This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cyprus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cyprus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This subject is featured in the Outline of Cyprus, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
In the census from 1881 to 1960, all Muslims are counted as Turks, only Greek Orthodox are counted as Greeks. There were small populations of Greek speaking Muslims and Turkish speaking Greek Orthodox.
During (1955-1960) 6,759 Turks and 31,844 Greeks emigrated. During (1961-1973) 9,760 Turks and 39,192 Greeks emigrated. In total, during (1955-1973) 16,519 Turks and 71,036 Greeks emigrated. Of the emigrated Turkish Cypriots in this period, only 290 went to Turkey.
According to the 2011 census, combined with 2006 Northern Cyprus data, the ethnic composition for the entire island was 60% Greek, 24% Turkish, and 16% other
^A Handbook of Cyprus, Hutchinson, Joseph Turner, page 57, 1907
^ abcdIs the Turkish Cypriot population shrinking?: an overview of the ethno-demography of Cypus in the light of the preliminary results of the 2006 Turkish-Cypriot census, Mete Hatay, International Peace Research Institute, 2007, page 64
These sources were used to support a sentence in the article, but did not actually contain supporting quotations. I am moving them here for future reference and to prevent any loss of precious effort, and also as they may be required later in the future. --GGT (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Quigley. The Statehood of Palestine. Cambridge University Press. p. 164. ISBN978-1-139-49124-2. The international community found this declaration invalid, on the ground that Turkey had occupied territory belonging to Cyprus and that the putative state was therefore an infringement on Cypriot sovereignty.
Peter Neville (22 March 2013). Historical Dictionary of British Foreign Policy. Scarecrow Press. p. 293. ISBN978-0-8108-7371-1. ...Ecevit ordered the army to occupy the Turkish area on 20 July 1974. It became the Republic of Northern Cyprus, but Britain, like the rest of the international community, except Turkey, refused to extend diplomatic recognition to the enclave. British efforts to secure Turkey's removal from its surrogate territory after 1974 failed.
The removed references support the following sentence:
The international community considers the northern part of the island as territory of the Republic of Cyprus illegally occupied by Turkish forces.
I think these references, as shown by the quotes, clearly support this sentence. Therefore, I have reinstated them. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 19:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I apparently got quite stuck on the fact that they do not support the word "illegally" - after working on Cyprus-related articles for some time, one just starts taking "considered as occupied territory" as a basic fact that does not require five citations. Thanks for your improvement there and sorry to take your time! I guess I should take a break after work at times :) --GGT (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
That was not a problem GGT. Please keep up your good work and thank you for your nice comments. Take care. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 17:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, thanks for your constructive approach there, I truly appreciate it. A few little things: I cannot see how the word "landing" masks POV. The word "landing" does not automatically legitimize an action or vice versa, as is the case with the word "invasion" (in parallel to the Invasion of Normandy and the Normandy landings). I would say that calling what happened on 20 July a territorial invasion would be too misleading for the introduction, since it was merely a landing and a battle with rather insignificant occupation of territory. Of course, its general appellation should be reflected, but I think that is conveyed strongly enough by saying "invading present-day Northern Cyprus a month later" or something along those lines. Maybe it would be OK to say "the landing of Turkish troops on the northern shore and the beginning of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, which led to the capture of the present-day territory of Northern Cyprus a month later..." or something like that?
I also fail to see how "in response to", a statement supported by multiple reliable sources is POV. It does not necessarily exclude the historical background of the event all the way back to taksim. We could say that Austria-Hungary declared what would be the First World War in response to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria without any implication of omission of long-term causes of the war. --GGT (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe I'm the one who introduced the term "landing"; I concur with GGT. The purpose was to make the distinction between: the inconclusive initial invasion; the ceasefire that was brokered; and the August offensive, which established the present-day border. Alakzi (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I personally think that an invasion is an invasion. The early moments of an invasion are still part of the invasion. Having said that, I think that "landing" is ok as long as it is made clear that it was an invasion that was going on, at the early stages or whatever stage. As far as "in response to", I think the term "precipitated", which is cited, is more apt, because it invokes the pre-existing conflict, which is historically more relevant, rather than a simple reaction which "response" denotes. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 06:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't speak for GGT, but I wasn't attempting to refute that it was an invasion. I agree with "precipitated". Alakzi (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi, perhaps I need to brush up on my disclaimers. At no time I meant to imply that you or GGT were attempting to refute or even obscure the invasion and I am sorry if it came out that way. In fact, that is why I said above that using the word "landing" is ok as long as the context is clear that an invasion was going on. I haven't checked your edit, neither do I care to, because I know it was perfectly fine. GGT's proposal which ties the landing with the invasion is also ok with me. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 17:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)