Talk:Cypriot intercommunal violence/Archive 1

This is a totally pro-turkish article, especially the section (Intercommunal violence continued (1963))
Who wrote this? There's no signature... can you highlight what exactly you mean by "pro-turkish" by providing some examples? Nargothronde (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This heading was added by indefinitely blocked user GiorgosY in this edit from August 2014, so it is hardly worth using time on. --T*U (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you. Nargothronde (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Who ever wrote that this is a totally pro-turkish article, especially the section (Intercommunal violence continued (1963)) he is 100% right. I don't know how was the section of 1963 at the time but now is 100% POV. A POV that incites hatred against Greek Cypriots and a victimhood culture among Turkish Cypriots, a typical hate speech type of POV of the turkish ministry of foreighn affairs. It seems that the turkish ministry of foreighn afairs, has its people here in Wikipedia (I am not surpriced at all by this) to ensure that every NPOV is deleted and that this ludicrus hatred and victimhood POV staysJazz1972 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

As one sided as it can get
Needs a lot of attention Aristovoul0s 13:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not how it works. First you discuss what you find one sided, before you unilaterally decide to change the entire scope of the article. This article covers the period of violence between 1963-1974 and I intend to striclty keep it within that period. The rest of the information (some of them direct copy and paste jobs) can be moved to more relvant areas i.e. History of Cyprus. --A.Garnet 14:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why does it have to be kept strictly within that period? Does selective writing, omitting the events which make the Greek side look bad and the present Turks as innocent victims sound neutral to you? Everything must be presented in the full context. To be honest I don't think this article is necessary and that it's a WP:POVFORK of other articles (in your version at least), the history of Cyprus article being one of them.--Domitius 14:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the period 1963-74 is a distinct and notable part of the Cyprus conflict and it had absoloutely no coverage on Wikipedia prior to this article, much like the official Republic of Cyprus version of events--A.Garnet 15:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So why are you deleting it?--Domitius 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also moved back to original title, Cypriot intercommunal conflict is deliberately vague. Sources for Cypriot civil war:On War Routledge companion to World History, International Conflict: A Chronological Encyclopedia of Conflicts and Their Management, 1945-1995, The Relations of Nations, Family in War and Conflict: Using Social Capital for Survival in War Torn Cyprus,From great hope to scapegoat - US support of the United Nations, The Meaning of Limited War, The Cyprus Question and the Turkish Position in International Law--A.Garnet 15:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A.Garnet, are any of Aristovoulos's additions not relevant to the Civil War? No, they all have something to do with it. What you're doing looks like you're trying to maintain a POV fork.--Domitius 16:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am deleting information which is of no relevance to Cyprus as an independent republic and the distinct and notable conflict which followed. This isnt a case of some villagers shooting each other, it is a case of complete governmental and constitutional collpase, the division of the two communities, the arming of paramilitaries and the intervention of foreign powers, all of it during the height of the cold war. Now tell me what timars in the 18th century under the Ottoman Empire have to do with any of this?


 * And yes, there are some relevant edits which I was attempting to contextualise until you reverted. --A.Garnet 16:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are deleting the background details adverse to the TR perspective which is necessary to fully understand the conflict! The article is very Turkish POV as issues the Greek side consider important are deleted.--Domitius 17:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article follows the Cyprus-conflict narrative very closely, supplemented with further third party external sources. I do not consider talking about the Ottomans in the 17th century as a relevant background detail other than a cursory mention. --A.Garnet 17:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Background
- Francis Tyers · 23:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Should have some mention of historical demographics. Probably one or two sentences (e.g. As a result of Turkish immigration during the Ottoman Empire, by the time the United Kingdom took control of the island from the Ottoman Empire there was a sizeable Turkish minority)
 * Wasn't there an issue with the Turkish Cypriots being given more power than the size of the Community? e.g. 70:30 instead of 80:20 or something?
 * "Makarios went on to propose thirteen amendments to the constitution, which according to the historian Keith Kyle had the effect of resolving most of the issues in the Greek Cypriot favour" <-- this needs to be NPOVised. What do other historians say?
 * The "intentions" part seems a bit one sided.
 * Though the TMT - now charged with defending the Turkish Cypriots - committed a number of acts of retaliation, Kyle notes “there is no doubt that the main victims of the numerous incidents that took place during the next few months were Turks”. <-- Why does his opinion matter? And were all these attacks "retaliation" ? I doubt it.
 * You give two examples of atrocities against the Turks, none against the Greeks, and yet there were a similar number killed on each side.
 * Dodd's estimate would mean that about 118,000 people were crammed into a space of less than 95 square kilometres. <-- WP:NOR


 * Yes, but you are deleting stuff. If you want my opinion on that last issue what he was doing did exactly that, how ever, it was justified in the interests of true democracy. My POV doesn't count though, does it? :) --Domitius 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyones POV counts (well, not quite) but if you really want an NPOV article, you are going about it the wrong way. As it stands, the article is deeply flawed, and I am considering just leaving you all to edit war over it. What I would recommend is that you work through it a section at a time, rather than adding/removing large chunks of irrelevant information. You can help make it NPOV, but not in your current manner. - Francis Tyers · 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. This whole article is in a mess imo and I have tried to start a process below in the hope this might improve things ? However I also thought I would comment on a couple of your bullet points. On the '13 ammendments' I personally am of the view that you do not need a hsitorian or even a raft of historians to be able to see that the proposed ammendments respresnted a radical undermining of the basis of the 60's agreements (in favour of GC). All you need is to read the 60's agreements and then the proposed ammendments and have a modicum of common sense. As for the issue of the TC enclaves post 63, there is a common misconception here. The classic figures of 1.5-3% of the area of Cyprus refer to areas under effective control of the TC community. This does not mean every TC was living in these areas. It means that TC were in control of these areas and safe from potential GC/ state persectuion or harrasment. The source for this is found in the various UNFICYP 6 monthly reports back to the security council. I will quote sections from one of these (S/6102 covering the period 10 September to 12 December 1964) as this makes the point clearly imo. "These areas are administered by the Turkish Cypriot community, under the authority of the Vice-President's office, and are defended by positions manned by Turkish Cypriot fighters. In the aggregate, these Turkish Cypriot areas cover approximately 54 square miles, or 1 l/2 per cent of the total area of the country, with a population of about 59,000, including 13,600 refugees." and "It should be noted that there are substantial Turkish Cypriot communities in such places as Ktima and Limassol, as well as a number of Turkish Cypriot villages, which are under the military, police, and administrative control of the Government. Some of these, notably Ktima (occupied on 4-7 March) were militarily subdued by the Government forces during the disturbances which took place prior to the establishment of UNFICYP. These should not be counted among the areas under actual control of the Turkish Cypriot leadership in Nicosia," In summary then it seems to me this is a case of wording - once one explains properly what is meant by the TC enclaves then their size in proportion to the total area of Cyprus can be sourced and have meaning.Erolz 15:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem
Francis, do you understand what is in dispute here? All this is useful background information which you are deleting. Garnet (whether intentionally or unintentionally) has omitted everything which makes the Greek side look "good" and makes the TC look like poor innocent virgins after having been raped. Everything must be presented in context - by taking things out of context I can prove that Hitler was justified in the Holocaust! 17th century or whatever is all relevant - GCs didn't get pissed off at the TCs for no reason. This is one long simultaneous conflict. History is always important, and shortsightedness in history is not an excuse for selective quoting of facts. NikoSilver 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, see above. I realise the article is one sided. Lets try and improve it without adding a lot of irrelevant stuff. I'm going through and making notes. I hope you will do the same instead of blindly reverting to versions which make no sense. - Francis Tyers · 23:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's add all the possible stuff first. Then go through it with a toothcomb and remove what needs to be removed if we remove it now we could forget about it.--Domitius 23:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That will end up with a bloated article that every time a person of one side tries to remove it, it will be seen by the other side as a "national affront" and "censorship" or whatever. Best to achieve consensus before each addition. Want to try and address some of my points above without going overboard? - Francis Tyers · 23:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So you prefer censorship? Yes, I'll go though your points, just give me a few minutes.--Domitius 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer achieving consensus before radical changes to controversial articles. - Francis Tyers · 23:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hehe, yeah, I remember you on Macedonia-related articles. One minute you were inactive, the next you had flooded an article with selective pro-FYROM quotes you had found on Google Books.--Domitius 23:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Francis you're right about the 300-year war implication being dubious, but you are losing your point by making a wholesale revert instead of an edit or a fact tag. The beginning of the conflict should be more specific (I don't know enough about it myself), but it has to be pointed out that the Turkish language and Islam were imported by force in Cyprus, i.e. that the debate's roots go back to foreign invasions, both old and recent. Miskin 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that it shouldn't be implied that Cyprus was a created during the genesis as a province of the Ottoman Empire, inhabited by Muslim Turks and their "Rum" subjects, unworthy of claiming a modern ethnicity (real Turkish nationalist claim). It has to be pointed out that Cyprus has been a primarily Greek island since Mycenaean times, invaded by Turks or Muslims in the Modern era. All the cards need to be opened up. NPOV isn't about making both sides equally happy or equally unhappy, it's about telling the attested truth in a neutral yet blunt manner. Miskin 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See my first point above. It should be included. But this isn't the way to do it. - Francis Tyers · 23:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The failure is strong in this one
I see someone has reverted to the version with date: "17th century - Ongoing as Cyprus dispute" and casus belli: "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus". I hadn't realised that time travel had been added to the achievements of the Ancient Greeks. Or perhaps it is part of the epsilon defence? - Francis Tyers · 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This section sucks
In 1954 Turkey said it owns Cyprus

By 1954, the communal leader Dr. Fazil Küçük, was voicing nationalist ideas, spurred perhaps by the growing demand for enosis among Greek Cypriots. The following is from a column he wrote in his own newspaper, Voice of the People, published in Nicosia: “The cause of ceding Cyprus to Britain is still continuing; the time to consider handing back Cyprus to its former owner therefore may not have arrived. But if Great Britain is going to consider this enosis question at all or is going to quit the island she has a legal as well as a moral duty to call Turkey and hand Cyprus back to Turkey, and ask the Turkish government to deal with the enosis problem which the tolerant and ill-advised British administration has fostered in the island. From a legal as well as moral point of view, Turkey, as the initial owner of the island just before the British occupation, has a first option to Cyprus. The matter does not end there. From a worldwide political point of view as well as from geographical and strategical points of view Cyprus must be handed to Turkey if Great Britain is going to quit”. The strategical view of the Turkish Cypriot leader towards the overwhelming Greek populated island of Cyprus is evident by his above statement. Cyprus is treated as lost Ottoman land, and the demands of its population becomes irrelevant. [1]


 * This is made of WP:OR and irrelevantly long quotes. It could be condensed to a sentence or two without losing anything, for example the following: "In 1954, more nationalist voices had begun to be heard among the Turkish Cypriot population. Perhaps as a reaction to the growing demand for enosis among the Cypriot Greeks, certain members of the Turkish community had begun calling for the return of Cyprus to Turkish rule".

- Francis Tyers · 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK - I think that this one could be removed or heavily changed. Opinions everyone else?--Domitius 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Domitius I think we could take a look at the ideas of enosis (supported by EOKA and EOKA-B) and pro-taksim (supported by the TMT), I think they can both be comparable somewhat, especially comparisons can be made just as Francis Tyers has suggested. There's a page on Taksim that explains this with a little bit of detail: "Turkish nationalism in Cyprus developed mainly in response to Greek nationalism and desire for enosis, union with Greece.  Initially, the Turkish Cypriots favoured the continuation of the British rule. ... they were alarmed by the Greek Cypriot calls for enosis as they saw the union of Crete with Greece, which led to the exodus of Cretan Turks, as a precedent to be avoided,  and they took a pro-partition stance in response to the militant activity of EOKA. ..." it might also be worth looking into Adnan Menderes who rejected this idea completely, and instead considered Cyprus an "extension of Anatolia" and favoured the annexation of the whole island to Turkey, and believed, and I quote: "Cyprus is Turkish"... sounds rather familiar, doesn't it?

Title
Let's agree on a good title first. There was a bit of a move war, and this was the alternative title. Francis, what do you think (and I'm aware of it's google performance)?--Domitius 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lets try some alternatives (feel free to add):


 * Cypriot Civil War
 * Cypriot Civil War (1963 - 1974)
 * Cypriot intercommunal violence
 * Civil war in Cyprus
 * Civil war in Cyprus (1963 - 1974)
 * Intercommunal violence in Cyprus
 * Cypriot conflict

- Francis Tyers · 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no strong preference, however I stand by my earlier position that Garnet's version is a WP:POVFORK (now it's just a fork) of History of Cyprus or Modern history of Cyprus (both relatively short articles).--Domitius 23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Partly because of the increase in "background" that you've added. So really you made it the POV fork :) Personally I'm leaning towards "Cyprus conflict". I just opened up an old edition of "War in Peace" and thats how they describe it. - Francis Tyers · 23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about reverting it to Garnet's version and renaming it to Turkish view of the Cyprus conflict?--Domitius 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hah, then it would be a POV fork :P - Francis Tyers · 23:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, "Cypriot conflict" or "Cyprus conflict" seem to be much wider used terms. Also, the caption of the TMT image (if it needs to be included) should be changed. The current one seems to equate (rightly or wrongly -- but without source) the TMT with those asshole Grey Wolves. - Francis Tyers · 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Trivia: the founder of that movement was a Turkish Cypriot.--Domitius 00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The "background" section
I think this could be compressed into one or two paragraphs. Would you be happy then?--Domitius 00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be a good start :) - Francis Tyers · 00:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done.--Domitius 00:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The other sections still need work though.--Domitius 00:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the background section is a good length. It could do with some NPOVising though. I'll take a look at it later. - Francis Tyers · 07:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done the EOKA one as well.--Domitius 20:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding what this article is about.
This article is not the History of Cyprus mk2, it is not Cyprus dispute mk2, it is not about the "Cyprus problem" - it is about the period of constitutional breakdown and intercommunal violence between 1963-1974 prior to the Turkish Invasion. I have not defined this period myself, it is commonly distinguished as a period of inter-ethnic war prior to the Turkish invasion. It referred to either as "intercommunal conflict", "civil war", "inter-ethnic strife" and so on i.e. it is a distinguishable part of Cyprus's history. If you want to talk about the Ottoman presence, the British administratio, or the EOKA struggle then this should one section only under 'backround', otherwise we will be recreating the Cyprus dispute article again.

Some editors seem to feel that my focusing on this period is to push a Turkish pov, yet their idea of integrating the Greek pov is to go back to Ottoman times which makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to dispute some of the facts, figures or statements i've raised, then do so within the conflict we are actually talking about. If editors want to talk about the history of Cyprus, then take it to the relevant article and we will main it out from here. The background imo should only cover the following:


 * Mention Cyprus go from Ottoman to British administration
 * Mention EOKA uprising
 * Mention political structure of new state
 * Mention demographics

I mean do you people realise how you've degenerated this article? You've portrayed this conflict as lasting 300 years! None of you have even bothered to fix this discrepancy in the infobox, stating the Turkish invasion of 1974 triggered the conflict in the 17th century (actually Ottomans came 16th century). It shows to me that none of the contributors have any regard in making this a good article, only in working together to push a pov. For this reason, I'm reverting back to my version and any further edits can be discussed like it should have been done from the beginning. --A.Garnet 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And I am willing to discuss changes to the title btw, I realise the use of civil war is not used in a consistent timeframe when discussing the events. --A.Garnet 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Garnet, please understand that your text has pretty much remained unchanged so you don't have to be that overprotective. Yes there is a lot of excess now (which will not be deleted only relocated), but some of it is definitely staying. I like your outline and what could be included so please give me a few minutes to shorten it down to that.--Domitius 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My own text is not what I am concerned about, I am willing to work with people to improve that. My concern is that yet another Cyprus related article is filled with a long pov historical account instead of focusing on the actual event in question. This should be summarised into 4 paragraphs max, with a link to History of Cyprus for the rest. The section on enosis and taksim can stay, that is relevant but needs neutral wording. The "sings of intercommunal conflict" is basically an account of the EOKA campaign which needs only 1 paragraph. This articles scope is the conflict between GC and TC, EOKA was disbanded throughout much of this period, only re-appearing in 1971/2. 1 more para can be given for historical account mentioning Ottoman presence, British takeover and attempt to give the island the Greece. The aim is to create a concise history, not another overbloated account of Cyprus history. --A.Garnet 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Can i plesae see the quote from this 'Copeaux' source which talks of Turks being sent to Cyprus. --A.Garnet 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is ironic how this article tries to put the pressure on TMT while there is hardly any mention of EOKA-B and their crimes
Isn't it obvious really.-- Doktor Gonzo 14:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it? The article was created and written mainly by your compatriot User:A.Garnet. Take it up with him. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can guess which parts are Garnet's contributions and which ones are your compatriots'. I saw his prior version, after that it goes out of his initiative, this is the later version. If you do a ctrl+f for TMT, you'll see in the later version the article starts putting the pressure on TMT and Turkish nationalism as the problem. Anyway, bottomline, let me hear more about EOKA-B.-- Doktor Gonzo 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * TMT and Turkish nationalism were perhaps not the problem but were definitely a major part of the problem, wouldn't you agree? You're welcome to expand the article if you wish, provided your edits are backed up by reliable sources. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That depends what you identify as the problem Kekrops. --A.Garnet 17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume Gonzo meant the protagonists of the fighting. I'm also wondering how appropriate "civil war" is as a description of the events, given that so many Turkish Cypriots consider themselves an entirely separate people, not part of a single Cypriot nation divided against itself. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What is your evidence for Turkish Cypriots considering themselves an entirely separate people? And why do you not feel the need to make the same accusation against Greek Cypriots? --A.Garnet 18:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" and its Turkish Cypriot supporters' demands to be recognised as a separate nation-state? And since when does stating the obvious constitute an "accusation"? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Our support for the Annan plan would contradict your claim that Turkish Cypriots demand to be recognisesd as a separate state. The 60,000 protestors who wanted Denktas to resign would also counter your accusation as would the nomination of a pro-solutionist President. Now tell me if Greek Cypriots rejecting the Annan plan, the fact that they fly the Greek flag at every border crossing, that they sing the Greek anthem, and that a poll published last year finding the majority of GC's do not want to lvie with TC's does not at the very least indicate GC's "consider themselves an entirely separate people, not part of a single Cypriot nation divided against itself." --A.Garnet 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, your disdain for the Greek Cypriots merely proves my point that you consider them to be the "other", not part of your own people. Putting aside the matter of who is to "blame", wouldn't you agree that the objective non-existence of a common Cypriot identity renders the "civil war" terminology inappropriate? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 02:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My 'disdain' for Greek Cypriots?! I am the one basing my observation on facts, whilst you are simply throwing rhetoric around my friend. I have no disdain, far from it I have GC friends with whom i've grown up with here in Britain, so I'd ask you stop making these empty generelisations. As for your second point I disagree, I'm not aware a common identity is a pre-requisite for a inter-state conflict to be classed as civil war. --A.Garnet 12:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no "inter-state conflict", there was intermittent interethnic violence that wasn't quite a war in any meaningful sense of the word, much less a civil war pitting a single people against itself. By the way, having Greek Cypriot "friends" does not mean that you identify with the same nation, and the dynamics of growing up in contemporary Britain would be rather different from those of Cyprus in the 1960s. Everything about your editing history indicates to me that you consider the Turks of Cyprus (and the Turks in a wider sense) to be your people. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "given that so many Turkish Cypriots consider themselves an entirely separate people"
 * "Again, your disdain for the Greek Cypriots"
 * "By the way, having Greek Cypriot "friends"
 * "you consider the Turks of Cyprus (and the Turks in a wider sense) to be your people"
 * From these statements, it is clear to me you have already established your position regarding all Turkish and Turkish Cypriot people, no use arguing with you. --A.Garnet 18:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be such a drama queen. I am simply pointing out that the Greeks and Turks of Cyprus, or of anywhere else for that matter, are not one people, therefore we cannot legitimately speak of a "civil war" between them. It might help to note that the word for "civil" in Greek in this context is εμφύλιος, which literally means "within a race", so the concept of a "Cypriot Civil War" would be rather alien to 80% of Cypriots at least, even linguistically. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)ü

Greek cypriots killed hundreds of civil Turks in Taskent and Dohni villages in Magosa in 1974 just after Turkish operation. Thanks to Turkey, They freed us from Greek yoke and oppression.

Attempt to start process of getting this article into shape.
First off I have to say, having dipped my toe into editing Cyprus related articles on wikipedia just recently it is depressing how poor they are. Anyway I am here now and I will try my best to try and help a communal effort to get this article into shape.

It seems to me the first thing we have to get some agreement on is what is the scope of this article. From there we need (in my humble opinion) to decide what the relevant sections of the article should be and what the essential points in each section should be. In this vein I will start with 'Background'. This clearly needs to first section. If we can get some agreement on this then we can move on. Below I will present a list of bullet points that I think should be the scope of the background section, trying to use the guildline of what (facts) in encycolpedic terms would a reader need minimaly to know in order to gain some grasp of the main articles topic.


 * Where did the 'Greek' part of Cyprus come from. Something about the arrival of Greek influences and culture in Mycean times that went on to become the dominant culture of Cypriots. A sentance or 2 should suffice imo.


 * Where did the 'Turkish' part of Cyprus come from. Something about Ottoman conquest of Cyprus in 1500's and how this become the nucleas of what is today the Turkish Cypriot community in Cyprus. Again a sentance or 2 should suffice imo


 * Where did the British come from. Something about Turkey handing over admin to Britain followed by annexation by Britain during WW1. A sentance or 2 should suffice.


 * The growth sperate ethnic based desires for Cyprus' future during british rule and before it - enosis from the GC side and the response of Taksim from the TC side. A sentace or 2 should suffice, maybe 3 on this one.


 * The resort to violence by Cypriots in the pursuit of their sperate ethnic political desires - first EOKA then TMT. A sentance or 2 should suffice.


 * Cypripot independance. London Zurich agreements. Brief, as this should be / is covered elsewhere in detail.

That to me seems like at least a starting framework for the background section. The point is it should try and provide the basic context in which to understand the main article as briefly as possible and nothing more. I humbly suggest that we first try and agree the 'bullet points' and that if we manage this then hammer out a text for the background section from this agreed points. So feedback would be apprecited on this approach and then on the bullet points themselves. Erolz 15:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi erolz. You may want to look at my original version before substantial additions were made. I have tried to be very clear that I only intended this article to deal with the 63-74 period, yet some Greek editors were intent on taking back to 1571 as if we have had 400+ years of intercommunal violence. I made clear that the background should be short and concise, so as not to overlap with the countless other Cyprus articles covering the same thing. Also, perhaps you can comment on what you believe is a good title. I originally titled it Intercommunal violence during the Cyprus conflict, then changed it to Cypriot Civil War, and in the past couple of days Aristov changed it to the present title. I'd appreciate your suggestion. I will let aristov keep title change for the time being, but i'm going to revert his additions to the background which have again become overbloated. Thanks, --A.Garnet 15:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I keep saying I am very new to the whole WP editing thing. I guess my idea was that we first try and get some agreement from all parties as to what the scope of the background section should be and then start editing what is already there. If there are others that think the bullet points I have listed are not sufficent scope then let's discuss it and hear the reasons why they think a given addition is necessary. Personaly, as an inexperienced wikipedian, I see little point in making changes without some form of discussed and agreed plan - but maybe I do not understand how WP works? As for the title I think the current one is fine to be honest. I can understand why civil war is considered inapropriate. Erolz 16:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with points in your structure. But imo it is very important it remains concise. We have maybe ten Cyprus articles all covering the same historical events, so when I created this article, I wanted to stay strictly on the subject matter. That is why I think a background should be no more than four paragraphs max. --A.Garnet 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have recently finished reading 'From the East', and as such, I take issue with your description of the Turkish desire of 'Taksim' as a response to the native Cypriots desire of Enosis. Ideas of Taksim existed well before 1960 and any attempt to argue otherwise would be simple POV pushing.


 * Someone with a history of wikipedia vandalism such as yourself should not be taken seriously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.138.232.97 and this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk&diff=prev&oldid=117716514. It is well documented by multiple reliable sources that the rise of the concept of Taksim amongst the TC community was a reaction to that of Enosis from the Greek Cypriot community. Both pre date 1960 and enosis pre dates taksim. You may take issue and moan of pov pushing but the facts remain the facts. Erolz 04:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by Aristov
Aristov, you are turning this into a POV fork of History of Cyprus or Cyprus dispute. I will repeat again, 63-74 is a notable period of conflict in Cyprus's history as an independent state. It is academically verified, variously referred to as constitutional breakdown, intercommunal violence, inter-ethnic violence or even civil war. By removing this timeframe and shifting the focus to pre-independence, you are turning this into another pov fork of Cyprus history. For the time being i'm going to leave your expanded edits until a consensus is reached here on how to proceed. I will re-isntate the timeframe however. --A.Garnet 15:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

New resources
I've got 5 new books all by Greek-Cypriot authors on the subject of the inter-communal violence, some are in Greek, and some are collections of essays. However, these will probably prove useful tools in combatting Turkish racism and POV.--EOKA-Assasin 06:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Good for you. "some are in Greek, some are collection of essays"?? For your 5 books, here are five good reads: WP:RS, WP:ATT, What is a troll, Help:CheckUser. I would wait one day, give my gift of five articles on your fifth day here, but forgive me, anyway you seem to be somewhat knowledgeable (better than when I was five days old), that cares of the one day. denizTC 07:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Reducing the content
3meander, the articles focus is the conflict of 63-74, having yet another long winded explanation of the roots of the Cyprus problem serves no purpose. That can already be found in Cyprus dispute and Turkish Invasion of Cyprus. If you want to focus on colonial Cyprus, that can be an article of its own, but in this article the period before the conflict should be a concise background to the conflict. --A.Garnet 13:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you are saying, but you are deleting text that does not fall under "long winded explanation of the roots of the Cyprus problem". The information you are deleting my friend is background to the intercommunal violence itself. Cypriots on the island fought each other for stupid reasons in my opinion, leading to nowhere but destruction, pain and suffering. However, the reader of any nation, not familiar with why Cypriots, turks and greeks, fought each other needs to have access to background information directly related to the article so that things like the ones mentioned are not repeated dont you think? In addition, maybe you didnt pay close attention but, you are also deleting text not belonging into the background. 3meandEr 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tmt.jpg
Image:Tmt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Too Much Propaganda
As usual, there is so much posturing and racisim and nationalism injected here that it is impossible to follow the main event(s) and the gist of the article. What is missing is a few pictures of the mass graves full of Turkish cypriots and the infomous photo of Dr. Fazil Kucuk's family, machined gunned in a bathtub. A picture is worth a thousand words.--Murat (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Story of Nihat Ilhan, who is blamed to kill his own family, is not supported by any evidence; it reeks propaganda. And much worse, it is disturbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bozsivri (talk • contribs) 22:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

neutrality
This article looks like 3/4ths was written from a Greek POV, 1/4th from a Turkish POV, and 0% from a neutral POV. I will strip away much and try a complete rewrite. I invite other editors to join me. (I notice that similar discussion from 2 years ago petered out. Shame.) Jd2718 (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Language that is used in the article is pro-Greek and even emotional. British police is 'forced' to fire upon Turks, and many like. Moreover, article contains partial interpretations of the editorç Many of the statements are made without reference. Plus, some details are not informative but provocative; such as the conversation of Rauf Denktas and Ahmet Hasan Tahsin. However, most importantly, the fact that the editor blames Nihat İlhan without any citation is disrespectful and disturbing. I never complain about wikipedia articles but his/her language and word choices are disturbingly one-sided. Bozsivri (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)bozsivri

This article is totally POV. but not as the previous users have said. I don't know how it used to be in the past, but at this point, this is a totally pro Turkish POV article, in 2015, that is.

I will give two examples.

In the 1963-64: "Bloody Christmas" and Battle of Tillyria section, only Greek Cypriot alleged war crimes are stated in a very POV way. In the Outbreak of intercommunal violence section, only alleged Greek Cypriot propaganda spreading is stated, again in a very POV way.Ron1978 (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

TMT
What's the deal with calling TMT members terrorists and any Greek fighter a patriot? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. I am a Greek, but the last section as it stands now is total NPOV. if no concensus on a single narrative may be reached, then it would be better to have 2 sections, one 'GC point of wiew' and one 'TC point of view'. I have never before nagged on wikipedia talk pages, but this article is unacceptable by any standards. Xzar 62.169.220.17 (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

please someone add this photo: http://skyturkvngenc.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/gc3a2vurdan-dostluk-umanlara.jpg to the section "bloody christmas" part Girayhankaya (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed name change
If there are no objections, I plan to Move this article from "Cypriot intercommunal violence" to "Cypriot inter-communal violence", which is proper English. If no one objects, I will do this in eight days. Thank you. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Intercommunal is a perfectly acceptable word to use, see its entry on Wiktionary. SalopianJames (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 04:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Cyprus government was in place in 1963-1964 and not EOKA and Turkey was active
Cyprus government was in place in 1963-1964. In addition Turkey was active in bombing Cyprus, it wasn't just supporting TMT.

Pampos40 (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Result
Lets take any discussion about the result column in the infobox here.

Googling for random links supporting your view is a very dishonest practice. If we are going to name victors in an ethnic conflict, at least the proponent should make sure to define what "victory" in such a case means. How did the Greek Cypriots win? Did they defeat the Turkish Cypriots militarily? Politically? In other ways? As stated before, I am not opposed to the claim itself (which may be right), but I do oppose the way it is pressed. If @User:Courtier1978 could elaborate what "victory" means in this case, perhaps we can have a civilized discussion (unless I immediately agree with you? It's all on you). --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The sources are mainly from books. They are not random links. The Greek Cypriot victory is well sourced. It is much more well sourced, than the vast majority of the results of conflicts, which are described as victory. What do you mean be a very dishonest practice? If you want to to make a civilized discussion as you are saying, which I accept to make, you shouldn't start with an insult, don't you think.?

Let's proceed with the subject.

Greek Cypriots won militarily, as in the battles, and as in the percentage of the territory that they have controlled and won politically, as they were recognized, as the de jure possessor of the Republic Of Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriots were confined, in an area of just the 3% of the island. That shows a clear victory. I don't see how else the result of this conflict can be added. It is neither a draw nor a Turkish Cypriot victory. It would be a POV to add it as a draw, or a Turkish Cypriot victory, especially if we compare with how other conflicts are described. If this conflict is not added as a Greek-Cypriot victory, it will clearly show a pro-Turkish POV, which does not admit any defeat, its defeats are not described as such but the same does not apply for its victories, and we should delete the word victory from most of the conflicts around the world, since in comparison with most, this is a clear one. How can you add in the result a victory, when small or medium percentages of territory are de facto gained or lost, and not when the one side is just left with the 3% and the other side with all the rest, plus the political recognition as the de jure possessor of the country, plus the winning of the battles?Ron1978 (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You've made progress when it comes to sourcing, no doubt. But it's not the quantity of sources that counts. One or two sources with adequate citations is more than enough (and if we're gonna keep all seven, they should be incorporated into a single footnote).


 * Back to the definition of victory; Did the Turks try to take over the island? Did they have territorial goals? Who possessed what at the onset of the conflict? There are a bunch of unanswered questions here. In particular, did the Greek Cypriots aim at being the de jure possessors of Cyprus, or was enosis the true aim? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I will answer your questions but first it is fair to say, that, if in every conflict we take it like you are taking it, when there is a Greek Cypriot victory, then no conflict will have a winner and nothing can be added. We add and speak in comparison to what is going on with the rest. Otherwise is POV and attempting to find a way to do not admit a victory, as clear as it is, when the winning side it is not of one's choice, while when the winning side, it is, of one's choice, to do the exact opposite. That is POV. The same applies to other edits. You should ask yourself, are you treating the Turkish victories the same? What was the aim of Turkey when it invaded Cyprus? To create a non-recognized by anyone state? To leave Turkey out of EU? To get a US embargo of weapons for 4 years? To be condemned by the whole international community? To isolate the Turkish Cypriots from the rest of the world?

To answer your question, the US and Greece had tried to unite Cyprus with Greece in the 1960's. First the US with the Acheson plans and then the pro-American Junta of Greece, with 3 coup attempts. The Greek Cypriots didn't accept. Makarios the president of Cyprus by a vast majority popular vote didn't accept. The Greek Cypriots wanted to unite with Greece, much much prior to that in a referendum, when they were a British colony and much before anything had started, and EOKA A wanted to unite with Greece, in the 50's, when Cyprus was a British colony. Some minority pro-union with Greece, Greek Cypriots, allied with Junta of Greece in the coup attempts, against Makarios in the 1970's. Makarios was the president of Cyprus by a vast majority popular vote. The aim of the Greek Cypriots at the time of the Cyprus Inter communal violence, was not the union of Greece, but the defense of the country. They had the political support of both the Soviet states and the Non-aligned movement states, who had no interest on what so ever, to see a Non-aligned country, uniting with a Nato country, especially at a time of a cold war. The Soviet Union even made a statement, that if Turkey was going to invade Cyprus, Cyprus would not be alone. Makarios was accused by a minority of pro-unionists, to be an anti-unionist and always had the vast majority of the popular vote. The Turkish policy at the time, wanted the 34% of Cyprus in a by communal federation and not the 3% in enclaves and with no role in the government. I suggest to read the history of Cyprus extensively and then we can discuss as much as you like.Ron1978 (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The Turkish aim in 1974 was to take North Cyprus (in which they succeeded). I believe EOKA's goals must be seen in the light of TMT's aims. What did the TMT try to achieve in the 60's? Did they have an independent state in mind, or was it too early for any such ideas? The TMT was still a capable fighting force by the time most of the violence had subsided, and the Greek Cypriots being in possession of 97% of the island does not necessarily constitute a victory unless either side had territorial aims.


 * As stated before, I don't have a set opinion on this issue, and my simple agenda is to keep the article neutral. I don't mind a Greek Cypriot victory in the infobox, but then there should be an elaboration some place in the article. Perhaps this is a task for you? You obviously have more knowledge on this issue than I do, and we can always have someone from the "Turkish side" go over it and you can meet in the middle. What do you say? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Courtier1978, I would like to thank you for providing these sources. The source by Trimikliniotis looks fine and supports the statement appropriately. I truly appreciate this change in attitude by providing a truly reliable source. Some of the sources provided are unreliable (e.g. diaries of Che) and may be removed given the fact that quality counts more than quantity in such cases. --GGT (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Courtier1978 has done a great job here. Hopefully, we'll cooperate positively from now on! :) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see a more friendly approach by you two today. I will start answering.

GGT I have never given any POV sources. POV would have being to have a conflict with 2000 thousand civilian casualties from the one side and 200 hundred civilian casualties from the other and state 10 massacres, which all 10 of them, would be blaming the side that has produced the 200 civilian casualties, while the other that has produced the 2000 civilian casualties, to be stated with 0 massacres.

My disagreement with you all of this time, is based on that and that is what I am trying to convince you. That it is fine to add whatever you please, well sourced, if it is proportional and real. NPOV that is and accept the other NPOV versions, coming from other users, with out deleting them. Not only victories for the one side, not only massacres for the one side, but proportional and real for both, according to the real facts and figures. The same applies to to the opinions of other countries and global organizations on the issue, such as the UN, the EU e.t.c. In addition Greek and Turkish Cypriots are having a lot in common, and they are cooperating in many things, which is fair to add in the articles, as I have done both yesterday and in the past. If someone disagrees with some of the sources, then we can discuss about them, but the reason of discussion needs to be having to do with NPOV.

To answer to Mikrobølgeovn I will start from the first inquiry and then I will proceed to the second.

EOKA A, was dissolved, with the independence of Cyprus, and gave its weapons to the government of the Republic of Cyprus. There was no EOKA A in the 1960's. Some of its members became ministers of the government of the Republic of Cyprus, others took government positions, others did something else. It was consider a success and most of them agreed with the independence of Cyprus. Makarios didn't decide alone for the independence. The vast majority of the representatives agreed. Only 4 from the 35 representatives disagreed. Cyprus became a non-aligned country.

TMT prior to the independence was not consider, to be a considerable force. TMT was organized by Turkey and took its weapons from Turkey. Between the first day of the independence and 1963, TMT took 10 thousand weapons from Turkey. TMT didn't differentiated from Turkish policy at no time. Many non-combatants Turkish Cypriots differentiated from TMT a lot, with out even knowing its relationship with Turkey, but not TMT from Turkey. Many of the ones that differentiated, were belonging to the leftist workers union, and were generally leftists. Some of their letters to the UN and Turkey may be still available, if you are interested to see.

The Greek Cypriots at the time took their weapons from Egypt and not from Greece. The Greek Cypriots in 1963 prior to the development of the National Guard in 1964, they were organized in groups of volunteers. The biggest group was called Akritas. So in the 1960's, there was no EOKA A and there was Akritas, plus other minor groups.

In 1974 Turkey aimed to take the airport of Nicosia as well and it didn't succeed. It also aimed to control the rest of Cyprus through a by communal federation, in a deal, that the 17.8% of Turkish Cypriots, would equal the 82.2% of the rest, with different approved and recognized demographics and percentage of Cyprus, than the independence deal, that didn't succeed. The rest are not only Greek Cypriots. There is a small minority of Armenians, Maronites and Latins. Politically Turkey didn't succeed anything.

That deal was and is the aim of Turkey in Cyprus. The two states it is not the first aim of Turkey. It wasn't in the past and it is not now. That is the plan B, if the first aim fails. I can explain the reasons of that aim as well in another discussion. Not all Turkish Cypriots like the occupation. In a matter of fact, Turkish Cypriots are not permitted to enter Turkish barracks, the army is mainly Turkish and there are organizations of Turkish Cypriots, that prefer to be Cypriots than Turkish.

I do not belong to a side, either here, either in any other article. In order to belong to a side, I would need to push POV towards that side. That I don't do. On the contrary, in the articles related to Cyprus, I am adding what the Greek and Turkish Cypriots have in common, adding in the confidence building measures, plus adding NPOV versions, in everything. I will add more, slowly, slowly, in the articles related to Cyprus, since there is a lot of material to be covered, in an NPOV manner and then everyone can see it and discuss it, if they believe that they need to add or change anything. If their versions are NPOV, I do not mind, either I do mind if there is one, or many editing. However when someone says that today is November 2015 and someone else says that is November 3030, then we don't have either 2515, either 3030. From the other hand if one comes and says today we have 1st of November, then another comes and says the hour, then another comes and says we have a time difference between this country and the other, then someone comes and describes a picture as he/she pleases and that description to be NPOV, then I can agree with all of them, but I can not agree that we have 2515, or 3030 because we don't. I don't mind that you two are pro-Turkish. I don't mind if you decide to deny it as well. If you come with NPOV versions, in the articles, and let anyone else adding their own NPOV, then it is totally fine with me, since then the articles will evolve naturally fine. I hope you both understand my point of view.

I hope we will have a very positive cooperation from now on:)Ron1978 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Cyprus crisis (1955–64). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160111115505/http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/communal_strife%20-%20%2758.html to http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/communal_strife%20-%20%2758.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140112082705/http://cyprus-conflict.net/ to http://www.cyprus-conflict.net

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyprus crisis (1955–64). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217102905/http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/www.cyprus-conflict.net/narrative-main-%203.html to http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/www.cyprus-conflict.net/narrative-main-%203.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"Crisis of 1963–64" section is strong pro-Greek Cypriot POV & strong anti-Turkish Cypriot POV pushing
The "Crisis of 1963–64" section is strongly pro-Greek Cypriot POV pushing and anti-Turkish Cypriot POV pushing, and the sources contain unverifiable information and claims. It is also written in an incredibly opinionated narrative, with the majority of the text concentrating on pushing said POVs with inconsistent and irrelevant information, much of which has not included very very robust references to link that logic between what they are narrating and the actual "Crisis of 1963–64". To be better informed, see

And on this subject:

This type of strong pro-Greek Cypriot POV pushing and strong anti-Turkish Cypriot POV pushing really needs to be stopped.

The Greek Cypriot police operating within the old Venetian walls of Nicosia demanded to see the identification papers of some Turkish Cypriots who were returning home from an evening out, who when attempting to search the women in the car, were objected to by the taxi driver, and a discussion ensued before word of the incident quickly spread and a hostile crowd gathered. Then the police officers called for reinforcements (from Paphos Gate), one of whom arrived, took out his gun, and shot and killed the taxi driver and his (now ex) girlfriend. .

What does the TMT (which was created to counter EOKA), Turkey (which reluctantly supported TMT), and the angry Turkish Cypriot crowds have to do with somehow being involved in a bizarre conspiracy that Turkey had greater plans in Cyprus? (Even though with the Turkish intervention this has been proven to definitely not be the case, where even the strongest of its critics must agree, as do its observers: "Turkey intervened to protect the lives and property of the Turkish-Cypriots, and to its credit it has done just that. In the 12 years (now decades) since, there have been no killings and no massacres" - Lord Willis (Labor) told the House of Lords on Dec. 17, 1986).

Like with how the Greek Cypriots are guilty of attempted genocide but no action has ever been taken against them, and instead they have been rewarded by recognition as the government of all Cyprus, these types of strong pro-Greek Cypriot POV pushers and anti-Turkish Cypriot POV pushers are exploiting that political expediency to make baseless assertions and spoil Wikipedia, with assertions comparable to those made by Mr. Christides (May 10, 1999), that there was no ethnic cleansing or attempted genocide of Turkish Cypriots by Greek Cypriots.

Until these people come to terms with the appalling behaviour of the Greek Cypriot community toward the Turkish Cypriot community and stop trying to persuade themselves and the world that each side was as much to blame as the other, there will be no reconciliation in Cyprus. And so long as there are so many strong pro-Greek Cypriot POV pushers and strong anti-Turkish Cypriot POV pushers, Wikipedia will continue to riddled with selective disinformation on this issue.

This needs to be stopped right now. Nargothronde (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You have a valid point there [User:Nargothronde|Nargothronde]], but please focus on the article, find reliable sources and improve it. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It is the exact opposite that is happenning. One should just look at the facts and figures of the case and the related cases, and compare it with what it is said in the article and of what the first user is saying, to realize how pro turkish POV they are, to the point to inciting hatred against Greek Cypriots and a victimhood culture in Turkish Cypriots, while the second user is already banned form the Greek version of WikipediaJazz1972 (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nargothronde makes a very good point. Sooner or later all these articles turn into Ottoman/Turkish anti-propaganda and actual facts are buried deep. It has become so bad that the perpetrators of such propaganda even convince themselves of their false facts. Cyprus "problem" did not start in 1974. Turkish Cypriots did not have a "Megali Idea". They did not bury women and children in mass graves. They did not start an ethnic cleansing in Cyprus with the idea of "joining" motherland... one would never know all this reading these supposedly objective articles.


 * Thank you Cinadon36, I'll put on my focus glasses and slowly try to improve things. Nargothronde (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * And I think the key thing Jazz1972 is to try and not be pro/anti any POV, and just try to account for as much verifiable and robust information as possible, while like Cinadon36 just suggested, trying to focus and stay relevant. Nargothronde (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Turkish Cypriots did not have a "Megali Idea" or "Enosis" (Mr. Unsigned Post) but there were nationalist movements that promoted "taksim" in response. The 1950's Turkish leader Adnan Menderes for example. He considered Cyprus an "extension of Anatolia" and favoured the annexation of the whole island to Turkey, and believed that, and I quote: "Cyprus is Turkish", before realising the Turks were only 20% and changing his strategy to, and I quote again: "Partition or Death". This was all based on valid security concerns raised by enosis etc from the Greek Cypriot side, but I think where nationalism in the two communities differs, and this is often overlooked and that is why many people inaccurately cry victimisation and oppression Jazz1972, is that where for example the Greek Cypriots devised the Akritas plan, which was basically the planned genocide and ethnic cleansing that I referred to earlier, which they had already begun the process of, and where Greece invaded Cyprus, and where Greece installed its own puppet paramilitary EOKA-B on the island, and where Greece orchestrated the deposing of the ROC government and declaration of the Hellenic Republic of Cyprus etc... these are all things that are overlooked and amazingly blamed on the Turkish Cypriots, which by all accounts resisted, yes, as feasibly and feebly as they could, or the TMT that were supported by Turkey albeit reluctantly at first, or on the Turkish intervention-turn-invasion of the island, but you've got to put weight where it's due, and don't exaggerate, there were no large scale displacements/massacres/mass grave exhumations/burning of villages and people inside their homes committed to by the Turkish Cypriots. This all boils down to what I said earlier: "until people stop trying to persuade themselves and the world that each side was as much to blame as the other, there will be no reconciliation in Cyprus". That doesn't mean we have to give a pro/anti account of anything. Just state the facts as they are without crying politicisation etc whenever things appear that don't support your POV. Nargothronde (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Speaking the one that thinks that there was going to be a Turkish Cypriot genocide in Cyprus and that there was even a plan for that.:) You do not have a single clue about the case, and you are repeating the turkish side's fanatical war propaganda, that was debunked by the turkish officials themselves. You are a very poor POV user, that incites hatred against Greek Cypriots and a victimhood culture in Turkish Cypriots. If you want to improve start reading non propaganda and non turkish sources and stop being a fanatic. Don't expect to respong to this ludicrus comments of yours, if you don't come with NPOV comments and don't expect to pass this pretending a soft way to do it, like you are doing in your second response. You are making it even more ludicrus like thatJazz1972 (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Jazz1972 Please remove comments on fellow wiki-user. Nargothronde. Please read this WP:IPAT. The fear of genocide/ethnic cleansing was present in the TC community since Crete Syndrome, in the early 20th Century. It is mentioned by RS, such as Niyazi Kızılyürek. Now if it was a legitimate fear of exaggerated, is a matter of debate (and probably wont be settled) Cinadon36 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Cinadon36 You are even banned from the Greek version of Wikipedia. What exactly are you doing here?Jazz1972 (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * @Jazz1972 - stop making accusations against other editors, and start making neutrally-worded proposals for article improvement.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Whoever agree with the concencus made by RON in the results sections of the talk page, can write it here in order to start adding the NPOV version of it. I will participate in serious discussions with serious NPOV users.Jazz1972 (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Jazz1972 not to indulge you in any further discussion, because I think you are beyond it, but I think I would do justice first and put you at ease by clarifying that I do read, and very ethically, there are two things I think could help you. The first is the Akritas plan. You can also find a downloadable English version of the plan at the reference I'm attaching. The second, and this one is ironic owing to your views, but if I refer you to the "Denial" section of the Bloody Christmas (1963) article, which discusses the outbreak of the Cyprus crisis (1963–64), just to give you something to reflect on, and where I recommend you also take a look at where the references in that section are coming from (authors Loucas Charalambous of Cyprus Mail, Yiannis Papadakis of the University of Cyprus, Olga Demetriou of the Cyprus Centre of the Peace Research Institute Oslo and the University of Cyprus, Iosif Kovras of the University of London, and Zenon Stavrinides of the University of Leeds, the latter of which wrote on an interview with 2004 Greek Cypriot leader Tassos Papadopoulos) as well as recommend that you read said references and expand to do a bit more research and reading yourself, I think you'll be content with the argument on the matter that, and I'll just directly quote the Bloody Christmas (1963) article for your reference: "Greek Cypriot official discourse, still reflected in history textbooks, follows a denialist approach to Bloody Christmas. According to this narrative, the Republic of Cyprus faced a "Turkish mutiny" (Tourkantarsia). As such, Greek Cypriots are presented as the victims of Turkish Cypriot aggression, whereas the majority of the victims were Turkish Cypriot. This was used by the Republic of Cyprus to legitimise human rights violations against Turkish Cypriots, the suspension of their political rights, and, until 2003, the exclusion of Turkish Cypriots from the framing of the missing people by the Republic of Cyprus. In 2004, Greek Cypriot leader Tassos Papadopoulos said in an interview that no Turkish Cypriots were killed between 1963 and 1974. Reaction to this claim appeared in the Greek and Turkish Cypriot media, with Greek Cypriot media calling Papadopoulos's claim a blatant lie. . The use of the term "mutiny" to describe the events of 1963–64 has contributed to a Greek Cypriot master narrative that the Cyprus problem started in 1974. Under this, Greek Cypriot and Armenian Cypriot people displaced in 1963-64 are not classified as "refugees" but as "those struck by the Turks" (Tourkoplihtoi). ". And before you start thinking too much, I think it would also do you good to know that the section is titled "Denial", as in denial generally speaking from wherever it's coming from, not specifically "Greek Cypriot denial" or "Turkish Cypriot denial", but just denial, and unfortunately for you, wherever it does exist on whatever side of or away from the island, it's most evidently present in Greek Cypriot education and society, as this section of the article also clearly demonstrates. That's just a fact. Nargothronde (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Serious NPOV users I said. The poor POV ones that are inciting hatred against Greek Cypriots and a victimhood culture among Turkish Cypriots are the problem and not the solution. The ones that are pretending to be the mediators, while being with them, the same and worst. Do not think that I don't know what is going on hereJazz1972 (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Facts are just facts. That should be the sole criteria here, no? Not who is offended and whose myths are exposed. Above are very strong words, could you care to give one example of incitement to hatred, especially in the article? There are mechanisms here to expose such behavior and punish the offender. Why don't you use them? Because these are baseless claims? There are however norms of conduct when addressing another editor, about throwing insults and accusations. I hope someone explains to you some of those soon. Murat (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Self-determination
I have removed the source added by here and instead added a citation needed-tag to the original text. The given source says nothing about "self-determination", neither for the "Cypriot people" nor for the "Greek Cypriot people". The fact that only Greek Cypriots voted in a referendum in 1950 can not throw any light on how Greek Cypriots felt about the Turkish position in the UN discussions after August 1954. The text about "self-determination of the Cypriot people" will, however, need a source or be deleted – as would "self-determination of the Greek Cypriot people". --T*U (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * T*U, perhaps this could be changed to "Greek Cypriots felt that this position paid little respect to the 1950 referendum.??? Nargothronde (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, your ping did not work. As told before, the ping has to be made in the same edit as the signature. --T*U (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It could be changed as you suggest, provided you can follow it up with reliable sources. If not, no! --T*U (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * T*U I'm just trying to help whoever wrote that by filling in the hole in their logic. The problem is I'm only making an educated guess about it. Maybe it'll be better to just remove that part completely, as per your original suggestion? In the meantime I can just keep my suggested change as future food for thought. Nargothronde (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence in question, because it no longer made sense after I removed some copyrighted material, copied from Encarta. Btw., in general I would try to avoid including abstract generalizations about what the Greek/Turkish Cypriots felt, and stick to actual events that took place, or statements by specific people. Such generalizations should of course never be made unsourced, on the basis of an educated guess... --IamNotU (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed that IamNotU. Thank you! I think that was the issue all along. It's good we managed to sort it out! Nargothronde (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The 103 villages war propaganda
Can anyone here name me those 103 villages?Jazz1972 (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If it says 103 villages in the RS, then so be it. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No it is not, because it is a lie and a war propaganda. Can anyone come with the names of these 103 villages?Jazz1972 (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you have a RS stating that it is "a lie and a war propaganda"? Cinadon36 (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you name these 103 villages or not?Jazz1972 (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I Dont have to. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Then you admit that is a lie and propagandaJazz1972 (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (Note: I've reformatted the above, please remember to indent your replies). This argument is a non sequitur. If it was a lie and war propaganda, Cinadon36 would not be able to name the villages. But the fact that Cinadon36 isn't able to name the villages doesn't prove that it's a lie and war propaganda, since there are many other reasons why Cinadon36 might not be able to name the villages. Jazz1972, please try to explain clearly what the problem with the statement is. There was a very widespread outbreak of fighting and property damage that took place across the island, you're not disputing that are you? Why is it difficult to believe that fighting took place in over a hundred different villages? The statement doesn't say "the Greek Cypriots burned down 103 villages". It says there were attacks, violence. The villages weren't exclusively Turkish, some were mixed. Is that part of the problem? The UN (not the TMT) documented that about 500 houses were destroyed, and 2000 more damaged in the fighting (see the end of the section). Again, it doesn't seem hard to believe that this damage was spread across many villages. It also seems unlikely that two top Irish scholars, in a 2005 history book published by Routledge (one of the most highly respected academic publishers in the world), would be distributing pro-Turkish war propaganda. You'll need to give a more understandable explanation of what it is you're complaining about. --IamNotU (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Jazz1972, as Cinadon36 rightly mentioned, if that is what the sources etc say then that is what we need to reflect here. About the mention of "103 villages" that you are calling "war propaganda", this is referenced in a number of different sources, both contemporary during those events and now. You can try to find them yourself, or present a case on the Talk page for discussion, supported by reliable sources, instead of attacking other users and making baseless and demeaning accusations, simply because they do not conform to your own POV. Using bullying tactics and rhetoric will not work and is against the Wikipedia guidelines. See: WP:POVRAILROAD... nothing should justify trying to create a hostile environment here. Needless to say, they will just ultimately be ignored. And as IamNotU said, you need to present a clear case. This is not a platform to push POVs or original ideas. See: WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Nargothronde (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

So not a single one, can mention the 103 villages from the ones that are pushing this POV, lie and war propaganda, here and all false politcs are used by them in order to enforce it. You can imagine my shock:).Jazz1972 (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

,, and , I'd like to politely remind all of you that article talk pages are exclusively for talking about how to improve the article. They are not the place to discuss peoples' behavior. If another editor's behavior disturbs you, please talk to them about it on their talk page, ask an admin, open an ANI report, or better yet, just ignore it, and focus on the text of the article and solving any problems with it. Jazz1972, are you interested in discussing this, or not? If so, could you please try to help me understand exactly what the problem is? Do you think that some villages were attacked, but less than 103? Or no villages were attacked? Or the Turkish Cypriots attacked their own villages, or what? If the information in the source is incorrect (people do make mistakes sometimes) then what is the correct information? And, most importantly, how do you know? Where can we find published information that says something different? --IamNotU (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * How do I know? Among others I even know people that were involved. The whole narrative is a complety lie and a war propaganda. As I have written in the NPOV version of the story of 1963, which was deleted immediately, and I have also sourced it well, the turkish goverment was sending officers and weapons to Cyprus to start this from 1959. TMT took over places and made them enclaves and forced all turkish cypriots to get into them. The republic through volunteers, just defended a few areas that the puplic was getting heavily shot by TMT, such as in Paphos (a mosque) and Omorfita. Not only 103 villages were not attacked, but they were not even 103 enclaves in the total of Cyprus! Lol! An enforced propaganda narrative is taking place in all related Cyprus articles that no one in Cyprus believes. I am not the only one that knows what is going on here and neither me nor anyone else, we are naive to believe that this chronic propaganda is just the result of a team work of a few anti-Greek-Cypriot users. Now you can coninue with your politics enforcing the anti-Greek-Cypriot porpaganda narratives and pretending that this is how Wikipedia works, but a much bigger reaction will take place if this continues and the tolerance for this enforced incitment of total hatred against a whole race of people, based on propaganda and lies, has started to endJazz1972 (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The way of knowing in WP is citing RSs. Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability. Cinadon36 (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , are you saying that there could not have been fighting in the hundred or more villages, because all Turkish Cypriot villagers had already been forced by the TMT to leave their homes and go into the enclaves before December 1963? You haven't provided any source for that in your comment, or in your "NPOV version" here: Special:Diff/874119413/874202848. I'm not able to find any source that gives that version of events. What the sources in that section of your version do say about it is, for example: "Turkish Cypriots were not concentrated in one area, but lived throughout the island, making their position precarious." "The events of December 1963 caused the flight by members of both communities from exposed or unsafe areas such as mixed neighborhoods." and "A UN spokesman [in August 1964] said that Turkish Cypriots had lost all villages in the area apart from Kokkina to the Greek Cypriots." There are many more reliable sources that document most of the property damage and movement of people from the many villages into the enclaves as a result of the violence in 1963/64.
 * That's not to say that there are no problems with the way the section is currently. Given the amount of detailed coverage of the subject available, I would say that it's not very well written. I highly recommend reading the WP:NPOV policy very carefully a couple of times. Though it's not necessarily untrue that there was fighting and destruction in a hundred villages, I'm sure that a much more informative context and explanation could be achieved, with additional sources, than simply repeating "103 villages were attacked" verbatim. I would have to say that the way it is written now, that the Greek Cypriot paramilitary groups on the 21st first launched a widespread attack on peaceful Turkish Cypriots, who only after this responded by taking up arms in defence, doesn't correspond to the other accounts I've read. It wasn't the other way around though, either - both sides were looking for a fight. How that situation came to be is another story...
 * Some more background: The S/5950 report by the UN Secretary-General in September 1964, to the UN Security Council, says in part:
 * [...]
 * The mentioned report in "great detail" is the UNFICYP's report of July 1964, by A. Ortega. The purpose of the survey and report was to estimate the costs of rebuilding destroyed or damaged housing, and to make recommendations for a future general national housing plan. It contains the complete list of the 109 village names, the amount of damage, and 480 photographs. A copy of "The Ortega Report", including the photographs, can be found via a web search; I'm not able to post a link because I'm not sure about the copyright status. The version I found contains a rather biased preface written by the "National Existence Council", which is not associated with the report itself or the UN.
 * These two reports document the damage to property as a result of the fighting and subsequent looting or vandalism. They don't say specifically who instigated the fighting, who caused the damage, or under what circumstances (though that may be covered in other reports). The Ortega report lists only three villages where all houses were completely destroyed. In about forty villages, it lists no houses completely destroyed. It doesn't mention whether any villages were abandoned or not.
 * According to a 1975 letter from Rauf Denktas to the Secretary-General of the UN, the Turkish Cypriot leadership's claim of attacks on 103 villages is, at least in part, based on these reports. He stated: "During the onslaught of 1963-64 no less than 103 Turkish villages were attacked and hundreds of Turkish homes destroyed and burnt (see United Nations "Ortega" report of July 1964) rendering over 24,000 Turks homeless refugees for more than eleven years." Though this might qualify as one of the Turkish Cypriot leadership's talking points, it doesn't seem to me to rise to the level of "complete lie and war propaganda". --IamNotU (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The mentioned report in "great detail" is the UNFICYP's report of July 1964, by A. Ortega. The purpose of the survey and report was to estimate the costs of rebuilding destroyed or damaged housing, and to make recommendations for a future general national housing plan. It contains the complete list of the 109 village names, the amount of damage, and 480 photographs. A copy of "The Ortega Report", including the photographs, can be found via a web search; I'm not able to post a link because I'm not sure about the copyright status. The version I found contains a rather biased preface written by the "National Existence Council", which is not associated with the report itself or the UN.
 * These two reports document the damage to property as a result of the fighting and subsequent looting or vandalism. They don't say specifically who instigated the fighting, who caused the damage, or under what circumstances (though that may be covered in other reports). The Ortega report lists only three villages where all houses were completely destroyed. In about forty villages, it lists no houses completely destroyed. It doesn't mention whether any villages were abandoned or not.
 * According to a 1975 letter from Rauf Denktas to the Secretary-General of the UN, the Turkish Cypriot leadership's claim of attacks on 103 villages is, at least in part, based on these reports. He stated: "During the onslaught of 1963-64 no less than 103 Turkish villages were attacked and hundreds of Turkish homes destroyed and burnt (see United Nations "Ortega" report of July 1964) rendering over 24,000 Turks homeless refugees for more than eleven years." Though this might qualify as one of the Turkish Cypriot leadership's talking points, it doesn't seem to me to rise to the level of "complete lie and war propaganda". --IamNotU (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * These two reports document the damage to property as a result of the fighting and subsequent looting or vandalism. They don't say specifically who instigated the fighting, who caused the damage, or under what circumstances (though that may be covered in other reports). The Ortega report lists only three villages where all houses were completely destroyed. In about forty villages, it lists no houses completely destroyed. It doesn't mention whether any villages were abandoned or not.
 * According to a 1975 letter from Rauf Denktas to the Secretary-General of the UN, the Turkish Cypriot leadership's claim of attacks on 103 villages is, at least in part, based on these reports. He stated: "During the onslaught of 1963-64 no less than 103 Turkish villages were attacked and hundreds of Turkish homes destroyed and burnt (see United Nations "Ortega" report of July 1964) rendering over 24,000 Turks homeless refugees for more than eleven years." Though this might qualify as one of the Turkish Cypriot leadership's talking points, it doesn't seem to me to rise to the level of "complete lie and war propaganda". --IamNotU (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's ask again. Can anyone here name those 103 villages, that were supposedy got attacked? If no, then why do you want this POV propaganda narrative here? The whole article is a POV propaganda narrative by the way, as explained in another section of the talk pageJazz1972 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Here we go again...I suggest we close this discussion. Jazz1972 failed to back his opinion with evidence. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

War is peace ignorance is strength...you can imagine my shock...Lol!!! Can anyone I repeat from the ones that they push this POV propaganda narrative of the 103 villages, and want it to be enforced here, name those 103 villages?Jazz1972 (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I already answered that the list of names and associated information and photographs can be found online in the Ortega report. Since that doesn't seem sufficient for some reason, here is the list of villages "affected by the disturbances" of 1963/64, taken from the UN survey report, which documents damage to housing as explained in my previous comment above, and which appears to be the basis of the "103 villages" statements by the Turkish Cypriot leadership. About 65 of the villages are listed as having at least one house completely destroyed. Further information can be found in the report itself.


 * Please note that I, and the report, have never claimed that the Greek Cypriots suddenly attacked and destroyed these villages! I offer this information in answer to the question asked, to shed light on where the information in question came from, and to help assess the statements and the sources in the article, in the hope that we can proceed further with rational discussion. I will not put up with further personal attacks. I don't insist that the statment must remain, or else I would not have bothered to try to discuss it. --IamNotU (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Since now we have names of villages at last and the admission from one user that he is not claiming that those were attacked, (they weren't) can anyone else here, provide with the attacks on these villages, as the propaganda POV narrative says.? In addition is any user here, that wants this POV propaganda narrative to remain?Jazz1972 (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the villages were not attacked. Both UN reports clearly indicate that there were attacks, fighting, and looting going on in these villages. Otherwise there would not have been the damage seen in the photographs. At least three villages were completely destroyed, about 65 had houses that were completely destroyed, others had partial destruction. The S/5950 report clearly states that this caused tens of thousands of mostly Turkish refugees who left their homes as a result of the violence. What I said was that the Ortega report doesn't say that Greek Cypriots unilaterally and suddenly (without any good reason) attacked and completely destroyed 103 villages all at once. There's a difference. It also doesn't say that they didn't - it doesn't really say either way. Claiming that the report says no villages were attacked is just as much propaganda as claiming it says all the villages were destroyed by the Greek Cypriot fighters - which the article doesn't say, and not even Denktas says in his letter. The report also doesn't document destruction in hundreds of abandoned villages that may have taken place after August 1964. For documentation of that, you can refer to Richard Patrick's book, or various others. --IamNotU (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that we are sliding into OR here. There is no need to dig to primary sources to "prove" that there were 103 villages attacked. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not trying to prove or disprove that. I think it's valuable to look at primary sources that are quoted by secondary sources, to help evaluate the quality of reporting and analysis in the secondary source. Evaluating the quality and neutrality of sources, and the extent to which they are accepted in mainstream scholarship, is one of the most important jobs of being a Wikipedia editor. We can even use a primary source in the article for certain things, as long as we're not making our own interpretations of what it means, or combining it with other material to reach a conclusion that isn't reached by either. If a source that is mainly a broad political analysis of UN peacekeeping in general, and devotes only half a paragraph to the events on the ground in Cyprus 63/64, says simply "103 villages were attacked", and itself sources that statement to Mumtaz Soysal in his Turkish Position on Cyprus, as the given source does, then it can be helpful to understand the context of where that is coming from. We might decide not to use that as the only view represented, and perhaps look for additional reliable, independent secondary sources that cover the events in more detail, and try to present all significant published views in proportion if they differ. There are versions of the story where everything is one side's fault, and playing the game of replacing those with versions where it's only the other side's fault is not the right approach, and neither is trying to find some supposedly "neutral version" of the story either, as that ignores the other viewpoints and actually goes against the idea of NPOV. NPOV in a nutshell: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." --IamNotU (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

How many of these villages have Greek names and how many Turkish names? Do the Greek Cypriots attacked their own villages? You have already admited that the 103 villages were not attacked both of you by the way, the one way or the other and undoublty, while no one of you seems to want to remove the 103 villages war propaganda and add the NPOV information and both of you have deleted the NPOV information and added the 103 villages war propaganda.Jazz1972 (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not "admit the villages were not attacked". And this is neither a discussion forum nor a soapbox. Unless you're interested in giving specific proposals for edits, along with sources to support them, I have nothing more to say.
 * I already explained when you asked on my talk page, that I reverted your edit because you removed a large amount of sourced material without explanation. Furthermore, several controversial statements you added were completely unsourced, such as: From 1959 the turkish government was sending weapons and officers to TMT in Cyprus in order to implement its plan for Cyprus, a plan that the UN has declined. A ship was caught full of weapons by the British and send back. By 1963 10 thousand weapons are believed to have arrived in Cyprus at the hands of TMT. The plan of action, was for the Turkish Cypriots to attack and the turkish troops to invade. The Greek Cypriots having being informed, went to the Greek goverment of Karamanlis and Averof and asked for weapons. The Greek government declined their request., and Armed Turkish Cypriots took control of areas in Cyprus and started shooting at Greek Cypriot civilians. Greek Cypriots with mainly home made weapons, confronted them and took control of some of these areas. Other statements failed verification and were not contained in the given source, such as where you changed this: Eric Solsten described the events as "a Greek Cypriot police patrol, ostensibly checking identification documents, stopped a Turkish Cypriot couple on the edge of the Turkish quarter. A hostile crowd gathered, shots were fired, and two Turkish Cypriots were killed." and you re-wrote the quote of the source to say instead: a Greek Cypriot police patrol, checked a turkish cypriot car to see if they had weapons, in the area of St. Casianos in Nicosia. A hostile Turkish Cypriot crowd gathered, attacked the patrol, shots were fired, and two Turkish Cypriots were killed." - that is not contained in the source. If you fail to follow the most basic Wikipedia rules of verifiability, you can't accuse others of a conspiracy to censor you. --IamNotU (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to add that Jazz1972 also concedes from the outset of the aforementioned edit that what they want to add is unsourced and unverifiable, and I quote, "From 1959 the turkish government was sending weapons and officers to TMT in Cyprus in order to implement its plan for Cyprus, a plan that the UN has declined. I don't think it's worth dignifying Jazz1972 with any further response on the matter. They won't try to verify anything. They are just trying to waste their and everybody else's time by making baseless accusations and violating so many of Wikipedia's guidelines. Most have already been mentioned above. I agree with Cinadon36 that we simply close this Talk. Nargothronde (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a note, some Turkish-Cypriot villages do have a greek name. The reason could be that the poppulation of the village converted sometime, or because it's population has been replaced in a way or another. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Still not able to prove your point as I see. Almost all of these villages have Greek names. How can almost all the names of the villages be Greek, if not Greek? Did the Greeks attacked their own villages? If more than 100 villages were attacked, would the casualties of 1963 be that few.? So what was the case, 2 people per village the casualties?Jazz1972 (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight templates
, I've removed the "undue weight section" templates for now, since you haven't given any explanation for them in your edit summaries. You've said that you've already explained on the talk page, but I can't find the words "undue weight" anywhere here. I'm not able to understand what you mean, or what previous discussion, in the many pages above, you might be talking about.

The "undue weight" (article version) template documentation says:
 * "This tag should be used on articles that discuss one aspect of the article in too much detail. This is especially true if the article focuses on an unimportant aspect of the topic while ignoring items of importance.


 * Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that we don't give undue weight to any particular subtopic in an article. For example, the article on Earth does not mention the fringe flat Earth theory. If an article is tagged with this, improve the article by adding content important to the topic and trimming or deleting non-important content."

Could you please explain specifically what the problem with the sections you've marked are? What exactly is there "too much detail" about? What fringe or "non-important content" is there too much focus on? --IamNotU (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I will explain in details, soonJazz1972 (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Lets start from section 1963. All NPOV information is getting deleted chronically. All the reactions by all countries as well. The reactions of the Soviet Union, the United States and the Non-Aligned movement among others. All the role of the turkish goverment is getting deleted as well. How convinient:) The only two things that stay, is a war propaganda allegation against Greek-Cypriots of crimes that have never being commited, and no one here that pushes this POV propaganda narrative, can prove any of them, including the 103 villages and the war propaganda allegation, that the whole case was a Greek-Cypriot attack, while in reality it was exactly the opposite. The POV propaganda narrative is exactly the same, as the one of the turkish goverment. You can imagine my shock:) Chronic team work on enforcing this propaganda POV narrative, is constantly taking place by anti-Greek-Cypriot POV users and admins. All NPOV users have been chronically banned, while all the POV ones, are chronically immuned.Jazz1972 (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you provide diffs to support the statement "All NPOV information is getting deleted chronically"? Cinadon36 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see what any of that has to do with "undue weight" - discussing unimportant things or fringe, obscure beliefs in too much detail. --IamNotU (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You can imagine my shock:DJazz1972 (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

War is peace ignorance is strength...You can imagine my shock!!Lol!!! Lets go again. Can anyone see the NPOV information that I am talking about in the section of 1963? No they don't exept if they go back to the NPOV versions that were immediately deleted!!! Can anyone see the POV propaganda narrative that I am talking about? Yes everybody can. The ones that do not want the NPOV information to be here and are deleting it, is it because they don't like the sources of the NPOV users that have tried to add it until now, such as the UN and the library of congress that is? Can anyone that pushes the POV propaganda narrative here, while deleting all the NPOV information, name the 103 vilages of the POV propaganda narrative? If not why are you pushing it and why are you deleting all the NPOV information?Jazz1972 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The question was about "undue weight" templates being added. You have not given any explanation at all about what any of this has to do with "undue weight". Probably you have used the wrong template, as you seem to be talking about overall neutrality. The Library of Congress source appears to still be in the article. The rest of your comments seem to be ad hominem arguments that carry no weight here. If you would spend less time with generalized complaining, and more with discussing the actual statements and sources in the article, we might make some progress. Failing that, you may try some of the options in WP:DISPUTE. --IamNotU (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The case is very obvious and very simple. It would be discussable in one, two points only, if the POV was 2% nd not 100% and the NPOV users were 9 to 10 here and not all banned. War is peace, ignorance is strength, doesn't help. I told you from the start that I know what is going on here. I don't know a bit, I actually know and I am not the only one. Do you think that either me or anyone else, will be tricked by any type of politics? The real question is this. Are you going to finally let the actual and complete NPOV versions to take place here and in the rest of the articles about Cyprus, or do you prefer a much bigger reaction?Jazz1972 (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

POV template is added.
Arguments are to be found in the last two sections of the talk page before this.Jazz1972 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * POV template removed. Arguments alone do not count as evidence of POV issues. You must provide RS that claim otherwise than the article's narrative. Cinadon36 (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yu didn't get any consensus on removing it from me. So it is back onJazz1972 (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Have a look at WP:BRDCinadon36 (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia rules. You are not following a single one of themJazz1972 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)