Jump to content

Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Page Title Terribly Misleading

The page title: "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus", is misleading and pushes a strong pro-Greek Cypriot etc POV and strong anti-TRNC etc POV.

This page should be correctly titled as the: "Turkish intervention in Cyprus", "Cyprus Peace Operation", or "Operation Attila", as that is the official name, and that is exactly what it was, or otherwise interpreted differently, to say that it was anything other than an intervention or peace operation, is irrelevant to whether its reasoning was accepted or not.

Evidence as to why can be found in the following sources, and then some:

  • 2) Mirbagheri, Farid (2010). Historical dictionary of Cyprus ([Online-Ausg.]. ed.). Lanham, Md. [u.a.]: Scarecrow Press. p. 83. ISBN 9780810862982.
  • 3) Bill Kissane (15 October 2014). After Civil War: Division, Reconstruction, and Reconciliation in Contemporary Europe. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 135. ISBN 978-0-8122-9030-1. were incorporated in the Greek Cypriot armed forces, gave Turkey reason and a pretext to invade Cyprus, claiming its role under the Treaty of Guarantees.
  • 4) A. C. Chrysafi (2003). Who Shall Govern Cyprus - Brussels Or Nicosia?. Evandia Publishing UK Limited. p. 28. ISBN 978-1-904578-00-0. On 20 July 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus under the pretext of protecting the Turkish-Cypriot minority.
  • 5) Robert B. Kaplan; Richard B. Baldauf Jr.; Nkonko Kamwangamalu (22 April 2016). Language Planning in Europe: Cyprus, Iceland and Luxembourg. Routledge. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-134-91667-2. Five days later, on 20 July 1974, Turkey, claiming a right to intervene as one of the guarantors of the 1960 agreement, invaded the island on the pretext of restoring the constitutional order of the Republic of Cyprus.
  • 9) Resolution 573 (1974) Archived 14 May 2014 at the Wayback Machine. by the Council of Europe. "Regretting the failure of the attempt to reach a diplomatic settlement which led the Turkish Government to exercise its right of intervention in accordance with Article 4 of the Guarantee Treaty of 1960."
  • 10) Council of Europe Resolution 573 (29 July 1974). "The legality of the Turkish intervention on Cyprus has also been underlined by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in its resolution 573 (1974), adopted on 29 July 1974."
  • 11) Wikisource link to Treaty of Guarantee. Cyprus: Wikisource. 1960. "In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty."
  • 12) Decision no. 2688/79 23 March 1979

Evidence as to where this is referred to or described as an intervention can be found in the following entries, and then some:

  • 1) In his memoirs, American Undersecretary of State George Ball said: "Makarios's central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring Turkish Cypriots. Obviously we would never permit that. "The fact is, however, that neither the United Nations, nor anyone, other than Turkey ever took effective action to prevent it. On Feb. 17, 1964 the Washington Post reported that "Greek Cypriot fanatics appear bent on a policy of genocide."
  • 2) Former British Prime Minister Sir Alec Douglas-Home said, "I was convinced that if Archbishop Makarios could not bring himself to treat the Turkish Cypriots as human beings he was inviting the invasion and partition of the island."
  • 3) On July 28, 1960 Makarios, the Greek Cypriot president, said: "The independence agreements do not form the goal they are the present and not the future. The Greek Cypriot people will continue their national cause and shape their future in accordance with THEIR will." In a speech on Sept. 4, 1962 at Panayia Makarios said, "Until this Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race that has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism is expelled, the duty of the heroes of EOKA can never be considered terminated."
  • 4) Turkish Cypriots appealed to the guarantor powers for help, but only Turkey was willing to make any effective response. On July 20, 1974 Turkey intervened under Article IV of the Treaty of Guarantee. The Greek newspaper Eleftherotipia published an interview with Nicos Sampson on Feb. 26, 1981 in which he said, "Had Turkey not intervened I would not only have proclaimed ENOSIS, I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus."
  • 5) On July 22, Turkish Prime Minister Ecevit called upon the United Nations to "stop the genocide of Turkish Cypriots" and declared, "Turkey has accepted a cease-fire, but will not allow Turkish Cypriots to be massacred."
  • 6) The German newspaper Die Zeit wrote on Aug. 30, "The massacre of Turkish Cypriots in Paphos and Famagusta is the proof of how justified the Turks were to undertake their intervention."
  • 7) "Turkish Cypriots, who had suffered from physical attacks since 1963, called on the guarantor powers to prevent a Greek conquest of the island. When Britain did nothing Turkey invaded Cyprus and occupied its northern part. Turkish Cypriots have constitutional right on their side and understandably fear a renewal of persecution if the Turkish army withdraws", the Daily Telegraph wrote on Aug. 15, 1996.
  • 8) "Turkey intervened to protect the lives and property of the Turkish-Cypriots, and to its credit it has done just that. In the 12 years since, there have been no killings and no massacres" Lord Willis (Labor) told the House of Lords on Dec. 17, 1986.

...

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

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

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

This needs to be stopped right now.

Nargothronde (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

THIS SUGGESTION IS NOT PRO-TURKISH CYPRIOT/PRO-TURKISH etc. THIS SUGGESTION IS ALSO NOT ANTI-GREEK CYPRIOT/ANTI-GREEK etc. THIS SUGGESTION IS NOT PUSHING ANY POV. THIS SUGGESTION IS NOT SENSITIVE. THIS SUGGESTION IS NOT POLITICISING THE TOPIC. THIS SUGGESTION IS SUGGESTING THAT WE CORRECT OTHERWISE FALSE OR MISLEADING INFORMATION OR SELECTIVE DISINFORMATION.

i.e. why Turkish Cypriots, who had suffered from attempted genocide, ethnic cleansing, massacres in scores of hundreds and thousands, large-scale displacements, the burning down of entire towns, villages, and communities, mass slaughter after mass slaughter followed by mass burials to match, sparing no men, women, sons, daughters or children, unarmed, opposing or otherwise, an invasion by Greece (orchestrated by the Greek military junta - under the pretext of realising the Megali Idea and Enosis) and other terrorist entities (such as the extremist terrorist puppet regime EOKA-B) that Greece and the Greek Cypriots installed on Cyprus, called on the guarantor powers to prevent a Greek conquest of the island, is easily understood. When Greece was the invader, Britain did nothing, and Turkey intervened in Cyprus and occupied its northern part, stopped the attempted genocide in its tracks, and maintained the peace ever since, how is it that although the Turkish Cypriots have constitutional right on their side and understandably fear a renewal of persecution if the Turkish army withdraws, that the international community tells a shamelessly sympathetic story of injustice towards Greek Cypriots, as if such a thing existed, with tales worthy of becoming European folklore on the tyranny of the Turkish Cypriots and Turkish military; tales of the terrible Turk? It is beyond belief that the role of the victim and justice of need could have been reversely attributed to the Greek Cypriots.

That is not to say a pro-TRNC or pro-Turkey etc view should be pushed, but the facts and history must never be whitewashed. Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Community should be better than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nargothronde (talk • contribs) 08:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Nargothronde You omitted to sign your contribution.
The problem is, many of the sources that you are citing refer to that event as an 'invasion'. That would be most of the sources that are not diplomats or international bodies - newspaper reports and so on. That is because the event is generally referred to in colloquial English as an invasion. After all, it looked exactly like an invasion: armed forces from a foreign power arrived in boats, began fighting with the Cypriot armed forces, and seized territory. Yes - they were Cypriot armed forces, not Greek Cypriot; at that time, there was only one state of Cyprus.
You have SHOUTED that your suggestions are not POV, and are not partisan; but the fact is that many of the 'citations' you have produced are not evidence that the title should refer to an intervention rather than an invasion; rather, they appear to be evidence that the invasion was justified. For example, references to Makarios' inflammatory rhetoric do not make it any less an invasion. That is partisan.
No English speaker knows it as 'Operation Atilla'. The article would become unfindable with that as the title.
In general, the use of the term 'intervention' when referring to a deployment of combat troops on foreign soil is weasel words, used by the leaders of the deploying power to mask the fact that they are launching a campaign of military aggression overseas. See also Police action. In other words, it's a euphemism. Wikipedia prefers plain words. MrDemeanour (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

MrDemeanour I didn't realise; I thought I signed my contribution. Please let me know if the following message is also unsigned. Thank you.

The sources that I am citing refer to the POV that it was an invasion, which I know is also what you just demonstrated you have, and which the sources already provided also have. When the Turkish army intervened to safeguard and restore the constitutionally bound rights of the Turkish diaspora of the Republic of Cyprus, of which it was a guarantor, i.e. constitutionally bound to intervene to safeguard the Republic of Cyprus, which is exactly what it had done, nothing more nothing less, and to stop a Greek conquest of the island, it was the Greek military junta and EOKA-B that Turkey was fighting; it was the Greek Cypriots that Turkey was fighting; the government of the Republic of Cyprus was deposed by extremist elements of Greece and the Greek Cypriot community that had already deposed the Republic of Cyprus and declared a new Hellenic Republic of Cyprus. It was the Greek Cypriots and the Greek military junta that Turkey was fighting, and it was the Turkish Cypriots who were overwhelmingly the victim of the Greek Cypriots and the Greek military junta's planned genocide and ethnic cleansing that Turkey was protecting, as well as the Republic of Cyprus. Don't indulge yourself in selective misinformation.

The citations are testament to the fact that it was not an invasion by a foreign power but that it was constitutionally necessary, as Turkey was bound as a guarantor of the Republic of Cyprus, and the Turkish Cypriots, who had suffered from physical attacks since 1963, called on the guarantor powers i.e. Turkey for help, thus nullifying any argument that attempts to de-legitimise Turkey's intervention by branding it "an invasion by a foreign power", or to somehow pretend that Turkish Cypriots were also fighting against the "Turkish invasion". I suggest you read the un-amended 1960 constitution of the Republic of Cyprus and validated sources that detail what happened during the Cyprus conflict and to whom, to understand exactly what responsibility Turkey (and indeed Greece and Britain) had. Needless to say, another underlying fact is that neither the United Nations, nor anyone including Britain (who was a bystander) and Greece (who was the invader), other than Turkey ever took effective action to prevent the attempted genocide or ethnic cleansing etc, so regardless of whatever POV you may choose to hanker behind i.e. diplomats or international bodies (and apparently to you Makarios wasn't one... he was just a simple Greek Cypriot clergyman and politician who, I don't know, only served as the ARCHBISHOP and PRIMATE of the autocephalous Church of Cyprus (1950–1977) and as the President of Cyprus (1960–1977).), but you know, he's just a nobody, and his high-profile nature and unquestionable influence, especially with the Greek Cypriot community, can be heavily discounted, as can the fact that even though he declared neutrality, ultimately failed either to reassure the Turkish Cypriots that they were safe in an independent Cyprus, or to convince the Greek Cypriots that independence was a satisfactory alternative to assimilation within a Greater Greece)... the fact of the matter is, to call it an invasion rather than an intervention/peace keeping operation is still very offensive and discriminatory to the Cypriot people, overwhelmingly the Turkish Cypriots, and is an insult to them, to Turkey and to the Turkish military intervention.

"Operation Atilla", "the Cyprus Peace Operation" and "the Turkish Intervention in Cyprus" are all official names. This, coupled with the fact that searches can be redirected i.e. a search for "Turkish intervention in Cyprus" in Google returns THIS VERY SAME PAGE at the top of the search list, and similarly, on Wikipedia, where you will be redirected from Turkish intervention in Cyprus to THIS PAGE... makes it easy for anyone to doubt the argument that calling it any of these would make the article "unfindable". Regardless of what POV you may have, which again is clearly demonstrable in your writing that you do have, as well as in most of the sources used in this Wkipedia article, the basic fact of the matter is that it cannot be described as "launching a campaign of military aggression overseas", as Turkey was constitutionally bound to intervene and restore order on the island (which to its credit is exactly what it did) at the constitutionally and rightly exercised request of the Turkish Cypriots. It is not a euphamism. Wikipedia prefers plain words so called it an "intervention", instead of twisting the truth and calling it an "invasion". If that's what people know it as, that is because that is exactly what it has been branded as i.e. first by the extremist Greek Cypriots and Greek military junta who had already hijacked the government and amended the constitution to allow them to be its sole representatives, and then by the international community that they then politically expediated and exploited along with the Turkish Cypriots, and now by THIS WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE.

IF you read the 1960 constitution as I suggested and/or the articles/journal entries/official parliamentary meetings etc that I've provided in the sources above, I'm 100% confident that unless you are a bonafide strong pro-Greek Cypriot POV pusher or strong anti-Turkish Cypriot pusher, and if you approach this with neutrality and decency, you will realise that in 1960, a partnership state between Turkish and Greek Cypriots was set up in accordance with the international agreements signed by the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot sides, as well as the Turkish, Greek and British governments. However, in 1963, only three years later, the Turkish Cypriots were ousted by force from all organs of the new Republic by their Greek Cypriot partners in clear breach of the founding agreements and the Constitution, who shortly-thereafter completely deposed the new republic and declared the Hellenic Republic of Cyprus. The claim put forth thereafter by the Greek Cypriots to represent the “Republic of Cyprus” has been illegal, and has not been recognised by Turkey. The 1974 attempt by Greece to annex the Island, through a coup attempt, was resisted by Turkey in accordance with the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee. Article Four of the Treaty of Guarantee gives the right to guarantors to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs. It was Turkey's intervention and its ultimatum of war to Greece that halted its invasion of Cyprus, forced the collapse of the Greek military junta and the extremist puppet Greek Cypriot regime, and restored democracy to the Republic of Cyprus.

After the Republic of Cyprus refused demands by Turkey to form a federal state and engage in a population transfer, that would have seen the release of Turkish Cypriots forcibly held in Greek Cypriot enclaves irrespective of their wishes or rights, and would have safeguarded the Turkish Cypriot community from Greek and Greek Cypriot aggression, Turkey used force until Cypriot representatives and the United Nations consented to the transfer of the remainder of the 51,000 Turkish Cypriots that had not left their homes in the south to settle in the north, if they wished to do so.

If anything, it is only from that second use of force from 14th–16th August 1974 that Turkey's actions can be considered as amounting to an invasion, which perhaps deserves its own individual article, but the intervention that we are referring to here as the subject of this article is still just the intervention. This cannot be exaggerated or politicised.

This by definition, indeed its very nature, makes Turkey's actions as defined by this article an intervention, not an invasion.

I stand by my assertions that this needs to be changed. Any argument to the contrary simply doesn't stand up. Nargothronde (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

To put this in a slightly more cheeky context:
  • if this was an invasion, or rather, if this was not an intervention to protect the lives and property of the Turkish-Cypriots, and if it had not brought order, stability, and peace that ended decades of fighting, and still to this day supports a solution that restores the Republic of Cyprus and the constitutional rights of all the people of the Republic of Cyprus, and
  • if the Greek Cypriots were victims of oppression and invasion followed by land-grabs and illegal occupation,
  • if the Greek Cypriot government had been attacked and its jurisdiction deposed by the Turkish military,
  • if the Greeks and Greek Cypriots had not found it convenient to conceal the scale of their atrocities in an attempt to downplay their contribution to the tragedy and instead blame the Turkish invasion for all casualties,
  • if there can be justification for any government or individual that failed to investigate this sensitive humanitarian issue,
  • if the Greek Cypriots did not disgustingly remove peoples' names from their graveyards (to make them "missing") and then try to turn it into a propaganda tool,
  • if the exodus of Turkish Cypriots from the villages didn't happen, and there weren't thousands of people abandoning homes, land, herds,
  • if Greek and Greek Cypriot terrorism wasn't relentless,
  • if the rhetoric of the Hellenes and the statues of Plato etc cover up their barbaric and ferocious behaviour,
  • if the Greek Cypriots did not demand the abolition of no less than eight of the basic articles that had been included in the 1960 agreement for the protection of the Turkish Cypriots,
  • if the Turkish Cypriots didn't naturally refuse to agree,
  • if the aim of the Greek Cypriots was not to reduce the Turkish Cypriot people to the status of a mere minority, wholly subject to the control of the Greek Cypriots, pending ultimate destruction or expulsion from the island,
  • if Turkish Cypriot MPs, judges, and other officials were not intimidated or prevented by force from carrying out their duties in government, perhaps a contributing factor to their withdrawal and loss of a voice in the international fora,
  • if on Christmas Eve 1963 the Greek Cypriot militia did not attack Turkish Cypriot communities across the island, did not kill large numbers of men, women, and children, and did not desecrate 270 mosques, shrines and other places of worship, in countless massacres and village/home burnings,
  • if the effect of the crisis of December 1963 was not to deliver control of the formal organs of government into the hands of the Greek Cypriots alone,
  • if the Greek Cypriot claim to be acting in accordance with the doctrine of necessity stands up now anymore than it did then,
  • if the Greek Cypriot members of the House of Representatives did not enact a series of laws which provided for the operation of the organs of government without Turkish Cypriot participation,
  • if when the Turkish Cypriots objected to the amendment of the Constitution, Makarios did not put his "plan", the long planned "Akritas" plan, which was the blueprint for the annihilation of the Turkish Cypriots and the annexation of the island to Greece, into effect,
  • if Makarios doesn't bear on his shoulders the sole responsibility for the tragic events,
  • if his aim was not to deprive the Turkish community of their rights,
  • if all this had not happened because Makarios wanted to take away all constitutional rights from the Turkish Cypriots,
  • if the Greek's did not raid and massacre Turkish Cypriots and their villages and homes,
  • if the Turkish Cypriot inhabitants of Ayios Vassilios had not been massacred,
  • if their remains had not been exhumed from a mass grave in the presence of the Red Cross,
  • if there was no further massacre of Turkish Cypriots such as that at Limassol,
  • if the Greeks and Greek Cypriots did not attack the Turkish Cypriot quarter of Limassol with tanks,
  • if the Turkish Cypriot quarter of Nicosia had not been slaughtered, with sights too frightful to be described in print by British reporters and authorities,
  • if there were not many more massacres in countless more villages or quarters,
  • if all casualties were caused by fighting between armed men of both sides,
  • if many Turkish Cypriot people were not brutally attacked and murdered in their suburban homes, including the wife and children of a doctor-allegedly by a group of 40 men,
  • if the Turkish Cypriots didn't fight back as best they could and if their killing of some Greek and Greek Cypriot militia can be comparable,
  • if there were massacres of Greek Cypriot civilians,
  • if the Greeks didn't burn Turkish mosques and round Turkish Cypriots into buildings and set fire to Turkish homes in the villages around Famagusta,
  • if the Greek's didn't force defenseless Turkish villagers with or without weapons to live in an atmosphere of terror and forcing them to evacuate their homes and go and live in tents in the forest,
  • if the Greeks did not say that they had been given orders to kill the inhabitants of the Turkish villages before the Turkish forces arrived,
  • if the Greeks' actions are not a shame to humanity,
  • if the Greek Cypriot people will not continue their national cause and try to shape their future in accordance with THEIR will,
  • if Turkey's actions during 14th–16th August 1974 or the subsequent partition and occupation warrant referring to the entire intervention/peace operation launched on 20th July 1974 (following the Cypriot coup d'état on 15th July 1974) as an invasion,
  • AND if NONE of the above warranted Turkey's intervention, or the cause for protecting the Turkish Cypriot diaspora from utter destruction and premeditated genocide at the hands of the Greeks and Greek Cypriots, or if referring to Turkey's intervention as an "invasion" is warranted or acceptable... then I sir am a monkey's uncle. Nargothronde (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Look, I'm not going to argue with your wall of text or your huge list of bullet points. In fact I haven't read them - make your case concisely if you expect to be read. I am opposed to your proposed rename. It is a POV proposal, whatever you say it is. This is not the place to rehash the politics and the history. MrDemeanour (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
It is as concise and informative as it can be. I can only suggest you read what I've written before making assumptions. Nargothronde (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Apart from the WP:TLDR issues, the current title was confirmed through a formal requested move discussion a few years ago. Therefore you will have to make your proposal formally as a WP:RM. Before you do that, be sure to read WP:COMMONNAME, which surely will be used as a main argument in the discussion. --T*U (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Having spent some time in Cyprus, on both sides of the border, I find the versions of events told by both side to be grossly different. Whilst there is some truth in both sides' portrayal of events, perhaps more significant is what both sides leave out. Greeks tell of an unprovoked attack by Turkey, expulsion of Greek Cypriots from the north, looting and destruction of churches in the North etc. The Turkish story is pretty well summed up above. This article includes the event one side or the other try to exclude and therefor is NPOV.
Picking out a couple of points from the original post. The Council of Europe support was for the initial, very limited, intervention by Turkey. The 2nd, larger, action was condemned. Intervention under the Treaty of Guarantee is limited to restoring the status quo as of 1960, ie a united Cyprus, not dividing the island.
Operation Attila was drawn up around the time of independence to force the wishes of the minority Turkish Cypriots for two separate nations on the island. It was not a peace keeping operation.
I would have had sympathy for an article name change if the Turkish action was limited to protection of Turkish Cypriots, as in the first action. Only Turkey recognises the TRNC, the rest of the work sees it as an illegal occupation. As such the article title is valid. --John B123 (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

POV pushing found

"In July 1974, Turkish forces invaded and captured 3% of the island before a ceasefire was declared. The Greek military junta collapsed and was replaced by a democratic government. In August 1974 another Turkish invasion resulted in the capture of approximately 40% of the island. The ceasefire line from August 1974 became the United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus and is commonly referred to as the Green Line"

This paragraph follows the Greek Cypriot official discourse on the subject, which has the effect of contributing to a Greek Cypriot master narrative that the Cyprus problem started in 1974 with the Turkish invasion, although the latter Turkish invasion (14th–16th August 1974, not 20th-23rd July 1974) was prompted by the Greek & Greek Cypriot refusal of Turkey's ultimatum to respect the island's independence etc. This also has the effect of pushing a pro-Greek Cypriot & anti-Turkish Cypriot POV on this issue.

I changed this to:

"On 20th July 1974, Turkish forces intervened and captured 3% of the island before a ceasefire was declared on 23rd July 1974. Inter-communal violence and Greek interference still continued until in August 1974, prompted by the Greek and Greek Cypriot refusal to accept Turkey's ultimatum that Greece should dismiss Sampson, withdraw all Greek officers from the island and respect the island's independence, and to stop the inter-communal violence, citing the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, an invasion by Turkey resulted in the capture of approximately 40% of the island. This operation lasted from 14th to 16th August. The ceasefire line from August 1974 became the United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus and is commonly referred to as the Green Line."

to provide a balanced and neutral tone, but one Dr.K. reverted my edit without citing a cause. He seems to be unusually fond of reverting my edits to obvious/subtle pro-Greek Cypriot or anti-Turkish Cypriot POVs, so I posted the following message on his/her talk page to try and engage with him/her:

"Dear Dr.K., please stop reverting my edits on pages regarding Cyprus without citing credible cause. If you have any issues with my edits, please communicate them with me in a civil fashion. Please also provide credibility in your arguments. Otherwise, I'll have to directly challenge your gatekeeping of pro-Greek Cypriot POV pushing and anti-Turkish Cypriot POV pushing and selective disinformation in the various Wikipedia articles. Also, if I'm going about this in the wrong way or I'm making any mistakes as far as the Wikipedia Community Guidelines etc are concerned, please let me know. Regards, Nargothronde (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)"

He seems to be unusually focused on reverting my edits without giving any credible cause or explanation, but feels welcome to accompany them with crude assumptions and hostile rhetoric on certain Talk pages, or to respond to the reasons for my edits or attempts at correspondence with: "... you seem fixated on me... Many other users are reverting you for your POV-pushing... stop your POV-pushing and don't come to my talk again... go to the article talk instead..." followed by an attempt to put me in an "Edit-warring" trap.

Does anyone have any suggestions regarding this paragraph or my amendment to it?

I'm standing by my assessment that it is very strongly and very clearly POV pushing. It needs to be changed.

If I receive no correspondence on this issue then I will take it as good faith to replace the POV pushing text again with my own neutral (at least, I think it's neutral... feel free to give me suggestions) alternative.

Regards, Nargothronde (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. The paragraph is shifting the focus too much on the Greek Cypriot official discourse; it's discounting the logic between the July and August operations, and its also painting a picture of two consecutive and unprovoked invasions. It also doesn't explain the logic between the July/August invasion and the collapse of the Greek military junta being replaced by a democratic government, or of the Greek military junta's involvement, or of the Greek Cypriot government's relevance/effect/response to any of this, which would benefit from being explained. Because of that middle sentence it just focuses on the Greek Cypriot POV of the invasion and misleads the focus of it. If it said: "In July 1974, Turkish forces invaded and captured 3% of the island before a ceasefire was declared. In August 1974, following A, B & C, another Turkish invasion resulted in the capture of approximately 40% of the island." that would already be fine, but it's adding obscure messages in there with that middle sentence. If that middle sentence is to stay, then things need to be explained to prevent it being used to obscure the entire paragraph in a pro-Greek Cypriot POV Nargothronde (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This shouldn't be pushing any POV. It should be 100% neutral and based on actual events, not opinions, and the facts shouldn't be sidelined by little tricks like this. It's political expediency. It's just wrong. Nargothronde (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This is completely open to suggestion, as it seems to only be me at the moment who is actively discussing this issue, though it would be better if more people gave different ideas! I think if we edit it to something more along the lines of: "In July 1974, Turkish forces invaded and captured 3% of the island before a ceasefire was declared. In August 1974, another Turkish invasion resulted in the capture of approximately 40% of the island. The effect of these operations was the collapse of the Greek military junta and its being replaced by a democratic government, and the creation of the ceasefire line from August 1974, which became the United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus and is commonly referred to as the Green Line." this might be a better alternative? I'm pretty confident that there can be no POV issues with this. It's just saying things as they happened, it fixes that logic gap that I mentioned, AND it isn't giving off little hints about what it might/should/could mean. Any ideas? Nargothronde (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any POV in the original version either. What you are proposing is also needlessly verbose. Khirurg (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I had to revert: [1] these changes, which may mislead the readers that the Junta hasn't fallen and thus, the 2nd invasion was as "legitimate" on the same grounds the Turkish side initiated the 1st invasion, which is totally problematic and cannot stay as such. Either improvements are made and consensus is reached first before the attempted changes are reinstated into the article. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 11:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not anti-T/C POV to have events in chronological order. The Greek military junta fell between the two waves and it is very important that that is clear. It is actually incorrect to say "The effect of these operations was the collapse of the Greek military junta", it was the effect of the first operation only. We also should probably be mentioning the talks that took place between the fall of the Greek junta and the second wave in the lead. --GGT (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I see nothing POV about the current wording, the changed wording (since reverted) was factually inaccurate. --John B123 (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Khirurg I stand by my assertions that is POV pushing. Refer to my explanations for reference as to why. Do you have any suggestions as to how we can make this better?Nargothronde (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 1) background of the military junta and its fall may be included, but there is nothing linking that logic in the current form, hence making it as irrelevant as it is pushing a pro-Greek Cypriot account of how events unfolded, without taking into account a factual and neutral account of the events, as I've described above. 2) no, it does not legitimise the 2nd invasion; there is nothing in the language to suggest that it was legitimate or not, whether you decide to include information about the fall of the junta or not, AND if information about the junta is included, why not an explanation of how it fell at the end of the first Turkish operation, on 24th July 1974, under the pressure of the Turkish operation, OR information about the causes of the second wave, namely, the Greek and Greek Cypriot failure to comply with an ultimatum by Turkey? That's not putting any POV or opinion, just a factual account of what exactly happened and when... but if the junta part is so important to include without any explanation or logic to link it to the paragraph, then maybe someone with a pro-Turkish Cypriot POV could be well inclined to follow suit and add a "the Greek and Greek Cypriot's failed to comply with an ultimatum by Turkey" out of nowhere, just like the junta part, plain and out of nowhere, just sitting there plopped in the middle of two events without any explanation. I'm sure that would sit well. If this is not POV pushing, then I will formally proclaim on my User page that I am a monkey's uncle. 3) I started this talk with the purpose of finding a new consensus, on the grounds that I mentioned above; I stand by my assertions that this is strong pro-Greek Cypriot & anti-Turkish Cypriot POV pushing. I can also see pro-Greek Cypriot and anti-Turkish Cypriot POV pushing in your language. Nargothronde (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
GGT That was a mistake on my part. I'm often editing lots of confusing and strangely worded pieces like this, much of it as misleading, so sometimes things slip me by. Perhaps as you said we should say more of the events in order, perhaps: 1) Atilla 1.; 2) Collapse of junta.; 3) talks between the fall of the Greek junta and Atilla 2.; 4) Atilla 2.; 5) between halt of Turkish advancement and forming of the Green line.; 6)Aftermath. ?????????????? I still stand by my assertions that including that part about the junta is as irrelevant as it is POV pushing, unless it is accompanied by a clear and neutral logic to the order of events, as well as the other important events. Nargothronde (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
John B123 Thanks for pointing this out, like GGT, I think the main issue is I accidentally said in a previous edit that the military junta fell as a result of both waves, when in fact it was the effect of the first. Also, I think a clearer account of the events needs to be there, and most importantly, they need to be relevant and logically connected NOT just by popular opinion but by actual factual account. Otherwise, on the latest revision I've made, I don't see anything irrelevant or misleading, POV pushing, or uncivil about it. I do however stand by my assertion that that sentence regarding the junta has obviously been strategically placed to present a pro-Greek Cypriot / anti-Turkish Cypriot POV, which as I've explained above, falls into the official Greek Cypriot narrative but does not follow a factual lead of the events. Do you have any other suggestions about how we can make this better? Nargothronde (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

"as Turkey took military action on the pretext of a peacekeeping operation"

The final sentence of lede is wrong. Should we accept the GC version of pretext, the sentence must be "as Turkey took military action on the pretext of protecting the TC community". The pretext was not the peacekeeping operation. The result was the invasion characterized by Turkey as peacekeeping. Whether was it a pretext or not, that is a matter of an endless debate the answer I do not know, and there is no consensus among GCs, TC or scholars that I know of. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Cinadon36 that this could be another example of misleading information regarding Cyprus. I suggest this be changed to "Turkey took military action" and leave it at that, as referring to it as the Cyprus Peace Operation / Turkish Intervention in Cyprus / Turkish invasion of Cyprus etc is just adding an unnecessary extra name for the operation. OR, if we want to explain WHY Turkey took said military action, this part can be changed to account for Turkey's claim which was based on the Treaty of Guarantee, which was used to justify what it did, NOT as a pretext.... and that can be compared to the different operations of 20th-23rd July & 14th-16th August 1974 etc for a bit of robustness. Any who, that's my suggestion. Nargothronde (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
As the question of what triggered Turkey to invade the island is not discussed in the article, I would prefer to remove the phrase "on the pretext of a peacekeeping operation". But the question should be addressed in the main body of the article. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I am still not sure why there is a claim of "pretext" in the article. Turkish Republic did not have a need for a pretext. Treaties signed by Greece, UK and Turkey clearly gave the authority and responsibility to all parties to uphold the constitutional order and maintain security in Cyprus, by force if necessary. This is clear and unambiguous, not a matter of opinion or dispute. So why is this "pretext" idea pushed here and defended? Turkish intervention was in compliance with the international law.
  • As Cinadon36 rightly pointed out, this is a matter of controversy. The pretext argument is the Greek Cypriot version of things and is almost as POV as saying that it was a humanitarian intervention. Cherry picking a couple of sources by searching something along the lines of "Cyprus 1974 Turkey pretext" on Google Books will give one some RS to support it but it simply does not reflect the overall literature out there. Some of the foremost experts on the Cyprus problem, such as James Ker-Lindsay and Heinz Richter have not taken up this argument. --GGT (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. There is no endless arguments or controversy about the legality of Turkish intervention in 1974. It was not a "peace operation", not a "humanitarian operation" and neither was it an "invasion". More than half of the Island is in Greek hands. TC has no claims on any part of the island. It was certainly motivated by humanitarian concerns as well as geopolitical ones, but technically Turkish Republic did nothing more than exercising its legal obligation. How is it a pretext? Why include such wording right in the lede at all? In addition to the wrong and misleading title - which is really controversial? All seems to serve a very particular point of view. Needs to be addressed.
Section 4 of the Treaty of Guarantee allows guarantor nations "to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty", ie as per 1960 - a single nation. It does not give any legality to an action to divide the island, which was the object of Operation Attilla. Further, Section 5 of the Treaty requires the treaty to be registered with the UN under Article 102 of the UN Charter. Once registered with the UN, a UN resolution is required before action can be taken under the treaty. --John B123 (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
"to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty" exactly... there was and is a legal framework for Turkish actions. In fact, same reason existed long before 1974 according to Turkish view, pressure from USA and others prevented Turks from acting earlier. What the treaty means exactly, what is the form of action to be taken etc. is parsed and interpreted of course and no surprise, differently by different parties as you have done above, but main point is there was a legal basis for action and there was no pretext and no full invasion. You have made that clear also. I suggest finding less "weasel" and more accurate wording. Open to suggestions. Murat (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
There was no legal basis for the invasion as previously explained. Even the Turkish Government doesn't claim that, see Cyprus (Historical Overview) --John B123 (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It is not upon us to decide whether the invasion was legal/pretext/peacekeeping operation/alieninvasion or whatsoever. It is up to us to summarize what reliable sources are saying. There is no board consensus that it was a pretext, so WP:VOICE should not suggest something like that. Plus, in the lede, we summarize the main body of the article. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
"Pretext" is widely used by the sources. Khirurg (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, if you want to pick and choose only the sources that use "pretext". --GGT (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Is the Greek invasion of Turkey related?

Why does searching Greek invasion of Turkey and Greek invasion of Cyprus suggest this page? The latter may be related as a cited cause, but is the former even related at all?

See: [2] and [3] Nargothronde (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I take it that this may be another attempt at pointing out possible discrepancies (like you explained here). It is, however, much simpler: It is just a matter of how a search engine works. The search string Greek invasion of Turkey makes a search for articles containing the words Greek, invasion and Turkey (common words like of will often be ignored), giving priority to results where the words appear close to eachother in the text. If you want to search for an exact phrase containing more than one word, you put them between quote marks like this: "Greek invasion of Turkey". See [4] --T*U (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus/Archive_7&oldid=889337820"