Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cypriot refugee

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cypriot refugee

A highly pov and unencylopedic article concerning the Cyprus conflict. There are already a host of pages which cover this kind of material, and at least those article make some attempt to balance the explanation of the conflict. They include: Cyprus dispute, Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict, Operation Atilla. The article is extremely one-sided, attempts by myself to neutralise it have been met with reverts by the creator. I did plan on rewriting it, but saw no point in yet another article covering the same material. A.Garnet 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is just a blatant POV push by an editor whose bias and nationalism are clearly evident from his past edits. The displaced Greek Cypriots are dealt with in multiple other articles (as noted in the comment from A Garnet) so this information (POV as it is) is redundant. A quick read through of the paragraph '1963 Background' clearly shows the original editors deviation from accepted history. His implication that Turkish Cypriots were living in enclaves in order to gain partition of Cyprus and not, as was the case, becuase they had reason to fear for their lives is just one example of POV. Adam777 14:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The incivility of the deletion-explanation aside, the article is needless. KazakhPol 18:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article depicts “the ongoing strife of internally displaced Cypriots-refugees and their demand to return to their homes since 1974”and as such there is no other article in wikipedia that covers that topic about the current or fairly recent situation. Demonstrations, rallies, Solomou and Isaak case and Women demonstrations. Almost 32 years after 1974 and refugees are still away from their properties, there are still missing persons whose fate is unknown. There have been protests against this status quo by civilians and not politicians. This fairly recent situation is not hosted in other articles.

This user A.Garnet pushing his pov has put ^{[citation needed]} tag in cited statements. An example being the UN briefing under “Turkish Reply to a Demonstration” heading. And I paste my argument below:

In a UN Press Briefing right after the Solomou events New York Congressman Eliot Engel said: “For the first time in many years, the Turkish Government was not secular, and since it had come to power, "we've seen one provocation after another". The recent actions in Cyprus might be a symbol that the new Turkish Government was trying to provoke a war, he said^{[citation needed]}. "The solution is the immediate demilitarization of Cyprus." As soon as the quote ends the statement in the article is cited by this :[1]

Why users deem the UN as POV and one sided since it is the only international organization that has approximately 190 member countries and does not reflect a unilateral foreign policy. The article includes quotes like “according to the UN; illegal TRNC”. A quoted reference that was deleted-edited by the same user here

The aricle has been edited substantially since its creation by users other than myself. see here. Have a look how the user that claims to “have attempted to neutralize”; changes the article here [2] into an intro that has little to do with the articles title, pushing for a political statement such as declaration of TRNC deviating from “Cypriot refugee” into articles that are already in wikipedia ie Cyprus dispute or Turkish Invasion of Cyprus.

This user is POV pushing and I quote his edits: “The attempted coup d'etat in July 1974 by EOKA-B, which advocated immediate Enosis, plus the removal or killing of all Turkish Cypriots on the island, gave the Turkish Military its cassus belli'. Unquote.

Casus belli_= an event to justify war. Turkey to this day states that in 1974 she “intervened” with a “peace operation”. The killing of all Turkish Cypriots? I challenge the user to bring forth evidence and substantiate both arguments for “casus belli” and killed all Turkish Cypriots or is it the users’ interpretation? [3] I reverted user Garnet once here [4] and explained that since the article has a disputed tag, lets talk before you change the whole article. Quote “(RV please dont change the whole article because you dont agree with it...lets talk about the changes you are eager to do) Unquote.

I see that the user made an argument that the article is covered elsewhere. I think the user wants the article deleted because he disagrees with it and not because “it is covered in other articles”. Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict ends (in terms of time) where this article begins. The1963 Background is a link (in the heading) for the referred article. This section was created after user A.Garnet and Expatkiwi insisted in adding background (stating that “Turkish Cypriots were the first refugees in Cyprus) in order to make a political statement and not to add towards the purpose of the article “Depicting the ongoing strife of Cypriot refugees and their demand to return to their homes since 1974”. The article factual accuracy has been disputed by a tag and I have since requested repeatedly for users to substantiate. I have replied with citations to the majority of the initial issues raised. Evidence in the talk page. User Garnet changed radically the article in order to push a POV against UN arguments and not arguments of “nationalism” as user Adam777 suggests. In my opinion the UN does not reflect a foreign policy in any way. And I quote [5] “The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. It does, however, provide the means to help resolve international conflicts and formulate policies on matters affecting all of us. At the UN, all the Member States — large and small, rich and poor, with differing political views and social systems — have a voice and a vote in this process”. Unquote.

As far as the following argument made by user Adam777, I am surprised because this user never raised an argument or stressed a concern in the talk page of the article in question although I have repeatedly requested users to contribute under the POV list that I created as a heading in the talk page: Please read the passage user Adam777 refers to in his own words below: “His implication that Turkish Cypriots were living in enclaves in order to gain partition of Cyprus and not, as was the case, becuase they had reason to fear for their lives is just one example of POV”.

I have NOT in any way stated my personal opinion. The section referred to by Adam777 begins with “The Turkish Community of the Republic of Cyprus holds…” and “The Republic of Cyprus holds …” thus including the two major POV.

Evident in the talk page, I have openly asked and explained that we will collectively discuss a list of concerns that would be drafted collectively so that we can collectively reach an agreement. The only user that has done so; but attacked myself in the process (see talk page) was Garnet. I did not encounter but avoided his accusation and verbal harassment. Instead I asked other users to contribute as well. User Garnet instead of providing some time for others to contribute to the list of concerns he took the step of afd just after he assaulted myself stating that “I have no intetion to sort this” although I repeatedly asked for contributions to the list. The user that wants the article deleted has provided no evidence for his arguments has not introduced references instead went for afd.

Yes the article needs improvement and there are a lot of information that can be included but please read the article carefully with its references before making your decision. Aristovoul0s 21:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Although it needs cleaning up, and has a Greek POV Arnoutf 21:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe cleanup is required, but the striking images and facts about Solomos Solomou and Tasos Isaak do not exist in any related articles. This is a legitimate article, treating a controversial subject, that is not mentioned in the other articles presented as 'related' to it. I also notice that most citations requested in the article are for POV additions of the nominators! •NikoSilver• 22:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, and this article is about as forkish as the "Occupation of Izmir". Although it needs making more neutral: breach of NPOV is not a criterion for deletion, and this article includes information which does not exist in other pages. It's a keeper...--Tekleni 22:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all. --ManiF 22:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Merge NPOV-able material into "Civilian casualties..." article. I must agree with the nominator that this is extremely non-neutral; moreover the topic is ill-defined as the article deals with much more than just refugees but rather re-hashes the whole of the Cyprus conflict; that makes it definitely a POV fork in my book. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict per Future Perfect at Sunrise. Omissions of the latter such as the Isaak and Solomou cases should be added to it but that is beyond the point. Plus, this one has a really really really ugly title. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC) The "Civilian casualties..." needs a lot of cleanup too. I'd also suggest that it be extended to encompass all casualties and displacements relevant to the Cypriot Dispute/Conflict from 1963 to today. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is historical information that should belong in a separate article. In order to be neutral, there must not be changes to the Greek Cypriot argument. Instead, let there be additions to it about Turkish Cypriots becoming refugees in 1974. Also merging the article with the civilian casualties and displacements article will eliminate the word "refugee" and decrease the emphasis on the refugee plight, which is not the point that this article is trying to convey. Please people, calm down, especially A Garnet.(UNFanatic 07:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC))
• Strong Keep per all reasons mentioned above. Mitsos 17:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, for reasons mentioned already. Hectorian 15:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.