Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus

According the what articles I read in Wiki about the Turkey and Cyprus, I saw that most of the writings accusing Turks of being violent and killers. This made me almost cry and I really lost my faith anything relayed with west. Because I just saw that they will NEVER accept us and they will keep believing the thinks Armenian, Greek, Kurdish anyone opposite to Turkey says. We are trying for nothing because they never accept others. For example Nazi movements at 40's and now, movements against Afro-American people now and before(I saw that they are calling Katrina hurricane survivors refugee,these are American citizen for god's sake!) Indians, Algeria , India(Below Afganistan one) .... and many other stuations. If there is any western people thinks that we can still be united, please tell me how it will be. phoenix.caner@hotmail.com . I only see more confilicts and I just want peace. But not irregular one, because the one without justice creates more. And your system works on freedom, and ours on justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.211.192 (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for Amendments

• About the section on immigration: Who on earth seriously maintains that Greece brought 250.000 settlers to Cyprus? If you can't prove these things (i.e. give at least one independent and credible source), then keep your propaganda at home. Also, does the rejection of the Annan plan sound to you any relevant with the settlers? It should be put in some other place in the article.

• I amended the paragraph below to clarify the difference between Ancient Greeks and modern day Greeks. There is also no need to add Achaeans - it is just like adding Ottoman Turks' probably more so irrelevant. Secondly I took out "Greek way of life" - just what is that exactly? If anyone can bring further light on exactly how the island was changed by the adopted owners please change accordingly. I'd like to see some objective sources, too to read out of interest.

• • Cyprus has played a major part in the history of the Aegean. The island's prehistory runs as far back as the beginning of the 6th millennium BC. After the Hittites and Egyptians, heirs of Alexander the Great in the 2nd millennium BC the Achaean established city-kingdoms on the Mycenaean model and introduced the Ancient Greek language, the paganistic Greek religion.

• Added a cpatial "R" here - The reluctant Republic was seen as a necessary compromise between two communities.

• I also took out "However, the defeat of the Greek Army came by Kemal Atatürk's (founder of the modern Turkish state) forces in Minor Asia. resulted to ethnic cleansing and fleeing of 1000000 Greek and Armenians residing in Minor Asia." Could someone else clean it up without the obvious Greek nationalist propaganda and add it again?

• I HAVEN'T CHANGED THIS below - but I think it needs re-thinking in the light of current events [1] -

• • ===Ongoing negotiations===

Despite the demands by the United Nations Security Council for the immediate unconditional withdrawal of all foreign troops from Cyprus soil and the safe return of the refugees to their homes all attempts to reach a negotiated settlement have failed due to Turkish intransigence. (See UN Security Council resolutions 353(1974), 357(1974), 358(1974), 359(1974), 360(1974), 365(1974) endorsing General Assembly resolution 3212(XXIX)(1974), 367(1975), 541(1983), 550(1984).) Turkey defends its position, stating that any such withdrawal would lead to a resumption of intercommunal fighting and killing.

82.145.231.132 10:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Article should not be deleted

I can't believe the comments of TheCatandDog. This guy sure is brainwashed. But then he must belong to the mentality of people that have exiled their own GREEK CYPRIOT documentary filmmaker and writer Antonis Angastiniotis who says the Greek Cypriot media has effectively banned his film "Voice of Blood" he made portraying the mass killing of Turkish Cypriots in the villages of Aloa, Maratha and Sandalari in 1974 (04.11.2004) and now he has to live on the North due to threats on his life. [2] [3] Blue sea 21:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Article should be deleted

As for the deleted article Cyprus_Issue, this page only exists because Argyrosargyrou refuses to cooperate on the currently locked article Cyprus_dispute, whose editing conflict needs to be solved on the corresponding Talk page. It is virtually identical with Argyrosargyrou's last edit on Cyprus dispute and should be deleted

Sorry, but articles cannot be speedily deleted on those grounds. You'll have to use Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. JRM · Talk 11:49, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

I have added information of US involvement in the EOKA B coup to violently depose Makarios and substantiated Turkey's policy of partition and annexation or so-called Taksim.--Argyrosargyrou 00:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a completely impartial observer, I do not consider this article to be worthy of inclusion in any encyclopedia. This is mainly because of the style in which it is written (but there are many parts that need some reference also). My reasoning for deletion is that by the time all the emotive passages have been changed to be purely factual, the whole article would have been re-written. Thus it is best if this article is removed. --Wyrm 00:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

History is a field of science that deals with the universal facts not with erroneous, biased and propagandist thoughts. You seem to forget the massacre of the Turkish people. You dont mention any of this. You can find the photos of slaughtered Turks with just only searching from the google. YOU JUST HAVE TO SEARCH FROM THE GOOGLE!!!!! I believe you can do that and after all you can come out cleansed from your Greek Megala Idea(Whatever you call it) and write on history then. Do not try to broadcast Greek propaganda and PLEASE try to look at some other place than your backyard.

Article should not be deleted

I have done a web search on Google (today) with the search term as "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" and the number of results was 134,000 among them references to many notable historical writings. I see no reason why WP should not have an article by that name. The historical background but also the events between 20 July 1974 to 20 August 1974 (and to this very day) are many and varied and constitute a logical unit in themselves. Of course the Cyprus problem is an issue much wider than the Invasion - but that is how is with history. --Ank99 14:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

reply for "134 000 references"

in Turkey, year:2006. 99% internet users have 256kb internet with 3gb limited (contor)(it is real that most expensive country for internet in the world) so give them a good connection speed (please without limit) and watch the references appear on the net.:)) so your argument doesn't look valid. (sorry I couldn't find the place to write this) I'm from Turkey.

also the article really really really looks greekish (what hmmm??) only looks from one side and for me it is rude. (if we want to know the truth)

plus: I was looking for an anime (comics) which is japanese on the net today. results were all weird because I don't know japanese. and I couldnt find the things that I can understand on my language or english. I mean English is not sole language in the world. maybe the "historicak writings" which you couldn't find are on a different language. so you couldn't find them.

regards...

oops... an invasion we also don't accept the word "invasion" it was a "peace operation" to protect our people. also I saw so many historical writings which say exactly the wiki's current article.

---

Vandalism

This page was vandalised by 172.200.39.163 and contains series POV factual errors introduced by 172.200.39.163 and irrelevant material about the EOKA campaign in the 1950's written from a pro-Turkish POV already discussed in the Cyprus dispute page, which should be removed.--TheCatandDog 21:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Treaty of Guarantee of the Republic of Cyprus did not ban economic union with any other country or other body since Cyprus has been in economic union with all the members of the EU since the 1990's.

Article 2 Paragraph 4 strictly prohibits any kind of foreign intervention in Cyprus internal affairs and thefore the Treaty of Guarantee cannot be used justify unilateral military action.

The Akritas paln did not seek to end the Republic in any way nor did it intend to suppress Turkish Cypriot reaction. It proposed the avoidance of force except to counter terrorist actions.

The Greek Army did not invade Turkey in the early 1920's. First of all there was no such place as Turkey at the time and secondly the Treaty of Sevres gave the western coast of Asia-Minor to Greece. How can Greece invade its own territory whcih it was mandated to protect again genocidal aggression by Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) who violated the treaty and started massacring Greek and Armenian civilians. What happened in Asia-Minor in the 1920's is irrelevant to the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus in 1974.

The idea of Enosis is already covered in the Cyprus dispute page as the EOKA campaign. The section on "EOKA Violence" is a totaly inaccurate and inappropriate pro-Turkish anti-Greek hated filled rant. EOKA did not kill 500 Turkish in 1963 nor did it burn down any Turkish villages. This page is about the Turkish invasion Cyprus not about what occurred a decade earlier.

EOKA-B did not kill 2000 Greek Cypriots in 1974 and these deaths were not added to the total of missing persons. This is yet another anti-Greek, Turkish lie. All the persons killed by EOKA which numbered only a few dozen have all been accounted for.

There was no massacres in Murat Aga and Sandallar whatsoever. The only Turkish Cypriots killed in 1974 died in combat and there is no evidence to the contrary.

ChrisO should be banned from having access to this page since he has proven himself to be a Greek hating Turkish apologist who has reinstated this badly written inaccurate and insulting Turkish hate filled propaganda repeatedly despite repeated warnings for him to stop--TheCatandDog 22:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Ohhh yeaah. Even there was no greek attack on Turks. There wasnt a single Turk living on the island. Even there was no a military action.Is there an island over there? Who cooked this bullshit up? Initially, there was only a cloud of dust and then it exploded right?

Who is claiming that? I have never seen such a stupid allegation which wasn't based on any reliable or credible source.

There was no.......There was no....There was no Go and wash your face and think twice before fooling yourself here.

Wolverine

---

reply for this one from someone different. it is a fact that the greek army invaded İzmir(a city in Turkey) on 15 May 1919. you don't know a basic historical fact but if someone says something different than you call this vandalism. this is not fair. .... owww. your writings full of wrong information so it cannot be fixed like I triying to do. (you don't count this as a vandalism, do you? if so you delete this. but it is not) every organism try to make sure its completeness. like you do, we do. so we never see the subject the same.

To all three above editors: Please try to keep this discussion as civil as possible. Remember that the wikipedia community asks that editors Assume Good Faith and Keep it Cool when editing gets hot. This is apparently a controversial topic, so please try to stick to WP:NPOV. The article was nominated for deletion and the decision of the community was to keep it and try to make it as NPOV as possible. It is understandable that concerning a controversial topic such as this, facts in themselves are disputed, so the goal of every well-intended wikipedian is to present the different versions of facts in a neutral way and let the reader deside for himself what opinion he should hold regarding the matter. Please try to avoid including every aspect of the greco-turkish dispute there has ever been and focus on discussion of this particular issue. There is no point whatsoever in an article about the events of 1974 to discuss weather Greece invaded Turkey in 1922 or weather Kemal was good or bad. Such discussions should take place at the respective articles' talk pages, not here. For the shake of readability of this page it would also be preferable if you would not use separating lines for each comment, as they fragment the particular discussion, and to sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Wikipedia is not a battleground so please do not turn it into one. -- Michalis Famelis 17:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

---

The Treaty of Sevres gave Otterman terrioty to Greece, but Greece worried about the nationist army under Attaturk invaded far past the region which had been given to Greece.

Attaturk maintained that the Treaty of Sevres was not legitimate as the nationist goverment (who by that time controlled most of the country apart from Istanbul), was not consulted.

The Greece push into the hinterland of Turkey was repulsed and the Greek army was driven into the sea.

---

Proof Prior to 1974, there were a series of UN resolution which condemned the Greek Cypriot government, and set up UN peace keeping operations on the Island to stop the inter ethnic violence.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=26223&cat_id=1

No side can claim innocence is this bloody tradedgy...

---

I'm sorry Michalis but I have to remind some people, who do not have any idea about the history, the very basic fact that the Greek Army did invade the Ottoman land subsequent to the Treaty of Sevres and what M.Kemal and his friends did was not by any means killing innocent Armenians or Greek civillians but to secure the safety and freedom of the innocent people who were targeted by the Greek Army and other imperialist powers. These are historical facts that noone can claim otherwise. For example; before fleeing from Izmir, last remaining Greek soldiers started the fire in September, 1922 which caused the city of Izmir to burn for hours and destroy most of its buildings and kill lost of innocent people. Please, for God's sake, base your information on true historical facts and do not give misinformation that turns the facts into lies. --E138257 13:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Right,.................and where are your facts? ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 16:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont want to make this last forever, but let me tell you something, I can show you a bunch of references and facts, but then these will also be disputed and questioned. There is no end to this, my suggestion is you have to search and question the arguments yourself and reach the conclusion which is free from any political, historical or cultural prejudices. Antonis Angastiniotis was successfull in doing that for example; unfortunately, though, some of his writings and films were banned by "some others". --E138257 19:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Another POV fork

Argyrosargyrou has created another POV fork of this article at The Turkish Invasion of Cyprus - I've redirected it here and protected the page to prevent him recreating it. -- ChrisO 23:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

This is the original posting. It needs a major overhaul for factual consistency and NPOV. I will post it twice, one to show the original, and the second one to be modified by members in order to be reposted.K... 00:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

EOKA Violence

File:A typical example of EOKA slogans painted on town walls by students.jpg

EOKA Slogans

The objective of EOKA [4] was to drive the British out of the island first and then integrate the island to Greece by destroying the Turkish community with a massive annihilation. EOKA initiated its activities by planting the first bombs on 1 April 1951 with the directive by Greek Foreign Minister Stefanopulos.

The first secret talks for EOKA as a terrorist organization [5] established to destroy the Turkish public in Cyprus and integrate the island to Greece, were started in the chairmanship of Makarios in Athens on 2 July 1952. In the aftermath of these meetings, a "Council of Revolution" was established on 7 March 1953. In early 1954, secret weaponry shipment to Cyprus started to the knowledge of the Greek government. Grivas covertly disembarked on the island on 9 November 1954. EOKA's campaign of terrorism [6] was properly under way.

Assaults on Turks began on 21 June 1955.

In 1963, EOKA restarted its acts, killing over 500 Turks, burning down 103 Turkish villages and forcing tens of thousands of Turks to migrate. Now a secretive organisation and going by the name of EOKA-B, in the Sampson coup on 15 July 1974, EOKA members this time pointed their weapons to their own community, killing 2,000 Greek cypriots who were Makarios supporters. These dead and missing were later to be added on to the casualties of Turkish invasion, so as to be used for Greek propaganda.

EOKA Violence Modified

File:A typical example of EOKA slogans painted on town walls by students.jpg

EOKA Slogans

The objective of EOKA [7] was to drive the British out of the island first and then integrate the island to Greece by destroying the Turkish community with a massive annihilation. EOKA initiated its activities by planting the first bombs on 1 April 1951 with the directive by Greek Foreign Minister Stefanopulos.

The first secret talks for EOKA as a terrorist organization [8] established to destroy the Turkish public in Cyprus and integrate the island to Greece, were started in the chairmanship of Makarios in Athens on 2 July 1952. In the aftermath of these meetings, a "Council of Revolution" was established on 7 March 1953. In early 1954, secret weaponry shipment to Cyprus started to the knowledge of the Greek government. Grivas covertly disembarked on the island on 9 November 1954. EOKA's campaign of terrorism [9] was properly under way.

Assaults on Turks began on 21 June 1955.

In 1963, EOKA restarted its acts, killing over 500 Turks, burning down 103 Turkish villages and forcing tens of thousands of Turks to migrate. Now a secretive organisation and going by the name of EOKA-B, in the Sampson coup on 15 July 1974, EOKA members this time pointed their weapons to their own community, killing 2,000 Greek cypriots who were Makarios supporters. These dead and missing were later to be added on to the casualties of Turkish invasion, so as to be used for Greek propaganda.

At least we must put EOKA-B to the combatants section in the box and we have to talk about their harsh methods that they used on Turks. Deliogul 21:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Operation Atilla

I had established earlier a (hopefully NPOV) page called Operation Atilla, which described the invasion/intervention/peace operation (take your pick) in a more detached manner. This site is GC-POV to the core and in my opinion, should be heavilly editted to bring it into line. I know that my pro-TC stance makes such an appeal laughable in a lot of persons eyes, but one thing that I have learned about this issue is that if one wants to make a better impression on the casual reader, then one should be more 'politically correct'. -- User:Expatkiwi

Operation Attila Article is not accurate

If the Attila Op article wished to establish a NPOV page it would not term the series of UN referendums as simple legalities. Instead it should explicitly refer to the destruction, the death of approximately 5000 Greek Cypriots, the 1519 GC Missing persons, numerous other attrocities and the more than 200 000 GC refugees. Turkey committed a crime against humanity in 1974, this crime was recognized and condemned by the UN. Turkey should seek redemption for this mistake by facilitating a peaceful solution. This solution needs to be fair and viable taking into consideration that Cyprus is a member of E.U, under which human rights are guaranteed. Turkey is currently negotiating for EU admittance. It is my strong belief that armies no longer serve a purpose on the island. All that is needed is a capable police force and a strict legal framework to contain and deter nationalistic and fanatic elements, which are currently the vast minority in both communities, from destabilizing Cyprus. Any solution should aim to demilitarization and administrative unification of the island in a federate or confederate form.

Placing article for deletion

The article is still a POV fork of Cyprus dispute and Operation Atilla. This article should only be concerned with the physical aspects of the invasion (which exists in Operation Atilla), not the political aspects (which exist in Cyprus dispute). I've put the Vfd tag up but am going to remove it for the moment until i can work out how to link it to a fresh vote instead of its archive. --A.Garnet 16:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If you do ever put this terrible article up for deletion let me know as I totally agree with you. Adam777 15:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo license

All pics used in the article are from www.hellas.org . A greek military archive site. It is a public domain. Nestore 03:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

to provide neutrality of this page the term "intervention" must be used instead of "invasion".--Hattusili 22:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality is achieved if the views of the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights prevail. Thus, since they term it an 'invasion', it must be referred to as an invasion. Well, one way or another, a masacre of thousands of people and the confiscation of their private property can only be seen an a bloody, barbaric invasion and not merely an 'intervention'.

Ps. Since I have studied the Constitution of 1960 and I have also read law, I can assurre you that there was nothing 'legal' in the barbaric invasion of 1974. If someone disagrees I am willing to explain to him why he is wrong.

The use of the word barbaric clearly demonstrates that your views are not impartial so i am unsure how you can contribute appropriately to a factual piece. ________________________

Ok, as far as I see, you are calling this intervention "barbaric" mostly depending on your prejudices like seeing everything that has something to do with Turkish people as "barbaric". However, you need to research a little bit harder though to get the facts: here you go:

"With the decision taken by the Supreme Court of Athens on March 21st, 1979, The Turkish intervention was approved to be "legal" according to the fourth article of the Treaty of Guarantee. Besides, The Council of Europe accepted that the Turkish intervention was right and on fair grounds with the article numbered "873" which was taken on July 29th, 1974."

Therefore, those articles approved suggest that what happened in the island was not an "invasion", but an "intervention", which had to be carried away. And we should not forget one thing; there were lots of casulties on both sides; who attacked first with hate, anger, and with the feeling of revenge? --E138257 01:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

--- Hatutilisi You are a propagandist Greek Cypriot. "Barbaric Invasion"? Greek Cypriots killing Turkish Cypriots was barbaric, not a peace keeping operation by Turkey as the Gauranteer of Cyprus. The article has now been fixed a bit to provide a more neutral approach, telling people that there is TWO SIDES TO THIS STORY NOT ONE as this article suggests. YOU CANNOT SAY ONE SIDE IS 100% RIGHT without doing research. And whoever made this article, is a stupid propagandist, that links to Propaganda sites that support THEIR view. Arsenic99 01:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Was the Annan plan a Apartheid system?

I beleive that the following section is POV

"It is also revealed by the system of apartheid or racial segregation that formed the basis of the Annan Plan which the government of Cyprus claims was devised in order to meet all of Turkeys key demands."

This also contridicts the article on the Annan plan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annan_plan

From what I understand the Annan plan was based upon the Swiss federal system, and a comparison to South African Apartheid is both not true and unhelpful. Both the Greek and the Turkish government backed the plan. --- Additional Note:

The elected authority on TRNC also endorsed the plan where as the Greek Cypriot government undermined the approval succedingly.

Please can this comment be removed from the main article.

Also in reply to the above, "bloody massacres" of Turks happened as well, and were just as barbaric as the invasion. No side can really claim to be the innocent party in this tradegy.

PLEASE READ THIS

The reason I believe the word "apartheid" is used is because of your ethnic background, and through no personal fault of your own, you would be banned legally from living in certain areas of the Island. In fact if I take myself as an example (as someone of Greek Cypriot background)If I lived in a future supposedly "reunified" Nicosia It would be possible to conceive of a situation where I was able to live in one apartment block for instance, however the one across the street which falls under Turkish Cypriot administration, I would not be able to buy into , or even rent. If I was a foreigner German, Ukrainian or of Mongolian background however I could live wherever I liked on the Island. Does this situation make any sense? SOUNDS LIKE APARTHEID TO ME?! Would there be signs on all the buildings telling me "No Greeks or Greek Cypriots", because otherwise I would get confused wouldn't I, since there will be no physical barriers anymore within a "normal" functioning city... so how would I know whats off limits when the city heals physically.

To show how ridiculous the situation would be, imagine if I married a German ( or a Turk, Russian....)and we had children. Ah! then the children would be say 1/4 Greek Cypriot. Would the children be able to live in the north. No?, well, maybe if they were 1/8 Greek Cypriot then it would be ok.....provided you gave in a DNA sample. But then of cause, politicians would not allow this as it would show that Greek and Turkish Cypriots are much more similar than they would like us to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.181.253 (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

--SolDrury 13:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The actual military operation

How come the article has so little information on the actual military operation that carried out the invasion? It seems that the amphibious invasion of an island across a 75 km body of water is quite an impressive feat of logistics and power projection, yet the article mentions it only in passing and mostly focuses on the history and politics of the region, and it doesn't even mention the number of troops involved. --Yuje 00:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually did not see this suggestion, but i have suggested the same thing below. This article should be dealt as a militay operation, not a political issue. --A.Garnet 09:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I would like to know more too about the military aspects. If anyone is in the know then please modify the article. Wikiphyte 01:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

POV issues

• The result of this invasion was the creation of an illegal Turkish breakaway state in the North and the ethnic cleansing of 250,000 Greek-Cypriots who lived in the North. - Accurate figure is 160,000, also at least 50,000 TC's were disposessed.

• Turkey reneged on the treaties which bound it and began a campaign of state sponsored terrorism against the majority of Cypriots both Christians and Muslims that wanted independence and democracy(citation needed). This was synchronised with a Turkish government orchestrated campaign to exterminate the indigenous Greeks of Asia-Minor and Istanbul. In November 1957 the Turkish Resistance Organization was formed by Rauf Denktash, and was funded and trained by Turkey. What treaties? What state sponsored terrorism?

• In reply the TMT declared war on the Greek Cypriots as well. However, the TMT did not target only Greeks but also some Turkish Cypriots workers who were in favour of peace and independence of the island. After a joint mass demonstration by Greek and Turkish Cypriots, the TMT began murdering Turkish trade union members - TMT declared war on GC's? citation?

• It also began a string of assassinations and murders of prominent Turkish Cypriot supporters of independence. citation needed.

• In the process about 200,000 Greek Cypriots who made up 82% of the population in the north became refugees Again figure is more like 160,000.

• Human rights violations - no mention of the Tokhni massacres.

Both GC and TC POV in this article, if i had it my way, i would refer all information prior to 1974 to Cyprus dispute which is far better written. This article should deal specifically with the military aspect of the operation, such as Battle of Normandy. As i have said, the political dimension is covered far better in Cyprus dispute. --A.Garnet 09:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ipso facto the invasion of Cyprus was a political issue. The aggressor/invador Turkey claims that even as we speak by "Peace Operation". Something like "we didnt go to war" we went to save/liberate (sounds familiar?) the Turk Cypriots by killing others . 80.250.128.5 10:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)dogeatDOG

Yes, and there is an article on the political aspect here: Cyprus dispute - written much better than this one i might add. --A.Garnet 11:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, personally i disagree with the idea. And if i may add, I think you are trying to push POV in an attempt to merely decriminalize Turkey. (The ostrich thinks that all the problems are gone as soon as he puts his head in the sand). Please, fellow Turks should not try to force third parties to behave like Ostriches). The reader should be able to read through this article both the political and the operational aspect of the invasion.

Btw why dont you write about the actual military operations instead of debating how this should be deleted?

Regards, dogeatDOG

I just edited a rv by Telex. Firstly there were not 250,000 GCs moved from the north it was closer to 160,000. Secondly if we are going to include the results of the invasion then lets also mention that the TCs then could live without deadly greek attacks. There ARE two sides of this story people. You bloody nationalists should be out marching somewhere instead of corrupting Wikipedia, bloody kids. Adam777 11:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"In order to carry through the policies of imperialism, it was necessary to smash the will of the working class whose attitude in favour of fraternity, peace and independence was an obstacle." - ???

This article should be deleted

This article deals with everything except the actual invasion by Turkey. It deals with the events before 74 and after but not one word about the military action itself. There are horrible POV instances on both sides of the argument. I am going to propose it for deletion. We should have an article on the invasion but this one isnt it. Does anyone have a valid reason for keeping this rotten article on wikipedia. Adam777 12:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This article was originally a POV fork from Cyprus dispute by a now banned Greek Cypriot user. I think it has a place, but only as a military operation and should be rewritten. --A.Garnet 14:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, personally i disagree with the idea. And if i may add, I think you are trying to push POV in an attempt to merely decriminalize Turkey. (The ostrich thinks that all the problems are gone as soon as he puts his head in the sand). Please, fellow Turks should not try to force third parties to behave like Ostriches). The reader should be able to read through this article both the political and the operational aspect of the invasion.

Btw why dont you write about the actual military operations instead of debating how this should be deleted? Regards, dogeatDOG80.250.128.5 14:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha you accuse ME of bias then YOU vandalize the article. You hypocrite. By the way me old bubble n squeek I am not Turkish, your bile is misplaced. To answer your question, there is an article on wikipedia about the actual invasion, this heading should be merged with it. PLus how is actually stating HOW Turkey invaded 'decriminalizing' the invasion, hypocrisy again methinks. Adam777 16:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not proposing to delete this article, i said it should be rewritten. If i had time, there is a lot i would like to change on Wikipedia, but unfortunately can only make my opinion heard at the moment. --A.Garnet 14:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

MY post above wasnt aimed at you A.Garnet it was aimed at the anon editor who signs his posts dogeatDog (I dont think he knows how to open an account). He accused me of bias just after vandalizing the article. I also think this article is not very good but Hellenic nationalism doesnt see reason when it comes to anything related to Cyprus. Adam777 19:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Invasion?

From [10]:

"In July 1974, the military junta in Athens sponsored a coup led by extremist Greek Cypriots against the government of President Makarios, citing his alleged pro-communist leanings and his perceived abandonment of enosis. Turkey, citing the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, intervened militarily to protect Turkish Cypriots."

I see it referred to as an invasion in all related articles. If the US government agrees that it was an intervention, doesn't that raise a flag?

pov tag

Please do not remove the tag, pov issues not resolved with this article. Still reads like a pov fork of Cyprus dispute. --A.Garnet 13:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

160k or 200k

The citation I have provided from the Cypriot Government clearly states the figure of displaced GCs at 160,000. If people want to keep inflating the figure with other, less accurate, citations please can they discuss it first. Or doesnt the ROC government know how many of its citizens were displaced. Ugly petty nationalism again....how very surprising! Adam777 19:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at these citations and then; you tell me:

1. Republic of Cyprus
2. Republic of Cyprus
3. Republic of Cyprus
4. Republic of Cyprus
5. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
6. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights once again
7. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Greece
8. Even aljazeraah if it interests you
9. Washington Post
10. Guardian UK
11. MIT
12. Federal Research Division
13. BBC
14. Hellenic News
15. US Embassy
16. UN
17. Milnet
18. CNN

All of them state 200,000 displaced Aristovoul0s 15:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the citations that is present now is from a Greek Cypriot POV (Greek embassy website? duh) and the other has no reference to such numbers whatsoever (hence I'm not even sure why its there...) Please either present a non-POV citation or remove the entire section. Furthermore, it should be made clear if these are deaths, displacements, etc... The current wording of "ethnic cleansing" is once again misleading and not non-POV. Thanks.81.215.13.145 07:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

According to a UN report dated 9 June 1975 (UN Doc. S/11717, par.34, quoted in the European Concil of Human Rights Decision in the first and second interstate application Cyprus v. Turkey, par.105) the total number of displaced Greek Cypriots by that date (June 1975) was 182.000, so I think that for the moment we can use that figure, unless somebody can come up with a more authoritative estimate. If there are no better opinions, I will change the figure accordingly. The use of the term ethnic cleansing is clearly accurate and non-Pov. Ethnic cleansing has been defined by the Commission of Experts established by the Security Council of the United Nations (S/25274) as "rendering an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area" and this accurately describes Turkish actions in Cyprus in the period 1974-6 (look for example at the Sunday Times summary of the ECHR decision at http://www.lobbyforcyprus.org/press/press1998-1940/suntimes230177.htm). If you think that the term is not accurate, misleading or not NPOV, please explain why. Larisv 10:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For the term ethnic cleansing, it popularized itself during the Balkan wars of the 90s and is always in comparison with the term "genocide" which is not the case here, and therefore both terms being inappropriate. If the UN says 182.000 Greeks are "displaced" then why not use the term "displaced"?

And for the references. They mostly point to the same Greek POV websites. These sites summarize the actual facts, but again, do so in a Greek POV. If you could reproduce the same, complete UN article you are referring to, then I'll be more than happy to support the facts. 81.215.13.145 10:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User 'Mitsos'

Need to keep an eye on this user as any posts that conflict with his opinion are being reverted. I doubt if the article will ever be truly balanced as passions run so high. Nevertheless it should at least try and recognise that there was suffering on both sides: before, during and after. At the moment any change that even suggests that the Turkish population suffered is immediately deleted - this isn't on.

It's MITSOS. Mitsos 14:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL

While reading this article I clicked on the Turkish interwiki link, and look what I found! The article is entitled the "Cyprus Peace Operation" (LOL) and the combatants are supposedly Turkey vs Greece and the "Greek Sector of Southern Cyprus" (büyük LOL).Thulium 14:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that wording offensive to those more colourful Turkish Wikipedians who think there should be no "Greek" sector on Cyprus at all? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As much as your an expert on what Turkish people "think", how is this discussion relevant to the article? If any of you want to provide some of your in depth and expert analysis on Turkish affairs there are plenty of forums out there for you. --A.Garnet 19:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the whole world saw it as a conflict between Turkey and Greece, couldn't find the cover of that old TIME magazine on Wikipedia, it depicts the Cyprus issue as a war between both countries. Since everybody is sharing their opinions about the other party, I think Greeks consider Cyprus a humiliating defeat, that's why trying to avoid the use of their name in the conflict, instead on the combatants we see "Greek military junta", as if they are invaders from Mars and have nothing to do with Greece. Plus we see Cyprus next to the Greek junta, as if whole Cyprus fought against Turkey, as if Cyprus consists of only Greeks. Cheers. Sen LOL'lamaya devam et, kuzeyde dalgalanan Türk bayrağı.--Doktor Gonzo 14:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference being of course that the junta was not representative of the Greek people, having usurped power in a CIA-inspired military coup, and its actions have been and continue to be roundly condemned in Greece since the metapolitefsi. On the other hand, most Turks enthusiastically endorse their government's thuggery on Cyprus from 1974 to the present day. Until such attitudes begin to change, the Cyprus problem will continue to fester. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, not Martians, CIA men. Whether junta or a democratically elected party, it is still Greece, pal. You don't see the Argentinian military junta as the combatant in the Falklands War infobox, you see Argentina. What about Cyprus as the combatant at the side of the junta? Still the "Cyprus is Greek" thingy? Of course we were and still are behind the Turkish intervention in Cyprus, you don't get it.--Doktor Gonzo 18:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not your pal, matey. As soon as the junta collapsed, Karamanlis decided against pursuing an armed confrontation with Turkey, so your claim that there was a war between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus is disingenuous. As for your second point, Turkey invaded and occupied sovereign territory of the Republic of Cyprus. Whatever you happen to think about the "Greek Régime of Southern Cyprus" is irrelevant, frankly. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you prefer matey to pal? That old British influence coming out again. Greece didn't intervene in Cyprus not because she didn't want to but because she couldn't. Greek army couldn't even fly an aircraft over the island because of the distance. And after seeing Greeks still today claiming Cyprus Greek and all this hostility, I more strongly believe the intervention was one of the most correct decisions Turkey took in the last couple of decades. --Doktor Gonzo 10:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Do as I say, not as I do"; the eternal principle. Turks condemn the evils of the Megali Idea, but when they follow similar expansionist policies, it's OK. Greeks have long shaken off such ways of thinking (the border with Albania has been recognized at last); when will Turkey recognize the sovereignty of Cyprus? BTW Gonzo, Türklerin sorunlari Kibris ancak degildir; enflasion, Kürtler, Ege sorunu ve tabii Avrupa Birliginin istemleri daha önemli sorunlardir. Merak etiyor musun?--Domitius 16:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Turkey does not have expansionist policies. Cyprus was first and foremost a security issue to Turkey, not part of an ideological drive to expand. Just as Greece was willing to undermine the integrity of Cyprus and so threaten Turkey's southern flank, so too was Turkey willing to employ the same tactics in defending its own security. However, inlike Greece who has gone through five phases of expansion (seven if you count Smyrna and Cyprus attempt) since its creation, Turkey was founded on a policy of strictly abandoning its Ottoman past. --A.Garnet 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Domitius, it is open to discussion who has the expansionist goals in this geography. Turks feel the same kind of threat from its neighbours. Turkish Republic was built in accordance to the Kuvayi Milliye haritası/map, it is clear what Turkish forces were fighting for since day one, nothing is secret. I don't consider the intervention in Cyprus an expansionist move, and frankly no Turk I know of does. Once in a while, just like in Greece, there are some less intelligent who shout "We will take them all" but I assure you, since the foundation of the Republic, none of them has come to power in this country, especially not in the military. For the Turkish part: Valla Türkiyenin sorunları o kadar çokki, Yunanistan'ın bilet alıp sıraya girmesi lazım.--Doktor Gonzo 19:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So Turks do not consider the invasion of Cyprus the implementation of expansionist designs against a sovereign state? To me that situation with the Megali Idea are identical, the aim is the same: to liberate people of the same nation and to unite them with the nation state. That still is expansionism, whatever the ethnic composition of the coveted territories and whatever people in Turkey or Greece choose to call it.--Domitius 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course they don't. According to the Turkish mentality, it isn't expansionism when it's directed against former Ottoman territories, as these lands rightfully belong to them and/or were wrongfully taken away from them in the first place. Hence the persistent Turkish violations in the Aegean and the absurd concept of "grey zones", and the recent kerfuffle over the "Turkish Republic of Western Thrace" garbage on the Turkish education ministry website. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, the Aegean is a strategic concern, not part of an expansionist policy. Turkey's only interest is in keep the Aegean open to its fleet. If it was about expansion, then those islands would have been flying a Turkish flag long ago. --A.Garnet 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How very kind of you. Again, your rants are indicative of your true loyalties, which certainly aren't to Cyprus. Keep up the good work. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's drop the trivialities and talk about some serious stuff: who is going to win on Saturday? Baristarim 01:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We all know the answer to that. This is all part of the build-up. ;) ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As usual Kekrops I am basing my observations on studied facts, and you are basing yours on rhetoric. I happen to study Turkish foreign policy, these are not rants, but observations based on traditional state interests. If Turkey is a neo-imperialist state, which according to you is proved by its position in the Aegean, then why has it not annexed a single Aegean island? Now who is the one ranting? --A.Garnet 01:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Turkey is not as omnipotent as you think. The reason that it has not annexed a single Aegean island is because it simply cannot. It has however tested the waters several times, most notably during the Imia incident, and failed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I also note that the Turks' loud grunting on the annexation of northern Cyprus in the event of the island's accession to the EU proved to be nothing but hot air. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You dont half speak bollocks my friend. According to you, Turkey's Ottoman expansionism is proven by a dispute over a small uninhabited rock in the Aegean? Please, if that was the case, then I dont think you have much to fear from this new empire. The real problem here is that Greece and Greek Cypriots still educate their children to regard Turkey and the Ottomans as one and the same, as an aggresive and expansionist power, meanwhile dismissing their own history of continued expansion until defeat a few kilometers from Ankara. --A.Garnet 02:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the territorial acquisitions resulting from Greek expansionism were illegitimate? Ankara itself regards Turkey and the Ottomans as one and the same when it sings the praises of the "Turkish Republic of Western Thrace" on its education ministry's website and lays claim to an undefined number of islands in the Aegean over which it argues Ottoman sovereignty was never interrupted. Bollocks, indeed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, could you all please stop your off-topic political debates? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok honestly, what we Turks need to do is work harder, think brighter, bring out the true potential of this country, make it a better place. There is no way we can beat Greeks in the talking category for sure, look ahead, less talk, more work.--Doktor Gonzo 11:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Irnia Kardak you mean? two pieces of rock, greece tried to invade (but as usual went back saying i will tell you to my brothers but brothers were not there this time, i wonder why?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.92.149 (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Larisv

Larisv, the into should be a general overview of the conflict. To neutralise the refugee statements would require too much elaboration, i.e. the recognition by the ECHR of the Turkish Cypriot property commission as an effective means of redress, or the legal obstacles in front of TC's wishing to return to their property (e.g. 6 month stay in the RoC). You cannot simply say Turkey is preventing refugees from returning without explaining the full situation, it is factually incorrect and pov pushing. I moved one of the sources mentioning condemnation of Turkey to the human rights section, one is enough for this. --A.Garnet 01:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A. Garnet, you are vandilizing this page. The Greek Cypriots were forcibly expelled from the occupied areas and have been prevented from returning. This is a fact. That is what the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights have ruled in six separate judgements so far, it is implicit in all the relevant resulutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council of the UN. So, yes, I can simply say that Turky is preventing the refugees from returning. If you have a reliable independent source that can veriy, elaborate, explain or back up what you are saying above, then by all means include it in the narrative as another statement of fact, plain and simple. You simply cannot go about removing sourced factual statments from this article just because you don't like them. Larisv 02:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that some GC that have sought restitution for their pre 74 property via the norths property comission have recived and accepted either compensation or return. For a referance to such here is one http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=29489&archive=1 Erolz 04:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a fact. It is also a fact that the European Court of Human Rigts has yet to rule as to whether the provisions regulating the property commission are indeed in line with the European Convention of Human Rights, not does it negate the findings of the European Court of Human Rights that the entire Greek Cypriot population was expelled or prevented from returning to their homes and properties in the Turkish Occupied Areas in contravention to the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights. Larisv 02:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

while arranging this article ı think you didnt use any neutral article.And it is impartial,also used one of the sides,greek documents.

Pogrom

The notion that the Turks orchestrated the 1955 pogrom against the Greeks in order to promote peace on Cyprus is sickening and apologist and will be reverted at the earliest opportunity. Cheers. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to keep the editorializing out of that sentence until the section can be ironed out later on.. If anything, a different sentence could be added to give a link to the intercommunal violence article - without commenting on its relation to the pogrom - at least for the time being. I am also at 3rr. Baristarim 18:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's how it came out because of Domitius whose main contribution to Wikipedia is reverting edits by Turkish Wikipedians and protecting the Greek ones (and often Armenian). What happened was to deter "violence towards Turkish Cypriots", it was also triggered by the bombing of Mustafa Kemal's house in Selanik. I had to put "intercommunal violence" instead of that because I didn't want to be bothered with Greek censorship at that moment. But what I of course meant was GC agression towards TCs.--Doktor Gonzo 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus Before my edit, the sentence read the event was to deter the independence of Cyprus. Still, still, still the Cyprus is Greek thing; we will not have any kind of agreement unless you acknowledge the politic existence of Turkish Cypriots.--Doktor Gonzo 16:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you condone the Istanbul Pogrom? Your edit effectively attempts to justify it, and such apologist garbage simply won't survive here. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's not get carried away please. Everyone, take a deep breath :))) Baristarim 23:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but saying that Greeks were attacked elsewhere in order to deter them from attacking Turks in Cyprus is like saying that Hrant Dink was killed to deter other Armenians from speaking out on the Genocide. It might be the POV of many Turks, but it's just not on. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 02:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, don't worry. However, there is no need to get offended - maybe that was the intention, but it is just a statement of fact, that doesn't mean I wouldn't agree that it was wrong. See what I mean? In any case, I don't know the intricate politics behind the pogrom (Cyprus? Money? Property? Religion? Some other geopolitical whatever?).. My grandfather actually told me his first-hand accounts of the events, and believe me there is no way I would say that it was a good thing, not by a long-shot. Particularly considering that there was intentional humiliation and hysteria. Nevertheless I would be interested to know the motives behind as I pointed out above. My grandfather had mentioned that the rhetoric in Cyprus had been rising at the time, so maybe that could have been a reason.. I don't know.. Baristarim 02:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it would have to be presented explicitly as the Turkish POV and a source provided. The way the edit was worded presented the pogrom as a noble undertaking. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right.. Maybe "what the Turks/Turkish government hoped would deter/intimidate Cypriot division/independence/enosis etc)? However, there still needs to be sources though, so it might be good to keep editorializing out for a while. But I would also oppose any edit which makes it sound like a noble undertaking, as you said.. It should be as matter-of-factly as possible.. Baristarim 03:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it could be argued either way; the Turks could well have claimed it was to deter anti-Turkish violence in Cyprus, but from the Greek perspective the Turks were just using Cyprus as an excuse to rid themselves of the last remnants of the Greek minority, which they were largely successful in achieving. We cannot simply accept their feigned intention at face value. If we must link Cyprus to the pogrom, I would prefer something along the lines of "Amid the rising tensions over Cyprus, the Turkish government orchestrated a pogrom against the Greek population...". ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Or both.. It wouldn't surprise me that it was used both as a method of further Turkification/Islamization while also doing it in conjecture with the Cyprus dispute. Or the Cyprus dispute could have been simply used as an excuse.. Well, the consolidation of the new Republic and its following national identity in Turkey was very complex and had many facets.. One thing I also do know is that whoever organised the protests didn't foresee that it would degenerate that much: once the "mob" was on a roll, it quickly got out of hand so much that tanks had to be called in to the main avenue in Istanbul later that night. That's why it lasted two days. However, it is also true that the police in Istanbul remained way too passive (which also explains the later involvement of the army to restore order). Anyways, it definitely was a bad moment in the new republic's history...Baristarim 04:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Gonzo, the bombing of Kemal's house in Thessaloniki never happened; it was simply a false allegation propagated to stoke anti-Greek hysteria in Turkey, but it's interesting to see that some Turks still accept it as fact. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I had always been under the impression that it was a hoax ever since I had known about the events; and I heard all this from my family, not from someone else. What is interesting is that when my grandfather had heard that Ataturk's house was bombed, apparently, he immediately thought there was something fishy. But again, I wasn't alive back in the day so I can't know. It could have been a naive hysteria too, maybe a band of teenagers threw a beer bottle at Ataturk's house and it got grossly exaggerated (intentionally) along the way. Who knows? I don't know if you can read Turkish, but this two news clips from Hurriyet are pretty good. Can have a look at the pictures anyways though. [11] [12].

What is clear that the Prime minister of the time (Adnan Menderes) (who was later hanged in the 1960 coup by the army), claimed that the events were a spontaneous reaction of the populace to the bombing of Ataturk's house - but what is funny is that few days later the events, he changed his tone and claimed that the "communists" were behind the bombing news.. But going back to what we talked about above, there was also the fact that maybe he wanted to show to the Greek Cypriots that as much as they could harm Turkish Cypriots, there were Greeks in Turkey that could be harmed. I know that it is very lame logic, but I suppose considering those decades and the Cold War and the juntas, such a "pissing contest" wouldn't seem too out of place.. Baristarim 04:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is very interesting: [13] - it is an interview with a Turkish woman who grew up in Germany and teaches in a university there. She apparently made extensive research into the events, and she says that it was England who wanted to get Turkey involved in the Cyprus dispute in the beginning of the 50s to take off the weight off its back and deflect the conflict from one between Greeks-UK to Greeks-Turks. Kinda interesting. In fact, she also says that there was a letter in the British archives sent by the English ambassador in 1954 (one year before the events) to the British foreign office which said "Turkey and Greece are getting along fine (following the visit by the Greek royal family to Turkey in 1952), but if something like the news of the bombing of Ataturk's house spread in Turkey, things would easily get out of hand good". (at the very end of the article) She also talks about a report prepared by the party in power in the 1940s in Turkey mentioning the large number of minorities in Istanbul. She says that, when the Empires collapsed and nation-states rose from their ashes, inevitably minorities appeared. However, since large numbers of minorities could be seen as a threat to these new-born states, they did all they could do to avoid such situations (for example the population transfer agreement was signed in that context between Greece and Turkey: to avoid future friction) However, the report filed in the 40s laments the fact that Turks of Western Thrace and Greeks of Istanbul were spared from this agreement and that this presented an odd situation. In fact, interestingly, she says that most people involved in the mobs were not from Istanbul: most Istanbulites, owing to the tradition of the Empire looked out for their neighbors, but it was those who came from Anatolia etc that took part in the plundering etc. Yep, the process of switching from an Empire to modern nation-states for Greece and Turkey was very complex to make things short.. Baristarim 04:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. A forced marriage followed by an ugly divorce. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 06:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not a question of what is right or wrong; it is called reasoning. "Reason" you know, the term was first coined in this geography, it is so close to you yet so far. The main motives behind the events in Istanbul was definitely not to deter the independence of Cyprus as the sentence previously suggested, but in public mind to avenge the events in Cyprus which was seen as a Greek agression towards TCs, and the rumor of Mustafa Kemal's house in Selanik being bombed. Nobody is justifying anything; also nobody wakes up in the morning and decides it is a good day for looting. You are putting too much of your emotions into your sentences, Kekrops, making them distasteful.--Doktor Gonzo 12:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And it is precisely your "reasoning" that I find so flawed. Whatever your official excuse, I have reason to believe that the situation in Cyprus was just the pretext the Turks needed to cleanse the city of its remaining Greeks. Which side do we as an encyclopaedia believe? No offence, but I'm rather disinclined to accept lessons on taste from somebody who thinks that killing, beating and forcibly circumcising people constitute anything other than barbarity, let alone peace-making. Cheers. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I also think that you are getting a bit too much emotional, even though I can see why. I really don't think that Gonzo tried to say that killings or beatings were a good thing or tried to justify them. As far as the pogrom goes, I think that on top of the willingness to intimidate them into migration, I think that a willingness to intimidate the Greek Cypriots also existed: the two are not exclusive of one another. But AGF, I am not trying to show it as a "justification" - we are trying to establish what might have been the motiviations in the minds of those involved, that's all. On the other hand, I think that on the minds of the more-simple-minded masses it was just a question of avenging what was happening in Cyprus and Ataturk's house being bombed (even though the last one was a hoax). I really doubt that Mr. average Joe from Anatolia who was plundering a Greek textile shop was aware of the global geopolitics in an age when television didn't even exist and when the only radio was a state-run one who broadcasted only several hours a day. That's why it was so easy to provoke them in the first place.. Baristarim 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a propaganda, no need to rationalize it. The events in Cyprus may very well be true, but if it weren't for them, something else would be found (it was found as well, like burning Atatürk's house). A government can go and nuclear bomb a country twice, even aim for a city like Kyoto (which is like Istanbul or Ankara to us) and convince the citizens that they will be even better people if they support it. Man, at least there wouldn't be a Kyoto protocol now. Unfortunately governments in all the countries are doing that, Greece, Turkey, Armenia, Iran, etc. deniz^T_C 14:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dont forget that the head of government at that time was executed in turkey... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.92.149 (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is the objectivity?

I just came to this page by pure chance and the article is completely full of bulls**t; especially the section which explains (!) the events leading up to the invasion. Where is the objectivity? These paragraphs do not have any references. I don't know what kinda idiot wrote those lines but I felt like I was reading a right-wing Greek newspaper. Can someone please correct these lines with the right references? Otherwise these should be deleted.. Rolumnas 88.106.8.89 11:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Will be here some day.--Doktor Gonzo 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a mess. The problem is some people like it this way. --A.Garnet 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a description of a military invasion which was accompanied by massive abuses of human rights. My uncle was among the dead killed by those you hold up as heroes and eulogize so. All you are looking to do is reduce this article to weasel words and pretend that no human rights violations happened, when in reality the very invasion itself was an invasion of human rights.--EOKA-Assasin 18:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Human rights violations happened in hoth sides. Rather than invasion, the term "intervention" should be used. also the paragraph about the turkish education system and the increase of nationalism is also single-sided. Was Greek education system so humanistic in that era? Both of the sides were nationalistic in that era... The article is too subjective, and I don't think it conforms to the Wikipedia quality standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.207.169.196 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a vision: Cypriot Greek Genocide.--Doktor Gonzo 13:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Gonzo, it was not a genocide but it was certainly an example of ethnic cleansing. All you do is sit around claiming 'NPOV' while being unable to actually deal with the topic at hand. I am sick of dealing with Turks who behave like children, constantly throwing temper-tantrums and even murdering people when they cant get their own way. This was an example of ethnic cleansing, plain and simple.--EOKA-Assasin 06:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please try to keep it civil.. GreekWarrior, is that you? :) There are way too many accounts which have been popping up recently - TedBlack etc. In fact, GW left a note on my talk page two months ago and confirmed that he regularly trawls Wikipedia under many different accounts. I could see people simply small-scale vandalizing from various IPs, but full-time trolling is really something else. :) Artaxiad's case was also pretty interesting... Gees, are there really people who take a virtual encyclopedia that seriously? Finally it is just a nice hobby - not a matter of life and death.. Baristarim 06:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me, I am sure that there are Turkish users who account-jump and all - it was nothing personal or anything.. Baristarim 06:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not, EOKA-Assassin? If something is worth doing, it is worth doing right. Go big, go for the genocide if you ask me. Charming username by the way.--Doktor Gonzo 11:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

He is right, EOKA - I was also thinking of creating an article at Laz Genocide, do you want to have a working lunch? :)) Baristarim 12:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This article does not have any trace of objectivity; Most of the information are misgiven, misleading, and most importantly, do not reflect what really happened in history.--E138257 00:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusations

Please leave intact unless it is an accusation/ thats the title of the section. Aristovoul0s 14:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What this article should be

Theis article should be a merger and summary of Timeline of the 1974 Invasion of Cyprus, Military operations during the Invasion of Cyprus (1974) and Operation Atilla. It should not be a complete history of the Eastern Mediterranean. --SE16 20:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Section mergers and sourcing

There are now sections giving Greek and Turkish versions of parts of the history; this is not proper encyclopedic style. There needs to be one, mostly chronological narrative, which can weave in agreed-upon facts and a variety of interpretations of events.

There are also large sections of prose which do not have any inline references to sources. References are required by Wikipedia policy, and are even more important for controversial topics like this one, where many readers may be skeptical of what we are reporting. -- Beland 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are there NO soldier casualty figures?

This happened in 1974, yet no miliary casualties can be compiled?? Reaper7 02:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Try these:

• Timeline of the 1974 Invasion of Cyprus
• Military operations during the Invasion of Cyprus (1974) Aristovoul0s 07:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, nothing there on official casualties for either side, next? This article does not cover the basics. I agree that it should be completely deleted and rewritten with the actual facts of the invasion, the surrounding problems that caused the invasion can be in sub articles. Reaper7 19:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Reaper, feel free to begin a rewrite. Other than the nationalist crack pots, I dont see who could support the current state of this article. If you choose to begin a rewrite, I will certainly help. Cheers, --A.Garnet 14:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had the time, I take no one's side in this arguement as you, it is just such a shame that this article is the first thing people see when trying to learn about a highly interesting part of modern history. Reaper7 23:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

British involvement

I'm stunned by the absence of the role of the British in the Invasion, what do others think ? here are some links to what I'm talking about: http://www.greece.org/cyprus/Treason2.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4632080.stm

Everyone in the world knows about their involvement, but unfortunately, wiki is American/Israeli/English controlled. The facts whenever these three are threatened by unfortunate realities gets lost in wiki beaurcracy. The British and American Govts had a huge role in this invasion. Reaper7 23:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

"De Facto division of the island" and "Turkish intervention as a guaranteur" are quite neutral, no one can claim the island is not divided de facto and Turkish guaranteur treaty is mentioned in the article. Also Turkey did not acquire any land, bcause Turkey did not add the northern Cyprus to its own borders but created an unrecognized state. CIA Factbook [14] or other sources also state that Turkey did not acquire any land, but established a state of which self-ruling proclamations was only recognized by 3 countries, and except Turkey others have withdrawn their recognition. 212.154.125.30 (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair call. The word in English is guarantor, by the way. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks :) 212.154.125.30 (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Propoganda Article

As far as i have read it, this article seems to be a work of a propaganda. Such articles has to be a shame for all wikipedia editors, but unfortenetly from the maturity level of the discussion above, i'm pretty confident that nothing is likely going to change in here. Sadly, a free encyclopedia can turn out be a battleground for some silly nationalists..--88.236.171.254 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

i can not believe this.are u serious?"not invation"?and what is it?"i-come-to-your-land-and-kill-your-family-because-i-am-Turkey-and-that-is-what-i-do?first of all,Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots were living in harmony before all these things happened.The whole thing is clearly a co-operation between Britain and Turkey.Britain involved Turkey in the Cypriot manners for own interests.Turkey had no reason to attack Cyprus.Nobody threatened Turkish Cypriots.The just needed an excuse to invade he island.So the whole "peaceful intervention" is false.If i fear that something might happen to my people i don't start a war without conversation and of course i DO NOT invade a country just for some fears.Turkish army had occupied almost half of the island,killed thousands of unarmed citizens,brutally raped the women and kicked the people out of their homes.Whoever thinks that this is "peaceful" he/she must be living in another planet.Wake up people!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ang87 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Living in harmony? is that the reson why Britain has more Turkish Cypriots than that are in cyprus, is it the reason why many Cypriots (again probably more than that of in cyprus) fled to Turkey, is it the reason why movies like voice of blood are made. yea such harmony, live and let die harmony, practiced in mainland Greece and Crete but failed in Cyprus...oops forgot .. it was not greeks it was moon who devoured the muslims there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.92.149 (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nobody threatened Turkish Cypriots???" I can't believe I'm reading this. If they were living in Harmony what was the job of EOKA then? There are many evidence that the Ultra-Nationalist Cypriot Greeks were indeed attacking Turks and burning their houses. There's endless evidence. Photographs, videos etc... Actually we don't even need such evidence. We already have many people who saw what actually happened. Beregorn (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article has been questioned many times before (see "11 Neutrality", "22 Where is the objectivity"). It has been said also that the quality of this article does not meet with the wikipedia standards. I would rather say that the style (not the quality) of this article is far away from any encyclopaedia standards (hence the neutrality warning symbol). However wikipedia is far more than a simple encyclopaedia. Actually is a mixture of encyclopaedia, news media and blog. I would also like to answer to the comments about lack of unbiased citations. It is difficult to give unbiased citations because simple there is hardly any unbiased documentaries. For this reason there is no hope in the current phase to have an objective article. However we can have a balanced article (and I think we have). The existence of separate sections “Turkish Cypriot opinion” and “Greek Cypriot opinion” provide this counterbalance. I feel that this case (as any similar) will be extremely challenging for the historian of the future and wikipedia will be the tool for the study. The historian will be able by tracking down the differences between the versions to establish the figure of how the article converges from balanced to objective. Relating this figure with the historical facts useful conclusions about socio-political dynamics would be derived. Vangelis--213.130.142.143 (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Any statsitics about the minorities residing in either side

it would be useful to identify the truth of claims of both sides on who genocided others... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.92.149 (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Turkish cypriots" flag

Is it NPOV that a flag is presented for them when talking about the invasion? --Leladax (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to intro

3meander, I changed the intro to become more npov in the hope it would set a precedent for the rest of the article. The intro should a be general overview, please keep this in mind. Also I dont see the problem with the picture, the article is about the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, and the picture shows a Turkish tank in Nicosia, therefore it is factually relavant. --A.Garnet (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It also shows Turks greeting and applauding the tank. Why not show the victims of that tank? And what the hell is Kemal's face doing there? Your choice of image is not exactly a reflection of NPOV. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, it is a picture of a Turkish tank entering the capital of Cyprus. Turkish Cypriots are greeting it yes, but that is entirely representative of the conflict, two ethnic communities supporting their mainland brethren. If you can find a more general picture, perhaps of the paratroopers landing over Cyprus, go ahead. Also, why would ask me why I did not upload an image of GC victims, and at the same time remove an image of an entire mass grave of Turkish Cypriots (post-74 invasion)? --A.Garnet (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The picture is one sided and not representative of the invasion. It is also offensive. Your claim of NPOV of the intro reads like this and this. Hardly NPOV Meander^₪ 09:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well neither of those links was consulted when rewriting the intro. Please dont use the intro as a soapbox, its meant to be a general neutral overview of the article and no more. --A.Garnet (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither was consulted actually you deleted the sourced info, and its the same content (one sided). And the picture is offensive as i said. If you feel like you can re write the intro then shouldnt you get consensus first? Or that works only for me? Meander^₪ 17:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted and left a note on the military history wikiproject. --A.Garnet (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral editor from the wikiproject, I must say I'm on A. Garnet's side here. His edits appear to be NPOV, moreso than an introduction that mentions refugees and other POV elements. Skinny87 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the intro is to sum up the generalities: who is involved, why they were involved, what happened during, and what happened after. The current intro is fairly NPOV, but I strongly suggest that A.Garnet find appropriate sources (for example, find a Turkish government document identifying their reasoning for invading; info on the Annan referendum; etc). Additionally, while the picture is not the best, I fail to see how it is offensive. If 3meander would care to identify a better picture for the infobox, it would be possible to compare them. Cromdog (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with cromdog partly. I fail to see why A. Garnet's version is more neutral. I think it is taking a side promoting the invasion euphemistically as a "peace operation". 217.16.239.28 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was more neutral, simply that it was fairly NPOV...the version now up may be NPOV, but it now fails to meet the criteria for a decent intro, as it is too long and detailed for an intro. Also, the last few lines of this intro are poorly written, and almost seem to be entering into NPOV. Perhaps I'll try and write up a better, sourced intro when I have time.Cromdog (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

HI all, Cromdog when you have the time, i am willing to help you rewrite the intro in an NPOV manner. You are right it may be too long and we need to find a way to include all important information and at the same time keep it short. What do you suggest? Meander^₪ 10:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Meander, since both Cromdog and Skinny state my version at the very least appears to be npov, why not help by making suggestions to improve this version rather than completely reverting to I believe is basically a pov rant. Also, please stop removing the infobox imgage, if you believe you can find a better one, then upload it here and discuss it. --A.Garnet (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A.Garnet, you are making a Straw man argument here, trying to impose your point of view. Once again the invasion was not a "peace operation" as the turkish view says. Wikipedia encourages the inclusion of both views in an npov manner. You have unilaterally changed the intro to promote your point of view, removing sourced information in the process. You uploaded a picture that portrays the invasion as an event celebrated by cypriots (which naturally included many atrocities inflicted on the victims) as the infobox picture. That is offensive to the victims of the invasion. Consider this fact : that "the European Commission on Human Rights found the Government of Turkey responsible for gross massive and continuing violations of human rights in Cyprus, including murders, rapes, expulsions and refusal to allow more than 180,000 Greek Cypriot refugees, almost one third of the entire population, to return to their homes and properties in the occupied part of Cyprus (cf. Cyprus against Turkey, report of 10 July 1976 on Applications No. 6780/74 and 6950/75, and report of 4 October 1983 on Application No. 8007/77 of the European Commission on Human Rights)". UNHCHR providing a good reasoning why the picture is offensive and not representative of the invasion. Should i upload a picture of dead bodies and put it in the infobox? Cromdog and Skinny stated that your version looks fairly NPOV. It does not necessarily mean that Cromdog and Skinny are aware of the Turkish invasion or that they have read all the material out there. It is perfectly natural that there are more interesting military invasions to read other than this one. So give them the time to make themselves familiar with the issue, dont try to impose your view. Please consider that Meander^₪ 10:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I'm not an expert on the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, but I do know a thing or two about relevant Wiki policies and guidelines. First, how on earth is a picture of a Turkish tank, rolling through Nicosia, "not representative of the invasion". When someone who doesn't know a thing about the Turkish invasion (you know, the people we're writing this encyclopedia for) come to this article, which has the word "invasion" in the title, they're more than likely expecting to see a picture of a tank or some infantry in the infobox.

Second, there are quite a few problems with the version 3meandEr prefers: first, the last portion that has been trimmed under A.Garnet's version is a little too much detail for the lead section. Then there are some minor problems like the word "alleged" in the beginning (the invasion took place, no one denies that). Also, the link to [[Cypriot intercommunal violence] should not be piped with "1963". The Link MoS states that "that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on". Again, the newer version is plain and simple more NPOV.

Lastly, please do not call other editors "vandal" in edit summaries. It's poor form to intentionally reduce good faith edits to the level of vandalism, and a massive failure to WP:AGF, not to mention WP:CIVIL. Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy. I think i have already answered questions 1&2 for A.Garnet above your post. Please feel free to read through. In 1963 Turkey attempted to invade but her plans were put on hold after the US indirectly threatened her not to. "Alleged" is used used to refer to the "Turkeys response to a coup according to the treaty of guarantee." The treaty of guarantee was there to ensure the Republics sovereignty. Turkey however never honored the treaty instead it has partition the republic since then. The length is indeed a problem and i am willing to help as i said before to another editor to help and make shorter. The picture though can not stay as explained. Lastly could you please elaborate on why you think it is "more neutral"? Meander^₪ 07:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC) ?

Let me go through point by point:

1. The lines "...was materialised in two phases. The first phase is known to Turks and Turkish Cypriots as..." is totally superfluous; of course, if it's in Turkish, that's obviously what they call it, not what the Greek Cypriots did.
2. Again "alleged" is not correct; the military response did happen, no one disputes it. Therefore, the word "alleged" is totally wrong in that sentence. However, if your intention is to question the Turkish motives, you would state something along the lines of "...military response, allegedly a response to the coup against Makarios III...". However, this would then be a violation of WP:NPOV, and still disallowed. Also, that sentence has some grammatical problems, because as it stands (even in A. Garnet's version), it implies that the Turks had the intention of annexing the island to Greece, not Makarios III.
3. Again, please read the link I gave above in reference to piped links; they should not be a surprise to the reader. Someone who clicks on the 1963 would expect to see an article about the year 1963, not Cypriot intercommunal violence.
4. This is just a style issue, but in the beginning of the second paragraph, A.Garnet changed an "invasion" to "operation"; the word "invaded" was used in the previous sentence, it's nice to have some variation in terms used.
5. The repeated references to Taksim are highly POV; there are no sources that state Taksim was the purpose of Turkey in conducting the invasion. On a related note, you might want to read through the intro and first few sections of World War II, which, in my opinion, is a pretty good example of an NPOV treatment of a war. Nowhere in the intro does it mention that Hitler invaded the USSR to slaughter Jews and Slavs; that type of information, if relevant at all, belongs in the body of the article, not the intro.
6. The rest are the result of the intro being just too long, and too much detail. Specific lines from the Treaty of Guarantee are far too specific for the intro.
7. To sum up, it reads like the authors of this page are trying to convince the readers that Turkey was in the wrong (which might very well be true, for the purposes of this discussion, I don't really care); regardless, [[WP:NPOV|it is not our place to decide that. Again, take a look through the WWII article; it doesn't go around, assigning blame.

Hopefully that was specific enough to address your questions. Oh, and please stop edit-warring, or I'll lock the page. There is obviously dissent, use the talk page to express your opinions, not through edit summaries. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Consider also the last para of 3meanders version which fleshes out a statement by former TC President Rauf Denktas against the Annan plan, despite TC's accepting the plan in a referendum, why does he feel the need to do this? I mean have I chosen to make a meal out of the fact that GC's rejected the plan, that Tassos Papadopolous told GC's to reject the plan? No, I have simply stated facts without choosing to cast judgement or push a pov, I wish he could understand that is the difference between his and my version, and why three third party editors have agreed this is a better version. --A.Garnet (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Understood your points Parsecboy, and A.Garnet, those points mentioned can easily be changed. A.Garnet's version however leaves out important information and makes the article read as if it was a "peace operation" to re establish the state of affairs and stop a coup from dissolving the Republic. That did not happen and it is a distortion of the facts. I will review the intro so that you will see what i mean. Again i dont expect you to know all the history behind the issue but i expect the readers to able to read the facts in the lead as they are without attributing blame, but not in an euphemistic manner. For instance, (context issue): Turkey does not recognize the existance of Cyprus as a country since 1963. In 1974 however Turkey uses as a pretext the treaty which she does not recognize ipso facto, to invade, stating that she has a right (by the treaty she did not recognize) to intervene. This has been challenged. These facts are taken out from the lead. Please read through a revisited version answering all your points and those of A. Garnet. Thanks Meander^₪ 14:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way the coup was by EOKA B and not by Cypriot National Guard Meander^₪ 14:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the picture of the Turkish M48 rolling through Nicosia. From what I gather, your only objection to it is a vague "it's offensive". It seems to me that the only reason it's offensive is because it's a picture of celebrating Turkish Cypriots. So the "other side" won. Get over it. I'm sure some Polish editors might be offended that a picture of the German battleship Schleswig-Holstein shelling the Westerplatte is the main image for Invasion of Poland (1939), but it's still one of the best images for the purpose. Regardless, Wikipedia is not censored for images some might find offensive, for whatever reason. More to the point, it's perhaps the perfect image to display in the infobox, as it demonstrates the title of the article: a Turkish tank, having invaded, participating in the occupation of Cyprus. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Parsecboy thanks for the hand in you just offered. Appreciate it. For you above comment, i would say it right out. No. It has nothing to do with (So the "other side" won). NO. I would be happy to acknowledge something like that. Please understand this: The fact is that Turkey never accept the action for what it was. An invasion. An offensive act. Instead Turkey argue that it was not a war, but an intervention and a peaceful one at that!!! The picture is offensive to the victims of the invasion because the specific one depicts the event as a peacefull celebration of an intervention. Thats not what it was however. Cyprus is a tiny place and 160-200 000 losing their properties may not sound as that important however, just to comprehend the scale of the invasion imagine by comparison say USA to be invaded and have 40% Refugees = 119,377,686 people would be Refugees, One in Three Hundred Missing = 994,814 people would be Missing, One in eighty four killed = 3,552,907 people would be killed, 37% of the Land occupied. It is immense isnt it not? Backing up what i have just said is the fact that "the European Commission on Human Rights found the Government of Turkey responsible for gross massive and continuing violations of human rights in Cyprus, including murders, rapes, expulsions and refusal to allow more than 180,000 Greek Cypriot refugees, almost one third of the entire population, to return to their homes and properties in the occupied part of Cyprus (cf. Cyprus against Turkey, report of 10 July 1976 on Applications No. 6780/74 and 6950/75, and report of 4 October 1983 on Application No. 8007/77 of the European Commission on Human Rights)". UNHCHR. Should i upload a picture of dead bodies and put it in the infobox? Hope my point is clear, if not we are here to talk about it right? Meander^₪ 15:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have/can find other pictures that are suitably licensed, by all means upload them. Perhaps it would be better to make a montage similar to Image:WW1 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg, Image:WW2Montage.PNG, Image:Iraq header 2.jpg, or Image:American Civil War Montage 2.jpg. Parsecboy (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. I will do that then! Thanks Meander^₪ 16:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it still reads like another pov rant on the Cyprus conflict.

• The Turkish invasion of Cyprus Turkish: “Türk akın -in Kıbrıs” - What on earth is this? I've never heard of the operation referred to as such. Whether you like it or not, Turkey and Turkish people in general refer to the events as the Kıbrıs Barıs Harekati, or Cyprus Peace Operation. You may disagree with their judgement, but that is the fact, it is not for you to change it to something you find more suitable.

• "belying multiple UN Security Council resolutions in the process[1] and the Treaty of Guarantee itself." - By whose judgement did operation bely the Treaty of Guarantee? All you have done is cited the treaty as if it somehow self-explanatory.

• "According to Turkey, the Republic of Cyprus had been dissolved in 1963 [3] and hence Turkey has not recognized Cyprus as a sovereign country since." - No, the source states Turkey did not consider Greek Cypriot authority over Turkish Cypriots legitimate after they were ousted from government. It does not state Turkey considered it dissolved. Your simply trying to contradict Turkey's position on the Treaty of Guarantee with your own arguments.

• "The scheduled military invasion" - pushing the pov the invasion was pre-planned and again attempting to discredit Turkey's obligation under the Treaty of Guarantee.

• "The UN plan had undergone several revisions in an attempt to win support from the Turkish Cypriot side, which has refused to talk further." - Again, you just cannot seem to let facts of the Annan plan speak for themselves. Greek Cypriots rejected the 2004 referendum, Turkish Cypriots accepted it. Why can you not accept this without adding some caveat to discredit the fact TC's accepted this plan? What happened before the referendum in negotiations is irrelevant.

I'm going to revert again because this is becoming ridiculous. Three uninvolved editors have agreed the version I am trying to include is more neutral, and I consider this to be a consensus. --A.Garnet (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)