Jump to content

Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Archive 9

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

Change the name

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 09:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


Turkish invasion of Cyprus → Turkish intervention in Cyprus – This name is exactly what a Greek would want but a Turk would not. Although Wikipedia has assured that it will not take side between these two nations, this article contains relative expressions.

My suggestion is that the name of the article to be changed to "Turkish Intervention of Cyprus" or "Operation of Cyprus" immediately.

Putting all this aside, I think there was no other way of stopping the suffering of the Cypriots, I am sure that most Turks or anyone with conscience will approve this. İsmail Kendir (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

In Islamic World, the common name is Peace Operation of Cyprus. But it isn't out of that. So that means I demand to write a neutral title as such I give example. Also, I had already admitted that what I wrote in the last paragraph was my opinion. İsmail Kendir (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Article titles are not required to be neutral, so long as they represent a common name among English sources. See WP:POVTITLE. CMD (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@İsmail Kendir: This has been discussed many times before. Please look through the archives. The concensus on each occasion was that the article title should remain as Turkish invasion of Cyprus. --John B123 (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: @Shadow4dark and John B123:, what User:İsmail Kendir has claimed about "In Islamic World, the common name is Peace Operation of Cyprus" is not true. If by saying "Islamic world" they are talking about the Middle East, the heartland of the Muslim world, then that it is to look at how Egypt, Saudi Arabia and perhaps Iran too, (the 3 largest powers of the Muslim world) view the 1974 events. All these countries consider/call them "Invasion of Cyprus", just like how the rest of the world does anyways. This is attested with a simple Google search and even a visit to the Arab and Iranian Wikis, where the event is known either as "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus" or "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus". ( الغزو التركى لقبرص, تجاوز نظامی ترکیه به قبرس) and so on. Its important that there is no doubt cast on the fact that *only* the Turkey's ruling elite and conservative majority have a different opinion. The Turkish opposition, including Kurds, Alevis, Christians and leftist Turks, share the same views as the rest of the World that the 1974 events constituted an invasion and occupation. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Except Barbarossa was also an actual invasion (of the Soviet Union, not Russia, but nevermind). Your proposed titles would instead be something like calling it "Liberation of USSR from Communism" (obviously a bad non-neutral title...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
We should find alternative name than this it's too far one sided Cengizsogutlu (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME (this appears to be the commonname for this); NOTCENSORED (The purpose of WP is not to whitewash events that are politically uncomfortable); NPOV (terming this an invasion seems to be the consensus of independent sources) and per the well established prior discussions on this. Relitigating this again and again is just unnecessary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The current title is what the event is known to by the world except Turkey and TRNC, not just by Greeks. To change it to something that the Turks prefer to call it would not be any more neutral than changing Invasion of Poland to German Intervention in Poland. Suggest we also include in this discussion tagging the article with {{NPOV-title}} by those who want to change the title. --John B123 (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
    Best to leave editor conduct out of it. Though I would have removed the tag anyway (with or without bothering to make it into a properly formatted RM) because it's just a blatant misuse of the template as a badge of shame. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
    Let's go to Germany and catch couple of Germans to ask if the Invasion of Poland was an invasion, even they will admit that this is an infestation. But the same is not true for the Cyprus Operation. Generally, the Turks takes this as a legitimate intervention. Even if the rest of the world supports Greeks, does that mean Wikipedia will support them too? If there are two opposite points of view, and if one of them is supported only by thousand people, would that justify your ignoring that point of view? No, it would not. Sorry. İsmail Kendir (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    Or to put it another way, you want to ignore the majority view and give precedence of the Turkish view. As per WP:DUE, the Turkish viewpoint is brought out in the article. --John B123 (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    I'll simplify as much as I can to explain what would happen if you do what i say:
Turkish Boyz: This is a justified intervention.
Greeks: No, this is an invasion!
Wikipedia: What about calling it Turkish operation of Cyprus?
Turks & Greekos: Looks like OK, we both agree on that. İsmail Kendir (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Except "operation of" is ungrammatical. And no, WP:NPOV does not require titles which satisfy everybody; it requires titles which are consistent with reliable independent secondary sources. So not the Turks, not the Greeks, but academic scholarship. Stuff such as this ("A Greek-sponsored coup on the island led to a Turkish invasion"); this ("Since independence in 1960, the Greek and Turkish Cypriots have been in conflict, culminating in the arrival of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in 1964 and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974.") and this ("full-scale military intervention"; "occupied the island") seem to clearly speak of a clear military effort, many using the exact term "invasion". That Turks want to call it a "peace-keeping operation" (same as the Afghanistan peace-keeping operation...) is entirely irrelevant to us. Cyprus crisis could be an option, but that already refers to the whole, long historical situation behind this and picking this incident in particular would be ambiguous as it is not the only "Cyprus crisis"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per RandomCanadian rationale. Macedonian (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per John B123. The editor John B123 explained it very well that Wikipedia isn't determined by minority views, but as an encyclopedia reflects on neutrality and the majority view. And that is, 99% of Earth sees the 1974 invasion, capture and subsequent ethnic cleansing of the island as such: an Invasion, not intervention. Only 1% of the whole world, or 1 of the 200 UN members, that is Turkey, sees it as intervention. Really, do we have to open new RfCs about the title every time? Isn't just one RfC more than enough? Edit: It is wrong of me to say that "Turkey" sees the events as an intervention, because that's only partially true; in fact, the Turkish opposition in the country, especially the intellectuals, the Alevis, the leftists and the Kurds, who constitute at least 20% of the country's population, agree with the rest of the world, in that the events constituted invasion. So, if we want really to speak about facts here, then we have to consider that even the Turkish citizens among themselves disagree with the official governmental propaganda of calling the events an "intervention". --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    In Turkish Wikipedia, The title of the article should be mentioned by the commonly used name, right? However, due to the neutral point of view, it is not called the "Cyprus Peace Operation", but the Cyprus Operation, however, yes, this is more neutral. Since English Wikipedia has a common but biased name for it, why is the same not true for Turkish Wikipedia? Or the exact opposite, why there is no neutral naming non-existent in English Wikipedia unlike the Turkish Wikipedia? İsmail Kendir (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    Turkish Wikipedia is a prime example of WP:OSE; and your comment seems to be based on a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV (because you think the term "invasion" is used only by Greeks - that's not the case). See WP:FALSEBALANCE for why we don't need to present "both sides" and WP:POVNAMING for why titles do not need to be entirely neutral. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the relevant points presented above by fellow editors. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment::RfCs with the same question were made repeatedly in the recent past (they can be accessed at Archives) and I feel it is not appropriate to ignore what the consensus was concluded in every one of them. Opening more RfCs on the same subject everytime gives the impression that certain editors have difficult time coping with the results of past RfCs due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I am sorry for that, I understand their feelings but Wikipedia doesn't work like that; we ain't supposed to open RfCs again and again on the same subject like that. I suggest that this RfC is closed down and that the community's consensus which was voiced already repeatedly, loudly and clearly on the matter, is respected finally. I suggest we leave a notification on the top of the talk page reminding the editors that RfCs about this question were already concluded in favor of the title being "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus". --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@SilentResident: Note that I just procedurally converted this into an RM since that it is what it de facto was (and then proceeded to !vote against...). My rationale was that a more formal discussion tends to keep the disruption off for longer. I'd have no opposition to "solving it once and for all" by putting a banner on top of the talk page or something once this inevitably gets closed against the proposal. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: You are welcome. As for the notification on top of Talk Page, I believe it is more practical, as it will be visible at all times, while the present discussion will be burried over time and get archived like many other discussions before it. And pro-PageMove editors most likely wont even bother looking at the archives before opening more RfCs on the matter in the future. I am sorry if I sound as if I am trying to discourage any discussions and RfCs here, just it is that there are way too many discussions/RfCs on the matter by these editors while nothing has changed outside of Wikipedia that would justify recycling this old debate.
1) Considering that all the countries of the world except the invader, (including all 200 UN members except the invader), have called, are calling, and will still be calling the 1974 events an Invasion, 2) considering that the absolute majority of the world's scholars and academics (more than 95%, statistically speaking, if we want to include historians, legal experts, and such) are calling it an invasion, both in a political and legal context, 3) considering that the WP:COMMONNAME in search results around the web is "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus" and Wikipedia usually follows the academic consensus and majority view on matters concerning historical events, its not productive and useful for us here to sink ourselves into the same old debates which have already concluded in favor of keeping the current name for article title. I understand that our pro-page move friends feel that describing the events as an Invasion, is unfair for Turkey and are trying to change this, but they have to remember that we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and there is nothing more unfair than turning a blind eye to the reality by unconditionally backing and promoting the Turkish Government's unfair and biased narrative about these events. Thats all. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

It is essential to rename matter in an unbiased way, to get rid of the narrative influenced by the Greeks' point of view.

If you worry about that people wouldn't find the new page we'll make, it still isn't an excuse to stay in this title.

Just a redirect from Turkish Invasion of Cyprus page onto Cyprus Operation page, which I recommend to be established, would easily fix problem. İsmail Kendir (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, yes, secondary sources are what we should base ourselves on. See WP:RS, "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."; and WP:SOURCETYPES "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Also repeating myself from above, your argument is based on a fundamental misconception, that the term "invasion" is used only by the Greeks, which is not the case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The word Turkish must be removed then chek pages such as Invasion of England for ex. The page name is not Nordic invasion of England. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Did you even look at Invasion of England? There's DOZENS of them. And many are referred to as the "___________ invasion of England". And I fail to see what you are objecting to. It was Turkish armed forces that entered Cyprus, was it not? "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is a completely neutral descriptive phrase that tells us that troops from Turkey entered Cyprus. Unless that is not a factual description of what happened, then you have no grounds to complain.--Khajidha (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Also It's not all about invasion operation. There was Para and Amphibious landing to help Turkish resistance organization TMT cantons in Gönyeli etc. Second operation was done to connect Famagusta with Erenköy to make safezones for population exchange. Two different operations, one to land, the second to connect two strategic TMT cantons two weeks after the ceasefire. In short, it is wrong to say only invasion, if you have troops there( Türkish base since 60s (as guarantor country barrack), you do not invade the area but do a rescue & connect Turkish resistance militia surrounded by pro EOKA B coup troops (5 day's before landing there was EOKA B COUP ON 15 JULY). In the eyes of the other party, this is seen as an invasion, which according to the encyclopedia absolutely ONE sided view. That's why an alternative name must be found. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Ummmm... how would para and amphibious landings not be part of the invasion? That's still outside forces entering Cyprus. That's still invasion. --Khajidha (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Turkey does not invaded Cyprus directly, the Greek junta sponsored EOKA-B coup caused conflict among the Pro Greece Cypriots & Greek army officiers vs Cypriot national guards. Several Cypriot generals arested & killed on 15 july 1974 by Pro Greece EOKA B militants, Cypriot leader Makarios seek refuge to Malta and Nikos Sampson take power which is EOKA B leader wants to sew island to Greece with ENOSIS plans. What Turks call this as Peace operation , reason to call this military movement as Peace to down the EOKA B militants from the cypriot national guard HQ. Turkish army, land with para's on the island in Turkish bases which is since 60s actieve on Cyprus as guarantor and observer unit & Also to help surrounded TMT cantons. Although Nikos Sampson, removed from HQ after the first operation, Turkish Cypriots and Turkey's demands was not fully accepted, the second operation was carried out for the population exchange on the island. This is not an invasion in the full sense, it is a demographic change operation on the island in order to stop the clashes that have been taking place since the 1950s( btw it is effective since than It has been nearly 50 years, no conflict ever happened on the island) with the dismissal of EOKA militants who made the coup in Cyprus also Turkey secured Cypriot independency in this way. For example, if there was a coup in Belgium(for ex), if the Pro Netherlands Flemish milita and Dutch officiers completely seizes the Belgian administration and army of the Belgium, Killing few Belgian generals & soldiers arresting the rest. If they select someone who has been oppressing and torturing the Walloons as their leaders, to sew Flanders to Netherlands & If France entered the country By Walon invitation via Walonia against the Flemish putschists to save the French (Walon) in Belgium, would it be an invasion? Cengizsogutlu (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Your comment could use 1) some copyediting (paragraph breaks, grammar, etc.) to make it more comprehensible 2) more listening to what's been told to you and 3) less WP:OR RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Nevermind the above WP:OR, the comment by Cengiz still sticks to the view that the term "invasion" is used only by Greeks (wrong), and then uses this to advocate for WP:FALSEBALANCE (also wrong). I suggest they better spend their time trying to look for acceptable, academic sources (such as what I found) and see how they describe this. Failing that they should recognise they've got it wrong. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not only the Greek point of view, it's UN's point of view too. An operation that caused serious military and civilian losses (+damage) can not be considered "Peace operation" or whatever Turkish propaganda says. Historyandsciencelearn (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2021

It was not a “invasion” it was an intervention by Turkey. This is an ongoing fake narrative. Please change the wording “invasion”. 213.205.240.174 (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Undue in first paragraph

My point in removing the Turkish "peace operation" translation is that it is WP:UNDUE in the first line of the lead as it introduces a POV, whereas lower in the lead it is fully explained that it is an alternate term limited to Turkish speakers. I find it painfully wrong to POV-push an almost fringe partisan term of a "peace operation" against the near global consensus that it was and still is an occupation. To note that the explained version in the last paragraph is to remain and we are not fully removing it. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC) I also requested a 3O 12:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Whilst I agree "peace operation" is a minority term/view, the disputed content is part of the native names of the article. As Greek and Turkish are both official languages in Cyprus, its inclusion is justified. --John B123 (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
it is still included lower down in the lead where it's better explained. - Kevo327 (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kevo327: there had been previous discussions about Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch. Because the names were well established, it wasn't removed. It's also funny because you've been editing at Battle of Shusha (1992) and not even trying to remove the propaganda name "Operation Wedding in the Mountains" from bold, which isn't even used single times in any source when I search on google books, while "Cyprus peace operation" is even used by a Greek author nothing it's an official name in Turkey.[1] You agree or not with the term is another issue. Beshogur (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Beshogur:, besides from WP:OTHERSTUFF and you not having any argument, I repeatedly mentioned that we are only removing the name from the first line of the lead and not removing it completely. I repeat for clarity, We are not removing the Turkish name completely. - Kevo327 (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kevo327: well don't get me wrong but I expect deference to all articles. Beshogur (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I just find it illogical that a foreign language name which does not correspond with the article title is given first. It would maybe make more sense to bring the paragraph about naming further up the lead and make it into a coherent English sentence, instead of just appending unexplained translations into the lead. I.e. something like "The Turkish invasion of Cyprus ..... In Turkish, the invasion is known as the "Cyprus Peace Operation" (turkish transliteration here), ..." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: the "foreign language" is an official language in Cyprus. Also, even the Greek wiki uses the Turkish name in lead. This is a 50 years old name. It's actually POV pushing to remove a well established name. And why should we use "The Turkish invasion of Cyprus ..... In Turkish" ("Türkiye'nin Kıbrıs'ı işgali") that isn't even a proper term in Turkey. Beshogur (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
"Foreign language" here was clearly used in the sense "not English". What I was proposing was something like "The Turkish invasion of Cyprus[27] (Greek: Τουρκική εισβολή στην Κύπρο, romanized: Tourkikí eisvolí stin Kýpro), code-named by Turkey as Operation Atilla,[28][29] (Turkish: Atilla Harekâtı)[a] was launched on 20 July 1974, following the Cypriot coup d'état on 15 July 1974.[30]"
  1. ^ Among Turkish speakers the operation is also referred as "Cyprus Peace Operation" (Kıbrıs Barış Harekâtı) or "Operation Peace" (Barış Harekâtı) or "Cyprus Operation" (Kıbrıs Harekâtı), as they claim that Turkey's military action constituted a peacekeeping operation.[46][47][48][49]
I.e. putting the explanation directly in the beginning (via {{efn}} to avoid any undue attention on the turkish names) instead of putting it at the bottom of the lead. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: I could also agree on a note tag. However I think Kevo327's edit wasn't in good faith considering he has been editing in articles with similar fancy titles. Beshogur (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:ABF is a humour page, and really you should rather always follow WP:AGF unless you're at least 95% sure you're dealing with an obvious block-evading editor (in which case this talk page would be the wrong place to discuss it). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
i agree that an efn is also a possible solution to the issue if the Turkish name is deemed necessary for the first line. - Kevo327 (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The inclusion in the first line is purely a language note and validity is not a consideration here. Although it is viewed as a propaganda term, it is what it is called in Turkish. The Greek and Turkish versions of the name need to be treated equally. Either they should both be in the lead, or they should both be as an {{efn}}. --John B123 (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Isn't the official Turkish name already given ("code-named by Turkey as Operation Atilla"), in bold characters, right after the Greek one? The same way there is no Greek transliteration of the Turkish name, there's no need to have a Turkish transliteration which is not even a match for the given title. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Well I'm not pretty sure about that. Some say it's the code-name by TSK itself but some Turkish sources claim it's name given by Greeks. Thee United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus is nowadays called Attila Line for some reason. Nowadays Turkish government and TC governments are using the name "peace operation". Beshogur (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, whatever the correct Turkish name may be, I see no justification to keep a non-translation of the article title in the opening parenthesis. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Operation Atilla is the codename of the military operation, in the same way as Operation Neptune was the code name of the Normandy Landings. Most people know of the Normandy Landings, not so many would know what Operation Neptune refers to. The same is true for Peace Operation and Operation Atilla. There's a difference between the common name and military name. --John B123 (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't change the fact that neither of "Kıbrıs Barış Harekâtı" or "Atilla Harekâtı" is a Turkish translation of "Turkish invasion of Cyprus"; and shouldn't be presented to the reader as such, as that would be misleading, and not helpful (translations are useful if they are likely to appear in sources - since the literal Turkish translation of "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is unlikely to appear in sources [because it is not a term used in Turkish to refer to this], then there's no reason to include it there, the same way there is no Greek translation of "Peace Operation" because that is unlikely to appear in sources). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Please wait until this discussion is complete before making premature changes to the page. This was put for 3O earlier today so you need to give time for other editors to add their viewpoints. --John B123 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

3O is not required anymore, as there have already been more then two editors involved (you can effectively consider my opinion as that of a thirdfourth editor, since this dispute was originally between you and Kevo327 - and there was already a third editor involved, Beshogur). Please don't stonewall. If your only objection to this is "give more time", that's not particularly valid: if other editors have an objection, they are free to revert the edit once they notice it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The dispute was between Kevo327 and Beshogur, so you can equally consider my involvement as being that of a third editor. There is a general principle that changes should not be made whilst the matter is being discussed. --John B123 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
There's a more obvious fact that if every time something was discussed, all new edits on the topic were reverted, then nothing would ever get achieved. Go look at WP:BRD, in particular "Two factions are engaged in an edit war and a bold edit is made as a compromise or middle ground." (which is exactly what I tried to do here) or this section (what to do "before reverting")... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
And your proposed change had already been objected to before you made it. --John B123 (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I only see "The Greek and Turkish versions of the name need to be treated equally", which is not particularly convincing, since, as it stands, I don't see a Greek translation of the Turkish, while I see a Turkish non-translation of the COMMONNAME/Greek. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Whether you think Either they should both be in the lead, or they should both be as an efn is convincing or not is irrelevant. The simple fact is that you proposal was objected to. This article has been the subject of much debate over the years with various editors trying to sway it to either toward the Greek or Turkish viewpoints. To remove one side's naming from the first sentence will be seen by some as biased and quite likely to be reverted at some time in the future. The validity of this discussion could also be questioned by those seeking to revert the changes. They may well argue that because of timezone differences they were asleep or at work and were therefore denied a chance to express their opinion during a discussion only lasting a few hours. The discussion needs to last longer so everybody has a chance to express their opinions. --John B123 (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Consensus can change. As for the "bias" stuff, get your facts right: I certainly didn't remove the Turkish name from the lead sentence: I removed the Turkish non-translation of the non-Turkish name. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
How is some people seeing the change as biased not factual? It's inclusion was seen as biased, which was the start of this discussion, equally its removal will be seen as biased by others.--John B123 (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
People seeing the change as biased is people's problem. Wikipedia is written from a mainstream perspective, and yeah, there are a lot of things that are mainstream that will appear biased to some people: not our problem. You still haven't answered: if you insist on including this, why is there also no Greek translation of the Turkish name? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
People seeing things as biased becomes other people's problems when they make changes to correct the perceived bias. Not only does WP need to be written from a mainstream perspective, it needs to be written as a neutral viewpoint between the various different viewpoints. Why would we include a Greek translation of the Turkish, the translations are of the page title. I'll ask again: How is people seeing the change as biased non-factual? --John B123 (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both John B123 and RandomCanadian for giving their respective opinion on how to solve our dispute. @Beshogur: any productive suggestions on how to proceed? Would you agree to have the name in an efn? (as suggested above) - Kevo327 (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you too. Of course. Beshogur (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be clarified that "Cyprus Peace Operation" is the term used by Turkey (the country) regardless of language, which is different from it being the term for the event in the Turkish language. Currently the lead suggests the latter. Lightspecs (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Considering Cyprus Peace Operation links here, I've added in bold. Also you can not simply unbold it because it sounds too fancy. See Operation Iraqi Freedom. Beshogur (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with the whole efn thing, but I do think that the whole subject of terminology is way too complex to be merely handled in a footnote. There is lots written in the literature on this subject (see this work for some interesting insights) and it would probably merit a section on its own in the article. Following that, it could be summarised in the lead with a sentence or two. --GGT (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no Operation Atilla

Related to the subject above, but still a distinct topic (hence the subsection) is the matter of the codename given by the Turkish Armed Forces. Currently, our article says that the operation was codenamed Operation Atilla (Atilla Harekâtı) and supports this with two books, one of which only covers Cyprus rather tangentially. The other book is a good example of a number of books that do mention this codename - it covers the Cyprus problem from a political/legal viewpoint but is not really authoritative on military history.

I sought to verify this purported codename using the works of military historians, who have been working directly on Turkish primary sources. The sources that I have consulted are:

  • Sadrazam, Halil (2013). Kıbrıs'ın Savaş Tarihi III: Birinci Harekât - Temmuz 1974 (in Turkish). Nicosia: Söylem Yayınları. pp. 1065–1070. Sadrazam is a retired colonel in the Security Forces Command, who, after retirement, embraced left-wing politics (he was the Security Advisor of Mustafa Akıncı) and wrote this series of volumes covering the military history of the Cyprus conflict. He consulted a variety of Turkish, Greek and English-language sources in the process and the series is rather well-balanced and quite authoritative as a result. Sadrazam cites the memoirs of Muzaffer Sever (a colonel serving in the Turkish army during the operation) and the original battle plans.
  • Erickson, Edward J.; Uyar, Mesut (2020). Phase Line Atilla: The Amphibious Campaign for Cyprus, 1974 (PDF). Quantico, Virginia: Marine Corps University Press. pp. 63–71. I only discovered this recent publication the other day so haven't read it in its entirety, but it does seem to be the most detailed military history of the operation in English, albeit somewhat slanted towards the Turkish side at places.

These sources both verify that the codename used in the final battle plan for the operation was Yıldız Atma-4. This battle plan included a planned amphibious landing around Kyrenia and then a land invasion until the establishment of the Atilla line, which was initially planned to extend from Larnaca to Syrianochori, but was later revised to exclude Larnaca.

As such, there is no "Operation Atilla". Atilla is the name of the line that the Turkish army was aiming for, but not the codename for the operation. We have been misinforming readers for over a decade and I'll now remove this from the article. The codename is Yıldız Atma-4 but this is a rather obscure fact and would be out of place in the lead. As pointed out above, if there is a Greek name in the lead, there also needs to be a Turkish name for balance. At this point, I think the whole issue regarding naming is too complicated and is better dealt with in the body of the article with a separate section. I therefore propose that we remove all foreign language names from the lead.

--GGT (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Invasion vs Intervention

What is in a name? A lot, maybe not. I know I am late to this interesting discussion but I would like to add a few cents here:

1- "Cyprus Invasion" implies Turkish Army invaded the whole of Cyprus and planted a Turkish flag from one end to another. That is what a neutral reader would think upon reading. Nothing like that happened as we know. Cyprus was not invaded by Turkey and nor incorporated into Turkey. In fact, "(Greek) Cyprus" is a member of EU.

2- Intervention may seem like a more appropriate description when one considers the fact that Turkey (for that matter UK and Greece also) was obliged to intervene once the constitutional system was overthrown and massacres started. That intervention was in fact a legal necessity, an obligation, as per the guarantees given and signed by Turkey, Greece and UK. Calling it an "invasion" seems to totally ignore this fact.

3- Turkish soldiers were stationed in Cyprus permanently already way before 1974. They are there today, maybe more in numbers given the events, at the wish of the TRNC, a democratic state, with an elected government that makes those decisions.

For whatever worth.Murat (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

As per above argument, I would like to slightly modify the last sentence of the opening paragraph:

"Among Turkish speakers the operation is also referred as "Cyprus Peace Operation" (Kıbrıs Barış Harekâtı) or "Operation Peace" (Barış Harekâtı) or "Cyprus Operation" (Kıbrıs Harekâtı), as they claim that Turkey's military action constituted a peacekeeping operation."

This "as they claim" seems to imply a complete lack of any legal framework or rationale for the Turkish intervention. London and Zürich Agreements clearly give responsibilities to all three parties involved in safeguarding the established system. Turkish government at the time has made it clear that they were operating under this framework. I suggest the following:

"Among Turkish speakers the operation is also referred as "Cyprus Peace Operation" (Kıbrıs Barış Harekâtı) or "Operation Peace" (Barış Harekâtı) or "Cyprus Operation" (Kıbrıs Harekâtı), as the position of the Turkish Government at the time was Turkey's military action constituted a peacekeeping operation, in fact an obligation, in accordance with the London and Zürich Agreements."

A reference to this agreement is also lacking in the article.Murat (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Whilst the first limited invasion fell within the treaties and was not condemned by the international community, the second, larger operation did not. One of the fundamental obligations of the treaties was to maintain the status quo of the island. This was clearly not the objective on the second invasion in which the objective was to divide the island per the Turkish proposals prior to independence. To call this a peacekeeping operation is pure propaganda from the Turkish side. --John B123 (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Status quo wasn't perserved because of the occupation. This doesn't mean that the operation on the island is an invasion. It was an intervention if we look at the treaty. If we don't it can still be considered an intervention, see arguments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoapDispenser94 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus/Archive_9&oldid=1070548541"