Talk:Northern Cyprus - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Richwales (talk | contribs) at 06:26, 3 July 2012 (→Requesting expansion/clarification of existing Balkans sanctions to cover Cyprus: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:26, 3 July 2012 by Richwales (talk | contribs) (→Requesting expansion/clarification of existing Balkans sanctions to cover Cyprus: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Northern Cyprus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Template:Misplaced Pages CD selection

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Western Asia

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Turkey High‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cyprus Top‑importance

	Cyprus portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cyprus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cyprus on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyprusWikipedia:WikiProject CyprusTemplate:WikiProject CyprusCypriot
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unrecognized countries (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Unrecognized countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Unrecognized countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Unrecognized countriesTemplate:WikiProject Unrecognized countriesUnrecognized countries

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article may be within the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 15, 2011.

Guidelines for editing the TRNC article

Units in metric should be spelled out with the converted English units abbreviated in parentheses per Manual of Style.
Please use the correct WP:CITE format when adding references. If you are not sure what citation format is appropriate, please see WP:CITE for a list of available citation templates.

Archives

Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new section on THIS page. Baristarim 03:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Archives:

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Merge Turkish Federated State of Cyprus to here

The proposal is to merge the article Turkish Federated State of Cyprus into the article Northern Cyprus, replacing it by a redirect. The current article Turkish Federated State of Cyprus is more like a stub, but giving it more meat will only lead to useless duplication with the Northern Cyprus article. Compare Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is definitely a more important and notable topic than Turkish Federated State of Cyprus, yet is just a redirect to Northern Cyprus. --Lambiam 11:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not so certain. First of all, Northern Cyprus is the short name for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Northern Cyprus = Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Besides, back then, no political entity named "Northern Cyprus" existed. In fact, I personally know from an interview with Rauf Denktaş that I have once seen on TV that when the declaration of the TRNC was first considered, the name "Turkish Republic of Cyprus" was preferred and the name was changed just the day before the declaration. And there is a significant difference between the TFSC and the TRNC, the former sought the reunification of the island, whereas the latter seeks international recognition (even though it continues reunification talks), and as a result, the real "institutionalization" of the state began in 1983. So, I can say that there are some significant differences and it is not in any way comparable with Northern Cyprus and TRNC (as they are the same thing). I think I can add some details about the economy and politics, let's see. --Seksen (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Page A can redirect to page B, while A and B are not the same topic; it can just mean that topic A is dealt with on page B. For example, Cap Carcasse redirects to Hispaniola, and Malia Obama redirects to Family of Barack Obama#Malia and Sasha Obama. "Northern Cyprus" is primarily a geographic designation, which is now used for the KKTC by entities that do not recognize it. It was likewise used before 1983 for the KTFD, for example in a question in the British House of Commons on 28 July 1976, or quite explicitly in this press clipping from The Cincinnati Enquirer of 11 January 1981: 'Northern Cyprus, calling itself the "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus"'. --Lambiam 01:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  - I think that Turkish Federated State of Cyprus could actually do with a lot more on the proclaimed status of the region, reaction of the international community and of Cyprus, border issues at the time, etc. This was a place that still considered itself part of Cyprus after all (legally). I don't think such information would go well on the general Northern Cyprus page. CMD (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Moreover, the correct attitude should be to have 4 articles about Cyprus in Wiki: Cyprus, the Cyprus Question, RoC and TRNC. E4024 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Culture

Are there no Turkish Cypriot users to edit this section? Who will add here film directors like Derviş Zaim, poets like Mehmet Yaşın and all other Turkish Cypriot men and women of arts and culture? Please dont say Be Bold to me, I am bold enough... --E4024 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Seksen, would you be kind enough to check and fix -if necessary- my links/ref for the film Missing Bus. I understand I am too old for these internet gadgets...

--E4024 (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be OK. As a standard, we use the <ref> tags in situations like this, when we cite a source. --Seksen (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent pov edits

It's really sad that the 1974 invasion is presented as a "Northern Cyprus Peace and Freedom Day". Apart from that I see no reason why the neutral description of the event (the one that the international community recognizes as such) should be deleted ]]. Actually the entire article presents dozens of references that prove that the 1974 event are doomed by several UN resollution.Alexikoua (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If Northern Cyprus, which is the subject here, refers it as "Peace and Freedom Day", it must be used as a such (although it could be noted that it is considered as an invasion by the international community), no matter whoever is offended. Why would there be celebrations if it is not a national occasion ("bayram", literally "feast")? And why should we delete the reference to that national occasion? This could even qualify under censorship. --Seksen (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree on that point: In fact the pov claim can stay, only if it is clarified that this is "claimed by the x part as such", but the internationally acceptable term can't be avoided in such an instance. Alexikoua (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I would not object to "celebrated in Northern Cyprus as Peace and Freedom Day". What do you think about the following? "Turkish Stars show performance during the 2011 commemoration of the Turkish invasion which led to the establishment of Northern Cyprus, celebrated in Northern Cyprus as the Peace of Freedom Day." I think this makes it all clear: why there is a show, how the Turkish Cypriots consider it and how the international community considers it. --Seksen (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have an even better idea. Why don't we replace the picture, which doesn't tell the reader anything about NC, with another picture that does? Athenean (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Good idea. But for that we need to find an alternative about the military. --Seksen (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I started uploading some from the Republic Day parade in 2007 here, although I am not quite sure which one is Turkish Cypriot and which one is Turkish, but I think where there is the TRNC flag, there are the Turkish Cypriot troops. This must be less controversial as it commemorates the declaration of the TRNC, and more relevant as it depicts the Turkish Cypriot troops marching in one of the thoroughfares of North Nicosia on a national holiday (these are attended by a large number of civilians, although so are Turkish Stars shows, of course). --Seksen (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture caption

Why are we giving 2 alternative names to the picture of Cape Apostolos Andreas, and why are we redundantly noting it is in Northern Cyprus? Alternative names are meant for articles. They're not going to help the reader understand Northern Cyprus at all. CMD (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's simple. According to the Turkish POV this is a Turkish article so we have to convert all nomenclature to Turkish for political reasons and WP:COMMONNAME be damned. Δρ.Κ. 14:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes,we should give two alternative names to photo of Victory Cape.But,due to the negative and intransigent attitude of the Greeks,happens edit warsWP:EW,unfortunately. English page of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is routinely exploited by political, geographical, and naming polemics.Please,you don't personalize your claims and thoughts.I was wondering something!Why Greeks do not make these contributions in their own language? Also; you must look at:WP:AGF,WP:NPOV Maurice talk 22:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope you are able to read. I said:

According to the Turkish POV this is a Turkish article so we have to convert all nomenclature to Turkish for political reasons and WP:COMMONNAME be damned.

Where do you see any personal comments in that statement?

Meanwhile substantiate your WP:BATTLEGROUND claims that:

But,due to the negative and intransigent attitude of the Greeks,happens edit warsWP:EW,unfortunately. English page of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is routinely exploited by political, geographical, and naming polemics.

or withdraw them.

And I find your question

I was wondering something!Why Greeks do not make these contributions in their own language?

weird. Can you explain what you mean by that statement? Δρ.Κ. 19:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have given a lengthy explanation to the user. However, Dr K., according to another Turkish POV, there is no such stereotype for the Turkish POV, so I do think that your comment does exceed its intended purpose a bit. --Seksen (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Seksen for your intervention. And yes you are right. I should have phrased this statement differently to indicate this type of Turkish POV is only shared by only a few editors and it does not represent the mainstream by any means. But coming from another edit-war which this editor started at List of sovereign states with about five reverts there, I was perhaps too quick to comment as soon as he started another one here. The thing is I did not want to make this comment personal and say: "According to Maurice07's POV blah blah blah...". So I tried generalising it, but I overdid the generalisation. Point granted. Δρ.Κ. 22:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

<Sock posting redacted> Δρ.Κ. 20:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about WP's Sock Policy but I am so sure about the principle "Content not Contributor". The above is a very useful document to understand the recent history of Cyprus and the essence of the Cyprus question. So it should not be deleted for any reason whatsoever and continue to stay in these pages, just as it is... --E4024 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, it should also be added to the article Turkish invasion of Cyprus. --E4024 (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"Cyprus was invaded by Greece" (?)

It's not transparently obvious to me why the addition of this material should be a problem. The statements seem properly attributed to the people who made them, and (presumably acceptable) sources are being provided. I would suggest some minor grammatical and punctuation cleanups — for example, correct English usage would be "Makarios said that Cyprus had been invaded by Greece" — but other than that, the new material doesn't seem to me to be summarily ruled out, either as obvious vandalism or inappropriate POV.

I do see that one of the two editors involved here has accused the other of being a sock, and that a SPI request has been lodged. However, this request is still pending, and until it has been properly decided, I question the appropriateness of summarily reverting edits by the account in question on the grounds of "reverting a sock". I left {{uw-ew}} warnings on the talk pages of both editors involved, and if one or both editors object to my having done this, I suppose we shall simply have to agree to disagree. Regardless of whether sockpuppetry is happening here, I still believe the material in question ought to be evaluated (and either included or not) on its own merits.

FWIW, regardless of what some might believe or claim, I have no connections to Greece, Turkey, or any portion of Cyprus, and it is not my intention here to act as a partisan of either side in this overall dispute. — Rich wales 21:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Everyone please note that Axisperpendicular has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR/EW. — Rich wales 22:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Axisperpendicular is an obvious sock of the banned Justice Forever (talk · contribs), whose latest reincarnation was Reagavarinx (talk · contribs). He can be reverted on sight. Athenean (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Axisperp is a sock perpetrator. Account created 2 days after Reagavarinx got permablocked. He pushes the same OR, PRIMARY edits as Reagavarinx. He fills the talkpage of this article with the same long screeds as Reagavarinx. I give him a sock notice yet he doesn't even bother to reply at the SPI. Richwales gives him a 3RR warning, next thing he does is revert more. I mean this is not about WP:DUCK any more. This is the Revenge of the Ducks. A real Duckmaggedon. Δρ.Κ. 23:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, even the edit-summaries are identical. I mean, I am all for proper procedure, but this couldn't quack any louder. Rich, I disagree that the material should be evaluated on its own merit. It is my understanding that socks of banned users should be reverted on sight so as to impress upon them that any attempts to edit while banned is futile. Considering the merits of their edits will only send the message that socking works and encourage them to sock even more. Not that it matters at this point, but even if we do look at the material he wants to add, it is about as primary as primary sources get (some kind of speech transcript by Makarios), and as such not really suitable as a source. Athenean (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Typical MO of Justice Forever. He specialises in primary sources. Digs up some primary source and tries to advertise it using this article as a platform by incessant edit-warring. As a consequence of his reliance on WP:PRIMARY, Justice Forever's sock edits almost always suffer from WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. I was surprised why Rich did not detect this primary source issue. But from his disclaimer above, I think he thinks I am a "partisan", since I am Greek. So the moral of the story seems to be that no matter how good your record is at detecting socks or how strong the evidence may be that these are indeed socks, as soon as you are identified as a partisan, solely due to your background, socks get the royal treatment and you (I) end up getting those ugly templates. Despite the fact that the edit I was reverting was a bona-fide sock edit, first added by now indeffed sock Reagavarinx: The first and the current presidents of Cyprus (Makarios and Christofias) qualified the action of Greece upon Cyprus as invasion on 19.07.1974 and 27.09.2010 resp and re-added by Axisperpendicular: The First and the Current Presidents of Cyprus (Makarios & Christofias): "Cyprus was invaded by Greece". So even if Axisperp is not a sock, and that's a big if, I was quite justified in reverting an indeffed sock's edit which was restored without explanation. But like I said: If you are identified as a "partisan" no matter how good the evidence you present is, you are simply treated as a pariah by some and without respect you get your talkpage loaded with ugly robot-assisted warnings, while the socks and socks-to-be get the limo treatment. And it is not as if this information about the connection between these two accounts and this edit was a secret; I had already started the new Justice Forever SPI and all the information is there. But somehow all this was ignored. I don't wonder why. Δρ.Κ. 00:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I was not finger-pointing at alleged partisans; I was only saying that I am not one myself. As for usable sources for Makarios's statements to the Security Council on 19 July 1974 (in which he referred to events in Cyprus as an invasion), there appear to be several accounts in respected newspapers of the time. I did a ProQuest search just now and found articles to this effect in the Los Angeles Times (20 July 1974), the Washington Post (20 July 1974), and the Times of India (21 July 1974). I also found a New York Times article (20 July 1974) consisting of lengthy quotes from Makarios's speech (which, depending on one's perspective, could perhaps be seen either as a primary or a secondary source). So if the Makarios "Greek invasion" claim does have a legitimate place in this article, there would seem to be ample WP:RS available to substantiate it. Given that I've made a 3RR/EW block here, I would prefer not to add such material myself, but others can do with these sources whatever they decide makes sense. — Rich wales 00:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The "partisan" issue should have never been raised. This is a simple socking issue. Politicising it doesn't help. As far as debating the merits of the sock edits, this must either be a first or at best a very rare event on Misplaced Pages. I have yet to see another example of an article where the edits of a blocked sock are debated. If years of sock related edit-policies are a guide, this is a rather unusual proposition. Let me put it another way so that I may be better understood: You are proposing a model of editing whereby edits of blocked socks may be repeated by new but as yet unproven socks. Until these new socks get certified and blocked again you propose that their edits, even if identical repeats of a blocked sock's edits, be given legitimacy, never mind the amount of quacking; and you are prepared to suppress good faith editors by templating them into submission so that the socks-to-be be given free reign to wreak havoc until a CU stops them. So let me ask you. Are you proposing this as a general sock policy or only as a socking policy applying to Greek sock-eradicating editors? Also am I alone in thinking that in either case this new proposed policy is not such a good idea? Δρ.Κ. 05:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the general policy question to WT:SPI, and I would propose that serious discussion of this reasonable question should take place there (and hopefully with a broad set of participants, not just you and me). Whatever the policy or its interpretation should be, IMO it should clearly apply across the board, and not solely to editors of one particular origin or viewpoint. — Rich wales 06:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is also very serious. Except if you think templating veteran sockpuppet investigators based on their background, and despite the deafening quacking, is funny. The only funny thing here is the case which prompted all this discussion. A case which cannot be seriously defended as being difficult to determine due to the high-decibel and long-term quacking of Symphonic Choir proportions on this article and its talkpage. You have made an error in judgement but since, based on my background, you have decided that I am a partisan you have treated me abysmally and unapologetically. Just look at the angry bolding mess you left on my talk with your templating, as if I were legally blind and could not read subtler text. You should learn not to treat intelligent editors to such loud text pollution, especially when you were trying to defend such an obvious duck. I am disappointed because I thought you understood the intricacies of subtle communication with intelligent editors in a text-based wiki environment. Instead you chose to hit me with the equivalent of a text-based hammer. I could raise questions concerning your judgement as an admin as related to this topic with its chronic sock problems. But I will not, because you are a relatively new admin and still learning the ropes. I also don't want to further personalise this dispute and besides I will agf that you can learn something out of this and hopefully you will not repeat your mistakes in the future. In closing, take Taivo's advice at the SPI talk. In his very carefully and expertly crafted reply, he very eloquently told you, among other sage things, that adding more regulations in obvious cases like this, could tie the hands of conscientious editors who know what they are doing on the sockpuppet front on a given talkpage such as the present, while empowering the socks who could exploit the additional loopholes. To that I would add to not ever again use the national background of any editor as a determining factor for your actions, especially when you are acting in an admin capacity. Δρ.Κ. 18:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

After further discussion of relevant policies at WP:SPI, I indef-blocked Axisperpendicular earlier today, without waiting for the SPI process to finish. My intent was/is not to short-circuit the SPI, which I hope will continue to completion.

The fact that Justice Forever has been able to continue harassing Misplaced Pages for roughly five years — forcing Dr. K. and others to play a never-ending Whac-A-Mole game against an endless succession of socks — suggests that additional enforcement tools may be needed (and might possibly be helpful). For example, I'm wondering if it may be appropriate here to seek either community- or ArbCom-imposed sanctions, allowing admins to step in and act more quickly and forcefully against disruptive behaviour, whether it's the result of obvious sockpuppetry or not. Has anyone tried to pursue anything of this type; and if so, what happened? Alternatively / additionally, are there any ways that haven't been tried to curb this seemingly endless sock activity, other than by indeffing each sock one at a time? — Rich wales 03:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Can someone please point to a reliable reference of Makarios speech at the UNSC where he said "Cyprus was invaded by Greece" ? Thank you 23x2 _φ 16:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It was reported in several mainstream newspapers on or around 20 July 1974 (the day after the speech). For example:

Los Angeles Times, 7/20/74, p. 4: "Makarios said he was awaiting a reply last weekend from a letter he had written to the Greek junta requesting withdrawal of the officers. 'The reply came; it was the coup,' he said. 'No revolution took place in Cyprus—it was an invasion which violated the internal peace of Cyprus.'"

Washington Post, 7/20/74, p. A6: "The coup, Makarios said, was 'clearly an invasion from outside.'"

The Times of India, 7/21/74, p. 1: "He charged the military regime of Greece with organising the coup against him and called its action a 'clear invasion' of Cyprus."

Additionally, a New York Times story (7/20/74, p. 9) reported lengthy excerpts from Makarios's speech to the UN Security Council on the 19th, in which he said several times that the coup in Cyprus was an invasion for which the Greek military was directly responsible. For what it may or may not be worth, none of these sources report Makarios saying the exact five-word utterance "Cyprus was invaded by Greece", though IMO the meaning of what the man said and meant (as reported by these sources) is pretty clear. — Rich wales 17:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above interpretation by Richwales. --E4024 (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure it is clear, as Makarios in his speech said "military regime in Greece" and "Greek Junta". There is a difference between the military regime / Junta, and the Republic of Greece which was not functioning at the time. All in all Makarios did not say "Cyprus was invaded by Greece" but "an invasion by Junta" two different things, i think. 23x2 _φ 20:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 23x2 that Makarios was being very careful in the way that he worded things so that he did not ever say, "Greece invaded Cyprus". He was careful to talk about junta and officers, etc., not the nation of Greece. --Taivo (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is anyway. I mean, Makarios said something in a speech, so what? He said all kinds of things, are we to turn these articles into speech transcripts? Athenean (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I see two issues here. One is whether the coup that replaced Makarios by Sampson was an internal Cypriot matter, or whether it was engineered by those in power in Greece at the time. The other is whether the Greek military junta was a legitimate government, such that actions by the junta could (or could not) properly be attributed to the country of Greece. Is this what some people are expressing concern about?

Makarios was (IMO) clearly and unambiguously saying that he considered the Cyprus coup to have been organized and carried out by the de facto government of the day in Greece (i.e., the military dictatorship). I don't seriously think that point is in dispute, is it? But are people worried that a statement such as "Greece invaded Cyprus" would imply approval (either by the Greek people, or by people editing this and related articles) of the military dictatorship as the rightful Greek government? I (a native speaker of North American English, FWIW, and not linked in any way to historical events in Greece) don't feel this is a significant hair to split here, but I'm willing to recognize that some other people might feel differently. — Rich wales 21:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It is precisely in articles like this one, where passions on both sides sit right on the surface, where splitting hairs is extremely important. Makarios did not say "Greece invaded Cyprus". Makarios did talk about the Greek junta and Greek officers being involved in the coup to such an extent that it constituted an "invasion" of sorts. That is a significant hair and must be split here to be absolutely accurate and fair to both sides. --Taivo (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Taivo, first, it is not only in the articles but also in United Nations Security Council Official Documents which are located in official web page of United Nations. Hence, you cannot downgrade the value of the data. Second, some makes a difference between "Greece invaded Cyprus" and "Greece's junta invaded Cyprus". This difference also bears nothing: because, 1_at that time, Greece was administered by junta (military dictatorship); also, 2_the legal participations of Greece in international meetings at that time was by that military junta of Greece. None of the other participant countries objected the participation of military dictatorship of Greece with the reason of the type/legality of the administration in Greece. 3_Till now, no decisions have been made by later Greece's authorities to nullify the military dictatorship (junta) of Greece and annihilating the legality of military dictatorship. Waltersamedical (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

23x2, Here are the things you wanted: clear reference to "Cyprus was invaded by Greece": I bolded the expressions you want to see:

SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL RECORDS, 29TH YEAR, 1780TH MEETING, 19 JULY 1974, NEW YORK ( http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/PV.1780(OR)&Lang=E )
Makarios' Speech at the UN SC on 19.07.1974:
8. ...the coup which was organized by the military regime of Greece and was put into effect by the Greek officers
9. ... The military regime of Greece has callously violated the independence of Cyprus. ... Greek junta has extended its dictatorship to Cyprus. ....terrorist organization EOKA-B, directed from Athens...illegal organization had its roots and supply resources in Athens...
11. ...behind that argument, other interests were hidden.
12. ... for while on Monday I was waiting for a reply to my letter the reply came, and it was the coup.
14. ...leave Cyprus rather than fall into the hands of the Greek junta.
16. ...Cyprus crisis caused by the Greek military regime.
18. ...clearly an invasion from outside ...so-called coup was the work of the Greek officers ...
20. ... There is no doubt that the coup was organized by the Greek junta and was carried out by the Greek officers
23. ...It was an invasion which violated the independence and the sovereignty of the Republic. And the invasion is continuing so long as there are Greek officers in Cyprus. ....this invasion...
25. ... instead of helping in the defence of the island’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, they themselves became the aggressors.
31. ... anomalous situation which was created by the coup of Athens.
32. ...do not constitute an internal matter of the Greeks of Cyprus. The Turks of Cyprus are also affected. The coup of the Greek junta is an invasion, and from its consequences the whole people of Cyprus suffers, both Greeks and Turks...call upon the military regime of Greece to withdraw from Cyprus the Greek officers serving in the National Guard, and to put an end to its invasion of Cyprus.
33. ...put an end to the invasion ... Waltersamedical (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Cyprus was invaded by Greece" vs. "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military dictatorship (coup)"

Here, there are two groups:
1_Some argue that "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military dictatorship (junta)" is plausible whereas "Cyprus was invaded by Greece" is false, citing the Greece's nation and Greece's nation's thoughts/wills are totally different from Greece's military dictatorship (junta).
2_The other group: "Cyprus was invaded by Greece" is plausible.

I am of the second group. Here are my arguements:
1. (Richwales's thought; I participate to him as well) Makarios was (IMO) clearly and unambiguously saying that he considered the Cyprus coup to have been organized and carried out by the de facto government of the day in Greece (i.e., the military dictatorship). The difference btw. "Cyprus was invaded by Greece" and "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military dictatorship (junta)" is not significant to split.
2. At that time, Greece was administered by junta (military dictatorship);
3. The legal participations of Greece in international meetings at that time was by that military junta of Greece. None of the other participant countries objected the participation of military dictatorship of Greece with the reason of the type/legality of the administration in Greece.
4. Till now, no decisions have been made by later Greece's authorities to nullify the military dictatorship (junta) of Greece and annihilating the legality of military dictatorship.
5. (MY MOST IMPORTANT REASONING) History registers the actions not the thoughts/wills. Greece's nation's thought about Greece's government handling on Cyprus is a thought/will; Greece's government handling on Cyprus is clearly an action. Makarios does not say that A democratic government in Greece must have invaded Cyprus instead of a military dictatorship (junta)!. What Makarios clarifies is the invasion of Cyprus by Greece. The data of the character of the then-government in Greece is second-degree important compared to the action of the then-Goveernment of Greece on Cyprus.Waltersamedical (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Four comments.

First, I hope you are honestly a new person here. We've had a ridiculously lengthy battle going on against a disruptive editor who has been banned but refuses to leave us alone. Please understand that some people here are (with very good reason) skeptical of (apparently) new editors who turn out to be sockpuppets of that banned disruptive editor. If it does turn out that you are a genuinely new editor, you are welcome here as long as you respect Misplaced Pages's policies, but please be prepared to spend time convincing some extremely wary people (myself amongst them) of your good intentions. Rest assured that if you are in fact a banned sock, you will be indefinitely blocked from editing anywhere in Misplaced Pages; hopefully this tentative possible accusation will turn out to have been premature and mistaken, but I do not enjoy being taken for a fool.

Second, it's generally considered poor form to insert a huge block of quoted text into a talk page. Many people will simply not read it. Far better to quote the relevant excerpts and include (as you apparently did) a link to an external site with the full material.

Third, as someone who really does not have an opinion right now regarding this issue, I feel I do need to point out that Makarios, in his speech, made frequent references to "the Greek military regime", "the Greek junta", and "Greek officers" — but I couldn't find any specific mention of "Greece" having invaded Cyprus. I understand (and may even agree with) your reasoning that since the military dictatorship was the legally recognized government of Greece at the time, the phrases in question were for all practical purposes the same as if Makarios had said "Greece invaded Cyprus". At the same time, however, I do have to concede that Makarios apparently did not utter those exact words, and the conclusion that this is obviously what he meant by what he said is (or is at least dangerously close to) original research and/or synthesis from multiple sources, which is not allowed here. Especially when a point like this is clearly known to be contentious, we need to be extra-careful in what we do (or don't do) with our sources.

Fourth, rather than rely so heavily on primary sources such as this actual transcript of Makarios's speech, we should be looking for secondary sources to analyse and interpret the speech. (Read WP:PSTS for more about primary vs. secondary sources.) If there are reliable secondary sources (such as news sources that are not specifically tied to any of the parties in the conflict) which describe Makarios's speech as an accusation against Greece (as opposed to the Greek military rulers), then what those sources say definitely belongs in the article, no matter who might be offended thereby. But I haven't seen any such sources yet, and you don't appear to have provided any such sources yet. Please look harder — in fact, I would give you friendly advice not to continue arguing this semantic point until and unless you can back up your claims with reliable secondary sources. — Rich wales 08:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your valueble suggestions. I embellished ny edit based on your suggestions. I listed only the quotes of Makarios' speech on 19.07.1974 in UN SC instead of giving the whole speech. Please correct me as much as possible. I am new to Misplaced Pages and its syntax. I'll continue niceing the edits based on your suggestions.Waltersamedical (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Pay attention to Richwales when he says that when you insert long comments, no one will read them. You also need to distinguish between primary sources and secondary sources. This speech by Makarios is a primary source and is therefore of little value in Misplaced Pages. What is more important are secondary sources--scholars who have written in scholarly sources about what Makarios said. I still see not one single place where Makarios says "Greece invaded Cyprus". He talked only about the junta and "Greek officers". Period. Not an armed invasion by the armed forces of the nation of Greece--only certain officers. Indeed, it sounds like nothing more than what the US did at the beginning of the War in Vietnam--sent officers to South Vietnam to act as advisors. At no point, in any neutral secondary source, has that been called an "invasion". And just because something is in the files of the United Nations doesn't make it any more valuable than any other document. This is a record of Makarios' speech, nothing more. --Taivo (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The other issue here is weight. These were comments made by one individual in the heat of the crisis. Are they really that important or is this just more incendiary text to add to the article? If this was part of a pattern of accusation and counter-accusation, then it might have some weight, but if it was just a one-time speech, then it really isn't that important. The key here is how much weight neutral (and I emphasize neutral) scholarly sources put on this. If they don't put any weight on this, then it is just pointy editing and should not be included here. --Taivo (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So, Taivo, do you have something to object "Makarios said "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military dictatorship/coup" in parallel with the Richwales' secondary sources (Los Angeles Times, 7/20/74, p. 4; Washington Post, 7/20/74, p. A6; The Times of India, 7/21/74, p. 1) in addition to the primary source (SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL RECORDS, 29TH YEAR, 1780TH MEETING, 19 JULY 1974, NEW YORK http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/PV.1780(OR)&Lang=E + Makarios' Voice Records) ? If your objection still continues to "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military dictatorship/coup" as well as "Cyprus was invaded by Greece", then it would be impossible for me to regard you as an "objective" and "neutral" wiki-user. Because, though I (for the time being) did not find that Makarios apparently uttered those exact words, but I have various sources (1. UN SC Official Document 2. Makarios' Voice Record 3. LA Times/US 4. Washington Post/US 5. The Times of India/IN) that Makarios uttered words parallel with "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military dictatorship". Waltersamedical (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please try as much as possible to focus on the content here, not on other editors. Again, we need to stick to the secondary sources; read WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:PSTS to help you understand why. If you can't find reliable secondary sources which report Makarios saying that "Greece" (as opposed to its legitimate or illegitimate military rulers) invaded Cyprus, I would be strongly inclined to say that we should settle for reporting what the secondary sources do say, and leave it at that. If there is in fact no real difference between the two phrasings, then in my opinion there is really nothing lost by saying Makarios blamed the Greek junta for the invasion (as opposed to expending so much effort in finding some way to say that Makarios blamed Greece for the invasion). As for Makarios — yes, he was one individual, but he was an extremely significant individual in Cyprus at the time, and central to the conflict, so it does not seem at all to be an abuse of undue weight to report what he said about the crisis as it was unfolding. — Rich wales 14:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue of "weight" really isn't about who said something, but more in combination with a reliance on neutral secondary scholarly sources what effect did those comments have. Were they just one-off comments that went nowhere and had no effect on the long-term, overall situation? Or were they interpreted by others as something more meaningful that led to further actions? That's why secondary scholarly sources are so important (neutral ones, of course)--they give us a better idea of the weight of something. --Taivo (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So, for example: According to the sources, did Makarios's speech at the UN (on 19 July 1974) provoke the Turkish military to invade Cyprus the next day? Or was the Turkish invasion a direct reaction to the coup in Cyprus, and would it have happened on the 20th regardless of whether Makarios had talked about an invasion by the Greek junta or not? And although our own private speculations or extrapolations might be interesting in a USENET newsgroup, for our purposes here on Misplaced Pages we need to confine ourselves to what reliable secondary sources say. — Rich wales 17:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, just in case it isn't already obvious, this ostensibly "new" user is in fact just the latest Justice Forever sock (picks up right where the previous sock left off with the "Makarios said Greece invaded Cyprus" obsession, same bad English, same use of caps). Would somebody kindly do the honors, or am I going to have to file another SPI? Athenean (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You are, of course, right, Athenean. This whole discussion is really moot since it is sock-based. --Taivo (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not yet convinced that the case is solid, but I have opened a new sockpuppet investigation in order to allow a discussion of this question in the place where I understand it belongs. — Rich wales 18:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Richwales, I do not defend stubbornly "Cyprus was invaded by Greece". Rather, I say, there are clear proofs to say "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military dictatorship/junta". In principle of the traditional writings of History, though they are in essense the same, I am not insistent on the former. Please notice that the Helen users here oppose BOTH "Cyprus was invaded by Greece" and "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military dictatorship/junta". If Helen users (Dr.K., Athenean, Taivo etc.) accept that "Cyprus was invaded by Greece's military dictatorship/junta" then that is enough for me. Note, this is utterly said by Makarios. Helen wiki-users object the latter as well. Also, look Tavio. You mention neutral secondary scholarly sources and Were they just one-off comments that went nowhere and had no effect on the long-term, overall situation. Notice that Makarios speech in UN SC on 15.07.1974 summarizes the period 1963-1974 to some extent as well. Makarios also is not an ordinary person on the streets, rather he is one of the key figures of Cyprus history. Hence, his sayings on Greece's coup's action on Cyprus should be placed in the article. There are clearly neutral secondary sources on this issue as well.Waltersamedical (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please be very, very careful not to attack or criticize editors based on their presumed ethnic / national background. Read WP:NPA ("No Personal Attacks"). Cyprus is a very touchy topic area, where discussions can quickly degenerate into shouting matches, and anyone who descends into personal attacks is going to get blocked from editing (at least for a while) in order to protect Misplaced Pages. Stick to discussions of content; content should speak for itself, regardless of who is supporting or opposing it.

As for including a mention (one sentence should be enough) about Makarios speaking before the UN Security Council on 19 July 1974 and accusing the Greek military regime of invading Cyprus by engineering the coup — as I said earlier, this does appear to be more than adequately documented in several reliable secondary sources (thus, no need to quote official transcripts of his speech) — and Makarios is (as far as I understand) a central figure in modern Cypriot history, whose notability is well established. I would still be wary of citing Makarios's speech in such a way as to imply that his words at the Security Council provoked the Turkish military's reaction; we should not propose that inference unless there are credible sources to back it up. Perhaps this latter concern is at the root of some of the objections; if so, or if there are other, appropriate reasons not to mention this event, I would certainly be grateful to understand them better. But again, we need to strictly limit the discussion to deal with the content, not who is supporting / opposing it (or why). — Rich wales 21:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Waltersmedical accuses me of being Greek ("Helen"), but anyone who has spent time on this page knows that I've also been accused of being "Turk". Guess that is the badge of being a true NPOV editor here :) Stop the personal attacks, Waltersmedical, or else you will be subject to being blocked. Since you're probably a sock of Justice Forever, anyway, this is probably a moot point since you'll be forever banned soon and will have to take up a new identity for your next ban. I'm sure that Makarios is an important figure in the history of Cyprus, but that doesn't make everything he ever said relevant or able to pass the measure of weight. Turkey invaded the next day, that means that Turkey's decision was not based on Makarios's speech before the UN. No invading army can get ready and hit the beaches in 24 hours. It was just a well-timed part of the invasion, to try to add some legitimacy to it. It obviously wasn't a causal factor. So I still think that neutral secondary sources are critical here. But if this is just another sock, it doesn't matter at all what he/she has to say. We don't give socks the time of day. --Taivo (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Requesting expansion/clarification of existing Balkans sanctions to cover Cyprus

Everyone please be advised that I am about to post a request at WP:RFAR to clarify / expand the existing WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions for the Balkans to cover Cyprus as well. I'm not suggesting that this is a magic wand that will make all the problems go away, but it may help. The case for discretionary sanctions here is, I believe, at least as strong as some other notoriously contentious areas of Misplaced Pages where sanctions have been in place for some time. — Rich wales 06:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories: