User talk:MarvTex

Cyprus

Please stop changing "invasion" to "intervention". The title of the article is "invasion", and it represents the commonly accepted name for these events, while "Intervention" reflects rather a Turkish POV. Regards, Constantine ✍

This is not a pov. The word invasion implys an offensive action, which obviously was not the case as an offensive action would have continued till the island was under Turkish control. In reality they stopped when the safety of the Turkish Cypriots was guaranteed. Any regulated unbiased site would not use the word invasion as it is very offensive to Turkish Cypriots.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1763984.stm

As you can see in this article by the BBC reporting at the time the commonly accepted term would have been/is intervention. Wikipedia's refusal to adhere to this is tantamount to racism.

Well, landing on an island with military force and proceeding to occupy a third of it is a perfect definition of invasion, regardless of the motive. And staying there long after the legitimate constitutional order has been restored rather negates the "humanitarian" motive anyhow. D-Day was also an invasion (of Europe), and no one is offended when it is described thus. "Intervention", which may or may not be military, is a more ambiguous term. To the uninvolved reader, it might imply some sort of UN-like humanitarian mission, which this most definitely was not. As for racism, it is entirely irrelevant with the subject, but, as always, a good accusation to throw at those who don't agree with someone's POV. Constantine ✍ 17:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you are already in violation of WP:3RR. Be careful or you may be blocked. Constantine ✍ 17:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to D Day I think you'll find that it is referred to as the D Day Landings and not invasion for this very reason. Germany, however "invaded" Poland and Czechoslovakia. Secondly "staying there long after the legitimate constitutional order has been restored". Turkey was instated as a guarantor for the whole island, so they have every right to still be there. It is obvious to me that there is some bias in your writings and it is actually the division of the island that you have a problem with. If it is the word intervention that you have objection to then maybe a happy medium should be found. You saying it is pov is not constructive. This is not an open/shut case and cannot, should not be palmed off as you are trying to do.

Look, this is discussion is not about whether the Turkish army should or not be still in the island. Read any definition of "invasion" in any dictionary, and you'll find that it is an armed operation involving entering a territory under the control of a foreign government. That is plainly what happened in 1974, irrespective of reasons. As for D-Day, I have read it dozens of times as "Invasion of France", "Allied invasion" etc in English-language books. I find it peculiar though that you reject the D-Day analogy based on its WP title, and refuse to consider the same in the Cyprus case. As I said, "intervention" is too mild a term for an armed assault, which this was. Constantine ✍ 18:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to edit conflict I replied to your previous statement. As for compromise, generally I'm all for it, but with what? "Intervention" almost retroactively justifies the continued occupation (which despite Turkey's guarantor rights is illegal, the guarantor can act to restore the status quo, not create a new one), while invasion, which you perceive as offensive, is on the other hand the most concise definition of what happened: "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" Unless you have some other ideas, the previous version is preferable to me. Constantine ✍ 18:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I'd prefer not to fight over quibbles such as that but to concentrate on improving the article. Unfortunately, it seems to have fallen in a limbo because the only guys interested in editing there are rabid POV-pushers, who usually only bother to change nomenclature and not add any substance... That's why I summarised as "POVdits". e Constantine ✍ 18:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed I would prefer not to quibble as I believe it should be an unbiased text that both communities would be happy to consent to and I am pleased you are willing to listen to compromise. I promise not to ammend the article further. This is something I and many others take very seriously, so I will put this matter to a community forum and see what we can come up with. I say again, although our opinions on this obviously differ, thanks for welcoming a dialogue; I shall hopefully have some suggestions in the next week or so.