User talk:Mondechristo

--Mondechristo 14:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Absurdity of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus

According to the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey :

"Greek Cypriots chafed under the bulwarks of Turkish Cypriot constitutional security, and thus resorted to villainy in 1963. Then President Archbishop Makarios proposed 13 dramatic changes to the 1960 constitution to eliminate institutional protections for Turkish Cypriots, including ending their veto powers and local autonomy, slashing their representation in the civil service and military, abolishing separate community voting on fiscal and companion matters, and electing the president and vice president by the House of Representatives voting as a unit with a decisive Greek Cypriot majority. All were universally nixed by Turkish Cypriots.

The proposed amendment, however, were but the opening shot of a larger plot, the notorious "Akritas Plan", to shred the 1960 constitutional rights of Turkish Cypriots. Writing in "My Deposition", Greek Cypriot President Glafcos Clerides elaborated: "From the conversations I had with Makarios I can sum up his intentions as follows:

a) Makarios intended, stage by stage, to abolish the excessive rights granted.....to the Turkish community and reduce it to the position of a minority....."

Let me start by saying that it is true that the Turkish community WAS a minority in Cyprus in 1974, as it is also today.

According to the above statement of the Ministry, Turkey was basically "forced" to invade Cyprus in order to protect the human rights of the Turkish community and therefore the invasion was legal. I am wondering: is there anybody in Turkey that embraces this argument? I am not going to describe the "human rights" policy of Turkey in the case of Armenians, Hellenes of Minor Asia, or even Kurds. I want to discuss the issue of the respect of human rights of Turkish people inside Turkey. Actually, I want to talk about the human rights of the President of the Republic of Turkey today. According to the Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the High Court of Appeals of Turkey, : "On Mar. 14, Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the High Court of Appeals of the country Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya brought charges against the ruling Justice and Development Party (JDP) demanding it be closed". Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya, accused the Turkey's president and prime minister of undermining secularism and moved to ban them from politics and to prohibit their conservative party. He submitted his case against the Justice and Development Party (AKP) to the Turkish Constitutional Court. The prosecutor asked the court to ban 71 people, including Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, from politics for five years.  I would like to note that the AKP branded the case as a blow to democracy and said it would "continue its fight for democracy with determination". The essential thing to note in this case, is not if the APK will indeed be banned or not. The fact that the judiciary and the military system even dared to express this absorb idea to ban the leading party of Turkey, the party that won 47 percent of the votes in the July 2007 elections, proves the absurdity of the political and military situation in Turkey. It proves that it is a country that cannot even show the basic respect to democracy and to the human rights of its own people, even of its own top political figures. How can Turkey then use this notion of "human rights protection" as an argument of why it invaded Cyprus in 1974? It just cannot. Turkey's invasion of Cyprus is one more, of many, examples of non trusted political strategy. It is one more, of many illustrations of the absurbity of political dialectic of Turkey.

--Mondechristo 18:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

New at Wikipedia
Can you please clarify what you mean by the term "do not blank sections"? This article was my first attempt in wiki, and I must say that I am not very familiar with the norms. Thanks.


 * You removed quite a bit of text in your edit to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus article. Much of the text you added is in an argumentative, editorial style, which is not the correct style of writing for Wikipedia. An example of this is when you added "I am wondering: is there anybody in Turkey that embraces this argument? I am not going to describe the "human rights" policy of Turkey..." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an essay or editorial. One of the core policies is WP:NPOV, which mandates that articles must be neutral, and not give any value judgements one way or the other, no matter how clear we may think a situation is. I hope that answers your question. Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that I must spend more time in reading the "rules of engagement" in Wiki. Thanks for the help.

However, I don't think that the use of the word absurdity is offensive or provocative. Everything, from plain mathematical equations to political actions, proven not to be logic, is by definition illogical, absurd. Do you suggest that I should change the work absurbity? --Mondechristo 19:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it takes a long time to become familiar with all of the important policies. I sure didn't know them all when I first started. Just don't get discouraged if you make a mistake, everyone does from time to time.
 * Consider that one could also state the German pretext for invading Poland in 1939 was absurd, considering that it was a faked border attack. However, the article just states the facts of the invasion, without any interpretation at all (note that this article is also a Featured Article, the highest level of quality). The article about the Turkish invasion of Cyprus should follow the same style.
 * Another thing to think about is that when articles aren't completely neutral, especially on controversial topics like this one, they have a tendency to attract edit wars, when, for example, pro-Turkish editors might make biased edits to correct what they see as a pro-Greek tilt in the article, and vice versa. If there's a stable, neutral version that uninvolved editors will support, it makes this much less likely. Parsecboy (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not blank sections
Hello, Mondechristo. Please do not blank sections of articles, even if you disagree with them. Wikipedia has the WP:NPOV policy, which requires that all points of view be represented, no matter if they're wrong or how many people oppose them. There is, after all, a very short section in the Adolf Hitler article about people who think he was a great man. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)