Talk:Cyprus dispute/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Discussion Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2

Contents

[edit] Vandalism by E.A

Stop Vandalising this article and contribute properly.--Argyrosargyrou 22:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Created new sections

New sections on Human Rights, Destruction of Culture Heritage and Missing Persons aspects of the Cyprus dispute added to main page. Long negotiations section moved here in order to shorten main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_Reunification_Negotiations --Argyrosargyrou 20:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by Snchduer

Stop vandalising this article and READ the changes I have made and then base your revisions on those. The version by JL is not considered neutral by anyone except you and other Turkish apologists. The Reunification Negotiations have been placed on a page of their own firstly to shorten the length of the main article down to the basic substance, and secondly since they have nothing to do with the SUBSTANCE of the Cyprus dispute. The substance of the Cyprus dispute is Turkeys invasion and ethnic cleansing of Cyprus and its refusal to comply with UN resolutions and international law. The dispute is between Turkey and the rest of the world and involves the history leading up to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the events of the invasion itself, the violation of the human rights of 200,000 Greek Cypriots who were ethnically cleansed, the 1600 missing persons, Turkeys illegal colonisation of Cyprus, Turkeys destruction of the Greek cultural heritage in the occupied areas and it refusal to comply with the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights.--Argyrosargyrou 19:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

You are the only user so far that endorses this opinion (about the substance of the conflict and your version being neutral), while there are at least 4 users (myself, E.A, Expatkiwi and RickK who you designate as "Turkish propagandists") who prefer JL's version. Plus, you still refuse to discuss any changes you make to this article. Your blindness to accept any point of view except your own surprises me. Human rights violations ARE mentioned in the article, and some numbers can for sure be added, and should be for a balanced article. - Snchduer 19:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Stop Vandalising this article and discuss the facts. I have discussed the edits I want made above and in previous threads. Expatkiwi has expressed his bias towards Turkey both here and in other pages, E.A is a Turkish Cypriot nationalist and RickK is an apologist, that wants the page on the Hellenic Genocide removed, just like you are. If you dispute any of the facts I have included in the article discuss them here with me first before vandalising the article. You have not included a proper Human Rights section or a section on destruction of cultural heritage and missing persons in your edits which are purely concerned with negotiations and in which you have made every possible effort to delete the historical account of what occurred between 1960, 1974 and the present day in order to distort what actually happened by omission and conceals Turkeys guilt and capability. That makes you an apologist. If you want to write about the politics of negotiations then edit the negations pages I have linked to. I as a historian am writing about the historical facts.--Argyrosargyrou 20:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
This still makes you the only user so far to hold this opinion. Moving the negotiations part to a separate page is an attempt to take this out of the Cyprus dispute article, of which the negotiations form an integral part. Your view is heavily GC POV. I do not excuse what Turkey has done, and admit the human rights violations made by the Turkish army. You however try to omit what EOKA and GCs have done in the 60s and 70s to their fellow Cypriots, during the intercommunal violence, by strongly concentrating on what was done by the Turkish army, and listing everything extensively in a RoC-government style. You never discussed your edits, which were approved by no one so far. - Snchduer 21:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
If you had not gone around deleting all the facts and figures I included you would have read the figures of the TC's affected by the violence in 1963/4 therefore your statements are all baseless. "By February 1964 5,500 Turkish Cypriots and 1,600 Greek Cypriots had been displaced because of the fighting. Later 19,500 more Turkish Cypriots left their homes most of which were in mixed villages and moved into Turkish Cypriot only enclaves for better security."
The negotiations are not one of the causes of the cause Cyprus despute. They are there to help solve it and since you account of the negations takes up more room than anything else it belongs on its own page.--Argyrosargyrou 22:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
And as for you comments about me concentrating on events after 1974. That is not true either. 2/3 of the current article (excluding you exceedingly long description of negotiations) is about events before 1974.--Argyrosargyrou 22:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Make sure good edits aren't lost in the shuffle

I stumbled across this page via a roundabout path. I did minor style and wikify work on the intro b/c I hate "ugly" intro grafs (11:06, 28 May 2005 Feco version). Someone should take a look at the edits immediately before mine—from the 10:38, 28 May 2005 MacGyverMagic version to the 10:47, 28 May 2005 Argyrosargyrou version. There were a lot of changes to the content, but I don't know enough about the topic to be certain. It would be good for someone to make sure the big change is kosher. Either way, try to keep the intro in a presentable shape... wikilinks, bolding the article's title in the first sentence, etc. Feco 18:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The edits were Argyrosargyrou's attempts to revert to his POV version, which he claims is neutral. But I liked your ideas for an introduction and tried to incorporate them (the EU is only a party lately, and Britain is not so much part of the dispute since 1963); take a look and tell me what you think - Snchduer 18:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I would tighten the prose as much as possible:
The Cyprus Dispute is the ongoing conflict between Greek and Turkish Cypriots over Cyprus, an island in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. The dispute currently involves Turkey, Greece, the United Kingdom, the United Nations and the European Union. This dispute led to de facto division of the island into Greek- and Turkish-speaking halves, the latter being occupied by Turkish troops since 1974.

Feco 18:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm, more streamlined indeed. Use parts instead of halves - as actually it is something like 36% TRNC, about 50-60% RoC (anybody with clear figures?), and some percent for Green line (UN controlled) and sovereign British bases. Else very nice. - Snchduer 19:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Alas, the article has be re-reverted. Back to the Greek vs. Turkish worldview debate, I see. Funny, you would think the two cultures have been at war for centuries </sarcasm>. I don't know enough about the subject to get involved in depth, but feel free to use any of my intro suggestions once the article has stabilized. Feco 19:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I am getting tired of this as well. Endless discussions and accusations... - Snchduer 20:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lets Start YET Again

Hello people,

so - shall we start on improving this article again? If anybody is indeed against JL's version of the article, please voice your concerns below, but try to make it a rational discussion (accusing people of GC/TC/GR/TR propaganda is not helpful). I will try to give a few recommendations - which can of course also be discussed and amended - here on how we shall edit the article in the future.

When editing, try to preserve a balanced view of the conflict, stating facts as facts, opinions as opinions. Try to always show both sides of the conflict (GC and TC, plus Greek and Turkish where appropriate) equally, as this in my opinion is what the conflict burnt down to today. If you cannot do this, state it in a neutral way (as in "Hundreds of Greek and Turkish Cypriots were killed"), and make a note on this talk page so somebody else can provide us with more accurate numbers. Implications of the British in this conflict will also be informative, so add where appropriate. But most importantly, before making any major edits, discuss them on this talk page. If nobody replies for some days, take it as a "yes". - Snchduer 16:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing proposals

I will start positively with a proposal on changing the table of the elections. I would like to scrap the second table, given the fact that the number of Turkish Cypriots is most likely inaccurate (no reliable numbers can be given on this one, I believe). Instead, I would like - as in most elections and votes - to include the percentages and the numbers of valid votes, as well as a third row with the totals, together with a note on the 40% thing; sth like this:

Referendum Result Yes No  Turnout 
 northern part (Turkish Cypriot)  64.90% 35.09% 87%
xxx,xxx xxx,xxx xxx,xxx
 southern part (Greek Cypriot)   24.17%   75.83%  88%
xxx,xxx xxx,xxx xxx,xxx
 Total   xx.xx%   xx.xx%  xx%
xxx,xxx xxx,xxx xxx,xxx

Note: About 60% of the residents of the self-declared TRNC are considered Turkish settlers and thus not legal residents by the Republic of Cyprus, and thus not entitled to vote

- Snchduer 16:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Past Tries on solving the editing war

[edit] Agyro's Version - RoC POV

Since this page was never neutral when it was created and was highly politicised I have rewritten everything based on official neutral Republic of Cyprus documents which cover all of the major points of the Cyprus dispute.

The Cyprus dispute is essentially Turkey's illegal invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and its refusal to comply with UN resolutions and international law ever since and withdraw its troops. This has always been a Human not a political issue. The events that occurred before 1975 are not part of any international dispute so do not belong on this page. They belong on a separate history page which can be created later.

The Cyprus dispute concerns human issues alone. These are the following

  • The Turkish Invasion
  • Results of Invasion
  • Refugees
  • Missing Persons
  • Enclaved
  • Turkish Colonisation
  • "TRNC" - An Illegal Entity
  • Destruction of Cultural Heritage

Scheduler's descriptions of the UN negotiation process is a political issue so does not belong on this page so it has been removed. I will place it on a new page titled Cyprus Peace Process or any other title he is willing to suggest.

Argyrosargyrou, If you're going to be neutral, then the issues would be better titled:

  • 1974 Turkish Military Intervention
  • Intervention Goals - Obstensive, Perceived, and Actual
  • Inter-Communal populace displacement
  • Aftermath of the Intervention and populace exchanges
  • Demographic changes
  • Turkish-Cypriot UDI
  • Changes since UDI - Northern and Southern Cyprus

Believe me, I'm making quite a few compromises in my principles in the above titles....--Expatkiwi 03:35 27 MAY 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with neutral version. The only reason you want to discount the years before 74 is because it incriminates Greek Cypriots, which is why your "neutral" Republic of Cyprus documents will not cover them. To discount the years before is to suggest Turkey invaded Cyprus for no reason, when it was to prevent any more bloodshed that was caused by the Greek Cypriots. --E.A 09:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I object to using the version on the RoC homepage as a basis. It is not neutral, very one-sided, and does not cover the whole issue of the Cyprus dispute. The Cyprus dispute issue runs deeper than the 1974 invasion and after, which is why on the page JL wrote it starts even in the 19th century. - Snchduer 11:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JL's version

I make a counter-proposal, namely to use JL's version as a basis for the article. It is not perfect, but it is quite neutral, even though it does not mention all the important facts. Yet I think it can be easily extended to a good article. - Snchduer 11:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree --E.A 15:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Vandalism by 138.5.97.153

I reverted the changes made by 138.5.97.153. Deleting the discussion page will not help improving anything. It will be reverted back. If you have anything say, share your opinion with us here on discussion page. -Cansın 20.10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Argyrosargyrou has created new article: Cyprus issue

The reason its gone quiet here is because his simply moved his POV stuff to a new article called Cyprus Issue, same old accusations and denials...--E.A 21:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that one really reads like a GC propaganda page, surpasses even the RoC government page, I guess. Guess his article will be deleted in no time. - Snchduer 11:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Right I was. Article has just been tagged as copyright violating... - Snchduer 17:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The article has been flagged copyvio, "reverted" to remove the copyvio tag (no explanation given), re-tagged copyvio, and finally deleted. It may reappear, though. Feco 18:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My revert

I just reverted the article. Blaming anything on the Turkish or the British in the lead of the article is going to sound POV, regardless of the fact who's fault it is. Make sure any sources that back such statements up aren't written by a party with a stake in the issue. Mgm|(talk) 17:43, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About the former fork "Cyprus Issue"

(moved here from Talk:Cyprus Issue) - Mgm|(talk) 17:55, May 28, 2005 (UTC) This page only exists because Argyrosargyrou is still unable to a cooperative editing style as well as a result-oriented participation in a discussion. Proofs of this can be found at the Talk:Cyprus_dispute/Archive_1 and Talk:Cyprus_dispute/Archive_2 as well as in his attempt to instate the version he now publishes on this page at Cyprus_dispute, which is the main page of the Cyprus issue/dispute/conflict, and the page where users will continue to work on.

This page should be deleted as soon as possible, and replaced with a redirect to Cyprus_dispute - Snchduer 14:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

large parts of this page are copyvio. I've flagged as such. Feco 16:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
The reason why this page exists is because the page titled Cyprus dispute has been hijacked by Turkish extremists and apologists who are working in collusion to keep reverting the page every time I try to include historical facts and figures about Turkeys symmetric ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Greek Cypriots in order to render it neutral.
The text used on this page has always been public domain so I can see no problem using it as a template.--Argyrosargyrou 16:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
if you follow the link on the copyvio notice, you'll find the page from which most of this article was copy/pasted. On that page, at the bottom, is a copyright notice. Feco 17:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Disclaimer: you refuse to adopt a cooperative editing style, calling everyone else a Turkish propagandist. We offered you to discuss changes, but you obviously never consented to do so. - Snchduer 17:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Quote: LOL.. Neither Expatkiwi, Snchduer, and RickK are contributing from a neutral standpoint. Snchduer, and RickK have all shown from their contributions here and elsewhere that they are behaving like apologists, with RickK going so far as to demand that the page on the Hellenic Genocide be deleted. EA. is a Turkish Cypriot nationalist and like RickK wants the history of the Hellenic Genocide suppressed so its no wonder he is doing the same on the history of Cyprus. And you accuse me of saying my view of history is the only acceptable one. I am saying that Expatkiwi, Snchduer, RickK and EA. are all on the side of Turkey and that balance is needed which none of them have provided. Snchduer has deleted all the historical facts and figures I added so as to equate legality with illegality and EA continues to reputedly sabotage the page by reverting to earlier pro-Turkish edits. --Argyrosargyrou 17:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
This is wikipedia, not your private playground. Edit in cooperation with other editors or don't edit at all. The Cyprus dispute is a conflict between several parties, and one cannot expect one of these parties to publish a neutral or balanced point of view. Not the Republic of Cyprus government, not the TRNC leadership, not Turkey and not Greece. - Snchduer 17:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I have tried to cooperate with you in editing, but every time you ignore everything I say and keep reverting the pages as soon as I introduce facts and figures which you can't even be bothered to read. You have not even given an accurate description of the Annan plan (despite my notices) which states that Turkish forces will stay in Cyprus forever and you keep reverting my edits to falsly claim that they will all be withdrawn which is not the case. You are working as a Turkish apologist.--Argyrosargyrou 17:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Your contributions to the Cyprus dispute Talk pages do not show anything productive. They are full of accusations to other users. Your edits consisted of reverting to the version you wrote, which represented a strongly Greek Cypriot POV. - Snchduer 17:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Argyrosargyrou

As a Turkish Cypriot i have not even began to scratch the surface with what Greek Cypriots did to the Turks, i have had family shot and killed, i have relations who have lost their entire family, watched their sons shot, watched their brothers killed, had their fathers shot it the back. I have family who recount 120 people from their village being rounded up and shot in reponse to Turkey invading in 74. I could fill this article with information like this all day, but like your compatriots you choose to ignore these and spread bollocks all day. --E.A 20:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I have a suggestion

Please go to www.cyprus-conflict.net This place is as impartial as you can get. It has both Turkish and Greek crimes on Cyprus. Everyone here in wikipedia is a biased fanatic when it comes to Cyprus. May there be TRUE democracy and TRUE reunification in Cyprus, free from any foreign domination, Turk, Greek, or British.

The problem here is with the facts. The problem is that E.A and Snchduer do not want the facts to be revealed at all. They are Turkish apologists and it does not serve their interests for have anything said about the Turkish invasion and the human rights vitiations, the number of people displace, the destruction of Cyprus culture heritage, the missing persons, the Turkish colonisation or what the Annan plan actually said no matter how true it might be because showing any of that would show that Turkey was the aggressor and does not want a solution and that the Greek Cypriots are the victims. What they are doing is like neo-NAZI's deleeting all reference to the holocaust and blaming the Jews for their own extermination. RickK has already shown that he wants the page on the Hellenic Genocide deleted and Expatkiwi is a supporter of the Turkish occupation regime.--Argyrosargyrou 23:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Dear Argyrosargyrou, you claim that Turkey is the aggressor. What is your opinion about Turkey's interference on Cyprus in 1974? Did Turkey invade the island without a reason, just beacuse Turks are barbaric, filthy creatures who have one thing to do: to hate and to exterminate the Christians in and around the Antolia? What is you opinion truly? I am new to Cyprus dispute in Wikipedia, so I just want to understand your stand point. Regards-Cansın 23.17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, the Turks invaded because of the overthrow of Makarios III according to the treaty of guarantee. Nevertheless, the duty as a guarantor of the REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS was never completed. The Turkish forces instead stayed on Cyprus, over the numbers allowed by the 1960 Constitution, and instituted a policy of expelling the Greek residents of the north via force. This is the illegal aspect: Turkey continued to invade despite the return of the functions of the government, and totally broke its own agreement to defend the 1960 Contitution and the total territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus. Instead Turkey employed "taksim" in total contravention of the Zurich agreements.UNfanatic
Yes and luckily there has been 31 years of peace and security for Turkish Cypriots since. --E.A 01:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
It is Turks of your type that we have to watch out for. UNfanatic
Dear UNfanatic, Turkey's first intervention was legal according to those agreements you have just mentioned. Turkey intervened due to the ethnic cleansing campaign inflicted/directed by Makarios and his militia. We have grown up with photos and documentaries about Cyprus conflict showing dead Turkish babies, dead mothers in their apartments. Since hypocrite Western powers haven't done anything to ensure the security in the island, Turkey made the second move which was illegal. But, can you honestly say that Greek Cypriots were so friendly against Turkish Cypriots and didn't do anything to protect or ensure security for Turkish Cypriots? Turkey's second move and staying in the island since then is a reaction against the seeds sowed by Makarios by directing the massacres of innocent Turks before 1974. Please try to understand each other. Can you claim that Greek Cypriots haven't forced Turkish Cypriots to exile or massacred them? Regards -Cansın 3.00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Both Greeks and Turks have a history of allowing their bloody nationalists to take over and massacre each other while centrists are dispossessed of their views, unfortunately. Of course the two view points are clear and I beleive that both happened at the same time, that there was a policy of Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot to restrict TUrkish Cypriots to areas on Cyprus, banning them from intermingling with the Greek Cypriots. Unfortunately, EOKA II (there is a difference from the first EOKA), were bloody nationalists who could not swallow the fact that the Republic of Cyprus was an independent country, like 95% of the rest of the Greek Cypriots have already accepted, wholeheartedly, I might add. Victims in this dispute: the Cypriotists(aka, Cypriot nationalists, be it Greek or Turk) supporters of the union and independence of the 1960 Republic of Cyprus. Of course now it seems that it will not be like that, and once again, the supporters of true union of the Cypriot nation are dumped upon. What ever happened about freedom of movement, association and property rights? Where does the fear come from? There is fear, on both sides, that the Greek and TUrkish nationalists may have more of a voice, instead of supporters of Cyprus. Both Greece and Turkey should be banned from Cyprus, even from Cyprus talks. Cypriots, both Greek and Turk should follow this idea. Unfortunately, Cypriots did not write the Annan plan, Annan wrote it. There is one hope yet, the European Union.UNfanatic
I'm in agreement with Cansın on this. The only real reason why TRNC was not recognized was that certain nations would view doing so as setting a 'dangerous precedent' for their own spheres of influence. Their view is that 'The law may upset justice, but justice can't upset the law, no matter how much right is involved'. UNfanatic and Argyrosargyrou are good examples of this line of thinking. .--Expatkiwi 03:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/y/p/Talk%7ECyprus_dispute_Archive_3_9b0a.html"