Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Archive 8

Invasion Sounds Misleading
I know this may have been beaten to death already. I only took a quick look at archives. "Invasion of Cyprus" implies, Turkish Army landed an swept the whole of Cyprus from one end to other, bringing whole of Cyprus under Turkish rule and making the whole island a Turkish possession. Clearly that is not what happened. Greeks of Cyprus are as free as they were before, sovereign and have their flag. How can this not contradict the title of the article? Murat (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

What you are talking about would be "Conquest of Cyprus". "Invasion" would be correct even if Turkey had said "Oops - never mind" and withdrawn all of their forces the following day. 71.235.184.247 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * To me 'Invasion of Cyprus', implies the Turkish army invaded Cyprus, which it did. As pointed out above, if the Turks had occupied the whole island, the 'Conquest of Cyprus' would be the term to use. See for example German occupation of the Channel Islands and Invasion of Quebec (1775) for the difference between invasion and conquest. As already stated, this has been fully discussed previously and consensus is that the current terminology is appropriate.--John B123 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Misleading or not, the term is used by most RS.Cinadon36 17:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Two minor edits
The edit i completed, (but felt could use elucidation) concerned merely incoherant syntax: I found this wording:
 * 1) Re Turks' motivation:
 * "as they claim that Turkey took military action on the pretext of a peacekeeping operation"; my rev'n reads instead
 * Among Turkish speakers the operation is also referred as "Cyprus Peace Operation" (Kıbrıs Barış Harekâtı) or "Operation Peace" (Barış Harekâtı) or "Cyprus Operation" (Kıbrıs Harekâtı), as they claim that Turkey's military action constituted a peacekeeping operation.
 * where my avoidance of "pretext" is not so much abt its PoV connotation as about a kind of redundancy that comes close to the spirit of the double negative, even tho i happen to share the opinion that what Turks claim constituted merely a pretext. The word "claim" expresses no endorse"ment that what is claimed reflects either truth or sincere belief, but only of the act of asserting; our sources can't read minds, so the reader is the only one licensed to make judgements abt the tough questions of motivation and sincerity.
 * 1) Re casing:
 * A colleague invented the proper-name expression "Good Offices", presumably from noting the existance of a UN office whose title includes that nominative expression. Many well-educated native speakers understand that altho there is evidently an arm of the UN that uses (what i would describe as both a stock phrase and possibly an idiomatic English usage, the "good offices") as part of the title of one of its tools, something like "UN Agency for Good Offices" and seemed to conclude that the SecGen's good offices (presumably offered thru his personal staff if not -- more likely, IMO, -- offered by him, in person or at the very least, thru his personal assistant who would consult personally with him before exercising their own discretion). Yes, there's also a novel whose title capitalizes the phrase, on top of its cap'z'n in the above-mentioned UN agency or office, but most novels so capitalize at least the nouns and significant adjectives in their proper names, as do most business ordanizations; those are about proper names; the good offices of one of your buddies who helped get a job don't count as proper names, even if (not "The") but "A Declaration of Independence" may (or not) have been intended to become such. Most names get up-cased by virtue of being intended as proper names, and not because the words they're of which they're composed are or become inherently so. Nor (more to my point) bcz they become exclusive trademarks when Jack, Jill, or the UN uses them with caps in one context. --JerzyA (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your edit, you are absolutely correct. Cinadon36 10:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Professional job. Thanks for asking, part of your professional approach to editing. Dr.   K.  22:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Categories
There is not universal agreement as to whether Cyprus is Asia or Europe, some sources stating Europe, others Asia. As such, categories the article is placed in should either not be continent specific. or, as in the case of the article Cyprus, the article is included in both "in Europe" and "in Asia" related categories. The only addling of "in Europe" categories could be interpreted as supporting "Cyprus is in Europe" and therefore not WP:NEUTRAL. --John B123 (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * yes-- but this article is NOT ABOUT CYPRUS it's about the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and that invasion did affect Europe esp Greece. So the category is true enough. Rjensen (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It also affected Asia: Turkey. I'm not saying the category is untrue, but as the invasion had worldwide consequences then simply including "in Europe" is biased. --John B123 (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * That’s not the only reason this article isn’t neutral. Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See Boundaries between the continents of Earth. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Russia, and Turkey are considered "Eurasian" countries, due to their location at the borders of Asia and Europe. They are all members of the Council of Europe. Dimadick (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that membership of political bodies such as the Council of Europe is relevant? In general, topics relating to the "Eurasian" countries are included in both .... in Europe and .... in Asia categories. --John B123 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Not an Invasion
It wasn't an invasion. There was a civil war in Cyprus from 1963 to 1974. Greek Cypriots were backed up by Greece and Turkish Cypriots were losing and were all planned to be killed. So, at the point where Turkish Cypriots were close losing, Turkey came to help. North Cyprus is not invaded by Turks, never was. South Cyprus is as connected to Greece as the North is to Turkey. It is the two communities that choose to trust other countries rather than each other to look after their own country.

Also, this appears to be an article on 'Cyprus Dispute', not even the 'Cyprus Peace Operation' which is what you mean by the 'Turkish Invasion of Cyprus'. As a Cypriot, I find this quite offensive. So, please change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.143.132 (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed many times before. If you listen to the Turkish version of events, then it was a peace keeping operation to stop Turkish Cypriots being massacred. If you listen to the Greek version then it was an unprovoked invasion by Turkey. The truth lies somewhere in between.


 * As the "invasion" was internationally condemned and referred to by all except the Turkish side as an invasion, then that is the term that should be used. Whilst you find "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" offensive, your proposed "Cyprus Peace Operation" would be equally as offensive to Greek Cypriots. --John B123 (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Lots of Reliable Sources are using the word "invasion". I also agree with . I suggest we add a small section on the terminology of the conflict. Cinadon36 11:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * If “the truth lies somewhere in between”, then the name of the article should “lie somewhere in between” too. Also, could you please tell me what makes you believe that “The truth lies somewhere in between”? Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Although both sides tell a different story, it was still an invasion. Looking at “the truth lies somewhere in between”: from the Greek side, it's portrayed as an unexpected and unprovoked attack. The island had just had a coup and the new government intended to unify the island with Greece. They expected Turkey to oppose this, ultimately by force if need be, and had drawn up Operation Aphrodite (battle plans to oppose a Turkish invasion) in preparation. Looking at the Turkish side, prior to independence Turkish Cypriots has wanted the island divided into two states. A compromise was reached and after independence a power-sharing agreement was put in place. This broke down in 1963 and fighting ensued. A ceasefire was agreed and the buffer zone established (the Green Line). Following this Turkey drew up Operation Attila, a scheme to set up a separate state for Turkish Cypriots by force in the area north of the Green Line. This plan, modified to changing circumstances since 1963, was put into effect in 1974. Rather than peace-keeping, the objective of the operation was to set up a separate country for Turkish Cypriots. --John B123 (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Turkish Cypriots were being massacred, the objective of the operation was to set up a seperate country so that the Turkish Cypriots wouldn’t be massacred. There were many conflicts between the two sides and the operation brought most of the conflicts to an end. That’s why it’s called a peace-operation, the main objective was to end the conflict. I’m not defending or supporting Turkey, none of what I just said above are included in this article. The information supporting Greece significantly outweighs the information supporting Turkey. Information supporting Turkey exists, it just wasn’t included in the article making it non-neutral. You also haven’t answered my other questions. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "Turkish Cypriots were being massacred" - another example of two different stories and the truth lies somewhere in between. There were deaths on both sides prior to the invasion. The "massacres" occurred after the invasion. What other questions have you asked me? (no need to ping me as this page is on my watchlist) --John B123 (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m aware that there were deaths on both sides prior to the invasion but the violence towards Turkish Cypriots was far greater, you can see for yourself. Also, the first intentional killings of the Turkish Cypriots begain in 1954. The first death of a Greek Cypriot was in 1957. The death occured in a riot which was provoked by the EOKA forces (by intentionally targeting and killing Turkish Cypriot Police) in an attempt to show show Turkish agression to the public. EOKA’s main aim was to form a union between Greece and Cyprus, this would have caused further discrimination and violence towards the Turkish Cypriots. That’s when the intentional killings of Greek Cypriots started, the aim was to protest against the union between Greece and Cyprus. The killings and conflicts between both sides continued. The aim of the operation was to end the confict between both sides. The first “invasion” came to a halt after the ceasefire was declared. The violence continued and the conflict didn’t come to an end as planned. Turkey continued the “invasion” to form an area where Turkish Cypriots could live without the conflicts continuing. The aim was to stop the conflict, there was no way of negotiating because the only way of the conflicts ending was to split the communities and there was no way of doing that without force. The article is mostly focused on the Greek view of events, you can even tell from the name of the article. If “the truth lies somewhere in between”, then shouldn’t the name of the article should “lie somewhere in between” too? Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Your link to List of massacres in Cyprus actually disproves what you are putting forward. There had been no massacres since 1967 (if you count the murder of two people as a massacre). To invade 7 years later to stop the massacres has no credibility. Turkey tried to legitimise its actions by insisting that it was acting under its obligations as one of guarantors of the Treaty of Guarantee (1960), yet the obligations under the treaty had the "sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the Treaty", ie a single state island with power sharing governance. --John B123 (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I included the link to show you that there have been more casualties in the Turkish Cypriot side. The list is incomplete. They may have not been massacres but the Turkish Cypriots still faced discrimination and there were conflicts between the two sides. There were a lot of reasons for the “invasion” being 7 years later. Negotiation attempts were going on, the “invasion” was also the result of the coup. Turkey wanted to end the conflict long before that but needed a valid reason since “splitting cyprus in two to end the conflict between the two sides” would be considered illegal. The aim of the operation was to end the conflict by splitting cyprus in two, there was no way to do it without force. Also, could you tell me how forming a seperate country would be beneficial to Turkey? You told me that the “truth lied somewhere in the middle” but this article is far from that, it’s focused on the Greek version of events. Also, you still haven’t answered my question about this articles name. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * With regard to the article name, please see my earlier reply "Although both sides tell a different story, it was still an invasion" i.e. whether you consider the action justified, carried out with the best of motives etc or not, it was still an invasion so the article's name is justified. --John B123 (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I realise the Turkish Cypriots were an oppressed minority hence my rejection of the Greek sides portrayal of their being innocents in this. My point was that Turkey's justification of both protecting from massacre and acting as guarantors of the 1960 treaty simply don't hold water. In 1974 there were 506,000 Greek Cypriots and 118,00 Turkish Cypriots. Most of the Turks lived in the north but there were also Turkish areas in the south. After the invasion between 140,000 and 160,000 Greek Cypriots were displaced from the north. Expelling more resident of the north than the Turkish Cypriots that remained is closer to ethnic cleansing than peace-keeping. --John B123 (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you really think that this article is neutral? Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Neutrality is often subjective, you obviously think the article is biased towards the Greek point of view, recently blocked user Cypriot Chauvinist maintained that the article was biased toward the Turkish view. My personal view is that the article is, on the whole, neutral. --John B123 (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I undrestand that the name of the article is appropriate. Invasion translates to “işgal” in Turkish, “işgal” means to capture a country by military force and therefore incorrect. However, Invasion means to occupy a country in any way (with military force) and therefore correct. I believe this is because there isn’t an exact word for invasion in Turkish. When it comes to the neutrality of the article, it isn’t neutral like most other Wikipedia articles. I’m going to give you a few examples why the article isn’t neutral: Greece provided Cyprus with weapons, nothing happened to Greece. Turkey provided Turkish Cypriots with weapons and they were caught “red-handed” according to the article. I believe this is the result of Greece having more political power due to it being in the European Union, countries are reluctant to take Turkey’s side because of the reaction they would get from the European Union and the rest of the world. Whenever Turkish Officials say/report something it’s referred to as a “claim”. Whenever the UN reports something it’s referred to as a fact, the European Union has more political power than Turkey, this results in the Greek version of events becoming closer to the truth in the public eyes. See these examples: Turkey recently opened up the borders and Refugees begain to travel to Greece, The Greek police threw smoke bombs on them, some were killed. What did the UN say about this? Nothing. Is this the superiority of the laws or the laws of the superiors? I’m tired of trying to convince you since you are obviously being influenced by what the majority of the world believes. Wikipedia isn’t neutral, it can’t be neutral. “Reliable sources” aren’t reliable as they pass through a “political filter”. I’m tired. Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Turkey as country, invaded the country of Cyprus, Cyprus did not attack Turkey.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Cyprus may not have ‘attacked’ Turkey but there was a lot of discrimination and violence towards Turkish Cypriots, they also didn’t have the same rights. ‘Attacking’ is an incorrect term and so is ‘invasion’. The article isn’t neutral in any way.Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Most of the ‘reliable Sources’ included in this article aren’t about the Turkish version of events. That doesn’t mean that ‘reliable sources’ talking about the Turkish version of events don’t exist, it just means that they weren’t included. Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The Church and abortion
To the Greek-speaking editors watching this space: Is there any evidence that the church temporarily allowed abortion in the wake of the conflict? There are reliable sources to back this up but I know full well that facts can be corrupted until they make it to English-language publications written by non-natives. The article is quite confusing at the moment regarding this and a clarification would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. --GGT (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Result
Hello, so for some reason the result is being displayed as a turish victory when that is factually false, in fact there was a ceasfire on both sides, unless my information is wrong in which case can someone provide an official government source showing the Greek sides surrender please? Thank you. My source for the ceasefire is the United Nations as shown here:

https://unficyp.unmissions.org/operations-1974 "That ceasefire came into effect at 18.00 on 16 August 1974. Immediately afterwards, UNFICYP inspected the areas of confrontation and recorded the deployment of the military forces on both sides. Lines drawn between the forward defended localities became respectively the National Guard and Turkish forces' ceasefire lines."


 * Following the invasion, the Turkish forces occupied a considerable area of the island up to the "Green Line", which was their goal. In military terms, if you achieve your objective then it's a victory. WP:RS refer to it as a victory not a ceasefire. --John B123 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Correction their goal was the whole island but the 2 main strongholds were defended against by the Cypriot National Guard and Greek Forces, 20 soldiers held Ledra and ELDYK, LOK (Greece and Cyprus) held Nicosia Airport. Also can you please state where the Greeks signed a surrender? If you cannot do that then you stating they won or me stating we won is simply an opinion. I can however point to an official source that states a ceasefire has occurred. https://unficyp.unmissions.org/operations-1974 ""That ceasefire came into effect at 18.00 on 16 August 1974. Immediately afterwards, UNFICYP inspected the areas of confrontation and recorded the deployment of the military forces on both sides. Lines drawn between the forward defended localities became respectively the National Guard and Turkish forces' ceasefire lines."
 * So what? Most wars end with ceasefire. Doesn't change the result. Beshogur (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It never amazes me the wild, unsubstantiated claims both sides put forward as fact regarding this event. It's well documented that the Turkish "Operation Attilla" was conceived in the 1960s to split the island into two nations, the border being the "Green line" as drawn at the 1963 ceasefire. That was exactly what the Turks were aiming for and what they achieved. Are you seriously suggesting the Turks intended to occupy Akrotiri and Dhekelia against 15,000 British personnel supported by air power? --John B123 (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Turks didn't move with the plan to invade and occupy the island without securing the green light from London and Washington first. Its naive to claim that the Turks intended to turn against London by occupying Akrotiri and Dhekelia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Um are you sure about that? Because to my knowledge they did attack british positions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOa9Sg1hZs0), because that video says otherwise, what actually doesn't cease to amaze me, is how people who had nothing to do with the invasion, or know anything about the invasion, go around acting like they know it all. Clearly, your claims lack both research and evidence because a simple search of "turkish attack british positions 1974 cyprus" would bring up this video proving what you say is false, and no british bases were even brought up, meaning you dug your own holes there. As to the actual argument, since they didn't want the island and on the off chance you have done research in this topic, can you please answer why they then attacked positions past that 36.2% (Id like to know how maticulous this must have been to know to the .2% of what you want as well since usually you'd want 50%, or 30% etc.) and to be more specific, past the Green line since that seems to be your argument. Ledra Street is quite literally (And still is) in the unoccupied side of Cyprus and after the Green line, its a busy high street to this day and Nicosia Airport is in the UN controlled area of the Green Line so even there, they're still attacking past what you claim they wanted. Your arguments to me seem like the equivalent of Ireland invading NI, claiming they only want that part, then going on to invade sctland whilst still claiming they only want northern Ireland. It makes no sense whatsoever. Also, if you look at said Pafos region which I mentioned, North-West Pafos you see the Kokinna exclave which was left to the pseudo turkish cypriot administration in 1967 after the ceasfire was signed but then you see the Kato Pyrgos area which was then ceded back to the Republic under that ceasefire and then next (East) of that, you then see the occupied areas again (Id advise you use google maps to see what I'm talking about with this otherwise you'll be completely lost as to what I'm trying to say), surely in the invasion you'd want to take that corridor back instead of just leaving an exposed position, that would make tactical sense right, and at the same time it would support your argument of wanting to split the island, but its not taken because the turks failed in that objective too. (https://omegalive.com.cy/kypros/1974-%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%8C%CE%B4%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%82-%CF%84%CE%B1%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%AF%CE%B4%CE%B7%CF%82-%CE%B4%CE%AF%CF%80%CE%BB%CE%B1-%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%85-%CF%83%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%84%CF%8E%CE%B8%CE%B7%CE%BA%CE%B5-%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%B5%CE%BC%CF%8E%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B1%CF%82-%CE%AD%CE%BD%CE%B1%CF%82-%CF%86%CE%AF%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%82-%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%85/). This following link (https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/269019777721604801/) also shows the map for Operation Atilla which looking at it now and compare it to the map of Cyprus today and whats actually invaded shows that most of what they wanted from that map they didn't get. E.g. That corridor I mentioned in Pafos is not under turkish control (In the map its the Lefka area), in fact its most of that part of the region they didnt take, additionally, Nicosia didnt fall to the turkish army in part (mostly) because of the battles I've already mentioned, they barely touched Larnaka. Also since they only wanted up to the Green Line, anyone mind explaining what their Navy was doing in Pafos and destroying itself (https://www.nytimes.com/1974/07/25/archives/turks-admit-they-sank-own-vessel-off-cyprus-loss-confirmed-denial.html)? Now before anyone uses the argument of A Greek Naval Base, our base was all the way on the east side of the island in Bogazi, there was nothing in that region except from that corridor I've mentioned (And that was past the Green line too). Ive managed to provide both Primary and Secondary sources for my argument, I've displayed that clearly they didnt just want up to the Green Line and their motives were more and they simply failed, which leaves us with the probable conclusion that you were misinformed about the invasion. So please, before cussing others out, please look into things and dont just talk out of feeling because at the end of the day, this argument is incoherent and inconsistent with the events that actually unfolded. As for beshes argument, that entirely depends on the events that unfold though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.75.25 (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Try reading the caption of the youtube video. "" That's not the same thing as "the Turks intended to occupy Akrotiri and Dhekelia against 15,000 British personnel supported by air power". I don't know where the Pinterest map was sourced from, but it clearly shows the Turk's objective was not to occupy the whole island. --John B123 (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, with all this proof/ soures I've shown you, your argument is now "A military attacks a place it doesn't want" (It is quite literally what you're saying) and although your argument that they only wanted "Up to the green line" is clearly wrong (I can concede on the whole island argument because my point was they didn't just want up to the green line), you still think you're right although you've provided nothing to back your arguments. In fact, these arent arguments, these are excuses (And quite weak ones actually), because even then it proves my original point that, they wanted to take more than the Green Line and failed. I really don't see why you're so against changing it to a ceasfire when clearly they wanted more than the Green line. I can guarantee you if this was for any other country, yall would allow any form of petty proof that cant even be verified but it seems that when it gets to Cyprus, everything has to be followed with a T and even then ive provided that but still you remain adamant to a quite frankly deluded argument. Im sorry but you're literally at the point of saying that they attacked the british bases without wanting them. Can you tell me where you got that conclusion from? Also, you've answered literally 2 of my 6 points, so even then, you've tried to provide excuses on what suits you and disregard the rest, not to mention in 1 of the excuses you LITERALLY prove my point. This to me at this point seems you're going off of personal opinion because if we were going off of factual evidence, this conversation would have been over 2 edits ago. So how about you actually answer my 6 points with sources/ proof of what you're saying instead of giving me mere excuses whilst also proving my point in the process (Proving my point being the turks wanted more than the Green Line), otherwise just accept that you were wrong (Im not even going to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore in regards to misinformation because you've seen more than enough proof) and accept that it should not be considered a turkish victory when it quite literally shouldnt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.75.25 (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)