Talk:Northern Cyprus/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 15

lead section

As Richwales has already suggested, I think the lead section still needs a lot of work to make it neutral and to provide a balanced background for the reader. The phrase Northern Cyprus has received diplomatic recognition only from Turkey and the phrase The Republic of Cyprus rejects the legitimacy of the Northern Cyprus government both occur in the opening paragraph. It seems like overkill. Something along these lines might be better:

Northern Cyprus has received diplomatic recognition only from Turkey, upon which it is dependent for economic, political and military support. The rest of the international community, including the United Nations and the European Union, recognises the sovereignty of The Republic of Cyprus over the entire island (except the British sovereign base areas: Akrotiri and Dhekelia).

That seems more neutral and more tidy to me. WillMall ~(Pv~P) (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not certain that the points about the British bases are really necessary. I think that Ilknur was using that just as an excuse to question the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus and its claim over Northern Cyprus territory. Perhaps I'm not understanding something about the relationship? --Taivo (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not totally clear what İlknur was getting at — but since he/she was evidently a sock of a banned user, let's not worry about what İlknur was saying, and let's look at the question afresh. In general, I like WillMall's proposed rewrite of the last sentence in the lede's first paragraph — except that I do think we should keep "de jure" (i.e., "de jure sovereignty"). I'm ambivalent as to whether the British bases need to be mentioned in the lede; part of me would favour taking this item out in the interests of simplicity, but another part of me thinks we should continue to mention the bases (but in a footnote, so as not to complicate the lede excessively). A third alternative would be to mention the British bases, but in a very brief and general way — e.g., "over the entire island (except for two British military bases)" — and possibly wikilinking the phrase "British military bases" to the article on Akrotiri and Dhekelia for the benefit of readers who want to know more. Richwales (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Taivo is correct in his assesment of the political reasons behind the edit. Trying to account for such a minute part of the Cypriot territory in the lede clearly falls under WP:UNDUE and it is awkward in its political correctness while blatantly contravening WP:LEDE which clearly states that only the salient facts of an article should be in the lede and not the minutest of details. You already took out the part of Cyprus considering the TRNC a "puppet state". The addition of the names of the bases coupled with the removal of "puppet state" and the calling of the Turkish invasion as an "intervention" not only fails NPOV but seriously crosses into territory of sanitizing history and language while at the same time distorting and blowing out of proportion the size of the remnants of Cyprus' colonial past. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 09:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
As a start, I like Will's rewrite, but I agree with Dr. K that the part about the British bases is entirely unnecessary, even as a footnote. Look on any world map or atlas and the British bases are not deleted from ROC's sovereign territory. Those bases are always included in the country's square mile area figures as well. It's a trivial matter that Ilkonur was just using for his POV purposes so we can quite safely and securely ignore them when considering the sovereign territory of the ROC. (Taivo (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC))
Thank you Taivo for your expert work providing these facts. I fully agree with your points regarding the sovereignty of Cyprus and the bases. I also have no additional objections with the rest of Will's proposed rewrite of the lede. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
OK by me. The British bases have no specific connection to the Northern Cyprus phenomenon, and I have no objection to omitting entirely any mention of them in the lede. Richwales (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
So we can go with this?:
Northern Cyprus has received diplomatic recognition only from Turkey, upon which it is dependent for economic, political and military support. The rest of the international community, including the United Nations and the European Union, recognises the sovereignty of The Republic of Cyprus over the entire island. WillMall ~(Pv~P) (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
No need to capitalize the "The" in "the Republic of Cyprus". I still want to see "de jure" before "sovereignty". And, of course, we should keep the existing wikilinks on "United Nations", "European Union", and "Republic of Cyprus". Richwales (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Richw. This pretty much states the facts with no undue pov. So we get:
Northern Cyprus has received diplomatic recognition only from Turkey, upon which it is dependent for economic, political and military support. The rest of the international community, including the United Nations and the European Union, recognises the de jure sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the entire island. WillMall ~(P&~P) (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I think de jure (a foreign phrase) should be italicized. Otherwise, this looks fine to me. Richwales (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me, too. (But italicize de jure.) (Taivo (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC))
I'm fine with that as well. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, then, I've made the change. Richwales (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Great job. Thank you for all your efforts. I also thank the other editors. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

UN ICJ ruling on Kosovo, and its connection to Northern Cyprus

I'm concerned about this edit, which cites today's International Court of Justice ruling on Kosovo in a way that sounds like the court obviously approves of the existence of the TRNC as well. Since the case at hand dealt specifically with Kosovo alone, I believe we need to be extremely careful about generalizing it on our own (i.e., committing the faux pas of original research and/or synthesis) to make it cover Northern Cyprus. I would prefer to see citations to reliable secondary sources (if any) which discuss the ICJ ruling on Kosovo and specifically talk about the impact (if any) of this ruling on the TRNC in a balanced and neutral manner. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 20:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like another sock to me. I just reverted this WP:OR. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Look how the BBC favors Northern Cyprus It only doesn't go in saying "poor Northern Cypriots would be wiped out the poor kids. THANK GOD Turkey went in". What a bunch of propagandists. Be careful before you consider BBC "unbiased" again. -- (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

? I do not think that there is anything wrong with the BBC report - it is about the TRNC being used as a safe haven for criminals from Britain...All mentions of the history of the Cyprus problems seem fine also and I cannot see any bias against either Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots. It even acknowledges the fact that the army is still there and all points are mentioned in a neutral tone.
I would ask you to elaborate on your comments but suspect this would probably lead downhill. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Puppet State

The way the sentence is currently written, it ends with the phrase "and everyone else agrees". You cannot have "Greece thinks" at the front of the sentence and "everyone else agrees" at the back of the sentence and include "puppet state" in the list in the middle. No other countries agree with Greece's view that Northern Cyprus is a puppet state. When I agreed above, I wasn't thinking about how the sentence ended and only considering how the sentence began. I agree with Will Mall, that the way the sentence ends is just as important as the way it begins and "puppet state" is inappropriate in that regard. (Taivo (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

Yes,I agree with this point. I hadn't seen this either. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I also agree this point is valid. The "Greek Cypriots consider TRNC a Turkish puppet state" comment may still be a reasonable thing to say somewhere in the article, I believe, but I originally felt it was especially necessary in the lede (for balance) as long as the lede had also started out by calling the TRNC a "de facto independent republic". Since that introductory phrase was changed recently to "de facto state", the "puppet state" comment may not be so important now. As long as the average reader of the lede will understand we're saying that the partitioning of Cyprus (and the existence of the TRNC) is controversial, that the issues involved predate the blow-up in 1974, and that both the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities have what they feel are a valid basis for their respective positions on the matter, I think we'll be all right. Richwales (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought we had all agreed on this--that the sentence in the lead as presently constructed cannot have the words "puppet state" in front of the "everyone else agrees" comment. (Taivo (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC))
We may in fact be in "violent agreement" here. The point is indeed well taken that the juxtaposition of the "puppet state" comment and the "position supported" comment could easily have sounded like we were saying the international community (and not just the Republic of Cyprus government) considered the TRNC to be a puppet state. It was not my intention to say that when I originally added the "puppet state" comment, and I failed to notice at the time that it could be read it that way — but now that the problem has been pointed out, I agree it's appropriate to remove the "puppet state" comment. I do still think it may be proper to say somewhere in the article that the RoC considers the TRNC to be a puppet state of Turkey, but I no longer feel strongly that any such verbiage needs to appear in the lede. I am content with the lede in the article as it currently stands. Richwales (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Richwales, your position was clear and well-stated. I was just confused by Dr. K's later reinsertion of "puppet state" after his comment above. (Taivo (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC))
I think you got confused without any reason. My comment above came after I got reverted by Willmall and I did not reinsert anything after my comment above. I can provide the history diffs if you like. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I revert at 13:08, Willmall reverts me at 13:13 and I agree on talk at 13:37. There is no edit by me on the article after Willmall's edit at 13:13 which came before my final agreement at 13:37 on this talk page. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake then. I must have read the things in the wrong order. It happens when things are happening on different pages. My apologies, Dr. K. (Taivo (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC))
No worries Taivo. All in a day's work :) Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

first paragraph. The intervention you speak of was an invasion, and the partition of the island was due to the illegal occupation by Turkish troops. This is not only supported by the current status quo (strong presence of the Turkish army), but also from the fact that the Turkish Cypriot population living in the South of Cyprus remained their until 1977.

Tassos, you were right about the "Katexomena", and I have to apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is this easy to include an insulting puppet state phrase in an article, may we as well add "Turkish Cypriots consider(which they do) Republic of Cyprus a Greek Puppet state"? I will add it if there are no objections. -- (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the current text of the article does not in fact use the term "puppet state" anywhere, I would suggest it may not be the best thing to add it now (referring to either side). Richwales (talk · contribs) 14:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The PEOPLEness according to UN ICJ ruling on Kosovo


  • Article 228. No terminological precision as to what constitutes a “people” in international law, despite the large experience on the matter.

The conjugation of factors that makes a “people” (FACTUAL BUT NOT LEGAL ELEMENTS, WHICH USUALLY OVERLAP EACH OTHER): 1. Traditions and Culture 2. Ethnicity 3. Historical Ties and Heritage 4. Language 5. Religion 6. Sense of Identity or Kinship 7. The Will to Constitute a People

  • Article 229.

8. Common Suffering: common suffering creates a strong sense of identity. Reference # 241: For a human collectivity or a group to constitute a “people” for eligibility to statehood: a) sharing of common background of ethnicity, language, religion, history and cultural heritage; b) territorial integrity of the area claimed; c) the subjective element of the group’s self-conscious perception as a distinct “people” Cratosian (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what are you trying to say here? What is the point of your post?
I have undone your edit as it is not relevent to the Northern Cyprus page. That material is more suitable for the People page Chaosdruid (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
And now you have reverted my undo without discussion. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Chaosdruid, It is relevant as Cratosian said in his edit summary in the article. Because south Cyprus side refuse peopleness of north Cyprus side. This lead to impasse in the Cyprus reunification negotiations. Helenaworld (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I must agree with Chaosdruid on this one. The above material from the ICJ ruling on Kosovo is not directly usable here. Extrapolating this material to Northern Cyprus would constitute original research and/or synthesis on our part. If you can find reliable secondary sources reporting others who have drawn parallels between the ICJ ruling on Kosovo and the situation in Northern Cyprus, that would be suitable for inclusion here. But for us to quote the ICJ ruling directly, and either state or imply on our own authority that the same reasoning applies to Northern Cyprus as well, is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 22:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. This is the very definition of WP:OR. I will shortly call for an WP:SPI investigation because this pattern of editing fits the previous socks. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 ::::: I am not extrapolating the material. I just wrote UN ICJ decision about peopleness criteria. And, in the paragraph of UN ICJ report I cited, there is no reference over Kosovo. These are the general criteria, specified in various documents. I did not say "That is in favour of North Cyprus" in the edit I made to the article of North Cyprus. I only specified the criteria. Also, In current Cyprus Negotiations, there is an impasse since Greek side does not accept the peopleness of Turkish side. Hence, the criteria that ICJ specified is written to the article, just for the purpose of giving brain-food to the 2 sides in the Cyprus island. Cratosian (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I changed the title from "The PEOPLEness of North Cyprus according to UN ICJ ruling on Kosovo" to "The PEOPLEness according to UN ICJ ruling on Kosovo". My naming of the title, I think, mislead the people here that there is a direct positive contribution to peopleness of NC according to UN ICJ. Cratosian (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
In the article I added:
  • On July 22, 2010, the judges of the International Court of Justice specified some of the criteria for "peopleness": 1. Common Suffering 2. Traditions and Culture 3. Ethnicity 4. Historical Ties and Heritage 5. Language 6. Religion 7. Sense of Identity or Kinship 8. The Will to Constitute a People.

There is no mentioning of "peopleness of North Cyprus". There is a mentioning of just "peopleness". Hence, my edit does not contain any POW. Hence, it should be added in the article. Cratosian (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No it should not because it is irrelevant to the article and improper synthesis. Please see WP:SYNTH. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Find one or more reliable sources reporting individuals or groups which have discussed the North(ern) Cyprus situation in the light of the ICJ ruling on "peopleness", and add that to the article. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 23:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I promise to find one or more reliable article reporting the North(ern) Cyprus situation in the light of the ICJ ruling on "peopleness". After that I expect wiki admins not to revert my edit. By the way, though there is no edit-warring in the article, λogos accused me a sock-puppet. I suspect his intention is purposefully bad.Cratosian (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess this diff does not qualify as edit-warring according to you. I also would like to remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The 13 amendments

Neutral president of The Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus, Prof. Ernst Forsthoff (a German citizen): "The criticisms against the Constitution of Cyprus increased as time went on and when the question of establishing separate municipalities in the five main towns in 13 amendments was brought before the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus it was insisted that the establishment of such separate municipalities was not practicable. On 25.04.1963, The Court formulated its decision with utmost care in order to make it possible for a compromise solution. I must add that a state does not cease to exist on account of any defect in local administration. The fact that the decision of the Constitutional Court was not to be implemented by Makarios was made quite clear to me and it was not implemented. Non-implementation of the decision of a Constitutional Court is sufficient reason to compel the resignation of its President, me" and President Forsthoff resigned on 21.05.1963 and the rule of law in Cyprus collapsed.

  • So the sequel: 1: Makarios offered 13 proposals 2: Turkish Cypriots/Turkey objected to 13 proposals 3: [25.04.1963] Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus dedided 13 proposals are illegal 4: Makarios ignored the decision of SCCC 5: [21.05.1963] President of SCCC resigned 6: Rule of law in Cyprus collapsed.
  • This is NOT a propoganda Dr. K. Where is President of SCCC in 22.05.1963? Arwilla45 (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • ARE decision of SCCC as illegality of 13 proposals AND resignation of president of SCCC PROPOGANDA OR FACT?

If you claim it is propoganda, you should explain the decision of SCCC and resignation of president of SCCC. And his words about 13 proposals! Arwilla45 (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

  • From since what time, the decisions of Constitutional Courts and Resignations of president of Constitutional courts are regarded as propoganda? Dr. K? Arwilla45 (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The words of the president of SCCC are primary sources. Also you cannot use the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a source to claim that the rule of Law in Cyprus collapsed. We are writing an encyclopedia here and we need reliable sources to write it. Using the Turkish Foreign Ministry as a reliable source for a country that Turkey invaded in 1974 strikes me as not a very good idea. Let's keep the governments out of this. Find a better source for this and there will be no problem. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The reference to the words of the President of SCCC are NOT from Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs BUT Umwelt- und Prognose-Institut (UPI) correspondent in Heidelberg, Germany on December 30, 1963. This can be seen in the footnote #5 of the .pdf reference I gave. The illegality decision of 13 amendments by SCCC; Makarious' ignorance to the decision of SCCC; Resignation of president of SCCC"... These are not propoganda. I gave the dates. I gave the reference you want: Umwelt- und Prognose-Institut (UPI) correspondent in Heidelberg, Germany on December 30, 1963. Arwilla45 (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
[1] Look at footnote #5 at page 4, Please. Arwilla45 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The words of the president of the SCCC are WP:PRIMARY sources and should not be used without expert analysis by reliable sources. Find a reliable source analysing his statement and what his resignation meant for the affairs of Cyprus and include it in the article. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I did not include the words of president of SCCC in the article context, but in the references. I included the analysis of an expert in the article just as you wanted:
  • Expert Analysis: Assoc. Dr. Ahmet Sözen
  • Reliable Source (analysing the statement and what his resignation meant for the affairs of Cyprus): Assoc. Dr. Ahmet Sözen: "The Fall and the Rise of the Consociational Democracy in Cyprus" (Paper prepared for presentation at the 5th International Seminar on Democracy and Human Rights in Multiethnic Societies, Institute for Strengthening Democracy in Bosnia, Konjic, Bosnia and Herzegovina, July 8-12, 2002.). [2]. Now, is it OK? Arwilla45 (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
A seminar is not the same as a peer reviewed publication so it is not a reliable source WP:RS. Please find a reliable source. This is just not one. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Sozen’s article was peer reviewed publication: University of Bergen, Norway academicians peer-reviewed the article. Even University of Bergen, Norway - Programme for South Eastern Europe (Centre for International University Cooperation and Norwegian Research Council) Institusjonen Fritt Ord, Oslo, Norway SPONSORED 5th International Seminar in BiH. I found reliable sources as well (See the following references table) Arwilla45 (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
And Dr. Sozen is a citizen of Northern Cyprus. Not a good idea to use him as a reliable Neutral WP:NPOV source. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I used other reliable references other than Dr. Sözen. ASSOCIATED PRESS (05.01.1964), DEUTSCHE ZEITUNG (Nr. 15, 18-19.01.1964), DIE WELT (German Newspaper, 27.12.1963), UMWELT- UND PROGNOSE-INSTITUT (UPI) (Germany, 30.12.1963), TODAYS ZAMAN, ATCANEWS. Arwilla45 (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Facts and References for the 1963 constitution events in Cyprus
Sequel Facts References
1: Makarios offered 13 proposals (including the abolishment of separate municipalities) obvious
2: Turkish Cypriots/Turkey objected to 13 proposals obvious
3: Makarios pre-declared: "he will ignore any decision of SCCC on 13 proposals" [ ]

Neutral president of The Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus, Prof. Ernst Forsthoff (a German citizen): "The criticisms against the Constitution of Cyprus increased as time went on and when the question of establishing separate municipalities in the five main towns in 13 amendments was brought before the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus it was insisted that the establishment of such separate municipalities was not practicable. On 25.04.1963, The Court formulated its decision with utmost care in order to make it possible for a compromise solution. I must add that a state does not cease to exist on account of any defect in local administration. The fact that the decision of the Constitutional Court was not to be implemented by Makarios was made quite clear to me and it was not implemented. Non-implementation of the decision of a Constitutional Court is sufficient reason to compel the resignation of its President, me"

4: 25.04.1963 Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus: "13 proposals are illegal" See below.
5: 21.05.1963 President of SCCC resigned RESIGNATION AND THE RESIGNATION REASONS
  • REF#1: ASSOCIATED PRESS (05.01.1964) [3] Ernst Forsthoff (President of Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus): "From the moment I commenced my duties I noticed that there were allegations to the effect that the constitution was not capable of being implemented, that revision was necessary and the like. I faced these allegations with the following thought: Every constitution can have its peculiar problems. There is no constitution in the world which has not got its particular difficulties and problems. This is primarily a question of goodwill. If there is goodwill a constitution can be implemented and this constitution is capable of being implemented."
  • REF#2: [DEUTSCHE ZEITUNG (Nr. 15, 18-19.01.1964)] [ ] Ernst Forsthoff (President of Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus): "I deny the allegation that an implementation of the constitution was impossible. It is a matter of good will to make it work".
  • REF#3: [DIE WELT (German Newspaper, 27.12.1963] [4] [5] Ernst Forsthoff (President of Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus): "Makarios bears on his shoulders the sole responsibility for the recent tragic events. His aim is to deprive the Turkish community of their rights".

Supreme Constitutional Court President Dr. Ernst Forsthoff was forced to resign from his post on May 21, 1963. He had been under pressure and intimidation from the Greek Cypriot side, following his ruling on April 25, 1963, in connection with the dispute created by Makarios’ refusal to extend the law providing for separate municipalities in five main towns.

  • REF#5: : Prof. FORSTHOFF RESIGNED: The neutral West German judge Professor Dr. Ernst Forsthoff of Heidelberg University who presided over the supreme constitutional Court of Cyprus had to resign in 1963 in protest at Makarios's insistence not to implement the vital provisions of the constitution, particularly those concerning the separate municipalities in 5 towns. When in 1963 the rulings of the Court were rejected and flouted by Makarios and his ministers the neutral judge had no other alternative but to resign.
  • REF#6: UMWELT- UND PROGNOSE-INSTITUT (UPI) (Germany, 30.12.1963): Ernst Forsthoff (President of Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus): "All this happened because Makarios wanted to take away all constitutional rights from the Turkish Cypriots. From the moment Makarios started openly to deprive the Turkish Cypriots of their rights, the present events were inevitable "
6: 15.07.1963 Makarios ignored SCCC decision (as pre-declared) See above.
7: 15.07.1963 Resignation of president of SCCC becomes effective

The Supreme Constitutional Court was composed of an independent President, Professor Ernst Forsthoff of Heidelberg University, and two judges from the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities. The President resigned with effect from 15 July 1963 as a result of Archbishop Makarios’ statement that he would not comply with the decision of the Supreme Constitutional Court regarding municipalities. (Necatigil, The Cyprus question and the Turkish position in international law, p. 21.)

8: The rule of law in Cyprus collapsed

Constitutional arrangement lasted only until the beginning of 1964 due to the eruption of intercommunal hostilities in Cyprus, as a result of which the neutral presidents vacated their posts without being replaced. In order to face this situation which PARALYSED THE JUDICIARY.

  • [REPUBLIC OF TURKEY, MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS] In February 1963 (Greek Cypriot Cyprus Mail Newspaper 12.02.1963) Archbishop Makarios declared on behalf of the Greek Cypriots that if the Court ruled against them they would ignore it. On 25th April 1963 the Court did rule against them and they did ignore it. The President of the Court (a German citizen) resigned and the RULE OF LAW IN CYPRUS COLLAPSED. Even Greece was embarrassed by this Greek Cypriot behaviour. On 19th April 1963, Greek Foreign Minister Averoff had written to Makarios "It is not permissible for Greece in any circumstances to accept the creation of a precedent by which one of the contracting parties can unilaterally abrogate or ignore provisions that are irksome to it in international acts which this same party has undertaken to respect."

9: 30.11.1963 Makarios declared 13 proposals obvious
Ok you can use the neutral (German newspaper) references and refer to the constitutional crisis but you cannot use the involved parties (Turkish Foreign ministry) or primary sources to talk about collapse of the rule of law etc. The Supreme Court of Cyprus is a primary source and Dr. Sozen's paper may be peer reviewed but a seminar is not the same as a recognised journal and Dr. Sozen is not a neutral NPOV source. In addition any analysis of the constitutional crisis must be taken from the neutral German sources. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Greek translation of TRNC

so the artical for cyprus has both greek and turkish translations. soo the trnc should have both to. its only fair. there are still greek cypriots living over there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyprus10 (talkcontribs) 02:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You may have a case due to the presence of the Greek minority there but I am not sure what the naming guidelines WP:NCGN say in this matter. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
But I really doubt the Greek minority calls TRNC anything other than Cyprus because that is the name of their country and not TRNC. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
"TURKISH Republic of Northern Cyprus". The official language of TRNC is TURKISH ALONE! Hence, in TRNC article, any language other than Turkish is equivalent. Greek translations about TRNC can be used in just as Japanese translations about TRNC can be used in Also, according to the 1960 constitution of Rep. of Cyprus, the official languages of Rep. of Cyprus are GREEK AND TURKISH! Hence, the existence of Turkish translations about Cyprus is valid. So, south cyprus mentionings are with BOTH TURKISH AND GREEK whereas north cyprus mentionings are with TURKISH alone.Cinemahintkey (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

origin of estimate

Somebody has a problem with this simply because it has the trigger-word "island" in it. It's an explanation for how the estimate brought up in the first sentence came about. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should stay. I just restored the information. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Estimates by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus from 2001 place the population at 200,000, of which 80-89,000 are Turkish Cypriots and 109,000-117,000 Turkish settlers.

  • EXACT VERSUS ESTIMATE: North Cyprus' 1st census was in 1996: 200,587. 2nd in 2006: 265,100. Hence, when there are EXACT numbers of North Cyprus's population in 1996 and 2006, the placing the ESTIMATE in 2001 to the article has no informatory.

An island-wide census in 1960 indicated the number of Turkish Cypriots as 102,000 and Greek Cypriots as 450,000. Estimates state that 36,000 (about 1/3) Turkish Cypriots emigrated in the period 1975-1995, with the consequence that within Northern Cyprus the native Turkish Cypriots have been outnumbered by settlers from Turkey.

  • THE REASONABILITY OF TIME SPAN: North Cyprus founded in 1983, hence a census "IN 1960" has no meaning for a country that established "IN 1983". NC is a NEW PHENOMENON that structured "Turks are in the North, Greek are in the South". 1960 census performed when Turks and Greeks are scattered all over the Cyprus island. 1960 census does not informatory on the number of Turks in North in 1983.
  • CORRECT SCOPE: "ISLAND-WIDE census" is an info for "Rep. of CYPRUS" that claims ALL OF CYPRUS ISLAND. "island-wise census" is not an info for NORTH C. North Cyprus claims ONLY NORTH OF CYPRUS AND SOVEREIGN IN NORTH OF CYPRUS.
  • PERFORMABILITY OF CENSUSUS/ESTIMATES FOR NORTH CYPRUS BY REP. OF CYPRUS AUTHORITIES: Forget the census officials of Rep. of Cyprus, even the President of Rep. of Cyprus (Dimitris Hristofias) CANNOT pass to North Cyprus without showing his passport to North Cyprus's boundary authorities. The presidency of Cyprus does NOT extend to North Cyprus; the presidency of North Cyprus does NOT extend to Cyprus: When opening Limnitis crossing in 14.10.2010, Hristofias hiddened Cyprus Presidency flag in his official car when passing to North Cyprus, and, Eroglu hiddened North Cyprus Presidency flag in his official car when passing to (south) Cyprus. Also, to perform a census, one should be able to go around and count people. Cyprus's official CANNOT pass to North Cyprus, forget counting its people. To perform an ESTIMATE of census, one should know the customs's knowledge (how many tourists visited? how many temporary worker entered from entering points? etc.). Cyprus's officials has NO knowledge on them. ONLY North Cyprus's officials realize custom operations for North Cyprus, hence only they know the necessary info. Hence, ONLY NORTH CYPRUS's officials's estimates and projections about the population of North Cyprus are reliable. Nestera (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. I think that the census data you are trying to delete provide a needed historical perspective for the evolution of the populations in the island. It also serves to counter-balance the census claims of the current government to the north. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
1: 1960 census (of Rep. of Cyprus) 2: 2001 census estimate (by Rep. of Cyprus) 3: 1996 census (by North Cyprus). How many of the these 3 do you agree to be placed in NC article? Which ones?
census data you are trying to delete provide a needed HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE for the evolution of the populationS IN THE ISLAND. 1960 can be historical perspective for ROC (that founded in 1960). History of NC begins at 1983, NC founded in 1983. 1960 census cannot be historical perspective for an entity that existed in 1983. Also, populationS is the subject of ROC (that claims to be government of BOTH Turks and Greeks), NC is the entity of ONLY Turks, hence, only population of Turks matter for NC, not the populationS. ROC's censusus and estimates cannot go further than CLAIM as you specified. Whereas NC's 2006 census was performed under the supervision of United Nations! Even the questions of the census was provided by UN in 2006. ALso, observers from EU were in North Cyprus for the census reliability. Nestera (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we should wait for the other editors here to voice an opinion. This way we can reach a better consensus. I disagree with your points however because I believe that the Government of Cyprus can still publish relevant census data for the whole island. But since we seem unable to agree let's wait for the other regulars to express their opinion. I would ask you only that you refrain from edit-warring because I am starting to detect some patterns here. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You are not making much sense when you claim that 1960 cannot be used to refer to an entity founded in 1983. History does not start with the political founding of XYZ; otherwise, you could easily nuke any information about South Africa before 1961, Germany before 1871, or erase any mention of the Ottoman Empire in the article about Turkey -- thereby pretending that any given place ha no past. Understanding history would become impossible. This isn't supposed to be a quick-facts box where you tick off numbers; historical explanations and connections are also needed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely with your comments. The problem here is these kinds of disputes always accompanied by edit-warring have a tendency of appearing periodically in this article. They fit a larger pattern associated with other activities. Let's see how this latest incident evolves. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject States With Limited Recognition Proposal

There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/States With Limited Recognition. This proposed project would have within it's scope the 10 "Other States" of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. Outback the koala (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Forming consensus for Demographics of North Cyprus


North Cyprus's first census was performed in 1996 by the Government of North Cyprus; The population of the country was 200,587. [1] The 2nd census was carried out by North Cyprus in 2006 revealed the population of North Cyprus to be 265,100,[2] of which majority is composed of indigenous Turkish Cypriots, with the rest including a large number of settlers from Turkey. Of the 178,000 Turkish Cypriot citizens, 82% are native Cypriots (145,000). Of the 45,000 people born to non- Cypriot parentage, nearly 40% (17,000) were born in Cyprus. The figure for non-citizens, including students, guest workers and temporary residents stood at 78,000 people.[2][3] The population of North Cyprus' cities are: North Nicosia:85579, Famagusta:64269, Kyrenia:62158, Morphou: 31116, Trikomo:21978.


Estimates by the Government of North Cyprus: The 1983 population of North Cyprus was 155,521 [4]. Estimates by Cyprus: Since the officials of Republic of Cyprus are not allowed to enter North Cyprus other than the touristic purposes, and the customs information of North Cyprus (number of visiting tourists, temporary workers, immigrants etc. per year) are not given to Cyprus; hence, Cyprus cannot realize censusus in North Cyprus, but rather they make estimates about the North Cyprus population.[original research?] Estimates by the government of the Republic of Cyprus from 2001 place the population at 200,000, of which 80-89,000 are Turkish Cypriots and 109,000-117,000 Turkish settlers.[5]. An island-wide census in 1960 indicated the number of Turkish Cypriots as 102,000 and Greek Cypriots as 450,000[6]. Estimates state that 36,000 (about 1/3) Turkish Cypriots emigrated in the period 1975-1995, with the consequence that within Northern Cyprus the native Turkish Cypriots have been outnumbered by settlers from Turkey.[5]

Northern Cyprus is almost entirely Turkish speaking. English, however, is widely spoken as a second language.

There are small populations of Greek Cypriots and Maronites (about 3,000) living in Rizokarpaso (Dipkarpaz) and Kormakitis regions. Before 1974, Rizokarpaso was predominantly inhabited by Greek-Cypriots. During the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, the peninsula was cut off by Turkish troops, and this prevented the town's Greek-Cypriot inhabitants from fleeing to the South. As a result, Rizokarpaso is the home of the biggest Greek-speaking population in the North. The Greek-Cypriot inhabitants are still supplied by the UN, and Greek-Cypriot products are consequently available in some shops. Today, the town is also the home of a large Kurdish minority.[citation needed]

I tagged the sections that need to be removed or cited. The others seem ok to me. Let's also lose the border pic as irrelevant to the census data from either side. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree to much of it; the only thing is that I find the bold-print Censuses and Estimates unusual, format-wise... maybe level 5 headers would be better
According to this, there are ethnic Kurds in Northern Cyprus, but no-one has any figures on how many there are.
Also, I found no indication that there are still 3,000 Greeks/maronites living in the TRNC today; the figures are from 1960, so it should say "were". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
My friend, Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ, you are right. 3000 maronits were in 1960. Now there are 364 maronits in NC in 2006 census by North Cyprus under UN and EU supervision[7]. The majority of Maronits in NC migrated to south of the island. I think 364 better describes the figure. In level 5 issue, again, you are right. My syntax is not advanced. I will try to make level 5 heading. If I cannot achieve, please help me in syntax. Nestera (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

POWs in Demographics Paragraph

Before 1974, Rizokarpaso was predominantly inhabited by Greek-Cypriots (OKEY).

During Even after the TURKISH INVASION OF CYPRUS hostilities [8]in 1974, THE PENINSULA WAS CUT OFF BY TURKISH TROOPS, AND THIS PREVENTED THE TOWN'S GREEK CYPRIOT INHABITANTS FROM FLEEING TO THE SOUTH. Greek Cypriots in Rizokarpaso accepted the Turkish Cypriot administration and stayed in North Cyprus, according to the Population Exchange Agreement between Turkish and Greek Cypriots in 1975[9]. As a result, Rizokarpaso is the home of the biggest Greek-speaking population in the North (OKEY). The Greek-Cypriot inhabitants are still supplied by the UN, and Greek-Cypriot products are consequently available in some shops.

Today, the town is also the home of Kurdish minority.[CITATIONS FROM THE ARTICLES OF ONE OF THE SIDES, NOT NEUTRAL] (I will put references from UN official website as well; 1975 Population Exchange Agreement were done under the auspices of UN!) Nestera (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Population Exchange Agreement in 02.08.1975 between Turkish and Greek Cypriots

  • The Turkish Cypriots at present in the south of the island will be allowed, IF THEY WANT TO DO SO, to proceed north with their belongings under an organised programme and with the assistance of the United Nations Peace keeping force in Cyprus.
  • Mr. Denktash reaffirmed, and it was agreed, that the Greek Cypriots at present in the north of the island are free to stay and that they will be given every help to lead a normal life, including facilities for education and for the practice of their religion, as well as medical care by their own doctors and freedom of movement in the north.
  • The Greek Cypriots at present in the north who, AT THEIR OWN REQUEST AND WITHOUT HAVING BEEN SUBJECTED TO ANY KIND OF PRESSURE, WISH TO MOVE TO THE SOUTH, will be permitted to do so.
  • The United Nations will have free and normal access to Greek Cypriot villages and habitations in the north.
  • In connection with the implementations of the above agreement, priority will be given to the reunification of families, which may also involve the transfer of a number of Greek Cypriots, at present in the south, to the north.


As is seen clearly from the capitalized expression above, the Greek Cypriots WHO DID NOT WANT TO FLEE TO THE SOUTH could stay in the North (just as the Greek Cypriots in Rizokarpaso)! But, the Greek Cypriots other than the ones in Rizakarpaso ALL REFUSED TO LIVE UNDER TURKISH CYPRIOT ADMINISTRATION, and therefore, fleed to the South by their own will. Nestera (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

RELIABLE REFERENCES TO Population Exchange Agreement in 02.08.1975 between Turkish and Greek Cypriots TO HELP REMOVE THE POW EXPRESSIONS

  • CYPNET (United Kingdom): In the aftermath of the events of 1974 and subsequent Population Exchange Agreement, most of the Greek-Cypriot residents in North Cyprus moved to South Cyprus whereas most of the Turkish-Cypriot residents in the South moved to North Cyprus. However, a small minority of Greek-Cypriots chose to stay in their ancestral homes, mostly those in the villages of the remote Karpas peninsula. Their number ranges between 700-800[10]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nestera (talkcontribs) 19:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • BBC (United Kingdom): In the end, Makarios and Denktash signed a population exchange agreement and the exchange happened. [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nestera (talkcontribs) 19:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Embargoed: 2.The Population Exchange Agreement of 1975 between the two Cypriot sides reflected the voluntary movement of most of the island's population during the 1963-74 conflict, who, in the interests of personal safety, preferred to live in homogeneous ethnic zones[12]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nestera (talkcontribs) 19:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • MacMillian: Table of Contents: Population Exchange Agreement (August 2, 1975) [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nestera (talkcontribs) 19:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • United Nations: United Nations Document S/11789. [14] Nestera (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

After the above references

The Greek Cypriots in Rizokarpaso accepted to live under Turkish Cypriot administration and stayed in North Cyprus even after the hostilities in 1974. The other Greek Cypriots in the North chose to live under Greek Cypriot administration and fled to the South; in accordance with the Population Exchange Agreement between Turkish and Greek Cypriots under the auspices of United Nations in 02.08.1975[15]. As a result, Rizokarpaso is the home of the biggest Greek-speaking population in the North. The Greek-Cypriot inhabitants are still supplied by the UN, and Greek-Cypriot products are consequently available in some shops. Nestera (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


  • 28.05.2010: ECHR: Greek Cypriots have NO RIGHT to return to North Cyprus.
  • The Greek Cypriots objected to ECHR
  • 18.10.2010: ECHR rejected GCs and the case FINALIZED

Nestera (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Population in the North

According to the New Cyprus Party 'The population in the north is reaching 500,000 and is continually rising...' (see here:[6] see also [7]). Cyprus Mail has also quoted Mehmet Ali Talat who '...made a statement in one of his speeches with indirectly saying that our de facto population is around 500,000' (see here:[8]). What do other users think? Should we include this information? At first I thought that this estimate is too high. However, according to CIA Cyprus' population is 1,102,677 (July 2010 est.), 18% of which are Turkish Cypriots which would equal 198,482. Many Greek Cypriot sources (even Turkish Cypriot sources) argue that the people from Turkey [unfortunately] out-number us Cypriots so this could be a possibility right? Turco85 (Talk) 21:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

UN Documents Link Change

All UN Documents using this domain name now point to a dead url. Unfortunately, the url's for that domain don't have any special pattern to them (at least none that I could detect), I fixed two dead links here from that domain, by search for instances of that url in other articles where the particular document was mentioned and then looked for that document's new home. The UN should really know better than to obsolete a domain and then not forward any links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"Turkey's intervention to Cyprus is legal"

For the wiki-users to make it clear about which we are talking:

Council of Europe (29.07.1974) [16] and Court of Greece (21.03.1979) [17] decided that Turkey's intervention is legal. Nestera (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am going to revert this edit by Nestera (talk · contribs). Lest I be accused of wantonly removing sourced material, I am offering an explanation.


One of the cited sources (Today's Zaman) is clearly POV editorializing. The Greek court case in question involved a father demanding compensation for his son who was killed during the fighting, and a detached, neutral reader cannot trust the accuracy of this source's interpretation that the Turkish invasion was held by Greek courts to be valid. This claim might, for all I know, be in fact true, but we need to put forth more obviously impartial source material to substantiate it. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Richwales : "we need to put forth more obviously impartial source material". Richwales is right. Today's Zaman is a source from Turkey (one of the sides included in the dispute). Hence, I will put sources from Greece, Cyprus (Greek Part), and USA, EU, and other important resources. Nestera (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • But, first look at the View History page of the article. Notice that "invasion" is written according to NEWSPAPERS:
NEW YORK TIMES: New York Times Quote: The dinner follows a meal Mr. Denktash held on Dec. 6, when Mr. Clerides made his first visit to northern Cyprus, which was invaded by Turkey in 1974 and has been governed by Turkish Cypriots ever since. Mr. Clerides is recognized internationally as the president of Cyprus, but Turkey is the only country that....
BBC: BBC News Quote: "Cyprus has been split into the Greek Cypriot-controlled south and the Turkish-occupied north since Turkey invaded in 1974, in the wake of an abortive coup by supporters of union with Greece."
THE TIMES: Unity talks under threat as hardliner elected President] The Times Quote: on divided island a stance that would scuttle a deal. Cyprus was split on ethnic and religious lines by a Turkish invasion in 1974, triggered by a brief, Greek-inspired coup.
GUARDIAN: Cyprus problem is fuelling racism] The Guardian Quote: "Whether one chooses to date the situation to the invasion by Turkey in 1974, the coup by junta-officered Greek Cypriots the same year, the bombings by Turkey in 1964, the attempt.
What I am trying to say is NOT "NEW YORK TIMES, BBC, THE TIMES, GUARDIAN" are unfair, BUT Court decisions and the resolutions of International Organizations should be more reliable sources if compared to the interpretations of the columnists of newspapers. Nestera (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


The most that can be said on this matter is that the topic is highly controversial. There are those who accept the Turkish intervention in Northern Cyprus in 1974 as lawful and there are those who hold it to be illegal. For the sake of brevity, I will give only two examples of documents which hold that the presence of the Turkish army in North Cyprus is lawful. My first example is from the 26th Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, namely Resolution 573 (1974), adopted on 29 July 1974. The second example comes from the decision of the Greek Supreme Court of Appeals, dated 21 March 1979, in case no. 2658/79, where it was accepted that Turkey had intervened in Cyprus in 1974 using its legal rights (underline supplied), in other words, that the intervention was lawful. An excerpt from decision no. 2658/79 reads: On 15th July 1974, General Yoannidis, together with General Yorgitsis, the Commander of the Greek Regiment in Cyprus and General Yanakomidis organized a coup d'etat against Makarios with 102 other Greek officers. The President's Palace in Nicosia was kept under fire by heavy weapons but President Makarios survived this attack through a miracle. After Greek officers violated the Cyprus Constitution, Nikos Sampson was appointed as the new president of Cyprus Republic. TURKEY INTERVENED TO CYPRUS USING ITS LEGAL RIGHT, on 20th July 1974.

The first example is a Resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the other is a judicial decision of a national court, as opposed to a decision of an international tribunal. In both cases the legality of the Turkish military intervention in Cyprus in 1974 was only a side issue, not the main issue; in neither case, however, was it stated that the Turkish intervention was unlawful under international law. Although, to be fair and objective, I should also add that there exist various other decisions by other international bodies accepting the contrary view. Further examples incorporating both views may conveniently be found in a book published in 2007 by I. B. Tauris, London, entitled The Cyprus Issue, A Documentary History (1878-2007) and edited by Murat Metin Hakkı. I prefer not to refer further to this work, since the editor happens to be my son.

Who is to settle this controversy? Obviously not the European Court of Human Rights. The Court has already declined to comment on this question, stating that “In this connection it recalls that in its principal judgment it held that 'it need not pronounce itself on the arguments which have been adduced by those appearing before it concerning the alleged lawfulness or unlawfulness under international law of Turkey's military intervention in the island in 1974'” (see Loizidou v. Turkey (Article 50), judgment of 29 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV, p. 1817, § 40).

In the absence of a decision from a competent international tribunal holding that the presence of the Turkish Army in Kyrenia (and more particularly in the area where the property in question is situated) is unlawful under international law....

Council of Europe

The other source (a Council of Europe resolution) does indeed say that the Turkish intervention was in accordance with the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, but it also expresses regret at the failure of negotiations and calls upon all involved countries to "guarantee the sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of Cyprus". To claim simply that the Council of Europe approved Turkey's actions, without putting that claim in any sort of context, does not constitute a proper use of the source. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I do not claim Council of Europe approved Turkey's actions (military intervention). Obviously, CoE prefered diplomatic solution as was written in the solution. This point is another issue. CoE neither pro- nor con- to in the resolution. What CoE specifies is the Turkey interfered according to the international agreements. If you understand it as "CoE approved military action of Turkey", then this would be false, since Greece would have objected as one of the members of CoE. Territorial integrity or something others of Cyprus in the resolution are other issues. They are written in the resolution not to show Turkey's interference is illegal, but rather possible wish of CoE after the Turkish interference. Nestera (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If the consensus turns out to be that this edit (or something similar) should be restored, please note that accepted English usage would refer to Turkey's intervention in (not "to") Cyprus. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please clarify how you think? Since you are native speaker of English, you know the grammar better than me.

What I understands (and think): Turkey's intervention in Cyprus = Turkey's intervention to Cyprus Island, and it seems to me that COUNTRY acted on ISLAND. Turkey's intervention "to" Cyprus = Turkey's (country) intervention to Rep. of Cyprus (country). COUNTRY's interference to another COUNTRY seems more plausible to me. Please, could you explain further? Nestera (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The verbs "intervene" and "interfere" are not perceived by English speakers as being verbs of motion. Thus, they take a prepositional phrase with a static (non-directional) meaning. The most commonly used forms are "intervene in XYZ" or "interfere in XYZ" (referring to a place), or "interfere with XYZ" (referring to an action). The exact usage and meaning of prepositions in English, and exactly which prepositions are used with which verbs, is at least as much a matter of vocabulary as it is a matter of logic — my impression is that this is true of prepositions (or postpositions) in just about every language. So please don't be alarmed that your initial impression of which preposition to use in this case turned out to be wrong. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
yeah, I was just gonna say - there is no "intervene to". Just doesn't exist. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Perfect explanation. Very thanks, Richwales. Nestera (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess I could add that "intervene to" could occur in a sentence like "The Turkish government intervened to prevent what it perceived as a worsening situation" — but in this case, "to" is functioning as an infinitive marker, not as a preposition of direction / motion. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I put reference for Council of Europe resolution just from the other side of the Cyprus dispute (i.e, Rep. of (Greek) Cyprus) just to make everybody convince the citation is true. Do you want me more obvious impartial source material for CoE resolution as well? Nestera (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The question, in my opinion, depends on what you are trying to do with the Council of Europe resolution. If you are trying to present a balanced set of perspectives on the CoE resolution, without making the article's text take any particular side, this may be OK (though you should be careful to look for secondary sources rather than conducting your own original research and/or synthesis). But if you're using references to the CoE resolution with an ultimate view towards making Wikipedia say that the Turkish invasion / intervention / whatever in Cyprus was justified, that the subsequent partitioning of the island is legal, that the TRNC has a right to demand world recognition because of what the CoE said, etc., etc., then (IMO) you are engaging in "tendentious editing" contrary to WP:NPOV. Please note that I would say the very same thing to someone who was trying to cite material in such a way as to try to make Wikipedia say that the Turkish action was unjustified, that the TRNC is an illegitimate rogue puppet state, etc., etc. I would strongly suggest carefully reading WP:TE, and also try to find more secondary sources which discuss the Council of Europe resolution and its implications in the broader context of the Cyprus situation in general. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Date formatting

Per WP:DATESNO, all-numeric date formats (such as "25.04.1963") are discouraged because they are potentially ambiguous. The article appears to contain numerous American-style dates, but a case could be made that the British date format is more appropriate to this subject; what do people think here? Most of the all-numeric dates appear to have been introduced by Nestera (talk · contribs) — now indef-blocked on the assumption that he's a sock of a banned user — so it might be best to wait till editors have had a chance to clean out inappropriate material added by Nestera before working on any remaining all-numeric dates. Comments? Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree on changing to European format. Cleanup and date changing can happen in parallel or in series. Rich, if you want you can start the cleanup and/or the date formatting at any time. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I went through and changed all the dates just now (I think I got them all). I should mention here that I'm not necessarily endorsing all the text in this article containing dates whose formatting I fixed; in particular, I'm concerned about the "Property" paragraph in the "International status and foreign relations" section, which seems excessively detailed if (as stated) this section has a "main article" associated with it. I also saw numerous instances of rickety English (presumably from non-native-speaker editors), but I let most of these go for the time being in order to focus on the date formatting issue. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the update. Excellent work. I agree on the other points as well. Noone said cleanup was easy. But at least you made a start. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus Immovable Property Commission

The current text contains a paragraph (within the "International status and foreign relations" section) discussing Northern Cyprus's "Immovable Property Commission" (IPC). The text, as it now stands, suggests that the legitimacy of the IPC, and by implication the government of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, has been established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) — and, specifically, that the ECHR has supported the position that Greek Cypriots who left the current territory of Northern Cyprus do not have any right to return to their former residences, because "the place from where Greek Cypriots migrated is no longer their home".

My reading of one of the cited sources ("ECHR recognises north's Immovable Property Commission", CyprusMail, 6 March 2010) makes the situation seem very different from the way it is currently being described. This news article says that the ECHR "recognised the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) in the occupied areas as an effective domestic remedy of Turkey", and that Greek Cypriot refugees must "exhaust all domestic remedies in the occupied areas" before taking their cases to the ECHR. The article additionally says that "Although the decision is sure to be perceived as a huge blow to the Greek Cypriot side and a political win for the Turkish Cypriot side, the ECHR reiterated its position that the 'TRNC' has no legal standing and that Turkey in terms of human rights is responsible for violations in the northern part of the island." Regarding the IPC's rejection of Greek Cypriots' right to return to the north, the article says this principle applied to applications submitted by "refugees who had only lived in their properties for two years before the 1974 invasion".

I find it very problematic that a pro-Greek Cypriot news source (CyprusMail) appears to have been prooftexted in such a way as to appear to support a pro-Turkish Cypriot position. In any case, it seems clear that the CyprusMail source cannot properly be used to substantiate a claim that the European Court of Human Rights officially recognizes the sovereignty of the TRNC government. I haven't checked the remaining sources cited in this paragraph yet, but this one major faux pas makes me suspicious of what else I'm likely to find.

There is also a concern that this portion of the text has evidently been heavily worked on by sockpuppets of a banned editor with a known pro-Turkish Cypriot POV. I'm inclined to simply delete the entire paragraph pending a more in-depth review of its content and sources, but owing to the sensitive nature of this page, I thought it better to bring up the issue here on the talk page first. Comments? Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Good catch. You are an uninvolved editor with a scrupulously NPOV approach and you make some very good points. I try to keep my distance from this article so I don't tend to read the POV details of its sections, since due to the heavy sock activity I have little hope that this article can really be cleaned of POV. But when an uninvolved editor points these things out it is obvious that we have to restore the credibility of the article-writing process. Please go ahead and erase the section pending creation of a cleaned-up version. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Done ([9]). Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Great work. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I should probably say that I haven't been totally "uninvolved" with respect to this article. I've done some work here in the past — mostly on the lede section, trying to make (and keep) it neutral — so I imagine there are people on each side of this dispute who will consider me to be biased against their POV. But even if some people don't agree, I will say that I am committed to making this article neutral and fair all around. I assume that there most likely are useful and appropriate things to be said about the question of compensation for people who were displaced as a result of the Cyprus conflict; we just need to be careful how we do it, so that we are expressing the facts (as backed by appropriate sources, properly used). Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
No need for the disclaimer Rich. Of course you are "involved" under the broad definition of the term which includes having edited the article. But under that same definition you are also "involved" in keeping the article NPOV. Under an even broader definition of the term you are not "involved" in promulgating anyone's propaganda. And this is the best definition of "uninvolved". So thank you again for all your excellent and scrupulously NPOV efforts. In fact this is another reason why I don't really read this article in detail. In my mind if it is POV "Rich will catch it sooner or later". So I really depend on your judgement more than you realise. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wondering about a recent (December 7) edit

It isn't immediately clear to me why an IP editor made these edits earlier today. The new image of the "green line" is probably useful, but I'm not sure why three other pictures were deleted. I've asked the IP to explain, but others may also want to discuss. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a sock. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Organization of the Islamic Conference's stance toward Northen Cyprus

According to the article, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has given Northern Cyprus (under the name "Turkish Cypriot State") the status of a "constituent state" and an "observer member". The article also says that Northern Cyprus is not recognized as a sovereign state by "the international community, with the exception of Turkey". Are these two statements compatible, or do they contradict one another and possibly require a broader comment regarding the diplomatic status of Northern Cyprus?

I reverted this edit in the lede, on the basis that the point had already been made in the body of the article and didn't belong in the lede. However, if it should happen to be the case that the action by the Organization of the Islamic Conference does in fact constitute something akin to diplomatic recognition, I suppose it might be necessary to modify the wording in the lede. I suspect this is not the case, but I wanted to bring up the issue and solicit comments. Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the Organisation is delicately skirting the issue of recognition. They haven't explicitly stated they recognise it as a sovereign state. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


Northern Cyprus is NOT a recognized country (just by Turkey) But this is mentioned only once or twice. This should be emphasized more as it's goverment is not legal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgy90 (talkcontribs) 18:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It only needs to be mentioned where de facto is mentioned in the first paragraph as long as legitimate statehood is not claimed anywhere else. "De facto" automatically implies illegitimacy.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 02:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

No recognised country in the world is called "Northern Cyprus". Nor is the de-facto state called that. Hence NPOV.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 03:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Now you are violating WP:NPOV and being WP:POINTy with that tag. There is, indeed, a de facto sovereign state called Northern Cyprus and this has been discussed many times on this very talk page. I will revert NPOV edits to this page and there are other editors here, both from a Greek background and not, who will also support the NPOV editing here. This page is on many watchlists and has been stable for several months. Any pushing on your part of POV wording or tagging will be reverted. --Taivo (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. There is no recognised sovereign state that is called "Northern Cyprus". Not even the Republic of Turkey calls the de facto state "Northern Cyprus". The Republic of Turkey calls it "The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus".  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 04:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Please read this Talk page before you go off on some tangent that has already been the subject of discussion and consensus-building. Common English usage prevails in Wikipedia per WP:NCON and the demonstrated most common name for this de facto sovereign state is "Northern Cyprus". It's already been discussed and decided. There is, indeed, a de facto sovereign state commonly known as "Northern Cyprus". We don't call the article on France "French Republic" or the article on the United Kingdom "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". We use common names, not full formal names on Wikipedia unless it is a matter of disambiguation (as in Republic of Macedonia). --Taivo (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, it doesn't matter what anybody calls it. It really doesn't make a difference. So I agree to stand-down on my NPOV tag. But I note that you were not prepared to discuss this issue first. You have reverted me twice today and you have not shown good faith.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 04:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
This matter has already been discussed before and a consensus reached. It is your responsibility to read the issue here on the Talk Page, not mine to discuss the matter again. "Good faith" is not assuming that you are an idiot or a nationalist or any other kind of disruptive influence here. "Good faith" assumes that you are a normal, reasonably intelligent human being without an agenda to push. --Taivo (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not mentioned on this talk page. Perhaps it is logged in one of the many archives.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 04:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Much of this archive is devoted to the issue of "Northern Cyprus" versus "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". This is the last time that the issue has come up. --Taivo (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Not much of a discussion really. Probably not the last time it will be discussed either. Naming de facto states isn't one of Wikipedia's strong points.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 05:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "isn't one of Wikipedia's strong points" - what does that mean?

The fact that these two matters have been discussed at great lengths on previous occasions allows us to determine both past consensus and the facts behind the issues. Please read the archives, using the search functions on Talk:Cyprus, Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus and this page and catch up on where Taivo, other editors and myself are on these discussions.

Specifically This legnthy diatribe above ^^

Once you have done that we can all continue these discussions with a more level knowledge of the background to the current namings and terms.

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is a self declared de facto, it is not POV, it is a fact. It would be much better if the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots just gave up arguing, called themselves Cypriots and told Greece and Turkey to sod off. I am sure that after a few years of "Romeo and Juliet" things would be much better :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In order to avoid having off-point discussions I'll just acknowledge that I've read your comments above.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 06:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The difference between an intervention and an invasion

User:Taivo reverted the word "invasion" back to "intervention" (at diff [10]). Only the Republic of Turkey and its sphere of influence describes the Turkish invasion of Cyprus as an intervention. Your revert supports the Republic of Turkey's POV and does not support real-world consensus. Nor does it support consensus on Wikipedia since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus is called the Turkish invasion of Cyprus on Wikipedia. The Army of the Republic of Turkey has been on the island for 37 years. That cannot be described as an intervention by the wildest stretch of the imagination. It is an invasion with a fully-intended permanent occupation. The United Nations recognises it as an invasion (albeit through its unsupported long-term occupation). Since you cannot claim consensus then what on earth is your reasoning for calling it an "intervention"? I recommend that you rv your own edit since it is inevitable that somebody else will.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 01:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

First, read WP:AGF and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Once you've read those things, then please start this discussion over with a civil tone. --Taivo (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I have read them and am familiar with them. Personally I do not know how to express tone in text. If you can see a tone expressed then my apologies for any non-implied tone. Would you care to continue with this discussion?  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 02:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm not tied to either term necessarily, but any wording that might violate WP:NPOV needs to be weighed first. This article is extremely sensitive to multiple parties and it's important that changes which might alter the tone of the paragraph be properly considered. The wording "intervention" has been in the article for awhile. Does it occur in any other contexts in this article or is it just used that one time? --Taivo (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It appears that in this article it has only been used once. The word "invasion" does not violate WP:NPOV because it is already accepted as consensus at Turkish invasion of Cyprus otherwise that article would be called Turkish intervention of Cyprus.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 02:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, "consensus" isn't exactly what I read at Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus, it's more like a ceasefire--especially since there's a great big "POV" tag at the top of the article. It also looks like the UN resolution cited on that page shows that the UN calls it an "intervention" rather than an invasion. The only real evidence relative to Wikipedia, which isn't a tool for either the UN or Turkey, is common English usage. While no one cited irrefutable evidence, the tentative evidence shows that "invasion" tends to be more common in English-language sources. It can be argued that both terms satisfy the requirements of WP:NPOV. But if you want to change to "invasion" I won't revert it again. --Taivo (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you reverted your own edit to demonstrate your good faith.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 03:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Just change it if it's important to you. My "good faith" is demonstrated by not assuming that you are an idiot or some other disruptive editor. --Taivo (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)

Having been involved trying to mediate in that discussion it was clear to me that this may be one of those cases where consensus should be weighed against facts. For example if the consensus was that the sky is not blue, how would we deal with it?

As for this issue we have the Treaty of Establishment, Treaty of Guarantee (Britain, Greece and Turkey) and Treaty of Alliance (Cyprus, Greece and Turkey) which set the basis for the 1960 constitution. (all available from Cyprus government website)

The commonly quoted "Article 3" is actually article 4 [11] and states:

Article IV
In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions.
In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty."

Here it is plain that no mention of the word intervention exists, nor intervene, but simply "to take action ... re-establish state of affairs ... present treaty" - Hence no matter what we call it Turkey did not stick to it by staying there and did not re-establish the state of affairs as at the treaty signing.

Article 185
1. The territory of the Republic is one and indivisible.
2. The integral or partial union of Cyprus with any other State or the separatist independence is excluded.

Here the Turkish side implies the breaking of the treaty (Art. 185), when Greece attempted Enosis, allowed them to intervene under article 4.

The UN actually calls it intervention.

  • UN FICYP - "was followed by military intervention by Turkey" [12]

As for NATO, it does not call it anything, presumably as Turkey has the second largest army of the NATO pact?

They are left with this dilemma.

  • To call it an invasion implies there was no legal justification for the actions.
  • To call it an intervention implies that the force was justified.

The real problem is not the act of the Turkish forces landing on the island. The issue is the continued occupation of the northern part of the island.

If I had my way the article would be called exactly that, "Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus"

This title is the only one which satisfies three issues:

  1. It detracts from the "Intervention-Invasion" issues
  2. It accurately describes the de facto situation over the past 30 odd years
  3. It illustrates the balance of occupancy.

Turkey has occupied the northern part of the island, Greece has not occupied the southern part (although a de-facto Greek occupation took place, albeit only in the positions of power by Cypriots of Greek ethnicity, prior to the Turkish occupation).

It is unlikely that this problem can be fixed, the Greek supporters will always say "invasion" and Turkish will say "intervention"

As for the definition of the two words, Merriam Webster:


  • 1: an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
  • 2: the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful


  • 1: to occur, fall, or come between points of time or events <only six months intervened between their marriage and divorce>
  • 2: to enter or appear as an irrelevant or extraneous feature or circumstance <it's business as usual until a crisis intervenes>
  • 3a: to come in or between by way of hindrance or modification <intervene to stop a fight>
  • 3b : to interfere with the outcome or course especially of a condition or process (as to prevent harm or improve functioning)
  • 4: to occur or lie between two things
  • 5a: to become a third party to a legal proceeding begun by others for the protection of an alleged interest
  • 5b: to interfere usually by force or threat of force in another nation's internal affairs especially to compel or prevent an action

Seems pretty clear to me that B3b, B5a & b apply, and possibly B4. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd back a renaming of this article to "Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus" as you have suggested, or "Turkish occupied northern Cyprus", or "Turkish occupied northern part of Cyprus" (which uses some UN terminology), since that is an honest name for what it is (but I know that it is an unlikely outcome on Wikipedia due to Google results). However, what became an invasion was originally sold as an intervention but it is clear that an invasion was planned from the very start. And that's obvious from the article on the "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" since it shows 40,000 Turkish soldiers plus 20,000 Turkish Cypriot fighters versus 5,000 Greek Cypriot soldiers plus 2,000 Greek soldiers. The Greeks were outnumbered by 8.5 to 1. Moreover, the Turkish Army stayed with permanent intentions with 35,000 soldiers. So A1 and A2 fully applies. It was claimed to be an intervention but the end result was invasion and occupation.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 06:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's not forget the two words are not mutually exclusive. A country can intervene somewhere by invading it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Just as they can invade whilst faking an intervention.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 06:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Semantically speaking, wouldn't an invasion have to be an intervention in some way? There is no doubt that an invasion would, well, intervene, with whereever was invaded. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Sorry but am off to bed before the sun finally rises again here.
For you to ponder until later:
  • 1. Not this article, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus article
  • 2. They had to "invade" to "intervene"
  • 3. They did not cross the NATO lines
  • 4. Is there a little POV creeping in there? do you not mean "Cypriot soldiers" and "Greek soldiers", plus what were Greek soldiers doing there anyway? and why are you not saying that was an invasion as that clearly breaks several articles in the treaties (sovereignty etc)
  • 5. Permanent intentions cannot be assumed. Britain could have been said to have had "permanent intentions" when they occupied India. They are no longer there and {{citation needed}} to prove those intentions!
  • 6. I find it hard to believe there were only 6,000 GC vs. 20,000 TC.
Anyway, goodnight till tomorrow! Chaosdruid (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

<------moving over to the left to save space
Addressing the six points above: 1. Yes, it is called the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, 2. They had to purport to "intervene" to "invade". 3. Don't know (without doing some research). 4. "Cypriot soldiers" is acceptable. There really is no difference. Greek soldiers were flown in to help. It was originally broadcast as an intervention but it was a premeditated invasion. 5. It's the other way around. The occupation is still in force and there is no indication of any intention to leave. Quite the opposite in fact. 6. Those are the figures reported on the Turkish invasion of Cyprus article. I assumed good faith and used those (but would have to do some research to confirm). Either way the Turkish force was much larger than was necessary for an intervention.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 07:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I note that the article Military_operations_during_the_Invasion_of_Cyprus_(1974) has different numbers of soldiers and that one shows 40,000 Turkish soldiers plus 11,000 to 13,500 Turkish Cypriot fighters versus 12,000 Cypriot soldiers plus 2,000+ Greek soldiers. These are not figures that I have researched. Still outnumbered by roughly 4 to 1 even if they called out all men of fighting age bearing in mind that full mobilization could never be achieved when displaced persons were evacuating their families.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 07:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Nipsonanomhmata, I'm beginning to sense an anti-Turkish agenda creeping into your comments. The key issue for me is your insistence of prior intent on the part of the Turks. You have offered no proof of premeditation. But Chaosdruid is correct--this can be construed as both an invasion and an intervention. I would be more convinced of the "invasion" aspect if the Turkish army had overrun Greek Cypriot areas and occupied the whole island. As it is, the Turkish army occupied the Turkish Cypriot areas and no more. That is much more of an "intervention". Premeditation is irrelevant for that distinction. --Taivo (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The Turkish army did overrun Greek Cypriot areas and villages that had 100% christian populations. Now please do not pretend, sense, or imagine, that they did not. The village of Ayios Amvrosios is one example of a village population that was 100 per cent christian and they were forced to leave their homes. Do you honestly believe that the Turkish Cypriot population neatly fit in to one third of the island and that there were no christian Cypriots in any of it! Are you seriously trying to claim that Kyrenia did not have a predominantly christian population. And what about Famagusta which according to the UN should be a ghost city but has been populated by predominantly Turkish immigrants. That too was predominantly christian. It was an invasion without question but ofcourse it was broadcast at that time as an intervention, it was backed by the United States, and the United Kingdom, and ofcourse the United Nations which issued numerous resolutions asking Turkey to remove its troops from the island which Turkey has ignored hence cementing invasion and occupation with no intention of leaving.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 09:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
And then ofcourse there's Google. On searching for "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" claims to return 64,000 results. On searching for "Turkish intervention of Cyprus" claims to return 2,160 results. There you have Google's "consensus".  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 09:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
At this point, based on your last post, Nipsonanomhmata, I suggest you take a break from this article. It's clear that you have a strong anti-Turkish POV and that isn't serving you well in this discussion. If you can discuss without crossing the line into your POV, then that's fine, but your last posting was not a neutral discussion of the issue. There is a very carefully preserved balance of editing that is done on this article by a variety of editors--some who might naturally lean in a Greek direction, some who might naturally lean in a Turkish direction, and some who are neutral. All are very careful to keep their emotional leanings controlled. The Turkish incursion was both an intervention and an invasion, but "intervention" tends to be a little more non-judgmental and I'm somewhat swayed by Chaosdruid's detailed reasoning. It deserves careful consideration. --Taivo (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
How does listing Google search results represent "a strong anti-Turkish POV"? Moreover, is looting and rape a standard part of interventions? No, looting and rape is sometimes an ugly part of invasions. The Turkish fleet pulled up at Famagusta and loaded up on all the white goods from all the homes in Famagusta. Can that be described as an intervention? No it can't. I won't even go in to the details and statistics of rape because it is ugly reading. The lion's share of all the land and property in what is now in the occupied north was owned by christian Cypriots. These homes have also been looted through the invasion. As a result there are ongoing class actions concerning these properties (see Greek Cypriots, et al. v. TRNC and HSBC Bank USA). These are not POVs. In fact, I have not stated one single POV. Please focus on the discussion in hand. I thought that you were interested in discussing these issues for a consensus result but it appears that your focus is on discrediting my contribution to this discussion as POV.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 18:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we can (and should) avoid both "invasion" and "intervention" and say something like this instead: "Tensions between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot populations culminated in 1974 with a coup d'état, an attempt to annex the island to Greece, and Turkey's sending troops to the island in response." And if wikilinking the phrase "sending troops" to Turkish invasion of Cyprus is considered too POV, we could link the phrase to Operation Atilla instead. Given the high degree of controversy here, I'll put this idea forward for discussion rather than simply make the change per WP:BRD, so ... comments? Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't quite fit the bill. It denies that the end result was an invasion and occupation. It also denies that invasion and occupation was not premeditated when it clearly was. Besides the invasion is an entirely separate event from the coup. Another proof that the invasion and occupation was planned was the way that Turkish Cypriot population was reorganised to repopulate to the north of the island by their leaders well in advance and in preparation for the invasion.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 18:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
First of all, we're talking about summary language in the opening ("lead" or "lede") portion of the article. It may or may not be appropriate to go into great detail about the issues you're worried about somewhere else in the article, but it is definitely not appropriate to do so in the lede.
Second, Wikipedia is required (by one of its inviolable core principles) to be neutral. Quoting WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." We are not investigative journalists, and we cannot indulge in attempts to prove that one side or the other is the really correct side. Whether Turkey's military action was a direct response to the Greek coup, a pre-planned idea which took advantage of an opportune moment created by the Greek coup, or a totally separate (BTW, the correct spelling is "separate") and unconnected happening, is not for us to determine — rather, we need to report "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (something which I believe this article is making a reasonable effort to do). Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
My amendment was to replace one single use of the word "intervention" within this article. When there were at least three uses of the word "invasion" within this article. It was not in the lede although the word "invasion" was already in the intro. However, this discussion has appeared to become more all-encompassing. The fact remains that there is an article called Turkish invasion of Cyprus which has remained named as such for a very long time. As such, Wikipedia consensus thus far has been to call it an invasion. It is beyond me how an event that leads to the long-term (or permanent occupation) of a country can be described as an "intervention". Nor is it fair to describe it as such when so many immigrants have been deliberately settled on the island from mainland Turkey to cement that occupation. The word "invasion" is what is commonly used for this event.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 19:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that NPOV is vital. However, the title of this article is a POV in itself. It does not represent real-world consensus. There is no country in the world called "Northern Cyprus". Yes, there is a de facto state that Turkey calls and recognizes as the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". But the reality is that it is an occupied territory with no international recognition outside of Turkey. So how is the title NPOV and how does it represent real-world consensus?  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 19:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
You asked what was POV in your comments, Nipsonanomhmata, so here is a summary: Your comments focus completely and totally on Turkish actions as negative and you make no mention of Greek actions. You paint the Turks as bloodthirsty, greedy invaders without mentioning any Greek actions. You insist on language that is felt to be POV. You refuse to recognize the de facto sovereign status of Northern Cyprus and insist that this article is POV. You are increasingly POV in your comments, even though you started out with a level of apparent neutrality. I still urge you to calm down and take a break from this article since it is clearly inspiring nationalistic fervor on your part.
@Richwales, the wording "sending troops" seems a lot more NPOV to me, but I'm just one voice. It doesn't make any commitment between invasion and intervention. --Taivo (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

<------moving over to the left to save space
I recommend focussing on the subject under discussion which is "The difference between an intervention and an invasion". I have acknowledged the coup in my comments (that was a Greek action). I have not "painted" the Turks as anything more than their real-world actions nor is there any "nationalistic fervor" on my part. It is inevitable that some of what I say is "felt" to be POV but that doesn't make it so. I have acknowledged that the de facto state exists only two paragraphs above your comment. All I am doing is discussing the subject which is "The difference between an intervention and an invasion" whilst you are focussing on discrediting my contribution to this discussion. The wording "sending troops" is unsatisfactory and the discussion at hand remains. I'd appreciate it if you could show me the same courtesy and focus on the discussion instead of on me.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 20:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It was an intervention which could only be done by landing troops in Cyprus and led to an occupation Chaosdruid (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
What happened to: A-Invasion, 1: an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder, 2: the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful ? Don't they apply? They did conquest and plunder. They did rape and force a couple of hundred thousand people to leave their homes permanently.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 21:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
@RichWales - I agree completely, the only NPOV version is something along those lines
@Nipson - Your statements are really badly non-NPOV. I have not seen any evidence that "their intention was to conquest or plunder", and A-2 is a definition of an invasive disease or infection. To continue along those lines is verging on WP:TROLL Chaosdruid (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
If I provide good references to back up what you consider to be non-NPOV will that satisfy you? Or am I excluded from continuing a discussion that I started?  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 22:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
We are probably already aware of many of the points and references you are going to want to provide for "Turkey was bad"
The issue is not that. The topic you started is "The difference between an intervention and an invasion"
We are discussing that very issue, however you are not. You appear to be wanting us to agree that it was an invasion. We do not seem to agree with you, and in fact there seems to be a wish for a change to a more NPOV wording in the articles.
A NPOV wording would be as RichWales has put above. One which does not call it an invasion or an intervention but simply states the facts of what happened. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I could say exactly the same by replacing the word "invasion" with "intervention". ok I give up. I am communicating with a brick wall. Call it what you like. Clearly, I cannot contribute anything to this article. I could have contributed a great deal. But why bother when every single word, and let's face it this all started from one single use of the word "intervention" in this article when there were four uses of the word "invasion" already within the self-same article?  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 23:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Nipsonanomhmata, you need to read WP:CONSENSUS. You came into this discussion to replace "intervention" with "invasion". Three other editors don't think that's the best thing to happen here. You need to understand that you will not always get your way in these discussions. --Taivo (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No. I started this discussion because an IP address that amended one word in the article was reversed by you. The IP address applied consistency to the article since there were four other uses of the word "invasion" already in the article. I therefore reverted what I considered to be a POV revert. That you in turn reverted. Then when you agreed to let me undo the revert that was when ChaosDruid reverted me. I am well aware that none of the editors in this discussion consider me a worthy contributor to this discussion or to this article since most of the discussion has been about making unsubstantiated allegations of POV and non-NPOV and very little discussion about the actual topic itself. Altogether unsatisfactory.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 00:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how the other editors came to a consensus that you don't agree with, the fact is that three editors agree that "sent troops" is more NPOV than "invasion" in the lead paragraph. And as soon as you started writing that having an article on Northern Cyprus was POV, your own POV came shining out brightly. That's when your voice became less valuable, when your anti-Turkish POV became more important to you and began shining like a beacon in your comments. --Taivo (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Taivo. Thank you for the invitation to participate, even if later cancelled. I wanted to comment here because I think that the word "invasion" is unrelated to NPOV. If WP:RS, in the western press, google books, papers etc. analysing the history of Cyprus, all refer to "invasion" I see no problem whatever with using the word. What I think is POV and original research is inventing all these analyses above to justify or reject the use of the term "invasion". These analyses are all irrelevant. What matters here is the use of the term by reliable sources. And the term "invasion" is widely used in the available literature to describe the action of Turkey. It is not up to us to reject this commonly used term based on our own research. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for joining, Dr. K. While common usage is one factor, indeed, we also have to be very careful about NPOV on these pages as well. Here we are dealing with a range of closely-related terms, none of which is a precise technical term. Using something like "sent in troops" can equally cover a wide variety of ways to describe the situation without putting up a flag on any particular interpretation of the situation. We do this all the time in Wikipedia--reliable sources use X term, but in order to carefully maintain NPOV, we use a more general synonym that covers a range of meanings on both sides of an issue. If this were a technical term, then, of course, we must use the technical term. But there is not a technical term used here, just a common noun that can be replaced by another less charged noun. There are also reliable sources that use "intervention" in this case. --Taivo (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Taivo for the welcome. It is always nice talking to you. In military and historical terms the word "invasion" has a specific meaning. Suppressing its use in this article while the rest of the non-aligned, reliable sources in the literature use it in abundance is in itself POV. It is as if we call the non-aligned historians and military experts who use these terms prejudiced. This is a non-sequitur. That there are other sources calling it "intervention" may be ok as long as they are non-aligned and in large numbers, per WP:UNDUE. We could use both terms in the article without looking like trapeze artists trying to avoid widely accepted terms for fear of NPOV, when NPOV does not apply as a criterion. We should also be careful to not invent our own double-speak to describe the phenomenon without support from reliable sources. That would be creeping WP:OR. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Not OR, Dr. K. We paraphrase our sources all the time in Wikipedia, it's part of the process of writing good text without just parroting what others have said. Our goal is to convey accurate, NPOV information without just stringing together direct quotes. Indeed, Wikipedia policy is to limit direct quotes unless absolutely necessary. In this case, the lead is not a direct quote and does not just parrot the sources. It is paraphrased information from a wide variety of sources--some pro-Greek, some pro-Turkish, some barely neutral, some very neutral. If all our sources used "invasion", then it would not be an issue, but that's not the case. It is not OR to fairly represent all the angles of the range of sources used here and to paraphrase in as neutral, but fair, a manner as possible. In that event, "sent troops" is a fair paraphrase and an NPOV representation of a range of terms used for what happened. In the rest of the article, and at Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the full extent of what "sent in troops" entailed is described in detail and the interested reader can examine it as his or her leisure. In the meantime, the casual reader can see "sent in troops" and have an accurate, nonjudgmental picture of what happened. It's still not OR, Dr. K. It is good writing which is NPOV and not just parroting one group of sources while ignoring another group. --Taivo (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Taivo, I disagree. We cannot, in good conscience, ignore neutral historians and academics who call this an invasion in order to make up our own semantic salad for local consumption in Wikipedia in the name of NPOV, something that the neutral experts have no problem with by definition, otherwise they would not be neutral. It is original research to define this activity by any other term other than the predominant one which is "invasion" which is used by the leading newspapers in non-aligned countries as well as in books by neutral experts. Using accurate military and historical terms is not parroting, it is fundamental semantic honesty. I never said that we should ignore the group that uses different terminology. I only said that if the secondary terminology is used by enough neutral sources to satisfy WP:UNDUE then we could use the secondary term also. But you are not going to get NPOV if you sanitize the language of this article to such an absurd degree and against multiple, highly reliable sources. You are going to get double-speak and by definition, propaganda. I am sure you don't want this for any article in Wikipedia. However this debate is getting rather unreal. I think that the usefulness of my involvement here may be nearing an end. I can detect intransigence as well as anyone. I don't think that consensus is possible under the present circumstances. If you want a win, you can have it. But please do spare me the NPOV/paraphrase/parroting etc. arguments which are used as counter-arguments and to paint as POV the neutral opinion of the majority of non-aligned, neutral WP:RS which use the term "invasion". Let's just agree to disagree instead. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 08:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

convenience break

Just to get a new tack, could Taivo precisely specify what is wrong with "invasion"? I do understand that it does have some negative connotations, and am not terribly swayed by some of the for arguments that have been used. However, the action was undoubtedly an invasion, in the terms that a military was used to invade the territory of a separate state. Invasion is also more specific than "intervention", which would perhaps be a diplomatic intervention or something similar. I think the title of this section was what got this conversation off to such a bad start. There is no difference between an invasion and an intervention; the first is a subset of the other. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Dr. K., I have no strong opinion on this in any direction (see my first comments above) and you misunderstand my comments as an attempt to "get a win". There is an issue here that we simply need to hammer out from all angles. Your comments about "neutral sources" are valid, but so are mine about a neutral term that covers not just the neutral sources, but the range of terms from all positions. The key here for Wikipedia is what does a consensus of editors agree to. It is a shifting discussion when read from the top to the bottom, as a good Wikipedia discussion should be. The earliest near-consensus was for "invasion", then a near-consensus formed around "intervention", but then RichWales offered an alternative, more inclusive term "sent troops", which then gained a near-consensus. This is simply part of the process of discussion and you'll notice that I did not enter this discussion with a fixed view and to characterize my comments as "intransigence" or "wanting a win" is unfair. --Taivo (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Taivo if I sounded harsh. I misunderstood your arguments about paraphrasing/parroting to mean that you were becoming entrenched in your position. I have stricken my comments above. These debates can sometimes become harsh and I don't enjoy arguing with someone whom I have known for a long time, I respect and with whom I mostly agree with. And the times I don't agree with you, at least I respect and understand your position. This is one time however that I am at a greater distance than I have ever been from your logic. That's what caused this undesirable fiction. The other thing is that Rich's "sent troops" formulation makes it sound as if Turkey sent in a few peacekeepers to Cyprus and makes it sound like a peace operation. I agree with Rich most of the time but this time I can't. Also I don't think that we have to find the most inoffensive common denominator. If there is a real dispute if this is an invasion, fine. Let's document this real dispute. But if many, the majority, of the experts agree that this is an invasion, let's call it that. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis, there's nothing wrong with "invasion", but, as you say, there are some negative connotations and the Turkish POV is that it was an intervention to support Turkish Cypriots and not an invasion to occupy territory. If we look at the overall trajectory of the action, with Turkish troops still in Northern Cyprus, "invasion" is probably the better term, but if we only look at the initial action, then "intervention" might be the better term. "Sent troops" covers both options. But I don't have my ego hitched to any of the options. --Taivo (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I hope that you don't mind me making a comment. The word "intervention" makes the operation sound like a "peace operation" like a mission for "human rights". It makes it sound kind. Just as Chipmunkdavis suggests that there are negative connotations with the word "invasion" from the other side there is a gasp of horror that an "intervention" can be claimed as a name for the overall operation. It also makes it sound "voluntary" when the operation was against the interests and will of the large majority of the population, the island's culture, and history. I have tried to write this carefully so that it is not construed as POV or non-NPOV.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 19:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
(Ecx2 lol)
Part of the reasons for my making those statements was that there have been objections by "Turkish" editors in the past. It is sad that on those occasions they have been vastly outnumbered by "Greek" editors and in most cases have eventually resorted to some sort of "frustration action", usually ranting endlessly, as they cannot understand why the "POV" is allowed.
The use of "invasion" is considered POV by "Turkish" editors who wish intervention to be used
The "Greek" editors reply seems to be "no it is not, it was an invasion".
Have a look at these redirects for example, Russian invasion of afghanistan, Russian invasion of Hungary and Russian invasion of Georgia.
I am saying that we should respect both sides and use page title that does not contain invasion, and within the articles a neutral statement, similar to that proposed by RichWales. The amounts of different terms used in a Google search is fine, but I cannot see why we cannot retitle the "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" to "Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus", the article is not about just the landing of the troops. After all the United Nations calls it an intervention and that is a fairly reliable source is it not?
There could also be a statement making it clear that "intervention" -> "invasion" -> "occupation".
There is much placed on having to choose between the two words and if there is a good third or fourth option then why can we not use it to not offend either side?
Continuous insistence on using "invasion" by the much larger number of "Greek" editors than "Turkish", most often around 5:1, seems to me a consensus based policy that should not happen as those editors could have chosen to adopt an NPOV statement before, or to explain that the intervention led to the invasion. Instead there is no mention of intervention and that "choose one or the other" has remained. As I said before if 5 editors said the sky was yellow and only 1 said it was blue, how would we handle that? Chaosdruid (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Nipsonanomhmata. I think your argument, although logically correct, should not make much of a difference because the context of this discussion should be to decide which is the predominant term used by most WP:RS. Anyone can theoretically analyze these terms pro and con and put forth good arguments about their use, or not, in the article. But in practice, a term must be used by the majority of WP:RS for it to be eligible to be used in the article. For example, if the reliable sources of the world, in their great majority, had decided that Turkey was a peacekeeping nation in Cyprus this should have been reflected in the article, never mind how correct the assessment was or not. Verifiability, WP:V is the key here, not truth. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Chaosdruid, please see my reply to Nipsonanomhmata above. This has nothing to do with "respect" or Greek or any other editors. We cannot invent inoffensive new terms as an encyclopedia. We are not in the invention business. We have to reflect the views of experts as reflected in the majority of WP:RS and dictated by WP:V. The United Nations maybe a WP:RS but it is not an expert of history and it sure is not the majority of WP:RS which call this an invasion. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I fully understand the policies on WP:RS and WP:V. The problem is that the article "Turkish invasion" is not really about the invasion (which was a short period of time). It is about intervention, invasion and the occupation. The title including "invasion" or "intervention" is not really accurate. The article is in fact about all of them, the longest period from the beginning to the present is the occupation. The second longest period discussed in the article is the intervention and the invasion is the shortest.
Similarly here, in this article, the invasion is only a very short period of time. Intervention and invasion are minor compared to occupation.
(forgot to include) The article Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus is more in keeping with its title, that one I believe is correct as it discusses the period of the invasion mainly. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you don't understand the policies. I simply mentioned them in the context of the arguments. I agree with you on the points which you raise regarding changing the name of the invasion article but my scope is more limited than yours. I am only concentrating on the use of the term "invasion" in the present article and, even then, in the narrow window of its beginning. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
No offence taken, I was just stating that I do understand them to clarify :¬)
My scope here on this talk page was mainly about the possibly WP:UNDUE use of "invasion" with no mention of the term "intervention". Either dropping both or including both would surely go towards appeasing both views as well as bringing balance. I think we are all agreed that the only way Turkey could intervene at that point was by invasion? (as diplomatic means had failed etc - The point is that the treaties only covered up to the point where the UN would be involved in a four member discussion, nothing was said as to how things would progress after failure at that point, nor what methods of intervention were acceptable to all three signatories)
I included Turkish invasion of Cyprus as it is relevant to content here and as there has been an inclusion on its talk page directing people to here. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Including the article of "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" was a good idea because it highlighted issues that were not discussed before and you made some very good points. In another vein, if it can be established that "intervention" is used by a due number of WP:RS, I wouldn't object to using both "invasion" and "intervention" in the article, in the interests of representing all sides of WP:RS coverage. The only problem would arise if "intervention" is not such a widespread term among neutral sources. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I keep reading Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-judgmental_descriptive_titles and for me that clinches the deal for the title of Turkish invasion of Cyprus being changed to "Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus". Chaosdruid (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see one small issue in that suggested name (although I think the article should remain named as "Turkish invasion of Cyprus"). You are going from the invasion of a nation to an occupation of a territory. The island still has only one internationally recognised government and that is of the Republic of Cyprus. Therefore your suggested title should have a small "n" for Northern. i.e. "Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus".  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 21:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
May I suggest that the conversation about renaming the article "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" continues on that article's talk page.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 21:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the "international community" thinks, there is a de facto nation called Northern Cyprus that Turkey is occupying. --Taivo (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
And reading the article, it focuses more on the actual invasion and very, very little on the occupation. The title should probably stay as "invasion" since that seems to be the focus of the article. --Taivo (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Nipsonanomhmata, but your continued comments about the non-existence of Northern Cyprus color all your further comments with an anti-Turkish POV that is not acceptable here. If you want other editors to seriously consider what you have to say about the topic here, then I suggest you drop the "there is no country called Northern Cyprus" rant. --Taivo (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I have not denied the existence of the de-facto state called the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". All I have pointed out is that the only country in the world to recognise it is the country that created it and that is the "Republic of Turkey". However, I do note the fact that you continue to insist that I deny that it exists when I do not deny that it exists. To be honest, I think that I deserve an apology for being unjustly accused. Moreover, the references according to WP:RS rules clearly indicate that the northern part of Cyprus is subject to an illegal occupation (not a POV and not a non-NPOV).  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 23:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I repeat my suggestion that the conversation about renaming the article "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" continues on that article's talk page.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 23:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
@Taivo - well the section on events leading up has 2,700ish, the invasion itself has 750ish words, the after the invasion sections have 2,800ish - the whole article is 7000. On that basis I suspect you were not reading the right article? Or maybe misread the dates... I am not sure :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I was reading Turkish invasion of Cyprus, but honestly, that's not my count of size at all. I simply saw very little about the occupation and a great deal about the invasion and its immediate aftermath. Granted, the most action occurred during the invasion phase, but perhaps we just have differing impressions about what constitutes "invasion phase" and what constitutes "occupation phase". Be that as it may, perhaps there should be two articles--one on the actual invasion and one on the occupation. Just sayin'. That's a job for someone else. --Taivo (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well I refer to the invasion as between 20 June 1974 (first phase) and 16 August 1974 the end of second phase of invasion when Turkey occupied as far as the Atilla line.

Most of the books I have read refer to the times after this as occupation rather than invasion. 02:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

One other observation concerning the capitalisation of the "n" (although I still think that the article called "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" should remain as "Turkish invasion of Cyprus"). However, I think that this article here which is called "Northern Cyprus" could have its name changed to what you have suggested. Logically, you can't say "Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus" because Turkey did not invade and occupy a country called "Northern Cyprus". However, Turkey did invade and occupy "Cyprus" (the country and the island) and it did invade and occupy "the northern part of Cyprus" (or "northern Cyprus" if an abridged form is needed). Turkey did not invade the whole island otherwise it would have to be called "Turkish occupation of Cyprus". The day that Turkey invaded the country it was called "Republic of Cyprus" (short form "Cyprus", island name "Cyprus"). Moreover, the island was not divided in to north and south before the invasion and the northern part is roughly half the size of the larger part that is not occupied. Therefore, I suggest that the most accurate and suitable forms are "Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus" and "Turkish occupied northern part of Cyprus". Just an observation (not a POV, and not non-NPOV either and the de-facto state still exists and I haven't denied that it exists, and this is just a suggestion). This suggestion does not deny the existence of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". All it does is call a spade a spade. After all it is an internationally recognised illegal occupation of the northern part of Cyprus and that is the consensus in the real-world.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 07:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The name of this article is not going to change, especially not to "Turkish occupied northern part of Cyprus". That's a dead end argument. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. --Taivo (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I do not believe anyone was talking about renaming this page, the discussion about this page was the usage of the "i" terms and whether or not they were POV and if so whether a NPOV phrase should be used instead, or a more full phrasing giving the intervention by invasion and occupation against article 4, rather than just using "invasion" all the time. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Nipsonanomhmata did above "I think that this article here which is called "Northern Cyprus" could have its name changed to what you have suggested."
Anyway, in an attempt to reach an agreement on the i's, the following is the text under dispute, "intervention" bolded.
"Turkey claimed that, under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, the coup was sufficient reason for military action to protect the Turkish Cypriot populace, and thus Turkey invaded Cyprus on 20 July. Following Turkey's military intervention, the coup failed and Makarios returned to Cyprus."
I support the continued use of intervention in this case. Firstly, it says "invaded" in just the sentence before, so not only is the note of an invasion already there and called that, stylistically it would be strange to replace the word intervention with invasion. Secondly, intervention makes more sense in that sentence as it carries on to explain the failure of the coup, in essence saying Turkey intervened in the coup, thus stopping it. Thirdly, the text says military intervention, so all this talk above about how the word intervention makes it sound humanitarian etc is complete rubbish. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Good analysis and summary. I agree. --Taivo (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)