Jump to content

Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Reasons for Amendments

  • About the section on immigration: Who on earth seriously maintains that Greece brought 250.000 settlers to Cyprus? If you can't prove these things (i.e. give at least one independent and credible source), then keep your propaganda at home. Also, does the rejection of the Annan plan sound to you any relevant with the settlers? It should be put in some other place in the article.
  • I amended the paragraph below to clarify the difference between Ancient Greeks and modern day Greeks. There is also no need to add Achaeans - it is just like adding Ottoman Turks' probably more so irrelevant. Secondly I took out "Greek way of life" - just what is that exactly? If anyone can bring further light on exactly how the island was changed by the adopted owners please change accordingly. I'd like to see some objective sources, too to read out of interest.
  • Added a cpatial "R" here - The reluctant Republic was seen as a necessary compromise between two communities.
  • I also took out "However, the defeat of the Greek Army came by Kemal Atatürk's (founder of the modern Turkish state) forces in Minor Asia. resulted to ethnic cleansing and fleeing of 1000000 Greek and Armenians residing in Minor Asia." Could someone else clean it up without the obvious Greek nationalist propaganda and add it again?
  • I HAVEN'T CHANGED THIS below - but I think it needs re-thinking in the light of current events [1] -
    • ===Ongoing negotiations===

Despite the demands by the United Nations Security Council for the immediate unconditional withdrawal of all foreign troops from Cyprus soil and the safe return of the refugees to their homes all attempts to reach a negotiated settlement have failed due to Turkish intransigence. (See UN Security Council resolutions 353(1974), 357(1974), 358(1974), 359(1974), 360(1974), 365(1974) endorsing General Assembly resolution 3212(XXIX)(1974), 367(1975), 541(1983), 550(1984).) Turkey defends its position, stating that any such withdrawal would lead to a resumption of intercommunal fighting and killing.

82.145.231.132 10:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Article should not be deleted

I can't believe the comments of TheCatandDog. This guy sure is brainwashed. But then he must belong to the mentality of people that have exiled their own GREEK CYPRIOT documentary filmmaker and writer Antonis Angastiniotis who says the Greek Cypriot media has effectively banned his film "Voice of Blood" he made portraying the mass killing of Turkish Cypriots in the villages of Aloa, Maratha and Sandalari in 1974 (04.11.2004) and now he has to live on the North due to threats on his life. [2] [3] Blue sea 21:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Article should be deleted

As for the deleted article Cyprus_Issue, this page only exists because Argyrosargyrou refuses to cooperate on the currently locked article Cyprus_dispute, whose editing conflict needs to be solved on the corresponding Talk page. It is virtually identical with Argyrosargyrou's last edit on Cyprus dispute and should be deleted

Sorry, but articles cannot be speedily deleted on those grounds. You'll have to use Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. JRM · Talk 11:49, 2005 May 30 (UTC)


I have added information of US involvement in the EOKA B coup to violently depose Makarios and substantiated Turkey's policy of partition and annexation or so-called Taksim.--Argyrosargyrou 00:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a completely impartial observer, I do not consider this article to be worthy of inclusion in any encyclopedia. This is mainly because of the style in which it is written (but there are many parts that need some reference also). My reasoning for deletion is that by the time all the emotive passages have been changed to be purely factual, the whole article would have been re-written. Thus it is best if this article is removed. --Wyrm 00:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

History is a field of science that deals with the universal facts not with erroneous, biased and propagandist thoughts. You seem to forget the massacre of the Turkish people. You dont mention any of this. You can find the photos of slaughtered Turks with just only searching from the google. YOU JUST HAVE TO SEARCH FROM THE GOOGLE!!!!! I believe you can do that and after all you can come out cleansed from your Greek Megala Idea(Whatever you call it) and write on history then. Do not try to broadcast Greek propaganda and PLEASE try to look at some other place than your backyard.

09-02-09 The word invasion in the context of this story is completely incorrect. An invasion implys an offensive action - The Turkish army only entered Cyprus in a defensive action to help prevent the genocide of their people. This is an undisputed fact of the troubles with many first hand examples including those written by Greek Cypriots {Echoes from the Dead Zone - Yiannis Papadakis}. My own family were digging their graves together with the rest of the village (Eski Iskele/Larnaca) when the Turkish troops saved their lives. I would go onto say that the retention of this article is detrimental to the integrity of Wikipedia and its role as an unbiased source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.190.46.162 (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Article should not be deleted

I have done a web search on Google (today) with the search term as "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" and the number of results was 134,000 among them references to many notable historical writings. I see no reason why WP should not have an article by that name. The historical background but also the events between 20 July 1974 to 20 August 1974 (and to this very day) are many and varied and constitute a logical unit in themselves. Of course the Cyprus problem is an issue much wider than the Invasion - but that is how is with history. --Ank99 14:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


reply for "134 000 references"

in Turkey, year:2006. 99% internet users have 256kb internet with 3gb limited (contor)(it is real that most expensive country for internet in the world) so give them a good connection speed (please without limit) and watch the references appear on the net.:)) so your argument doesn't look valid. (sorry I couldn't find the place to write this) I'm from Turkey.

also the article really really really looks greekish (what hmmm??) only looks from one side and for me it is rude. (if we want to know the truth)

plus: I was looking for an anime (comics) which is japanese on the net today. results were all weird because I don't know japanese. and I couldnt find the things that I can understand on my language or english. I mean English is not sole language in the world. maybe the "historicak writings" which you couldn't find are on a different language. so you couldn't find them.

regards...

oops... an invasion we also don't accept the word "invasion" it was a "peace operation" to protect our people. also I saw so many historical writings which say exactly the wiki's current article.

---A peace operation usually, if not always, is initiated, carried out and withdrawn within a matter of months. Turks have been haunting Cyprus with their pointless and burdensome existence on the island for 35 years now. I would hardly say that their initial or subsequent intentions had anything at all to do with providing peace for Cyprus. In any case, the history between Greece and Turkey proves that neither country was ever interested in the well-being of the other and the Turks are not known for their selfselness or altrusim so permit me to doubt your belief that they rushed off to sacrifice their soldiers for the sake of a nation in need of peace. If anything, the only reason why they would land on the shores of Cyprus would have something to do with their own benefits: land, material gain, financial benefits, strong alliances and a strategically important area for their armies to take over.

Vandalism

This page was vandalised by 172.200.39.163 and contains series POV factual errors introduced by 172.200.39.163 and irrelevant material about the EOKA campaign in the 1950's written from a pro-Turkish POV already discussed in the Cyprus dispute page, which should be removed.--TheCatandDog 21:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Treaty of Guarantee of the Republic of Cyprus did not ban economic union with any other country or other body since Cyprus has been in economic union with all the members of the EU since the 1990's.

Article 2 Paragraph 4 strictly prohibits any kind of foreign intervention in Cyprus internal affairs and thefore the Treaty of Guarantee cannot be used justify unilateral military action.

The Akritas paln did not seek to end the Republic in any way nor did it intend to suppress Turkish Cypriot reaction. It proposed the avoidance of force except to counter terrorist actions.

The Greek Army did not invade Turkey in the early 1920's. First of all there was no such place as Turkey at the time and secondly the Treaty of Sevres gave the western coast of Asia-Minor to Greece. How can Greece invade its own territory whcih it was mandated to protect again genocidal aggression by Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) who violated the treaty and started massacring Greek and Armenian civilians. What happened in Asia-Minor in the 1920's is irrelevant to the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus in 1974.

The idea of Enosis is already covered in the Cyprus dispute page as the EOKA campaign. The section on "EOKA Violence" is a totaly inaccurate and inappropriate pro-Turkish anti-Greek hated filled rant. EOKA did not kill 500 Turkish in 1963 nor did it burn down any Turkish villages. This page is about the Turkish invasion Cyprus not about what occurred a decade earlier.

EOKA-B did not kill 2000 Greek Cypriots in 1974 and these deaths were not added to the total of missing persons. This is yet another anti-Greek, Turkish lie. All the persons killed by EOKA which numbered only a few dozen have all been accounted for.

There was no massacres in Murat Aga and Sandallar whatsoever. The only Turkish Cypriots killed in 1974 died in combat and there is no evidence to the contrary.

ChrisO should be banned from having access to this page since he has proven himself to be a Greek hating Turkish apologist who has reinstated this badly written inaccurate and insulting Turkish hate filled propaganda repeatedly despite repeated warnings for him to stop--TheCatandDog 22:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ohhh yeaah. Even there was no greek attack on Turks. There wasnt a single Turk living on the island. Even there was no a military action.Is there an island over there? Who cooked this bullshit up? Initially, there was only a cloud of dust and then it exploded right?

Who is claiming that? I have never seen such a stupid allegation which wasn't based on any reliable or credible source.

There was no.......There was no....There was no Go and wash your face and think twice before fooling yourself here.

Wolverine

reply for this one from someone different. it is a fact that the greek army invaded İzmir(a city in Turkey) on 15 May 1919. you don't know a basic historical fact but if someone says something different than you call this vandalism. this is not fair. .... owww. your writings full of wrong information so it cannot be fixed like I triying to do. (you don't count this as a vandalism, do you? if so you delete this. but it is not) every organism try to make sure its completeness. like you do, we do. so we never see the subject the same.

To all three above editors: Please try to keep this discussion as civil as possible. Remember that the wikipedia community asks that editors Assume Good Faith and Keep it Cool when editing gets hot. This is apparently a controversial topic, so please try to stick to WP:NPOV. The article was nominated for deletion and the decision of the community was to keep it and try to make it as NPOV as possible. It is understandable that concerning a controversial topic such as this, facts in themselves are disputed, so the goal of every well-intended wikipedian is to present the different versions of facts in a neutral way and let the reader deside for himself what opinion he should hold regarding the matter. Please try to avoid including every aspect of the greco-turkish dispute there has ever been and focus on discussion of this particular issue. There is no point whatsoever in an article about the events of 1974 to discuss weather Greece invaded Turkey in 1922 or weather Kemal was good or bad. Such discussions should take place at the respective articles' talk pages, not here. For the shake of readability of this page it would also be preferable if you would not use separating lines for each comment, as they fragment the particular discussion, and to sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Wikipedia is not a battleground so please do not turn it into one. -- Michalis Famelis 17:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The Treaty of Sevres gave Otterman terrioty to Greece, but Greece worried about the nationist army under Attaturk invaded far past the region which had been given to Greece.

Attaturk maintained that the Treaty of Sevres was not legitimate as the nationist goverment (who by that time controlled most of the country apart from Istanbul), was not consulted.

The Greece push into the hinterland of Turkey was repulsed and the Greek army was driven into the sea.


Proof Prior to 1974, there were a series of UN resolution which condemned the Greek Cypriot government, and set up UN peace keeping operations on the Island to stop the inter ethnic violence.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=26223&cat_id=1

No side can claim innocence is this bloody tradedgy...

I'm sorry Michalis but I have to remind some people, who do not have any idea about the history, the very basic fact that the Greek Army did invade the Ottoman land subsequent to the Treaty of Sevres and what M.Kemal and his friends did was not by any means killing innocent Armenians or Greek civillians but to secure the safety and freedom of the innocent people who were targeted by the Greek Army and other imperialist powers. These are historical facts that noone can claim otherwise. For example; before fleeing from Izmir, last remaining Greek soldiers started the fire in September, 1922 which caused the city of Izmir to burn for hours and destroy most of its buildings and kill lost of innocent people. Please, for God's sake, base your information on true historical facts and do not give misinformation that turns the facts into lies. --E138257 13:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Right,.................and where are your facts? El Greco (talk · contribs) 16:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont want to make this last forever, but let me tell you something, I can show you a bunch of references and facts, but then these will also be disputed and questioned. There is no end to this, my suggestion is you have to search and question the arguments yourself and reach the conclusion which is free from any political, historical or cultural prejudices. Antonis Angastiniotis was successfull in doing that for example; unfortunately, though, some of his writings and films were banned by "some others". --E138257 19:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Another POV fork

Argyrosargyrou has created another POV fork of this article at The Turkish Invasion of Cyprus - I've redirected it here and protected the page to prevent him recreating it. -- ChrisO 23:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


This is the original posting. It needs a major overhaul for factual consistency and NPOV. I will post it twice, one to show the original, and the second one to be modified by members in order to be reposted.K... 00:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

EOKA Violence

File:A typical example of EOKA slogans painted on town walls by students.jpg
EOKA Slogans

The objective of EOKA [4] was to drive the British out of the island first and then integrate the island to Greece by destroying the Turkish community with a massive annihilation. EOKA initiated its activities by planting the first bombs on 1 April 1951 with the directive by Greek Foreign Minister Stefanopulos.

The first secret talks for EOKA as a terrorist organization [5] established to destroy the Turkish public in Cyprus and integrate the island to Greece, were started in the chairmanship of Makarios in Athens on 2 July 1952. In the aftermath of these meetings, a "Council of Revolution" was established on 7 March 1953. In early 1954, secret weaponry shipment to Cyprus started to the knowledge of the Greek government. Grivas covertly disembarked on the island on 9 November 1954. EOKA's campaign of terrorism [6] was properly under way.

Assaults on Turks began on 21 June 1955.

In 1963, EOKA restarted its acts, killing over 500 Turks, burning down 103 Turkish villages and forcing tens of thousands of Turks to migrate. Now a secretive organisation and going by the name of EOKA-B, in the Sampson coup on 15 July 1974, EOKA members this time pointed their weapons to their own community, killing 2,000 Greek cypriots who were Makarios supporters. These dead and missing were later to be added on to the casualties of Turkish invasion, so as to be used for Greek propaganda.

EOKA Violence Modified

File:A typical example of EOKA slogans painted on town walls by students.jpg
EOKA Slogans

The objective of EOKA [7] was to drive the British out of the island first and then integrate the island to Greece by destroying the Turkish community with a massive annihilation. EOKA initiated its activities by planting the first bombs on 1 April 1951 with the directive by Greek Foreign Minister Stefanopulos.

The first secret talks for EOKA as a terrorist organization [8] established to destroy the Turkish public in Cyprus and integrate the island to Greece, were started in the chairmanship of Makarios in Athens on 2 July 1952. In the aftermath of these meetings, a "Council of Revolution" was established on 7 March 1953. In early 1954, secret weaponry shipment to Cyprus started to the knowledge of the Greek government. Grivas covertly disembarked on the island on 9 November 1954. EOKA's campaign of terrorism [9] was properly under way.

Assaults on Turks began on 21 June 1955.

In 1963, EOKA restarted its acts, killing over 500 Turks, burning down 103 Turkish villages and forcing tens of thousands of Turks to migrate. Now a secretive organisation and going by the name of EOKA-B, in the Sampson coup on 15 July 1974, EOKA members this time pointed their weapons to their own community, killing 2,000 Greek cypriots who were Makarios supporters. These dead and missing were later to be added on to the casualties of Turkish invasion, so as to be used for Greek propaganda.

At least we must put EOKA-B to the combatants section in the box and we have to talk about their harsh methods that they used on Turks. Deliogul 21:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Operation Atilla

I had established earlier a (hopefully NPOV) page called Operation Atilla, which described the invasion/intervention/peace operation (take your pick) in a more detached manner. This site is GC-POV to the core and in my opinion, should be heavilly editted to bring it into line. I know that my pro-TC stance makes such an appeal laughable in a lot of persons eyes, but one thing that I have learned about this issue is that if one wants to make a better impression on the casual reader, then one should be more 'politically correct'. -- User:Expatkiwi

Operation Attila Article is not accurate

If the Attila Op article wished to establish a NPOV page it would not term the series of UN referendums as simple legalities. Instead it should explicitly refer to the destruction, the death of approximately 5000 Greek Cypriots, the 1519 GC Missing persons, numerous other attrocities and the more than 200 000 GC refugees. Turkey committed a crime against humanity in 1974, this crime was recognized and condemned by the UN. Turkey should seek redemption for this mistake by facilitating a peaceful solution. This solution needs to be fair and viable taking into consideration that Cyprus is a member of E.U, under which human rights are guaranteed. Turkey is currently negotiating for EU admittance. It is my strong belief that armies no longer serve a purpose on the island. All that is needed is a capable police force and a strict legal framework to contain and deter nationalistic and fanatic elements, which are currently the vast minority in both communities, from destabilizing Cyprus. Any solution should aim to demilitarization and administrative unification of the island in a federate or confederate form.

Placing article for deletion

The article is still a POV fork of Cyprus dispute and Operation Atilla. This article should only be concerned with the physical aspects of the invasion (which exists in Operation Atilla), not the political aspects (which exist in Cyprus dispute). I've put the Vfd tag up but am going to remove it for the moment until i can work out how to link it to a fresh vote instead of its archive. --A.Garnet 16:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If you do ever put this terrible article up for deletion let me know as I totally agree with you. Adam777 15:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo license

All pics used in the article are from www.hellas.org . A greek military archive site. It is a public domain. Nestore 03:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

to provide neutrality of this page the term "intervention" must be used instead of "invasion".--Hattusili 22:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality is achieved if the views of the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights prevail. Thus, since they term it an 'invasion', it must be referred to as an invasion. Well, one way or another, a masacre of thousands of people and the confiscation of their private property can only be seen an a bloody, barbaric invasion and not merely an 'intervention'.

Ps. Since I have studied the Constitution of 1960 and I have also read law, I can assurre you that there was nothing 'legal' in the barbaric invasion of 1974. If someone disagrees I am willing to explain to him why he is wrong.

The use of the word barbaric clearly demonstrates that your views are not impartial so i am unsure how you can contribute appropriately to a factual piece. ________________________


Ok, as far as I see, you are calling this intervention "barbaric" mostly depending on your prejudices like seeing everything that has something to do with Turkish people as "barbaric". However, you need to research a little bit harder though to get the facts: here you go:

"With the decision taken by the Supreme Court of Athens on March 21st, 1979, The Turkish intervention was approved to be "legal" according to the fourth article of the Treaty of Guarantee. Besides, The Council of Europe accepted that the Turkish intervention was right and on fair grounds with the article numbered "873" which was taken on July 29th, 1974."

Therefore, those articles approved suggest that what happened in the island was not an "invasion", but an "intervention", which had to be carried away. And we should not forget one thing; there were lots of casulties on both sides; who attacked first with hate, anger, and with the feeling of revenge? --E138257 01:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

--- Hatutilisi You are a propagandist Greek Cypriot. "Barbaric Invasion"? Greek Cypriots killing Turkish Cypriots was barbaric, not a peace keeping operation by Turkey as the Gauranteer of Cyprus. The article has now been fixed a bit to provide a more neutral approach, telling people that there is TWO SIDES TO THIS STORY NOT ONE as this article suggests. YOU CANNOT SAY ONE SIDE IS 100% RIGHT without doing research. And whoever made this article, is a stupid propagandist, that links to Propaganda sites that support THEIR view. Arsenic99 01:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Was the Annan plan a Apartheid system?

I beleive that the following section is POV

"It is also revealed by the system of apartheid or racial segregation that formed the basis of the Annan Plan which the government of Cyprus claims was devised in order to meet all of Turkeys key demands."

This also contridicts the article on the Annan plan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annan_plan

From what I understand the Annan plan was based upon the Swiss federal system, and a comparison to South African Apartheid is both not true and unhelpful. Both the Greek and the Turkish government backed the plan. --- Additional Note:

The elected authority on TRNC also endorsed the plan where as the Greek Cypriot government undermined the approval succedingly.

Please can this comment be removed from the main article.

Also in reply to the above, "bloody massacres" of Turks happened as well, and were just as barbaric as the invasion. No side can really claim to be the innocent party in this tradegy.


PLEASE READ THIS

The reason I believe the word "apartheid" is used is because of your ethnic background, and through no personal fault of your own, you would be banned legally from living in certain areas of the Island. In fact if I take myself as an example (as someone of Greek Cypriot background)If I lived in a future supposedly "reunified" Nicosia It would be possible to conceive of a situation where I was able to live in one apartment block for instance, however the one across the street which falls under Turkish Cypriot administration, I would not be able to buy into , or even rent. If I was a foreigner German, Ukrainian or of Mongolian background however I could live wherever I liked on the Island. Does this situation make any sense? SOUNDS LIKE APARTHEID TO ME?! Would there be signs on all the buildings telling me "No Greeks or Greek Cypriots", because otherwise I would get confused wouldn't I, since there will be no physical barriers anymore within a "normal" functioning city... so how would I know whats off limits when the city heals physically.

To show how ridiculous the situation would be, imagine if I married a German ( or a Turk, Russian....)and we had children. Ah! then the children would be say 1/4 Greek Cypriot. Would the children be able to live in the north. No?, well, maybe if they were 1/8 Greek Cypriot then it would be ok.....provided you gave in a DNA sample. But then of cause, politicians would not allow this as it would show that Greek and Turkish Cypriots are much more similar than they would like us to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.181.253 (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


--SolDrury 13:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The actual military operation

How come the article has so little information on the actual military operation that carried out the invasion? It seems that the amphibious invasion of an island across a 75 km body of water is quite an impressive feat of logistics and power projection, yet the article mentions it only in passing and mostly focuses on the history and politics of the region, and it doesn't even mention the number of troops involved. --Yuje 00:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually did not see this suggestion, but i have suggested the same thing below. This article should be dealt as a militay operation, not a political issue. --A.Garnet 09:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I would like to know more too about the military aspects. If anyone is in the know then please modify the article. Wikiphyte 01:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

POV issues

  • The result of this invasion was the creation of an illegal Turkish breakaway state in the North and the ethnic cleansing of 250,000 Greek-Cypriots who lived in the North. - Accurate figure is 160,000, also at least 50,000 TC's were disposessed.
  • Turkey reneged on the treaties which bound it and began a campaign of state sponsored terrorism against the majority of Cypriots both Christians and Muslims that wanted independence and democracy(citation needed). This was synchronised with a Turkish government orchestrated campaign to exterminate the indigenous Greeks of Asia-Minor and Istanbul. In November 1957 the Turkish Resistance Organization was formed by Rauf Denktash, and was funded and trained by Turkey. What treaties? What state sponsored terrorism?
  • In reply the TMT declared war on the Greek Cypriots as well. However, the TMT did not target only Greeks but also some Turkish Cypriots workers who were in favour of peace and independence of the island. After a joint mass demonstration by Greek and Turkish Cypriots, the TMT began murdering Turkish trade union members - TMT declared war on GC's? citation?
  • It also began a string of assassinations and murders of prominent Turkish Cypriot supporters of independence. citation needed.
  • In the process about 200,000 Greek Cypriots who made up 82% of the population in the north became refugees Again figure is more like 160,000.
  • Human rights violations - no mention of the Tokhni massacres.

Both GC and TC POV in this article, if i had it my way, i would refer all information prior to 1974 to Cyprus dispute which is far better written. This article should deal specifically with the military aspect of the operation, such as Battle of Normandy. As i have said, the political dimension is covered far better in Cyprus dispute. --A.Garnet 09:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ipso facto the invasion of Cyprus was a political issue. The aggressor/invador Turkey claims that even as we speak by "Peace Operation". Something like "we didnt go to war" we went to save/liberate (sounds familiar?) the Turk Cypriots by killing others . 80.250.128.5 10:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)dogeatDOG

Yes, and there is an article on the political aspect here: Cyprus dispute - written much better than this one i might add. --A.Garnet 11:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, personally i disagree with the idea. And if i may add, I think you are trying to push POV in an attempt to merely decriminalize Turkey. (The ostrich thinks that all the problems are gone as soon as he puts his head in the sand). Please, fellow Turks should not try to force third parties to behave like Ostriches). The reader should be able to read through this article both the political and the operational aspect of the invasion.

Btw why dont you write about the actual military operations instead of debating how this should be deleted?

Regards, dogeatDOG


I just edited a rv by Telex. Firstly there were not 250,000 GCs moved from the north it was closer to 160,000. Secondly if we are going to include the results of the invasion then lets also mention that the TCs then could live without deadly greek attacks. There ARE two sides of this story people. You bloody nationalists should be out marching somewhere instead of corrupting Wikipedia, bloody kids. Adam777 11:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"In order to carry through the policies of imperialism, it was necessary to smash the will of the working class whose attitude in favour of fraternity, peace and independence was an obstacle." - ???

This article should be deleted

This article deals with everything except the actual invasion by Turkey. It deals with the events before 74 and after but not one word about the military action itself. There are horrible POV instances on both sides of the argument. I am going to propose it for deletion. We should have an article on the invasion but this one isnt it. Does anyone have a valid reason for keeping this rotten article on wikipedia. Adam777 12:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This article was originally a POV fork from Cyprus dispute by a now banned Greek Cypriot user. I think it has a place, but only as a military operation and should be rewritten. --A.Garnet 14:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, personally i disagree with the idea. And if i may add, I think you are trying to push POV in an attempt to merely decriminalize Turkey. (The ostrich thinks that all the problems are gone as soon as he puts his head in the sand). Please, fellow Turks should not try to force third parties to behave like Ostriches). The reader should be able to read through this article both the political and the operational aspect of the invasion.

Btw why dont you write about the actual military operations instead of debating how this should be deleted? Regards, dogeatDOG80.250.128.5 14:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha you accuse ME of bias then YOU vandalize the article. You hypocrite. By the way me old bubble n squeek I am not Turkish, your bile is misplaced. To answer your question, there is an article on wikipedia about the actual invasion, this heading should be merged with it. PLus how is actually stating HOW Turkey invaded 'decriminalizing' the invasion, hypocrisy again methinks. Adam777 16:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not proposing to delete this article, i said it should be rewritten. If i had time, there is a lot i would like to change on Wikipedia, but unfortunately can only make my opinion heard at the moment. --A.Garnet 14:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


MY post above wasnt aimed at you A.Garnet it was aimed at the anon editor who signs his posts dogeatDog (I dont think he knows how to open an account). He accused me of bias just after vandalizing the article. I also think this article is not very good but Hellenic nationalism doesnt see reason when it comes to anything related to Cyprus. Adam777 19:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Invasion?

From [10]:

"In July 1974, the military junta in Athens sponsored a coup led by extremist Greek Cypriots against the government of President Makarios, citing his alleged pro-communist leanings and his perceived abandonment of enosis. Turkey, citing the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, intervened militarily to protect Turkish Cypriots."

I see it referred to as an invasion in all related articles. If the US government agrees that it was an intervention, doesn't that raise a flag?

---An intervention may imply requested and even welcome help or it may imply interference that is not appreciated or even unwanted. An invasion always has and always will refer to an intrusive form of interference/intervention, occasionally mixed with connotations regarding the interventor's personal benefits. So, I suppose the most suitable word for what Turkey did really depends on how one views the entire thing. Personally, given the fact that my I know someone who was right there when the Turks attempted to come ashore and were repeatedly pushed back, I would say the Turkish intervention/invasion was not quite welcome by the islanders. But that's just me and I am Greek Cypriot so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.209.66.41 (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

pov tag

Please do not remove the tag, pov issues not resolved with this article. Still reads like a pov fork of Cyprus dispute. --A.Garnet 13:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

160k or 200k

The citation I have provided from the Cypriot Government clearly states the figure of displaced GCs at 160,000. If people want to keep inflating the figure with other, less accurate, citations please can they discuss it first. Or doesnt the ROC government know how many of its citizens were displaced. Ugly petty nationalism again....how very surprising! Adam777 19:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at these citations and then; you tell me:

  1. Republic of Cyprus
  2. Republic of Cyprus
  3. Republic of Cyprus
  4. Republic of Cyprus
  5. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
  6. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights once again
  7. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Greece
  8. Even aljazeraah if it interests you
  9. Washington Post
  10. Guardian UK
  11. MIT
  12. Federal Research Division
  13. BBC
  14. Hellenic News
  15. US Embassy
  16. UN
  17. Milnet
  18. CNN

All of them state 200,000 displaced Aristovoul0s 15:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the citations that is present now is from a Greek Cypriot POV (Greek embassy website? duh) and the other has no reference to such numbers whatsoever (hence I'm not even sure why its there...) Please either present a non-POV citation or remove the entire section. Furthermore, it should be made clear if these are deaths, displacements, etc... The current wording of "ethnic cleansing" is once again misleading and not non-POV. Thanks.81.215.13.145 07:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

According to a UN report dated 9 June 1975 (UN Doc. S/11717, par.34, quoted in the European Concil of Human Rights Decision in the first and second interstate application Cyprus v. Turkey, par.105) the total number of displaced Greek Cypriots by that date (June 1975) was 182.000, so I think that for the moment we can use that figure, unless somebody can come up with a more authoritative estimate. If there are no better opinions, I will change the figure accordingly. The use of the term ethnic cleansing is clearly accurate and non-Pov. Ethnic cleansing has been defined by the Commission of Experts established by the Security Council of the United Nations (S/25274) as "rendering an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area" and this accurately describes Turkish actions in Cyprus in the period 1974-6 (look for example at the Sunday Times summary of the ECHR decision at http://www.lobbyforcyprus.org/press/press1998-1940/suntimes230177.htm). If you think that the term is not accurate, misleading or not NPOV, please explain why. Larisv 10:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For the term ethnic cleansing, it popularized itself during the Balkan wars of the 90s and is always in comparison with the term "genocide" which is not the case here, and therefore both terms being inappropriate. If the UN says 182.000 Greeks are "displaced" then why not use the term "displaced"?

And for the references. They mostly point to the same Greek POV websites. These sites summarize the actual facts, but again, do so in a Greek POV. If you could reproduce the same, complete UN article you are referring to, then I'll be more than happy to support the facts. 81.215.13.145 10:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User 'Mitsos'

Need to keep an eye on this user as any posts that conflict with his opinion are being reverted. I doubt if the article will ever be truly balanced as passions run so high. Nevertheless it should at least try and recognise that there was suffering on both sides: before, during and after. At the moment any change that even suggests that the Turkish population suffered is immediately deleted - this isn't on.

It's MITSOS. Mitsos 14:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL

While reading this article I clicked on the Turkish interwiki link, and look what I found! The article is entitled the "Cyprus Peace Operation" (LOL) and the combatants are supposedly Turkey vs Greece and the "Greek Sector of Southern Cyprus" (büyük LOL).Thulium 14:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that wording offensive to those more colourful Turkish Wikipedians who think there should be no "Greek" sector on Cyprus at all? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
As much as your an expert on what Turkish people "think", how is this discussion relevant to the article? If any of you want to provide some of your in depth and expert analysis on Turkish affairs there are plenty of forums out there for you. --A.Garnet 19:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually the whole world saw it as a conflict between Turkey and Greece, couldn't find the cover of that old TIME magazine on Wikipedia, it depicts the Cyprus issue as a war between both countries. Since everybody is sharing their opinions about the other party, I think Greeks consider Cyprus a humiliating defeat, that's why trying to avoid the use of their name in the conflict, instead on the combatants we see "Greek military junta", as if they are invaders from Mars and have nothing to do with Greece. Plus we see Cyprus next to the Greek junta, as if whole Cyprus fought against Turkey, as if Cyprus consists of only Greeks. Cheers. Sen LOL'lamaya devam et, kuzeyde dalgalanan Türk bayrağı.--Doktor Gonzo 14:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The difference being of course that the junta was not representative of the Greek people, having usurped power in a CIA-inspired military coup, and its actions have been and continue to be roundly condemned in Greece since the metapolitefsi. On the other hand, most Turks enthusiastically endorse their government's thuggery on Cyprus from 1974 to the present day. Until such attitudes begin to change, the Cyprus problem will continue to fester. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, not Martians, CIA men. Whether junta or a democratically elected party, it is still Greece, pal. You don't see the Argentinian military junta as the combatant in the Falklands War infobox, you see Argentina. What about Cyprus as the combatant at the side of the junta? Still the "Cyprus is Greek" thingy? Of course we were and still are behind the Turkish intervention in Cyprus, you don't get it.--Doktor Gonzo 18:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not your pal, matey. As soon as the junta collapsed, Karamanlis decided against pursuing an armed confrontation with Turkey, so your claim that there was a war between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus is disingenuous. As for your second point, Turkey invaded and occupied sovereign territory of the Republic of Cyprus. Whatever you happen to think about the "Greek Régime of Southern Cyprus" is irrelevant, frankly. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you prefer matey to pal? That old British influence coming out again. Greece didn't intervene in Cyprus not because she didn't want to but because she couldn't. Greek army couldn't even fly an aircraft over the island because of the distance. And after seeing Greeks still today claiming Cyprus Greek and all this hostility, I more strongly believe the intervention was one of the most correct decisions Turkey took in the last couple of decades. --Doktor Gonzo 10:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
"Do as I say, not as I do"; the eternal principle. Turks condemn the evils of the Megali Idea, but when they follow similar expansionist policies, it's OK. Greeks have long shaken off such ways of thinking (the border with Albania has been recognized at last); when will Turkey recognize the sovereignty of Cyprus? BTW Gonzo, Türklerin sorunlari Kibris ancak degildir; enflasion, Kürtler, Ege sorunu ve tabii Avrupa Birliginin istemleri daha önemli sorunlardir. Merak etiyor musun?--Domitius 16:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Turkey does not have expansionist policies. Cyprus was first and foremost a security issue to Turkey, not part of an ideological drive to expand. Just as Greece was willing to undermine the integrity of Cyprus and so threaten Turkey's southern flank, so too was Turkey willing to employ the same tactics in defending its own security. However, inlike Greece who has gone through five phases of expansion (seven if you count Smyrna and Cyprus attempt) since its creation, Turkey was founded on a policy of strictly abandoning its Ottoman past. --A.Garnet 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Domitius, it is open to discussion who has the expansionist goals in this geography. Turks feel the same kind of threat from its neighbours. Turkish Republic was built in accordance to the Kuvayi Milliye haritası/map, it is clear what Turkish forces were fighting for since day one, nothing is secret. I don't consider the intervention in Cyprus an expansionist move, and frankly no Turk I know of does. Once in a while, just like in Greece, there are some less intelligent who shout "We will take them all" but I assure you, since the foundation of the Republic, none of them has come to power in this country, especially not in the military. For the Turkish part: Valla Türkiyenin sorunları o kadar çokki, Yunanistan'ın bilet alıp sıraya girmesi lazım.--Doktor Gonzo 19:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
So Turks do not consider the invasion of Cyprus the implementation of expansionist designs against a sovereign state? To me that situation with the Megali Idea are identical, the aim is the same: to liberate people of the same nation and to unite them with the nation state. That still is expansionism, whatever the ethnic composition of the coveted territories and whatever people in Turkey or Greece choose to call it.--Domitius 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course they don't. According to the Turkish mentality, it isn't expansionism when it's directed against former Ottoman territories, as these lands rightfully belong to them and/or were wrongfully taken away from them in the first place. Hence the persistent Turkish violations in the Aegean and the absurd concept of "grey zones", and the recent kerfuffle over the "Turkish Republic of Western Thrace" garbage on the Turkish education ministry website. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, the Aegean is a strategic concern, not part of an expansionist policy. Turkey's only interest is in keep the Aegean open to its fleet. If it was about expansion, then those islands would have been flying a Turkish flag long ago. --A.Garnet 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
How very kind of you. Again, your rants are indicative of your true loyalties, which certainly aren't to Cyprus. Keep up the good work. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's drop the trivialities and talk about some serious stuff: who is going to win on Saturday? Baristarim 01:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
We all know the answer to that. This is all part of the build-up. ;) ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As usual Kekrops I am basing my observations on studied facts, and you are basing yours on rhetoric. I happen to study Turkish foreign policy, these are not rants, but observations based on traditional state interests. If Turkey is a neo-imperialist state, which according to you is proved by its position in the Aegean, then why has it not annexed a single Aegean island? Now who is the one ranting? --A.Garnet 01:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Turkey is not as omnipotent as you think. The reason that it has not annexed a single Aegean island is because it simply cannot. It has however tested the waters several times, most notably during the Imia incident, and failed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I also note that the Turks' loud grunting on the annexation of northern Cyprus in the event of the island's accession to the EU proved to be nothing but hot air. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You dont half speak bollocks my friend. According to you, Turkey's Ottoman expansionism is proven by a dispute over a small uninhabited rock in the Aegean? Please, if that was the case, then I dont think you have much to fear from this new empire. The real problem here is that Greece and Greek Cypriots still educate their children to regard Turkey and the Ottomans as one and the same, as an aggresive and expansionist power, meanwhile dismissing their own history of continued expansion until defeat a few kilometers from Ankara. --A.Garnet 02:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the territorial acquisitions resulting from Greek expansionism were illegitimate? Ankara itself regards Turkey and the Ottomans as one and the same when it sings the praises of the "Turkish Republic of Western Thrace" on its education ministry's website and lays claim to an undefined number of islands in the Aegean over which it argues Ottoman sovereignty was never interrupted. Bollocks, indeed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Guys, could you all please stop your off-topic political debates? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok honestly, what we Turks need to do is work harder, think brighter, bring out the true potential of this country, make it a better place. There is no way we can beat Greeks in the talking category for sure, look ahead, less talk, more work.--Doktor Gonzo 11:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Very flattering for Turks, what you just said. Sure, sure, if you're indeed incapable of proper discourse then sharpen those swords and chop few heads, why don't you. Oh and pee around a bit to mark your territory too, since, after all, talking is no option. Very civilised indeed. Did you think at all when you wrote this? You're an embarrassment to all Turks globally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.137.231 (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Irnia Kardak you mean? two pieces of rock, greece tried to invade (but as usual went back saying i will tell you to my brothers but brothers were not there this time, i wonder why?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.92.149 (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Larisv

Larisv, the into should be a general overview of the conflict. To neutralise the refugee statements would require too much elaboration, i.e. the recognition by the ECHR of the Turkish Cypriot property commission as an effective means of redress, or the legal obstacles in front of TC's wishing to return to their property (e.g. 6 month stay in the RoC). You cannot simply say Turkey is preventing refugees from returning without explaining the full situation, it is factually incorrect and pov pushing. I moved one of the sources mentioning condemnation of Turkey to the human rights section, one is enough for this. --A.Garnet 01:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A. Garnet, you are vandilizing this page. The Greek Cypriots were forcibly expelled from the occupied areas and have been prevented from returning. This is a fact. That is what the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights have ruled in six separate judgements so far, it is implicit in all the relevant resulutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council of the UN. So, yes, I can simply say that Turky is preventing the refugees from returning. If you have a reliable independent source that can veriy, elaborate, explain or back up what you are saying above, then by all means include it in the narrative as another statement of fact, plain and simple. You simply cannot go about removing sourced factual statments from this article just because you don't like them. Larisv 02:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that some GC that have sought restitution for their pre 74 property via the norths property comission have recived and accepted either compensation or return. For a referance to such here is one http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=29489&archive=1 Erolz 04:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a fact. It is also a fact that the European Court of Human Rigts has yet to rule as to whether the provisions regulating the property commission are indeed in line with the European Convention of Human Rights, not does it negate the findings of the European Court of Human Rights that the entire Greek Cypriot population was expelled or prevented from returning to their homes and properties in the Turkish Occupied Areas in contravention to the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights. Larisv 02:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

while arranging this article ı think you didnt use any neutral article.And it is impartial,also used one of the sides,greek documents.

Pogrom

The notion that the Turks orchestrated the 1955 pogrom against the Greeks in order to promote peace on Cyprus is sickening and apologist and will be reverted at the earliest opportunity. Cheers. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to keep the editorializing out of that sentence until the section can be ironed out later on.. If anything, a different sentence could be added to give a link to the intercommunal violence article - without commenting on its relation to the pogrom - at least for the time being. I am also at 3rr. Baristarim 18:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually that's how it came out because of Domitius whose main contribution to Wikipedia is reverting edits by Turkish Wikipedians and protecting the Greek ones (and often Armenian). What happened was to deter "violence towards Turkish Cypriots", it was also triggered by the bombing of Mustafa Kemal's house in Selanik. I had to put "intercommunal violence" instead of that because I didn't want to be bothered with Greek censorship at that moment. But what I of course meant was GC agression towards TCs.--Doktor Gonzo 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Plus Before my edit, the sentence read the event was to deter the independence of Cyprus. Still, still, still the Cyprus is Greek thing; we will not have any kind of agreement unless you acknowledge the politic existence of Turkish Cypriots.--Doktor Gonzo 16:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you condone the Istanbul Pogrom? Your edit effectively attempts to justify it, and such apologist garbage simply won't survive here. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's not get carried away please. Everyone, take a deep breath :))) Baristarim 23:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but saying that Greeks were attacked elsewhere in order to deter them from attacking Turks in Cyprus is like saying that Hrant Dink was killed to deter other Armenians from speaking out on the Genocide. It might be the POV of many Turks, but it's just not on. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 02:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, don't worry. However, there is no need to get offended - maybe that was the intention, but it is just a statement of fact, that doesn't mean I wouldn't agree that it was wrong. See what I mean? In any case, I don't know the intricate politics behind the pogrom (Cyprus? Money? Property? Religion? Some other geopolitical whatever?).. My grandfather actually told me his first-hand accounts of the events, and believe me there is no way I would say that it was a good thing, not by a long-shot. Particularly considering that there was intentional humiliation and hysteria. Nevertheless I would be interested to know the motives behind as I pointed out above. My grandfather had mentioned that the rhetoric in Cyprus had been rising at the time, so maybe that could have been a reason.. I don't know.. Baristarim 02:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
In that case, it would have to be presented explicitly as the Turkish POV and a source provided. The way the edit was worded presented the pogrom as a noble undertaking. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You are right.. Maybe "what the Turks/Turkish government hoped would deter/intimidate Cypriot division/independence/enosis etc)? However, there still needs to be sources though, so it might be good to keep editorializing out for a while. But I would also oppose any edit which makes it sound like a noble undertaking, as you said.. It should be as matter-of-factly as possible.. Baristarim 03:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that it could be argued either way; the Turks could well have claimed it was to deter anti-Turkish violence in Cyprus, but from the Greek perspective the Turks were just using Cyprus as an excuse to rid themselves of the last remnants of the Greek minority, which they were largely successful in achieving. We cannot simply accept their feigned intention at face value. If we must link Cyprus to the pogrom, I would prefer something along the lines of "Amid the rising tensions over Cyprus, the Turkish government orchestrated a pogrom against the Greek population...". ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Or both.. It wouldn't surprise me that it was used both as a method of further Turkification/Islamization while also doing it in conjecture with the Cyprus dispute. Or the Cyprus dispute could have been simply used as an excuse.. Well, the consolidation of the new Republic and its following national identity in Turkey was very complex and had many facets.. One thing I also do know is that whoever organised the protests didn't foresee that it would degenerate that much: once the "mob" was on a roll, it quickly got out of hand so much that tanks had to be called in to the main avenue in Istanbul later that night. That's why it lasted two days. However, it is also true that the police in Istanbul remained way too passive (which also explains the later involvement of the army to restore order). Anyways, it definitely was a bad moment in the new republic's history...Baristarim 04:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Gonzo, the bombing of Kemal's house in Thessaloniki never happened; it was simply a false allegation propagated to stoke anti-Greek hysteria in Turkey, but it's interesting to see that some Turks still accept it as fact. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I had always been under the impression that it was a hoax ever since I had known about the events; and I heard all this from my family, not from someone else. What is interesting is that when my grandfather had heard that Ataturk's house was bombed, apparently, he immediately thought there was something fishy. But again, I wasn't alive back in the day so I can't know. It could have been a naive hysteria too, maybe a band of teenagers threw a beer bottle at Ataturk's house and it got grossly exaggerated (intentionally) along the way. Who knows? I don't know if you can read Turkish, but this two news clips from Hurriyet are pretty good. Can have a look at the pictures anyways though. [11] [12].
What is clear that the Prime minister of the time (Adnan Menderes) (who was later hanged in the 1960 coup by the army), claimed that the events were a spontaneous reaction of the populace to the bombing of Ataturk's house - but what is funny is that few days later the events, he changed his tone and claimed that the "communists" were behind the bombing news.. But going back to what we talked about above, there was also the fact that maybe he wanted to show to the Greek Cypriots that as much as they could harm Turkish Cypriots, there were Greeks in Turkey that could be harmed. I know that it is very lame logic, but I suppose considering those decades and the Cold War and the juntas, such a "pissing contest" wouldn't seem too out of place.. Baristarim 04:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This is very interesting: [13] - it is an interview with a Turkish woman who grew up in Germany and teaches in a university there. She apparently made extensive research into the events, and she says that it was England who wanted to get Turkey involved in the Cyprus dispute in the beginning of the 50s to take off the weight off its back and deflect the conflict from one between Greeks-UK to Greeks-Turks. Kinda interesting. In fact, she also says that there was a letter in the British archives sent by the English ambassador in 1954 (one year before the events) to the British foreign office which said "Turkey and Greece are getting along fine (following the visit by the Greek royal family to Turkey in 1952), but if something like the news of the bombing of Ataturk's house spread in Turkey, things would easily get out of hand good". (at the very end of the article) She also talks about a report prepared by the party in power in the 1940s in Turkey mentioning the large number of minorities in Istanbul. She says that, when the Empires collapsed and nation-states rose from their ashes, inevitably minorities appeared. However, since large numbers of minorities could be seen as a threat to these new-born states, they did all they could do to avoid such situations (for example the population transfer agreement was signed in that context between Greece and Turkey: to avoid future friction) However, the report filed in the 40s laments the fact that Turks of Western Thrace and Greeks of Istanbul were spared from this agreement and that this presented an odd situation. In fact, interestingly, she says that most people involved in the mobs were not from Istanbul: most Istanbulites, owing to the tradition of the Empire looked out for their neighbors, but it was those who came from Anatolia etc that took part in the plundering etc. Yep, the process of switching from an Empire to modern nation-states for Greece and Turkey was very complex to make things short.. Baristarim 04:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. A forced marriage followed by an ugly divorce. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 06:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not a question of what is right or wrong; it is called reasoning. "Reason" you know, the term was first coined in this geography, it is so close to you yet so far. The main motives behind the events in Istanbul was definitely not to deter the independence of Cyprus as the sentence previously suggested, but in public mind to avenge the events in Cyprus which was seen as a Greek agression towards TCs, and the rumor of Mustafa Kemal's house in Selanik being bombed. Nobody is justifying anything; also nobody wakes up in the morning and decides it is a good day for looting. You are putting too much of your emotions into your sentences, Kekrops, making them distasteful.--Doktor Gonzo 12:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
And it is precisely your "reasoning" that I find so flawed. Whatever your official excuse, I have reason to believe that the situation in Cyprus was just the pretext the Turks needed to cleanse the city of its remaining Greeks. Which side do we as an encyclopaedia believe? No offence, but I'm rather disinclined to accept lessons on taste from somebody who thinks that killing, beating and forcibly circumcising people constitute anything other than barbarity, let alone peace-making. Cheers. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I also think that you are getting a bit too much emotional, even though I can see why. I really don't think that Gonzo tried to say that killings or beatings were a good thing or tried to justify them. As far as the pogrom goes, I think that on top of the willingness to intimidate them into migration, I think that a willingness to intimidate the Greek Cypriots also existed: the two are not exclusive of one another. But AGF, I am not trying to show it as a "justification" - we are trying to establish what might have been the motiviations in the minds of those involved, that's all. On the other hand, I think that on the minds of the more-simple-minded masses it was just a question of avenging what was happening in Cyprus and Ataturk's house being bombed (even though the last one was a hoax). I really doubt that Mr. average Joe from Anatolia who was plundering a Greek textile shop was aware of the global geopolitics in an age when television didn't even exist and when the only radio was a state-run one who broadcasted only several hours a day. That's why it was so easy to provoke them in the first place.. Baristarim 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a propaganda, no need to rationalize it. The events in Cyprus may very well be true, but if it weren't for them, something else would be found (it was found as well, like burning Atatürk's house). A government can go and nuclear bomb a country twice, even aim for a city like Kyoto (which is like Istanbul or Ankara to us) and convince the citizens that they will be even better people if they support it. Man, at least there wouldn't be a Kyoto protocol now. Unfortunately governments in all the countries are doing that, Greece, Turkey, Armenia, Iran, etc. denizTC 14:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dont forget that the head of government at that time was executed in turkey... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.92.149 (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is the objectivity?

I just came to this page by pure chance and the article is completely full of bulls**t; especially the section which explains (!) the events leading up to the invasion. Where is the objectivity? These paragraphs do not have any references. I don't know what kinda idiot wrote those lines but I felt like I was reading a right-wing Greek newspaper. Can someone please correct these lines with the right references? Otherwise these should be deleted.. Rolumnas 88.106.8.89 11:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Will be here some day.--Doktor Gonzo 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It is a mess. The problem is some people like it this way. --A.Garnet 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It is a description of a military invasion which was accompanied by massive abuses of human rights. My uncle was among the dead killed by those you hold up as heroes and eulogize so. All you are looking to do is reduce this article to weasel words and pretend that no human rights violations happened, when in reality the very invasion itself was an invasion of human rights.--EOKA-Assasin 18:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Human rights violations happened in hoth sides. Rather than invasion, the term "intervention" should be used. also the paragraph about the turkish education system and the increase of nationalism is also single-sided. Was Greek education system so humanistic in that era? Both of the sides were nationalistic in that era... The article is too subjective, and I don't think it conforms to the Wikipedia quality standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.207.169.196 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I have a vision: Cypriot Greek Genocide.--Doktor Gonzo 13:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Gonzo, it was not a genocide but it was certainly an example of ethnic cleansing. All you do is sit around claiming 'NPOV' while being unable to actually deal with the topic at hand. I am sick of dealing with Turks who behave like children, constantly throwing temper-tantrums and even murdering people when they cant get their own way. This was an example of ethnic cleansing, plain and simple.--EOKA-Assasin 06:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Please try to keep it civil.. GreekWarrior, is that you? :) There are way too many accounts which have been popping up recently - TedBlack etc. In fact, GW left a note on my talk page two months ago and confirmed that he regularly trawls Wikipedia under many different accounts. I could see people simply small-scale vandalizing from various IPs, but full-time trolling is really something else. :) Artaxiad's case was also pretty interesting... Gees, are there really people who take a virtual encyclopedia that seriously? Finally it is just a nice hobby - not a matter of life and death.. Baristarim 06:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand me, I am sure that there are Turkish users who account-jump and all - it was nothing personal or anything.. Baristarim 06:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not, EOKA-Assassin? If something is worth doing, it is worth doing right. Go big, go for the genocide if you ask me. Charming username by the way.--Doktor Gonzo 11:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
He is right, EOKA - I was also thinking of creating an article at Laz Genocide, do you want to have a working lunch? :)) Baristarim 12:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This article does not have any trace of objectivity; Most of the information are misgiven, misleading, and most importantly, do not reflect what really happened in history.--E138257 00:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusations

Please leave intact unless it is an accusation/ thats the title of the section. Aristovoul0s 14:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What this article should be

Theis article should be a merger and summary of Timeline of the 1974 Invasion of Cyprus, Military operations during the Invasion of Cyprus (1974) and Operation Atilla. It should not be a complete history of the Eastern Mediterranean. --SE16 20:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Section mergers and sourcing

There are now sections giving Greek and Turkish versions of parts of the history; this is not proper encyclopedic style. There needs to be one, mostly chronological narrative, which can weave in agreed-upon facts and a variety of interpretations of events.

There are also large sections of prose which do not have any inline references to sources. References are required by Wikipedia policy, and are even more important for controversial topics like this one, where many readers may be skeptical of what we are reporting. -- Beland 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are there NO soldier casualty figures?

This happened in 1974, yet no miliary casualties can be compiled?? Reaper7 02:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Try these:

Nope, nothing there on official casualties for either side, next? This article does not cover the basics. I agree that it should be completely deleted and rewritten with the actual facts of the invasion, the surrounding problems that caused the invasion can be in sub articles. Reaper7 19:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Reaper, feel free to begin a rewrite. Other than the nationalist crack pots, I dont see who could support the current state of this article. If you choose to begin a rewrite, I will certainly help. Cheers, --A.Garnet 14:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had the time, I take no one's side in this arguement as you, it is just such a shame that this article is the first thing people see when trying to learn about a highly interesting part of modern history. Reaper7 23:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

British involvement

I'm stunned by the absence of the role of the British in the Invasion, what do others think ? here are some links to what I'm talking about: http://www.greece.org/cyprus/Treason2.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4632080.stm

Everyone in the world knows about their involvement, but unfortunately, wiki is American/Israeli/English controlled. The facts whenever these three are threatened by unfortunate realities gets lost in wiki beaurcracy. The British and American Govts had a huge role in this invasion. Reaper7 23:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

"De Facto division of the island" and "Turkish intervention as a guaranteur" are quite neutral, no one can claim the island is not divided de facto and Turkish guaranteur treaty is mentioned in the article. Also Turkey did not acquire any land, bcause Turkey did not add the northern Cyprus to its own borders but created an unrecognized state. CIA Factbook [14] or other sources also state that Turkey did not acquire any land, but established a state of which self-ruling proclamations was only recognized by 3 countries, and except Turkey others have withdrawn their recognition. 212.154.125.30 (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair call. The word in English is guarantor, by the way. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks :) 212.154.125.30 (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


Propoganda Article

As far as i have read it, this article seems to be a work of a propaganda. Such articles has to be a shame for all wikipedia editors, but unfortenetly from the maturity level of the discussion above, i'm pretty confident that nothing is likely going to change in here. Sadly, a free encyclopedia can turn out be a battleground for some silly nationalists..--88.236.171.254 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

i can not believe this.are u serious?"not invation"?and what is it?"i-come-to-your-land-and-kill-your-family-because-i-am-Turkey-and-that-is-what-i-do?first of all,Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots were living in harmony before all these things happened.The whole thing is clearly a co-operation between Britain and Turkey.Britain involved Turkey in the Cypriot manners for own interests.Turkey had no reason to attack Cyprus.Nobody threatened Turkish Cypriots.The just needed an excuse to invade he island.So the whole "peaceful intervention" is false.If i fear that something might happen to my people i don't start a war without conversation and of course i DO NOT invade a country just for some fears.Turkish army had occupied almost half of the island,killed thousands of unarmed citizens,brutally raped the women and kicked the people out of their homes.Whoever thinks that this is "peaceful" he/she must be living in another planet.Wake up people!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ang87 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Living in harmony? is that the reson why Britain has more Turkish Cypriots than that are in cyprus, is it the reason why many Cypriots (again probably more than that of in cyprus) fled to Turkey, is it the reason why movies like voice of blood are made. yea such harmony, live and let die harmony, practiced in mainland Greece and Crete but failed in Cyprus...oops forgot .. it was not greeks it was moon who devoured the muslims there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.92.149 (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nobody threatened Turkish Cypriots???" I can't believe I'm reading this. If they were living in Harmony what was the job of EOKA then? There are many evidence that the Ultra-Nationalist Cypriot Greeks were indeed attacking Turks and burning their houses. There's endless evidence. Photographs, videos etc... Actually we don't even need such evidence. We already have many people who saw what actually happened. Beregorn (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article has been questioned many times before (see "11 Neutrality", "22 Where is the objectivity"). It has been said also that the quality of this article does not meet with the wikipedia standards. I would rather say that the style (not the quality) of this article is far away from any encyclopaedia standards (hence the neutrality warning symbol). However wikipedia is far more than a simple encyclopaedia. Actually is a mixture of encyclopaedia, news media and blog. I would also like to answer to the comments about lack of unbiased citations. It is difficult to give unbiased citations because simple there is hardly any unbiased documentaries. For this reason there is no hope in the current phase to have an objective article. However we can have a balanced article (and I think we have). The existence of separate sections “Turkish Cypriot opinion” and “Greek Cypriot opinion” provide this counterbalance. I feel that this case (as any similar) will be extremely challenging for the historian of the future and wikipedia will be the tool for the study. The historian will be able by tracking down the differences between the versions to establish the figure of how the article converges from balanced to objective. Relating this figure with the historical facts useful conclusions about socio-political dynamics would be derived. Vangelis--213.130.142.143 (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Any statsitics about the minorities residing in either side

it would be useful to identify the truth of claims of both sides on who genocided others... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.92.149 (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Turkish cypriots" flag

Is it NPOV that a flag is presented for them when talking about the invasion? --Leladax (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to intro

3meander, I changed the intro to become more npov in the hope it would set a precedent for the rest of the article. The intro should a be general overview, please keep this in mind. Also I dont see the problem with the picture, the article is about the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, and the picture shows a Turkish tank in Nicosia, therefore it is factually relavant. --A.Garnet (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It also shows Turks greeting and applauding the tank. Why not show the victims of that tank? And what the hell is Kemal's face doing there? Your choice of image is not exactly a reflection of NPOV. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, it is a picture of a Turkish tank entering the capital of Cyprus. Turkish Cypriots are greeting it yes, but that is entirely representative of the conflict, two ethnic communities supporting their mainland brethren. If you can find a more general picture, perhaps of the paratroopers landing over Cyprus, go ahead. Also, why would ask me why I did not upload an image of GC victims, and at the same time remove an image of an entire mass grave of Turkish Cypriots (post-74 invasion)? --A.Garnet (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The picture is one sided and not representative of the invasion. It is also offensive. Your claim of NPOV of the intro reads like this and this. Hardly NPOV Meander₪ 09:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well neither of those links was consulted when rewriting the intro. Please dont use the intro as a soapbox, its meant to be a general neutral overview of the article and no more. --A.Garnet (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither was consulted actually you deleted the sourced info, and its the same content (one sided). And the picture is offensive as i said. If you feel like you can re write the intro then shouldnt you get consensus first? Or that works only for me? Meander₪ 17:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted and left a note on the military history wikiproject. --A.Garnet (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As a neutral editor from the wikiproject, I must say I'm on A. Garnet's side here. His edits appear to be NPOV, moreso than an introduction that mentions refugees and other POV elements. Skinny87 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of the intro is to sum up the generalities: who is involved, why they were involved, what happened during, and what happened after. The current intro is fairly NPOV, but I strongly suggest that A.Garnet find appropriate sources (for example, find a Turkish government document identifying their reasoning for invading; info on the Annan referendum; etc). Additionally, while the picture is not the best, I fail to see how it is offensive. If 3meander would care to identify a better picture for the infobox, it would be possible to compare them. Cromdog (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with cromdog partly. I fail to see why A. Garnet's version is more neutral. I think it is taking a side promoting the invasion euphemistically as a "peace operation". 217.16.239.28 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say it was more neutral, simply that it was fairly NPOV...the version now up may be NPOV, but it now fails to meet the criteria for a decent intro, as it is too long and detailed for an intro. Also, the last few lines of this intro are poorly written, and almost seem to be entering into NPOV. Perhaps I'll try and write up a better, sourced intro when I have time.Cromdog (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
HI all, Cromdog when you have the time, i am willing to help you rewrite the intro in an NPOV manner. You are right it may be too long and we need to find a way to include all important information and at the same time keep it short. What do you suggest? Meander₪ 10:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Meander, since both Cromdog and Skinny state my version at the very least appears to be npov, why not help by making suggestions to improve this version rather than completely reverting to I believe is basically a pov rant. Also, please stop removing the infobox imgage, if you believe you can find a better one, then upload it here and discuss it. --A.Garnet (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
A.Garnet, you are making a Straw man argument here, trying to impose your point of view. Once again the invasion was not a "peace operation" as the turkish view says. Wikipedia encourages the inclusion of both views in an npov manner. You have unilaterally changed the intro to promote your point of view, removing sourced information in the process. You uploaded a picture that portrays the invasion as an event celebrated by cypriots (which naturally included many atrocities inflicted on the victims) as the infobox picture. That is offensive to the victims of the invasion. Consider this fact : that "the European Commission on Human Rights found the Government of Turkey responsible for gross massive and continuing violations of human rights in Cyprus, including murders, rapes, expulsions and refusal to allow more than 180,000 Greek Cypriot refugees, almost one third of the entire population, to return to their homes and properties in the occupied part of Cyprus (cf. Cyprus against Turkey, report of 10 July 1976 on Applications No. 6780/74 and 6950/75, and report of 4 October 1983 on Application No. 8007/77 of the European Commission on Human Rights)". UNHCHR providing a good reasoning why the picture is offensive and not representative of the invasion. Should i upload a picture of dead bodies and put it in the infobox? Cromdog and Skinny stated that your version looks fairly NPOV. It does not necessarily mean that Cromdog and Skinny are aware of the Turkish invasion or that they have read all the material out there. It is perfectly natural that there are more interesting military invasions to read other than this one. So give them the time to make themselves familiar with the issue, dont try to impose your view. Please consider that Meander₪ 10:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I'm not an expert on the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, but I do know a thing or two about relevant Wiki policies and guidelines. First, how on earth is a picture of a Turkish tank, rolling through Nicosia, "not representative of the invasion". When someone who doesn't know a thing about the Turkish invasion (you know, the people we're writing this encyclopedia for) come to this article, which has the word "invasion" in the title, they're more than likely expecting to see a picture of a tank or some infantry in the infobox.

Second, there are quite a few problems with the version 3meandEr prefers: first, the last portion that has been trimmed under A.Garnet's version is a little too much detail for the lead section. Then there are some minor problems like the word "alleged" in the beginning (the invasion took place, no one denies that). Also, the link to [[Cypriot intercommunal violence] should not be piped with "1963". The Link MoS states that "that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on". Again, the newer version is plain and simple more NPOV.

Lastly, please do not call other editors "vandal" in edit summaries. It's poor form to intentionally reduce good faith edits to the level of vandalism, and a massive failure to WP:AGF, not to mention WP:CIVIL. Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy. I think i have already answered questions 1&2 for A.Garnet above your post. Please feel free to read through. In 1963 Turkey attempted to invade but her plans were put on hold after the US indirectly threatened her not to. "Alleged" is used used to refer to the "Turkeys response to a coup according to the treaty of guarantee." The treaty of guarantee was there to ensure the Republics sovereignty. Turkey however never honored the treaty instead it has partition the republic since then. The length is indeed a problem and i am willing to help as i said before to another editor to help and make shorter. The picture though can not stay as explained. Lastly could you please elaborate on why you think it is "more neutral"? Meander₪ 07:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC) ?
Let me go through point by point:
  1. The lines "...was materialised in two phases. The first phase is known to Turks and Turkish Cypriots as..." is totally superfluous; of course, if it's in Turkish, that's obviously what they call it, not what the Greek Cypriots did.
  2. Again "alleged" is not correct; the military response did happen, no one disputes it. Therefore, the word "alleged" is totally wrong in that sentence. However, if your intention is to question the Turkish motives, you would state something along the lines of "...military response, allegedly a response to the coup against Makarios III...". However, this would then be a violation of WP:NPOV, and still disallowed. Also, that sentence has some grammatical problems, because as it stands (even in A. Garnet's version), it implies that the Turks had the intention of annexing the island to Greece, not Makarios III.
  3. Again, please read the link I gave above in reference to piped links; they should not be a surprise to the reader. Someone who clicks on the 1963 would expect to see an article about the year 1963, not Cypriot intercommunal violence.
  4. This is just a style issue, but in the beginning of the second paragraph, A.Garnet changed an "invasion" to "operation"; the word "invaded" was used in the previous sentence, it's nice to have some variation in terms used.
  5. The repeated references to Taksim are highly POV; there are no sources that state Taksim was the purpose of Turkey in conducting the invasion. On a related note, you might want to read through the intro and first few sections of World War II, which, in my opinion, is a pretty good example of an NPOV treatment of a war. Nowhere in the intro does it mention that Hitler invaded the USSR to slaughter Jews and Slavs; that type of information, if relevant at all, belongs in the body of the article, not the intro.
  6. The rest are the result of the intro being just too long, and too much detail. Specific lines from the Treaty of Guarantee are far too specific for the intro.
  7. To sum up, it reads like the authors of this page are trying to convince the readers that Turkey was in the wrong (which might very well be true, for the purposes of this discussion, I don't really care); regardless, [[WP:NPOV|it is not our place to decide that. Again, take a look through the WWII article; it doesn't go around, assigning blame.
Hopefully that was specific enough to address your questions. Oh, and please stop edit-warring, or I'll lock the page. There is obviously dissent, use the talk page to express your opinions, not through edit summaries. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Consider also the last para of 3meanders version which fleshes out a statement by former TC President Rauf Denktas against the Annan plan, despite TC's accepting the plan in a referendum, why does he feel the need to do this? I mean have I chosen to make a meal out of the fact that GC's rejected the plan, that Tassos Papadopolous told GC's to reject the plan? No, I have simply stated facts without choosing to cast judgement or push a pov, I wish he could understand that is the difference between his and my version, and why three third party editors have agreed this is a better version. --A.Garnet (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Understood your points Parsecboy, and A.Garnet, those points mentioned can easily be changed. A.Garnet's version however leaves out important information and makes the article read as if it was a "peace operation" to re establish the state of affairs and stop a coup from dissolving the Republic. That did not happen and it is a distortion of the facts. I will review the intro so that you will see what i mean. Again i dont expect you to know all the history behind the issue but i expect the readers to able to read the facts in the lead as they are without attributing blame, but not in an euphemistic manner. For instance, (context issue): Turkey does not recognize the existance of Cyprus as a country since 1963. In 1974 however Turkey uses as a pretext the treaty which she does not recognize ipso facto, to invade, stating that she has a right (by the treaty she did not recognize) to intervene. This has been challenged. These facts are taken out from the lead. Please read through a revisited version answering all your points and those of A. Garnet. Thanks Meander₪ 14:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way the coup was by EOKA B and not by Cypriot National Guard Meander₪ 14:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the picture of the Turkish M48 rolling through Nicosia. From what I gather, your only objection to it is a vague "it's offensive". It seems to me that the only reason it's offensive is because it's a picture of celebrating Turkish Cypriots. So the "other side" won. Get over it. I'm sure some Polish editors might be offended that a picture of the German battleship Schleswig-Holstein shelling the Westerplatte is the main image for Invasion of Poland (1939), but it's still one of the best images for the purpose. Regardless, Wikipedia is not censored for images some might find offensive, for whatever reason. More to the point, it's perhaps the perfect image to display in the infobox, as it demonstrates the title of the article: a Turkish tank, having invaded, participating in the occupation of Cyprus. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Parsecboy thanks for the hand in you just offered. Appreciate it. For you above comment, i would say it right out. No. It has nothing to do with (So the "other side" won). NO. I would be happy to acknowledge something like that. Please understand this: The fact is that Turkey never accept the action for what it was. An invasion. An offensive act. Instead Turkey argue that it was not a war, but an intervention and a peaceful one at that!!! The picture is offensive to the victims of the invasion because the specific one depicts the event as a peacefull celebration of an intervention. Thats not what it was however. Cyprus is a tiny place and 160-200 000 losing their properties may not sound as that important however, just to comprehend the scale of the invasion imagine by comparison say USA to be invaded and have 40% Refugees = 119,377,686 people would be Refugees, One in Three Hundred Missing = 994,814 people would be Missing, One in eighty four killed = 3,552,907 people would be killed, 37% of the Land occupied. It is immense isnt it not? Backing up what i have just said is the fact that "the European Commission on Human Rights found the Government of Turkey responsible for gross massive and continuing violations of human rights in Cyprus, including murders, rapes, expulsions and refusal to allow more than 180,000 Greek Cypriot refugees, almost one third of the entire population, to return to their homes and properties in the occupied part of Cyprus (cf. Cyprus against Turkey, report of 10 July 1976 on Applications No. 6780/74 and 6950/75, and report of 4 October 1983 on Application No. 8007/77 of the European Commission on Human Rights)". UNHCHR. Should i upload a picture of dead bodies and put it in the infobox? Hope my point is clear, if not we are here to talk about it right? Meander₪ 15:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
If you have/can find other pictures that are suitably licensed, by all means upload them. Perhaps it would be better to make a montage similar to Image:WW1 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg, Image:WW2Montage.PNG, Image:Iraq header 2.jpg, or Image:American Civil War Montage 2.jpg. Parsecboy (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good. I will do that then! Thanks Meander₪ 16:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it still reads like another pov rant on the Cyprus conflict.

  • "The Turkish invasion of Cyprus Turkish: “Türk akın -in Kıbrıs” - What on earth is this? I've never heard of the operation referred to as such. Whether you like it or not, Turkey and Turkish people in general refer to the events as the Kıbrıs Barıs Harekati, or Cyprus Peace Operation. You may disagree with their judgement, but that is the fact, it is not for you to change it to something you find more suitable.
  • "was launched on July 20, 1974 five days after a coup by EOKA B against Makarios III" - By EOKA B? www.cyprus-conflict.net (most authoritative and neutral account of Cyprus conflict on the net) states "On 15 July 1974 the National Guard, led by its Greek officers, overthrew the Government, demolished part of the presidential palace and announced that the Archbishop was dead."
  • "belying multiple UN Security Council resolutions in the process[1] and the Treaty of Guarantee itself." - By whose judgement did operation bely the Treaty of Guarantee? All you have done is cited the treaty as if it somehow self-explanatory.
  • "According to Turkey, the Republic of Cyprus had been dissolved in 1963 [3] and hence Turkey has not recognized Cyprus as a sovereign country since." - No, the source states Turkey did not consider Greek Cypriot authority over Turkish Cypriots legitimate after they were ousted from government. It does not state Turkey considered it dissolved. Your simply trying to contradict Turkey's position on the Treaty of Guarantee with your own arguments.
  • "The scheduled military invasion" - pushing the pov the invasion was pre-planned and again attempting to discredit Turkey's obligation under the Treaty of Guarantee.
  • "The UN plan had undergone several revisions in an attempt to win support from the Turkish Cypriot side, which has refused to talk further." - Again, you just cannot seem to let facts of the Annan plan speak for themselves. Greek Cypriots rejected the 2004 referendum, Turkish Cypriots accepted it. Why can you not accept this without adding some caveat to discredit the fact TC's accepted this plan? What happened before the referendum in negotiations is irrelevant.

I'm going to revert again because this is becoming ridiculous. Three uninvolved editors have agreed the version I am trying to include is more neutral, and I consider this to be a consensus. --A.Garnet (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've decided instead to contact User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise who blocked you previously for you consensus breaking edits on Cyprus articles. I'll see what action he recommends considering the remarks made about your conduct in WP:ANI ([15]) sometime ago.--A.Garnet (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Türk akın -in Kıbrıs"??

Is that even a recognisable Turkish phrase? I can't even parse it. Does it mean anything? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it's an attempt to create a new Turkish name for the Turkish name for the operation. That thing sounds like faux-Ottoman, where something like "Akin-i Turk-in" would mean "Turkish Raid". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.190.150 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-free image

I'm a bit on the fence about the image, in terms of WP:NFC. On the one hand, it lacks copyright information, which is normally an important precondition for even considering fair use. On the other hand, historic photographs are in fact one among the most important occasions for fair use we have. Note that, in my understanding, this really goes only for images where the image itself (rather than just the event it shows) is of "historic" value, e.g. if it has taken on iconic status, is widely recognised as symbolic of the event etc. (as evidenced by its wide-spread use in other publications). The Turkish tank in Nicosia might well have that status, but I can't tell. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That was precisely my rationale for removing it. To quote from WP:NFC: "Given below are further examples of images that, if non-free, may fail to satisfy the policy: 4. An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima)." Not only does it not have such an iconic status, but the bust of Kemal sitting randomly on top a building makes it rather obvious it's just another Turkish propaganda photo. Unless someone can provide reliable sources to demonstrate that the image is "iconic" or "historically important in the context of the war", it shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) The same image is uploaded to the Turkish Wikipedia, here. It appears to have source information, but I don't read Turkish, so someone will have to take a look. Parsecboy (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that. The description on the Turkish wiki is rather self-contradictory. The uploader says the image is "from my own collection" ("Kendi kolleksyonumdan"), but at the same time he declares it as non-free, which really doesn't make too much sense together. If it is really his own (in terms of he being the photograph), then we could of course ask him to release it properly under a free license; on the other hand, if it's from a private collection, that more or less automatically excludes "iconic" status. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) The uploader on the Turkish Wikipedia almost certainly uploaded it under a false claim of ownership; the image is also on Student Britannica. From what that page says, it seems to be an AP photo. Parsecboy (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, right, good find. According to [16], it definitely is AP. That makes it definitely non-free, but its use in Britannica sort of strengthens the case for its representativity. (By the way, I also asked the uploader on tr-wiki; they are probably right now laughing their heads off over my broken Turkish... :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, that leaves us with the problem of the fair-use criterion that says "respect for commercial opportunities". If that image is an asset of AP, and they are still presumably making money from it by licensing it out to publishers like Britannica, our use may well diminish its commercial value. We have to be extremely careful about using things from commercial news agencies, especially when they are historically important and therefore still have a significant commercial value to their owners. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
You are correct to remove the image then; it should also be deleted from Wikipedia, as any claim of Fair Use has been demonstrated to be invalid. Ah, I see that you already did; good work.Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
To comment on Kekrops' statement about Fair Use, the line "or is historically important in the context of the war" is pretty vague, and in any case, a photo (propaganda or not; the Iwo Jima photo was staged) of a Turkish M-47 rolling through Nicosia is an almost perfect image to visually represent the Turkish invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus. Parsecboy (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with you, if it weren't for the applauding Turks (what about the fleeing Greeks?) and Kemal's bust. But I still don't see how this particular image is iconic or historically important. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, does anybody understand how that Atatürk portrait floating near the top fits in with the rest of the image? Is it a poster raised somewhere in the street? But if yes, what is it attached to? Were Atatürk images flying through the air in celebration on that day? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and yet something else, the fair use problem also applies to the other two period photographs currently in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
To me it looks like Kemal was superimposed onto the original image. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That's actually what I was thinking myself; it doesn't look real. Even looking from different angles, you can't see any kind of edge lines for what should be some kind of billboard or poster. It just doesn't look right. Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, it most certainly wasnt superimposed, you can go to Ataturk Square (as it is now known) today and see it for yourself. See here for image. --A.Garnet (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Parsec, thats because it is a sort of metal cut out supported by a frame from behind, it is not a poster or billboard. The link I gave demonstrates this. --A.Garnet (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense, thanks for the explanation. Parsecboy (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The Paradox of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus

According to the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey [1]: "Greek Cypriots chafed under the bulwarks of Turkish Cypriot constitutional security, and thus resorted to villainy in 1963. Then President Archbishop Makarios proposed 13 dramatic changes to the 1960 constitution to eliminate institutional protections for Turkish Cypriots, including ending their veto powers and local autonomy, slashing their representation in the civil service and military, abolishing separate community voting on fiscal and companion matters, and electing the president and vice president by the House of Representatives voting as a unit with a decisive Greek Cypriot majority. All were universally nixed by Turkish Cypriots. The proposed amendment, however, were but the opening shot of a larger plot, the notorious "Akritas Plan", to shred the 1960 constitutional rights of Turkish Cypriots. Writing in "My Deposition", Greek Cypriot President Glafcos Clerides elaborated: "From the conversations I had with Makarios I can sum up his intentions as follows: a) Makarios intended, stage by stage, to abolish the excessive rights granted.....to the Turkish community and reduce it to the position of a minority....."


According to the above statement of the Ministry, Turkey was basically "forced" to invade Cyprus in order to protect the human rights of the Turkish community and therefore the invasion was legal. I am wondering: is there anybody in Turkey that embraces this argument? I am not going to describe the "human rights" policy of Turkey in the case of Armenians, Hellenes of Minor Asia, or even Kurds. I want to discuss the issue of the respect of human rights of Turkish people inside Turkey. Actually, I want to talk about the human rights of the President of the Republic of Turkey today.

According to the Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the High Court of Appeals of Turkey, [2]: "On Mar. 14, Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the High Court of Appeals of the country Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya brought charges against the ruling Justice and Development Party (JDP) demanding it be closed". Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya, accused the Turkey's president and prime minister of undermining secularism and moved to ban them from politics and to prohibit their conservative party. He submitted his case against the Justice and Development Party (AKP) to the Turkish Constitutional Court. The prosecutor asked the court to ban 71 people, including Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, from politics for five years. [3] I would like to note that the AKP branded the case as a blow to democracy and said it would "continue its fight for democracy with determination".

The essential thing to note in this case, is not if the APK will indeed be banned or not. The --Mondechristo 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)fact that the judiciary and the military system decided to express this odd idea to ban the leading party of Turkey, the party that won 47 percent of the votes in the July 2007 elections, proves the paradox of the political and military situation in Turkey. It proves that it is a country that cannot even show the basic respect to democracy and to the human rights of its own people, even of its own top political figures. How can Turkey then use this notion of "human rights protection" as an argument of why it invaded Cyprus in 1974? It just cannot. Turkey's invasion of Cyprus is one more, of many, examples of non trusted political strategy. It is one more, of many illustrations of the paradox of political dialectic of Turkey. --Mondechristo 18:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder, new sections go on the bottom of the talk pages. The problem with your text here, which I raised on your talk page when you initially added it to the article, is that it is irretrievably non-neutral. Wikipedia strives to be a neutral presenter of facts, without making a value judgement one way or the other. Stating that one side's justification is absurd (regardless of whether or not it actually is) is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is also written in the style of an essay or editorial, which are unsuitable styles of prose for Wikipedia. Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus does not exist, please correct it

Creation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in 1983. <-- What does this mean? This is not accepted by any country and must be removed. The state is plain illegal and they are about to retreat anyway. Why the propaganda and POV -pushing here? 87.219.85.181 (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This İs a Not İnvasion This is a War.--78.173.155.255 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Look Falklands War same think.--78.173.130.55 (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well see when a nation takes over land then that means ıt belongs to the natıon that took ıt over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.15.192 (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus *does* exist. It's legitimacy is (absurdly) questioned, but we need to use the proper name of a thing in discussing it. It's international acceptance should be duly noted.
If you haven't checked, this page is biased in the same direction in which you obviously lean, so don't worry: your job is done, the Turks have been vilified and attacked unjustly on yet another wikipedia page, while the genocidal Greeks escape all blame!
(See the *policy* of the Greek leaders during the war for independence of killing all Turks -- not deporting, but killing. Contrast with the policy of the Turkish government of deporting Armenians, with a wealth of evidence (i.e. government orders) to support the notion that the government wanted their protection and not a single shred of evidence that the Ottoman government EVER ordered the killing of Armenian deportees.
See Bernard Lewis: [17].
Don't worry, this page is just as biased. (And the page on the actual genocides -- which means the government ordered the killings -- committed by Bulgars and Greeks against Turks, and by Armenians and Russians against Circassians are given little or no treatment on wikipedia, and when they are, the word genocide is never used.
The Greeks on Cyrpus were killing Turks. Turkey wanted to protect them -- just like they wished they were able to protect the several hundred thousand Turks Greeks slaughtered -- ****not for rebellion, but for being Turkish**** -- or the 260,000 Turks the Bulgarians slaughtered with organized intent (i.e. a real, proven genocide).
It's shameful, really.
If you have a real criticism of a page, then say something. Until then, why don't you relish in the bias that has infected ever page that involves Turks and foreign relations? After all, it seems that's what "you people" care about, not historical accuracy.
--64.174.68.114 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope that everyone will start to see sense and just get on with being Cypriot. It doesn't really amtter who started it all, just that they all end it and shake hands and try to get along with each other. In 100 years time it would be sad to see the Island separated still. --Chaosdruid (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Major edits to clear problems

Hi all

I am going to attempt to edit the article and clear away the cobwebs to make the article NPoV and factual.

I am NPoV and only interested in getting the article to meet Wikiguidelines.

I will spend the week reading the past comments and opinions and will look into how the article can be improved.

Thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been a little ill so have only just returned and will need some more time to look again at all the info - I will try and start in about 1 week--Chaosdruid (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


Could you find some better sources for Greece and Council of Europe acknowledging the legality of the intervention please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeremS (talk • contribs) 13:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This article, and talkpage, raise questions over the credibility of Wikipedia

Honestly folks - it's awful. I browsed here by accident, after reading about the Orams case, but the article is utterly useless. It's just a tit-for-tat exchange of hyperbolic rhetoric by deeply partisan editors. The whole article should be scrapped and replaced with an objective, third-party account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.208.82 (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Opinions

I changed the paragraph titles of Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot opinion to opinions (in the plural) to reflect the diversity of opinions in two communities.Politis (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision page misrepresents my edit

NOTE: the revision page shows that I introduced an entire new paragraph [18]. In fact I did not! I only edited out some emotive language. This article has many good features but it could do with some cooling down. Politis (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


Change of Name

Regardless of whatever the United Nations or whoever else says Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that is free from any controversy so therefore all the pages should be translated from Kıbrıs Barış Harekâtı meaning Cyprus Peace Movement not Turkish Invasion of Cyprus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy Benoit (talk • contribs) 11:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not "Cyprus Peace Movement". It is "Cyprus Peace Operation". Maverick16 (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Who the hell is keep on changing the bloody name and why?

One thing I want to say for all these back-and-forth moves: Even if the article should be moved (and I think that's open to discussion, there might be some merit to the idea) the correct translation is most certainly not "Cyprus Peace Movement" but "Cyprus Peace Operation". (From Turkish: Movement -> Hareket, Operation -> Harekat) A "peace movement" is something else entirely, it is a social trend like demonstrations by NGOs and rallies etc. Like "make love not war". You get the picture.
So if we are going to do it, we should do it right. Cheers - Xasf (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the move as such a change should be discussed and decided here. while I have no expertise in the subject, surely the consensus in reliable sources is the correct source for the article name. Google is often a poor substitute for scholarship but.

  • "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus" >700 google book hits, > 500 in scholarly articles
  • "Cyprus Peace Operation" ~50 google book hits, ~15 scholarly article hits
  • "Cyprus Peace Movement" <10 book hits and <5 in scholarly papers

- Seems fairly clear what is the common name for the operation. From what I can see in news sources, "Peace Movement" is used nowhere, "Peace Operation" rarely and then mostly by a few Turkish sources and the BBC reporting Turkish political speaches, "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus" is used almost everywhere. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not change any term of invasion to intervention. Those who believe that this is not an invasion but an intervention may have a point but before doing any edit please consider WP:What Wikipedia Is Not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadagger (talk • contribs) 11:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't change the content of the operation. This operation brought Peace to the island. In the end of this operation Greeks couldn't kill any Turks until this time.Maverick16 (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure to whom I should apply about this but this appears to be the most releveant. According to the United Nations, the 1974 operation is classified as an "intervention" not an "invasion" http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unficyp/background.shtml "A coup d'état in Cyprus on 15 July 1974 by Greek Cypriot and Greek elements favouring union with Greece was followed by military intervention by Turkey"

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr353.htm UN RESOLUTION 353 (1974) 3.Demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus

As such, I can not see how can Wikipedia classifies this as an "invasion". The only possible explanation could be that as one of the previous posters stated, Googling "invasion" returns more results than "intervention", however this issue can not be considered under Wikipedia's in-common-use rule for matters related to language, the very word "invasion" only signifies a sided, subjective view of the event considering UN classifies it as an "intervention". I do not think the obvious need of changing the title is a matter of serious debate under this circumstances as under lots of topics such as the Armenian "genocide", Wikipedia refers to the UN documents over what the title should be in event of a dispute.

So question is, who has the privilege to change the name from "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" to "Turkish invervention to Cyprus" ? Tmhm (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC) --Tmhm (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmhm (talk • contribs) 07:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is typical UN-speak trying to be neutral and inoffensive towards all. Even so, "military intervention" is pretty much a euphemism for "invasion", especially if it concerns another sovereign country. "Turkish intervention in Cyprus" is both vague and deliberately misleading, since the crucial "military" part is missing: the Turks did not come with flowers, aid packages and chocolates, but with bombs and tanks. Anyhow, Wikipedia uses the names that are most common in English usage, not what the UN or other countries use (that is why we use Republic of Macedonia instead of FYROM, for example). And as Peripitus demonstrated above, usage is overwhelmingly in favour of the current form. Constantine ✍ 08:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Turks did not come with flowers and chocolates because you can not defend against people(the Greeks) who has guns and tanks, and whose de facto president states "According to the Greek daily newspaper Eleftherotipia, which interviewed him on February 26, 1981, he said, “Had Turkey not intervened, I would not only have proclaimed Enosis, I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus as well.”"

But this is not the point. Point is; as long as UN classifies this as an intervention and NOT an invasion, classifying this as an invasion can only be the personal feeling of an editor who is siding with one of the parties of the dispute. The name military intervention is also acceptible, intervention obviously signifies a military intervention without further emphasis and was not meant to cover the military aspect of the event, but if that is a concern, it is fine. As I previously stated how English speakers know the event is irrelevant in a historic issue not to mention it is only an unscientific assumption based on Google search that they know it as an invasion. Most of the English speakers know Nadia Komaneci as the "that Romanian girl with freakishly elastic body" or Jean Hill is still known as the "Lady in Red" but I do not see how it affects the title as such definitions are only used when there is no clear or official title, it is not the common default practice. UN classifies it as an intervention so the title shall be such.

So question is, who has the privilege to change the name from "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" to "Turkish invervention to Cyprus" ? --Tmhm (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Tmhm (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmhm (talk • contribs) 20:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The matter has been raised as a matter of POV - that the title "Invasion" is POV and the NPOV title should be "Intervention"
The question being put is "Was it an intervention or was it an invasion". The problem is that it was both. Cyprus is an independant nation.
The Greek Cypriot move for Enosis started the major events that led to the Turkish intervention. Intervention is something that is done to stop an event from happening. Invasion is when the troops from one country cross into another when they are not invited.
Unfortunately the Turkish troops invaded the sovereign state of Cyprus. That invasion was in an attempt to intervene. The article title could equally use Intervention or Invasion. Both are in fact what happened - Turkey tried to intervene and in the end decided to invade.
If there had been a highly significant number of Turkish citizens on the island then the term intervention would be appropriate. If there were not a significant number then the term intervention begins to lose significance.
Editors need to remember that the numbers of Greek and Turkish people on the island is not the same as ethnic Cypriot Greeks and ethnic Cypriot Turks.

  • If the person was born on Cyprus they are Cypriot and their ethnic background does not make them a Greek or a Turk.
  • Any persons claiming "I am Greek" or "I am Turkish" would need to prove citizenship of those countries and that they were, in fact, not Cypriot.
  • Any country "aiding their citizens" would need to prove that they were in fact aiding their citizens and not merely Cypriots of a particular ethnicity.
Chaosdruid (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Title hasn't changed yet. Is it preferred by choice to keep a subjective title or is it only lack of interest? --Tmhm (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Try looking further down the page ! Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus#Is_the_term_.22Invasion.22_POV_in_the_article_title_and_should_the_term_.22Intervention.22_be_used_as_a_more_neutral_phrasing Chaosdruid (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot unsderstand why there is a dispute on this issue. The UN names the event as Intervention. Someone must change the name of the article immidiately. This is not a subjective issue. Inspectortr (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't imagine why a military invasion by Turkish troops on an sovereign state, and the following occupy of 37% of its total land, which lasts until today, year 2012, shall be called... Intervention. Same goes for everyone - not just Turkey - if Syria, for example, invades Turkey and settles a Syrian army in its territory, permanently, for the protection of the Kurds, this can not be called Intervention. This can be called an Invasion by Syria. So, the invasion of the Turkish Troops on the territory of Cyprus, a sovereign UN-member, is not an intervention, at all, I am afraid. There should be no article name change just because some Turkish users are demanding it. I think this may go against the rules of Wikipedia. I shall remind the people here that it is clear to everyone that this whole story, yes, started as an Intervention, at beginning, but was turned into a military invasion, due to the fact that Turkish troops illegally entered a foreign territory and occupied it. In a real intervention, we don't occupy the lands of a sovereign state for 40+ years and the facts can not change, no matter how some diplomats want to call those events. And by the way I think this article has a very good name that reflects, not only the pre-intervention events, but the post-intervention ones followed by the most important event of all - the Turkish Military Invasion on the island and the occupy of almost half of its territory. --85.75.186.16 (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

About recent POVs by User:Larisv

  1. Enosis was one of the reasons Turks claimed for the invasion and obviously one of the goals of EOKA. So why do we remove it?
  1. Intercommunal violence is intercommunal violence. Why do we refere to it as "conflict" while even the directed article is Cypriot intercommunal violence.
  1. While both Turkish and Greek Cypriots migrated along the Green line, why the article should mention the Greek migrations as ethnic cleansing and skip the Turkish migrations?
  1. The violence continued till 1974 not between 1963-1964, check the relevant article on WP.

For obvious reasons these edits are POVs and reverted. Aadagger (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. EOKA ceased to exist in 1959. The Turks invaded purportedly to restore constitutional order. The Enosis references are POV.
  2. Intercommunal violence was one aspect of the wider political conflict of 1963-64, hence the term Intercommunal conflict is a better reference to the events..
  3. The Greek Cypriots did not "migrate", they were forcefully evicted or fled in fear of their lives and then prevented from returning. See for example the judgment of the ECHR in the 1st and 2nd interstate applications. Refering to this event as a migration is clearly POV.
  4. The actual conflict took place in 1963-4 with a further incident in 1967. Speaking of "intercommunal violence of 1963-74" is factually wrong.
  5. In wikipedia other articles are not references. If other articles had made similar factual errors they also would need to be corrected.

The edits correct factual errors and POV references.Larisv (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing vs. ethnic seperation

The problem is, many Turkish Cypriots (50,000) moved from south to north as well. Does this mean Turks did ethnic cleansing to their own population? Can we call this ethnic separation or do we have to stick to predefined limited concepts? TherMeursaultcaulfield (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

We can't invent new terminology. Terminology used has to be in popular use, and referenceable, by mainstream historians (i.e. not obscure, back-of-the-woods historians). Besides what happened after the invasion was planned well before the invasion.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 10:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources to the effect that Turkey commited ethnic cleansing

Borowiec, Andrew (2000). Cyprus: a troubled island. New York: Praeger. pp. 2. ISBN 0-275-96533-3.

The invasion and the resulting creation of a quasi-independent Turkish Cypriot entity in the northern third of the island has displaced between 140,000 and 160,000 Greek Cypriots. (In most statements and documents, the Greek Cypriot government uses the figure of 200,000 refugees.) Some left their homes in advance of the approaching Turkish troops, others were ousted by a policy of “ethnic cleansing” by the new authorities. Their homes were taken over either by Turkish Cypriots who had left theirs in the Greek-held areas or by immigrants from Turkey.

Brown, Neville (2004). Global instability and strategic defence. New York: Routledge. pp. 48. ISBN 0-415-30413-X.

Several years of sporadic violence culminaied in the latter’s being deposed briefly in 1974. in the ensuing turmoil. Turkey intervened to occupy the northern third of Cyprus where very thorough ethnic cleansing then occurred. Since when, nothing has fundamentally altered

Ted Galen Carpenter, Peace & freedom: foreign policy for a constitutional republic, Cato Institute, 2002, ISBN 1930865341, 9781930865341, p. 187

Turkey invaded that country in 1974, occupied some 37 percent of its territory, expelled more than 165,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes, set up a puppet republic and brought in tens of thousands of colonists from the Turkish mainland, if Ankara’s actions in Cyprus do not constitute ethnic cleansing, the term has no meaning. The Cyprus episode is not Turkeys only disturbing behaviour.

Ted Galen Carpenter, NATO's empty victory: a postmortem on the Balkan War, Cato Institute, 2000, ISBN 188257785X, 9781882577859

Turkey has also engaged in ethnic cleansing in Cyprus. On 20, 1974, Ankara invaded the independent island after the so-called Greek colonels fomented a coup d’etat against Cypriot president Makarios. …The Turkish Cypriot community numbered about 124,000 in 1974 but has since dropped to between 65,000 and 80,000 because of emigration. At the same time, Turkey has moved an estimated 100,000 settlers from its Anatolian region to northern Cyprus. … If Turkey’s actions in Cyprus do not constitute ethnic cleansing, then the term has no meaning.

Jean S. Forward, Endangered peoples of Europe: struggles to survive and thrive The Greenwood Press "Endangered peoples of the world" series Endangered peoples of the world, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, 0313310068, 9780313310065, p. 53

One can also add that the tragedy of Cyprus exemplifies another troubling phenomenon, that of “ethnic cleansing,” a term that became widely used in reference to another European state, Yugoslavia.

Antony Evelyn Alcock, A history of the protection of regional cultural minorities in Europe: from the Edict of Nantes to the present day, Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. ISBN 0312235569, 9780312235567, p. 207

Of course, no method of control of territory can compare In terms of horrific brutality with ethnic cleansing. In Europe, apart from PIRA attempts ethnically to cleanse Protestants from border areas In Northern Ireland, two areas where this crime against humanity occurred were Cyprus and Yugoslavia. Southern and Eastern Europe: ethnic cleansing


Van Coufoudakis, Eugene T. Rossides, American Hellenic Institute Foundation, 2002, ISBN 1889247057, 9781889247052, p. 236

But the policy of ethnic cleansing was not condemned when it was implemented, for the first time since World War II, twenty years ago in Cyprus by no less than a NATO-trained and American-equipped army.

William Mallinson, Bill Mallinson, Cyprus: a modern history , I.B.Tauris, 2005, ISBN 1850435804, 9781850435808, p. 147

Juxtaposing the somewhat heavy-handed NATO reaction to Milosevlc’s excesses and NATO’s reaction to the ‘ethnic cleansing’ In Cyprus, the latter is actually non-existent, obviously because Turkey is a NATO member and considered vital to US interests, whereas Yugoslavia was proving a thorn in the side of American plans. Clearly, the US put the Interests of Kosovo Yugoslavs above those of Cypriots, Turkish Kurds and millions of dead Rwandans

.Robert F. Holland, Britain and the revolt in Cyprus, 1954-1959, Oxford University Press, 1998, ISBN 0198205384, 9780198205388

In Omorphita this “purification” what has also recently come to be known the term ‘ethnic clcansing’—was achieved by more direct methods. Individuals were threatened with loss of life if they did not move their families out, whilst the Turkish family selected to replace them dumped their belongings in the front garden.

University of Minnesota. Modern Greek Studies Program, Modern Greek studies yearbook, Τόμος 9, University of Minnesota, 1993, p.577

Cyprus, the first post World War II victim of "ethnic cleansing", wants to be the first to reverse the results of ethnic cleansing.

Brad R. Roth, Governmental illegitimacy in international law, Oxford University Press, 2001, 0199243018, 9780199243013, p. 193

This is the case of Cyprus, where external guarantors were reserved “the right to take action” to preserve a constitutional arrangement providing for power- sharing between the two ethnic groups that together comprised the Cypriot political community. In 1974, Turkey invoked the treaty as a justification (or pretext) for invading Cyprus. a move that, although plausibly provoked by predatory designs of the extra-constitutional Cypriot leadership in collusion with Greece, led to a partition of the country accompanied by measures now known as “ethnic cleansing”.

David J. Whittaker, Conflict and reconciliation in the contemporary world , Making of the contemporary world, Routledge, 1999, ISBN 0415183278, 9780415183277, p. 52

It is a matter of foreign intervention, continuing occupation and ethnic cleansing (Bosnian style).

Miron Rezun, Europe's nightmare: the struggle for Kosovo, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, ISBN 0275970728, 9780275970727

Examples in the twentieth century include the Turkish ethnic cleansing of Greeks (in Cyprus) and Armenians (leading to the Armenian genocide of 1915).

Thomas M. Franck, Recourse to force: state action against threats and armed attacks, vol. 15 of Hersch Lauterpacht memorial lectures, Cambridge University Press, 2002, ISBN 0521820138, 9780521820134

Once its objective had been achieved by the collapse of the Greek junta, however, Turkey went on to occupy a disproportionate part of the island, precipitating large-scale ethnic c1eansing The UN system, although of necessity positioning its peacekeepers along the resultant line of demarcation forged by events beyond its control, firmly rejected -- and, almost three decades later still rejects — the island’s forcible partition in violation of the “territorial integrity” endorsed both by the Council and Assembly.

David A. Lake, Donald S. Rothchild The international spread of ethnic conflict: fear, diffusion, and escalation, Princeton University Press, 1998, ISBN 0691016909, 9780691016900

In Cyprus, the ethnic cleansing of the northern part of the island and its secession as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has not received international recognition, beyond Turkey (Richarte 1995).

Dimitris Keridis, Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, Kokkalis Foundation, NATO and southeastern Europe: security issues for the early 21st century A publication of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis & the Kokkalis Foundation, Brassey's, 2000, ISBN 1574882899, 9781574882896, p.187

In Cyprus there has been an invasion, occupation. ethnic cleansing, massive Introduction of settlers, and creeping annexation by Turkey. --Anothroskon (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How did the greeks get on the island ? I suppose this was an empty island beofre they arrived ?
This matter needs to be NPOV and at the moment there is a great deal of bias in these notes and the article as a whole.
Several of the refs are dodgy and should not have been used, and some statemnets are downright false
THe article has changed a lot since my last edits and I will try and catch up over the next week
I would encourage all editors who have strong feelings on "They started it" to try and exercise more restraint
Chaosdruid (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The Greeks are an indigenous people of Cyprus settled there for several millenia. Again though if you have any sources that the Greeks commited ethnic cleansing in Cyprus please feel free to bring them forward. The only instance of massive slaughter involving the Greeks of Cyprus in antiquity was during the ancient Hebrew's rebellion against the Roman Empire when they slaughtered several tens (or hundreds if sources are to be taken literaly) of thousands of Greeks, i.e. the Hellenes were again the victims of barbarian aggresion. Yet they are still there and will continue to be, if only just to spite you.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, there was an ethnic cleaning by Greek Cypriots. No one can guilt Turkish Army by replacing or cleansing Greek Cypriots, because Turkish Cypriots in southern Cyprus had also settled in northern cyprus and they left their homes and households. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.147.18 (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC) by user Omerli
Yawn. Typical turkish denialist rant. Remember that this is not a forum nor a place where you are encouraged to vent. If you have any sources to back the allegations against Greeks bring them forward. Otherwise it might be time to reconsider your prejudices.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
And are statements like going to stop any trouble ? help towards reconcilitaion ? No - so try and take your nationalistic rants somewhere else. As you said yourself "Remember this is not a forum"..."reconsider your prejudices" Chaosdruid (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually,Anothroskon's speach looked more nationalistic and hate-inspiring than Omerli's. This title gives the impression that Turkey invaded with no pretext or right to invade. But this is nothing new, the western media and acedemia have been throwing around lies and weasal words about the Turks for centuries. Calling Turks 'barbarians' when they were trying to protect their country is very ignorant and blind of you. Don't talk about Turkish denialist rants when you yourself are ignorant and not looking for a peaceful end to the process. 1907AbsoluTurk (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation of Casualties ?

Can someone provide citation for these pretty "interesting" numbers, why about 1000 Greek military personnel is marked as missing, is there anyone looking for them after 35 years, these people are officially dead I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.248.140.221 (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Turkey has not admited to killing these prisoners nor returned their bodies. They are of course most likely long since murdered but the issue is still open.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Intro too long

Hi all

The intro is far to long and needs to be cut down to be more encyclopedic - It is supposed to be a summary

I will look at it again later this week and when I come to do a full review of the article and try and sort the mess out

Chaosdruid (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just got back and noticed a huge addition by an editor of what looks like a huge mess of facts (maybe from another article ? [19])
these need tidying up and/or hiding till verified Chaosdruid (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hidden as looks like copyvio ! Chaosdruid (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Warning added to users page and deleted copyvio [20] section.Chaosdruid (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for discovering the copyvio! Good work. However, I noticed that you also removed the linking to three villages; any reason for that? If not, I`ll reintroduce them. Lala m7 (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was stupid! Sorry about that, I had to undo three edits to remove some stuff and forgot to put them back in so please go ahead.Chaosdruid (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, have done. And thanks for the welcome!;) Lala m7 (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Amendments

Re: Upgrade

Dear Xristar,

I agree to this. If you wish, you may go ahead and proceed with the reorganisation as you feel it is appropriate. Once this is done, I will focus on making sure grammar, spelling, citations and sources are all met for B-class status.

Please try to retain as much of the information as possible, and post any deletions on the talk page so that we can discuss them here first.

Once the work is agreed to be complete, we should proceed towards making the article an A-class by working through the criteria, as as I think this aspect of history is important.

Copperhead331 (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You might like to consider adding that at nicosia airport the canadian UN contingent were relieved by 3 coy 2nd batallion Coldstream guards (UN/UK) contingent. Full ammuntion complement with assured CAP from fast jets. Turkish tanks were dug in on the far side of the perimeter road. 3 Coy under Major JRG Crisp had been at Dhekelia SBA where they were moved to Famagusta to the Lion House days prior to affecting removal to HMS Hermes at Dhekelia of civilians from Famagusta and elsewhere. 3 Coy were then finally sent to Polis to maintain security under Un orders until the end of their tour in December 1974.

Its a small thing but in the timeline factual

Regards

Michael Firth 3 Coy 2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards 1972-5 24283906

Is the term "Invasion" POV in the article title and should the term "Intervention" be used as a more neutral phrasing

The Turkish actions in the Cyprus dispute could be said to be both Intervention and Invasion. The Turkish army invaded the Sovereign state of Cyprus to intervene and stop ethnic killings that were occuring as it claims that no other party, such as the United Nations or the already in place British Government forces, managed to intervene in a timely fashion. Is the term "Invasion" POV in the article title and should the term "Intervention" be used as a more neutral phrasing Chaosdruid (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent comments since April 2010, original request from 2009 and old comments from the archive

Earliest discussion

Prior to 2009 (from Archive 1)

Neutrality

to provide neutrality of this page the term "intervention" must be used instead of "invasion".--Hattusili 22:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality is achieved if the views of the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights prevail. Thus, since they term it an 'invasion', it must be referred to as an invasion. Well, one way or another, a masacre of thousands of people and the confiscation of their private property can only be seen an a bloody, barbaric invasion and not merely an 'intervention'.

Ps. Since I have studied the Constitution of 1960 and I have also read law, I can assurre you that there was nothing 'legal' in the barbaric invasion of 1974. If someone disagrees I am willing to explain to him why he is wrong.

The use of the word barbaric clearly demonstrates that your views are not impartial so i am unsure how you can contribute appropriately to a factual piece. ________________________


Ok, as far as I see, you are calling this intervention "barbaric" mostly depending on your prejudices like seeing everything that has something to do with Turkish people as "barbaric". However, you need to research a little bit harder though to get the facts: here you go:

"With the decision taken by the Supreme Court of Athens on March 21st, 1979, The Turkish intervention was approved to be "legal" according to the fourth article of the Treaty of Guarantee. Besides, The Council of Europe accepted that the Turkish intervention was right and on fair grounds with the article numbered "873" which was taken on July 29th, 1974."

Therefore, those articles approved suggest that what happened in the island was not an "invasion", but an "intervention", which had to be carried away. And we should not forget one thing; there were lots of casulties on both sides; who attacked first with hate, anger, and with the feeling of revenge? --E138257 01:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

--- Hatutilisi You are a propagandist Greek Cypriot. "Barbaric Invasion"? Greek Cypriots killing Turkish Cypriots was barbaric, not a peace keeping operation by Turkey as the Gauranteer of Cyprus. The article has now been fixed a bit to provide a more neutral approach, telling people that there is TWO SIDES TO THIS STORY NOT ONE as this article suggests. YOU CANNOT SAY ONE SIDE IS 100% RIGHT without doing research. And whoever made this article, is a stupid propagandist, that links to Propaganda sites that support THEIR view. Arsenic99 01:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Invasion?

From [21]:

"In July 1974, the military junta in Athens sponsored a coup led by extremist Greek Cypriots against the government of President Makarios, citing his alleged pro-communist leanings and his perceived abandonment of enosis. Turkey, citing the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, intervened militarily to protect Turkish Cypriots."

I see it referred to as an invasion in all related articles. If the US government agrees that it was an intervention, doesn't that raise a flag?

---An intervention may imply requested and even welcome help or it may imply interference that is not appreciated or even unwanted. An invasion always has and always will refer to an intrusive form of interference/intervention, occasionally mixed with connotations regarding the interventor's personal benefits. So, I suppose the most suitable word for what Turkey did really depends on how one views the entire thing. Personally, given the fact that my I know someone who was right there when the Turks attempted to come ashore and were repeatedly pushed back, I would say the Turkish intervention/invasion was not quite welcome by the islanders. But that's just me and I am Greek Cypriot so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.209.66.41 (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL

While reading this article I clicked on the Turkish interwiki link, and look what I found! The article is entitled the "Cyprus Peace Operation" (LOL) and the combatants are supposedly Turkey vs Greece and the "Greek Sector of Southern Cyprus" (büyük LOL).Thulium 14:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that wording offensive to those more colourful Turkish Wikipedians who think there should be no "Greek" sector on Cyprus at all? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
As much as your an expert on what Turkish people "think", how is this discussion relevant to the article? If any of you want to provide some of your in depth and expert analysis on Turkish affairs there are plenty of forums out there for you. --A.Garnet 19:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually the whole world saw it as a conflict between Turkey and Greece, couldn't find the cover of that old TIME magazine on Wikipedia, it depicts the Cyprus issue as a war between both countries. Since everybody is sharing their opinions about the other party, I think Greeks consider Cyprus a humiliating defeat, that's why trying to avoid the use of their name in the conflict, instead on the combatants we see "Greek military junta", as if they are invaders from Mars and have nothing to do with Greece. Plus we see Cyprus next to the Greek junta, as if whole Cyprus fought against Turkey, as if Cyprus consists of only Greeks. Cheers. Sen LOL'lamaya devam et, kuzeyde dalgalanan Türk bayrağı.--Doktor Gonzo 14:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The difference being of course that the junta was not representative of the Greek people, having usurped power in a CIA-inspired military coup, and its actions have been and continue to be roundly condemned in Greece since the metapolitefsi. On the other hand, most Turks enthusiastically endorse their government's thuggery on Cyprus from 1974 to the present day. Until such attitudes begin to change, the Cyprus problem will continue to fester. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, not Martians, CIA men. Whether junta or a democratically elected party, it is still Greece, pal. You don't see the Argentinian military junta as the combatant in the Falklands War infobox, you see Argentina. What about Cyprus as the combatant at the side of the junta? Still the "Cyprus is Greek" thingy? Of course we were and still are behind the Turkish intervention in Cyprus, you don't get it.--Doktor Gonzo 18:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not your pal, matey. As soon as the junta collapsed, Karamanlis decided against pursuing an armed confrontation with Turkey, so your claim that there was a war between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus is disingenuous. As for your second point, Turkey invaded and occupied sovereign territory of the Republic of Cyprus. Whatever you happen to think about the "Greek Régime of Southern Cyprus" is irrelevant, frankly. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you prefer matey to pal? That old British influence coming out again. Greece didn't intervene in Cyprus not because she didn't want to but because she couldn't. Greek army couldn't even fly an aircraft over the island because of the distance. And after seeing Greeks still today claiming Cyprus Greek and all this hostility, I more strongly believe the intervention was one of the most correct decisions Turkey took in the last couple of decades. --Doktor Gonzo 10:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
"Do as I say, not as I do"; the eternal principle. Turks condemn the evils of the Megali Idea, but when they follow similar expansionist policies, it's OK. Greeks have long shaken off such ways of thinking (the border with Albania has been recognized at last); when will Turkey recognize the sovereignty of Cyprus? BTW Gonzo, Türklerin sorunlari Kibris ancak degildir; enflasion, Kürtler, Ege sorunu ve tabii Avrupa Birliginin istemleri daha önemli sorunlardir. Merak etiyor musun?--Domitius 16:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Turkey does not have expansionist policies. Cyprus was first and foremost a security issue to Turkey, not part of an ideological drive to expand. Just as Greece was willing to undermine the integrity of Cyprus and so threaten Turkey's southern flank, so too was Turkey willing to employ the same tactics in defending its own security. However, inlike Greece who has gone through five phases of expansion (seven if you count Smyrna and Cyprus attempt) since its creation, Turkey was founded on a policy of strictly abandoning its Ottoman past. --A.Garnet 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Domitius, it is open to discussion who has the expansionist goals in this geography. Turks feel the same kind of threat from its neighbours. Turkish Republic was built in accordance to the Kuvayi Milliye haritası/map, it is clear what Turkish forces were fighting for since day one, nothing is secret. I don't consider the intervention in Cyprus an expansionist move, and frankly no Turk I know of does. Once in a while, just like in Greece, there are some less intelligent who shout "We will take them all" but I assure you, since the foundation of the Republic, none of them has come to power in this country, especially not in the military. For the Turkish part: Valla Türkiyenin sorunları o kadar çokki, Yunanistan'ın bilet alıp sıraya girmesi lazım.--Doktor Gonzo 19:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
So Turks do not consider the invasion of Cyprus the implementation of expansionist designs against a sovereign state? To me that situation with the Megali Idea are identical, the aim is the same: to liberate people of the same nation and to unite them with the nation state. That still is expansionism, whatever the ethnic composition of the coveted territories and whatever people in Turkey or Greece choose to call it.--Domitius 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course they don't. According to the Turkish mentality, it isn't expansionism when it's directed against former Ottoman territories, as these lands rightfully belong to them and/or were wrongfully taken away from them in the first place. Hence the persistent Turkish violations in the Aegean and the absurd concept of "grey zones", and the recent kerfuffle over the "Turkish Republic of Western Thrace" garbage on the Turkish education ministry website. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, the Aegean is a strategic concern, not part of an expansionist policy. Turkey's only interest is in keep the Aegean open to its fleet. If it was about expansion, then those islands would have been flying a Turkish flag long ago. --A.Garnet 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
How very kind of you. Again, your rants are indicative of your true loyalties, which certainly aren't to Cyprus. Keep up the good work. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's drop the trivialities and talk about some serious stuff: who is going to win on Saturday? Baristarim 01:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
We all know the answer to that. This is all part of the build-up. ;) ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As usual Kekrops I am basing my observations on studied facts, and you are basing yours on rhetoric. I happen to study Turkish foreign policy, these are not rants, but observations based on traditional state interests. If Turkey is a neo-imperialist state, which according to you is proved by its position in the Aegean, then why has it not annexed a single Aegean island? Now who is the one ranting? --A.Garnet 01:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Turkey is not as omnipotent as you think. The reason that it has not annexed a single Aegean island is because it simply cannot. It has however tested the waters several times, most notably during the Imia incident, and failed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I also note that the Turks' loud grunting on the annexation of northern Cyprus in the event of the island's accession to the EU proved to be nothing but hot air. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You dont half speak bollocks my friend. According to you, Turkey's Ottoman expansionism is proven by a dispute over a small uninhabited rock in the Aegean? Please, if that was the case, then I dont think you have much to fear from this new empire. The real problem here is that Greece and Greek Cypriots still educate their children to regard Turkey and the Ottomans as one and the same, as an aggresive and expansionist power, meanwhile dismissing their own history of continued expansion until defeat a few kilometers from Ankara. --A.Garnet 02:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the territorial acquisitions resulting from Greek expansionism were illegitimate? Ankara itself regards Turkey and the Ottomans as one and the same when it sings the praises of the "Turkish Republic of Western Thrace" on its education ministry's website and lays claim to an undefined number of islands in the Aegean over which it argues Ottoman sovereignty was never interrupted. Bollocks, indeed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Guys, could you all please stop your off-topic political debates? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok honestly, what we Turks need to do is work harder, think brighter, bring out the true potential of this country, make it a better place. There is no way we can beat Greeks in the talking category for sure, look ahead, less talk, more work.--Doktor Gonzo 11:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Very flattering for Turks, what you just said. Sure, sure, if you're indeed incapable of proper discourse then sharpen those swords and chop few heads, why don't you. Oh and pee around a bit to mark your territory too, since, after all, talking is no option. Very civilised indeed. Did you think at all when you wrote this? You're an embarrassment to all Turks globally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.137.231 (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Irnia Kardak you mean? two pieces of rock, greece tried to invade (but as usual went back saying i will tell you to my brothers but brothers were not there this time, i wonder why?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.92.149 (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent discussion

Post January 2009

Change of Name

Regardless of whatever the United Nations or whoever else says Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that is free from any controversy so therefore all the pages should be translated from Kıbrıs Barış Harekâtı meaning Cyprus Peace Movement not Turkish Invasion of Cyprus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy Benoit (talk • contribs) 11:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not "Cyprus Peace Movement". It is "Cyprus Peace Operation". Maverick16 (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Who the hell is keep on changing the bloody name and why?

One thing I want to say for all these back-and-forth moves: Even if the article should be moved (and I think that's open to discussion, there might be some merit to the idea) the correct translation is most certainly not "Cyprus Peace Movement" but "Cyprus Peace Operation". (From Turkish: Movement -> Hareket, Operation -> Harekat) A "peace movement" is something else entirely, it is a social trend like demonstrations by NGOs and rallies etc. Like "make love not war". You get the picture.
So if we are going to do it, we should do it right. Cheers - Xasf (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the move as such a change should be discussed and decided here. while I have no expertise in the subject, surely the consensus in reliable sources is the correct source for the article name. Google is often a poor substitute for scholarship but.

  • "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus" >700 google book hits, > 500 in scholarly articles
  • "Cyprus Peace Operation" ~50 google book hits, ~15 scholarly article hits
  • "Cyprus Peace Movement" <10 book hits and <5 in scholarly papers

- Seems fairly clear what is the common name for the operation. From what I can see in news sources, "Peace Movement" is used nowhere, "Peace Operation" rarely and then mostly by a few Turkish sources and the BBC reporting Turkish political speaches, "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus" is used almost everywhere. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not change any term of invasion to intervention. Those who believe that this is not an invasion but an intervention may have a point but before doing any edit please consider WP:What Wikipedia Is Not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadagger (talk • contribs) 11:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't change the content of the operation. This operation brought Peace to the island. In the end of this operation Greeks couldn't kill any Turks until this time.Maverick16 (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure to whom I should apply about this but this appears to be the most releveant. According to the United Nations, the 1974 operation is classified as an "intervention" not an "invasion" http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unficyp/background.shtml "A coup d'état in Cyprus on 15 July 1974 by Greek Cypriot and Greek elements favouring union with Greece was followed by military intervention by Turkey"

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr353.htm UN RESOLUTION 353 (1974) 3.Demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus

As such, I can not see how can Wikipedia classifies this as an "invasion". The only possible explanation could be that as one of the previous posters stated, Googling "invasion" returns more results than "intervention", however this issue can not be considered under Wikipedia's in-common-use rule for matters related to language, the very word "invasion" only signifies a sided, subjective view of the event considering UN classifies it as an "intervention". I do not think the obvious need of changing the title is a matter of serious debate under this circumstances as under lots of topics such as the Armenian "genocide", Wikipedia refers to the UN documents over what the title should be in event of a dispute.

So question is, who has the privilege to change the name from "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" to "Turkish invervention to Cyprus" ? Tmhm (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC) --Tmhm (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmhm (talk • contribs) 07:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is typical UN-speak trying to be neutral and inoffensive towards all. Even so, "military intervention" is pretty much a euphemism for "invasion", especially if it concerns another sovereign country. "Turkish intervention in Cyprus" is both vague and deliberately misleading, since the crucial "military" part is missing: the Turks did not come with flowers, aid packages and chocolates, but with bombs and tanks. Anyhow, Wikipedia uses the names that are most common in English usage, not what the UN or other countries use (that is why we use Republic of Macedonia instead of FYROM, for example). And as Peripitus demonstrated above, usage is overwhelmingly in favour of the current form. Constantine ✍ 08:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Turks did not come with flowers and chocolates because you can not defend against people(the Greeks) who has guns and tanks, and whose de facto president states "According to the Greek daily newspaper Eleftherotipia, which interviewed him on February 26, 1981, he said, “Had Turkey not intervened, I would not only have proclaimed Enosis, I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus as well.”"

But this is not the point. Point is; as long as UN classifies this as an intervention and NOT an invasion, classifying this as an invasion can only be the personal feeling of an editor who is siding with one of the parties of the dispute. The name military intervention is also acceptible, intervention obviously signifies a military intervention without further emphasis and was not meant to cover the military aspect of the event, but if that is a concern, it is fine. As I previously stated how English speakers know the event is irrelevant in a historic issue not to mention it is only an unscientific assumption based on Google search that they know it as an invasion. Most of the English speakers know Nadia Komaneci as the "that Romanian girl with freakishly elastic body" or Jean Hill is still known as the "Lady in Red" but I do not see how it affects the title as such definitions are only used when there is no clear or official title, it is not the common default practice. UN classifies it as an intervention so the title shall be such.

So question is, who has the privilege to change the name from "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" to "Turkish invervention to Cyprus" ? --Tmhm (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Tmhm (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmhm (talk • contribs) 20:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The matter has been raised as a matter of POV - that the title "Invasion" is POV and the NPOV title should be "Intervention"
The question being put is "Was it an intervention or was it an invasion". The problem is that it was both. Cyprus is an independant nation.
The Greek Cypriot move for Enosis started the major events that led to the Turkish intervention. Intervention is something that is done to stop an event from happening. Invasion is when the troops from one country cross into another when they are not invited.
Unfortunately the Turkish troops invaded the sovereign state of Cyprus. That invasion was in an attempt to intervene. The article title could equally use Intervention or Invasion. Both are in fact what happened - Turkey tried to intervene and in the end decided to invade.
If there had been a highly significant number of Turkish citizens on the island then the term intervention would be appropriate. If there were not a significant number then the term intervention begins to lose significance.
Editors need to remember that the numbers of Greek and Turkish people on the island is not the same as ethnic Cypriot Greeks and ethnic Cypriot Turks.

  • If the person was born on Cyprus they are Cypriot and their ethnic background does not make them a Greek or a Turk.
  • Any persons claiming "I am Greek" or "I am Turkish" would need to prove citizenship of those countries and that they were, in fact, not Cypriot.
  • Any country "aiding their citizens" would need to prove that they were in fact aiding their citizens and not merely Cypriots of a particular ethnicity.
Chaosdruid (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Okay, if this is an "invasion" then why isn't the whole country Turkish? Because it isn't!!! An invasion is only an invasion if we had taken over the entire country not part of it. In my opinion, whatever the replacement could be, the word "Invasion" is offensive, aggressive and nothing from the truth. This makes it look like as if Turkey is barbaric, we're not. The ottomans probably were but if we were not there, Cyprus would be, thanks to ENOSIS, annexed to Greece and since the Ottomans ruled over the country from most of the start, Turkey would have lost land. I'm asking all you isguzarlar, I cant find the definition in English, What the f would you do if you're country was in such a state??? UN recognises North Korea, UN recognises Northern Ireland but why not Northern Cyprus? Let me tell you because UN is full of christians and cyprus is muslim, TRNC, That is the sole reason that UN wants to be hyprocritics because if they recognise Cyprus, there is no need for them to have a base in the country so they can't ride their donkeys as they are currently doing so in the interest of fairness, i think it is more of an intervention because there is a military attack for crying out loud, what the hell did you lot expect us to do, stand back and let them kill all the nationals, not mentioning the disgusting sin of raping woman and a 15-year old teenager, and then just say "Ah, Oh well"??? Well, not in my fucking book!!!"

The overwhelmingly preferred term in the neutral literature is "invasion", and for good reason. What pretext Turkey used to invade is irrelevant. Most of the actual killing took place during the invasion, and the invasion was accompanied by much destruction, ethnic cleansing. "Intervention" is a weasel-word used almost exclusively by Turkish and pro-Turkish sources, and using it would be a violation of NPOV. Athenean (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It is integral part of WP:Neutral to call a spade a spade. Ever heard of a German intervention in Poland? So keep. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, and as other users pointed out, "intervention" is just an effort to make the operation appear harmless, even beneficial by using a more neutral, generic and vague term, that can be interpreted at will. It is a less blatant attempt than the "peace operation" proposed by others, but in the same vein. A "military intervention" against a sovereign state, regardless of the motives, is called an invasion: Power A unilaterally enters in force the territory of Power B. Check the relevant article in Wikipedia, it describes exactly what happened in Cyprus. Whether this was to prevent ethnic cleansing, enosis or whatnot is another matter altogether, as is the fact that Turkish troops still remain here 40 years after their successful "intervention". Either way, Wikipedia guidelines require we use the most common name used in respectable sources (major newspapers, historians, etc) and it is clear that "invasion" is the preferred term. Constantine ✍ 00:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I have never heard the invasion of cyprus be described as an "intervention." Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is very disappointing if this is the general conduct over a proposed change. Somebody suggests a change and then people/mods who obviously belong to one side of the dispute come and simply overwhelms the section with "no" 's. One goes far enough to create a fallacy by actually comparing the event to Nazi occupation and one other says he never "heard" (personal feeling not even experience) the "invasion" is described as "intervention" while the links to the United Nations documents are provided right on this page.

This article is mainly about the events that occured during the summer of 1974 (as described; Turkish invasion of Cyprus of July and August 1974) which is an intervention, as such documented by the United Nations. The word invasion or occupation can be used as a part of a Greek Cypriot opinion under "Cyprus dispute" with comprehensive information that consists of details of the events prior and after the military intervention. As such, while the United Nations documents are there, this issue is not a matter of interpretation. Wikipedia shall be objective and not to be ruled by non-scientific personal arguments or who has more lobby or media power to shape the public opinion (disguised under common-use), but with regards to official documents over the issue. Otherwise it is not possible to be objective in any case as even the most clear cases have a good number of opponents as seen above, as well as the proponents. --Tmhm (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The title should be the term that people are most likely to use when searching for the article. Do more reliable sources refer to this as an 'intervention' than an 'invasion?' Which term is a person looking for information more likely to type into the search bar? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the United Nations documents are not reliable sources or are not good enough?

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unficyp/background.shtml http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr353.htm --Tmhm (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just asking a question. I googled both phrases- "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" seems to be much more widely used than "Turkish intervention in Cyprus, which makes me think that's the term people are more likely to search for. All I know about Turkey is that they make fabulous kebobs, which is more than I know about Cyprus- I don't have any political point of view on either side of this disagreement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I was just answering. That is an unscientific conclusion which even the fact that Wikipedia phrasing the event as an invasion under a number of topics greatly contributes with it's numerous duplicates and quotations on the internet, I would like to see the results again after one year Wikipedia changed it's title. Remember there was a point everybody thought that the world is flat, as such public opinion can not be sole base for informational, historical, scientific, medicine etc topics. Moreover, even if it were true that the public opinion is sided that ways, there is no logic behind giving public opinion shaped by the media more credit over official documents in topics such as history, science et al, besides the fact that it is convenient at times for some people under some circumstances.

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view - that means no sided views due to misinterpretations of another supposedly conflicting rule(e.g. common use - Google search result comparison arguments)

The title in this form directly puts forward a sided Wikipedia viewpoint whereas an "intervention" is neutral in the way that it can be interpreted as an invasion or a peace operation by parties with differing opinions, it is up to judgement from that point on. Not to repeat it is as such classified officially by the highest governing body, the UN. --Tmhm (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But what good is that, if people can't find the article when they search for it? It seems like you're asking Wikipedia to take a side, by calling this something other than what it's commonly called. Hey, though, the two of us have already weighed in, and I think I've made my position clear- I think Wikipedia should use the term that people are most likely to search for, the term that's most frequently used, and you think that Wikipedia should use the term that doesn't reflect badly on Turkey. If consensus agrees with you, that's the Wikipedia way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't read my post, or you haven't understood it, or I couldn't make myself clear if you say I ask Wikipedia to take a side when I say Wikipedia takes a side with this title already and should use a neutral one to -not take a side-, it is not for the purpose of not reflecting badly on Turkey, but for the purpose of being neutral/objective to everyone as that is one of Wikipedia's 5 pillars. If I suggest that the title should be Peace operation, that would be asking Wikipedia to take a side. Here we have a situation where one party calls it an invasion, one calls it a peace operation, where as it is an intervention as UN also classifies as such, I fail to see how asking the word intervention to be used is asking to take sides, unless Wikipedia is some sort of Greek propaganda site. Furthermore the neutral title I propose is the "official" one the United Nations uses. As for not finding, first off I tried to explain that common use argument is neither scientific in this case but nor and more importantly can't directly apply to historic, scientific etc topic per se. Also, I believe people who search for something with an incorrect title can be easily redirected, people can find this page with a simple query of "cyprus 1974" without even using any extra controversial words http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&ie=UTF-8&q=cyprus+1974&hl=en so that's not really a concern. --Tmhm (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there nobody with the privilege to change the title? --Tmhm (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the privilege of changing the title is by consensus of the involved editors (Consensus is more than simple majority). From the above discussion it should be clear there is no consensus for the change, and it is unlikely there will be a consensus for this change soon, if ever. This discussion seems like a prime example of flogging a dead horse, it is not going to run. Let it rest. Arnoutf (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a request for comment, not a vote, and has been started to try and find consensus in editors outside of those immediately involved as well as those who are/have been involved in these discussions. If consensus to change is not reached then it is likely that the title will stay the same unless there are sufficient grounds to prove that the title is WP:POV and should be changed.
I find that Arnoutf saying "it is not going to run" is a little off - though that may be a language thing. The RfC will run for 30 days and has not even reached day 5 yet Chaosdruid (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes for more clarity on this matter Chaosdruid (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The matter of ascertaining an accurate "most widely used" should not really be based on google searches. The search parameters give widely ranging results: Turkish intervention in Cyprus - 1,520,000 [22] and Turkish invasion of Cyprus - 117,000 [23] as compared to the results stated by the previous editor Chaosdruid (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
By consensus among editors if you mean Greek people(Athenos, Constantine etc) simply saying "no" without real reason, that is only an encouragement of planned gathering of like-minded editors who flood here with yes's, that's simply an unhealthy way of organizing things, but I can do that no problems. Remember the saying "1 man with the truth constitute majory" and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy
I provided the UN document regarding the incident referring the event as an intervention, if there is anyone who is able to provide a document referring to the event as an invasion from a higher body, if such body exists, I am willing to rest my case, otherwise the title shall be "fixed" rather than "changed".
Text posted by Tmhm 20:19 UTC on 28 July 2010 (unsigned) and moved by me to correct chronological order Chaosdruid (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Look what Athenean says on Talk:Imbros "Raw google searches and tourist guidebooks are worthless as sources. We must only look at reliable sources, because that is what wikipedia is based on. " whereas he suggests quite the contrary here because it is conventient in this case. I really can't understand why there is a need for people coming here to flood with yes's under the consensus pretext. Someone just throws in a false title on a controversial topic and when it is obvious no agreement can be reached the title stays as it is under the no consensus pretext. If the title is fixed, there can not be any consensus reached to reverse it back since there will be people who oppose it as well. I really don't see how this approach contributes to anything but one sided propaganda. The official document is there, as the opponent of the change advocates as needed in another Talk page, someone justneeds to "fix" this title to intervention, really. --Tmhm (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone change the title please how long will we wait? --Tmhm (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

30 days unless it becomes clear that it should be closed before then (as I have just fixed the incorrect listing it may be extended if necessary). This is a request for comment not a vote or a search for consensus - in fact consensus is not really of any concern here. This process tries to allow the opportunity for editors who are interested in the topic to come to an agreement on what should be done about the matter. If the matter is not resolved, ie the parties do not agree then the matter can be taken further.
When it comes to the Google search results - they are important. It will show the common usage of the phrases and from the search you will be able to see the sources that use them and the relevence of the information (text in italics added later - see below).Chaosdruid (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to set the record straight on the Google search issue: searches in the generic Google are not reliable for demonstrating actual usage, and are almost never used. Instead, in such cases the usual process is to rely on results in Google Books and Google Scholar, which by default evidence the more official and scholarly usage. Here the evidence is overwhelming: for "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" 4,350 hits in GBooks and 773 hits in GScholar, against 677 hits in GBooks and 146 hits in GScholar for "Turkish intervention in Cyprus". Here it must also be noted that "Turkish intervention" is also used in the instances above to refer generically to any Turkish action in Cyprus, and not always specifically to the 1974 operation: "America would not tolerate Turkish intervention in Cyprus", "a Turkish intervention in Cyprus would lead to a military engagement between Turkish and Greek forces", etc. Constantine ✍ 11:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have modified my previous answer as I realised it needed clarifying :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I already provided the UN documents, I do not think methods such as Google search or anything else can dispute this evidence. So someone just please change the title to 'intervention' this is not a matter of debate really. I do not understand why you ignore such a simple fact that UN classifies it as an intervention. The sort of consensus can never be reached as long as you expect people come here and support truth, all you will get is fanatical right-wing Greeks like Contantine, Athenos etc coming here and saying "no! this is better" kind of answers obviously because it is convenient. Is this an encyclopedia or a Greek propaganda site? Please just go ahead and change the title please, the evidence is provided, the truth is sky clear, you do not need fanatics approval, as Wikipedia says "be bold" in editing. --Tmhm (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Other than Turkey, no one describes Turkey's action as an "intervention."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid this cannot be called Intervention because the occupy of the land of Cyprus for 40+ years conflicts with the terms "Intervention" and "Peace Operation". In either Intervention or Peace Operations, the interventing state (Turkey in this case), has to withdraw all of its armies once the Intervention's goals are accomplished and the public order in Cyprus is restored. Turkey not only never left the Island, but also occupied 40% of the island's territory, misplacing many non-Turk local islanders, and thus, forcing them to go to the South, and Turkey permanently garissoned troops on the island, without the Republic of Cyprus's approval. This is where the term "Intervention" automatically changes to "Invasion". I never never never heard the military occupy of territory of a sovereign state being called as Intervention or Peace Operation rather than Invasion. Its just ridiculous.--85.75.182.146 (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

convenience break

Thats not quite right as the term appears in plenty of places other than just Turkish sources ; including the UN Chaosdruid (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. Constantine ✍ 22:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Can we take the case to dispute resolution? Tmhm (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
We can, but so far there has been a clear result. Even if (or rather, particularly when) we discount the votes of Greeks and Turks as obviously partisan, "invasion" has gathered more votes, and is far more supported by the relevant bibliography per the Google results above. That's why I linked the dead horse "rule". Constantine ✍ 10:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think the term "invasion" is technically accurate and subjectively neutral - there can be perfectly good justifications for an invasion, so the word itself doesn't imply evil-doing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, for example 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands. If a country seizes control of a place which is not under her sovereignty prior to war, then it is an invasion. Am I right? Kavas (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Invasion without a doubt brings forward the notion of a violation and simplifies the context down to a mere aggression whereas a military intervention is the accurate and subjectively neutral term to describe the event, that is how the United Nations classify the event(UN RESOLUTION 353 (1974) 3.Demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus). Classifying this military intervention as an invasion or a peace operation is a matter of POV. Military intervention: "The deliberate act of a nation or a group of nations to introduce its military forces into the course of an existing controversy." This is exactly what the article is about, and not Invasion: "The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer." Hence I strongly suggest we take this to dispute resolution for the sake of maintaining WP:NPOV. Tmhm (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, it is tricky, isn't it? To me the word "intervention" implies some kind of justification (I'm not arguing that there wasn't, but it does seem subjective to me) - but then the UN probably tries its best to be as neutral as possible, so we should consider their words too. Maybe some sort of arbitration might be worthwhile, if only to settle it once and for all. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK this has been going for more than a month now so I supose it is time to bring this section to finality.

First of all let me just remind people that this is NOT a vote ! The point here is not whether or not people support or object to the proposed change but whether there is any justification for the change under WP policy and guidelines - as for the deadhorse comment; the horse is not dead no matter how many times someone tells me "that is a dead horse" if I can see it still moving it is not dead yet even if they may wish it was :¬)

It is clear to me that there is a case to be taken further as the words invasion and intervention are indeed different in both meaning and implication. The most important thing as far as I can see is that under the terms of the original agreement Turkey, Greece and the UK had the right to intervene if a situation existed where their individual ehnic groups were put in danger and nothing was being done about it.

If the article is to be called "Intervention" then it must include all those details of action taken by Turkey before the invasion started. AS such the invasion of Cyprus was only the final step in Turkeys intervention attempts.

If the article is to remain as "Invasion" everything which is not pertinent should be stripped out and a new page created to detail the intervention which took place prior to the invasion.

So there are three options:-

1 Rename this page "Intervention" and ensure all actions taken by Turkey (diplomatic etc) which lead up to the invasion are detailed as well as the actual invasion
2 Leave the page as "invasion" and create a page for all the Turkish actions, diplomatic etc., leading up to the invasion - which may well end up getting merged with this one anyway
3 Rename - "Turkish intervention and invasion of Cyprus" (or similar)

I realise that there will be continued debate on this matter but it is vital that people put aside any nationalistic ideals which may be clouding their judgement.

I feel that there is a just case for including "Intervention" and including all the details of Turkish diplomacy which led up to the invasion. I also think it might be more correct to name the page "Turkish intervention and invasion of Cyprus" as this is in fact more accurate Chaosdruid (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we take this to dispute resolution then? Tmhm (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It would appear not - as you have managed to upset everyone and got yourself banned, blocked, sockpuppeted and generally in everyones bad books. Next time try and be a little more patient and not lose your temper so easily as this achieves better results!
Also dispute resolution is not necessarily the right place to go from here. Requested page moves is probably the better place to go but that will, I suppose, have to wait until you return (if you ever do)
I also advise you VERY STRONGLY to not edit any pages whilst you are banned, from any IP address, nor make any new accounts. If at least you cna do this you may stand a chance at getting your good name back and my support in this matter. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The Turkish invasion of Cyprus (Greek: Τουρκική εισβολή στην Κύπρο, known in Turkey as Kıbrıs Barış Harekâtı (Cyprus Peace Operation) - It is extremely unbelievable that this even is called "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" by the Greek, "Peace Operation" by the Turks, "Military invervention" by the UN, and WP chooses to name it "Turkish invasion of Cyprus". If this is not POV, what is? Karfiol (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
It is also called "invasion" by pretty much everyone else too, if you care to check the Google results above. It is like an American complaining that "2003 invasion of Iraq" adopts the Iraqi POV and that it should be labelled "US intervention in/liberation of Iraq"... Any military intervention from a third country against a sovereign country equals invasion, no matter the real reasons or pretexts for it. That is why the "Allied invasion of Italy" or the "Invasion of Grenada" for instance are labelled thus. Constantine ✍ 09:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
It is not called "invasion" by anyone but Greeks. See here http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr353.htm UN RESOLUTION 353 (1974) 3.Demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus Iraqi war has no resemblence to Cyprus as United States had no guarantor rights or right to intervene (Zurich and London Agreement) in Iraq nor any other initiators of other wars you put as examples; but if you are one of those guys who put a "Nazi" argument in every topic that makes sense. Calling this with the name Greeks call it, is a clear example of POV. If one suggests to call it Peace Operation it's also a POV. The factual name will be "Turkish military intervention in Cyprus" undoubtedly. Karfiol (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I repeat: read the Google results above. The UN also calls the Republic of Macedonia as FYROM, but that would be the Greek POV or no? Wikipedia accepts common usage, not what any one body, even the UN, says an does. As for Turkey's guarantor rights, these meant that Turkey could intervene to restore the status quo ante, i.e. the Republic of Cyprus in its entirety, not to occupy a third of its territory ad infinitum... That is an additional factor that makes it an invasion and not a mere "intervention": conquest of territory. Constantine ✍ 09:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Google results are not scientific and. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#What_a_search_test_can_do.2C_and_what_it_can.27t Search engines cannot: Guarantee the results are reliable or "true" - Guarantee why something is mentioned a lot - cannot Be neutral. You can not decide what Turkey has done was a breach of the London Zurich agreement just because you do not like it, and occupation is your and common Greek POV as Turkish Cypriots who are indigenous owners of the island do not suggest there is a Turkish occupation on the North but there is a Greek occupation on the South. You merely repeat a "No, this is better for us(Greeks), so better no change" rhetoric. The UN classifies it as a military intervention as documented. Even an obvious name as Macedonia article has been decided through arbitration (seeWikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia) ) there is no arbitration for this blatantly POV naming. At worst it should be taken to arbitration which the result will be very clear. Karfiol (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Deciding the fate of an article's name based on Google Scholar, Books or whatever search you make on the Internet is basically stating "Greek/Cypriot propaganda is the only proof for our POV". Turkey, Greece and Cyprus are all member states of United Nations. United Nations' public articles state action of Turkey as a "military intervention".
The dispute on the matter is unnecessary. Greeks are calling the event "Invasion", Turks are calling "Peace Operation" and UN calls "Intervention". What google results say or propagandists say is completely irrelevant. This is not a subjective issue. What UN names the event must be used as the name of the article. Immidiate action is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspectortr (talk • contribs) 00:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid the term "Intervention" does not properly describes the events as whole. In an Intervention, no country occupies 40% of the land of another country for 40+ years. Intervention means that once the stability and public order is restored, the interventing state (Turkey) has to withdraw the armies from the subject state (Cyprus). This is Intervention. Turkey not only did not withdrawed its army, it also forced all the non-Turkish populations get misplaced from almost 40% of the island's total territory and move to the south. I know that some Turkish speaking people here want to rename the article from Invasion to Intervention, but before doing so, ask yourself: If Armenia (theoritically), invaded and occupied 20% of Turkey's total territory, by using as a pretext the Turkish-Armeni mob fights, and thus, set a permanent garrison in Turkey's territory, without Turkey's permission, for over 40 years, how could you call this? Armenian Intervention of Turkey? Or Armenian Invasion of Turkey? Of course the second. The same goes for Cyprus, because I repeat: In an intervention we are not occupying the land of a foreign country, and establish a legally invalid state (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which is not recognized by anyone, except its creator, Turkey).--85.75.182.146 (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Desecration of churches

Currently, the article fails to mention that at least 55 churches have been converted into mosques and another 50 churches and monasteries have been converted into stables, stores, hostels, museums, or have been demolished. Does anyone have objection to including these facts, and if so, please articulate why.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That kind of information needs to be backed up by actual resources, not some Greek Cypriot webpage. Besides, those aspects are more related to the Cyprus dispute rather than the military intervention. Tmhm (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I've just removed a section that was added about church desecration, because I agree it doesn't really belong in an article that is about the invasion itself - if reliable sources can be found, I think it would fit fine in Cyprus dispute. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
It is a direct consequence of the invasion and fits under the destruction of cultural heritage. Not mentioning it is whitewashing. I won't revert again and urge you to do the same until the issue is resolved. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not suggesting whitewashing - I'm suggesting moving it to another article. I also don't think the source given is sufficiently reliable - it is a Greek Cypriot web site that has a very clear one-sided point of view - so I think it needs to be better sourced (or if there are no better sources, maybe something like "Greek Cypriots claim that..."?). Whether the events are a consequence of the invasion, or of the Turkish presence in the subsequent years, or of the general Cyprus dispute is, of course, open to debate - let's see what the consensus here says. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
A reliable resource is needed; I found an article mentioning the issue but no article besides the one on the Greek Cypriot website puts forward exact numbers. Therefore I add "According to a Greek Cypriot claim" before the paragraph. Feel free to edit when you come up with a better resource. Tmhm (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both for your input. Untill a better source is found I agree on the "claim" clarification and will seek input from editors on the Cyprus Issue page for a possible move of the material there. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

History of Cyprus

The history of Cyprus begins millennia before the Ottoman invasion of 1571. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparos (talk • contribs) 09:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Article problems

Hi all - I have re-assessed the article as C class for the Cyprus portal.

THings such as the opening pic, the bias in the lead, the 20 refs used for one sentence, obvious bias throughout various sections, misinformation, the massive amount of cn tags and some other aspects lead me to the conclusion that the article is not worthy of a B class rating.

It might be prudent to address these issues

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Also at the time of the invasion other air strikes were made by the Greek and Turkish forces elsewhere in the Aegean - as far west as Syros - and these haven't been included anywhere.86.42.193.162 (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this quote allowed?

The present foreign minister, Professor Ahmet Davutoglu, in his book Strategic Depth from 2001. Here Davutoglu states clearly: "Even if there was not one single Muslim Turk over there, Turkey would have to maintain a Cyprus question. No country could possibly be indifferent to an island like this, placed in the heart of its vital space." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/04/turkey-eu-cyprus

Reaper7 (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

As long as you quote it I don't see why not. It has been said and even though it may not be reliable evidence it could be added into greek views on the intervention/invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.20.222 (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization

Hello, I'll be working on this article over the next day or so for a class in conjunction with Wikiprojects. After going through the article several time, there are a few big changes that i think need to happen. First, there are some things that are completely out of place or need to rearranged. For instance,at one point the article is talking about the constitutional breakdown of 1963 and ensuing ethnic violence, and then a paragraph later it jumps right into something Ecevit said before Turkish troops landed on Cyprus in 1974. This at the very least needs to be moved to the section about the 1974 coup and subsequent Turkish invasion. Also it seems like the whole section about the 63 and 67 round of violence under the section 'Greek military coup and Turkish invasion' could be moved up to 'events leading up to the Turkish invasion' as this seems like a more appropriate place for the information. There are also a lot of other example of confusing organization that I think need to be worked out. Additionally, there are many uncited statements that have a clear bias that need to be dealt with. I'm not planning to touch the 'opinion' sections, but some statements, especially in the sections dealing with ethnic cleansing show clear bias and I think they need to be either qualified or removed. I will try not to delete too much, and obviously nothing that has been cited. I hope it is ok to make these changes.

IR393Sadar (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent Human Rights Violations by Turkey

More recently, Turkey have still been breaching Northern Cypriots human rights. On Christmas day 2010, Turks stormed a morning service at a small church, thus breaching the human right to a religion and freedom to exercise it.90.195.226.164 (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We're on the wrong page for that. This article is about the events of 1974. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Turks and Turkey are different terms...--hnnvansier (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Enrich the article with our pictures

Please add pictures to the article. Pictures like the devastation of churches, places and villages by Turkis armed forces. Also pictures about the refugees forced to live north to south would be also useful to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldglobal (talk • contribs) 11:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We strive to be neutral here in line with WP:NPOV. We would need to balance such pictures with others depicting Greek devastation. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved to here from TAF page -

To summarize the page of TAF I moved below part. Some part may be included in this article is neccassary Yakamoz51 (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Turkish forces invaded the island in two waves, occupying 37% of the island's territory in the north-east and evicting 200,000 Greeks from their territories, in an act described by many sources as ethnic cleansing.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

In the aftermath, Turkish Cypriots declared a separate political entity in the form of the Turkish Federative State of Cyprus and by 1983 made a unilateral declaration of independence as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which was recognised only by Turkey. The United Nations continues to recognize the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus according to the terms of its independence in 1960.

Is North Cyprus Property Consultant a reliable source?

The question of what properties this company sells, and whether or not those sales are ethical, is entirely irrelevant at Wikipedia- that's between the company and the laws of the country in which it does business. Wikipedia is concerned with the question of whether this is a reliable source. I can't tell exactly what it is. It seems to be a copy of a full-length book, by Altan Houssein, housed on the web site of a real estate agent? I can't find evidence that this book has been published anywhere, or that Altan Houssein is a historian of any repute. Flipping back to the first page of the book, the author seems to have a distinct point of view related to his subject, and flipping to the back, I can't find anywhere that he's cited his own sources, which any historian would do. I am not seeing a reason to accept this work as a reliable source of information. If anyone else has information about where this book was published, and what the author's scholarly credentials are, that would be helpful in establishing it as a reliable source. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the legal issues. At the very least there is a conflict of interest. What does Wikipedia think about conflicts of interest? Is it worth confirming whether or not the publication is a worthy source (through the appropriate Wikipedia noticeboard)? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I've watched this dispute closely. I too am curious if northcyprus qualifies as a reliable source. Methinks no. I think this article should be locked to stop the blatant edit warring. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I locked this article to all but registered usernames about four days ago. Suggestions for further action are very welcome. Nipsonanomhmata, please do take the northcyprus source to the reliable sources noticeboard. Kind regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Amendment: I too am not happy with this book, on a closer look. Should editors wish it, I'm quite happy to remove this source from the article. Wikipedia is now going through a stage where we can remove easily available sources that look comprehensive and replace them with more scholarly works. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I certainly agree. I also suggest that the following line should be deleted from the article: "In 2004, Greek Cypriot filmmaker Antonis Angastiniotis' historical documentary "Voice of Blood" portrays the mass killing of Turkish Cypriots in the villages of Aloa, Maratha and Sandalari in 1974.[69]"
The reasons including: (i). Citation is from a forum; (ii). If you take the time to read the article about the filmmaker you can only reach one conclusion. I'll let you reach your own conclusion. You have to read his article thoroughly and all the way to the end. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Something Missing?

There is not much here about the details of the actual invasion. Some sort of political context is of course necessary and as well as the results, but this article at present is rather skimpy on the details of the invasion-i.e. where do the Turks land, the course of the fighting and so forth. In addition, there was very nearly a war between Greece and Turkey in 1974, which could require some attention. --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a detailed independent article that focuses on all of that which I saw the other day (forgot what the title was). This article, as it stands, isn't much good to anybody. It requires a lot of patience, effort, and diplomacy.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 04:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe the article in question is Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Nipsonanomhmata, if you're doing additional work on this article, would you please insert a link to the mil ops article. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
It appears that it is already listed in "See Also" and as a Main in the category that it should be.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 10:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks A.S. Brown for pointing this out. There need to be more links to the military operations page. Unfortunately for the military historian, this page is the first one that appears on Google if you search for 'Cyprus 1974 invasion'. --Wally Tharg (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion

There is an ongoing discussion concerning the naming of this article at Talk:Northern Cyprus .  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 20:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is timeframes. The intervention resulted in an invasion but these were small amounts of time compared to the actual outcome which was occupation. In line with the MoS policy on article naming I still think that the title should follow Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-judgmental_descriptive_titles and be changed to "Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus". This would be correct, avoid any "judgmental and non-neutral words" or POV (as the section at MoS states). Chaosdruid (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that this article is appropriately named. However, there is an issue with the suggested title. The title concerns the invasion of a country and the suggestion concerns the occupation of a territory. There is still only one internationally recognised country on that island and therefore the "n" in "Northern" should be a small "n". Moreover, it could be worth using commonly used terminology for "northern" also i.e. "Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus". Similarly, the article on "Northern Cyprus" should be renamed to "Turkish occupied northern part of Cyprus" since the only internationally recognised state on the island is the "Republic of Cyprus".  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 21:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems ethnic warriors have completely taken over this article and written it from a single, that is, Greek perspective. Every sentence and statement has been geared and nuanced to give the impression that Turk did something illegal or they were not the victims. It is so blatant, so misleading, it is comical. Supposedly the mass graves that were filled with Turks were mostly men. They were in reality full of women, children and old. Supposedly Turkish Cypriots have "located themselves into enclaves" and they were supported by Turkey! In reality they were herded to 3% of the island and had to fend for their lives while surviving on UN handouts. No amount of POV editing will bury or change the facts. I suggest you all stop embaressing yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.162.40 (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The reality is that the continued Turkish occupation of the Republic of Cyprus is illegal without question or doubt. That is not a Greek perspective. It is the international perspective, including the United Nations, NATO, the United States, the United Kingdom, in fact of every country in the world outside of the Turkish sphere of influence.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 03:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
And comments like the last half of your last sentence are not helping - throwing petrol on the fire is not going to put it out. You could have stopped at "every country of the world.", instead splash splash ... whoosh!
If the text is talking specifically about the region in the north under Turkish occupation acting on their own recognisance it should be "Northern Cyprus", or "TRNC". If it is simply talking about the geographical location, it should be "northern Cyprus". Chaosdruid (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"Every country in the world" except ... That's just inclusion of the exclusions (namely the Republic of Turkey and its occupied territory). No inflammation or conflagration intended.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 04:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Expanding Turkish settlers

This could be expanded and split into a unique article. Cyprus dispute contains some useful info about Turkey's colonization of Cyprus but needs a lot of work. The international community and United Nations along with the Republic of Cyprus insist the settlements are illegal. Turkey's colonization of Cyprus seems to be a red-line issue for its application to the European Union.

I don't feel confident unilaterally moving content out of this article into a new one so I ask editors familiar with this issue weigh in here. Thanks. WikifanBe nice 21:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


Sources

Dr.K. claimed, No. Tag-bombing should be avoided. Please take this on talk. Thank you. and removed tags.

But we must say No thank you to Dr. K. Because Wikipedia:Verifiability is very important for Wikipedia. I moderated "tag infration" as possible as I can. Let's try to seek for sources for unsourced information. Takabeg (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Moreover same user used also illegal harassment tactics like this. Please don't understand encyclopedia. Our duty is to provide information supported by reliable sources for readers. Regards. Takabeg (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:TAGBOMB and stop calling harassment a perfectly justified warning for your wanton edit-warring. You are failing to assume good faith. Pretty bad form. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Tag-bombing is a form of disruptive editing for your information. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think them as WP:TAGBOMB. Because I don't find reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources, you can put them. Furthermore, as you know, I've tried and trying to moderate the situation of "tag bomb". Takabeg (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

For example, I cannot find any sources for this sentence: Broadly, three main forces can be held responsible for transforming two ethnic communities into two national ones: Education, British colonial practices, and secular religious teachings accompanying economic development. Education was perhaps the most important as it affected Cypriots during childhood and youth, the period of greatest susceptibility to outside influences

Do you find reliable sources ? Probably this sentence is written only with someone's POV. Do you understand what I want to say, now ? Takabeg (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't care for this information one way or the other. If you think that the information is wrong please be my guest and remove it. I only object to so many little tags every other sentence. They make the article unreadable. On the other hand maybe you can tag the whole section with {{citations missing|section}} and cut back on the little tags. Just a thought. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed unsourced information

I removed some unsourced information. Because they remained unsourced too long time. If someone want put them into this article, please put them with reliable sources. Takabeg (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that you could not find, or did not look for, find sources? If you could not find, I would be very surprised on one of them, if you did not look then I am not surprised. It seems that many editors cannot llok because they have some issue with spending time researching - this saddens me.
It also looks like an extremely unbalanced citation needed tagging session has been going on. "The first Turk[citation needed]" while "Eight Greek civilians" has not been tagged.
It is time for people to stop being nationalistic and start improving the article. Do not be surprised if you can easily find the necessary refs in the other articles. If that is the case I would suggest that cn taggers go and look there before they start getting their cns removed for "lack of bothering". Fix it yourself! Stop asking others to do your work, if you spot a missing ref, find it instead of the bloody-minded machine-gun tagging thing that has been going on recently :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I didn't try to search sources for old taged sentence. Because those tags tooooooooooo old, thwo, three and four years ago. In this situation, we can concern that nobody could find sources. If you want you can try to find them. Takabeg (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You were bold, I have reverted as per WP:BRD.
So, you couldn't be bothered then. I am sure that now we can all try to improve it by finding sources. Obvious statements will surely have sources? POV can also be by removing material and is not just limited to adding or editing to make things a certain way.
I have noted the edits that have been creeping in over the last three weeks, finally coming to a head here last night and today. I agree that some of those are old, some of them have been tagged for a long time, yet some of them are obviously mentioned (with sources) in other articles. Try looking. If you cannot find them in the next 24 hours I will endeavour to help. I, unfortunately, am busy with several other Wikithings; a GA assessment, GOCE copyedit drive and coordination, an FAR, some Robotics Project category issues and several other smaller issues and do not expect to have much free time until extremely late this evening or, as there is RL and my job, until tomorrow evening. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Those paragraphs are very easily sourced from the other Cyprus articles. Please try and do the work instead of just deleting. I appreciate that you say you tried to find one or two, but I think that you are not really looking very hard. As I said, I will be available late tonight or tomorrow, but I do not agree that you cannot find sources. If you need help to develop your research skills, so be it, I will help. Shouting simply shows that you need to go and have a nice cup of Turkish coffee and think about why you are getting such a reaction from established editors. Working with us is much better than against us, this works on consensus after all. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Casualties

What is going on with those figures?

First of all, putting the civilian figures in that way is a little POV, the civilian causalties should be listed separately and include both Turkish and Greek Cypriots.

Secondly I suspect that there are some figures incorrectly quoted. The missing 909, listed as "Cyprus army" are more than likely Greek Cypriot civilians.

The "Casualties and losses" box follows on from the "Strength" section, which lists "Turkish" on one side and "Cyprus and Greece" on the other. Civilian casualties should thus be listed separately. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This casualty section seems to be improperly copy-pasted from the box from Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, which I largely compiled. The Greek-side casualties listed are strictly military. Indeed, based on the official Cyprus government list of names published, there were some 1,600 reported missing (initially, a couple hundred have been tranferred to the "killed" list since then) of whom roughly 1,000 were military/combatant (including called up reservists, policemen, volunteer militias) and 600 non-combatant civilians. Similarly, from the official death list (people whose death was certified) there was about 900 dead of whom some 400 were military and 500 civilian. I have all the casualty name lists in .xls tables, downloaded from governmental internet sites, but I don't remember the addresses right now. However those numbers are also frequently quoted in secondary literature (where the references were taken for the purpose of the wikipedia article).
Turkish casualties are more sketchy. The Turkish military lost exactly 498 men dead (although there are also reported 48 missing-in-action which I do not if is included in the "dead" figure -I believe it is), and I also have an official name list. The number of wounded is more sketchy because Turkish sources mention both a figure around 750 and 1,200. It seems that the recording of wounded was not very accurate. The figure of 1,200 wounded is accepted however by several reliable Turkish sources. Turkish-Cypriot casualties are impossible to determine exactly. The figures mentioned are taken copy-paste from Turkish wikipedia. According to that, there were only 70 Turkish-Cypriot combatants (mujaheed) killed which is almost certainly wrong. There was significant fighting between Greek-Cypriot military and Turkish-Cypriot forces and serious casualties on both sides. A semi-official Turkish-Cypriot internet site has a list of names, where at least 200 of them were males of 21 years old (urm...)-though I cannot comment on its accuracy. Similarly I know of the presence of a number of Turkish-Cypriot war-cemetaries, each of which hasseveral dozen graves. Obviously, Turkish-Cypriot combatant losses were at least 200 and perhaps as many as 340. Since I don't read Turkish I cannot be certain what exactly Turkish sources are saying about this issue, perhaps I misunderstood.--Xristar (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I added the refeances from Turkish wikipedia, since the numbers were taken from there. Khutuck (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The information about casualties-losses in turkish page is interesting.Turkish and turkish cypriot losses about 700-800.Greek and greek cypriot losses are about 4000(dead)-12000 wounded.

Invasion

Athens Court of Appeal dtd. March 21, 1979: The court decision reads as follows:

"The Turkish interventi­on in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the London-Zur­ich agreements­, was legal. Turkey had, as one of the Guarantor Powers, the right to fulfill her obligation­. The true guilty ones were the Greek Officers, who organised the coup and thereby created the conditions for an interventi­on."” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.138.106 (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a link for that please? Just paste the html link for the page in here. Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

In his memoirs, American Undersecre­tary of State George Ball said: "Makarios'­s central interest was to block off Turkish interventi­on so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring Turkish Cypriots. Obviously we would never permit that." The fact is, however, that neither the United States, the United Kingdom, nor the United Nations, nor anyone, other than Turkey ever took effective action to prevent it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.138.106 (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia staff: 1974 Peace Operation is not an invasion of Cyprus but was the only alternative to bring PEACE to both Turkish and Greek communities. After the massacres in 1974 and 1963 Turkey had to intervene. As a guarantor country of the island, Turkey had no OTHER choice but to come to the rescue of the Turkish community. Without Turkey's Peace Operation, we would not be alive today. Thanks for giving us the opportunity to enter TURKISH point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.113.72 (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia staff:

Thanks for giving us the opportunity to enter TURKISH point of view.

1974 Peace Operation is not an invasion of Cyprus!!!! Turkey had to put an end to the ENOSIS attempts by GREEKS AND GREEK CYPRIOTS. July 20th 1974 morning brought PEACE to both Turkish and Greek communities. After the massacres in 1974 and 1963 Turkey had to intervene. In fact the very archbishop of Greek Church HIMSELF! said: "If Turkiye comes to the rescue of Turks, there will not be a single Turk left to be saved". As the guarantor country of the island, and as their motherland, Turkey had no OTHER choice but to come to the rescue of the Turkish community. Without Turkey's Peace Operation, we would not be alive today.

Thanks for the opportunity to state the opinion of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, TRNC. It is time the WORLD recognized us and stopped the isolation of NORTH CYPRUS!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.113.72 (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your point of view clearly isn't neutral -- An anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.206.19 (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Greek and Turkish in Cyprus lived “peacefully”

“However, the elites of both communities shared the belief that they were socially more progressive (better educated and less conservative) and therefore distinct from the mainlanders. Greek and Turkish Cypriots lived quietly side by side for many years.[13]”

This is a leftist propaganda.Greek and Turkish in Cyprus lived “peacefully” when the first pay taxes to the ottoman-Turkish empire. During the EOKA movements, Turkish Cypriots were cooperate with the British troops and killed more than half of the Greek guerillas. The peace between the two sides lasted only tree years 1960-1963. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Αριστόδημος (talk • contribs) 17:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Atrocities section

I have a question to ask to Dr.K. who seems to be a long time editor; how could it possibly "appear constructive" to empty an entire section of the article without any attempt of discussing it at first? [[24]] This is really ridiculous, first present your arguments as to why this referenced content has to be removed, otherwise this is pure vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.60.5 (talk • contribs)

I think we should bring an end to this cycle of deleting the content without any due explanation or discussion. First, a user comes up to delete a large of part of the article which has been there for over months, and when this is restored, user Athenean emerges to start a new edit warring. He tpyically bends wikipedia rules, invents new rules when necessary, only to delete what he doesn't want to see in a wikipedia article, forcing his views without ever involving in a mindful debate. --Anapad (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
@78.176.60.5: When you ask a question leave out accusations of vandalism. I will answer your question but if you engage one more time with personal attacks I will ignore you. The edit I restored preserved the well cited portions of the massacres while the original research about the violations of human rights involving a single person using primary sources was deleted. The claims of Samson supported by a personal website were deleted because it is an unreliable source. The other massacre at Limassol was not covered by an inline citation with only a vague reference to Washington Post. So indeed the edit that I restored was constructive because it preserved the information supported by reliable citations while the doubtful parts were removed. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What is that invasion thing?

This article is not objective and doesn't fit with Wikipedia rules. It was not an invasion, it was just an operation. Turkish Army just saved Turkish people on the island from the attacks of racist organisation called EOKA because local state weren't doing anything about it. There were Turkish people on the island before the operation and if Turkey didn't do that operation, there wouldn't be any Turks on the island anymore. --78.176.85.32 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
  1. ^ Welz, Gisela. Divided Cyprus: Modernity, History, and an Island in Conflict. Indiana University Press. p. 2. ISBN 0253218519.
  2. ^ Carpenter, Ted Galen (2000). NATO's Empty Victory: A Postmortem on the Balkan War. Washington, D.C: Cato Institute. p. 36. ISBN 1-882577-85-X.
  3. ^ Carpenter, Ted Galen (2002). Peace and Freedom: Foreign Policy for a Constitutional Republic. Washington, D.C: Cato Institute. p. 187. ISBN 1-930865-34-1.
  4. ^ Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (2001). The Prevention of Human Rights Violations (International Studies in Human Rights). Berlin: Springer. p. 24. ISBN 90-411-1672-9.
  5. ^ Borowiec, Andrew (2000). Cyprus: a troubled island. New York: Praeger. p. 2. ISBN 0-275-96533-3.
  6. ^ a b Rezun, Miron (2001). Europe's nightmare: the struggle for Kosovo. New York: Praeger. p. 6. ISBN 0-275-97072-8.
  7. ^ a b Brown, Neville (2004). Global instability and strategic defence. New York: Routledge. p. 48. ISBN 0-415-30413-X.
  8. ^ Borowiec, Andrew (2000). Cyprus: a troubled island. New York: Praeger. pp. 2. ISBN 0-275-96533-3.
  9. ^ Ted Galen Carpenter, Peace & freedom: foreign policy for a constitutional republic, Cato Institute, 2002, ISBN 1930865341, 9781930865341, p. 187
  10. ^ Ted Galen Carpenter, NATO's empty victory: a postmortem on the Balkan War, Cato Institute, 2000, ISBN 188257785X, 9781882577859
  11. ^ Jean S. Forward, Endangered peoples of Europe: struggles to survive and thrive The Greenwood Press "Endangered peoples of the world" series Endangered peoples of the world, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, 0313310068, 9780313310065, p. 53
  12. ^ Antony Evelyn Alcock, A history of the protection of regional cultural minorities in Europe: from the Edict of Nantes to the present day, Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. ISBN 0312235569, 9780312235567, p. 207
  13. ^ Van Coufoudakis, Eugene T. Rossides, American Hellenic Institute Foundation, 2002, ISBN 1889247057, 9781889247052, p. 236
  14. ^ William Mallinson, Bill Mallinson, Cyprus: a modern history , I.B.Tauris, 2005, ISBN 1850435804, 9781850435808, p. 147
  15. ^ .Robert F. Holland, Britain and the revolt in Cyprus, 1954-1959, Oxford University Press, 1998, ISBN 0198205384, 9780198205388
  16. ^ University of Minnesota. Modern Greek Studies Program, Modern Greek studies yearbook, Τόμος 9, University of Minnesota, 1993, p.577
  17. ^ David J. Whittaker, Conflict and reconciliation in the contemporary world, Making of the contemporary world, Routledge, 1999, ISBN 0415183278, 9780415183277, p. 52
  18. ^ Dimitris Keridis, Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, Kokkalis Foundation, NATO and southeastern Europe: security issues for the early 21st century A publication of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis & the Kokkalis Foundation, Brassey's, 2000, ISBN 1574882899, 9781574882896, p.187
  19. ^ Brad R. Roth, Governmental illegitimacy in international law, Oxford University Press, 2001, 0199243018, 9780199243013, p. 193
  20. ^ Thomas M. Franck, Recourse to force: state action against threats and armed attacks, vol. 15 of Hersch Lauterpacht memorial lectures, Cambridge University Press, 2002, ISBN 0521820138, 9780521820134
  21. ^ David A. Lake, Donald S. Rothchild The international spread of ethnic conflict: fear, diffusion, and escalation, Princeton University Press, 1998, ISBN 0691016909, 9780691016900
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus/Archive_1&oldid=1140213707"