Hi people,

I would prefer not to go back to edit warring. Now we have to decide what we should do now. Should we work on an existing version to enhance it, or create a new version (I started basic work on this)? Opinions? - Snchduer 12:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the text: The Cyprus dispute is the result of the ongoing conflict between the Republic of Cyprus and Turkey, over the Turkish occupied northern part of Cyprus (...)

Then why are the decades of talks to solve the Cyprus dispute (in my opinion not to solve the dispute but to present -to the world community of nations- the Greek Cypriot Administration of South Cyprus as if it were doing something to solve the problem, i.e. mocking the world) are being carried out between the Turkish Cypriot Community and the Greek Cypriot Community? I am talking about the UN sponsored talks, why are these talks not between the Greek Cypriots and Turkey? Because the UN knows the dispute, what it is and between who and who it is.

Greece falsified its economic data to enter the EU and the Greek Cypriots lied to the EU at the time of the Annan Plan that would solve the problem of Reunification of Cyprus. The Europeans are kidnapped by some liars, but the UN (the world) is not only Europe and recently Europe (EU) is also waking up, after the Greek crisis, to see how they have been cheated for so many years by some people... E4024 ( talk) 18:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

.

Well, due to recent developments (e.g. creation of the Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict) and controversy about versions ( JL's version is "too neutral", Argyro's version is too one-sided), I would like to start this article completely anew, with a basic structure that is topic-oriented (not time-oriented). I will start this at Cyprus_dispute/New_version, without filling it with content yet. First of all, we need a "skeleton" of the article. When we have agreed on a structure, we will start filling the new version with content. If we see that at any point, editing seems to go smoothly, we may propose the unlocking of the article, with the agreed-on version becoming the starting point of the new article.

As soon as we have a working version, the structure of the article must stay the same until agreed otherwise in the future.

That at least is my idea of how we could work productively, moving from a deadlock that is of no benefit to anyone. - Snchduer 12:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

contribute!

Ok - the page is unlocked, and Argyro went back to edit-warring instead of discussing. Has been blocked for this behaviour, obviously, as well. Nevertheless, I would like to know if anybody is interested in creating a new version of the page, that could be more complete, and less timeline-centered (thus a bit less likely to create friction). Link is above. If I do not see any reaction on this new version thing within a week, I will simply request it for deletion. - Snchduer 23:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be two pages: Cyprus Dispute (Turkish Cypriot view) and Cyprus Dispute (Greek Cypriot view). The current page can simply have basic data and have links to the other sites so that constant rewrites on one page will be unnecessary. - Expatkiwi 23:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, discussion! (grin) Well, I would certainly like to see that some day as a project on Cyprus, but in an encyclopedia ... ? In this case, we would have two extreme POV articles heavily violating wikipedia's NPOV policy. And tiresome to the potential reader, to say the least. I would prefer the approach of the Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict article (I might be biased coz I put the structure there, however) - put appropriate information in appropriate sections, and keep historic information as short as possible. - Snchduer 11:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have stagnated. Unprotecting. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 23:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dont try and turn this into the RoC explanation of the Cyprus dispute, this article is a political overview of the situation, if you want to talk about murders and death rates put it in Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict. Quoting what you saw on the TV is also not very encylopedic.

Hello all. OOOklahoma has made a number of edits with a Greek Cypriot POV that I have reverted. I'd like him to post the changes he wants, and we can discuss them case by case. They don't appear to be the copy and paste jobs that our dear friend Argyrosargyrou prefers; nevertheless, they are controversial. I'm wondering if he would cite his sources here, please. -- Scimitar 23:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He raised some interesting points, yet destroying NPOV in some changed sections. For instance, calling it "EOKA and TMT" campaign in the pre-1960 period is not completely out of line. Yet I would prefer some more neutral term like "extremist campaigns 1955-1959". Later on, he changed the '74 violence history to mentioning the deaths in single villages, which might be introduced - but I think and overall picture is more helpful. (cf. also diff) - Snchduer 23:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that the section title could be changed, but I would much rather stay away from individual massacres, because a) this article is an overview and b) that's an invitation to the kind of insanity we want to get away from. There are a number of documented abuses on both sides, and I fear getting into them would result in permanent edit warring. Still, let's wait and see if OOOklahoma has anything to say before decisions are made. -- Scimitar 23:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I like this persons changes with some small revisions like mentioning the end of enosis but should also mention that the Turks, for the time being have achieved their objective of Taksim or division. Extremist campaigns is a good title. I want to read the source of these changes and also if true this may call for some cautious revisions of other related articles.( UNFanatic)

Dear UNFanatic, you are right in saying "Turks" because there are "Turks" and "Greeks" in Cyprus, if you wish Cypriot Turks and Cypriot Greeks. The issue is, at the wake of Empire (the British one) there were little chances of returning the island to its former, legal, lawful, legitimate sovereign owner, called "Turkey". The Greeks wanted ENOSIS, uniting the island to Greece, supposedly (...) with the Turkish community on the island as a minority. (x) The Turks had been left with no other chance but the option of Taksim/Division, because they share a Turkish collective memory about the always sad destiny of Turkish "minorities" (communities) under Greek-domination. I think you should concentrate more on the history of Cyprus, how it was retained by the Turks as a Greek-majority island, after its conquest from the Venetians several centuries ago. Something that ethnic cleansers (I am not pointing to any nation in particular) in the Balkan peninsula would have difficulty in understanding...

(x) Only within three years of the establishment of the former "Republic of Cyprus" (PBUI) the Greeks began the cleansing of the Turks in Cyprus. The same thing that they had planned to do, in case they could achieve their aim of ENOSIS, uniting the island to Greece.

---

Last Words:

I wonder, folks, don't you even notice that when they asked for ENOSIS, the so-called Greek Cypriots proclaimed they were Greeks! When it is about dominating the Turks on the island, they are (there are) only Cypriots!! If it is about a bi-communal solution, then there are Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots!!! (Respectively 1, 2 and finally 3 exclamation signs!)

I take these Greek attitudes as an insult to human intelligence... E4024 ( talk) 11:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

EOKA / TMT in the 50s

Okay, as far as I can see, OOOklahoma's edits can be divided into four main parts: 1) Specifically wording "the Turkish invasion of 1974" as opposed to just "since 1974" in the opening paragraph 2) Information on Mehmet 3) Events of late October/early November 1967 4) Retaliatory murders of Turkish Cypriots.

I'm leaning towards including 1 and some of 3. If 2 and 4 can be verified, I think a brief mention of those would be appropriate as well. What do you guys think? -- Scimitar 15:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the change from EOKA campaign to Extremist campaigns. The EOKA campaign was the major organised violent campaign between 55-59, the TMT was ill equipped, unorganised and barely possesed any firearms in that period. Other than rousing diplomatic support in Turkey, it barely had a campaign to speak of. We shouldn't 'soften' titles to the point of distorting major incidents. -- E.A 16:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It may have been poorly organized and ill-equipped, but it still qualifies as a counter-campaign, does it not? -- Scimitar 17:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well it depends what you class as a campaign, the EOKA campaign was a carefully planned system of violence to achieve enosis. TMT used words more than action, see here: http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/renewal_of_violence%20-%20'57-58.htm

The only reason "The EOKA campaign" had its own title was because it was the major event of that period, we shouldnt try and dilute it for the sake of political corectness and say TMT was just as bad. I suggest "1955-59 EOKA campaign and creation of the TMT" - I think this title highlights more that TMT was a response to EOKA and enosis. -- E.A 18:16, 23 Jun

I would agree with that title. -- Scimitar 19:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me as well, but waiting for a GR/GC point of view. - Snchduer 19:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, both EOKA and TMT are considered extremist campaigns(at least I do), regardless of the organizational aspects. (The Greek-Cypriots are more specific and consider EOKA-2 to be the real extremist group and EOKA, which immediately disbanded and had originally fought against the British for self determination, which the British did not allow, but later compromised on Independence. TMT entered the fray in the 1950s with EOKA though.) One wanted one extreme - enosis or union with Greece- and the other wanted the other extreme - taksim or division of the Island. Labeling it as only EOKA campaigns does not fully reflect everyone involved in where during the 1950's.( UNFanatic 00:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Well if anyone can actually give evidence of a concerted TMT campaign in the 50's to achieve Taksim then go ahead. As it stands the article only mentions their creation and purpose, not enough to justify they ran a terrorist campaign. -- E.A 11:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, so about the OOOklahoma edits that I proposed we adopt- does anyone have any objections to me instituting them the way I suggested? -- Scimitar 13:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, just mentioning Turkey as the reason of the split doesn't take into accout the Greek coup or the violence in the 60's. With regards to the 67 period, those edits were too specific. -- E.A 22:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I apologize to the Cypriots for the displacement and the division that Turkey's invasion against Cyprus and ongoing occupation has caused.

---

I don't know who wrote the above sentence. As senseless as he/she/they might be, to ignore or to pretend ignoring the fact of the Bloody Christmas of 1963-1964 perpetrated by the Greek Cypriots, with the henious aim of making all the Turks disappear from Cyprus (by massacres or by forced exodus), is the only reason behind the division of the island of Cyprus is lacking either basic intelligence or the decency to repent for inhuman acts by one's own folks. How can these people take others as stupids? Why is the UN force on Cyprus since 1964? If a person does not know or is hypocritic enough to pretend to ignore the sad fact that the Turks lived in forced ghettos between 1964and 1974 does he/she have a right to join a group of people trying to write an article about Cyprus? I believe this is vandalism. Pretending to ignore the situation of the Turks (yes Turks, Cypriot Turks, not really Turkish Cypriots, I am kind of bored about this hypocritical political correctness) in REAL CONCENTRATION CAMPS within Cyprus, their homeland, with Greek (or Greek Cypriot if that will make you happy) guardians, ruthless guardians that controlled even a simple family visit between those camps is vandalism... E4024 ( talk) 23:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Cyprus cannot be divided as Greek and Turkish Cypriots have properties and homes in all the areas of Cyprus.

---

Sir, Mam, Brits have properties in all the areas of Cyprus. Should the island unite with the UK? Is it not enough to have all the island in the EU? What an argument to oppose the right of the Turkish Cypriots to sovereignty!.. E4024 ( talk) 23:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry to the Cypriots. I guess that Turkey has a long way ahead before becoming a democratic state.

---

The above sentence, other than not carrying a correct opinion, has no place in this page. The person who wrote it here has a long road to walk to become a democrat. BTW I believe it is vandalism to write about the democratic standards of one country in a page about other countries. I ask the administrators to intervene with these anonymous claims... E4024 ( talk) 23:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Not that Turkey finished its struggle towards a perfect democracy, though I'd like to invite people to think about

the number of wars started by more "democratic" countries. This dispute doesn't have anything to do with democracy

in Turkey. There were also times Greece was ruled by the Army during this dispute. See the article for 21 April 1967

coup d'état in Greece ). Both sides have done things that require apology.

"on December 27, 1963, an interim peacekepeing force, the Joint Truce Force, was put together by Britain, Greece and Turkey. This held the line until a United Nations peacekeeping force, UNFICYP, was formed..."

There was an initial agreement between Britain, Greece and Turkey to form an interim peacekeeping force, but in the event neither Greece nor Turkey participated and the interim peacekeeping duties fell entirely to the British until the arrival of UNFICYP.

I propose to make the appropriate edit if nobody objects to this within the next few days.

-- Gkaraolides 8 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)

"Responding to a major attack on Turkish Cypriot villages in the South of the island, which left 27 dead, Turkey bombed Greek Cypriot forces..."

The Turkish Air Force did not bomb during the Kofinou crisis in 1967. They bombed during the Kokkina crisis in 1964.

I propose to make the appropriate edit if nobody objects to this within the next few days.

-- Gkaraolides 8 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)

I am surprised to see no reference concerning the Akritas plan. Something that has been proven as having a direct connection to the Greek Cypriot Enosis Extremists planting bombs and Turkish cigarette butts in order to inflame the situation and lay the blame for the bombs on the Turkish Cypriots. The current President (Tassos) is directly linked to this organisation and there has been documented proof presented of his original long term plan for the island. Something which appears to have, unfortunately, worked perfectly for him.

I went ahead and added a population table from the book specified. The table requires some work as I am not an expert in wiki coding but all the information is there verbatim from page 11. If someone sees more fit, place the table in a more appropriate location. Hopefully this wont cause too much of an uproar from either side of the fanatics that some real info was added instead of POV edits. -- Kakonator 06:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

first time at wiki, unsure if this is useful, however, somewhere there is a quote from Fidel Castro in which he attributes this fact to his own tactics at warfare . Needless to say,if true, interesting with the evolution of this form of warfare to its present state, used by terrorist most effectively.

Also, it is important to refine the history of Cyprus, by dating its origins to the time where its name originated: a word meaning copper in the language spoken in Egypt over 4000 years ago. Also, how did Cyprus get so many village names in Arabic, mostly obliterated by Turkey's recent efforts to completely change the toponomy of the land they occupy.

That's very interesting. Though I think that most of the town and province names in the republic have been gven Greek names, too? Seeing as you know so much could you give us a list with their root origin. I'd be interested to read about that.

I have re-added the ROC's OWN document detailing how many of its citizens were displaced in 1974. If people wish to challenege the accuracy of the Republic of Cyprus Government how about discussing it before placing other, less accurate, citations live. Or does a third party know better than the ROC how many people lost their homes that year. Adam777 19:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Seems that some admit what the Republic of Cyprus says ONLY when it happens to benefit the other side... Anyway, the link u have provided from the Cypriot government says more than 160,000. i've added the third party source. it doesn't mean that the Cypriot government's source contadicts this one... the US Congress says about 200,000 and Cyprus says more than 160,000... Clear enough why we should include both. Hectorian 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I would argue that neither number benefits either side as there are still many thousands of displaced Greek Cypriots (and Turkish Cypriots for that matter). I thought there was a certain Irony in using ROC documents to contradict Aristovoulus's edits which are probably the most one-sided and partisan I have seen of any editor on Wikipedia (and Ive made edits on some English rugby articles and those guys are pretty one-eyed). Anyway I am not going to bother reverting cypriot related articles from now on. If people are prepared to honestly claim that Turkish Cypriots all moved into the enclaves for all those years JUST to get partition then their slight grip on reality cant be debated with and its pointless to try. I'm dissapointed that blatant nationalism can come to bear on wikipedia (not in your case, whilst we've disagreed in the past Ive found your edits common sense). It kind of makes a mockery of the concept of a wiki, plus its taken up too much of my time and I have, frankly, better things to do. I'd hate to see what it says about Cyprus on the Greek Wikipedia, I bet thats a riot. All the best. Adam777 23:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Talking about that period, the thousands of GCs who were living in the northern part of the island, the about 5,000 deads of the turkish invasion, the about 1,500 missing, the about 1,500 (or more?) trapped in the north, all we can say is about [...]. i think it is obvious why... I suppose u added the 160,000 number as exact (though the source u found was talking clearly approximately) because this was the lowest number u found, but that may be just my imagination... U are the second person who says that my edits are on the grounds of "common sense", and i tend to consider this a compliment:). Talking about the 'TCs in the enclaves' (implying EOKA-B) as if this was a reason for the invasion, u should go further back in history to see which was the reason for the enclaves... With this travel in the past, i bet u know where u will find youself... I am not justifying or legitimising the enclaves (nor i think any other greek does)... such a short historic memory does not apply to the Greeks... but, applies to others... Try the greek article about Cyprus in interwiki... it is short, no pictures, and if u can understand the greek alphabet, u may be able to recognise some of the words... It is not as NPOV as this one, but it is by all certainty more NPOV than this one... Be fine and wish u all the best too. Hectorian 23:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

With regard to the specific number of displaced Greek Cypriots. What brought my attention to that number is that is was different in most of the articles on Wikipedia, some mentioned 160,000, some 180,000 and some 200,000. So I went through the ROC websites until I found a number which was 'Over 160,000'. So thats the term I used. I was looking for consistency (and the irony of using an ROC document was amusing). Of course 'Over 160,000' could mean any number at all but if the number was far higher then the figure quoted would be closer to the higher figure. When it comes to these acts I think most of the world doesnt comprehend the figures anyway, most of the world has forgotten Cyprus, and whatever we write and argue about here isnt going to get one GC back their property, or bring back one murdered cypriot, Greek or Turkish. Adam777 01:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You serious? :-) Aristovoul0s 16:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Neither the "Country studies" site, nor the cited U.S. Library of Congress are 'inaccurate' sources. I expect Aristovoul0s and Adam777 to find a way to add both inside the article. If it is not done by tomorrow, I'll do it myself. Thanks. •NikoSilver• 09:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I think it could be interesting to mention that the current crisis between Turkey and the EU over the ROC's access to Turkish (air)ports can be linked to strategic Turkish energy policy concerns. This is at least what somebody in the Ceyhan article suggested. Any thoughts on that? Letus 20:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

"This call for enosis grew louder after Britain took administrative control of the island in 1878, to prevent Ottaman homeland from Russia following the Congress of Berlin."

to prevent Ottoman homeland from Russia following the ..? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.112.30.245 ( talk) 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC). reply

Does anyone have more precise information on the exact origins of the vote percentages? The text says that certain percentages of Greek and Turkish Cypriots voted with yes or no. The numbers in the tables do however correspond to Communities. As far as I am concerned it is not clear whether this is the same. If I am not wrong the Turkish Cypriot region is home to a large number of Turkish settlers. Were the settlers allowed to vote? How many mainland Greeks were allowed to vote in the Republic-controlled area? Letus 14:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

These links were added, because they seemed appropriate.

If someone(s) belives it belongs somewhere else, feel free to move them.

Φil hellenism 03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

There's the odd hint of what seems to be anti-British bias in this article.

Use of words like 'dictator' in reference to the Governor, the reference to Britain's promise to SATISFY the demand for enosis, the suggestion that Macmillan deliberately aggravated the situation by provoking Turkey to take a more aggressive stance, and the suggestion that by applying a nomenclature to the two high-level ethnicities Britain was some way implicit in laying the grounds for the dispute.

Unless these comments can be substantiated by reference, can I suggest:

1. The Governor assumed legislative and administative powers, empowered (by who?) to rule by decree. 2. Britain's promise to CONSIDER demands for enosis. 3. Macmillan canvassed Turkey's views on Cyprus. 4. Leave mention on the British creation of 'Turkish Cypriot' and 'Greek Cypriot' but delete the commentary.

Thoughts?

I agree, feel free to balance it.

---

With reference to the above: At the wake of the British colonization of Cyprus, one of two things should be done: 1. Return the island to Turkey, its former (and for me lawful) sovereign. 2. Divide the island and give a part to Turkey and the other to Greece, as "some party" (x) laid the stones to making it (Option No 1) impossible, unacceptable for the Greeks who could not opt voluntarily to live under Turkish rule in Cyprus.

(x) I am referring to the 6-7 September events in Istanbul against the Greek citizens and the Turkish citizens of Greek Orthodox faith. When we discover everything and every party involved in the provocation of the 6-7 September events, we will better understand the case of Cyprus.

Anyhow, these two options were not attractive to the colonizer because they left little or no room for keeping two sovereign bases on the island. This is why the Turkish and Greek (not really Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot, but Turkish and Greek, if you wish Cypriot Turks and Cypriot Greeks, ie Turks, Greeks that live/d on the island of Cyprus) communities accepted, as better than being a colony, the establishment of the bicommunal Republic of Cyprus (PBUI), which only lived about three years... E4024 ( talk) 11:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC) reply

---

Anti- anybody is POV. I would first like to say that my only interest in one side or the other is that I was nearly blown up by Greek Cypriots while laying over in Nicosia and our mom stuck us in between the mattresses while the British fought to regain control of the streets. I have since been an anti-terrorist. My comments: After the British failure to control the American colonies, they changed the way they controlled separatists. elements of the policy included supporting the less powerful group against the more powerful. The establishment of paramilitary forces based in "police Fortresses", the establishment of Paramilitary forces Officered by British and manned by locals. It is well documented that the British, as late as 1948, wanted to keep many of their colonies and used tactics we now consider inhumane. In Cyprus as well as in other colonies, groups that got along before the British were there, end up fighting with each other after they left. The British created an environment in Cyprus which has led to many of the problems that are now there. A comparison to Israel and India is illustrative. Saltysailor ( talk) 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply

there is a lot of weasel words, like "most Greek cyriots would hypothize"

It would be best for folks who are really bad writers or incapable of editing own work, seek help rather than defile these pages ruthlessly. Even a Greek would be ashamed of the blatant propagandistic and random clippings without little connection to the topic. Needs much clean up.-- Murat ( talk) 01:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi

I have made a start on the refs which are mostly wrong format, and so have bot generated titles. I will come back to it in a couple of days.

Thanks-- Chaosdruid ( talk) 01:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

It suggests that there is only one dispute in all of Cyprus. Leopold Stotch ( talk) 23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I have read about claims that extremist Jewish groups are targeting Cyprus as a possible area of settlement once they feel they have defeated the Palestinians. For instance, there are Zionist organizations that have drawn a map of what they feel is Greater Israel, the entire Middle East as it was inhabitated by ancient Judaic tribes during the Bronze Age. [1] There are also claims that these same groups are presently targeting the current kingdom of Jordan for possible settlement expansion. [2] ADM ( talk) 04:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Your links do not correspond to your (rather fantastic) claims of claims. This all seems to be a bit of anti-Semitic scare-mongering which you, unfortunately, seem to have taken seriously. The article about Jordan merely claims that some Jews want to be able to own land in Jordan, to return to Jordanian lands they once inhabited by purchasing these lands as private owners, which they are currently forbidden from doing. Information about the modern History of the Jews in Cyprus is in the corresponding Wikipedia article. Cyprus was indeed, like Germany, the Philippines, and Alaska, thought of by some as an alternative if Jews could not achieve self-determination in Israel. But they did, and I don't think there's a serious movement to split off a fifth piece of Cyprus for Israel.

Daniel Pipes has written about the "Greater Israel" paranoia, including a comment about Cyprus: " Early Zionists considered a wide range of lands for Jewish colonization, including Cyprus, Sinai, Mesopotamia, East Africa, and Argentina. In addition, the Soviet regime made Birobidzhan, a distant region of Siberia, into its version of a Jewish homeland. These territories should be understood as alternatives to, not extensions of, Palestine." Calbaer ( talk) 20:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply

In essense you can say that there is no such thing as Turkish Cypriots Or Greek Cypriots they are Turks and Greeks which lived happily together. It was created by British propaganda to cause a ethnic dispute and thus a reason for their involvment in the invasion to the island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.239.99 ( talk) 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you really think Greeks needed a British "invention" to fill their lives with hate and Turkophobia? They lived happily ever after because Ottomans knew how to run things and their millet system. When will Greeks take some responsibility for all they have done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.118.177 ( talk) 04:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

People need to read hitory - the "Jews" never settled here, but there were civilisations which encompassed Cyprus and others, such as Levant and Assyria

Chaosdruid ( talk) 00:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Intro - needs working on as is jumbled and some statements are very POV

Before 1960 section needs a lot of reworking, some things are out of time such as para starting 1954 followed by para starting 1950

Generally a lot of refs are not current and some are from VERY dodgy sources, I will try and give this some time to bring back into sanity

Chaosdruid ( talk) 00:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm an American, and I have no "dog in this fight," but I know the history, and I have to say that this article is heavily biased toward the Greek Cypriot position. I recommend serious edits to give a fair shake to both sides to this complex dispute. Wikipedia shouldn't be a vehicle for one-sided propaganda. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.49.151 ( talk) 02:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply

A very concise but extremely interesting comment, by all accounts. While I have no reason to doubt the person who made this comment has no personal "dog in this fight", he / she does, however, volunteer he / she is in fact an American; a country which has one of the largest 'dogs' in this fight, and has very publicly and consistently backed Turkey in this dispute, despite its complex relations with the United Nations and Greece (a NATO member) whose position on the illegality of the 1974 operation is clear. The foreign policy motives for this, have been relatively transparent (for a review of this see http://www.erpic.eu/index.php?view=article&id=260 by Sherle R. Schwenninger, former editor of World Policy Journal). I would argue that the history that you "know" is the history you are presented in the US education system and media, and articles you read in predominantly American or US-centered publications, which by extension are themselves politically biased in the opposite direction to what you suggest. Therefore, your generic assessment of a bias would have to be expected, even in a perfectly neutral text.

---

Did you say (Greece, a NATO member)? What is Turkey then? Have you ever read any paper on which countries contribute most to NATO's peace-keeping operations and other international commitments? Believe me you will not find the name of Greece there. Guess which neighbouring country is among the most active NATO members... E4024 ( talk) 23:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply

---

Regrettably though, this comment in itself sounds more like a strawman argument to me, or at best a rant. "Recommending" that "someone" make "serious edits" is not a particularly useful or constructive suggestion in my opinion. If you have particular suggestions or edits to make, that correctly identify statements as biased, and then offer alternative phrasing complying with wikipedia's policy on neutrality and backed by evidence, then please do so, and be assured they will be most welcomed. Crying 'foul' over "Wikipedia being a vehicle for propaganda" in the most abstract manner, because somehow the tone of an article doesn't fit with your pre-established point of view, however, isn't. Apologies if this sounds harsh. "Thanks". 80.0.209.85 ( talk) 13:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

What is regrettable is that the original commentor hit the nail on the head. Wikipedia has ceased to be a genuine source of unbiased information on any topic that relates to Greeks or Armenians a long time ago. They have marshalled armies of cyber thugs to recreate a version of history more to their liking and defend their ethnic prides against all facts. Articles such as these are striking examples. They have more humor value than anything else at this point. The above so-called response exposes the problem well. Murat ( talk) 03:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree. I came here looking for information and what I see is basically something that looks copy/pasted from a pro-Greek-Cypriot partisan website. Sorry that I do not have the required information myself to suggest NPOV edits. The page needs rebalancing. 194.237.142.10 ( talk) 13:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

This article is about the history of the Cyprus dispute. It does not predict what happens in the future. See WP:CRYSTAL. Do not make statements that predict the future or offer a "percentage chance" of what might happen in the future.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 10:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Existence of observers suggesting partition is not an opinion. This is reality. This is given in Oxford University Press book, April 2011. Belgesellik45 ( talk) 10:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia does not do futures. See WP:CRYSTAL. It is not a historical event. It doesn't make a difference how good the reference is or how good they are at predicting futures. Until it actually happens it is only hearsay.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Existence of observers suggesting partition is not something belonging to future; "Existence of observers suggesting partition" is PRESENT. "Existence of observers inceasingly suggesting partition" is not a prediction; This is a fact (as emphasized by the Neutral Source: Oxford University Press Book written by the neutral UN Special Advisor on Cyprus). Belgesellik45 ( talk) 12:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

It doesn't matter what existing observers speculate when they are speculating about the future. Nor is a Wikipedia article an opportunity for the Economist to speculate on what might or might not happen because it is still speculation:

"The chance of a settlement to end the division of Cyprus in 2011-2015 is only 20% (Economist Intelligence Unit)."  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 13:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia speculating the future, but it is other reliable institutions. We even have articles on speculations. -- Seksen ( talk) 17:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

It is obvious that Wikipedia is not doing the speculation. It is the Economist that is doing the speculation. It still fails to pass WP:CRYSTAL.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 17:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Existing observers SUGGEST about the PRESENT CASE; they do NOT SPECULATE about the future. One cannot qualify the suggestions about a particular topic as speculation. If for a while, we accepted the sentence with "chance", then why did also delete the UN Special Advisors information on the existence of observers? There is no chance in the existence of people. Belgesellik45 ( talk) 20:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Dr. K reverted based on "WP:OR" (original research). Belgesellik45 ( talk) 20:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Dr. K., "many observers" is not my claim. "many observers" is written in the book pressed by Oxford University Press book, April 2011 written by James Ker-Lindsay (UN Secretary-General's Special Advisor on Cyprus). Do I have to still show the list of many observers? Belgesellik45 ( talk) 20:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

"The Cyprus Problem: What Everyone Needs to Know" (Product Description)

For nearly 60 years--from its uprising against British rule in the 1950s, to the bloody civil war between Greek and Turkish Cypriots in the 1960s, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in the 1970s, and the United Nation's ongoing 30-year effort to reunite the island--the tiny Mediterranean nation of Cyprus has taken a disproportionate share of the international spotlight. And while it has been often in the news, accurate and impartial information on the conflict has been nearly impossible to obtain.

In The Cyprus Problem, James Ker-Lindsay--recently appointed as expert advisor to the UN Secretary-General's Special Advisor on Cyprus--offers an incisive, even-handed account of the conflict. Ker-Lindsay covers all aspects of the Cyprus problem, placing it in historical context, addressing the situation as it now stands, and looking toward its possible resolution. The book begins with the origins of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities as well as the other indigenous communities on the island (Maronites, Latin, Armenians, and Gypsies). Ker-Lindsay then examines the tensions that emerged between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots after independence in 1960 and the complex constitutional provisions and international treaties designed to safeguard the new state. He pays special attention to the Turkish invasion in 1974 and the subsequent efforts by the UN and the international community to reunite Cyprus. The book's final two chapters address a host of pressing issues that divide the two Cypriot communities, including key concerns over property, refugee returns, and the repatriation of settlers. Ker-Lindsay concludes by considering whether PARTITION really is the best solution, AS MANY OBSERVERS INCREASINGLY SUGGEST.

Written by a leading expert, The Cyprus Problem brings much needed clarity and understanding to a conflict that has confounded observers and participants alike for decades. About the Author

James Ker-Lindsay is the Eurobank EFG Senior Research Fellow on the Politics of South East Europe at the London School of Economics. He is the author of Crisis and Conciliation: A Year of Rapprochement Between Greece and Turkey and EU Accession and UN Peacemaking in Cyprus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgesellik45 ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Hugo Gobbi (Former United Nations Secretary General's Special Representative on Cyprus): Cyprus Mail - February 26, 1996 "Partition may be the only solution" is written in "Hugo Gobbi's book: Rethinking Cyprus".

[3] Page17: "After the failure of the Boutros-Ghali initiative, Gobbi (1996) viewed ‘separation’ as the best solution for Cyprus."

• James Ker-Lindsay (expert advisor to UN Special Advisor on Cyprus) (03.Sep.2007): [4] An arch-populist in word and deed, Matsakis's comments are actually a far more realistic reflection of Cypriot thinking than many of the established political leaders would like to admit. Of course, partition would not be an immediate panacea, nor could it come about overnight. It would require negotiations to settle a number of outstanding issues.
• Dr. Michael Moran (Sussex University): [5] "In the context of my book, for unification and solution, the necessity to existence of two distinct states is defended"
• Riz Khan (Al-Jazeera) (18.Nov.2010): [6] "Cyprus: time for formal partition? If Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders cannot agree on reunification, is a two-state island the only solution?"
• Jack Straw (UK's foreign secretary) (08.Nov.2010): [7] "Cyprus should be partitioned"
• William Chislett (Real Instituto Elcano, Spain) (05.Jul.2010): [8] "Cyprus: Time for a Negotiated Partition?"

Many Observers of Cyprus island originated

• Marios Matsakis (Greek Cypriot MEP in European Parliament): "The unmentionable solution - part 2" (James Ker-Lindsay, expert advisor to UN Sp Ad on Cyp): [9]

..Marios Matsakis..broke new ground on the debate about the Cyprus problem when he suggested that partition was perhaps a better option.

• Hermes Solomon (A Greek Cypriot columnist, Cyprus Mail): "A permanent partition" [10]
• Loucas Charalambous (A Greek Cypriot columnist, Cyprus Mail) [11] "Christofias unforgivable crimes make partition the only solution"
• Nicola Solomonides (A Greek Cypriot academician) "One state or Two? The search for a solution to the Cyprus problem" [12] "However, an acknowledged two-state solution may be unavoidable. It would naturally involve partition, predictably along similar lines to those which already exist, and measures would need to be taken regarding the issue of property."
• Rauf Denktas (Founder of Northern Cyprus): [13] "Cyprus Problem Will Be Solved When The Existence Of Two Separate States"

It does not make any difference how many observers think that partition is the best solution for Cyprus. The fact remains that it remains speculation until it happens. This observation does not meet the WP:CRYSTAL standard and therefore should not be part of this article. Moreover, the columnists of the Cyprus Mail, can only be described as propaganda-merchants that favor Turkey and British POV and they are doing no favors for Cypriots who gain nothing from partition. Partition is an unjust solution which just re-enforces the illegal apartheid solution inflicted by the Republic of Turkey. Your intentions clearly dissipate propaganda that legitimizes this unjust, apartheid solution.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 11:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

the Greeks had it coming, for destabilizing in 1974 the constitutional order of the Cyprus Republic, which Turkey, as a guarrantor power was expected to rebalance

Polls

1. Noverna: (March.2007)(on behalf of the Institute for Social and Political Studies): Jean Christou, "ONE THIRD of Greek Cypriots would like to see the two sides separated" [14] 2. KADEM (March.2011): [15] "77.1% of Turkish Cypriots prefer two-country solution in Cyprus island"

The Cyprus dispute is between Turkey and Cyprus, not between TC and GC. Both GC and TC are citizens of the Republic of Cyprus per the country's constitution. Reading the decision of the ECHR , Cyprus Vs Turkey, the court held that Turkey exercised effective overall control of northern Cyprus through its military presence there, with the result that its responsibility under the Convention was engaged for the policies and actions of the “TRNC” authorities. In the instant case, the Court stressed that Turkey’s responsibility under the Convention could not be confined to the acts of its own soldiers and officials operating in northern Cyprus but was also engaged by virtue of the acts of the local administration (“the TRNC”), which survived by virtue of Turkish military and other support. 23x2 _φ 18:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

---

I also just learned that a people that declared statehood emanating from its own willpover and sovereignty may be considered citizens of another country by a third party court. It is good to be open minded, you learn things everyday. I hope I will never vote for a racist, because I am open minded. BTW it is good to know that all the United Nations Secretaries General were also open minded and used their good offices for realising talks between the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots in order to solve the Cyprus dispute. Thank God the ECHR, where the so-called Republic of Cyprus is represented all alone, is not a higher organ than the UN, although some people are obsessed with Europe, the same Europe that they have usurped. I know, its my POV. E4024 ( talk) 20:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• Enough is enough. I advise you strongly to stop edit warring and discuss in a civilized manner, and I want to remind that more than three reverts in 24 hours mean a block. I had a look at the article yesterday and wondered why no one has ever noticed the lack of the "ref" tag in the lead, now I understand why. 23x2, how does the ECHR resolution mean that the Cyprus dispute is between Cyprus and Turkey and no one else? Isn't that your own synthesis from the resolution? The same for the Annan plan. It would actually be much better, if we had a third-party, academic source, clearly stating everything. Until this issue is settled, the page must be reverted to its stable version (i.e. before 23x2's edit) or the sides of the dispute must be completely removed from the first sentence. -- Seksen ( talk) 21:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I think you meant before Reagavarinx edits which appear perilously similar to E4024 vandalism. 23x2 _φ 09:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• • According to United Nations, the Cyprus dispute is btw Greek Cypriot community and Turkish Cypriot community; One can see this in ALL of the webpages related to Cyprus in UN official webpage:

1: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=41834&Cr=Cyprus&Cr1= 2: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=41035&Cr=Cyprus&Cr1= 3: http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2010/100427_Downer.doc.htm etc. In ALL of the info about negotiations to solve Cyprus dispute, "Greek Cypriot Community" and "Turkish Cypriot Community" are written as the sides of "Cyprus Dispute". RoC opened a case in ECHR against Turkey does not change the "two sides" of the Cyprus dispute. Before, during and after the "Cyprus vs. Turkey case in ECHR", the "two sides" of the Cyprus dispute according to United Nations are GC community and TC community. Also, definitely, UN's officiality and neutrality supersides that of ECHR. Also, ECHR and European Union has (Greek) RoCyprus as member, and their neutrality are biased (There are Greek Cypriot judges in ECHR). Claiming that "Cyprus Dispute is btw Turkey and Cyprus" is just Greek Cypriot POV that is definitely what the UN's position about the dispute is AGAINST! Reagavarinx ( talk) 21:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC) reply

The talks may be between TC's and GC's because Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus. [16] The Turks use the term "southern Cyprus" in there POV, in exactly the same way E4024 and his puppet Reagavarinx uses in his repeated vandalism over this article.

E4024 writes exactly below this comment that he is a new user and he just figured out how to write a new section in the talk, while his first ever contribution was the creation of a new section in the talk. Interesting at the very least. 23x2 _φ 09:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC) reply

23x2! You are wrong! You say "The talks may be between TC's and GC's because Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus". If "talking" shows some kind of recognition, then you - in some sense - hiddenly specifying that "RoC recognizes TRNC (bcs GCs are talking with TCS)". The recognition of TRNC by RoC is not true just as the claim "Cyprus vs. Turkey" is definitely false.

23x2! You are also EMPHASIZING the reference from EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights. BUT, as is well known, the validity of references from United Nations (and its organizations) WELL EXCEEDS the validty of references from European sources. For example, in 2010, Permanent Court of Justice (PCJ, a UN institution) gave the validty of legality of Declaration of Independence of Kosova without applying European Court of Human Rights's opinions, forget taking the opinion of ECHR into account though Kosovo is 100% in Europe not also politically but also geographically! Reagavarinx ( talk) 19:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply

This is sheer nonsense. The UN is not more valid as a reference over other sources. International disputes are between sovereign states, not peoples. Ethnic disputes may sometimes fuel international disputes, but it is nonsense to say that the Cyprus dispute is between two ethnic groups instead of two sovereign states. Athenean ( talk) 04:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply

@Athenean: "Sheer nonsense"? I hope this unpoliteness is duly noted. "International disputes are between sovereign states". Really? I am a Political Scientist specialised on International Relations and thank you very much for this contribution to the discipline. Tell Israel to recognise the State of Palestine as of 14 May 1948 in order to have a real conflict with Palestine... -- E4024 ( talk) 09:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply

The fact that Cyprus Dispute has international dimensions does not mean that the dispute is btw Cyprus and Turkey. Turkey was, is, will not be a party of the Cyprus Dispute till the SIDES of the Cyprus Dispute (Greek Cypriot Community & Turkish Cypriot Community) solves INTERNAL aspects of Cyprus Dispute. Also, in case the internal dimensions of Cyprus Dispute are solved, and an international conference is called by UN, then GREECE and UK becomes part of the Dispute AS WELL AS TURKEY. That is, Turkey DOES NOT PARTICIPATE to the negotiations for solution of Cyprus Dispute as long as an international conference is not called JUST AS GREECE and UK DO NOT PARTICIPATE to the negotiations for solution of Cyprus Dispute as long as an international conference is not called. As the whole world konws, THERE IS AN ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS TO SOLVE CYPRUS DISPUTE (THE LAST ROUND SINCE 2008). Did Turkey participate to the negotiations till now? NO! Just as GREECE and UK! Because: Cyprus Dispute is a dispute between Greek Cypriot Community and Turkish Cypriot Community HAVING INTERNATIONAL DIMENSIONS INCLUDING TURKEY, GREECE, UK. But, but, but,... HAVING INTERNATIONAL DIMENSIONS INCLUDING TURKEY does not mean that the Cyprus Dispute is between Cyprus and Turkey. Reagavarinx ( talk) 21:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply

If the Cyprus question is one between Turkey and (the Republic of Cyprus) how come we are trying to solve it by negotiations between the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot Communities, represented by their Presidents? The Greek side could consider itself represented duly in these negotiations, as its President is the representative of the Greek Cypriot Community, although not in his/her capacity as President. The Turkish Cypriot party is being represented by the President of the TRNC (also not in his/her capacity as President but only representing his/her Community). Who has given the TRNC President, either in that capacity or as representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community to negotiate with the Greek Cypriot party in the name of Turkey? No one. Because the conflict/dispute/whatever is not between Turkey and another country but between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots; therefore they are negotiating with each other. Turkey is part of the Cyprus question only as a Guarantor, just like UK and Greece; not part of the "Cypriot" peace search. Full stop. Read this also. -- E4024 ( talk) 18:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hmm I believe that the answer is clearly stated in the article itself... "The Cyprus dispute is the result of the ongoing conflict between the Republic of Cyprus and Turkey, over the Turkish occupied northern part of Cyprus.[1][not in citation given] Initially, with the annexation of the island by the British Empire, the "Cyprus dispute" was identified as the conflict between the people of Cyprus and the British Crown regarding the Cypriots' demand for self determination. The dispute however was finally shifted from a colonial dispute to an ethnic dispute between the Turkish and the Greek islanders.[2]" The dispute is between the two communities on the island. Btw, we should as well state that the so-called "Republic of Cyprus" constitution may state Cypriot Turks to be its citizens, but if the state had no problem with its potential Turkish citizens than they all would just migrate to the Southern part where they would be "freed from the invasion." Thus, as well accepted by the UN as well, the dispute remains between Southern Greek administration, representing the Greek community, and Northern Turkish administration, representing the Turkish community... :3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.122.149.217 ( talk) 03:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I just learned how to create a new section in the Talk page. My talk until now is within the related paragraphs began by others. E4024 ( talk) 15:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I also just noticed that using the exclamation sign in Edit Summaries or Talk Pages does not sound nice. I may have done the same mistake before, I am afraid, but certainly will try to avoid doing so in the future... — Preceding unsigned comment added by E4024 ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I just checked my Contributions and I have undone only once in the last 24 hours. So I cannot understand why the warning was written below my talk... E4024 ( talk) 21:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC) reply

To Athenean: "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." But you removed my material which was sourced. Why? I made that edition 3 days ago. Why do you think you can decide a source is not reliable while for 3 days no one objected to that source? (And you were certainly following my footsteps all that time.) Whether a source is reliable or not may always be argued. Let us look at the many sources (references) of this article. Some of them look not more reliable than my source.

Several days ago you took me to the ANI. I have been seriously warned by an administrator. (And took my lesson.) I believe other users, including administrators are observing these controversial articles for possible edit wars. Why did no one else oppose, undo or change my addition/edition to the text that you undid recently? Why did you do this after 3 days? (Waited for someone else to act?)

You called me "an aggressive Turkish nationalist" when you reported me to the ANI. (I know very well I am neither nationalist nor aggressive. Maybe have been a bit passionate but repented and now am only working, even spell-checking articles some of which are of no interest to me.) Now if anyone asks you -due to undoing my edition- "Why are you this much irritated by a simple 'positive' reference to the Turks with regard to their treatment of the Greeks in the Ottoman Empire?" could they be implying something about your perception of "nationalism"?

I am rather a new user of Wikipedia and unexperienced in Templates, Noticeboards, Warnings etc so might be doing another mistake in writing these lines while I am No 1 discussion issue at the ANI but I am simply and modestly and honestly trying to express myself and am sure in such a big and respected Wiki family of people from all over the world there will be more than a few who will understand I am only acting in goodwill and trying to contribute to this collective effort. I will continue to do so and become a "reliable" contributor to Wikipedia if I am not blocked for this emotional outburst. -- E4024 ( talk) 00:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the step in the right direction, E4024. Athenean, could you explain what was wrong with the sources E4024 added? Note that I ask this without even looking at the sources, so I have no preconception about their quality. Qwyrxian ( talk) 02:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Certainly. www.localhistories.org appears to be some kind of children's website. Definitely not a reliable source suitable for use in wikipedia. Athenean ( talk) 05:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply

@Athenean I am not surprised because when editing "Greece" you have found even "Britannica" not reliable. Here:-- E4024 ( talk) 10:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Qwyrxian, I was planning on removing this since there is strong evidence to the contrary. The above edit is definitely a very pov statement aligned strongly with a hardline turkish pov, basicly saying that people asked to be conquered by their saviors the Ottomans. 23x2 _φ 16:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply

" Tim Lambert" does not sound very much like a Turkish name though. Less it sounds believable that he began to write on "world" history simply to make the Turks happy...

-- E4024 ( talk) 18:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply

E4042, was localhistories.org the cite you were trying to use? Because that's very clearly not a reliable source and thus cannot be used to support anything on Wikipedia. Whether his name is Turkish or Greek or Mayan makes absolutely no difference. Also, please stop making comments on alleged motivations--that's not helping. Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply

How can the infobox of this article can bear the coat of arms of the "Republic of Cyprus", its "President" etc? The Cyprus dispute is between the Turkish and Greek communities of Cyprus and the Presidents of the Republic of Cyprus (sic) and of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are referred to, by the UN Secretary General, in his endless efforts to solve the "Cyprus dispute" as the "leaders" of their respective (Greek and Turkish) communities. This article is really biassed, beginning from its infobox... -- E4024 ( talk) 20:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Here. Essence: Solution can be found very quickly, if willpower exists. This declaration could be a good contribution to the article. As a declared Turkish user I prefer -and hope- Greek or third country users add this kind of information; in that case the edition could be more elegant and appreciated. Maybe Mr. Salopian would volunteer... -- E4024 ( talk) 14:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply

23x2 has recently accused me here to have a puppet relation with another user. (He/She has also accused me of "vandalism" but I pass that with a smile.) I don't know if during these two months that passed since the said accusation I have been investigated or not on this puppetry claim. I request to be informed of the result of a possible investigation in case there has been one. If not, I request to be investigated on this claim. I do not request nor expect any action against the user who made these accusations... -- E4024 ( talk) 19:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I checked the sockpuppet investigation archives, and no sockpuppet investigation of you was requested. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The Legal Aspects of Turkey's 1974 Action

(1) In order to justify the breach of Art. 2(4) UN Charter, the Turkey's government invoked Art. IV(2) Treaty of Guarantee ("In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions. In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of 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."). [1] (2) The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE): On 29 July 1974, PACE affirmed (via Resolution 573) that the Turkish military intervention was the exercise of a right emanating from an international Treaty and the fulfilment of a legal and moral obligation. [2] [3] [4] In 1983, PACE's resolution 974(1983) stated "The assembly, call once again for the immediate withdrawal of the Turkish troops which illegally occupy a part of Cypriot territory, this withdrawal being an indispensable condition for the final solution of the Cyprus crisis". [5] (3) United Nations (UN): Resolution 353(1974): "The security council demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus that is in contravention of the provisions of paragraph 1 above Cyprus that is in contravention of the provisions". citation needed (4) On 21 March 1979, Greece's Athens Court of Appeals decided that "The Turkish military intervention in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London Accords, was legal. Turkey, as one of the Guarantor Powers, had the right lo fulfill her obligations. The real culprits . . . are the Greek officers who engineered and staged a coup and prepared the conditions for this intervention.”. [6] [7] [8] (5) Till now, there is no sanction applied on Turkey due to 1974 Cyprus war, some says this is another sign of legality dimension of 1974 events. (6) There is no UN resolution that calls the Turkey's 1974 action as "invasion". [9]

Dr. K. reverted by saying "Reverted good faith edits by Nebilla41 (talk): Original research from primary sources.". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which NO RELIABLE, PUBLISHED SOURCES EXISTS. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

I did not exactly undertand which WP policy Dr. K. cited. Probably, "WP:NOR". I will contact with him. The infos about "The Legal Aspects of Turkey's 1974 Action" are from published material. I also cited the info with the clear references. What is the problem? Nebilla41 ( talk) 07:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply

---

nebilla, your arguments are very biased and unethical. You took sentences that suit you from different documents to make a point without revealing the conclusion/true intentions of the author in your sources. In particular:

(a) You mentioned the source from I Kareklas. You wrote: "On 29 July 1974, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) affirmed that the Turkish military intervention was the exercise of a right emanating from an international Treaty and the fulfilment of a legal and moral obligation" Why didn't you write the whole thing?

The paragraph in the source is in reality: "On 29 July 1974, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) affirmed that the Turkish military intervention was the exercise of a right emanating from an international Treaty and the fulfilment of a legal and moral obligation. However, the member states did not maintain this view after the second round of military operations" A few lines further the same source states: "The Resolution of the U.N Security Council and General Assembly indicate that the Turkish invasion was an illegal act..." in contrast with your other argument that "there is no UN resolution that calls the Turkey's 1974 action as "invasion". Also, I Kareklas concludes: "Nevertheless, having regard to the equally powerful arguments militating against unilateral armed intervention envisaged by treaty, it may be clearly concluded that Turkey should not have exercised a right of intervention in Cyprus, 1974; however, such a proposition could remain subject to criticism, in view of the peculiarities of the Cyprus issue"

All of your arguments are invalid.Also, do not try to force your point of view by taking half of a paragraph which describes the first party's opinions and neglect the second one which includes the other party's. Finally next time read the conclusion of your sources as well. -- Car8025

Answer to Car8025: i) "your arguments are very biased and unethical.". You took sentences that suit you from different documents to make a point without revealing the conclusion/true intentions of the author in your sources.
ANSWER: I directly wrote what is written in the resolutions and books. The title of the heading "The LEGAL ASPECTS of Turkey's 1974 Action " cannot prevent you put the resolutions/sources that indicate the operation as illegal.

ii) Why didn't you write the whole thing?
ANS: In the book, it wrote: "the member states did not maintain this view after the second round of military operations" is not something that is related with PACE. The views of the member states of a particular organization (here: PACE) does not bind the organization itself unless there is a resolution is made in that organization.

iii) "The Resolution of the U.N Security Council and General Assembly indicate that the Turkish invasion was an illegal act..." in contrast with your other argument that "there is no UN resolution that calls the Turkey's 1974 action as "invasion".
ANS: Here, in this sentence, "indicate that the Turkish INVASION was an illegal act.." is a naming that is done by the author, not the UN Security Council. What is binding in UN is the UN SC as you may know. And, once again, I am backing my writing: "There is no UN resolution that calls the Turkey's 1974 action as "invasion". If you claim otherwise, just put a resolution no/date so that we are all behind you at this point. Here is the whole UN SC resolutions: ^[10]. Which one of them calls the intervention as INVASION? No one!

iv) Kareklas concludes: "Nevertheless, having regard to the EQUALLY POWERFUL ARGUEMENTS militating against unilateral armed INTERVENTION envisaged by treaty, it may be clearly concluded that Turkey SHOULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED A RIGHT OF INTERVENTION in Cyprus, 1974; however, such a proposition could remain subject to criticism, in view of the peculiarities of the Cyprus issue"
ANS: Even the Greek Kareklas uses the word "INTERVENTION" as you see. Dear Car8025, "SHOULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED A RIGHT OF INTERVENTION" even demonstrates the legality of the intervention (the fact I empasized about the legality of operation in that aspect). "SHOULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED A RIGHT OF INTERVENTION" means that "THERE IS A RIGHT OF INTERVENTION" but "IT WOULD BE NICE IF THAT RIGHT WAS NOT USED AND THE ISSUE WAS SOLVED BY OTHER MEANS". Car8025, if you do not understand in this way, you should develop your English.

v) In 1979, JUST AFTER 5 YEARS LATER THE OPERATION, The GREECE's Athens Court of Appeals: "The Turkish military intervention in Cyprus...was LEGAL." Here, GREECE's court did not distinguish between the 1st phase (20-22July1974) and 2nd phase (14-16August1974) of the operation. In 1979, both of the first and second operation already finished 5 years ago. GREECE's court, hence, thought legal situation of both of the operations, in advance of making any decision about the 1974 war. Car8025, in the sentence "The Turkish military intervention in Cyprus...was LEGAL.", do you find any separation about both phase of the operations?

vi) So... dear Car8025, as you see, I did not take the specific parts of the sources in part. The title "The Legal Aspects of Turkey's 1974 Action" does not prevent you to find and write illegal aspects of the operation as well. You are welcome to state this. As long as these are not the parts of the interested parties, you can be sure that the sources you will find will be welcome. As you see, I directly write the text of PACE's resolution. PACE is not one of the two parties. I directly write the text of the decision of the GREECE's court. Here, GREECE's court certainly is a party, but indicates opinion/decision just opposite to GREECE's government. That is, you should show sources i) not a party (neutral source) ii) one of the parties but express opposite view to the party (in which it is located) itself. Nebilla41 ( talk) 07:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply

ANSWER TO Nebilla41 You are trying so hard to prove the legality of the Turkish invasion by providing inaccurate arguments. You say that the sentence "Indicating that the invasion was an illegal act" is a naming that is done by the author. To make a long story short, Have a look at resolution 353(1974) of the UN. In particular, read carefully the following fragment: "The security council demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus that is in contravention of the provisions of paragraph 1 above Cyprus that is in contravention of the provisions" Does that seem as the UN seeing it as legal? No. It clearly condemns both the Greek junta and the Turkish invasion. Occupying an island for 38 years is not what I personally call an exercise of the right of the intervention..... But who cares what I believe right? The PACE resolution 974(1983) states: "The assembly, call once again for the immediate withdrawal of the Turkish troops which illegally occupy a part of Cypriot territory, this withdrawal being an indispensable condition for the final solution of the Cyprus crisis" nebilla please understand that intervention does not mean occupation. Turkey did not intervene, it occupied the island and brought settlers from Turkey. That's the reason it is called Turkish invasion and not intervention. You are trying to prove that it is legal. Can you find any country besides Turkey which recognizes TRNC? What does that tell you about the invasion? -- Car8025 —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply

UN resolution 360(1974) (Second phase of the Turkish invasion in 14/08/1974: "The security council, records its formal disaproval of the unilateral military actions undertaken against the republic of Cyprus"

PACE resolution 974(1983) http://www.assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewPDF.asp?FileID=15008&Language=EN

UN resolution 353(1974) http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/289/72/IMG/NR028972.pdf?OpenElement

UN resolution 360(1974) http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/289/80/IMG/NR028980.pdf?OpenElement
ANSWER TO Car8025, First, very very thanks Car8025. I will definitely place your sources to the above table.
(1) The resolution 353(1974) of the UN: "The security council demands an immediate end to foreign military INTERVENTION in the Republic of Cyprus that is in contravention of the provisions of paragraph 1 above Cyprus that is in contravention of the provisions"
ANS: Car8025, even the source you specify use the world "INTERVENTION", not "INVASION", and you want us to use the word "INVASION". Are you more authority than UN Security Council?

(2) The PACE resolution 974(1983): "The assembly, call once again for the immediate withdrawal of the Turkish troops which illegally occupy a part of Cypriot territory, this withdrawal being an indispensable condition for the final solution of the Cyprus crisis"
ANS: OK. I added your contribution to the "PACE" part above in the table. So, you see, we Wikipedians are not biased. We mentioned both of the PACE resolutions.

(3) Turkey did not intervene
ANS: Even the source you gave (The resolution 353(1974) of the UN) use the word "INTERVENE"!
There is no UN SC resolution that uses the word "INVASION"! GREECE's Highest Court: "Turkey's 1974 INTERVENTION was LEGAL". You know, Helens (Greece) was one of the parties in 1974 cyprus war. Even Greece's JUDIARY accepted the LEGALITY of INTERVENTION. Greece's Governments' expressions are all "lip service". You know, what is determining and binding is not a Country's GOVERNMENT but that Country's JUDIARY!

(4) Turkey brought settlers from Turkey.
ANS: The number of settlers that were brought by Greece is more than that of Turkey's! Total number of settlers in south Cyprus are high over the total number of settlers in Northern Cyprus. There are more than 300 000 settlers from Greece, Russia, Moldova, Philipinnes in south Cyprus.

QUESTION: In 1963, if it is case that instead of Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots kicked out the Greek Cypriots out of the Cyprus Government and capture the title of "Republic of Cyprus", then now, would it be the case that settlers from Greece is illegal, and settlers from Turkey is legal??
ANSWER: Definitely no! The international law is not shaped according to power but right. Hence, the settlers from Turkey are as legal as the settlers from Greece! That is why, there is no sanction exercised on Turkey on bringing new settlers each passing day.

(5) TRNC?
ANS: In 2010 European Billard Championship, the two countries TRNC Northern Cyprus (of Turkish Cypriots) and Cyprus (of Greek Cypriots) matched. The two states participated as TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. Because, they are members of European Billard Federation as TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. Here is the scoreboard of TRNC-Cyprus match. You may know these two flags: TRNC and Cyprus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NorthCyprus_Cyprus_2010Billard.jpg
TRNC (Northern Cyprus) became a member of International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles (FILA). So, just as in billiard, soon wrestlers of TRNC and Cyprus will match if matched.
In 2004, TRNC (Northern Cyprus) became a member of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) under the name "Turkish Cyprus State".
In 2012, TRNC (Northern Cyprus) became a member of Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO) under the name "Turkish Cyprus State". OBSERVER DOES NOT MEAN LEGAL RECOGNITION. IN FACT BECAUSE IT IS NOT RECOGNIZED IT IS JUST AN OBSERVER ---- Car8025 REPLY TO NEBILA Hi. First of all, I NEVER mentioned anything about whether the term Intervention or Invasion should be used in the article. I do believe that it is an invasion and thats what I said but I didn't use capital letters to emphasize it like you did, nor I said that it should be used in the article. In fact, I didn't even think about it. Furthermore, whether is an intervention or an invasion doesn't change the fact that the resolution 353(1974) of the UN condemns it as it condemns the Greek junta. Secondly, for what you wrote: "The number of settlers that were brought by Greece is more than that of Turkey's! Total number of settlers in south Cyprus are high over the total number of settlers in Northern Cyprus. There are more than 300 000 settlers from Greece, Russia, Moldova, Philipinnes in south Cyprus" is completely wrong. The number of greek settlers is not so big and the people from Russia, Moldova, Philipinnes go there to work on a visa, not to live permanently. They are not brought by the government for any reason. On the other hand, Turkey brought people in Cyprus in order to increase the number of Turks living there to overcome the fact that they were a minority. The Turkish government brought them there to live permanently and gave them houses once owned by greek cypriots. I take that argument as a joke and now for the last thing you stated about the billiard tournament: What do you want to say? There are no direct flights from North Cyprus to anywhere besides Turkey. Northern Cyprus passports are not accepted by many countries and thirdly besides billiard there are no other tournaments in which Norhtern Cyprus participates. If you go to the CIA world fact book do you see "Northern Cyprus?." do you see it anywhere else in a list with countries?... ---- Car8025

ps. The number 300,000 is either from a completely wrong source or an imaginary number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Car8025 ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply

ps2: Definition of invasion: An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Car8025 ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply

You shouldn't bother adding the table. PACE considers it illegal according to 974(1983).The UN also do not agree with the intervention/invasion of Cyprus by Turkey per 360(1974) and 353(1974). Just add the source from the court of Athens somewhere in the article after you find a link to it or a source. A section 'The Legal Aspects of Turkey's 1974 Action' should not exist in my opinion for the reasons stated above ---- Car8025

About the legality of the invasion: The article Four of the Treaty of Guarantee refers to the right of intervention, it does not refer to military intervention for the simple reason that, according to the United Nations Charter, no state has the right to intervene militarily in another state without the consent of the UN Security Council."

UN RESOLUTION 541(1983) and 550(1984) reject TRNC from being a legal state. In particular:

The Security Council,

1. Reaffirms its resolution 541(1983) and calls for its urgent and effective implementation,

2. Condemns all secessionist actions, including the purported exchange of Ambassadors between Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leadership, declares them illegal and invalid and calls for their immediate withdrawal;

3. Reiterates the call upon all States not to recognise the purported state of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" set up by secessionist acts and calls upon them not to facilitate or in any way assist the aforesaid secessionist entity;

4. Calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, unity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus; ---- Car8025

Resolution 550(1984) : http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,RESOLUTION,CYP,,3b00f15b24,0.html

I just reverted the edit of a blocked IP. The edit summary was in allegory to the dishonest use of IPs to impose certain POV. I could have written simply "reverted sock edit". -- E4024 ( talk) 15:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• 

Aside from being very crude, the flag map is incorrect:
1. It identifies Kastellorizo as being part of Turkey.
2. It identifies the small islands east of what appears to be a displacement of Kos, as part of Turkey.
Also, the drawing of the flag of the occupied North is childlike, as is the drawing of the flag of Cyprus.

This is a matter of quality. Either we should have an accurate map, or remove it. Rather, I don't see the need for a flag map; a regular map would suffice. An edited version of the following map would be far better for encyclopaedic purposes:

• 

One could extract the image of Cyprus from the following image:

• 

Kupraios ( talk) 01:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply

There have been two reverts by user Soffredo removing Turkey as one of the disputants: [17], [18] This is incorrect because Turkey is a major player in the Cyprus dispute. I have restored Turkey and I expect a justification from Soffredo for their actions. Δρ.Κ.  ^{λόγος πράξις}

I propose that Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots be merged into Cyprus dispute#Division of the island. As the article now stands, this is equivalent to a deletion of the "Population exchange" article, since its content is already in the "Cyprus dispute" article (with a note and link to the Agreement text). However, attempts have been made to add more content ("Aftermath") to the article, so far without sufficient sourcing. Such addition (with proper sourcing) can easily be incorporated into Cyprus dispute#Division of the island. There is no need for a separate article. -- T*U ( talk) 14:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Support Currently not nearly long enough to be a standalone article. It should be included in the wider context here. However, no objections to a future split if the information mass does increase. CMD ( talk) 11:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Support but maybe look into splitting this article along better lines. — Lfdder ( talk) 12:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Strong Oppose:
  

1. Cyprus dispute is continuing since 1963s where UNFICYP (post-Joint Truce Force) located in the island and the partnership government was dissolved. During 51 years of "Cyprus dispute" negotiations, the number of agreement between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots is just less than the number of fingers of a hand. Hence, Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots should not be merged into Cyprus dispute#Division of the island.

2. Sufficient sourcing (of the "Aftermath") was given but intentionally omitted again and again.

3. Cyprus dispute#Division of the island is not suitable place. Because: First of all, the division did not start at after 1974. It has started much earlier: Restricting the "Division"'s start to 1974 is contrary to history.

Year; NumberofMixedVillages: (1832, 172), (1881, 342 The new def'n of village by UK), (1931, 252), (1960, 114), (1970, 48), (1974, 1(Pyla)). The propsed merges implies the division is due to the war. However, not only people but also territoeries divided far before 1974: "Enclaved Areas: 1963-1974", "Provisional Administration of Turkish Cypriots:1967".

4. CMD, I made that objection before. Putting everything to Cyprus dispute page inflated that page dramatically. Hence, merge must be avoided not only for the above reasons but also for preventing the inflation of "C Dispute" page. Alexyflemming ( talk) 13:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• • If this page is greatly inflated by what is just one sentence and some copy-pasted text, than as Lfdder said, it needs to be split along better lines. CMD ( talk) 13:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply

See the "View History" of Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. There is an obvious meddling in to the growing in the article. Even the sourced infos were deleted. And then, after trimming the article that much, ones are wanting merging.

1959: London-Zurich Agreement; 1975: 1975:Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots; 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration are only 3 pivotal-agreements and they must be kept all the way so. If all the related things are put to the same basket, Wikipedia becomes garbage of wastes soon! Alexyflemming ( talk) 14:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply

The 1st para was unreferenced; the 2nd one was sourced to a stock photo db and a blog post. Cut the crap. — Lfdder ( talk) 14:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply

They're not fantastic sources, but even so, 108 words is not really an article. If you have good sources, and discuss them on this talkpage, then when this section of this page becomes large enough to create a standalone main page, then it can be made at that point. CMD ( talk) 00:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Aftermath of the Agreement: The 1st para was referenced well now from a University study contributed by many experts. The 2nd one also sourced with many sources. Well-documented and well sourced. Also, for the other argument, A University Study contributed by many experts is fantastic source. If not, what is the def'n of fantastic source? After "Aftermath of the Agrement" added, the new article has more than 108 words (now:422 words!) and growing rapidly. I had good source and put them already. Alexyflemming ( talk) 07:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Aftermath of the Agreement: A map of the villages of the remained Greek Cypriots and Maronite Cypriots was added. The article is extending. Alexyflemming ( talk) 13:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Support - I think " Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots" could be a brilliant stand alone article, however in it's current state (a little more than a quote of the Third Vienna Agreement), I think it should be merged until we have enough content for a stand alone article. IJA ( talk) 08:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• The "Aftermath of the Agreement" was added now it is more than the state you specified. Enough content already existed. The article is growing as well. Alexyflemming ( talk) 07:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Lead-Up: A Lead-up (of the article Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots) section was added. The article growing rapidly. Alexyflemming ( talk) 12:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Support per IJA and Lfdder without prejudice about split when we have enough content for a stand alone article. Beagel ( talk) 17:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Enough content existed for the article as a stand alone one. Alexyflemming ( talk) 07:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Aftermath of the Agreement: A map of the villages of the remained Greek Cypriots and Maronite Cypriots was added. The article is extending. Alexyflemming ( talk) 13:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Lead-Up: A Lead-up (of the article Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots) section was added. The article growing rapidly. Alexyflemming ( talk) 12:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Some additions to the article have been made since my merger proposal. The "Aftermath" section has been added with better sourcing. At the same time User:Alexyflemming made the same addition to the "Cyprus dispute", thereby proving that it was quite easily merged! The latest addition is a so-called "Lead-up" with hardly any sourcing. It was first reverted, then re-entered with <cn> tags and even a <refimprove> tag on the whole article by the same editor who proposed the addition. Adding new text which includes <cn> tags seems very strange to me. But even if these additions are sourced, I do not see that they contribute anything to the "Population exchange" article. If the only way to expand the article is to add more "Lead-in" and "Aftermath", the main part of the article (about the agreement), is hardly standing on its own feet. -- T*U ( talk) 19:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Almost two months have now passed without any new development, so it seems to be time to move on. The consensus to merge has only been challenged by User:Alexyflemming. The same user has edited the target article "Cyprus dispute" in such a way that the main part of this article and the "Aftermath" section is already covered there. The so-called "Lead-in" section has poor sourcing and has <cn> tags and even a <refimprove> tag added by the same user. I suggest that if this part can be better sourced, the place for it is either in the "Cyprus dispute" article or maybe better in the Cypriot refugees article.

I will soon proceed to complete the merging. Regards! -- T*U ( talk) 14:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC) reply

There has been no new development since March, so I have now proceeded to complete the merge.

• All the text content of the Aftermath section was already incorporated into the target article by the only objecting editor. I have moved the map showing the remaining Orthodox and Maronite villages.
• The Agreement section (which was supposed to be the main part of the article, between "Lead-up" and "Aftermath") did not really have any content apart from the text of the agreement. There is already a link to the UN document in the target article. The text of the agreement could go to Wikisource, if wanted.
• The content of the Lead-up section was largely unsourced and badly sourced, and was tagged with <cn> tags by the same editor who entered it with the edit sumamry "Please wait enough for the presentation of the citations of the related infos". We have been waiting for more than two months now. The content is of interest, so that if it can be re-written and properly sourced, it could very well fit into the article Cypriot refugees. As it now stands, I have just deleted it, since there is nothing from this to merge. Regards! -- T*U ( talk) 11:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

A summary presentation of all the private legal cases involved in the Cyprus dispute can be added to this article, as long as it is neutrally presented and given its due weight. Relying on a single case which has been dismissed in Washington, due to lack of jurisdiction of the court in Washington, is misleading and thus it was removed. Δρ.Κ.  ^{λόγος πράξις} 10:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

1. Till now, since 28.02.2011, there was only 1 case action in the page. Nobody objected to this. There is also a "balanced presentation" of TU-nor already in the article. So, why did you delete a very specific court case in the article? It was already there since 2011. Deleting it when Greek Cypriots lost the case is not the Wikipedia's Neutrality Principle! You immediately became aware of the fact that the case is "private" once the Greek Cypriots lost it!

2. Was the very same case action not "private" during 2011-2014(GCs' lost)?!!

Since 2011 (even pre-2011), you made lots of edits to the article; you did not raise even smallest objection about its "privateness" till the Court rejected GCs! There was a very big heading titling as "Case action". It is impossible you did not see it till October-2014.

3. Case action is not private. The cases directly opened against TRNC. In the other case actions, TRNC was not a party to the Court cases. However, in this one, Greek Cypriots directly filed against TRNC! TRNC was one of the parties.

Alexyflemming ( talk) 13:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Leave the clueless personal attacks and the even more clueless, loud and abusive underlined bolding with the multiple exclamation marks and the question mark. I had not thought about the matter until you got reactivated and started spreading misinformation across multiple Cyprus-related articles. I did not add this section in 2011, neither was I the first to remove it, the IP editor did. I agree with the IP editor that this, alone, is misleading to be added here. There have been other cases against Turkey which are also part of the Cyprus dispute, which can be added here, or did you not know that, being an expert and all? Being against TRNC is not a requirement for a case to be part of the Cyprus dispute. So, I am not against including it, just not alone per WP:UNDUE. I am actually telling you to expand the section by adding more cases, for added balance and NPOV. "Expand" means making it it bigger and more balanced with less POV. That's a good thing. No? Δρ.Κ.  ^{λόγος πράξις} 16:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyprus dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080902110745/http://www.taraf.com.tr/yazar.asp?id=12 to http://www.taraf.com.tr/yazar.asp?id=12
• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action;jsessionid=516B38E2EAFF2073525EEB08F7B53903?newsId=105715
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101210081344/http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/turkish_cypriot_community/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/turkish_cypriot_community/index_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cyprus dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725102127/http://www.britishcyprusmemorial.org/roll to http://www.britishcyprusmemorial.org/roll
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808043644/http://www.unficyp.org/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=5214 to http://www.unficyp.org/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=5214
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402130547/http://agora-dialogue.com/?p=26620 to http://agora-dialogue.com/?p=26620

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Cyprus Mail has never been a "mainstream"newspaper in Cyprus. It was historically associated with support for British colonial authorities and firm opposition to Enosis. These were never mainstream positions in Greek Cypriot politics; quite the opposite, in fact, as every Cypriot (Greek or Turkish) will tell you. Currently, Cyprus Mail generally has the policy of opposing the incumbent government, generally criticise the "political class" and all political parties, and promote a "Cypriot" (as opposed to Greek or Turkish) identity for people in the Island. One can discuss the merits of these positions, but they are NOT mainstream in Greek Cypriot politics, and have never been. 79.130.41.27 ( talk) 18:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't know about that. I think Cyprus Mail is pretty mainstream in Cyprus. The only thing I would say is it tries too much to brand itself as neutral, though it sometimes pisses off people from both sides with some of its posts... also, Cypriots can be pretty "political" and "opinionated" about things that try to be "impartial" to things they're rather headstrong about, if you ask me... Nargothronde ( talk) 06:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The first sentence claims: The Cyprus dispute... is the ongoing issue of Turkish military invasion and occupation of the northern third of the island since 1974.

HOW can the Turkish invasion/intervention be immediately identified as the crux of the entire Cyprus dispute if it's only ONE (out of MANY) points for contention?

• 1) The Turkish invasion/intervention is not "the" issue. It's "an" issue, along with many other "issues". See: UN Cyprus Talks Cyprus Talks Archives - Cyprus Mail Cyprus peace process 2015–17 Cyprus talks etc
• 2) i.e. surely the Historical background before 1960 section etc is also testament to why this is wrong?

Nargothronde ( talk) 06:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

I will second that. Cyprus dispute was an issue long before 1974. I will place a neutrality template in the article. Cinadon36 ( talk) 07:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

It is really hard to set an exact date when the Cyprus Dispute emerged as an ontological entity.

• M. Michael says that is was buffling UN at least since 1963 ( see introduction)
• Here is an academic article, published in 1973, which deals with the Cyprus Conflict.
• LINDLEY, D. (2007). Historical, Tactical, and Strategic Lessons from the Partition of Cyprus. International Studies Perspectives, 8(2), 224–241. doi:10.1111/j.1528-3585.2007.00282.x Cyprus conflict starts long before 1974. Cinadon 36 06:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Cinadon 36 06:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply