Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Deleted content

An editor has just deleted the following content: "Turkish forces primarily used a clear and hold strategy, forcing many Greek Cypriots to flee to the south.[citation needed] By the time a ceasefire was agreed three days later, Turkish troops held 3% of the territory of Cyprus. Five thousand Greek Cypriots had fled their homes.[citation needed]". [1] All three claims here - in particular the percentage of territory captured (which did not even have a citation required tag) - seem important info, and should be retained in the article if correct. So I am recording the deletion here in the hope that a reference can be found for one or more of the claims. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? Do you have a special interest in these claims? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

My special interest is a concern about deleted content and why it is done. I have been looking at your past edits and you seen overly eager to delete article content that has citation required tags. These tags are not there to invite editors to delete content, anyone can put them there and they are (if used correctly) put there to encourage editors to find references for the content. Longstanding citation required tags are not a reason for blindly deleting material from articles - they are just a reason to consider the possibility of deletion. What reasoning did you make to assume the deleted material was incorrect or inappropriate for the article? I think that a better route for you to have followed would have been to have proposed the deletion on this talk page, giving as a reason that there were citation required tags to that content that had gone unanswered for a long time. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that in the first phase of the invasion, "Turkish troops held 3% of the territory of Cyprus." is both important and well known. I am not sure about the other facts but I'll try to find some references when time allows. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid the fact that the Cypriots were evicted from their homes during the invasion and the simultaneous advance of Turkish troops which held the conquered areas, is what we call Clear and Hold strategy. This cannot be disputed. You don't need sources to prove that. The 99% of the Greek Cypriots who lived in these lands, are no longer living here. They were evicted by the Turkish Armed Forces, which in return held this place and stayed here for 40 years. The results we face today, are the natural outcome of this strategy: in the northern parts of Cyprus, today, you can find only Turkish Cypriots and Turks. Any Greek Cypriots who want to return back to their homes, are prohibited even now, by the Turkish Army. No Greek Cypriot is allowed to return home today. This is the Clear and Hold policy. None can dispute these facts. Not even the Turks... --SilentResident (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Before posting my note on the deletions, I did do a quick search for the phrase "Clear and Hold strategy" used in relation to the Cyprus invasion and I could not find any. Even if it was a "Clear and Hold strategy", I think it would be OR to use that exact phrase in the article unless you find a source or sources that uses it. BTW, regarding Why should I have a User Name's edits, my experience of them is that he never actually does the difficult task of searching for sources. He simply adds tags or deletes content that has been already tagged. I have spent a bit of time on other articles restoring and getting references for material that suffered from his deleting. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The same editor has been edit-warring. They just deleted the material again without participating in this discussion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And he is still edit warring. maybe he should change his name (to match his pov editing style) to the more accurate "Why Should I Be Expected To Use a Talk Page?" Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

POV Check

I have read the article from the beginning, and definitely think that this article isn't neutral and should be checked. You may disagree with me, but it has to be checked. Denizyildirim (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. Even the title of the article is not neutral. I suggested to change it from "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" to "1974 Cyprus war" (see above). That retitling request was resulted as "The result of the move request was: no consensus"Alexyflemming (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

When people stick to their national POV instead of objectivity, discussions in this kind of areas are sentenced to end in no consensus, regrettably. In my view, 'Turkish intervention' is the most approppriate wording. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"Why Should I (Be Expected To Use a Talk Page?)" complains about "POV instead of objectivity", but ends with the pure pov assertion "In my view"! The above three editors should start to engage in a proper talk page discussion if there is any actual substance behind their supposed concerns. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A neutral presentation from United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP):

Following the hostilities of 1974,....

Expecting such a neutral approach from some of never-change-mind users is futile... There is a blatant POV in the article, starting from the title itsef!Alexyflemming (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a recycled POV discussion... The POV has already been discussed, there is no need to raise a POV Check and title change again. The Wikipedia users reached a consensus that the article's title and content are not biased, and that the article's title should not be changed from Turkish Invasion of Cyprus to Turkish Intervention to Cyprus. Please don't bring back/recycle this old POV dispute, and check the Archive of the Talk page for more info about the consensus. However, if you have any objections about the neutrality of the contents in the article, then, better to point out more specifically where the problem is for you. If there are phrases or paragraphs that need fixing/citations, it could be great if can you bring them to our attention? As for me, personally, as far as I can see, the article just reflects the United Nations Security Council's resolutions which consider the 1974 events to be military invasion of Turkey against a sovereign state (Cyprus) and its territory. As far as I am aware, this reflects the official position of all 200 members states of the United Nations minus Turkey (who is the Invader, anyway). The international community, the United Nations, the five permanent members of the Security Council (Russia, United States, China, France and Britain), and all other international bodies, hold this position, and it is also the consensus among the Wikipedia users. Even in the case the matter is raised again now, I oppose the requests of Denizyildirim and Alexyflemming for a POV Check, because their opinions about Cyprus are biased towards the one or the other side. My opinion is that the article is already very neutral, with sources provided where needed. --SilentResident (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

POV Tag removed from the article. Please check the archives of the Talk Page (the sections above) before raising more POV requests, as the matter has already been discussed. However, if you find that there are still any POV issues in the article, It could be highly appreciated if can you point them out more specifically, so we can see where the POV problem is. Thanks. --SilentResident (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I see you have reverted the removal of the POV Check, Denizyildirim, claiming that the discussion on the matter is very old. You are wrong. Please check: Talk Page's discussions titled: "Requested move: 1974 Cyprus war (08.02.2014)" and subject: "page name change proposal". It is from February 2014. Also check "Invasion-Intervention discussion" which is from 2012. The POV issues and page name changes have already been discussed extensively by other people before you. You shouldn't raise again POV and page name changes without achieving a consensus in the Talk page first. If you believe there is a new POV issue in the article, please point out the problematic lines or paragraphs that may be in need for changes and we could be glad to give them a look and fix them. That could be great. Thanks. --SilentResident (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

They are old. You can check the dates, it can be verified in many ways. It's not one person's choice to decide if it's neutral or not. Let us keep the PoV for a while my friend, and let's let everyone check the article from neutral points of view, and make necessary changes. My personal opinion is that the article is not neutral as it is now, including the title. By the way, sorry for not answering you before, I had thought you didn't even check the talk page by your edit summary. Denizyildirim (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to urge for a monitoring of the page, yes, but you can't just raise POV Checks every time and at will, just because your personal views contradict the consensus and the views of other Wiki editors and also the international opinion. Our duty isn't to represent the one side or the other side of the dispute in the article, or play with the words invasion - intervention. Our duty is to represent the neutral, the international point of view I may say, on this matter, which are represented by the unanimous United Nations Security Council resolutions. Raising POV Checks every while when an article does not satisfy our very personal or national points of view, is not how Wikipedia works, I am afraid. Thats why we have the Talk page for such occasions. If you are so confident that the article is biased, then please open a new discussion in the Talk page, and raise the matter with details - with your evidence, sources and explanation, so the rest of us the Wiki community can see, realize, judge and fix where appropriate. It is highly recommended to use the Talk Page about this matter rather than recycle another POV Check every 6 months on a matter that has been discussed thoroughly over the course of years and consensus has been achieved. --SilentResident (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't claim that this article is not neutral or something. If you look at it, you can see that it's a PoV check template, it doesn't state that the article is not neutral. I along with many other as you can see want it checked by admins, that is all, and it's not up to anyone else but admins after reviewing the article to remove the template. As I just said, the article may be neutral, but since it's an controversial article, it's the best that it's checked for PoV. This not about opinions, this is about facts. And who says that international opinions is represented by UN Security Council solely? We should look for multiple, neutral sources. Not biased ones. So with all due respect please do not remove the template until an admin reviews the article. Denizyildirim (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Why dont you guys just refer to WP:COMMONNAME, check google ngram viewer, google books, google scholar, google search, bing search and yahoo search results to settle on the name dispute. The title which gets more results will be the article's title, if someone rejects it, summon an admin and he will justify your action. İ am actually curious why Alexyflemming didint do that. His actions were totally proving him right but greeks just flooded in opposing side. He could have just summon admin and resolve this with his references, proofs. kazekagetr 15:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

kazekagetr, here is an important info for you:

Dr. K.:"How can you cover neutrally the de facto political make-up of the entire island on an article about the Republic of Cyprus? You can't. It's impossible.".

Here is the answer I gave to Dr. K.:

Dear Dr. K., one can cover every topic from neutral point of view. This is valid for Northern Cyprus-related articles and Cyprus-dispute-related articles as well. Look how United Nations covered it neutrally:

United Nations's standard way of currently handling the issue is from neutral point of view always:

United Nations' Official WebsiteUNFICYP Mandate: "...Following the hostilities of 1974, ..."

United Nations' Official WebsiteUNFICYP Background: "Since the events of 1974, ..."

But, if one sticks to nationalism, etc. then it is impossible to handle the issues from neutral point of view. For example, you, Dr. K. mentioned "island nation of Cyprus" though Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots are completely different nations. To your information, Turkish Cypriots have been living in Cyprus island for 500 years. The number of mixed marriages between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots is less than 5 in 500 years! Turkish Cypriots' race, religion, language etc. are completely different than those of Greek Cypriots.. So, you are saying "impossible", and bombard POV views on Cyprus-dispute related articles.

* So, one side of the discussion is saying "it is impossible to cover the topic from neutral point of view, and bombard their POV edits". But, there is a way of covering the Cyprus-dispute-related and Northern-Cyprus-related topics from neutral point of view just as United Nations does so. However, "neutral point of view" does not suit to the interest of one side. Where there is a mentioning about 1974 events, they try to put "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" phrase and link the mentioning to the "Turkish invasion of Cyprus". This way, they are preventing the discussion from being handled in neutral way. Also, please remember that: Armenians said Billions of Times "Armenian genocide" since 1915 just as Helens say"Turkish invasion". However, in 2013, European Court of Human Rights decided: "1915 events cannot be qualified as genocide!". Why do one of the sides insistingly trying to pump "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" for 1974 events? Because in that way, they are hiding many facts, inter alia among many others:

* 1. Neutral (German) highest judge of Cyprus left Cyprus island due to Greek Cypriots' disobedience to the constitution of Rep. of Cyprus.

* 2. UN SG U Thant 1964 Report: "109 Turkish Cypriot villages were destroyed; but, none of the solely Greek Cypriot village was damaged"

* 3. In 1964, UN Security Council accepted (illegally) "Greek Cypriots are the only representator of Rep. of Cyprus" whereas Rep. of Cyprus was founded in partnership of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots just as Belgium was founded in partnership of Wallons and Flamans; just as Czechoslovakia was founded in partnership with Czecks and Slovakians. Flamans being majority in Belgium does not give Flamans the right of killing all Wallons and capturing Belgium administration. UN Security Council cannot remove or finish sovereignty of a nation!

* 4. Since Rep. of Cyprus can be only represented via participation of both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, and since Turkish Cypriots were removed from the partnership government in 1963, Parliamentary Assembly of European Council (PACE) expelled Rep. of Cyprus representation in 1965 and during 1965-1986 no representation from Rep. of Cyprus was accepted in PACE!

* 5. "Greek Cypriot terrorist EOKA killed 2800 Turkish Cypriots during 1963-1974.

* 6. Greek Cypriot terrorists made a coup in 15.07.1974 and finished the legal government.

* 7. The head of the coup (Nicos Sampson)(15.07.1974): "I declare Hellenic Republic of Cyprus" (Hellenic=Greek)

* 8. The 1st president of Rep. of Cyprus, Makarios (19.07.1974): "Cyprus was invaded by Greece".

* 9. During 1963-1974, with the ambition of killing all Turkish Cypriots, Greek Cypriots squeezed Turkish Cypriots to 3% of the Cyprus island.

How can this POV-pushers prevent mentioning the above facts? Of course, by emphasizing the resultant interference of Turkey.Alexyflemming (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Alexyflemming and kazekagetr, apparently you are overlooking some very important facts here: everyone knows that the first phase of the Turkish Army's intervention in Cyprus was apparently legal, where Turkey used its Guarantor powers to interfere to Cyprus in July in an effort to stop the massacres of Turkish Cypriots by Greek Cypriots, Turkey invaded 3% of the island and established a base of operations with the goal to save the Turkish Cypriots from an impending doom. None disputes that. Even the democratic governments of Greece acknowledged that the Republic of Turkey had no other option against the Greek junta-backed actions of the Cypriot regime against Turkish Cypriots and British. In Greece, the democracy was restored thanks to Turkey's first actions in Cyprus. Turkey, up to this point, I think, acted rightfully as a Guarantor Power, to be fair. What you are failing to understand, Alexyflemming is that there were 2 Turkish invasions of the island which are contradicting each other. The first Turkish invasion of Cyprus, which happened in July and the second invasion which happened in August, had totally different aims and results. The first one, the July's Invasion, was a legal one, and apparently it had to be done in order for an end to be put on the atrocities the Greek Junta and its Cypriot paramilitarists committed against the Turkish Cypriot populaces. The second invasion (Augustus) however, was an illegal one, and happened just after the restoration of democracy and law in both Greece and Cyprus. Which means the second invasion didn't aim for the restoration of any law and order, because law and order in Cyprus has already been restored after the first invasion. The goals of the second invasion, which was to conquer the northern half of the entire island (39% of the island) was already evidenced many years ago already, as part of Turkey's outspoken strategic plan for restoration of its lost Ottoman dominance in Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. The Turkish ambitions for power and control in the region were well known to the politics of the West since 1950s already. And therefore, the Turkish moves for establishing a PERMANENT military presence on the island of Cyprus, even after the restoration of peace, democracy and law on the island, were condemned by everyone, including the two other Guarantor powers (Greece and United Kingdom). The illegality of the Turkey's actions come from the fact that as a Guarantor power, Turkey does not have the right to: 1) permanently keep its military on the island's territory even without permission from the local Cypriot authorities, even after the operations were successful and peace was restored on the island, 2) eviction of all Greek Cypriots, Armenians and Jews from their homes forever and settlement of Anatolian settlers to the island, 3) Division the island in the borders today known as the Green Line, 4) Establishment of a new political state under the name Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. None doubts, including Greece and UK, that Turkey used the political instability in the region to advance its own ambitions, and thus, conducted the 2nd invasion (or intervention you may call), by exceeding from what legal permits was granted as a Guarantor power. The United Kingdom and Greece, as well as the rest of the International Community, especially after the second Invasion, deemed the entire operation Attila to be ILLEGAL. Unfortunately, the people who are supporting the Turkish side, have the false impression that the seemingly-legal and seemingly-valid first intervention/invasion on the island, justifies and legalizes the the second invasion which happened just some weeks later. But here, the opposite is true, no matter if you agree or disagree with that: The second intervention/invasion was totally illegal, from any respective: political, moral, legal, and ethical. and no state or organization, worldwide, including Greece and the United Kingdom, consider the Operation Attila to be legit.--SilentResident (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

1. SilentResident: "Everyone knows that the 1st phase (July74) of the Turkish Army's intervention in Cyprus was apparently legal. None disputes that."

AF: OK. Even there are many fanatics that do not see:

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) (29.07.1974, Resolution 573) "The Turkish military intervention was the exercise of a RIGHT EMANATING FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY and the FULLFILMENT OF A LEGAL and moral OBLIGATION.

2. SilentResident: "The 2nd invasion (August74) was an illegal......Greece, especially after the 2nd Invasion, deemed the entire operation Attila to be ILLEGAL."

AF: Greece’s Athens Court of Appeals (21.03.1979; Case No: 2658/79): "The Turkish military INTERVENTION in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London Accords, was LEGAL. Turkey, as one of the Guarantor Powers, had the right lo fulfill her obligations. The real culprits . . . are the Greek officers who engineered and staged a coup and prepared the conditions for this INTERVENTION".

Just after 5 years later than 1974, in 1979, Greece's Highest Court decided Turkish military intervention is legal without making any difference between 1st and 2nd military operation!

3. SilentResident: "The 2nd invasion didn't aim for the restoration of any law and order, because law and order in Cyprus has already been restored after the 1st invasion."

AF: The Rule of Law already ended in 1963 when NEUTRAL (German) (highest) judge of Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus (SCCC) was forced to go out of Cyprus by Greek Cypriots, and SCCC ceased.

Since, according to RoC constitution, Cyprus can only be represented by the participation of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, and there were no Turkish Cypriot in RoC government since 1963, Parliamentary Assembly of European Council stopped representation of Cyprus in PACE and expelled all Greek Cypriot representators. There was no representation of RoC during 1965-1986!

When you say "law and order in Cyprus has already been restored after the 1st invasion", you refer to "the law and order in Cyprus that was forcefully existed by Greek Cypriots via expelling Turkish Cypriots, and via administrating Cyprus as the sole representator since 1963".

"The law and order in Cyprus that was forcefully existed by Greek Cypriots via expelling Turkish Cypriots, and via administrating Cyprus as the sole representator since 1963" was not the law and order in Cyprus according to RoC's 1960 constitution. Hence, "1960 RoC's law and order" was not in execution and in place after 1st Turkish military operation. Green Line that was drawn by Britishes in 1963 was not in its place and damaged in favor of Greek Cypriots even after the 1st Turkish military operation. Only in the Turkish 2nd military operation, Turkey reached to the original Green Line drawn by Britishes in 1963.

4. SilentResident: Turkey does not have the right to:

a) permanently keep its military on the island's territory even without permission from the local Cypriot authorities, even after the operations were successful and peace was restored on the island,

AF: a) Turkey had/has the right of permanently keep 600 soldiers in Cyprus forever according to RoC 1960 constitution!

b) eviction of all Greek Cypriots, Armenians and Jews from their homes forever and settlement of Anatolian settlers to the island

AF: b) Completely very big lie of Greek Cypriots:

After the hostilities in 1974, population transfers were made in accordance with the population exchange agreement between Turkish and Greek Cypriots (Third Vienna Agreement) under the auspices of United Nations on 2 August 1975; the Orthodox Greek Cypriots in Rizokarpaso, Agios Andronikos and Agia Triada and Catholic Maronite Cypriots in Asomatos, Karpasia and Kormakitis agreed to live under Turkish Cypriot administration and stayed in the north and Turkish Cypriots in Limassol agreed to live under Greek Cypriot administration and stayed in the south of the Cyprus island.

If all of the Greek Cypriots had chosen to stay in north of Cyprus, then all of them have been living in north of Cyprus just as the ones who chose to stay in north of Cyprus and are still living in north of Cyprus!

Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots have NO right to return back after 40 years they chose their side in 1974!:

United States Federal Court decision (09.10.2014):"..Greek Cypriots cannot claim that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots....Although the United States does not recognize it as a state, the TRNC purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary...TRNC is not vulnerable to a lawsuit in Washington". Source.

(Note that before USA Federal Court kicked Greek Cypriots, European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) already kicked Greek Cypriots and decided that the places that Greek Cypriots left are no more their homes. See ECtHR's related decisions ((Tasos Asproftas: [Application no. 16079/90] ve Marianna Petrakidou [Application no. 16081/90])): http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"fulltext":["Asproftas"],"documentcollectionid2":["CASELAW"],"itemid":["001-98684"]} http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"fulltext":["Petrakidou"],"documentcollectionid2":["CASELAW"],"itemid":["001-98688"]}

c) Division the island in the borders today known as the Green Line,

AF: c) The border entitled as "Green Line" was not drawn by Turks. The Green Line was drawn by Britishes (with Green pen) to separate Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots in 1963. That is to say, there was already a border between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots even before Turkish 1st military operation in 1974.

d) Establishment of a new political state under the name Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

AF: d) TRNC established 9 years later than 1974. During 1975-1983, various negotiations were held between GCs and TCs. All ended with failure just as the failure since 1968 till 2014!

Also: After the partnership government collapsed, the Greek Cypriot led administration was recognized as the legitimate government of the Republic of Cyprus at the stage of the debates in New York in February 1964 (Cyprus-Mail, 09.03.2014 UNFICYP: a living fossil of the Cold War: http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/03/09/unficyp-a-living-fossil-of-the-cold-war)

Question: Does the UN SC have a right to

- recognize the Flamans as the sole representator of Belgium (a country founded in partnership of Flamans and Wallons) if Flamans try to capture all of Belgium and try to kill all Wallons?

- recognize the Wallons as the sole representator of Belgium (a country founded in partnership of Flamans and Wallons) if Wallons try to capture all of Belgium and try to kill all Flamans?

- recognize the Czechs as the sole representator of Czechoslovakia (a country founded in partnership of Czechs and Slovaks) if Czechs try to capture all of Czechoslovakia and try to kill all Slovaks?

- recognize the Slovaks as the sole representator of Czechoslovakia (a country founded in partnership of Czechs and Slovaks) if Slovaks try to capture all of Czechoslovakia and try to kill all Czechs?

- recognize the Greek Cypriots as the sole representator of Cyprus (a country founded in partnership of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots) if Greek Cypriots try to capture all of Cyprus and try to kill all Turkish Cypriots?

Answer: Obviously No! UN SC has no right to remove a sovereignty of a people from the country that was founded in partnership with that people.

Alexyflemming (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Alexyflemming, I respect your personal views on this matter, and you are welcomed to express your opinions on this. But this is not a forum where we can have endless claims-counterclaims, endless discussions, and chat on the matter. This is Wikipedia and in Wikipedia, our duty is not to present our personal opinions of people but the actual events that took place (geopolitical, diplomatic, social, financial, etc), the effects of which resulted to the unacceptable current status quo of the island and highlight the stance of the international community on this matter. If we allowed the Turkish nationalists to re-write history to their like (Intervention instead of Invasion) or if we allowed the Greek nationalists to re-write history to their like (Genocide instead of Invasion), then, I am afraid that the Wikipedia will dangerously slip to the point of being no longer a place where the neutral point of view prevails. I am afraid you are not understanding that Wikipedia needs reliability, objective research and presentation of the events without mixing them with emotional feelings and nationalism. Turks and Greeks can raise as many excuses, explanations and theories as they please, just to prove their side's points, but these should not make their way into Wikipedia, because, as I said again above, Wikipedia has to keep a balance, and present all facts regarding the events that took place in Cyprus. If you believe you are having sources, events, or documents that may help enrich the article and keep it up to date with as much info as possible for the sake of the reader, you are very welcomed to add them to Wikipedia. Otherwise I am afraid, you are just wasting the time. --SilentResident (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Infobox

Why has Greece been removed from the infobox as a belligerent? 213.7.147.34 (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Greece has never entered the war

Greece has never entered the war since is a Nato country and doing so it would meant that it would have to leave Nato. Karamanlis said Cyprus is far and didn't send even a bullet for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talk • contribs) 10:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The Topic Should be Handled from ICJ's Kosovo Decision as well

International Court of Justice (ICJ) Kosovo Decision, Paragraph 81:
Several participants have invoked resolutions of the Security Council condemning particular declarations of independence: see, inter alia, Security Council resolutions 216 (1965) and 217 (1965), concerning Southern Rhodesia; Security Council resolution 541 (1983), concerning northern Cyprus; and Security Council resolution 787 (1992), concerning the Republika Srpska.

The Court notes, however, that in all of those instances the Security Council was making a determination as regards the concrete situation existing at the time that those declarations of independence were made; the ILLEGALITY ATTACHED to the declarations of independence thus stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or WOULD HAVE BEEN, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law, in particular those of a peremptory character (jus cogens). In the context of Kosovo. the Security Council has never taken this position. The EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER of the resolutions enumerated above appears to the Court to confirm that NO GENERAL PROHIBITION against unilateral declarations of independence may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council. (end of paragraph 81) AF: "participants" in the above paragraph is participant countries that were questioned by ICJ in the proceedings before the Court, not the participant jury judges of the ICJ. See (P.15. Questions were put by Members of the Court to participants in the oral proceedings; P.80. Several participants in the proceedings before the Court)

Question1: Who attached “illegality” to Declaration of Independence (DOI) of Northern Cyprus? UN SC or ICJ?
Answer 1: UN Security Council, of course. ICJ only cites this attachment. ICJ does NOT make any decision or statement about a country’s legality or DOI unless it is requested to do so; as in the case of Kosovo: “Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?”. Inter alia:

Question 2: Was ICJ requested to give an advisory opinion on “declaration of independence of Northern Cyprus”?
Answer 2: No!

Question 3: In paragraph 81, ICJ is mentioning “WOULD HAVE BEEN” and “EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER”. By this, what does ICJ imply?
Answer 3: ICJ is implying that THE RESOLUTIONS OF UN SC on DOIs of ONLY SOME of the countries are TOTALLY ARBITRARY and TOTALLY DISCRETIONARY (i.e. DOES NOT DEPEND ON ANY INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Remember: The President of the Int’l Court of Justice (ICJ) Hisashi Owada, 2010: “International law contains “NO PROHIBITION” on declarations of independence.”).
(This “NO PROHIBITION” includes “UN SC’s restrictive conditions for the permanent status of a territory” as well!)
ICJ is emphasizing this DISCRETIONARY and SELF-ORDAINEDNESS of UN SC via phrase additions and humiliations like “EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER”; and adding “WOULD HAVE BEEN” next to “they WERE, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force” to show that “UN SC’s CONNECTING to UNLAWFUL use of force” may even be TOTALLY BASELESS (ICJ did not pass only with “were connected” in the sentence!): By saying “TOTALLY BASELESS”, Remember (inter alia):

(1) The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) (29.07.1974, Resolution 573) "The Turkish military intervention was the exercise of a RIGHT EMANATING FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY and the FULLFILMENT OF A LEGAL and moral OBLIGATION.

(2) Greece’s Athens Court of Appeals (21.03.1979; Case No: 2658/79): "The Turkish military INTERVENTION in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London Accords, was LEGAL. Turkey, as one of the Guarantor Powers, had the right lo fulfill her obligations. The real culprits . . . are the Greek officers who engineered and staged a coup and prepared the conditions for this INTERVENTION".

ICJ’s using of “UN SC’s restrictive conditions for the permanent status of a territory” does not mean “ICJ believes such a non-existence of a restrictive condition for the DOI of a country to be legal; BUT RATHER: it only means the objections of the countries towards “DOI of Kosovo” is BASELESS EVEN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF OBJECTING COUNTRIES! Namely, such a condition is not in the perspective/framework of ICJ
(Because: President of ICJ Hisashi Owada, 2010: “International law contains “NO PROHIBITION” on declarations of independence.”).
This is the perspective of ICJ; and not solely peculiar to the head of ICJ; because, the tone of paragraph 81 is totally in this scope; read the whole paragraph 81; and its AFFIRMATIVE nature towards “NO VIOLATION” at the end. The meaning of P81 in fact is implicitly loaded with “NO PROHIBITION” as well!

Question 4: After the partnership government collapsed, the Greek Cypriot led administration was recognized as the legitimate government of the Republic of Cyprus at the stage of the debates in New York in February 1964 ( Cyprus-Mail, 09.03.2014 UNFICYP: a living fossil of the Cold War: http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/03/09/unficyp-a-living-fossil-of-the-cold-war ).
Does the UN SC have a right to:
- recognize the Flamans as the sole representator of Belgium (a country founded in partnership of Flamans and Wallons) if Flamans try to capture all of Belgium and try to kill all Wallons?
- recognize the Wallons as the sole representator of Belgium (a country founded in partnership of Flamans and Wallons) if Wallons try to capture all of Belgium and try to kill all Flamans?
- recognize the Czechs as the sole representator of Czechoslovakia (a country founded in partnership of Czechs and Slovaks) if Czechs try to capture all of Czechoslovakia and try to kill all Slovaks?
- recognize the Slovaks as the sole representator of Czechoslovakia (a country founded in partnership of Czechs and Slovaks) if Slovaks try to capture all of Czechoslovakia and try to kill all Czechs?
- recognize the Greek Cypriots as the sole representator of Cyprus (a country founded in partnership of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots) if Greek Cypriots try to capture all of Cyprus and try to kill all Turkish Cypriots?
Answer 4: Obviously No! UN SC has no right to remove a sovereignty of a people from the country that was founded in partnership with that people.

Question 5: What happened in Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe (PACE) after Greek Cypriots forcefully captured partnership government of 1960 in 1963?
Answer 5: Since Cyprus can be represented by only “mutual consensus” and “participation” of both of the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, all the repsentation of Cyprus was expelled from PACE, and between 1965-1985, there were NO Cypriot representatives in PACE!

Question 6: Did Greek Cypriots try to kill all Turkish Cypriots?
Answer 6: Then–United Nations Secretary General, U Thant report (UN SG S/5950 Report 10 September 1964, paragraph 180): “UNFICYP carried out a detailed survey of all damage to properties throughout the island during the disturbances; it shows that in 109 villages, MOST OF THEM TURKISH CYPRIOTS OR MIXED villages, 527 houses have been destroyed while 2,000 others have suffered damage from looting”
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/Chapter-VII-S-5950.pdf
“MOST OF THEM TURKISH CYPRIOTS OR MIXED” means “NONE OF THE SOLELY GREEK CYPRIOTS VILLAGES were destroyed”.
Akritas Plan (Killing every Turkish Cypriots) was applied by Greek Cypriots during 1963 - 1974 and 2800 Turkish Cypriots (3% of then-Turkish Cypriot population) were brutally massacred. Also, Turkish Cypriots were squeezed to the enclaves (3% of total area of whole Cyprus). Alexyflemming (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to disappoint you, but the ICJ decissions are about Kosovo, not about Cyprus. For the International Community, Kosovo and Cyprus are two completely different cases, and can in no way be compared. Kosovo wasn't "invaded" by Serbia, Kosovo was part of the Serbian state and territory, while Cyprus was invaded by a neighboring foreign state, Turkey. Your Kosovo VS Cyprus comparisons are completely out of place, and the legal aspects of the Kosovo case cannot be used for the legalization of the Turkish arguments on the Cyprus dispute. Such comparisons only aim in twisting the reality in an effort to justify Turkish claims that their Invasion was "legal" and its post-invasion results "moral". No serious person could ever bother with your theories, and this is not a chat forum where we can ask everyone to change how he views the Turkish Invasion just because we are not with the majority. This is Wikipedia, and I fail to see how Wikipedia could go as far as accepting Kosovo facts as being same as Cyprus facts while they are clearly very different cases. When the Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for the recognition of Northern Cyprus, citing a so-called similarity of cases between Kosovo and Cyprus, the European Union, the United States of America, Russia, China, Latin America, Africa, Australia and the Asian states, all of them made it clear to the Prime Minister of Turkey that the Kosovo case is not same as Cyprus case, and everyone still refuses still to this very day to recognize Northern Cyprus as a state, while, at same time, Kosovo has been recognized by over 110+ countries already. --SilentResident (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

I have just read and analysed the whole article, and I can see no issues that necessitate the inclusion of a POV tag for the whole article. While there could be disputably some individual instances of POV, it appears that the current tag in the article was added because of the name "invasion", which seems to have been settled upon as the common name. The adding user did not really elaborate on his/her reasons for the tag and the ensuing discussion was apparently a mixture of usual name-related rhetoric and original research of Alexyflemming. I should say that the atrocities section is remarkably well-sourced and unbiased, and the article is in general neutral in tone and content. As such, I am removing the POV check tag from the article. If any editor does not concur with me, they are welcome to re-insert the tag, provided that they give their reasoning with examples here. --GGT (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Names

I removed the Greek name, which is, unremarkably, an exact translation of the English name and was only recently added, and moved the Turkish names down to the bottom of the lede, so as to "not disrupt the flow of text". I was reverted as having sought to "overemphasize on the Turkish pov, while removing Greek one", while, apparently, my edits were, at the same time, "unexplained", albeit my having provided an edit summary, as I always do. Does anybody have any serious objections to this change? Alakzi (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alakzi. I don't see any problems with your changes. I can't speak for Alexi but I think it may have been some type of misunderstanding. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is why an invasion can be considered a peacekeeping operation. Thus, if the Turkish name should have a seperate paragraph from the lede, then it should be briefly explained in addition that this term is generally not accepted.Alexikoua (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Where do POWs fit?

Regarding the prisoners of war, I am not quite sure where to place the information regarding them. We have a picture of G/C POWs in Adana in the missing persons section, presumably because many of them went missing (is this factual?), but taking prisoners of war is not really an "atrocity" or human rights violation per se without any further evidence of abuse, and all we have in the linked source are figures. I am not really keen to include them in the sections about the sections about military and political actions, so any suggestions about where to put them? --GGT (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the information in the link, but it could actually go in the military action section given that they were captured during the war. Alternatively it could go in a section about the aftermath of the war if the book's info is about that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Two turkish invasions and not one

They were two turkish invasions that took place in 1974 in Cyprus and not one, with almost one month distance the one from the other, with completely different results and excuses. If we take into consideration the timescale of these invasions, then it is not correct to add them as one, since the time between them was more than the two together combined. Pampos40 (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

POV

The reference to the killing of Greek "collaborators" (meaning those who did not support the terrorists) is POV.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I have attempted to fix the issue. --GGT (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"EOKA ... killed Greek Cypriots suspected of collaboration" still is POV, as it implies Greek Cypriots owed their allegiance to EOKA. Is the term used in the paper you've cited? Alakzi (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That part was brought over from the EOKA article, which, to be honest, could have its own share of problems, but while adding I assumed that that was the case. I only personally researched the part about leftists. Please feel free to change the wording or anything, the core idea basically is that they killed G/Cs as well. --GGT (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)