Talk:Cyprus dispute/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Clean start

Dear all,

finally this page has been protected so as to end the editing war between various parties and solve the dispute on the content of the article on the Talk page. As long as this dispute is not solved, the page will stay protected and not be available for editing. This means we should come up with an agreement on how to proceed on this page. Either we have a new start (again), or we decide on one of the available versions as a basis. - Snchduer 12:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Possible versions

{Add only versions here that differ greatly from the ones mentioned here}

How to proceed

{pro/con/contributions}

  • Voting on the versions
  • Discuss about different ways how to solve this editing dispute
    • Given past events in this article, a binary vote on version A or B probably won't work. It seems like the most likely way to arrive at something close to a consensus version is to construct an agreeable outline here, then fill in the grafs one by one. This will be slow and painful, but I can't think of a better way. Feco 15:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • The problem is that the Turkish apologists here will not allow any historical facts and figures to be presented about Turkeys invasion of Cyprus no matter what the source. The don't want the ethnic cleansing of Greek Cypriots, the violation of human rights by the Turkish army, the missing persons, the destruction of cultural heritage or the illegal colonisation of Cyprus to be referred to at all. Nor do they won't any neutral reference made to the TMT terrorism in the 1950's and 60's, including deliberate attacks which Denktash ordered against Turkish Cypriots. They want all of this hidden from view just like the Hellenic Genocide. They don't want the reasons why the Greek Cypriots rejected the Annan plan to be revealed either because all that they want to do is to cast the Greek Cypriots in a bad light by omission. They want to present the Turks as angles and the their victims the Greek Cypriots as devils. What the are doing is equivalent to blaming the Jews for the NAZI holocaust. That is way every I have tried to add facts and figures of the Greek Cypriots suffering they have Vandalised the page over and over again, especially E.A and Snchduer.--Argyrosargyrou 15:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • The problem is that the Greek nationalists here will not allow any historical facts and figures to be presented about Turkeys claims to Cyprus no matter what the source. The don't want the ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots, the violation of human rights by the Greek army, the missing persons, the destruction of cultural heritage or the illegal colonisation of Cyprus to be referred to at all. Nor do they won't any neutral reference made to Greek terrorism in the 1950's and 60's, including deliberate attacks the Greek military government ordered against Turkish Cypriots. They want all...
That's because NONE OF WHAT YOU CLAIM EVER HAPPENED. That is the reason why you don't want the figures of the death tolls on both sides revealed or a historical account to be given because they would show that what you claim is a total and utter pack of lies. EOKA did not attack Turkish Cypriots. The facts and figures show that. It only attacked British forces and those collaborating with them. The Greek army did not touch even one Turkish Cypriot not did it ever move out of its barracks whereas the Turkish garrison attacked and captured two main highways and attacked UN peacekeepers, Cypriot civilians and the Cypriot security forces. You don't want any of this revealed because it shows that Turkey planed to destroy the Republic of Cyprus from the moment it gained independence and its atrocities in Cyprus in the 50's and 60's were mirrored in the Pogroms against the Greeks of Constantinople. Why did the Turkish forcibly deport 15,000 Greeks from Constantinople in 1964 ?--Argyrosargyrou 16:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


      • ...of this hidden from view just like the Hellenic Genocide. They don't want the reasons why the Turkish Cypriots accepted the Annan plan to be revealed either because all that they want to do is to cast the Turkish Cypriots in a bad light by omission. They want to present the Greeks as angles and the their victims the Turkish Cypriots as devils. What the are doing is equivalent to blaming the Jews for the NAZI holocaust. That is way every I have tried to add facts and figures of the Turkish Cypriots suffering they have Vandalised the page over and over again, especially Argyrosargyrou.
We know full well why the TC's accepted the Annan plan. Because it gave Cyprus to Turkey and deprived the Greek Cypriots of all of their land, property, and human and democratic rights and allowed the Turkish Colonists and Turkish troops to stay in Cyprus forever. By accepting the Annan plan the Turkish Cypriots voted for the Genocide of the Greek Cypriots by the imposition of conditions of life calculated to bring about their destruction. The Annan plan violated the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. That's why the Turkish apologists do not want the details of the Annan plan to be revealed.--Argyrosargyrou 16:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The Greek Cypriots didnt touch one Turkish Cypriot?!?!?! are you mad! how can you stomach making a statement like that? I have been watching all the propoganda you spread all over the internet:

What you try to achieve is truly despicable, you will not show one ounce of sympathy for the Turks who rounded up, shot and buried just for being Turkish. Disgraceful. --E.A 17:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Now, wasn't that productive? Perhaps you should work more towards the consensus. When you make a massive change all at once, it's more likely to be reverted as going against the collaborative spirit. As much as I hate the idea, it looks like a paragraph-by-paragraph consensus project is the only way to satisfy all parties. Feco 15:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Nice one, Feco. LOL. But I agree that a binary decision probably is not the best way of how to solve this editing dispute. And I would like all users to calm down a bit and refrain from wide-flung comparisons, as this is not helping anything. - Snchduer 16:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • On second thought: I have not yet seen any user except Argyrosargyrou who would in any way support his version of the article. I still wait to be disproven here. - Snchduer 18:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I think JL's version was an excellent article, it should be kept as the basis for any modifications which are agreed by the majority of editors here. --E.A 13:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • This discussion is going nowhere. E.A, Snchduer, Feco, RickK have all voted for the deletion of the Hellenic Genocide page which is equivalent to denying the NAZI holocaust so they are acting as apologists and denialists for Turkey rather than being neutral. Expatkiwi is a supporter of the Turkish occupation regime in Cyprus as can be see from his contribution to other pages so he is not neutral either. I vote to reinstate the last page I edited. --Argyrosargyrou 14:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I initially voted for keeping the page. Those interested can read all of the gory details here. The reason for changing my vote? "the 'owners' of the articles are not receptive to anyone else's contribution" Feco 15:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I would like to have a page on the Hellenic genocide, but the current page (just as your temporary "Cyprus issue" page a copy from an internet page) is just an anti-Turkish rant, and not fit for an encyclopedia article. You discredit yourself. - Snchduer 18:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Argyrosargyrou is not neutral either, judging from his submissions, so I don't think reinstating his page is a good idea at all.--Expatkiwi 16:11, 29 May 2005

Page Archives

Your previous contributions to this discussion can be found in the talk archives (cf. start of page)

Argy - stop moving your content to new articles

Your new article of Turkish Invasion of Cyprus has the same content you were trying to put here. They will eventually be deleted or redirected.

The Unfortunate Truth

After having read everyone's comments about this subject, I think everyone involved in the editing of this article has violated the policy of Neutral Point of View. A simple fix would be to just make a page full of every possible link imaginable about the Cyprus dispute. I said previously, there is one website that is SUPERB: www.cyprus-conflict.net (of course knowing the people here I might be accused of being biased). It is praised by the UK's Guardian newspaper for being impartial, and has links where there offer statements of opposing view points. I know that the truth about the actions of Greeks and Turks on Cyprus is hard to swallow, but we have to swallow it to move forward. Most people have. Let me suggest that every political dispute article on Wikipedia, from Spratly Islands, to the Faulkland Islands to even Taiwan and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank should be relegated to just pages with an extensive list of websites as sources of info. (LOL that would mean becoming another Google, or might I say wikioogle. UNFanatic

I agree with your view of the cyprus-conflict.net site. It is really impartial, and offers also subjective views from both sides, along with a lot of documents. However, this encyclopedia's aim is not to simply duplicate websites - and as for the historical account cyprus-conflict.net offers, it is much too long for an ancyclopedia article. We can of course use this website as a major source of information. - Snchduer 22:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Not Advancing, People!

I just want to remind you that we are not advancing even a millimeter here. <sarcasm>Maybe all the Turkish apologists can sit together, and invent conspire a new article, where the Turkish people are the heroes?</sarcasm>

Or maybe we can stop insulting each other, grow up a bit and start to work seriously on this article. I would personally like to see both sides' (Greek and Turkish Cypriots) views included. There is no need to quote all the numbers (as they will differ anyways according to the sources), but I would like to see included also the unpleasant facts (violence of EOKA and TMT against all Cypriots, displacements and killings by the Turkish army as well as retaliatory actions against Turkish Cypriots) as well.

We should also remember that there are already articles about:

so there is no need to write lengthy sections about these topics. A question still remains as to whether Turkish Cypriot Genocide should not be merged with this article (including information about displaced and killed Greek Cypriots in the corresponding section, of course). - Snchduer 17:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, dear Snchduer, you either do not OR purposely elect not to understand Cyprus. There is no way to move forward when even the simple, self-evident facts are disputed and the rights of individuals recognized as the basis of a modern society are denied to any group. And I will request that this article remain locked because a few fanatics want to pass on their disinfomation. User:Argyrosargyrou was in many respects right, though expressing his view in a non-elegant and offensive way. Cyprus, you know, has been inhabited since the 6th millenium BC. Many aggressors have come and gone including super powers. The people of Cyprus has survived. The only thing we need is perseverence and dedication - nothing else! So I urge you to first discover Cyprus before attempting to be a mediator. --Ank99 09:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I AM discovering Cyprus more and more all the time; about the history befor 19th century, I am mostly aware btw. Mark also that I am not requesting this article to be unlocked, I am only trying to move forward the discussion on the article's content, which is exactly the place to discuss the "simple, self-evident facts" and their inclusion in the article. The problem about "being right" is that both sides claim to be - the problem is not only to present the facts, but to present them in a way that is not offensive to both sides, which may be difficult but I think not impossible. "Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.' 'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it half an hour a day. Why, sometimes, I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'" -- Lewis Carroll (1832-98), [Charles Lutwidge Dodgson] British mathematician, writer - Snchduer 11:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Example: In the voting table for the referendum on the Annan plan, "Occupied Areas" is offensive to many Turkish Cypriots, while "TRNC" or "Northern Cyprus" is offensive to most Greek Cypriots. Can both agree on "northern sector"?
I believe the best terminology is 'Turkish Cypriot North' and 'Greek Cypriot South' - i got that from a BBC News article, which i see as very neutral. --E.A 12:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Laughable just laughable....! --Argyrosargyrou 16:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Exactly these kind of comments are not helpful. - Snchduer 16:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I think as a compromise, we should use the terms "northern part" and "southern part" of Cyprus, without reference to the two communities, since that will be apparently clear in the article. Also, can someone unprotect the article, or rather, how does one protect an article in the first place? One needs special rights or something?(UNFanatic 01:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC))
        • Unlocking can only be done by administrators who are not involved in this topic, and will be done when the editing disputes are resolved satisfactorily. And I would not recommend doing this yet; we are not even close to an agreement on the content of the article - this was just an easy example. We will get more difficult stuff - expect longer work here. - Snchduer 11:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • So, politically correct designations for the voting table:
        • northern/southern part
        • northern/southern sector
I dont see whats so sensitive about 'Turkish Cypriot North' and 'Greek Cypriot South', i think both Greeks and Turks accept that Turks are in the north and Greeks in the south (look at this BBC article here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3656753.stm). The term 'northern part/sector' and 'southern part/sector' just sounds like we're trying to be TOO neutral. --E.A 11:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As long as we do not have GC users who want it mentioned that in the north, many of the inhabitants are Turkish settlers, it would be ok - at least for me - Snchduer 15:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is not ok with me. We have to be as NEUTRAL AS POSSIBLE to avoid POV errors. There is no such thing as being "TOO NEURAL." Please explain this statement E.A. Want is so bad about it. Also to Snchduer, perhaps you SHOULD mention that many of the inhabitants of the northern part are Turkish settlers (in addition to indigneous Turkish-Cypriots). I mean, that is the truth, is it not? For the sake of neutrality, please, it is better to say "southern or northern part/sector." Oh, and by the way, every one has a point of view. My view is that of a Cypriot-American(not a GC or a TC, but a CA (could mean Chinese-American but here it is not the case). A little different viewpoint from my distant Cypriot brothers(Greek and Turkish). (UNFanatic 20:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC))
By TOO NEUTRAL i mean going out of the way to implement irrelevancies in face of obvious facts. Turks are in the north, Greeks are in the south. This is a vote between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots - just like you are a Cypriot American, the Turks who came to Cyprus are Turkish Cypriots. I dont see why their settler status should somehow mean Turks in the north can no longer be referred to as Cypriots. We have to make clear the vote is between two ethnicities, not two geographical locations. --E.A 20:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know your frustration. Nonetheless, we have to keep a calm mind and keep it to geographical references. Like we mentioned before, it will be evident in the article where Greek-Cypriots or Turkish-Cypriots are located. Suggesting to put "Turkish settlers" was meant to spark a reaction to make a point to keeping things NEUTRAL. To give you an example: I wonder why the Cyprus flag has no cross? Answer: to keep things neutral. Somehow, Greeks and Turks have lost this sense, while Cypriots try to forge a state that will eventually bring shame to those two "homelands" a cause of much mental suffering for the island.(UNFanatic 20:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I'm afraid i have to disagree, i dont see why it should be taboo to refer to Turks in the north as Cypriots, settlers or not, many of them have integrated into the Cypriot community for over 30 years. Its like saying the TC's and GC's who emigrated to London over 40 years ago cannot be referred to as Londoners. The article will mention the settler issue, i dont see the reason to make it an issue in a simple table (which in any case will come at the end of the article). --E.A 20:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

London and Great Britain I should say, is a politically stable unified country that has its own house in order. Once Cyprus gets its house in order and the people there get to an agreement to a definition, which is their responsibility, not mine, then we should remain neutral for BOTH sides to be fair. By the way, I have been to the north after the barriers were removed and the Turkish-Cypriot family that is living in my father's house referred to the "Turkish settlers" as being different, ideologically and culturally from them. And this person wants to go back to Paphos. I do not doubt that most have integrated, though how successfully, that is another story which I have no personal knowledge except for the opinion of the Turkish Cypriot. So as you see, since there is no agreement from both sides about this issue, it should not be mentioned officially in the text of the article. But if you want to add a small note at the end of the article, in smaller font or in a separate table, be sure to include that.(UNFanatic 21:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC))
This simple issue is really being exaggerated. All we need to accept is that the voters who went to the referendum in April last year were Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, the part 30 year old settlers played in the vote should not mean TC's have forfeited their right to be represented as Turkish Cypriots. --E.A 21:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not Advancing People Part 2

Dude, stop changing the subject to the referendum.(UNFanatic 21:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC))

:the issue is how should we refer to both sides --northern part-- and --southern part-- .

You misunderstood me i'm talking about the referendum because the people who voted are who we're trying to accurately represent in the table. So when we accept it was Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots who voted, then we can label it so in the table. --E.A 21:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the use of parentheses are good. BTW, it is an issue as to whether or not Turkish settlers should be considered as "Turkish-Cypriots". I have seen your comments on that above. We agree that it is an issue. While your point of view is to consider them as such, my point of view is to consider them as Turkish settlers, or rather mainland Turks, being that they were not originally from the Turkish Cypriot population in Cyprus. Guess what buddy? How do we refer to the Greeks in Cyprus that are originally from Greece? "mainland Greeks" or "Greeks from the Mainland" or "kalamaras", a term that originated among the Greek population in Alexandria - sort of a mocking I should say. My point: they may be Greeks but they are NOT Cypriot. They could be integrated into society, but they are not Cypriot. What about the Turks from the mainland that married Turkish Cypriots? Well, I could ask the same question about Greeks too. The difference is that there was not a mass movement of settlers from Greece into Cyprus since 1960 independence. There was, however, from Turkey since 1974. Whether or not it was policy to replace the Greeks who left, advertising to attract the poor people from Anatolia for Ankara's political gain on the Cyprus issue, is one topic that has been reported on and off for the past 30 years in such repected newspapers as the New York Times. (Cultural destruction "claims" which I know you are familiar with.)
In favour of distinguishing between Turkish Cypriots and Turkish settlers as well as btw Greek Cypriots and mainland Greeks - an issue that certainly needs to be addressed in a new Cyprus dispute article. However, should this be put in the voting table? That is yet another question :) - Snchduer 16:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I dont need to re-state history here, but Cyprus has been far too long interfered with from both Ankara and Athens, always trying to separate the two peoples psychologically and physically, which is wrong. Should blacks and whites be segregated in the United States? I know that in the US everyone is considered American, but there is a distinct cultural identity here vs whites who are a mix of immigrants. Thankfully there is no separation/segregation anymore and society has gained more from it. How much more then, can the people of Cyprus gain from genuine union, a union without segregation and laws to enforce it. If there are Turkish fears about being a minority in the land, there should be a mechanism in the government so that there should not be any "tyranny of the majority" in the legislature. Physical separation is not an answer. In the US, this is accomplished by the 2 houses of Congress, one, the House of Representatives satisfies the majority (because truthfully, it should be respected). The solution to that is the Senate, which is made as the more important body having equal representation from all states (because equality in government should be respected as well). Both need to be included to have Cyprus function in a meaningful manner. It has functioned in the US for 225 years. When this occurs, the Turkish settler question will be solved in due time, peacefully. (UNFanatic 00:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC))
I definitely see the advantage of a "two-house" or federal solution - in Germany, for instance, many laws need to be approved by the two houses in order to be approved (cf. Politics of Germany). Although getting into blockading due to party politics, it certainly will protect the federal subjects from having laws made "above their heads". Could work for Cyprus, who knows? - Snchduer 16:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that you guys are going into a ridiculous propaganda mode. I dare say the possibility of professional propaganda agents here is great. So do not expect that any GC will offer you any help in creating these articles which are full of lies. I will see that any lies are deleted and if that creates any edit wars then request the articles be protected! This looks much better to me than having a couple of individuals (including E.A and Snchduer) who painstakingly remove any GC POV edits in their effort to "rewrite" historical facts. --Ank99 15:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not surprised that every person who supports the GC POV on Wikipedia is of Greek origin themselves. Tell me Ank where are the lies? Its easy to say a statement like that, but i want to see you back it up. --E.A 16:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ank99, one needs to distinguish btw an objective and a subjective point of view - on wikipedia we are trying to have a NPOV policy; where this is not possible or very difficult - as in the case of the Cyprus dispute - it is helpful to show the points of view from both sides to create a balanced view. When I removed GC POV stuff, it was indeed because it was formulated in a POV style (using words like "slaughtered" instead of "killed", for instance), or because opinions were tried to be shown as facts. I will remove TC or TR POV stuff as well, if I see it. Simply stating "this is full of lies" is not a very helpful contribution, as compared to "I do not believe that 500 TCs were killed in the year XXXX - afaik, official numbers are 350". - Snchduer 16:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I am not surprised that every person who supports the GC POV on Wikipedia is of Greek origin themselves" Do you know many people who are not of Cypriot, Turkish or Greek origin who really care about the Cyprus issue? The only one I have seen in wikipedia is Snchduer and he doesn't adopt any POV.--Jsone42 19:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict

I have moved the Turkish Cypriot Genocide (being a wrong designation in any case) to Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict, as this is much less offensive as a title, and more correct as well. FYI, Argyro tried to copy-edit it with his version of the old page - trying to destroy the page's structure along the way -, but did not succeed (obviously). The page I created is clearly structured, and has place for the two communities' casualties and displacements, partitioned timewise into two sections: 63-74 and 74/5 (Turkish invasion/intervention). I hope in this case nobody can complain that only one side has the possibility to show. I am waiting for Greek Cypriots to contribute to this page in the appropriate sections; as of now, Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict only shows the TC side - unfortunately. - Snchduer 10:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The TC side needs to be shown more, given the success that the GC propaganda machine has made over the years. For example, if more people bothered to read up on the 1964 Erenköy siege, then people would realize that the TC's have a very good case. - Expatkiwi 11:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However, wikipedia normally wants to present balanced articles; meaning that however sad the casualties and other hardships were for the TCs, it does not mean that we should ignore the GC side of the story - at least, that is the idea of that article. - Snchduer 01:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/y/p/Talk%7ECyprus_dispute_Archive_4_c070.html"