Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Invasion-Intervention discussion

Maybe this explanation by British MP Michael Stephen of why Turkey "invaded" Cyprus could also be useful in further developing this article in WP. --E4024 (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

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) 09:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the easy reference, Salopian. So may I assume now that you already read the source I provided and began to think about how to reshape the Turkish invasion of Cyprus so that it could become a more neutral and reliable WP article? --E4024 (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I did indeed read the reference you provided regarding ethnic strife on the island prior to 1974. That is, of course, very much the case - one of the main reasons the United Nations deployed a peacekeeping force to Cyprus was in order to prevent further intercommunal violence between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, although this of course was intended to work in both directions. I would like to point out that my quoting the passage above in no way indicates my opinions regarding the article's title etc. - I merely thought it useful to provide a etymological reference point for the discussion. SalopianJames (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear that you noticed the UN Force was installed in 1964 (after the Bloody Christmas) not in 1974. --E4024 (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Details of how the intervention was decided

Here. These details may help the users who wish to develop the article to make it a more neutral, balanced and objective text. --E4024 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting piece, and it may be useful as one of many sources relevant to the issue.

A question that needs to be asked/answered here is this: What, exactly, is the underlying issue driving the "invasion vs. intervention" semantic disagreement?

My first reaction, as a native North American English speaker, is that "invasion" implies an aggressive first move — whereas "intervention" implies getting involved in an already-existing conflict, possibly with a view toward forcing a stop to hostilities. At the same time, "intervention" can also imply getting involved in an existing situation regardless of its nature (e.g., unwelcome "intervention" in another country's internal affairs).

I'm assuming at this point that the dispute here has to do with whether Turkey's actions were an "invasion" for purposes of aggressive conquest (a typical Greek Cypriot view?), or whether Turkey "intervened" in response to real or perceived Greek and/or Greek Cypriot threats in order to protect the Turkish Cypriots (a typical Turkish Cypriot view?).

My current gut impression is that both of these perspectives may have some merit — but that's not really the point, because we (Wikipedians) should not be trying to find out "the truth" with regard to this or any other question. The NPOV policy requires us to present, fairly and without bias, all significant views published by reliable sources. It obviously becomes harder to do this when an article's title is involved, but WP:TITLE does give some guidance.

Per WP:POVTITLE: "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." I'm not at all sure whether this applies to the events in Cyprus in 1974, because these events simply did not permeate the mass media in the English-speaking world to such an extent as to give rise to a name as universally memorable as, say, the "Vietnam war" or the "Cuban missile crisis".

I suspect here that WP:NDESC (the other main criterion, for "non-judgmental descriptive titles" created by Wikipedia editors) may be more applicable here. Per WP:NDESC, such made-up titles "should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions." Since there is a clear controversy here over whether the operation was an "invasion" or an "intervention", it might be preferable to select a name for the article that uses neither of these terms. For example, we might want to consider renaming this article to "1974 Turkish military actions in Cyprus" (with both "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" and "Turkish intervention in Cyprus" as redirects). Another possibility might be to call it "Operation Atilla" (with the same redirects) — a name which is probably neutral precisely because it is not widely known or used (!).

Sorry for being so lengthy here, but sometimes an argument like this requires people to go back to the beginning and make sure the underlying issues are clearly articulated and understood. — Richwales 17:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, Richwales, thanks for the insight. I only wonder if you missed the article by the British MP just at the above section. We are not talking only about "threats" against the Turks here, but also massacres committed by the Greeks (see below) under their politico-religious leader Makarios referred as "genocide attempt" by some very serious and important third party statesmen. --E4024 (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking about Cyprus I like to use the words Turk and Greek for the following reasons. (Turks): In Turkish we don't even have an equivalent of "Turkish Cypriot". It should translate as "Türk Kibrisli"; a denomination I never saw used by anyone. We use "Kibris Türkleri" which means "the Turks of Cyprus". As regards the Greeks (of Cyprus): When they pursue ENOSIS they call themselves Greeks, when they wish to emphasize certain separate identity from Greece, they call themselves Cypriots, when they pretend to extend a hand to the Turks of Cyprus they call themselves "Greek Cypriots". This Greek behaviour is important to understand anything about Cyprus and to write Cyprus-related articles in WP. There are two peoples, part of the Turkish and Greek nations, in Cyprus. This is intended to use in the article. It is related to the Greek policies of ethnic cleansing (also see the MP article above) against the Turks of Cyprus. --E4024 (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The terms we use to identify the ethnic groups on Cyprus need to be driven by what the reliable sources say. And since this is the English Wikipedia, we have to be guided primarily by what English-language sources say. In English, you're going to find that the prevailing terms are "Turkish Cypriot" and "Greek Cypriot" — possibly also "ethnic Turk" and "ethnic Greek". No matter how awkward and unnatural these expressions may seem to you, the fact is that the bare terms "Turk" and "Greek" are not generally used in English to refer to the people on Cyprus; rather, these terms are universally going to be understood by English speakers to refer to people from Turkey and Greece, respectively. Similar terminology is used, for example, when English speakers/writers discuss the situation in Kosovo — "Kosovar Albanians" or "ethnic Albanians", but not "Albanians" (this last term is generally reserved for referring to people from Albania). You may object to these terms, but you'll be fighting a losing battle, because this is the reality of what terms are customarily used in English-language reliable sources. We can still talk about ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc., wherever we see it documented in the sources, without any need to ignore or defy the established naming conventions in our language.

And I did see the other article you cited. However, we still need to present all sides of the subject in accordance with the way the reliable sources treat it. We can not say that we (Wikipedians) have been so thoroughly convinced by material from one side that this side becomes "the truth", the one and only "neutral" viewpoint, and thus we will be guided completely by this one side and treat other views as belonging to the marginal fringe (treating other sources as unreliable precisely because they disagree with what we have chosen to embrace as the truth). This article (as well as other Cyprus-related articles) can and should explain atrocities committed by Greek Cypriots (and/or Greeks from Greece) against Turkish Cypriots — in accordance with what the mainstream (and primarily English-language) sources have to say about this. But if there are reliable sources alleging atrocities committed by Turkish Cypriots (and/or Turks from Turkey) against Greek Cypriots, we must include that in the article too. Anyone who is so close to this topic that they can't bring themselves to do this may be better off working on other parts of Wikipedia (or perhaps not working on WikipediIa at all); this is especially true for anyone (not any of us, I trust) who is so close to this topic that they're prepared to disrupt the article rather than allow the "other side" to be presented. — Richwales 06:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I never quite understood the whole invasion/intervention debate before reading that article, but I think it's a bit clearer now. Intervention seems to be used as a way to describe the aims of the Turkish army, intervening in attacks on Turkish Cypriots, and not simply as a way to avoid the word invasion. Like Richwales, I also understand intervention to be a much broader term, with invasion being a direct and probably aggressive action.

E4024, your sources are interesting and may be able to be used, but just posting them and hoping might not get you far. Many users, while interested in the topic and willing to help, will have time commitments elsewhere. It takes time to create good sourced prose. If you're discouraged from directly editing articles, why not suggest specific prose changes, editing existing text or inserting new information, on the talkpage? Providing a starting point of prose to insert, rather than just a source, will bring much more progress. CMD (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There were no massacres against Turkish Cypriots until after Turkey violated the cease fire on the 14th August and resumed attacks against Greek Cypriots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha,_Santalaris_and_Aloda_massacre

If you want another semantic argument, can we say Turkey "caused" those massacres ? We can argue that those massacres would not have occurred if Turkey did what it was supposed to do. That is, Turkey should have allied itself with the Makarios forces fighting the Junta, help defeat the Junta, restore democratically-elected Makarios to the Presidency, try and jail the coup plotters, and then withdraw the military forces back to Turkey when the political situation was stable again. And repeat this in the future if needs be. That is what the civilized world considers "intervention". Instead Turkey, shamelessly and cynically, treated those Greek Cypriots fighting the Junta as enemies, failed to take any steps whatsoever to join forces with them, attacked them, and eventually violently ethnically cleansed them from their lands on the 14th of August 1974. Obviously Turkey's despicable actions horrified and infuriated *ALL* Greek Cypriots. Sadly, some of these Greek Cypriots had a murderous rage and took it out on the innocent Turks of 3 villages. So there you have your argument. Turkey "caused" the atrocities at those 3 villages. Much more plausible than "intervention". HelenOfOz (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Here you have some text proposal reverted 10-15 minutes ago. --E4024 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That should be discussed on that article's talkpage. CMD (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Denominations+

@Richwales: I have no objection to the use of "Turkish Cypriot" and "Greek Cypriot", as these are UN terminology, just as I had stated in my first days on discussing Cyprus-related issues, here, under the section titled "Cypriots". The question I am trying to raise is to shed some light on how to understand better the history of Cyprus; somehow it is tied to the sad instances of Turco-Greek relations through centuries, especially the past two cc.

And this is the (+) part: I have an impression -it may be wrong, naturally- that in every article that relates to Turks and Greeks in En:WP there is a lack of balance, as regards NPOV, in favour of the Greek positions. We cannot explain this with facts or reasons like the Greeks are more active in WP, there are not so many Turks as Greeks with a good level of English etc; it is a question directly related to the character (not nature), reliability and thus prestige of the encyclopedia called WP. These articles must attract the attention of third country users and they should contribute. (This is why I asked Mr Salopian the other day to give me a hand on a source I found and to write something positive about the Turkish position, instead of me myself doing it, as a declared Turk.)

The sources I provide in Talk pages are available to all; anybody could find them. I wonder why a user with a "Helenic" nickname never adds something positive about the Turks... (I am not questioning their feelings about the Turks, I am questioning their approach to WP.) If you write in search boxes "Good Turks" you find "Good Turks", if you write "Good Greeks" you find "Good Greeks". If you write "Bad Turks" or "Bad Greeks" you find the "bad Turks and bad Greeks".

I may be accused of having tried to impose my national POV at times, especially in my first days here, due to lack of experience, but it was a reaction to my still valid impression on the imbalance stated above. As I also have observed that the Turkish users' eagerness to change this imbalance (in my case only towards a "balance" nothing else) is regarded by suspicion, not to use other words, by users with Helenic nicknames. What would a user think if his/her contribution is only rejected due to a grammatical or even ortographical mistake, instead of correcting that mistake? I suppose that his gr or orth mistake is taken as a "pretext" to keep the imbalance. (I am not saying this for any particular contribution; only as a general observation.)

P.D. I will continue writing in the Talk Pages and hoping others to take action in articles. I have been sanctioned for "edit warring" once and do not want to experience the same; although I still wonder how one can make war "all alone" without another warring party... --E4024 (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on terminology. I certainly believe that Wikipedia's coverage of not only the Cyprus conflict, but of other regional/ethnic conflicts as well — including, amongst others, Kosovo, Bosnia, Georgia, and Israel/Palestine — should be as comprehensive and balanced as we can make it, recognizing that people on all sides have grievances they consider to be valid and (for the most part) simply want the ability to live peaceful and pleasant lives.

It is certainly possible that the English-language media, in general, has been slanted to a degree toward the Greek side of the Cyprus dispute. And since WP:NPOV requires us to respect what the available reliable sources say, there might therefore be some risk of our being inclined to favour the Greek side because it is more thoroughly and/or eloquently represented in our sources. I'm not defending this as such, simply acknowledging the possibility of an inherent bias which we may need to be careful with.

And I'll also say that we've certainly got people here who are pro-Turk(ish-Cypriot), as well as those who are pro-Greek(-Cypriot). It's unfortunate that some of our most memorable activity on the Cyprus conflict has come from one pro-Turkish editor who has been so h*||-bent on advancing his viewpoint that even after he managed to get himself kicked off Wikipedia for recurring disruption, he has refused to let go and has come back again and again under new identities. This sort of activity, in my opinion, does far more harm than good to his cause; indeed, for a long time to come, I fear that any new editor who tries to get involved with the Cyprus topic, and who displays pro-Turkish sentiments, is going to find himself immediately under suspicion of being a "sock of a banned user", and I can't rule out the possibility that one or more legitimate, naïve new users might end up being chased away on that basis. — Richwales 17:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Richwales: This is the way you are expecting the rather new users to act? Here. Let's see what I receive... --E4024 (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll add my bit. I have no idea why on other Greek and Turkish related articles there is a tendency towards the side of the Greeks but in relation to Cyprus I'll try to explain. This is a country traumatized by Turkey's invasion, and also a country that has had strong nationalism since the 50s. The United Nations recognized Turkey as an invader, and the Greek Cypriots received support in aid as well as in international politics. Remember, this all takes place in the 70s, when the events of the 50s and 60s are still fresh and no history has been written for them. Since the invasion, Greek Cypriots were seen as the victims of the conflict, having suffered the greatest losses and being in control of the recognized state in Cyprus, now in partial occupation. After the invasion, questioning the government on the missing people, on its honesty and its motives in relation to the Cyprus Dispute became socially and politically unacceptable. The events of the 40s, 50s and 60s remained in silence, closed subjects never to be opened. In school the state promoted a mythology instead of history, teaching the EOKA struggle and then the Turkish Invasion. That's 14 years missing. The political elites of the 2 communities promoted their own mythology and propaganda, suppressing proper historical investigation, since many of the members of the political parties were involved in the events of the 60s and 70s. Also remember that no communication existed between the two communities. After the opening of the checkpoints in 2003 researches from both communities met up and co-operated in researching Cyprus history and society using their combined data. Only in the late 90s we start to see a tendency of Cypriot historiography that touches upon the inter-communal conflict of the 60s, the slaughter and marginalization of TCs, the relation of the national party to the economic elite,the suppression of communism, the relation of the cold war to the conflict, the extremist groups of the two communities being linked to the Stay Behind network, the knowledge of the state that the missing persons are dead, the darker sides of the EOKA struggle etc. Therefore what reliable sources you find from the 70s to the 90s will tend to tilt towards the GCs (and I indicate the word reliable, because a lot of material from TCs and GCs in this period is propaganda), following the 90s more reliable and balanced sources start to become available.--Tco03displays (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of picture

I have removed File:Sandallar turkish cypriots.jpeg for several reasons. First it originates from the now dead link http://www.mucahit.net/dergiler/dergi65/Sayfa_26.htm which is a propaganda website and therefore its contents cannot be sourced to a reliable third-party source which could reliably verify that the depiction is indeed what is claimed to be. Second it is original research to claim that this picture is from the massacre without any reliable published reports supporting such claim. We cannot rely on a now defunct propagande website as the source for the description of this unclear and grainy picture. In addition to these file problems, massacres and atrocities were commited by both sides during that troubled era. It would also be WP:UNDUE to include pictures of one side and not the other, even if, and that's a big if, the origin and contents of the removed picture were reliably verified. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Images from both sides should be dealt with caution. A number of the photographs presented for decades to the two communities as authentic were later found to have been set up in particular ways to be used for propaganda. For example, moving and placing dead bodies in particular stances or places that would arouse emotion later by viewing the photograph. Be careful of what you add.--Tco03displays (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Adana camp

The picture in the missings persons section is captioned "Greek Cypriot prisoners taken to Adana camps in Turkey". But at no point in the article or elsewhere in wikipedia can I find a reference to what an Adana camp is. Can someone either add this information in or clarift the caption? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.174.23 (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I found kind of a source but its in Greek1. Adana is a city in Turkey, many GCs were taken there as prisoners and later returned.--Tco03displays (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)