Talk:Cyprus Intercommunal violence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cyprus Intercommunal violence article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject Turkey This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list for Cyprus Intercommunal violence: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category
This article can be in the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks.

Contents

[edit] Comments

[edit] As one sided as it can get

Needs a lot of attention Aristovoul0s 13:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not how it works. First you discuss what you find one sided, before you unilaterally decide to change the entire scope of the article. This article covers the period of violence between 1963-1974 and I intend to striclty keep it within that period. The rest of the information (some of them direct copy and paste jobs) can be moved to more relvant areas i.e. History of Cyprus. --A.Garnet 14:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Why does it have to be kept strictly within that period? Does selective writing, omitting the events which make the Greek side look bad and the present Turks as innocent victims sound neutral to you? Everything must be presented in the full context. To be honest I don't think this article is necessary and that it's a WP:POVFORK of other articles (in your version at least), the history of Cyprus article being one of them.--Domitius 14:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Because the period 1963-74 is a distinct and notable part of the Cyprus conflict and it had absoloutely no coverage on Wikipedia prior to this article, much like the official Republic of Cyprus version of events--A.Garnet 15:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
So why are you deleting it?--Domitius 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Also moved back to original title, Cypriot intercommunal conflict is deliberately vague. Sources for Cypriot civil war:On War Routledge companion to World History, International Conflict: A Chronological Encyclopedia of Conflicts and Their Management, 1945-1995, The Relations of Nations, Family in War and Conflict: Using Social Capital for Survival in War Torn Cyprus,From great hope to scapegoat - US support of the United Nations, The Meaning of Limited War, The Cyprus Question and the Turkish Position in International Law--A.Garnet 15:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A.Garnet, are any of Aristovoulos's additions not relevant to the Civil War? No, they all have something to do with it. What you're doing looks like you're trying to maintain a POV fork.--Domitius 16:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am deleting information which is of no relevance to Cyprus as an independent republic and the distinct and notable conflict which followed. This isnt a case of some villagers shooting each other, it is a case of complete governmental and constitutional collpase, the division of the two communities, the arming of paramilitaries and the intervention of foreign powers, all of it during the height of the cold war. Now tell me what timars in the 18th century under the Ottoman Empire have to do with any of this?
And yes, there are some relevant edits which I was attempting to contextualise until you reverted. --A.Garnet 16:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You are deleting the background details adverse to the TR perspective which is necessary to fully understand the conflict! The article is very Turkish POV as issues the Greek side consider important are deleted.--Domitius 17:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The article follows the Cyprus-conflict narrative very closely, supplemented with further third party external sources. I do not consider talking about the Ottomans in the 17th century as a relevant background detail other than a cursory mention. --A.Garnet 17:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Where are the sources for "Cypriot Civil War" that put it between 1963 and 1974. I did a quick check on Google books and the first result says "December 1963-November 1967" ? - Francis Tyers · 22:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Also is there a better title maybe for this? I can only find a few sources using "Cypriot Civil War". - Francis Tyers · 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background

  • Should have some mention of historical demographics. Probably one or two sentences (e.g. As a result of Turkish immigration during the Ottoman Empire, by the time the United Kingdom took control of the island from the Ottoman Empire there was a sizeable Turkish minority)
  • Wasn't there an issue with the Turkish Cypriots being given more power than the size of the Community? e.g. 70:30 instead of 80:20 or something?
  • "Makarios went on to propose thirteen amendments to the constitution, which according to the historian Keith Kyle had the effect of resolving most of the issues in the Greek Cypriot favour" <-- this needs to be NPOVised. What do other historians say?
  • The "intentions" part seems a bit one sided.
  • Though the TMT - now charged with defending the Turkish Cypriots - committed a number of acts of retaliation, Kyle notes “there is no doubt that the main victims of the numerous incidents that took place during the next few months were Turks”. <-- Why does his opinion matter? And were all these attacks "retaliation" ? I doubt it.
  • You give two examples of atrocities against the Turks, none against the Greeks, and yet there were a similar number killed on each side.
  • Dodd's estimate would mean that about 118,000 people were crammed into a space of less than 95 square kilometres. <-- WP:NOR

- Francis Tyers · 23:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you are deleting stuff. If you want my opinion on that last issue what he was doing did exactly that, how ever, it was justified in the interests of true democracy. My POV doesn't count though, does it? :) --Domitius 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Everyones POV counts (well, not quite) but if you really want an NPOV article, you are going about it the wrong way. As it stands, the article is deeply flawed, and I am considering just leaving you all to edit war over it. What I would recommend is that you work through it a section at a time, rather than adding/removing large chunks of irrelevant information. You can help make it NPOV, but not in your current manner. - Francis Tyers · 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. This whole article is in a mess imo and I have tried to start a process below in the hope this might improve things ? However I also thought I would comment on a couple of your bullet points. On the '13 ammendments' I personally am of the view that you do not need a hsitorian or even a raft of historians to be able to see that the proposed ammendments respresnted a radical undermining of the basis of the 60's agreements (in favour of GC). All you need is to read the 60's agreements and then the proposed ammendments and have a modicum of common sense. As for the issue of the TC enclaves post 63 , there is a common misconception here. The classic figures of 1.5-3% of the area of Cyprus refer to areas under effective control of the TC community. This does not mean every TC was living in these areas. It means that TC were in control of these areas and safe from potential GC/ state persectuion or harrasment. The source for this is found in the various UNFICYP 6 monthly reports back to the security council. I will quote sections from one of these (S/6102 covering the period 10 September to 12 December 1964) as this makes the point clearly imo. "These areas are administered by the Turkish Cypriot community, under the authority of the Vice-President's office, and are defended by positions manned by Turkish Cypriot fighters. In the aggregate, these Turkish Cypriot areas cover approximately 54 square miles, or 1 l/2 per cent of the total area of the country, with a population of about 59,000, including 13,600 refugees." and "It should be noted that there are substantial Turkish Cypriot communities in such places as Ktima and Limassol, as well as a number of Turkish Cypriot villages, which are under the military, police, and administrative control of the Government. Some of these, notably Ktima (occupied on 4-7 March) were militarily subdued by the Government forces during the disturbances which took place prior to the establishment of UNFICYP. These should not be counted among the areas under actual control of the Turkish Cypriot leadership in Nicosia," In summary then it seems to me this is a case of wording - once one explains properly what is meant by the TC enclaves then their size in proportion to the total area of Cyprus can be sourced and have meaning.Erolz 15:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ahem

Francis, do you understand what is in dispute here? All this is useful background information which you are deleting. Garnet (whether intentionally or unintentionally) has omitted everything which makes the Greek side look "good" and makes the TC look like poor innocent virgins after having been raped. Everything must be presented in context - by taking things out of context I can prove that Hitler was justified in the Holocaust! 17th century or whatever is all relevant - GCs didn't get pissed off at the TCs for no reason. This is one long simultaneous conflict. History is always important, and shortsightedness in history is not an excuse for selective quoting of facts. NikoSilver 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, see above. I realise the article is one sided. Lets try and improve it without adding a lot of irrelevant stuff. I'm going through and making notes. I hope you will do the same instead of blindly reverting to versions which make no sense. - Francis Tyers · 23:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's add all the possible stuff first. Then go through it with a toothcomb and remove what needs to be removed if we remove it now we could forget about it.--Domitius 23:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
That will end up with a bloated article that every time a person of one side tries to remove it, it will be seen by the other side as a "national affront" and "censorship" or whatever. Best to achieve consensus before each addition. Want to try and address some of my points above without going overboard? - Francis Tyers · 23:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
So you prefer censorship? Yes, I'll go though your points, just give me a few minutes.--Domitius 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I prefer achieving consensus before radical changes to controversial articles. - Francis Tyers · 23:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, yeah, I remember you on Macedonia-related articles. One minute you were inactive, the next you had flooded an article with selective pro-FYROM quotes you had found on Google Books.--Domitius 23:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Francis you're right about the 300-year war implication being dubious, but you are losing your point by making a wholesale revert instead of an edit or a fact tag. The beginning of the conflict should be more specific (I don't know enough about it myself), but it has to be pointed out that the Turkish language and Islam were imported by force in Cyprus, i.e. that the debate's roots go back to foreign invasions, both old and recent. Miskin 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that it shouldn't be implied that Cyprus was a created during the genesis as a province of the Ottoman Empire, inhabited by Muslim Turks and their "Rum" subjects, unworthy of claiming a modern ethnicity (real Turkish nationalist claim). It has to be pointed out that Cyprus has been a primarily Greek island since Mycenaean times, invaded by Turks or Muslims in the Modern era. All the cards need to be opened up. NPOV isn't about making both sides equally happy or equally unhappy, it's about telling the attested truth in a neutral yet blunt manner. Miskin 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

See my first point above. It should be included. But this isn't the way to do it. - Francis Tyers · 23:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The failure is strong in this one

I see someone has reverted to the version with date: "17th century - Ongoing as Cyprus dispute" and casus belli: "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus". I hadn't realised that time travel had been added to the achievements of the Ancient Greeks. Or perhaps it is part of the epsilon defence? - Francis Tyers · 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This section sucks

In 1954 Turkey said it owns Cyprus

By 1954, the communal leader Dr. Fazil Küçük, was voicing nationalist ideas, spurred perhaps by the growing demand for enosis among Greek Cypriots. The following is from a column he wrote in his own newspaper, Voice of the People, published in Nicosia: “The cause of ceding Cyprus to Britain is still continuing; the time to consider handing back Cyprus to its former owner therefore may not have arrived. But if Great Britain is going to consider this enosis question at all or is going to quit the island she has a legal as well as a moral duty to call Turkey and hand Cyprus back to Turkey, and ask the Turkish government to deal with the enosis problem which the tolerant and ill-advised British administration has fostered in the island. From a legal as well as moral point of view, Turkey, as the initial owner of the island just before the British occupation, has a first option to Cyprus. The matter does not end there. From a worldwide political point of view as well as from geographical and strategical points of view Cyprus must be handed to Turkey if Great Britain is going to quit”. The strategical view of the Turkish Cypriot leader towards the overwhelming Greek populated island of Cyprus is evident by his above statement. Cyprus is treated as lost Ottoman land, and the demands of its population becomes irrelevant. [1]

This is made of WP:OR and irrelevantly long quotes. It could be condensed to a sentence or two without losing anything, for example the following: "In 1954, more nationalist voices had begun to be heard among the Turkish Cypriot population. Perhaps as a reaction to the growing demand for enosis among the Cypriot Greeks, certain members of the Turkish community had begun calling for the return of Cyprus to Turkish rule".

- Francis Tyers · 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - I think that this one could be removed or heavily changed. Opinions everyone else?--Domitius 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Let's agree on a good title first. There was a bit of a move war, and this was the alternative title. Francis, what do you think (and I'm aware of it's google performance)?--Domitius 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets try some alternatives (feel free to add):
  • Cypriot Civil War
  • Cypriot Civil War (1963 - 1974)
  • Cypriot intercommunal violence
  • Civil war in Cyprus
  • Civil war in Cyprus (1963 - 1974)
  • Intercommunal violence in Cyprus
  • Cypriot conflict

- Francis Tyers · 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong preference, however I stand by my earlier position that Garnet's version is a WP:POVFORK (now it's just a fork) of History of Cyprus or Modern history of Cyprus (both relatively short articles).--Domitius 23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Partly because of the increase in "background" that you've added. So really you made it the POV fork :) Personally I'm leaning towards "Cyprus conflict". I just opened up an old edition of "War in Peace" and thats how they describe it. - Francis Tyers · 23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
How about reverting it to Garnet's version and renaming it to Turkish view of the Cyprus conflict?--Domitius 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hah, then it would be a POV fork :P - Francis Tyers · 23:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, "Cypriot conflict" or "Cyprus conflict" seem to be much wider used terms. Also, the caption of the TMT image (if it needs to be included) should be changed. The current one seems to equate (rightly or wrongly -- but without source) the TMT with those asshole Grey Wolves. - Francis Tyers · 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Trivia: the founder of that movement was a Turkish Cypriot.--Domitius 00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "background" section

I think this could be compressed into one or two paragraphs. Would you be happy then?--Domitius 00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be a good start :) - Francis Tyers · 00:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Done.--Domitius 00:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The other sections still need work though.--Domitius 00:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the background section is a good length. It could do with some NPOVising though. I'll take a look at it later. - Francis Tyers · 07:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Done the EOKA one as well.--Domitius 20:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There seems to be a misunderstanding what this article is about.

This article is not the History of Cyprus mk2, it is not Cyprus dispute mk2, it is not about the "Cyprus problem" - it is about the period of constitutional breakdown and intercommunal violence between 1963-1974 prior to the Turkish Invasion. I have not defined this period myself, it is commonly distinguished as a period of inter-ethnic war prior to the Turkish invasion. It referred to either as "intercommunal conflict", "civil war", "inter-ethnic strife" and so on i.e. it is a distinguishable part of Cyprus's history. If you want to talk about the Ottoman presence, the British administratio, or the EOKA struggle then this should one section only under 'backround', otherwise we will be recreating the Cyprus dispute article again.

Some editors seem to feel that my focusing on this period is to push a Turkish pov, yet their idea of integrating the Greek pov is to go back to Ottoman times which makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to dispute some of the facts, figures or statements i've raised, then do so within the conflict we are actually talking about. If editors want to talk about the history of Cyprus, then take it to the relevant article and we will main it out from here. The background imo should only cover the following:

  • Mention Cyprus go from Ottoman to British administration
  • Mention EOKA uprising
  • Mention political structure of new state
  • Mention demographics

I mean do you people realise how you've degenerated this article? You've portrayed this conflict as lasting 300 years! None of you have even bothered to fix this discrepancy in the infobox, stating the Turkish invasion of 1974 triggered the conflict in the 17th century (actually Ottomans came 16th century). It shows to me that none of the contributors have any regard in making this a good article, only in working together to push a pov. For this reason, I'm reverting back to my version and any further edits can be discussed like it should have been done from the beginning. --A.Garnet 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And I am willing to discuss changes to the title btw, I realise the use of civil war is not used in a consistent timeframe when discussing the events. --A.Garnet 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Garnet, please understand that your text has pretty much remained unchanged so you don't have to be that overprotective. Yes there is a lot of excess now (which will not be deleted only relocated), but some of it is definitely staying. I like your outline and what could be included so please give me a few minutes to shorten it down to that.--Domitius 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
My own text is not what I am concerned about, I am willing to work with people to improve that. My concern is that yet another Cyprus related article is filled with a long pov historical account instead of focusing on the actual event in question. This should be summarised into 4 paragraphs max, with a link to History of Cyprus for the rest. The section on enosis and taksim can stay, that is relevant but needs neutral wording. The "sings of intercommunal conflict" is basically an account of the EOKA campaign which needs only 1 paragraph. This articles scope is the conflict between GC and TC, EOKA was disbanded throughout much of this period, only re-appearing in 1971/2. 1 more para can be given for historical account mentioning Ottoman presence, British takeover and attempt to give the island the Greece. The aim is to create a concise history, not another overbloated account of Cyprus history. --A.Garnet 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Can i plesae see the quote from this 'Copeaux' source which talks of Turks being sent to Cyprus. --A.Garnet 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is ironic how this article tries to put the pressure on TMT while there is hardly any mention of EOKA-B and their crimes

Isn't it obvious really.--Doktor Gonzo 14:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it? The article was created and written mainly by your compatriot User:A.Garnet. Take it up with him. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I can guess which parts are Garnet's contributions and which ones are your compatriots'. I saw his prior version, after that it goes out of his initiative, this is the later version. If you do a ctrl+f for TMT, you'll see in the later version the article starts putting the pressure on TMT and Turkish nationalism as the problem. Anyway, bottomline, let me hear more about EOKA-B.--Doktor Gonzo 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
TMT and Turkish nationalism were perhaps not the problem but were definitely a major part of the problem, wouldn't you agree? You're welcome to expand the article if you wish, provided your edits are backed up by reliable sources. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That depends what you identify as the problem Kekrops. --A.Garnet 17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I assume Gonzo meant the protagonists of the fighting. I'm also wondering how appropriate "civil war" is as a description of the events, given that so many Turkish Cypriots consider themselves an entirely separate people, not part of a single Cypriot nation divided against itself. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What is your evidence for Turkish Cypriots considering themselves an entirely separate people? And why do you not feel the need to make the same accusation against Greek Cypriots? --A.Garnet 18:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" and its Turkish Cypriot supporters' demands to be recognised as a separate nation-state? And since when does stating the obvious constitute an "accusation"? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Our support for the Annan plan would contradict your claim that Turkish Cypriots demand to be recognisesd as a separate state. The 60,000 protestors who wanted Denktas to resign would also counter your accusation as would the nomination of a pro-solutionist President. Now tell me if Greek Cypriots rejecting the Annan plan, the fact that they fly the Greek flag at every border crossing, that they sing the Greek anthem, and that a poll published last year finding the majority of GC's do not want to lvie with TC's does not at the very least indicate GC's "consider themselves an entirely separate people, not part of a single Cypriot nation divided against itself." --A.Garnet 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, your disdain for the Greek Cypriots merely proves my point that you consider them to be the "other", not part of your own people. Putting aside the matter of who is to "blame", wouldn't you agree that the objective non-existence of a common Cypriot identity renders the "civil war" terminology inappropriate? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 02:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My 'disdain' for Greek Cypriots?! I am the one basing my observation on facts, whilst you are simply throwing rhetoric around my friend. I have no disdain, far from it I have GC friends with whom i've grown up with here in Britain, so I'd ask you stop making these empty generelisations. As for your second point I disagree, I'm not aware a common identity is a pre-requisite for a inter-state conflict to be classed as civil war. --A.Garnet 12:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no "inter-state conflict", there was intermittent interethnic violence that wasn't quite a war in any meaningful sense of the word, much less a civil war pitting a single people against itself. By the way, having Greek Cypriot "friends" does not mean that you identify with the same nation, and the dynamics of growing up in contemporary Britain would be rather different from those of Cyprus in the 1960s. Everything about your editing history indicates to me that you consider the Turks of Cyprus (and the Turks in a wider sense) to be your people. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "given that so many Turkish Cypriots consider themselves an entirely separate people"
  • "Again, your disdain for the Greek Cypriots"
  • "By the way, having Greek Cypriot "friends"
  • "you consider the Turks of Cyprus (and the Turks in a wider sense) to be your people"
From these statements, it is clear to me you have already established your position regarding all Turkish and Turkish Cypriot people, no use arguing with you. --A.Garnet 18:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't be such a drama queen. I am simply pointing out that the Greeks and Turks of Cyprus, or of anywhere else for that matter, are not one people, therefore we cannot legitimately speak of a "civil war" between them. It might help to note that the word for "civil" in Greek in this context is εμφύλιος, which literally means "within a race", so the concept of a "Cypriot Civil War" would be rather alien to 80% of Cypriots at least, even linguistically. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt to start process of getting this article into shape.

First off I have to say, having dipped my toe into editing Cyprus related articles on wikipedia just recently it is depressing how poor they are. Anyway I am here now and I will try my best to try and help a communal effort to get this article into shape.

It seems to me the first thing we have to get some agreement on is what is the scope of this article. From there we need (in my humble opinion) to decide what the relevant sections of the article should be and what the essential points in each section should be. In this vein I will start with 'Background'. This clearly needs to first section. If we can get some agreement on this then we can move on. Below I will present a list of bullet points that I think should be the scope of the background section, trying to use the guildline of what (facts) in encycolpedic terms would a reader need minimaly to know in order to gain some grasp of the main articles topic.

  • Where did the 'Greek' part of Cyprus come from. Something about the arrival of Greek influences and culture in Mycean times that went on to become the dominant culture of Cypriots. A sentance or 2 should suffice imo.
  • Where did the 'Turkish' part of Cyprus come from. Something about Ottoman conquest of Cyprus in 1500's and how this become the nucleas of what is today the Turkish Cypriot community in Cyprus. Again a sentance or 2 should suffice imo
  • Where did the British come from. Something about Turkey handing over admin to Britain followed by annexation by Britain during WW1. A sentance or 2 should suffice.
  • The growth sperate ethnic based desires for Cyprus' future during british rule and before it - enosis from the GC side and the response of Taksim from the TC side. A sentace or 2 should suffice, maybe 3 on this one.
  • The resort to violence by Cypriots in the pursuit of their sperate ethnic political desires - first EOKA then TMT. A sentance or 2 should suffice.
  • Cypripot independance. London Zurich agreements. Brief, as this should be / is covered elsewhere in detail.


That to me seems like at least a starting framework for the background section. The point is it should try and provide the basic context in which to understand the main article as briefly as possible and nothing more. I humbly suggest that we first try and agree the 'bullet points' and that if we manage this then hammer out a text for the background section from this agreed points. So feedback would be apprecited on this approach and then on the bullet points themselves. Erolz 15:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi erolz. You may want to look at my original version before substantial additions were made. I have tried to be very clear that I only intended this article to deal with the 63-74 period, yet some Greek editors were intent on taking back to 1571 as if we have had 400+ years of intercommunal violence. I made clear that the background should be short and concise, so as not to overlap with the countless other Cyprus articles covering the same thing. Also, perhaps you can comment on what you believe is a good title. I originally titled it Intercommunal violence during the Cyprus conflict, then changed it to Cypriot Civil War, and in the past couple of days Aristov changed it to the present title. I'd appreciate your suggestion. I will let aristov keep title change for the time being, but i'm going to revert his additions to the background which have again become overbloated. Thanks, --A.Garnet 15:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As I keep saying I am very new to the whole WP editing thing. I guess my idea was that we first try and get some agreement from all parties as to what the scope of the background section should be and then start editing what is already there. If there are others that think the bullet points I have listed are not sufficent scope then let's discuss it and hear the reasons why they think a given addition is necessary. Personaly , as an inexperienced wikipedian, I see little point in making changes without some form of discussed and agreed plan - but maybe I do not understand how WP works? As for the title I think the current one is fine to be honest. I can understand why civil war is considered inapropriate. Erolz 16:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with points in your structure. But imo it is very important it remains concise. We have maybe ten Cyprus articles all covering the same historical events, so when I created this article, I wanted to stay strictly on the subject matter. That is why I think a background should be no more than four paragraphs max. --A.Garnet 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/y/p/Talk%7ECyprus_Intercommunal_violence_0e45.html"