petty nationalism tiresome no matter who is espousing it. That is not the point, and nor is the content of Greek schoolbooks. What is to the point is the correct usage of English words, and the accurate description of things in an encyclopaedia. As I said above, if a country sends its armed forces into another country without the consent of that country's government, that is an invasion, no matter what the circumstances, the intention or the justification. There are good invasions and bad invasions, but they are all invasions. Adam 15:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, although it's a long time since I studied Greek, I would guess that the derivation of επέμβαση is epi + en + baino, thus, "to go in upon." So it's an exact cognate of the Latin invadere, to go in upon, which is the origin of the English verb to invade. So there is hardly any semantic difference between the two words. One just sounds nicer than the other. Adam 15:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Precisely: and why should we try and make it sound nicer? If anyone wants to argue that the invasion was in any way beneficial, they can go ahead and try. But trying to distort reality by using a different word is just pathetic. Csymeonides 17:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Adam, you are right when you say "the point is the correct usage of English words", agreed 100%. I have to say that I cannot speak a word of Greek and have not studied Greek therefor I thought it would be best if I looked up the word "επέμβαση" and I am sorry to say that your guess that the deriviation of the same is "invation" is wrong. According to Altavista the English word for "επέμβαση" IS "INTERVENTION. So let us please use the "correct" English word and not what each individual believes it to be in his POV. Eric 18:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

A definition isn't the same as a derivation, but never mind. My main point is the political one: the use of the correct descriptive term in English. However, I have had enough of the rampant stupidity displayed by both sides at this article (as in Cyprus), so I am taking it off my watchlist. Adam 02:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Csymeonides, I arguee that it was beneficial to the Turkish Cypriots and the reality is that the "intervention" would never have been needed if there wasn't an "invation" by the Greek army in the first place. Am I correct or not? Eric 18.42, 15 October 2005

Csymeonides, I've read your links. I can't find the words military invasion. Are you sure that they exist. If so, could you please copy-paste the text here so that it will be easier for me to find. REX 17:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you tried searching for the word "invasion" and couldn't find anything, but anyway, I'm more than happy to paste the passages here:

From [4]: "As a result of the Turkish invasion the Greek Cypriots were forcibly expelled by the invading army from the area it occupied and are now living in the Government-controlled area; almost all the Turkish Cypriots who lived in this area were forced by their leadership to move to the area occupied by Turkish troops, whereas prior to the invasion the two communities lived together in roughly the same proportion of four Greeks to one Turk in all the six administrative districts. ... The policies pursued by Turkey in the occupied area since its invasion of Cyprus constitutes the first case of ethnic cleansing in post-Second World War Europe. ... Although the blow inflicted on the economy by the Turkish invasion of 1974 was devastating ... Another series of United Nations General Assembly and Security Council resolutions condemned the invasion of Cyprus, the continuing military occupation, the colonization and the secessionist acts that followed ..."

From [5]: "whereas the impasse in the negotiations also has a negative impact on the solution of humanitarian problems such as that of the large number of Cypriot civilians, women and children among them, missing since the Turkish invasion in 1974" Csymeonides 00:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Csymeonides, I am not surprised that you cannot find any reference to what I have posted on any other website than Turkish or Turkish Websites, after all it is not something the Greeks are proud of and are trying very hard to hide. It's something like the Akritas plan which some Greeks insist that it never existed and if it did it was either the work of the Greek Communist of that era who "devised" the document to harm the then Government or it was the Turks. It is also the same as there was no war before 1974 and no Turks were killed until Turkey intervened and there was no ENOSIS and all that. Yes we know, the same old story, the Greeks were totally innocent and Turkey "invaded" for no reason what so ever. BTW, I am no ones "sockpuppet", I have no reason to hide and I post under this name in few other forums. Eric 20:55 15 October 2005

No, of course the Greeks are not innocent. But the government of Greece at the time was a military junta that fell immediately after (and as a result of) the events of 1974. The same does not apply to the government of Turkey that ordered the invasion. And since you completely ignored the questions I posted earlier, I'll try asking again: why didn't Turkey withdraw its forces as soon as the military governments in both Cyprus and Greece fell? What purpose was served by the raping and killing of Greek Cypriots? Why was it necessary for Turkey to take over more than 30% of the island's area, when Turkish Cypriots comprised less than 20% of the population? And once that area came under Turkish control, why weren't any Greek Cypriots allowed to return to their homes?

Oh and by the way, if you have "no reason to hide", then why do you sign your posts with a link to the name Eric as if it's your user page? Csymeonides 00:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Eric, I guess ypou have failed to see that the only purpose of calling it a military invasion is to paint Turkey a darker colour than she already is. Also, you do realise that there would have been an enosis if Turkey hadn't intervened. They had no choice. That extremist Makarios tried to amemd the constitution and violate the rights of the Turkish Cypriots. The UN had approved that constitution. Why did he try to change it? He caused everything. REX 20:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

REX, I have not failed to see anything and am well aware of everything that went on between 1963 and 1974 and to the present day. I know very well what ENOSIS is and that it has been in the Greeks mind since the 19th century. Some people think that ENOSIS came about during the 1950's but that is very wrong. I know very well why Turkey did what it did in 1974 and that is why I call it an INTERVENTION. I know why the Greeks insist on calling it an "invation" and even try to hide the Ruling of the Greek (Greece) court calling it an "intervention" as if it does not exist or that it was the Turks who first brought about this "rumour". ENOSIS is still THE Greeks and Greeks Cypriots dream and that is the main reason why there is and never will be a unification or a solution in Cyprus. What will happen in the future is that either it'll all stay the way it is now for a long time or the EU will get fed up with the lies of the Greeks and recognise the TRNC. The Cyprus Constitution was changed because the Greeks had ENOSIS on their minds and never intended to keep to their promises in the first place. They proved all this in Dec. 1963 when they locked the Turkish Cypriots out of the Cypriot Government and started to implement the Akritas Plan. As you can see REX, I fail to see nothing, Expatkiwi knows I fail to see nothing. I tried to put a *little* sarcasm into my last posting but it seems I failed. :-) BTW, Csymeonides believes I am your "sockpuppet". LOLEric 23.45, 15 October 2005

"Eric", the above shows that you know nothing about the political climate in Cyprus today. Enosis is just about the farthest thing from the "Greeks and Greeks Cypriots dream" (sic). What most Greek Cypriots want is a fair and viable solution. I cannot speak for all of them, but I for one would like to see a single-state solution where people of Greek and Turkish (and Armenian and whatever else) descent live together as Cypriots. Try and learn a bit more about Cyprus post-1974 and then perhaps you will understand the situation. Csymeonides 00:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Csymeonides, I am sorry but it seems to me that you are the one who either has no idea of the political climate in Cyprus or are trying to hide the truth. What you are trying to do here is to make people believe that the Greeks and Greek Cypriots have all of a sudden stopped dreaming of ENOSIS and now want to live in peace with the people they tried to genocide. If the Greeks wanted a solution they would have agreed to if not the Annan Plan at least to share the country and the Government as it was supposed to be and agreed upon in 1960. But we both know as do many others that the only thing the Greeks will agree to is a Greek administered Cyprus and the T/Cypriots a minority in their own country. The idea of everyone being a "Cypriot only" is a Greek idea because the Greeks know that the whole world believes the "Cypriots" are Greeks. By taking away the Turkish from Turkish Cypriot is assuring that it stays that way. Let us not forget that the Turks living in Greece are not allowed to call themselves Turkish, they must identify themselves as Muslim Greeks. The official stand of the Greek Government is that there are no ethnic minorities in Greece and that my friend Csymeonides is what you Greek Cypriots are trying to achieve in Cyprus. That is how you are trying to achieve your ENOSIS. If the illegal Greek Cypriot administration of the so-called "Republic of Cyprus" is recognised as the "legal" Government and the Turkish Cypriots are made second-class citizens in their own country, what's to stop the GC's from declaring their long crave for ENOSIS. You tried it by force but it turned against you and you lost. Now you are trying to achieve ENOSIS the "legal" way. This you will also loose. Even if it's not for the sake of the Turkish Cypriots Turkey cannot afford to lose a foothold in Cyprus for strategical reason. Turkey will never recognise the Greek Government unles the TRNC is also recognised or at least the embargoes are lifted. I am certain that Turkey would rather turn away from it's EU ambitions the get out of Cyprus. I think you know this, don't you? Eric 02.57, 16 October 2005

Wow. I'd really like to know who it was that brainwashed you into believing all of that BS. Where do you get off telling me, a Greek Cypriot, what it is that Greek Cypriots want to happen in Cyprus??? Where do you get off calling the government of the Republic of Cyprus "illegal"??? Have you ever even lived in Cyprus? I lived there for 21 years! And you claim to have a better understanding of the political climate? Let me try and explain this one more time: Greek Cypriots don't want enosis anymore. Your perspective is so biased and uninformed, the only response I can give you is: stop wasting our time until you know what you're talking about.

By the way, I find it very interesting that you admit that "Turkey cannot afford to lose a foothold in Cyprus for strategical reason". Doesn't quite fit with your whole argument of 1974 being an "intervention" with the sole purpose of protecting the Turkish Cypriots, does it?

As for the Anan plan, this is neither the time nor place to discuss it. Just consider that the plan gave Greece, Turkey and the UK the same "guarantor power" rights that the 1960 constitution did. That worked great for Cyprus, didn't it? And consider whether you would want to live in a country where an ethnic minority comprising 20% of the population gets 50% representation in government. Sound fair to you?

Oh and in case you missed the hundreds of times the word was used above, "invasion" is spelled with an "s". Can you understand that at least? Csymeonides 02:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

OH MY GOD! I made a spelling mistake WOW, how dare I?!!! and you revel on that, good for you, well done. Stop being so childish. You sound a little upset finding out I know more about Cyprus than you would like me to. Where do I get off telling you what the Greek Cypriots want? Where do I get off calling the “government” of so-called “Republic of Cyprus” illegal? Well, let me tell you, since the day your granddad and his friends tried to kill me and genocide the rest of the Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus. If anyone is brainwashed it is you who was born after the 1974 “INTERVENTION” and has no personal experience of what it was like in those days and has no idea what it’s like to be isolated from the rest of the world for being just Turkish. You were brought up by your parents and school to believe it to be an invasion (see, spelling with ‘s’, happy now?) I lived through it and know the difference. The “invasion” that took place was by Greece TWICE, once in 1963 to start the war for ENOSIS and the second time in 1974 by the Kollonellos. They were the real invasions, specially in1963 when there was no war and absolutely no need. But Greece, a supposed guarantor for Cyprus, decided to genocide the Turkish Cypriots because of it’s (Greece’s) expansionism policy and “invaded” TWICE. Turkey INTERVENED not the first time in 1963 but 11 years later to stop the SECOND INVASION by Greece and the genocide of the Turkish Cypriots. So who are you to tell ME what is an INVASION and what is an INTERVENTION? Who are you to tell ME that I have been brainwashed whereas YOU are the one who knows the history between 1963 and 1974 not by personal experience but by second hand stories. So stop wasting our time until you know what you are talking about. Had not the Greeks and Greek Cypriots tried to genocide the Turkish Cypriots, had Greece not INVADED Cyprus (not once but twice) Turkey would never have had the need to get a foothold in Cyprus. It would have felt safe enough if Cyprus stayed an Independent Country as was agreed and even signed by the Greek Cypriots as well as Greece. Read some non-biased history written by non-Cypriots and come back and talk to me when you have learned what you are talking about. In the mean time I suggest we leave the TRNC page alone and keep it at INTERVENTION. Otherwise we’ll be changing it back and forth dozens times each and every day. BTW, when an agreement is signed it is expected that both parties keep to it. Where does it in the 1960 agreement say that the Greeks own the island by them selves and are allowed to genocide their partners if they are not willing to do as they are ordered. Do you know what it means to sign an agreement? Eric 04.20, 16 October 2005

I apologise for going off on you about a spelling error - that was petty of me. I think emotions were running very high last night, and we have to try to cool down and have a meaningful discussion.

You may have lived in Cyprus in the 60s and 70s, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you understand the political climate of today; a lot has changed. I can understand why Turkish Cypriots are wary of the Greek Cypriots and vice versa, but we have to learn how to trust each other and share this tiny island.

And I'm sure you realise that my "grandad and his friends", like most Greek Cypriots, didn't try to kill anyone. It was a minority of Greek Cypriots that committed the atrocities you refer to. They were fascist, bigoted, deranged fools, and they are as much to blame as anyone else for what followed.

As for Greece, I agree with you: it completely abused its guarantor powers, and its influence in Cyprus has been as detrimental as Turkey's and the UK's. This is why I advocate a solution with no guarantors: the UN should be the only force responsible for peacekeeping in Cyprus (of course they'll have to actually do their job).

I can only imagine what it was like for you to have lived under those conditions. I would never downplay the magnitude of the suffering that you and other Turkish Cypriots went through. Perhaps I shouldn't expect you to see things the same way when it comes to 1974, because you were so directly affected, but I think that changing "invasion" to "intervention" would be a distortion of the facts. Mistakes were made, and horrible crimes were committed, by both sides of this issue. I'm willing to admit that, and so should you. The fact that you know what happened in Cyprus in those years from first-hand experience means that you have a lot to offer to Wikipedia, but it also means that it's harder for you to be objective and unbiased. Csymeonides 10:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we just leave both "invasion" and "intervention" out, and use "operation Attila" with a link instead? I personaly believe it is a very clear case of invasion, but it seems it's hard to come to consesus on the issue, so why don't we just let the reader form its own oppinion? Peter 19:00, 16 Oktober 2005 (UTC)

That could be a good idea, but I'm not sure if the text would still make sense if you replace all occurences of invasion/intervention with "operation Attila". We would have to look into it. Csymeonides 05:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Csymeonides, thank you and apology accepted. My emotions were also running high because in 4 years on the Internet arguing with Greeks and Greek Cypriots I am yet again being accused of being a “sockpuppet”, some one who has no idea about the Cyprus problem and that I am not even a Turkish Cypriot. And even though you apologised you are still assuming that I have no idea about todays political climate in Cyprus. Can you imagine what it would have been like if instead of having this argument on the Internet we were arguing person to person somewhere on the street? Do you realise that we are at each others throats over about what word to use to describe Turkey’s actions? I hate to think what would happen if fanatics from both communities meet and start arguing. Do you now realise that we are not yet ready to live together?

I do hate to think what would happen if fanatics meet and start arguing. But I'm not a fanatic and I trust that you aren't either. Why should we let them decide the future of Cyprus? Living together might not be easy at first, but I think it's worth the effort. Csymeonides 05:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok. so you admit that Greece abused it's guarantor powers but even so you have failed to call it an invasion but you demand that Turkey’s action was and should be called an invasion. I am afraid that we are stuck here and we will not agree on using one or the other word. We need to find a different word or way of explaining Turkey’s action. Maybe if we let not-GC’s/Greeks or non-TC’s/Turks make some suggestions we may find a way that is acceptable to both sides. Peter suggested “operation Attila”. I will reply to Peter about his suggestion. What do you say?

Re:Greece, without suggesting that what they did was in any way acceptable, I don't think that it would be accurate to describe it as an "invasion". It was definitely a mistake to allow Greek troops in Cyprus, and it was criminal of them to be accessories to murder and genocide attempts. But Greece never took over a section of Cyprus and declared a new state there. Csymeonides 05:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not agree that we should not have any guarantors. We Turkish Cypriots do not trust anyone any more apart from Turkey to protect us. The explanaition for this is very simple. Between 1963 and 1974, we were subjected to genocide by one guarantor power, the other one (GB) didn’t lift a finger to stop the attrocities and the UN folded their hands and watched while the killing went on. The EU even rewarded the GC’s for their OXI vote and allowed them to enter the block. The Turkish Cypriots for their YES vote for peace were told to get lost and none of the promises made by the EU have been kept. Nope, we do not trust them and we do not trust the Greek Cypriots to give us any protection.

I think that your statement that you trust no-one but Turkey is very telling. Don't you see that this is the problem? We have to trust the international community to not turn a blind eye when something goes wrong. And you have to trust me when I tell you that the Greek Cypriots (or at least the vast majority) no longer dream of enosis and getting rid of all Turkish Cypriots.

As for the EU etc., I was never sure why anyone thought that the TC's yes-vote should have been "rewarded". Of course you voted yes: the plan gave you everything you asked for! The GCs voted no because even our minimum, most essential concerns were not addressed. And how come you've been demanding recognition for 20-odd years as a separate country, but just when the EU is about to accept Cyprus you suddenly decide you want to be part of it? Did the TRNC take part in the EU accession talks? Did it do anything to fulfil any criteria? No, so why should it join the EU? I'm sure you understand that when Cyprus joined the EU, it wasn't a reward for the "no"; the referendum simply came at the same time because the UN and EU were desperate to find a solution before the joining date. And that's another reason why the plan they came up with was full of problems, loopholes and injustices.

By the way, we've veered completely off the subject. And to be honest, after all of this, an issue of which word to use just seems stupid. Csymeonides 05:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have never denied that crimes were committed by both sides but I do insist that it was all because of the Greeks and Greek Cypriots dream for ENOSIS. You may arguee like other Greeks that Turkey would have “invaded” anyway but the reality is that this could never be proven.

BTW, anything I say or provide anywhere on the Internet is always supported by unbiased proofs with links to non-TC/Turkish web sites or as with the Greek court ruling with case number. Eric 02:45, 17 October 2005

Peter, thanks for your suggestion. What do you suggest the explanation should be for “operation Attila” in the link? Eric 03.05, 17 October 2005

Csymeonides, you are right, we may need to do a little more editing than just replacing the phrase if we adopt the change, but nothin major.

Eric, my sudgestion would be that the link should stick to the facts. More in specific, I think it should have information about the military aspect of the operation. ie the article could start with something like "the term operation Attila refers to a series of offensives by Turkey at the north part of the island of Cyprus in 1974..."

There could be a short paragraph about the events that lead Turkey to take action, as well another one with information about the situation created after the operation, but the terms invasion, intervention, peace operation etc should be avoided. There could probably be a link to the Cyprus Dispute article for more details. Peter 09:05, 17 Oktober 2005 (UTC)

I think this might be the best solution. Let's just call it Operation Attila here and work on that article instead. We can continue this debate there if necessary. Csymeonides 11:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Because the Greeks attact first I would prefer “the term operation Attila refers to a series of defensives by Turkey at the north part of the island of Cyprus in 1974..." but I know this would not be accepted by pro-Greeks. Anyway, it would not be historically right to call it “operation Attila”. I don't have much time to explain it right now but do a search in WIKIPEDIA or anywhere else and you'll know why we cannot use “operation Attila”. [Eric] 19.20, 17 October 2005

It is not a matter of being pro-Greek or pro-Turkish. Calling it a defensive would be wrong from a military point, since the Turkish army landed new troops on the island, even if this was in response to a Greek offensive. In order to be a defensive, the Turkish troops should have already been on the island, and should just be defending their position. In fact, not only this did not happen, but the Turkish army advanced its position quite a bit. This would have been the case even if they were regaining lost territory, which anyway I don’t think is the case here.

With regard to “operation Attila”, I am not a sticker about the name, we can try and find something else neutral, I am open to suggestions. I’m not sure however where your objection is. It is the code name that the Turkish army used for the operation, not something I came up with. If you are referring to the Nazi operation with the same name, it is totally irrelevant, and can easily be dissolved with a disambiguation page. Unless you suggest that there is some kind of connection between the two, which I don't think you are. Peter 23:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Peter, in all this aren't we are forgetting that the Turkish Cypriots lost so much and were defending themselves and were cornered in only 3% of the island? So in every sense of the word they were defending and regained lost territory albeit with the help of the Turkish Army. This is why I and others insist that it was an intervention and not an invasion. Let us also not forget that there was already an invasion underway by Greece, so the question is when someone invades your home can your counter attact with the help of your friends also be described as an invasion? Having said that how about "Turkey launched a counter attack to help the Turkish Cypriots defend themselves from the attacking combined armed forces of Greek Cypriots and Greek Army (from Greece) and divided the island to stop any further bloodshed and ENOSIS"? Please note that I have not used "invasion" or "intervention" to describe the actions of either side.

I like the idea of describing it as a counter attack, I think we should try and work more on this direction. My objection comes to the rest of the sentence, in that it can very easily be characterized as PoV. I am quite sure that the other side will immediately argue that the Turkish army did a lot more than just defending Turk-Cypriots, and here we go all over again (there is no point reproducing all the possible arguments about the displaced Greek-Cypriots and the total area of control before and after the operation). I believe that we should try to find a more neutral way of describing the facts (this goes for both sides). Peter 3:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That's right, I would definitely call it POV. "Counter attack" does seem like a reasonably neutral term to use, but if we're talking about the first sentence in the article, then it could be even simpler. How about something like this:

Operation Attila was the codename for the military operation launched by Turkey on 20 July 1974 at the north coast of Cyprus, and one of the key events in the Cyprus dispute.

This should be followed by a chronological account of the events, probably starting with the 15 July coup, describing the actions of each side without any mention of motives and intentions. Then we can have different sections for the different perspectives. For example, one section should mention that Turkish Cypriots feared persecution and/or genocide because of the coup, and welcomed the arrival of Turkish troops. It should also mention that Turkey has always claimed that it was necessary to intervene in Cyprus unilaterally because the other guarantor powers refused to do so. Then there should be another section expressing the Greek Cypriot doubts about Turkey's intentions and the objections to the partition of Cyprus and the continuing occupation by Turkish troops. Mention should be made of the UN resolutions, the declaration of the TRNC, and the present situation. If we can get some statistics about the casualties, displacements etc. that are considered objective, they should be included. Does everyone agree that this sounds like a good way to proceed? Csymeonides 10:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason I said that we cannot use the term "operation Attila" is so as not to confuse the readers with the same named Nazi operation which of course as you know was the ocupation of France. Using this term also means another disambiguation page as you mentioned and I am wondering if we are not forcing the readers to jump from page to page and from explanation to explanation. I know from personal experience that people loose interest if they have to visit page after page trying to understand something that could be explained in a few sentences. [Eric] 01.40, 18 October 2005

I see no problem with the disambiguation page, since this article can link directly to the Operation Attila (Cyprus) article. The disambiguation page can be there for whoever searches wikipedia for “operation Attila”. In fact, I believe it is wrong for such a page not to exist, since whether we like it or not it is an official term. Linking Operation Attila only with the Nazi operation is like hiding information. Now, whether the term should be used in the TRNC article is a whole different issue. As I said, I’m open to suggestions, although I do believe that there should at least be some kind of reference to the term one way or the other. Peter 3:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Let's not complicate this matter even further. "Operation Attila" was the codename used by Turkey, and that's a fact. It also seems to be the most NPOV way of referring to this event from this and other related articles. Then we can go to work on the Operation Attila article and we'll have more space to present all the different points of view. Csymeonides 10:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, we seem to be getting somewhere now. We agree to describe Turkeys action as “counter attack”. I am also not really dead against a disambiguation page on “operation Attila. BTW, in case you didn't know, a page for Operation Attila already exists and someone has already added information about Turkey’s “operation Attila” below that of same named Nazi operation. So can someone rewrite the existing paragraph and post it here so that we can maybe agree on it? Eric 18:20, 18 October 2005

The word "invasion" is purelly imotive to me as a Turkish Cypriot and can only be viewed as POV from a Greek perspective. The word intervention is neutral and must be accepted.Bornagain 29 October 2005

Who invaded first though? It was Greece, not Turkey, which initiated the events of 1974. Archbishop Makarios, after the Sampson coup organized by the fascist junta in Athens in July 1974, escaped alive and announced to the UN General Assembly in New York that 'Greece has invaded Cyprus.' This statement by Makarios is now conveniently forgotten by the world. That is the long and short of it. Greece and the Greek-Cypriots caused most of the problems in Cyprus and the subsequent division of the island, but it is likely that Britain and NATO acquiesced in the events of 1974 - the Greek coup followed by the Turkish intervention to protect its citizens when British troops based on the island failed to protect the 1960 Independence Constitution. The aim was obviously to get rid of Makarios, considered too pro-Soviet by certain factions. Perhaps they feared he'd allow the Soviets a naval base on the island. The aim of the Sampson coup was Enosis - Union with Greece, which was completely against the Independence Constitution of 1960 and would have meant ethnic cleansing or denial of democratic rights to the Turkish-Cypriot population. The 1974 coup amounted to an attempt by Greece to annex Cyprus to its territory. Turkey, as a guarantor of the independence of Cyprus, had every right to take action, since the UK refused to do so. The Turkish troops have not been withdrawn because the Greek-Cypriots cannot be trusted not to try for Enosis (Union with Greece) again. The Annan plan to re-unite Cyprus was recently accepted by the majority in the TRNC but rejected by the majority in the Greek Republic of Cyprus, yet the TRNC is penalized by being denied entry into the EU whilst the Greek RoC is a member, having voted for the continued division of the island. It is now time the island was reunited on a federal basis and the whole island became a member of the EU. As for land/property the Greeks lost in the North, what about the land/property the Turks lost in the South when they were forced by the Greeks to flee north to the safety of the then Turkish Federated State of Cyprus? As for rapes and murders, these atrocities occur on all sides in all wars, and I'm sure this is the case in the Cypriot situation as well. This does not excuse these acts of course, and they are to be condemned. Now it is time for all Cypriots to get over it, and plan a peaceful future together, Greek and Turkish Cypriots, within the EU. (This may well be considered a biased account, but I make no apologies. Incidentally, I am half Greek-Cypriot and half English. Pappy 17:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

---

The English Definition of Invasion is an outside military force entering and taking full control of another country's land. That is what happened when Turkey entered Cyprus. Their justification was to protect the Turks that were there, but somehow, the Turks that only owned 10% of the land before the invasion, now controlled, by force, 36% of the land. So, an approximate 26% increase is clearly a significant increase of land, by using an invading force. The only way anyone can call this an intervention is, if the Turks had returned the 26% they took. They will not return what they took, except by use of force on them. To not call the ethnic cleansing and cultural destruction of Greeks on the 26% they lost, an invasion, is an extreme insult to what happened.

I agree that the Cypriots should get over it, for peace, as soon as they get back what was forcibly stolen from them by the Turks. As far as the previous question above "what about the land/property the Turks lost in the South", it was far less then what the Greeks lost, as the net increase of 26% was in Turkey's favor.

As far as any of Turkey's claims of legitimacy, on June 4 1878 Turkey sold Cyprus to the British in return for military assistance. The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne sealed the end of any notion of a legitimate Turkish claim. Article 21 of the treaty gave the minority Muslims on the island the choice of leaving the island completely and living as Turks in Turkey, or staying there as British nationals.

Claiming that it was Greece that wanted to annex Cyprus clouds over the real issue. Cyprus was occupied by Ottomans for 200 plus years, and the Cypriots there had to endure great brutality under Ottoman rule (as most non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire had to, many even pretended to be Muslim, like to Druze Kurds of Turkey). After Ottomans and Turks finally signed over their ownership of the island, the Cypriots hope was to finally rejoin with Greece, and be free from Turkish brutality. Would this not be what any non-Muslim want, to join a non-Turkish country, and in this case, their motherland, Greece?. So the majority of the island wanted to rejoin with Greece. And even though they owned 90% of the island, somehow, they ended up losing 26% of that to incoming Turkish soldiers, followed by colonists (funded by Turkey), and being raped and massacred. These atrocities are recorded by the European Commission of Human Rights - http://www.hr-action.org/chr/ECHR02.html. -The claim that atrocities were done on both sides needs to recognize that, atrocities by Greeks, since while true to some relatively small extent, the huge majority was done by the Ottomans, and by the huge invading army of the Turks. Does it not make sense that the 40,000 strong invading army of Turks did more damage to Greeks, than the unarmed, untrained and unorganized Greek civilians (the 20,000 strong Greek garrison had been convinced to leave in 1967). How else would one explain, the coming of the Ottomans, conquering the Greeks that had been there a couple THOUSAND years, and then taking over 36% of the island, AGAIN, even though they signed it away in the Lausanne Treaty? They asked the Greeks nicely to move away? No, I hope it is obvious that, the Turks HAD TO use a great deal of force to make the Greeks leave their lands.

Since Turkey is no longer as important and friendly ally to the US (it refused US passage to Iraq, and the Soviet Union has crumbled), its time for some reparations, or at least admittance, to some of Turkeys past crimes, by the current Turkish administration, which is not responsible to what happened, but is responsible to admit the past (just as Germany did for the Holocaust, and as US admitted its crimes on Native Americans).

NYC_ALB

Political correctness and realpolitik

I have been reprimanded a few times for using words that have too much of a 'tilt' towards a biast POV. Operation Atilla is regarded by the Greek Cypriots as an invasion, while the Turkish Cypriots refer to it as a peace operation. While I would prefer to use the latter phrase, I chose 'Intervention' as a neutralist term to avoid POV charges. The 1989 USSR invasion of Afghanistan is more popularly known as an intervention, so why blast my useage of the word in this case? Expatkiwi 23:03, 15 October 2005 (URC)

Intervention can be used because the CIA World Factbook. I have never seen a source calling it an invasion. According to Wikipedia policy the the word intervention should be used. Unless of course we have another source calling it an invasion. REX 21:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook used to call it an "invasion" until 2004. After the rejection of the Annan plan by the Greek-Cypriots, however, they changed the term to "itervention". They also added two new "countries" to the book, namely Akrotiri and Dhekelia, the sovereign base areas of the UK on the island (to which the UK does not give the status of independent or autonomous state). The term "invasion" is mostly used by Greece and Cyprus, while Turkey uses the term "peace operation". The international community uses either "invasion" or "intervention", depending on who they want to appraise at any particular moment. The UN uses neither; they refer to it as "the tragic events", "the critical situation", or something similar. Hope this clears a few things. respiridus

Intervention can definitely be used because the Greek (Greece) Court Ruled it was Legal and described it as Intervention. The CIA World Factbook, Greek Courts call it INTERVENTION and the Wikipedia policy states that INTERVENTION should be used so I think the problem is solved and the case should be closed. Eric 23.57, 15 October 2005

Case most certainly not closed. See quoted passages above. UN is more impartial and reliable than CIA. Hard to argue against that. Let's discuss the nature of Turkey's military action in an article dedicated to that specific aspect of history, and in all other articles refer to it as an invasion. Stop the abuse, stop the editing wars. Csymeonides 00:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's stop the abuse and discuss the nature of Turkey's military action in an artikle dedicated to that specific aspect of history and in all other artikles refer to it as an intervention. No, I am not being a parrot, I am repeating your words in agreement but a slight change. If you can convince me that it was a "invasion" then I will stop the editing. But I do warn you that I have a vast knowledge of what happened in Cyprus during 1963 and 74 and also am very clued up on the current issues and interests of the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots. Eric 02.30, 16 October 2005

I have had enough of the rampant stupidity displayed by both sides at this article (as indeed in Cyprus), so I am taking it off my watchlist. Khairete and elveda to you all. Adam 02:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Csymeonides, why do you believe that the UN and the EU are likely to be neutral? Both these organisations officially recognise the Republic of Cyprus and officially maintain that the TRNC doesn't exist. Doesn't that suggest a bias in favour of the Greek Cypriot state to you? I think it does. The Republic of Cyprus is a member of both these organisations and naturally their POV will be present in all their reports. However, the CIA is an agency of the United States. The Republic of Cyprus is not one of these States and neither is the TRNC. The American government officially recognises the Republic of Cyprus and not the TRNC, so we can assume that the Americans are more supportive of the Greek Cypriot side. There is no official evidence that the USA perefer Turkey to the Republic of Cyprus or Greece. And yet, they call it an intervention!!! So we can assume that rightousness prevailed in the minds of the authors of the World Factbook and for at least once in their lives were neutral (like the authors of Greek school books). So naturally, we can assume that the case is closed and that we will use the word intervention. NEXT! REX 10:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Never mind the EU, let's focus on the UN. Do you really believe that we should consider the views of the CIA, an intelligence agency of a particular country (one that has a reputation for distorting the truth, to boot) to be more objective than those of an international organisation with 191 member states? That just doesn't sound sensible. And although I imagine you'll consider what I'm about to say ridiculous, there have been serious claims about the CIA's involvement in the events of 1974 (both the coup and the invasion). [6] may be part of a Greek Cypriot website, but you have to admit that the evidence shown there is interesting to say the least. After all, it was no secret that Makarios and the USA never got along with each other (they called him the "Red priest") and the USA has always seen Turkey as an important ally. So how can we expect them to be objective about this? Csymeonides 13:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you prove what you are saying with reliable and neutral sources? The UN is biased. If they weren't, thet would have recognised this country. The Republic of Cyprus is a member of the UN and therefore their POV influences them. REX 13:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course the Republic of Cyprus is a member of the UN. So is Turkey, the USA and almost 200 other countries. Suggesting that the UN is biased because of one of its members is ludicrous. Csymeonides 05:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Damn! There is no way around this. What I am saying is that the UN is more sympathetic to the Greek Cypriot POV, hence the admission and recognision of ONLY their state. Why do you think that the Turkish Cypriot state has not been recognised? Out of love for them? REX 08:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I think Peter's suggestion is the best solution. But I think that when the UN issued resolutions and declared that the TRNC would not be recognised, they made their reasons very clear. Turkey's responsibility as a guarantor was to preserve Cyprus' constitution and protect its citizens. Even if we are to accept that the sole purpose of Operation Attila was to intervene in order to protect the Turkish Cypriots from the effects of the military coup, you cannot deny that all the violence and devastation was wrong, and that the guarantor powers were never given the right to partition the island. The occupation of the north of Cyprus by Turkish troops was supposed to be a temporary situation, but then they suddenly decided to declare a new state there. How could you expect the UN to recognise and legitimise this? And when you say "hence the admission and recognision of ONLY their state", it's as if there was a choice between 2 states, while the reality is that the UN has always recognised a single unified Republic of Cyprus: not a Greek Cypriot state, nor a Turkish Cypriot state.

And I still find it quite bizarre that you actually believe the CIA is more objective and unbiased than the UN. Csymeonides 11:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I also think that Peter's views aren't to bad. I'm not opposing them. Also, I am not saying that the CIA is less POV than the UN. I'm saying that we cannot expect the UN to be truly NPOV if they favour one side more than the other. The attitude of the Turks was terrible, no one can deny that, but no one can say that under the one of the most well-known principles of International law (the right to self-determination), the Turkish Cypriots as a nation on their own right do not have the right to determine their right to a state with or without external assistance. How did Greece achieve independence? With external assistance of course (see Battle of Navarino for an isolated example). Any nation (including the Turkish Cypriots) on earth has the right to a state, something which the UN are conveniently ignoring. REX 11:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you would define "nation", but I think that you can either look at all Cypriots as comprising a single nation (after all, my passport says "Cypriot", not "Greek Cypriot"), or you can say that, because of their ethnic background, Turkish Cypriots belong to the broader Turkish nation and Greek Cypriots belong to the broader Greek nation. But to say that Turkish Cypriots are a "nation on their own right"... I don't think that's accurate.

As for self-determination, of course it's an essential right, but the TRNC clearly crosses the line. It extends to more than 30% of the island's area while the TCs comprise less than 20% of the population. It doesn't even include all the areas in which TCs have historically lived. Its creation was a result of war, violence, and forced displacement of civilians, not diplomatic negotiation and agreement between communities. Imagine if the Kurdish population in Turkey got up one day, took over the Eastern one-third of the country (killing or removing every single person there) and declared a new Kurdish state. Would you expect the UN to recognise it? Of course not. And remember that the Kurds are in fact a quite separate nation that has been fighting for self-determination for ages. Csymeonides 12:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If the UN are conveniently ignoring a state for the Turkish Cypriots, then what do they consider the 15 million Kurds of Turkey?--K... 11:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the UN recognised the State of Israel once that was established, and we know their treatment of the existing people there was, so why wouldn't they recognise the proposed Kurdish state? Why aren't they recognising the TRNC? Double standards? And even if the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots are indeed subsets of larger nations, then Cyprus (as the UN originally would have intended) would have been a multinational state, like Belgium is today with French-speaking and Dutch-speaking populations on equal terms, despite a French speaking majority. Or like Switzerland which has French, German and Italian speaking populations with the overwhelming majority being German speakers. All these people in these countries are on equal terms, like what was intended in Cyprus by the UN backed constitution. However, when Makarios III decided to amend the new Cypriot constitution in favour of the Greek Cypriots, then we have a case of discrimination against the Turkish Cypriots. Their right to self-determination was exercised and they invited the Turks (who may or may not be the same nation, that is irrelevant) to assist them in establishing a state of their own so that they would not be subject to a Greek controlled state. It is not unreasonable. I am not applauding the behaviour of the Turks though; there could have been a peaceful intervention. I don't know why they did it; I am suspecting that they feared the enosis taking place. REX 13:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let's talk Switzerland: "the 200 members of the National Council are elected directly under a system of proportional representation". Why don't you go and check out Makarios' proposals to amend the constitution and see if you can actually argue that they go against the principles of proportional representation. It always surprises me how people paint a picture of Makarios as an extremist obsessed with the idea of enosis, when it was him that the Greek military junta and EOKA-B wanted to overthrow, because he had given up on the idea of enosis! Csymeonides 15:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

To make my point clearer: if you're going to argue that Operation Attila was about the Turkish Cypriots exercising self-determination with the help of Turkey, then you have to explain why they did it, and why it happened in 1974. You can't blame it on Makarios and at the same time blame it on the coup against Makarios. It's one or the other. And it's the latter that makes the most sense, because the coup established (if only briefly) an extreme-right-wing government with a chief aim of achieving enosis. Csymeonides 15:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Why did Turkey intervene/invade? Because Turkish Cypriots were persecuted for over a decade - the mass graves still exist today. Certainly a lot of the Turkish Cypriot deaths happened with the knowledge of Makarios, and i'm sure he was aware of 20,000 mainland Greek soldiers infiltrated on his island and used against Turkish Cypriots. --A.Garnet 18:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into a discussion about Makarios, because there is a lot that can be said about him, both good and bad, but it's not what we're here to resolve. As for the Greek soldiers, all I can say is that allowing the presence of foreign troops in Cyprus (be they Greek, Turkish or British) was a huge mistake from the very beginning and has always led to tension and violence. Csymeonides 10:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That was not the only reason for which Turkey intervened/invaded, they also invaded because they know that the Greek government was planning to intervene/invade as well. To this day, the Greeks are bitter over the fact that Turkey beat them to it (annexing whole or part of Cyprus). REX 18:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hardly. What you seem to be forgetting is that the Greek government you refer to was a military junta. Nothing to do with the democratic Greek government of today. And once again you seem to be contradicting yourself. Did Turkey intervene to secure the rights of the Turkish Cypriots, or did they invade to "beat Greece to it" and be the ones to take over Cyprus for themselves? There's a big difference there, and that's why we've been discussing the terms invasion and intervention. But since we seem to be arriving at a compromise on the other thread, let's just drop this and get back to the real issue: sorting out this particular article. Csymeonides 10:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I found that Makarios's amending the constitution provoked reaction from the Turkish Cypriots, but Turkey (officially at least) didn't do anything and that failed coup against Makarios is what caused Turkey to invade/intervene. They were probably thinking "what are those Greeks doing, they don't play fair. If they can cheat, so can we!!!" Anyway, that compromise seems perfectly acceptable and NPOV, it'll do nicely. REX 12:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the article for now. Please find a way to discuss the issues at hand in a civil manner, and negotiate a way forward that both sides can live with. I would remind editors about No personal attacks, and staying cool when editing. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Things have gone a bit quiet over the past couple of days. I'll unprotect in the hope that feelings have subsided a bit and all are willing to work together. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Intervention by Invasion

Does it make sense only to me, that you can intervene only by invading? I would of hoped that the fanatics would have figured that out by now and mention whatever word is appropriate for that sentence. But of course not. It's only one way or the other. Never compromise for the middle which is what is FACTUALLY correct. Does anyone agree so we can put this issue to rest?

I just wanted to ask if you think its an invasion when someone asks you to come and intervene.Best regards, Bornagain

What I think doesn't matter here. Nor should what you think. Stick to factual accuracy. It's an intervention by invasion, no doubt about it. Whether it was legit or not is what I think you want me to say. I'll pass in order not to get embroiled in a perspective war. I do find it inappropriate though that someone would go make a seperate article of the military coup in Cyprus in order to have control over the way it is edited instead of adding/editing information in the article that already exists. --K... 17:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it’s just lost in translation. In my English to Turkish dictionary, the description of the word “invasion”, includes; Saldiris=Aggressor. The aggressors’ were the Greek terrorists’ who, as history shows, terrorised both communities. The “intervention” came and went and the forces there are now “protectors” of the TRNC as requested by the TRNC government. Legality cannot come into this unless the TRNC are recognised in the courts. I am not trying to be contentious, just stating some facts. I too am fed up with this argument but as the translation states fact in English and fact in Turkish does not agree. As this is about the TRNC should it not follow Turkish wording that is far less emotive for them? I don’t believe there is a definitive answer to this problem and maybe we should look into a moral settlement. Best regards Bornagain

I understand that the word invasion is seen by many as negative, portraying Turkey as an agressor. But to intervene/invade, you can not militarily do so without agression. According to the Operation Attila page, it was a military operation. If their was no agression, how would you expect Turkey to land her troops on Cyprus? --K...

How about “aggressively intervened” I don’t think either side can argue about that.

Best regards Bornagain

I don't think that really works... It sounds like avoiding one word by using many others to describe that action. I don't find it that big of a deal for someone to rewrite the history section to include both terms. I mean it's one paragraph that's causing all this problem.

Using her right to intervene, the TRNC was established after the 1974 Turkish invasion and subsequent partition of Cyprus, which followed a military coup in Cyprus against the government of Archbishop Makarios, led by Greek nationalist Cypriots and backed by the then military régime in Greece.

The sentence is long as is and should be condensed, but why can't any of you agree on something as simple as that. --K... 00:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Lots of images

Dear Greek-observer, please stop adding those twenty-something images to the article. Most of them don't serve any encyclopedic purpose, and there are simply too many; the article has enough images currently. If you want, you can add two or three in appropriate places, but certainly not that many; it'd result in a layout and loading time nightmare. Cheers! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoever the hell put those pictures up on the TRNC site, KNOCK IT OFF! If you must put them on Wikipedia, then put them on the CYPRUS DISPUTE page! Expatkiwi

---

From a Paul to a Pavlos can you please stop stuffing in Greek Cypriot POV (and yes it is POV they way you wrote it). PMA 22:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I LOVE YOU MY LITTLE BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY...

-Inanna-

Sun, Beach and Kebab

Perfect place to spend time for a while(how ever i spent 6 years).Min. 8 months of a year you can swim in one of the most fantastic sea with clean and wonderful beaches.Locals are friendly and most of them speak English(how ever not so fluent).

Othello and Salamis - If you ever heard about these two, Magosa(Famagusta) is the one for you to see in the island.

Casino - There are casinos all around the country but the best ones you can find are in Girne(Kyrenia) and one in Salamis Hotel (Famagusta)

Food - In Famagusta,you should try donner kebab of Temel Reis or turkish style pizzas of Maxi Pide. In Kyrenia opposite of bus staion, you can find several nice restaurants with nice atmosphere and for breakfast you can try orange cafe in sea side.In Nicosia, you can find couple of nice places just around British Embassy.And after all you should try Cypriot cheese(Hellim).

Car Rent- If you have a valid driving licence, you can rent from £20 per day.Don't forget, min. 3 days.

When you arrive there, enjoy the sun,beach,nice food and friendly local people.

Word mixing

The Greek side may want to refer to Turkey's 1974 Operation as an "invasion"...the rest of us prefer to call it an "intervention"...intervening on behalf of the Turkish Cypriots who spent nearly 11 years in small enclaves on their own island, and who if they were lucky enough to survive ENOSIS, would become Greek citizens, and most likely second-class Greek citizens. Intervention, not invasion...68.100.160.15 02:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Azeroglu

There is no doubt that these 11 years where bad for the Turkish Cypriots. However, expelling 80% of the population of the whole region and confiscating their properties hardly qualifies as a fair solution. Some Turk-Cypriots may have lived in enclaves for part of these 11 years, but a much larger number of Greek-Cypriots have been refugees on their own island for the last 32 years. This is why it is an invasion. And please don't anybody bother replying that this was a population exchange, because in order to qualify as such it should not be unilateral and under the threat of force.

Refugees are prevelant on both sides of these communities directly resulting from the troubles witnessed on this island over many decades. The injustice of becoming a refugee has occured for both Greek and Turkish Cypriots, percentages are not really relevant. Any atrocity against a Turkish or Greek Cypriot is unjustifiable as it is for any human being, these rights are basic and fundamental. The future lies in ensuring the occurance of such events are prevented. Refugees can not be compensated in any shape or form, these are individuals who exist damaged by the history of their Island, let us try to protect their next generation at the very least. Keep them in mind when attempting to rectify issue's or quote the history of Cyprus.

"Refugees can not be compensated in any shape or form". Is that so? Very convenient for the Turkish side... However let me remind you that the Greek-Cypriot court has ruled in favor of Turk-Cypriots when it comes to their land. I'm not saying you can totaly erase whatever injustices have happened in the past. However you can try and be as just as possible now. There is clearly not such sign from the Turkish side though. I wonder why... Could it be because the mere existance of the Turk-Cypriot pseudo-state is based on this injustice? At least we agree on one thing: "Any atrocity against a Turkish or Greek Cypriot is unjustifiable as it is for any human being".

Yes...I do believe refugees can not be compensated....I am talking about emotional damage you are obviously refering to property and land. No one individual should experience the awful circumstance of being driven from their home, at times under extreme violence, never to return. Fighting over land/property and greed is the cause of this behaviour.... when will it end...prehaps when one side has control of all of the island?..or when each individual has what they feel they deserve according to what they have suffered?...neither of these situations will ever occur...so wake up and move on from the damage this type of thinking has so far produced.

A note to the constant reverters

1. All wowturkey.com images are free for use. If your going to revert a POV, dont be so careless as to remove all the images which other people have taken time to upload.

2. Why is the section on Economy considered POV?

3. Why are the airports and harbours considered POV? --A.Garnet 21:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling the TRNC a "country" is POV - especially when all countries on earth bar one view it as part of another country. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Signomi, kyrie, but many countries in the Organization of Islamic States have given de facto recognition to the TRNC, Azerbaijan has given de facto recognition as well, and Naxcivan Autonomous Republic and Turkey fully recognize it...TRNC is NOT part of another country...68.100.160.15 21:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Azeroglu.

Really, well the UN don't. Also, de facto recognition means nothing - formal recognition is what is required. The Republic of Cyprus has given it de facto recognition. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we give much weight to what the U.N. says or does? The U.N. can't do a thing without having 6 permanent members of the Security Council decide for the rest of the world what is right and what is wrong. On issues involving the Middle East it is usually all countries versus the U.S. veto on the question of the West Bank. Guess who wins with that one powerful veto? Well, good thing the U.S. is a supporter of the TRNC.

Indeed, that's why they don't recognise it :-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 13:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (they recognise the Republic of Cyprus having control over all the island bar the British bases)

That was not my question, I wanted to know why some editors felt the need to remove entire sections. What is POV about information on its economy or harbours? --A.Garnet 23:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's my mistake. I have re-added them. --Khoikhoi 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait a sec - that info that Inanna added is copyvio from [7]. I'm going to remove it unless she states she has permission. --Khoikhoi 01:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Templates

{{User TRNC recognition}} For those supporters who wish to show it on their user pages
{{User Cyprus non-recognition}} For those who do not support the South Cypriot Government as the 'sole ligitimate government' on the island.

How tasteful. Not sure how ligitimate, though.--Theathenae 17:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Those templates need TfDing. They are provocative and serve no useful purpose. The second one especially is plain silly. I'd propose it myself if I could be bothered. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Latinus, Turks don't need a Hellenic stamp of approval for legitimacy any more than they need an institution like the U.N. that has no consistency in its actions to give them their stamp of approval...when their existence is on the line they follow instinct...self-protection...the 80 percent you refer to chose exile in the U.K. just as many Turkish Cypriots did...the same percentage of Turkish Cypriots have left thanks to Hellenic inspired sanctions and embargoes. Thirty-two years of peace...yeah, sounds good to me. Katalaveneis, anthrope; (using your Greek question mark at the end).

Please read Antony Sutton's Book America's Secret Societies. Then at the end of the book read the names. You will understand then (both Greeks and Turkish Cypriots) who made the Cypriots kill each other. Brother killed brother, since both of the communities are of Greek Cypriot origin. Their only difference is religion and the Turkish language, imported in Cyprus by the few Turkish troops left behind after the conquest of the island. If both communities barind these facts in mind would hold negotiations without Greek, Turkish, American, U.N., and espesially British intervention the matter would be ressolved peacefuly in two days.

NPOV?

How is this NPOV? I don't really see anything noneutral. Explain. -Alex, 12.220.157.93 22:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC).

Don't you mean how is this POV? NPOV stands for "Neutral Point of View", which this article isn't. --Khoikhoi 23:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a small "edit war" between me and Khoikhoi last couple of days. I added the term "so called" in front of the name "TRNC" and he reverted it twice, as someone else said "it was not UN terminology". Then I found the correct UN terminology, as There is UN Resolution 550, May 1984 clarifies: "purported state". Another term UN uses in the same resolution is "illegal and invalid".

You must accept one of those terms, "so called", "purported state" or "illegal and invalid". Another user said "let's not force things". I am sorry, but this is not forcing anything.

I understand this is a very delicate issue. Neutral POV is the essence of wikipedia, isnt it. Well, Neutral POV forces us to use UN terminology. Who can accuse UN of _not_ using NPOV wording and terms? Who can accuse UN of trying to "force things"? Who can accuse UN of taking parts? Who can _not_ accept that in cases of continuous disagreements, the UN terminology has to be used as a source of solution? This is why United Nations were formed in the first place. It is the essence and the core of the UN charter.

Well, "TRNC" is a self proclaimed state, recognized only by its producers. UN considers it illegal, invalid, and purported state. It considers it a product of illegal international action. And this is why it calls upon all countries of the world not to recognize it. This is a fact and it should be reflected in the terminology used by Wikipedia. If Wikipedia does not do that, then this is exactly what would form a POV article.

To say that it is a "break away" state is not enough. It does _not_ cover UN description of this "state" in any way. So, something else has to be added. Choose one of the three options the UN offers us: "so-called", "purported" or "illegal and invalid". --Ferrara 15:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In the article everything is clear, you don't need to add any adjectives in front of TRNC. Only if you took the time to read it all instead of getting stuck with the first sentence.--Kagan the Barbarian 19:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia article must start setting the standard correctly. The "TRNC" is _not_ a state. The United Nations are consistently calling all states _not_ to recognize it as such. Custom is a source of international law. So, if you say it is a state, then this is wrong. This is a clear POV. The POV of the people who created this "illegal, invalid" state, this pseudostate. Consider this. If in Kurdistan's entry, it was saying that it is a "state" would you read the rest of the article leaving this opening phrase unattached? Of course not. This is a political issue, isn't it. A political unresolved issue that the world community is trying for over 30 years to solve. The sole authority to define the worldwide accepted terminology is United Nations. This is the reason it was formed. My opinion is crystal clear and the solution of the misunderstanding is crystal clear too. And an absolutely fair one as well. I only say "follow UN". --Ferrara 22:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I went through your history, you are adding so-called in front of every TRNC you find. This is vandalism. Look, it doesn't matter whether UN recognizes TRNC or not, it is a de facto state, it has its borders, military, parliament etc, in practice IT EXISTS, you can't name it so-called. How old are you?--Kagan the Barbarian 07:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you know a lot about vandalism. I am keep doing this in this particular article, until it's accepted. Vandalism is keep reverting avoiding the lines that UN imposes on this matter. But as you trying to support your view with arguments, I have to reply: no sir, it does _not_ have "its borders" (the one and only government of Cyprus still have sovereignty over the entire island; have a look at the EU-Cyprus agreement, that Turkey herself is about to ratify), it does _not_ have "its military" (its supposed military is Turkish troops, they are not even Turkish Cypriots, it's command and troops are from Turkey) and it does _not_ have an internationally accepted parliament. The "President" just enters negotiations as "leader of the Turkish-Cypriot community", and _never_ as a head of state. That's accodding to the protocol wherever he goes. What does my age have to do with this? I am 34 years old. What about you? --Ferrara 12:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Explanation on the enclaves

The enclaves were really not primarily blockaded and embargoed by the Republic of Cyprus. A statement must be made that Makarios's amendments were rejected outright by the Government of Turkey, even before their consideration by the Turkish Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriot leadership followed suit and immediately the Turkish Cypriot leadership openly called for partition. Turkish policemen and civil servants withdrew from their posts en masse and Ankara threatened to invade. Facing a very grave threat to the Republic’s existence the Government tried to contain the revolt but could do little to prevent armed civilians from both sides from taking part in the clashes. The instances when these irregulars failed to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants tainted the conflict with sectarian violence and loss of innocent lives in both communities.

These tragic but isolated events were utilised by the Turkish Cypriot nationalist leaders in their propaganda that the two communities could not live together, in spite of the fact that this leadership bore a heavy responsibility for the political situation. A large number of Turkish Cypriots withdrew into the enclaves, partly as a consequence of the hostilities that had taken place but mostly due to the efforts of their nationalist leadership to enforce a de-facto partition of the island. In doing so the Turkish Cypriot nationalist leadership had turned against members of their community who stood for co-operation between the two communities.(UNFanatic)

The other major purpose served by the enclaves was the political and physical separation of the two communities. Despite the Turkish leadership’s claims to be motivated by concern for their community, the policy of forced segregation created very considerable economic and social hardship for the mass of the Turkish Cypriots. This fact was noted in the UN Secretary General’s reports on Cyprus:

“Indeed, since the Turkish Cypriot leadership is committed to physical and geographical separation of the communities as a political goal, it is not likely to encourage activities by Turkish Cypriots which may be interpreted as demonstrating the merits of an alternative policy. The result has been a seemingly deliberate policy of self-segregation by the Turkish Cypriots (S/6426, Report of 10.6.1965, p. 271)”.

Thus, a large number of Turkish Cypriots withdrew into the enclaves, partly as a consequence of the hostilities that had taken place but mostly due to the efforts of their nationalist leadership to enforce a de-facto partition of the island. In doing so the Turkish Cypriot nationalist leadership had turned against members of their community who stood for co-operation between the two communities.(UNFanatic)

NPOV tag added

Article fails to mention the role pf the TMT in commiting acts of violence against Greek and Turkish Cypriots who did not believe in takism, but instead believed in Unity.(UNFanatic 18:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC))

That's a good point. The activities of the TNT must be included (objectively, of course), it is part of the history of the 'TRNC' and of the Republic of Cyprus in its formative years.Politis

UNFanatic, becareful of what your asking for in this article. Because if you want to go into detail about the acts of the TMT, then we must also go into the massacres by EOKA-B, the role of the GC ministers in violence against TC's, the 20,000 Greek mainland soldiers on the island helping Grivas, Grivas's attacks on TC villages and so on and so on. The idea is we provide only an overview, otherwise you will have GC and TC wanting to flesh out the unjust acts committed to their communities, of which there are many. This is what happened on Cyprus dispute, until it was written in a general and fairly impartial tone.

I'm guessing you have added the totallydisputed tag in retaliation for me adding it to Cyprus, but what you have done on Cyprus is elaborate on information which only incriminates Turkey and Turkish Cypriots, without going into the same depth about that which incriminates Greece and Greek Cypriots. In all, the history section you wrote was horribly, horribly POV, far worse than this article. At least this article makes the effort not to accuse one party more than the other (which is what you want to do) and for that reason i'm removing the tag. --A.Garnet 20:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Added for this:

nine years after the Greek Cypriot coup d'etat and the ensuing Turkish liberation of Cyprus.

- FrancisTyers 19:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The TRNC article keeps being reset to the version some keeper has in their computer. You correct a spelling error, or supply a missing symbol like a $ sign and soon after your corrections disappear! This behavior makes me question the neutrality of the article.

Turkish-Greek names

The port names should remain, they are private names. Greek word for other locations can be used but what about the Cyprus page and Turkish names for the cities? Either neutrality or an edit war.--Kagan the Barbarian 12:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The ports and airports do not have private names.there are greek names in 2 out of 5 airports(because these airports were operating before 1974),but not in the other 3(probably cause they were constructed after 1974-i may be wrong about this,i do not know dates of consctruction and beginning of operation).the ports have both the greeks and turkish names,cause they are named after the cities they are located in.the article about Cyprus(the GC controlled area)does not contain such a list.if i list will be created,turkish names may also be mentioned for ports and airports prior to 1974.The article List of cities, towns and villages in Cyprus includes the names in both languages.--Hectorian 13:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you give their Greek name once, you don't have to write "Girne/Kyrenia" 245275056 times. Ports have private names, it is ridicilous to use a Greek name for a TRNC airport or port. Forget about ports and airports, Turkish for the GC city names should be mentioned like they are here. I don't care how much it pisses off Greeks but Cyprus does not belong to just GCs.--Kagan the Barbarian 19:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What do u mean by saying 'private names'?if a port or airport was given two names before 1974,both names have to be mentioned here.I do not think that the Greeks are more pissed off than the Turks concerning Cyprus...U have to understand though,that Cyprus is the officially recognised state,that has 2 official languages,and this is why the names of the cities are written in both in List of cities, towns and villages in Cyprus.whereas in TRNC,internationally unrecognised,the greek language is practically of non existance.U may also take a look in the articles of the other unregognised countries...e.g.the georgian name is mentioned in Abkhazia and South Ossetia,but in Georgia only the georgian name is used.--Hectorian 19:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course Greek names of TRNC cities have to be mentioned but same with GC page. Difference between Cyprus and other problem regions is current Cyprus border between North and South is not natural, just like there are GC towns in North, there are TC towns in south as well, am I wrong? As for ports and airports, I still think it is stupid to give the Greek name for the city when talking about a TRNC port, give the Greek name once, not 12414 times. When you say it is occupied, people get the message really.--Kagan the Barbarian 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok,lets point the issues at that have arisen:greek names in the north are mentioned,as well as turkish names in the south.u are not wrong,the border is not natural and the GC and TC cities in both nort and south are mentioned.there are resemblances with the other unrecognised territories,since they share sort of common status.i do not mind the names of the cities mentioned in both languages when talking about airports and ports,and i recomment the same thing to happen in a future list about Cyprus.lastly,i did not mention the word 'occupied' in the article,although it is my POV.--Hectorian 20:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

UN Resolution 550

RESOLUTION 550 (1984)

Adopted by the Security Council on 11 May 1984

The Security Council,

Having considered the situation in Cyprus at the request of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus,

Having heard the statement made by the President of the Republic of Cyprus,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General (S/16519),

Recalling its resolutions 365(1974), 367(1975), 541(1983) and 544(1983),

Deeply regretting the non-implementation of its resolutions, in particular resolution 541(1983),

Gravely concerned about the further secessionist acts in the occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus which are in violation of resolution 541(1983), namely the purported "exchange of Ambassadors" between Turkey and the legally invalid "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" and the contemplated holding of a "Constitutional referendum" and "elections", as well as by other actions or threats of action aimed at further consolidating the purported independent state and the division of Cyprus,

Deeply concerned about recent threats for settlement of Varosha by people other than its inhabitants,

Reaffirming its continuing support for the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus,

1. Reaffirms its resolution 541(1983) and calls for its urgent and effective implementation,

2. Condemns all secessionist actions, including the purported exchange of Ambassadors between Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leadership, declares them illegal and invalid and calls for their immediate withdrawal;

3. Reiterates the call upon all States not to recognise the purported state of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" set up by secessionist acts and calls upon them not to facilitate or in any way assist the aforesaid secessionist entity;

4. Calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, unity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus;

5. Considers attempts to settle any part of Varosha by people other than its inhabitants as inadmissible and calls for the transfer of this area to the administration of the United Nations;

6. Considers any attempts to interfere with the status or the deployment of the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus as contrary to the resolutions of the United Nations;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to promote the urgent implementation of Security Council resolution 541(1983);

8. Reaffirms its mandate of good offices given to the Secretary General and requests him to undertake new efforts to attain an overall solution to the Cyprus problem in conformity with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the provisions for such a settlement laid down in the pertinent United Nations resolutions, including Security Council resolution 541(1983) and the present resolution;

9. Calls upon all parties to cooperate with the Secretary-General in his mission of good offices;

10. Decides to remain seized of the situation with a view to taking urgent and appropriate measures in the event of non-implementation of its resolution 541(1983) and the present resolution;

11. Requests the Secretary-General to promote the implementation of the resolution and to report thereon to the Security Council as developments require.

Adopted at the 2539th meeting by 13 votes to 1 (Pakistan) with 1 abstention (United States of America).

(UNFanatic)

Recent reverts

Although the paragraph starts balanced, the reverts by 85.97.143.5 keep adding POV in the article.it is not a case of contemning the greek-cypriots or the leaders of that time.it is a case of the article to be NPOV.we are talking about a civil unrest,so both communities suffered.--Hectorian 14:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Some Greeks on this article

There are certain Greek POV pushers on this article deleting information just because they don't like what it is saying. Please pay attention to which paragraphs are being deleted and revert. Regards--Kagan the Barbarian 15:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is that if we delete this 'info' is the greek POV.but if we include it, is the turkish POV.i've read the sentences that had been deleted before. they are blaming only the greeks. what are these thirteen amendments to the constitution? maybe it would be better to say that the turkish cypriots regarded it as relegated their status to a minority. there is no source that Makarios violated the constitution. the rest of the paragraph is purely turkish POV: greek officials that mistreated the TCs (without mentioning that Sampson was an object of the greek junta-i.e. an illegal dictatoric government-probably in order to blame all the greeks in general) as if Denktaş had nothing to do with all these! the paragraph goes on saying 1 dead greek policeman and 700 dead turkish cypriots...it was 'civil unrest', not greek police against TCs (do not forget that the cypriot police was 30% TCs-what were they doing at that time?the same as the GCs policemen!-mistreating the GCs)...with such edits the paragraph contranticts itself since it starts by saying 'Tension began'. further down on the article it says 'some of the naturalized anatolian Turks. says who?and naturalized by whom?the TRNC is internationally inrecognised and with 40,000 turkish troops from the mainland. who naturalized them and for whom their papers of naturalization are legal? --Hectorian 16:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Make it NPOV then, don't just delete it. It is important information that explains and reasons the events that led to the division. And stop making Sampson the scapegoat for everything that happened, it is a Greek Cypriot atrocity. I have to leave now.--Kagan the Barbarian 16:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Make it NPOV then, don't just add it. the reasons that lead to the division have surely to be explained. btw,i did not make Sampson the scapegoat for everything that happened. it is your revert that mentions him, not the previous one. and in any case, he was an object of the junta of Athens, this is how he got on power... --Hectorian 16:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the paragraph you seem to be arguing over has come from the Cyprus article, and was originally written by myself, in full it reads:

Tension began in 1963 when Makarios proposed thirteen amendments to the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus. Turkish Cypriots were opposed to the proposal since it relegated their status to a minority, instead of co-founders of the state, whilst also removing their community’s constitutional safeguards. These amendments were largely seen as a move towards Enosis (union with Greece) by Turkish Cypriots. On 21 December 1963, clashes between Turkish Cypriots and Polycarpos Yorgadjis (the Interior Minister) plainclothes special constables left two Turkish Cypriots and one Greek Cypriot policeman dead [8]. Although the ensuing violence led to attacks launched by both communities, Turkish Cypriots had born the brunt of the offensive, leading to 700 Turkish Cypriot hostages being taken and full scale attacks launched by Nicos Sampson against the Turkish Cypriot population [9].

The fighting left 191 Turkish and 133 Greek Cypriots dead and 209 Turks and 41 Greeks missing [10]. Widespread looting of Turkish Cypriot villages led to twenty thousand refugees, relying on food and medical supplies from Turkey to survive. Though much of the initial withdrawal was in the wake of violence, the Turkish Cypriot own paramilitary group exercised influence in preventing some Turkish Cypriots returning to their villages, thus leading to the segregation of the communities.

As you can see i used www.cyprus-conflict.net as my source. It is probably the most impartial source of information on the cyprus conflict on the internet. It is not purely Turkish POV, if you read the included references you will realise that in the early 60's Turkish Cypriots had born the brunt of attacks, and this is acknowledged by independent researchers on that website. --A.Garnet 16:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I had already reverted it before i see your message here...

your edit is balanced enough. and i do not think it is turkish POV that much. but if u see what this article was saying, u will realise that most of what u wrote here was omitted. in the TRNC article there were no dead GCs, no turkish paramilitary, no turkish cypriots not allowing other TCs to go back to their villages...It was largely turkish POV. --Hectorian 16:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the second part or references should not have been ommitted, theres no point trying to paint a one sided view of the conflict. --A.Garnet 16:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is what i meant:ommitting the 2nd part and it is turkish POV. ommitting all and it is greek POV. have both and it is NPOV!would u like to add it?since u are the one who editted it first time in Cyprus article? --Hectorian 17:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. --A.Garnet 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning visiting TRNC

Been there last week (entered from government-controlled South). You must have a passport; the Greeks (or Britons: we entered through a UK-controlled area) don't do anything because they don't recognize your leaving the Republic of Cyprus; the Turks give you a small sheet of paper of a very simple design called "visa" (so they DO demand a visa, they just don't put it into your passport). The guide (a Greek Cypriot) said that if you enter TRNC from Turkey, this means that you recognize the occupation as something legal, and it follows that you WILL be denied entry to the government-controlled part of the island. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article.

Your guide's statement is effectively demonstrated in this sentence from the article:

"Naturalized TRNC citizens or foreigners carrying a passport stamped by the TRNC authorities may be refused entry by the Republic of Cyprus or Greece[citation needed], although after the accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the EU such restrictions have been eased following confidence-building measures betwenn Athens and Ankara and the partial opening of the UN controlled line by the North Cypriot authorities."

When I exited the TRNC, in the summer of 2004, I was simply flagged across the Green Line after I showed the border guards/immigration officials the cover of my American passport. Unfortunately, several British associates who attempted to cross the Green Line a day earlier had not been as lucky. The next day, after a night spent in the Republic, I was stopped by immigration officials while attempting to leave via air. They eventually let me board the plane, but only after a thorough lecture in Greek. --Mingus ah um

Concerning revert by Khoikoi because of alleged Greek POV

I consider the additions and changes made by me to be entirely not POV and the general stance of legal documents issued by the international security council and the international community and other authoritative sources on the 'TRNC'. I Quote from Security council resolution 550/1984: "The security council repeats the call upon all states not to recognise the purported state of the 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' set up by secessionist acts and calls upon them not to facilitate or in any way assist the aforesaid secessionist entity" I based most of my wording in the article on this very authoritative source, writing 'TRNC' instead of just TRNC etc. It is POV to just write TRNC or President of The Republic of Northern Cyprus, the inverted commas indicate that it is purported, as stated and used by the Security council, thus- 'TRNC', 'President' of the 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus'. Other statements I made are easily backed up common sense, one source I have on hand is "In contrast (to the republic- Ed. note), the Turkish dominated Northern Cyprus languishes in economic dependance on its sponsor and guarantor, Turkey, and is neither recognised nor seemingly wanted by the rest of the world community."-Lonely Planed Guide Cyprus I think I have a case and will revert back If you cannot counter my arguments. Globo 08:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Globo, let me explain some things:

The adjective "purported" is unnecessary, as it is not up to Wikipedia to decide whether it is purported or not, it's up to the reader. Furthermore, the way you are using scare quotes is POV. Let me give you some examples:

• Writing "autonomous entities" is to imply that the entities are not autonomous, by Wikipedia's judgement.
• We do not write Operation Iraqi "Freedom" or "Democratic" "People's" Republic of Korea regardless of what we think about them.

Do you see what I mean? You may not see the TRNC as a sovereign state, but they themselves and the gov't. of Turkey certainly do. As I said before, it is not up to Wikipedia to determine what it's status is or not, it's up to the reader. --Khoikhoi 08:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Khoikoi, May I point out that it was not Wikipedia (implying me) who decided on the term purported and the inverted commas, it was the athoritative sources that I based my edit on. If we do not say that the 'TRNC' is purported, which it most certainly is in the eye of the international community, wikipedia is implying to the reader that it is not purported. Wikipedia must point out things that are fact, or as close to it as possible- majority opinion. You must agree with me that adjectives are necessary to describe the nature of things, thus, it is necessary to describe that the TRNC looks and functions like a indepent republic to a certain degree, but is not necessarily one. Fact is that the name Democratic peoples republic of China is unquestionably its officially and internationally recognised title, but the concept of the country being actually democratic can be adressed in the article, including the use of terms such as 'democratic', purportedly democratic etc. Read this from the article Nazism: "the Nazi goal was the unification of all German-speaking peoples, "unjustly" divided into different Nation States. Hitler claimed that nations that could not defend their territory did not deserve it. Slave races he thought of as less worthy to exist than "master races"." Now what can we do here??!! This?: "the Nazi goal was the unification of all German-speaking peoples, unjustly divided into different Nation States. Hitler claimed that nations that could not defend their territory did not deserve it. Slave races he thought of as less worthy to exist than master races." and let the reader form their own opinion?

Now which piece portrays it the best way? Doesn't my modification sound somwhat nazi?! Or is the actual version POV, because it is showing the Nazi POV to be purported and arguable?

The fact on the ground is this: The Turkish and TC POV is that the TRNC is not purported, the rest of the world thinks it is purported. Do we have a majority?!! Saying that the TRNC is a state is TC POV, saying it is a purported state or a 'state' is more balanced, saying it does not exist could be described as Greek POV. Not saying that it is illegal, invalid or purported from the widely accepted international communities stance is omitting information to the reader, and is Turkish POV. And why should the Security council use such a formulation if it where flawed?

Do you get my point?!! 222.153.17.161 11:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited the article and everything I did is factual, can be backed up by sources and taking from official formulations from renowned international bodies such as the UN and the International Security Council. If someone has a problem with it then that must be considered their POV. If someone does go to the unnecessary point of changing my edit it would be appreciated if specific issues are adressed and everything is not just reverted. Everything I added is as close to fact as you can get, and ignoring it is suppressing the truth. And believe me, that edit was not going all the way....! 222.153.17.161 12:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does not necessarily reflect what you see as "fact". Just because you and many other countries do not see something as democratic does not mean that you can put it in scare quotes.

NPOV is not about majority. The opinion of Turkey and the TRNC is definitely significant and prominent enough to carry a good amount of weight. What you see as the truth can be seen as an opinion by others, remember that. --Khoikhoi 22:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

...and thus what you see as the truth can be considered opinion by others. Remember that all information in this world can be considered to be opinion, by what it includes, what it does not include and how it is presented. Wikipedia is not and cannot literally be NPOV, because NPOV does not exist. The fact is that the security council put inverted commas around TRNC and said it was purported, and this is accepted by most of the world. Alea iacta est. And, may I ask why you wrote "fact" and not fact? Maybe because you thought that in this context it is debatable wether it is a fact? Well, is it not in the same way debatable wether the TRNC is a state, has a president, or is The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? Without the inverted commas it looks undebatable, like a widely accepted and totally acceptable fact. Examples such as South Ossetia and Peoples Republic of China dont work against my arguments, the 1st is the name of a area, South Ossetia- undebatable, who would put 'South Ossetia', indicating that it is not South Ossetia, ...???!!! The appropriate name for this article would consequently be Northern Cyprus containing the purported TRNC. The 2nd, Peoples Republic of China is the officially recognised name of the country by the world, it might be debatable wether it is a peoples republic, but the name Peoples Republic of China is not debatable. The term TRNC is debatable and my arguments for having it with inverted commas and for having terms such as 'state' used with inverted commas are easy to back up, as I have done earlier.

AND WOULD PEOPLE PLEASE NOT REVERT TOTALLY NPOV ADDITIONS TO THE ARTICLE!! How is the fact that the new Turkish lira is the official currency of Turkey POV??? How is the fact that the TRNC internet domain is a turkish sub domain POV??? etc etc.....

Thanks, Globo 01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No one brought up the People's Republic of China. The example that I gave was the Republic of China (Taiwan). Currently, only 25 states recognize the name ("Republic of China"), while the rest do not. This is because a state is required to not recognize the Republic of China in order to have diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Nevertheless Wikipedia describes the Republic of China using the name that it itself uses. Please read more carefully.

Interestingly, it is standard practice to use scare quotes in the People's Republic of China whenever one is referring to the Republic of China. E.g, Chen Shui-bian is the "President" of Taiwan; the "Legislative Yuan" is the law-making body in Taiwan; Taipei and Kaohsiung are municipalities under the "Executive Yuan", etc. Nevertheless, neither the English nor the Chinese Wikipedia uses scare quotes. People are free to add these scare quotes in their own heads if they want to. -- ran (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very well, I made a mistake when referring to the Peoples republic of China, I really dont want to go delve into that subject too much. Fact is that 25 nations recognise the Republic of China.Globo 06:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And most of those 25 countries recognize the ROC because the ROC managed to bribe them more handsomely than the PRC could. How does that prove anything?

How about this one?

Central Tibetan Administration

No territory held, no international recognition, not even a claim to independence, yet we put it under its own official name for itself? And I don't see any quotation marks or additional footnotes anywhere either.

-- ran (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this disclaimer really necessary?

The Politics section begins with this note: Note: The TRNC is not recognized by the international community except Turkey and, as such, the terms associated with politics (President, Prime Minister, elections, government, parliament) remain controversial when used in relations to the TRNC (see Cyprus dispute). However, the Turkish Cypriot authorities are internationally recognized as the representatives of the Turkish Cypriot community and negotiate on its behalf.

I think that this statement is ridiculous for two reasons: 1) The controversial nature of the history of the TRNC was well established far earlier in the text of this article; and, 2) regardless of whether the TRNC is recognized by one state or one hundred, there is no debating the fact that it is, in all actuality, a functional democratic entity. This entity has a President, a Prime Minister, a parliament, etc, etc. That is fact. That is what wiki is supposed to record without hiding behind unnecessary disclaimers. However, I'm not going to remove this note until I hear back from some of you, so... let me know what you all think. --(Mingus ah um 21:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)) I agree: there is nothing controversial about who is what in Northern Cypress. The Controversey is Northern Cypress itself and all of that. This just makes it all sound so sillified anyone with any awareness will see it as an anti-Northern Cypress ploy and just laugh at it. Let the facts speak for themselves. Quibbling over what to call the "KKTC's" "president" just makes normal people shake their heads in disbelief at what is essentially a disagreement. It is if I insisted on saying GWBush "President" of the USA, because of the continued controversey on some sides over the US Supreme Court's ruling. One understands frustration. But that just makes this kind of quibbling seem sillier. IMHO.isa kocher 9june2006

I took out the disclaimer. There's nothing controversial about using terms like "president", "election", or even "parliament". The only term mentioned in the disclaimer that might possibly be controversial is "government" but even then the disclaimer is unnecessary because the rest of the article explains the international status of the TRNC. For comparison see the articles Taiwan and Republic of China. --Mathew5000 12:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see that others agreed with me. I am fairly certain that similar disclaimers exist on other TRNC pages... When I have a little time away from work, I will look into removing those as well. --(Mingus ah um 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

Be careful when removing some of them though. While the disclaimer was not necessary in this case, it may well be warrented in other cases. Travelbird 21:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

TRNC flag on Pentadactylos

Just a small note on the flag : it's not really painted on the moountain but rather it consist of thousands of stones painted white or red, which were placed on a field adjacent to the village. But I don't quite know how to phrase that into the article without it being to long/akward. Travelbird 22:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Why are there so many "citation needed" footnotes in the article? Doesn't this discredit some of the information posted?--Theodoros 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And rightfully so, if there's no reference for it, it's not verified. If you want to change something about the information being "discredited", I'd suggest finding some sources. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 13:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nightstallion is correct. In fact, all of our pages should be riddled with 'citation needed' requests, but they only seem to pop up on controversial pages or pages which are on the verge of 'good article' status. --(Mingus ah um 20:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

Tourist Data

I changed the line that read 'Approixmately 300,000 tourists visited North Cyprus last year' to include a citation from the NorthernCypriot ministry of the economy and tourism, the exact number of tourists and to remove the phrase 'last year' as the meaning of that statment will change yearly.

Government site 'officiality is disputed'

An anon editor has recently made this claim 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus government site (has not been updated since 2003 and its officiality is disputed)' in the official links section. Could you please expand on that. If the site isnt official it shouldnt be there, if it is then we need to remove your comment. I would suggest that in future you debate such issues on the talk page rather than editing the article until a concensus is reached. Adam777 14:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to revert that since it's an unreferenced claim. If anyone shows up with some reliable sources about this "officiality dispute" they are welcome to mention it. Take care --Xasf 09:01, 18 July 2006 (GMT+3)

NPOV MIlitary Section

Editor Kaihsu has added a military section which contains nothing but a link to a highly POV article on the Turkish actions in 74. I see this as just another asinine POV edit by a non neutral party. I will revert unless anyone has any better ideas. Adam777 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to correct the article he claimed neutral by cleaning a lot of POV entries and claims. However it's still a mess. I know Turkish Military is still there but also TRNC (KKTC) has its own military. That part could reflect this information with more details. --Gokhan 11:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

VikiProfe KKTC/WikiProject TRNC

VikiProje KKTC tr:Türkçe Vikipedi de başladı./ WikiProject TRNC starting in tr:Turkish Wikipedia.--Absar 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)