Jump to content

Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The discussion resulted in the formation of a consensus to merge the articles. SalopianJames (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Afternoon folks, I'd like to propose the merger of the stub Operation Atilla into this article, as it simply covers the code names of the events described in this article and therefore is duplicating information to no real purpose. SalopianJames (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The topic of this discussion is the merge proposal, not the article title. If you wish to have it changed, please initiate a separate discussion and gain consensus for change before doing so. SalopianJames (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge These are inb essence the saem thing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge without prejudice to recreation if the detail becomes too much for this article. CMD (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge. The existing Operation Atilla article is a stub with minimal information, all of which logically belongs here. As for the proposal to rename this article, that is a completely separate matter which (IMO) has no bearing on whether the tidbits in the Operation Atilla article should be merged into this article. By saying this, I am not taking any position regarding "invasion" vs. "intervention" — I am only saying that it's a separate issue and needs to be dealt with separately. — Richwales 16:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Well folks, this has been up for a week and I'd say calling it a consensus would be pretty non-controversial, so I'm going to execute the merge. The naming issue can be discussed at a later time if desired. SalopianJames (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article classification

Can I please draw attention to the fact that this article does not appeared to have been accurately assessed for class, given that the five WikiProjects with banner templates here have assessed it differently, with one unassessed, two Start-class, one C and one B given in the templates. Might be considered timely to review these and attempt to gain some consensus on the articles's class? Thanks, SalopianJames (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ecevit

Legendary Turkish Prime Minister -and man of letters- who ordered the "invasion" believed that when "a man was sure he was morally right, he should not hesitate to take action". A man who translated Tagore when he was only 14, the "barbarian Turk" ordered the military intervention in Cyprus but could not even get himself a place in the infobox of the relevant WP article. Here is what the Economist wrote about him. --E4024 (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As best I can tell, the "commanders and leaders" listed in the infobox of this article are the military officers in command of the army units. Bülent Ecevit was Turkey's civilian leader at the time, so it wouldn't seem appropriate to put him there. Nikos Sampson is also not included in the infobox, for that matter; and unless I'm mistaken, the leaders of the Greek military dictatorship aren't there either — just the military leaders directly involved in leading or opposing the invasion / intervention / peacekeeping / whatever-we're-going-to-call-it.
Also, in order to avoid any suggestion that we're straying into WP:NOTAFORUM territory, I would recommend we keep the discussion at a calmer, more dispassionate level. If I were making what I believe is your argument here, I would probably word it something like this: "Turkish Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit was a key player in the Turkish military intervention in Cyprus. Why is he not listed amongst the Turkish 'commanders and leaders' in this article's infobox?" — Richwales 17:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Junta's first choice was not Nikos Sampson

Triantafyllides, Severis were approached to take over the Presidency before Sampson.

"In fact, there were at least two other persons who were asked to take the office of President before Sampson was approached; the Chief Justice, Michael Triantafyllides, and Zenon Severis. Triantafyllides, who was head of the Supreme Court, ..." Cyprus at war: diplomacy and conflict during the 1974 crisis, Jan Asmussen - 2008

"The plotters' second choice was said to be the President of the Supreme Court, Mr M. Triantafyllides, but he was found to be absent from the island. The third choice was Mr Z. Severis, honorary Consul General of Finland, but he sent Sampson ..." A Business of Some Heat: The United Nations Force in Cyprus 1972-74 , Francis Henn - 2004

Not sure but Glafcos Clerides seems to ring a bell too. The text should be changed to "third/fourth choice Sampson" or "the Junta settled for Sampson because they couldn't find any important figure to collaborate with them". Something like that. HelenOfOz (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request (Ref. 50)

The ref no 50 is a dead-end link. The sentence referenced by the link is an important claim. If in three days the link is not repaired and I may not see that it is a reliable source, I will delete that sentence. --E4024 (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:DEADLINK. As a matter of good practice we never delete cited information even if dead-linked. Try fixing it instead using the Internet Archive. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I just fixed it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


Ref. 50 and the above "intervention-invasion" discussion

We discussed a lot about the wording "intervention-invasion" lately. While we made this discussion the ref 50 of the article was not available to see the source text. (Later it was revelealed it was a question that could be arranged in only one minute.) The text in question, a "Fact Sheet" of the government of the RoC that appeared at the webpage of the Press and Information Office of the said republic, refers to the Turkish intervention with the words "intervention" or "military intervention" while it never uses the word "invasion" as it is (only once as "invaded"). Some of our editors (like myself) have been on the part of the "intervention" wording; if we could read this source we could have used the government of RoC references on our behalf. Well, it is the Law of Murphy; you never have at the right time something you need. As they say in Spanish "cosas de la vida" or with the French saying "c'est la vie". Our bad luck... --E4024 (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Let's remove the name and flag of the so-called RoC from the "belligerents" section. The "Commanders and Leaders" say the truth we all know already: The Turkish army won another war against the Greek army in 1974. The Greek Cypriots were not present in this equation. (Other than EOKA-B activity of crimes against humanity). --E4024 (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You must be joking right? Where do you come up with this stuff? No, we're not going to do that. And let's not get into the whole "crimes against humanity" thing, because you won't like the result. Athenean (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Good source

I am adding a paper, to the Further Reading section, titled "Policy Watershed: Turkey's Cyprus Policy and the Interventions of 1974" by James H. Meyer published by the Princeton University Press. This paper, quite balanced at a quick first read, I believe could have been used -but not has been, as far as I could see- to give a more objective, thus neutral and balanced tone to this highly controversial idea. Even the choice of "interventions" instead of "intervention" or "invasion" seems to me to be part of an effort to be objective. Anyway, it is here for those who have not read it and for those who could like to have a second look. --E4024 (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Combattans in Infobox

The Turkish operation was carried out against the Greek (i.e. from Greece) military forces on the island. As you may see all commanders on the "defending" side are from Greece. So I removed the flag of the so-called "Republic of Cyprus" for two reasons: 1. At the time of the operations there was a Greek military junta puppet Greek Cypriot administration on the island. 2. The only Greek Cypriot participation in so-called military operations could be the massacres of civilian Turkish Cypriots by the EOKA-B mobs. So I added the name of EOKA-B as a combattant instead of the RoC. --E4024 (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if the commanding officers were Greek (as Cyprus lacked trained officers), the National Guard itself was Cypriot. Also the Efedrikon Soma, with three batallions, was Cypriot. The Cypriot military forces may not have glorified themselves, but they took part in the fight against the invasion. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Seems like in Scandinavia you are all Greek in these issues that matter to Turks and Greeks. Why do I not see you editing to balance this and other Cyprus-related articles so that they may not be so biassed to the Greek standing? How can you accept that the Northern Cyprus article has no links to the "minimal" article about the massacres of Turks in this island while anything Turks may have done in history is labelled "genocide"!?! Is that not a reason to want to establish their own State (living in peace and security, without fear of EOKA-B mobs)? Make an effort to understand Cyprus, especially the Turks of the island... --E4024 (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see how your comment (or my geographical position) has anything to do with the question discussed here. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Some people only do not understand what they do not want to. I remember this IP writing they were not from the region but still taking sides, right? Looks like the distance do not help "to see things from a distance". --E4024 (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Atrocities

I have noticed that someone had removed a great part of the section regarding atrocities committed against Turkish Cypriots. Could someone look in to it? Thank you. (Central Data Bank (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC))

Casualties in Infobox

From the Infobox: "Turkey: 800+ military (including Turkish Cypriots), 2200 wounded, unknown civilian dead[citation needed] Total 3500 casualties". What does this mean? First of all, without knowing the (unknown) part of the victims/casualties how do we reach a total number? Who are the "Turkish civilians that died in Cyprus" and why? What were they doing there? If we are referring (as we seem to avoid, who knows why) to the Turkish Cypriot civilians massacred by Greek Cypriot EOKA-B mobs then we should clarify it. With or without a "citation needed" tag, this section is biassed and has to be edited to reflect the correct numbers and the true nature of Turkish (i.e. Turkish Cypriot) civilian killings. On the other hand, although there has been a UN-oriented joint Missing Persons Committee that has worked to the extent the Greek Cypriot Administration let them to, we somehow avoid to refer to Turkish Cypriot civilians missing too. Are we trying to make an encyclopedia, really, or trying to show the Greeks (Cypriot or not) innocent as angels? I really want to know this; without changing the target somewhere else (Turkey) please explain to me why do we try to hide that the Greek Cypriots massacred Turks... --E4024 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think that "why do we try to hide that the Greek Cypriots massacred Turks" is loaded question which is not a good way to resolve disputes trough RfC. I also think that "we perspective" should be avoided in discussions especially in disputes like this. I propose to close this RfC and to follow other steps of wp:dispute resolutions. My comment here is reply to RfC bot.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"More than one quarter of the population of Cyprus (mostly Greek Cypriots) was expelled"

This phrase glosses over the circumstances of the "expulsion". It is not as if their visas expired and they were politely asked to leave in an orderly fashion. They were attacked, terrorized and chased away at the point of a gun. This phrase needs to be changed to reflect that reality. HelenOfOz (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Pogrom and Persecution are nouns of the Expulsion from what I know, but I don't think their meaning describes accurately the events in Cyprus. "Expulsion of Cypriots from their homeland" is correct. --79.130.55.120 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Apteva (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)

Turkish invasion of Cyprus → Turkish intervention in Cyprus – Extensive discussions few years ago [1] but should be a no-brainer now: (1)Google hits, 5,110,000 results for Turkish intervention in Cyprus vs. 1,480,000 results for Turkish invasion of Cyprus; (2) Google scholar hits, 26,900 results for Turkish intervention in Cyprus vs. 18,500 results for Turkish invasion of Cyprus; (3) United nations uses "intervention" [2]; (4) CIA World Factbook uses "intervention" [3] (background section); (5) US State Department uses "intervention" [4]; (6) European Union uses "intervention" [5]. In Turkey, sometimes "Cyprus Peace Operation is used,[6] but this is also POV. Intervention seems neutral. Cavann (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, as I detailed above, just for reference, here is our own definition of an invasion, as written in the lead to Invasion: "An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof." SalopianJames (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose as Turkush nationalist POV-pushing. "Intervention" is a well-known euphemism used by Turkey to "justify" the invasion, make it respectable. A look through this talkpage and it's archives shows the intensity with which Turkish wikipedians have tried to change "invasion" with "intervention". Nothing new here. Regarding Cavann's search results, 1) Raw google searches are worthless as they contain mostly junk, 2)Major news organizations universally use "invasion", 2) regarding Google Scholar, I get roughly equal number of hits for "invasion" and "intervention" (23,700 [7] compared to 26,900 [8]), but I note that most of the hits for "intervention" are in fact false positives. For example, of the first ten hits for "intervention", at least 5 are clear cut false positives: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13], while none are false positives for "invasion". While it does appear that the CIA factbook and the EU use "intervention", the US state department uses both "intervention" and "invasion" [14]. Most importantly, major English language news organizations universally use "invasion": MSNBC [15], CNN [16], BBC [17], The Economist [18], NYT [19]. Athenean (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Major English language news organizations/newspapers DO NOT universally use "invasion". Few examples: CNN, "intervention" [20]; CBS, "intervention" [21]; NY Times, "intervention" [22]; Economist, intervention [23]. Cavann (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Your isolated examples are not convincing. Major news organizations still predominantly use "invasion" (if not quite universally). CNN uses "invasion" much more often (25 [24]as opposed to 8 hits [25]), and I don't see CNN use "intervention" after 2004. NYT: 452 hits for "invasion" [26], 52 for "intervention" [27]. CBS news also uses "invasion" [28], and The Economist uses "invasion" [29] more frequently than intervention. Btw when you search, you should use quotes otherwise you will get a lot of false positives (especially with "intervention", which is why your results are erroneous). Athenean (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose: Changing it would be misleading as it would imply something legal and the invasion has been condemned by every single related UN resolution. The fact that it has been declared illegal is the very reason to be an invasion rather than an intervention. Finally, A/RES/37/253 says:
"The General Assembly, Deploring the fact that part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus is still occupied by foreign forces...." and
Resolution 550(1983) regards northern Cyprus as occupied territory.
Also,
"Turkish intervention in Cyprus"(with quotes): 61,600 hits on Google
"Turkish invasion of Cyprus"(with quotes):1,290,000 2A00:8C40:40:0:0:0:70E9:7B27 (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
How much of that is related to 1974? When I write "Turkish invasion of Cyprus", Venetians, I get 1,200,000 results. '"Turkish invasion of Cyprus", Venetians' refers to Ottoman–Venetian War (1570–73). Cavann (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Searching with Venetians includes books and articles with the History of Cyprus. The invasion does not refer to the Venetians. That is how google search works. When quoted, the exact phrase is searched. When not, it is as many words that match as possible. For instance one of the results searching with venetians is:
The Turkish invasion of Cyprus (Turkish: Operation Peace), launched ... it has :known - Persians, Romans, Venetians, Ottomans and the British. 2A00:8C40:40:0:0:0:70E9:7B27 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The point is your exact quote number isn't reliable either. Cavann (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, more reliable than yours is. — Lfdder (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As far as I know, this is still generally referred to as an invasion. WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The proposed term is just an extreme Turkish pov, agree also per above arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Comparing "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus" and "Turkish Intervention in Cyprus" in Google Books shows a clear preference for the former phrase. The latter phrase only gets six pages of results. (Oddly, this lists as 42 results on page 6, but 6,000 results on page 1. Don't ask me to explain the ways of Google, but there's clearly only a few pages of results here.) In addition, "intervention" appears mainly in primary sources like government documents and UN statements, most notably a letter from US President Lyndon B. Johnson that's quoted over and over again. It appears to me that the preference in English-language books is "Turkish Invasion", so I suggest the article stay put per WP:COMMONNAME.
As a side note, it doesn't look like this will make a difference in the !voting, but be aware that the move proposer has placed a clearly non-neutral request for intervention at WT:CSB in violation of WP:CANVASS, accusing Greek editors of teaming up here. [30]-- Khazar2 (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Khazar2 for your fair comments that are in the best tradition of Wikipedia. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

In July 1974 the Greek Cypriot National Guard, whose officers were mainland Greeks, attempted a coup, planned by the ruling military junta in Athens, to achieve enosis. Makarios fled to Malta and then to London, and Turkey invaded Cyprus and proclaimed a separate state for Turkish Cypriots in the north. Makarios, vowing to resist partition of the island, returned to Cyprus in December, after the fall of the mainland Greek military junta.

Google Books encyclopaedias have spoken. Encyclopedia Britannica has also spoken. Clearly so. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Add a couple of articles from The New York Times since I also found them: For Cyprus, a Sudden Need to Play Nice With Turkey The two halves of the island have been split between the mainly Turkish-speaking north, occupied by Turkey since an invasion in 1974, and the internationally recognized, mainly Greek-speaking Republic of Cyprus in the south.

European Union’s Leverage Over Cyprus Is Ephemeral Turkey invaded northern Cyprus in 1974 in response to a Greek-backed coup in Nicosia by Greek Cypriot hardliners seeking union with Athens. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Google Scholar: "turkish invasion" cyprus 3470 results. "turkish intervention" cyprus 752 results. Google Scholar also sprach. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Makes no sense to change it to intervention because the invasion has been declared illegal. The sentence "should be a no-brainer now" reveals either lack of history knowledge or ignorance in my opinion 108.60.134.206 (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per sources listed above (Brittanica, the U.N., the European Union and etc.). Turkey invaded Cyprus in defiance of international law. In addition to the sources listed above, BBC, Aljazeera and etc. have also called it an invasion. I also firmly believe that the term intervention does not necessarily and accurately mean a military campaign (i.e. diplomatic intervention). The term intervention in itself is vague and does not substantiate a military campaign, let alone an illegal one. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Opinions Section Is Misleading

The section is separated into Turkish Cypriot Opinion and Greek Cypriot Opinion. This is misleading, because different individuals, political parties and organizations within the two communities hold contrasting opinions in relation to the Cyprus problem and the Turkish Invasion. By ascribing these terms to the opinions, immediately you inform the reader that the opinion expressed is the article is the opinion of the whole of the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots. In fact, the division of the opinion into ethnic categories is itself problematic. There are groups in the two communities that have very close, even identical opinions. For example, leftist groups would see it as an imperialist invasion. The whole section needs restructure, a clear distinction between community and state (Greek Cypriots and the Republic of Cyprus for example), a clear distinction of what each major political party in each community holds as opinion, what the government of Turkey holds as an opinion etc. At the moment the article provides a false dishonomy in the matter of opinion as purely a matter of ethnicity.--Tco03displays (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with your well-made comments. Please go ahead and restructure the section if you have the time. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
For personal reasons I don't have time right now. It is a complex subject and it needs its share of research. I'll come back in the near future to make some edits on it with proper referencing.--Tco03displays (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(To propose moving more than one page—for example, moving a disambiguation page in order to move another page to that title—see "Requesting multiple page moves" below.) To request a single page move, create a new section at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, using this format:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus/Archive_2&oldid=1040244486"