Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Casualties

As far as Greek casualties go anyone can check the lists available on the Republic of Cyprus Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which probably as official and accurate as it gets, here: http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa2006.nsf/All/8FA6CC01D244E364C22571B9002BDA0A?OpenDocument
The first list includes the names of 1273 Greek-Cypriot dead as a result of the Turkish invasion (military and civilian), while the second list names 105 mainland Greek dead. Notice that these lists are updated (the first list has the date 9 March 2015) to include initially missing persons that were exhumed and identified in the process.

As far as the number of the remaining missing persons goes, the bi-communal Commity of Missing Persons in Cyprus mentions 1057 Greek-Cypriots still missing as of 30 June 2015, here: http://www.cmp-cyprus.org/media/attachments/Quick%20Statistics/CMP_Facts_and_Figures_June_2015.pdf. It is unclear to me if the figure includes mainland Greeks missing, although it almost certainly does. It is important to notice that this number includes all the missing from the period of the intercommunal violence of 1963-1964 to the invasion of 1974, although the number of missing persons before 1974 (Greeks at least) must be very low. From the same source we get the information that there are 349 Turkish-Cypriots still missing.--Xristar (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent to have these sources, thank you. I would be inclined to use this figure for the number of Greek Cypriot and Greek deaths and exclude any other unofficial estimates, and we do not have any number for G/C deaths anyway, only for casualties. For the number of missing persons, I would say that the figures of 2000-3000 that we have are unsubstantiated. There is no source supporting the figure of 3000. The source that we do have for the figure of 2000, a book published in John Wiley and Sons, does not strike me as a particularly authoritative source on Cyprus that merits consideration against official figures: I cannot see any evidence of it having been peer-reviewed or any substantiation of the figure.
This source by the ICTJ cites a CMP figure from 2011. It states that 1,464 was the number of G/Cs still missing in 2011, with 43 from before 1974. It must be noted that the CMP is the reliable source for the number of the missing: they have complete and accurate lists, which has been compiled and maintained meticulously to make the process of DNA collecting from relatives etc. as smooth as possible, that would outweigh any estimates. Given this, I think the following would be ideal for Greek Cypriot casualties: 6000 casualties (including 1273 deaths), ~1000 (or 1000-1100) missing. --GGT (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Citation overkill + sources that do not support the statement

There is a case of WP:OVERKILL in the lead with the sentence "The international community considers the TRNC's territory as Turkish-occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus.", with 11 references being used to support the statement. Most of these sources do not support the idea that the international community considers the north as Turkish-occupied territory (they just happen to use the word occupation or state that the TRNC was not recognized/condemned by the int'l community, from none of which can this be inferred within reasonable bounds). However, the effort spent to gather this bibliography is valuable and as such, I am moving the sources here, with due attribution, respect and apologies to Dr.K., who worked on this in May 2014.

  • Murat Metin Hakki (15 January 2008). The Cyprus Issue: A Documentary History, 1878-2006. I.B.Tauris. p. 250. ISBN 978-1-84511-392-6. Retrieved 29 November 2012. Security concerns. These concerns arise from the invasion and occupation of 37% of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey and the expulsion from their homes and properties of 40% of the Greek Cypriot population.
  • United Nations. Security Council (1974). Documents Officiels. Retrieved 29 November 2012. The Sunday Telegraph on 4 August 1974 in an article entitled "Turks drive out Greek villagers" by R. Barry O'Brien, from Nicosia: The mass expulsions of Greek Cypriots was reported by the International...R. Barry O'Brien, from Nicosia: "The mass expulsion of Greek Cypriots from several villages near Kyrenia in the Turkish-held zone of ... expressed concern today over forcible removal of Greek Cypriot men from their homes in areas occupied by the Turkish invasion army.
  • Wolfgang Hörner; Hans Döbert; Botho von Kopp; Wolfgang Mitter (19 December 2006). The Education Systems of Europe. Springer. p. 202. ISBN 978-1-4020-4868-5. Retrieved 29 November 2012. estimated at 85,000 and 40,000 respectively, who have moved into the Turkish-occupied areas since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. At that time one third of the Greek population (about 200,000 persons) was expelled from their homes in the northern ...
  • William Mallinson (15 February 2011). Britain and Cyprus: Key Themes and Documents since World War II. I.B.Tauris. p. 8. ISBN 978-1-84885-456-7. Retrieved 29 November 2012. Around 180,000 Greek Cypriots had been expelled from their homes and fled to the unoccupied part of the island, with another 20,000 being "encouraged" to flee later.
  • Flashes from the Trade Unions. World Federation of Trade Unions. 1977. Retrieved 29 November 2012. With improved cooperation no doubt Declaration on Cyprus Three years after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, 40% of the territory of the island remains under Turkish military occupation, over 200,000 Greek Cypriots have been evicted from
  • Peter Neville (22 March 2013). Historical Dictionary of British Foreign Policy. Scarecrow Press. p. 293. ISBN 978-0-8108-7371-1. ...Ecevit ordered the army to occupy the Turkish area on 20 July 1974. It became the Republic of Northern Cyprus, but Britain, like the rest of the international community, except Turkey, refused to extend diplomatic recognition to the enclave. British efforts to secure Turkey's removal from its surrogate territory after 1974 failed.
  • Dr Anders Wivel; Robert Steinmetz (28 March 2013). Small States in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-4094-9958-9. To this day, it remains unrecognised by the international community, except by Turkey
  • Nathalie Tocci (January 2004). EU Accession Dynamics and Conflict Resolution: Catalysing Peace Or Consolidating Partition in Cyprus?. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-7546-4310-4. The occupied territory included 70 percent of the island's economic potential with over 50 percent of the industrial ... In addition, since partition Turkey encouraged mainland immigration to northern Cyprus. ... The international community, excluding Turkey, condemned the unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) as a.
  • Modern Greek Studies Yearbook. University of Minnesota. 2005. Retrieved 29 November 2012. This resolution was reaffirmed by the General Assembly in its Resolution 3212 (XXIX) of 1 November 1974, which also stipulates that ... In the absence of progress, the General Assembly returned to the issue and adopted Resolution 3395 (XXX) on 20 November 1975, ... Notwithstanding the above, Turkey continues to occupy Northern Cyprus, the expelled Cypriots have been prevented from returning to ...
  • European Consortium for Church-State Research. Conference (2007). Churches and Other Religious Organisations as Legal Persons: Proceedings of the 17th Meeting of the European Consortium for Church and State Research, Höör (Sweden), 17-20 November 2005. Peeters Publishers. p. 50. ISBN 978-90-429-1858-0. There is little data concerning recognition of the 'legal status' of religions in the occupied territories, since any acts of the 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' are not recognized by either the Republic of Cyprus or the international community.

--GGT (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry GGT but you just proved the need for this citation overkill. If all these sources do not make it clear that the international community does not recognise TRNC and further considers it occupied territory of Cyprus then perhaps we need more sources not fewer. These RS also refer to the North as occupied territory so they are indeed useful. Don't forget this citation overkill, as you call it, became necessary due to the relentless and longterm POV-push by SPAs and socks. Just check the talkpage archives and the history of the article to verify what I told you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Dr.K., I am not trying to refute the fact that the international community does not recognize the TRNC (which is as basic as the fact that the Sun is a star) and further considers it occupied territory. This is already directly supported by one very reliable source we have in the article, published by the Cambridge University Press. On the contrary, I believe that the sources above would actually make it easier for a disruptive editor to dispute the statement. Firstly, not all these sources are written by experts in the field of politics, and neither are they all academic: "Flashes from the Trade Unions" for example. The statement that they are supposed to support is "The international community considers the TRNC's territory as Turkish-occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus", not "the international community does not recognize the TRNC", so the sources used to support the idea that the int'l community does not recognize the TRNC immediately becomes irrelevant here. The fact that they call it "occupied territory" is not useful either, it is only how William Malinson or Wolfgang Hörner calls it, and does not imply anything about what the int'l community calls it - we need a source that explicitly states that the int'l community considers it occupied territory. And for that we have one very solid source, which is perfectly sufficient. Any renewed sock or SPA POV-push can simply be reverted, and, if desired still be redirected here. I can add a hidden notice at the end of the sentence, just as the case with Cyprus, if I remember correctly, to pre-empt any such POV-push. We should not compromise the article's readability, especially on mobile devices, to fend off potential POV-warriors - there are other ways to do that. I sincerely appreciate your effort to gather this bibliography and really am sorry to remove them from the article. --GGT (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

At this point in 2015, this is a totally pro-Turkish POV article. I will give a few examples. In the First Turkish invasion, July 1974 section, only Greek Cypriot alleged war crimes are stated and in a very POV way. In the article, the Greek Cypriot EOKA is stated as a nationalist group, and portrayed in a very bad way, Greek Cypriot EOKA B as a terrorist organization, while the Turkish Cypriot TMT is stated as an excused resistance organization and portrayed in the brightest and more excused way. The article is saying that in 1957, EOKA forces began targeting and killing Turkish Cypriot police deliberately to provoke Turkish Cypriot riots in Nicosia, something that is a total POV. In addition only Greek Cypriot alleged massacres are stated in the article, and the 1963–1974 section is given in a totally pro-Turkish way.Ron1978 (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

The sentence you are criticizing as "something that is a total POV" is supported by a book published by the Oxford University Press, and that's just as reliable as sources get. Same applies for the very well-resourced 63-74 section. It amazes me how this is an "alleged massacre". I shall say no more. --GGT (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Distorting, and hiding the truth, the real picture, and my words, trying to find a single point to base your distortion, and trying to portray me in a very false and negative way, as a massacre denier, while you are hiding and denying ALL the massacres of your side, do not fix the article and make it NPOV, either hide the fact that you are pushing pro-Turkish POV, at the highest possible degree, as it shows from your history, for so many times and in so many articles, including this. Being one of the number one POV pushers, I didn't expected anything better from you. You are just doing what you are doing with the articles.

So the book that you are saying, is it accusing ONLY Greek Cypriots for alleged war crimes,(alleged is the correct word, since not all the crimes stated in the article and the way that are stated, can be called of anything else, especially when they are totally one sided!) portraying both the Greek Cypriot organizations as terrorists and nationalists, while at the same time is it portraying the Turkish Cypriot organization TMT as a resistance organization, in the brightest way and excusing it? Is it saying that in 1957, EOKA forces began targeting and killing Turkish Cypriot police deliberately to provoke Turkish Cypriot riots in Nicosia.? No Turkish and Turkish Cypriot massacres, only Greek Cypriot ones, no Turkish and Turkish Cypriot war crimes, only Greek Cypriot ones? EOKA killing Turkish Cypriots, in 1957 in order to provoke Turkish Cypriot riots? I don't think so.

You don't seem to mind about all that, and the POV degree of the article aren't you, yet you hate the fact that I have said the truth about a totally pro-Turkish POV article and you are trying to distort it and portray me in a very false and negative way. The article at this point, is a totally pro-Turkish POV article, and your edits are highly contributing to this POV. If you are not realizing that, then you don't know what NPOV is and is better to stay away from the articles.Ron1978 (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this subject, but I think, if you know some additional sources, or sources more pro-greek side to show both points of view, it would be perfect if you let us know. - Gerhidt (talk) 8:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus strength

12,000 standing strength (40,000 fully mobilised, theoretical)

Greece: 2,000 troops

Total: 42,000

This seems really dubious and unlikely. It already says "theoretical", so by far the largest (and unlikeliest) number should not be asserted as fact. Seems like WP:SYNTHESIS as well as it is now. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

has to be added to the article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCG_Kocatepe_(D_354) :

The ship was sunk in error by Turkish aircraft on 22 July 1974, mistaking it for a Greek vessel during Turkish landings on Cyprus. Sixty-seven Turkish marines and members of her crew were killed in the incident. 46.142.13.171 (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Four-Fifth or One-third of Greek population evicted from the north?

On the lead of the article, it says:

"Around 150,000 people (more than one quarter of the population of Cyprus, with one-third of it being Greek Cypriot)[35] were expelled from the occupied northern part of the island, where Greek Cypriots constituted 80% of the population."

So the Greek Cypriots constituted four-fifth of the island's population, but somehow they are the minority of the people who were evicted from the island's north? Only one-third upon eviction? This doesn't make any sense. What were the rest of the evicted people from the north, if not Greek Cypriots? I am aware that Cyprus has other communities too, such as Armenian, Jewish, Palestinian and Egyptian, but none of them constituted really such large numbers in the north. Am I missing something here? Any help? -- SILENTRESIDENT 00:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Why are you complaining about that sentence, when it was you who messed it up in the first place? [1]. That sentence was quite understandable and sensible (though terribly formatted) before you edited it; the error is entirely of your own making. It previously said that the 150,000 constituted one third of the total Greek population of the island; now it says that one third of the 150,000 were Greeks. The first claim sounds entirely plausible (though I haven't checked), while the second is, as you rightly found, complete bollocks. There is another problem though: the footnote is wrong (either way). The cited page in that book contains nothing at all relating to these figures. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not "complaining". I am asking for help to understand the information which couldn't be verified by the citation. This unverified sentence also is contradicted by the population figures provided by other sources. Hence why I asked here for help, to make sure that I did not misunderstand this unheard claim. You are saying I "messed" the sentence but even your fixed version is still not verified. The reason for my edits is because I thought the source was trying to mean it that way. But it can not be helped - perhaps it should be removed entirely as per WP:VERIFIABILITY instead of trying to fix something not properly cited (or not properly attributed in the first place). -- SILENTRESIDENT 02:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The source does note the displacement of 1/3 of Greek Cypriots and 1/2 of Turkish Cypriots. What are the other sources that contradict it? The wording does make sense, as it stands, although the numbers may be WP:SYNTH or WP:CALC depending on these other contradictory sources. CMD (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking into this history that source was added post-hoc to mostly pre-written wording, which is the cause of the issue. A source in our article prose does give 140,000-160,000 for Greek Cypriots. Sources in the infobox have quite a range, and perhaps could use a little more scrutiny, but they support the rough estimates the lead gives. This should probably be a bit more developed in the article body itself. CMD (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Cypriot military strength (Theoretically mobilized)

What exactly does this mean, if the Troops were not mobilized in actuality why are the included, I haven't seen this anywhere else on Wikipedia, can someone explain this to me? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SJCAmerican (talk • contribs) 18:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Future expansion of article

I will just note here that I am hoping to work on adding a bit more nuance to the "opinions" section in the upcoming weeks or possibly months. This will remove T/C-G/C dichotomy, which I do not think is an encyclopaedically useful way of approaching the issue. I think that the section should be divided into two sub-sections.

The first of these will be on the legal evaluation, which will discuss the Greek and Turkish positions, the resolutions of international bodies and especially the evaluation in legal scholarship. Some of this will involve moving content from other sections. I am also hoping to clarify the distinction with regards to the legal evaluation between the first and second waves, a distinction almost universally made in good legal scholarship.

The second will focus on political viewpoints: the "mainstream" political viewpoints in the T/C (e.g. liberation discourse) and G/C (e.g. den xehno) communities as well as dissenting ones; an overview of scholarship with regards to Turkey's motives (nationalist expansionism, protection of Turkish Cypriot rights, pretext vs. response argument etc).

I am also hoping to add some information, perhaps in the "aftermath" section, on the portrayal in literature and art, something that is absolutely omitted at the moment.

I wanted to drop this note before commencing any additions as I know that this can be a particularly sensitive area.

--GGT (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus/Archive_6&oldid=1027118854"