Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Requested move 9 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW. Clearly no chance this discussion achieves anything but a waste of time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Turkish invasion of Cyprus → Operation Atilla (1973-1974) – There is a continuous dispute about whether this article should describe the actions of the Turkish millitary as an invasion or intervention. By naming the actions by their official name we can partly prevent this and discuss in the article itself the definition of an invasion and intervention (maybe in the background subtitle) and leave the reader to decide which one it is. SoapDispenser94 (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

oppose Turkish POV, the rest of the world has different views. Maybe this is why only Turkey recognizes Northern CyprusParadise Chronicle (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Article 4 of The Treaty of Guarantee, on which Turkey objectively acted, would describe the actions as an intervention. This isn't about POV. There are arguments, even objective, that support both sides. Hence, why I want the article to have a very factual name that doesn't choose a side and just uses an official name. SoapDispenser94 (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: "Operation Atilla" isn't the official name used by any party; Turkey calls it the "Cyprus Peace Operation", not "Operation Atilla". Even if it is, it would be the name used by only one of the involved parties in the conflict, violating the NPOV principle. Article names are based on common usage and not on a 1960 treaty. Lightspecs (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per "oppose" arguments presented during similar nomination in the past — Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Archive 1#Is the term "Invasion" POV in the article title and should the term "Intervention" be used as a more neutral phrasing, Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Archive 2#Merge discussion, Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Archive 3#Invasion-Intervention discussion, Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Archive 4#Requested move: 1974 Cyprus war (08.02.2014), Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Archive 7#Page Title Terribly Misleading and the most recent RM, earlier this year, Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Archive 9#Change the name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The code name is not that well known, is the Turkish name for the disaster Turkey inflicted (which is going to be confused with what the Nazis were going to inflict on France) and renaming would downplay the historic importance of the event (invasion of a country) to some faceless operation. Kind of a Newspeak. There is a reason why Invasion of Poland article is titled Invasion of Poland and not September Campaign --Armatura (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• I've literally explained above that there is no Operation Atilla, that this "codename" is essentially an urban myth. Sigh. This should be WP:SNOW closed. --GGT (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. FDW777 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This clearly is not a neutral pov

Everything is in the title, this is partial, hides a lot of facts, only in favors of Turkish cyrpriot and is therefore biased 216.183.212.148 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Problematic lead

There is a problem with the lead, one that cannot be ignored I am afraid. Currently, the lead neglects mentioning why the invasion happened. The article's title is "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus", yet the Lead only mentions of the dictatorial coup prior to the invasion, but doesn't explicitly state what did it had to do with the invasion, and what the actual reason was for the invasion to happen. As it stands, the lead does not reflect the main body of the article as it should have been, per WP:LEAD. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 08:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi SilentResident, a fair point if not only a partial diagnosis. I wish that the problems with this article were limited to the lead; indeed to the careful eye familiar with the literature, much of the article is in great need of improvement, perhaps a complete rewrite of some sections is required, and the sourcing leaves a lot to be desired at the moment. Proper work on the article would inevitably bring about a rewrite of the lead but would also take much time, a resource that I at least am lacking at the moment, so let's see if we can at least patch some bits up. What are the specific bits from the background section that you would like to be reflected in the lead? We can see what we think and reach an agreement from there. GGT (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@GGT:, long time no see. That's actually a good idea. I propose that we approach it with the reader in mind, one who is unfamiliar with the subject and has no idea what happened (aside from the title telling them it is an invasion obviously), and inform them with the key detail surrounding its: why the invasion happened, by whom, when, location, and the most notable phases (if it has any), and last, the most notable outcomes and consequences. Not in many details, though. Just a summary of the most important developments suffices. That's the lead section after all. As for the main body of the article, you are right, there are problems with it that require editorial attention.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Very well, we agree on the basic principles. As per MOS:FIRST the first sentence should "tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where". On that basis we could start with something like "The Turkish invasion of Cyprus began on 20 July 1974 and progressed in two phases over the following month. Taking place upon a background of intercommunal violence between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and a Greek-sponsored coup five days earlier, it led to the Turkish capture of the northern part of the island." I believe this succinctly summarises the very essential facts about the when, where, background and results (and is roughly in line with United States invasion of Grenada). Feel free to suggest any improvements. The second paragraph could then expand on the background i.e. the demographics of the island, the colonial background, Turkey's longstanding goal of taksim vs Greece's goal of enosis, the establishment of the Republic, intercommunal violence and finally the coup - I propose an abridged version of paragraphs 3 and 4 from the current lead of Cyprus. This should be sufficient to explain the why. Then we could explore the combatants/military action in a third paragraph and finally the short-/long-term impact in a fourth paragraph. --GGT (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes at a first look, that's good proposal IMO. I would recommend adding this though (addition in bold): "Taking place upon a background of intercommunal violence between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and in response to a Greek-sponsored coup five days earlier. How does that sound? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Assassination of The Greek Cypriot Macarious at The Island Cyprus 15th July 1974

EOKB leader at the Island of Cyprus was planning to assassinate President Makarious but he in advance learnt this from British Intelligence which British base located at Baf (sw of the Island Cyprus) was bugging all communication and alerted the President Makarious. So the president lives his office from back door of the Presidential palace and goes directly to British Base with a taxi from the capital Nicosia. The assassination arm at the Island was Nikos Samson who was a officer during The War between Greeks snd Turks in 1920-1921 which happened in Asia Minor and Turkey had defeated the Greek Army and Lozanne Treaty was signed which established international relations of modern Turkey with the western World including Japan. Nikos Samson who was personally running patriotic newspaper at The Island which was his exile refuge The Island could not succeed because The President reacted very fast. The President even made a speech four days after excaping The Island at U.N. asembly in New York which he informed about the details of Athen’s plan. Turkish government prime minister Bulent Ecevit coslition with Necmettin Erbekan knew very well after The Cyprus President was gone (escaped) minority Turkish residents athe Island will be started disappear genocide will be inevitable because in 1963 Johnson letter addressing Turkish government was a very indigestive with it because Turkey was thd second biggest men power in NATO and moreover ready to every inititive to take to save Turkish Cypriots not like what happened in Crete in 19th century and gond sll the way the independent state in 1826. Turkey did not invade the Island, but tried to save the lives of Turkish Cypriots. 62.195.100.196 (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Turkish position on legality

At beginning paragraph, there is a reference to the legality of the 1974 Turkish military operation from the perspective of EU, Greece etc.. No mention of what the Turkish legal perspective was. Which is clearly relevant. One sentence I have added with a reference to a another well regarded Wikipedia article has been reverted. No explanation. Not sure why. Not even a controversial statement, just factual. Any discussion should be made here before reverting and deleting. Murat (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

If another editor disagrees with you changes there is no requirement to discuss it first before undoing your changes. This is no different from your original change not being discussed before you made it. Where a discussion is needed is after a change has been reverted. You should not change it back to how you think the article should be, that is editwarring. See WP:BRD. --John B123 (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

You are required to provide reliable sources for any and all information you add to articles, other Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources per WP:CIRCULAR. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what the argument or disagreement here is. 1) I have not deleted anything 2) I am discussing why I had added one sentence here 3) no one has challenged the accuracy of that one sentence, which is referenced anyway 4) I am not the one deleting another editor's edits without giving any reason or discussing why. If anyone finds the one sentence added inaccurate, please discuss here, give reference and prove the statement wrong. If not, please do not engage in edit warring by reverting for no valid reason. Murat (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable and outdated references

User:TRAVERA1, there is no consensus for any of the recent changes. As already explained in my edit summary (diff), the "extra sources" (diff) are two Turkish newspaper articles about the "Cyprus Peace Operation", written by two journalists who are not authoritative in relation to the subject. We are not really discussing the bias of the authors, but their reliability. They are not historians or scholars who have studied the subject; in short, they are unreliable as authors, and their opinion(s) cannot be equated with those of actual experts, because we would be giving undue weight to them. Should i also introduce Greek newspaper articles, by non-experts, claiming all sorts of things? That's not how we write an encyclopedia. There are a number of aspects on what makes a source reliable; please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight § Aspects of reliability. Furthermore, another aspect of reliability is the age of the source. I don't have access to Manizade (1975) and Artuç (1989), and thus i cannot verify if what is claimed is indeed correct (i even doubt you have access), but regardless of that, as already explained to you in the past, these are rather old and outdated sources (see WP:OLDSOURCES). Today we have detailed lists of all military and civilian casualties, as well as lists of all the missing people. The unsubstantiated estimate that there were 16,000+ casualties is extraordinary, outdated, and contradictory to what modern reliable secondary sources (Pierpaoli [2014], Jaques [2007], Jentleson & Paterson [1997], etc.) say. As for the DNA analysis, i didn't claim that it was done for everyone; identification through this process was done for many, but not for all. Also, the reason i emphasized it, was in order to show that these lists aren't based on estimates, but on actual records. They in fact include detailed information about every single confirmed fatality (both military and civilian); such as names, birthplaces, dates of birth and death, addresses, military ranks, etc. There are less than 1,500 confirmed deaths (both military and civilian) in total. Everyone else that wasn't found, because as you say, they might be lost in the area of Northern Cyprus, is included in the missing persons' list. There is no one who is not considered. Even if we assumed that every single missing person was a member of the military (which is certainly not the case), and even if we further assumed that every single one of those died as a result of the war, it still wouldn't explain the unsubstantiated estimate of 4,000 military deaths; the sum of all those figures would only be ~1,500 (including ~1,050 missing in total, as of 2015). But forget about all that; your claim that the Greek side hasn't participated in searches of missing persons in Northern Cyprus is completely wrong. The UN-sponsored Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus (CMP) is the one responsible for the exhumation, identification (the process includes DNA analysis, as explained here), and return of remains to the respective sides; it was established in 1981 by the leaders of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities, and it employs a bi-communal forensic team.

As for the in-text attribution, i don't think it is necessary, since these figures aren't based on a biased statement of opinion (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), but on actual records; they are not estimates. Anyway, if something must be added, i wouldn't have a problem including a note explaining that these are based on official records. Demetrios1993 (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks for the policy-based points you have made there, Demetrios1993. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 07:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, the perennial issue with the casualty numbers here (I have commented on this previously in 2015 and worked on the current state of the infobox). I'm familiar with Artuç's book, the problem isn't necessarily that it's outdated (it's a good enough source for Turkish military operations), the problem is that he doesn't substantiate how he established the Greek casualty numbers, and he clearly had no insider access to Greek/Greek Cypriot sources in this period. Manizade's work is a product of its time, it is overall less reliable and more propagandistic in its tone. The Habertürk and Milliyet Molatik sources added purportedly as "extra" sources are frankly laughable and smacks of poor encyclopaedia writing; these "news" articles are nothing but semi-autogenerated clickbait pieces from here and there with no editorial oversight, and are absolutely unacceptable as sources as any tr.wiki editor will tell you.

For what it's worth, the recent excellent military history by Erickson and Uyar is worth reading, and their assessment of the casualties from page 208 onwards is probably the most sober analysis out there regarding this. They essentially rely on Asmussen's book re Greek casualties, and state: "In addition to the unsolved geopolitical issues, military casualty statistics from the 1974 Cyprus War are unresolved and contested. There are several statistical variants according to what sources the reader prefers. The following are the casualty figures that the current authors accept as reasonable (table 8.1). An accurate tally of Cypriot civilian casualties is impossible to determine because authors sympathetic to a particular narrative inflate or deflate the numbers according to their beliefs and sources. Table 8.2 shows examples of the range of maxima and minima statistics available." We probably ought to use this as a basis and clearly articulate the limitations of the figures in prose, and then take it from there. --GGT (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input GGT. I was not aware of the book by Erickson & Uyar (2020), but from a quick look, it appears to be well-researched. I went through pages 208–209, and i concur on their assessment; the varying figures presented in table 8.1 (as well as 8.2) seem reasonable to me as well. I also agree with your last sentence; we ought to use their work as a basis, since it seems to be the most recent and detailed on the subject. Regarding the missing people, maybe we could also use some details from the statistics presented on the official website of the CMP, since about half of them have been exhumed and identified as of 2023; though, there are some differences, and it should be noted that their data concerns missing people from both the inter-communal fighting of 1963–1964 and the events of 1974. Demetrios1993 (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

So the main limitation with the CMP data has always been that it makes no distinction about when the people went missing, and there seems to be no quick and easy way to look into this (I haven't come across a detailed report with this data). That being said they would definitely be in possession of this information in some form. Perhaps they may be able to help us upon correspondence, although the CMP has been significantly less active in the last few years so I wouldn't be very hopeful... GGT (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I might try to contact them in the future; for now, the information provided by Erickson & Uyar (2020) is sufficient in my opinion. We should probably create a new section (§ Casualties) and add a summary of the relevant information found on page 208, along with the tables from page 209 as they are. Demetrios1993 (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

United Nations' position in the table

United nations peacekeepers were naturally, neutral in this war. They suffered losses as a result of both Turkish and Greek attacks. For this reason, it is not right to be portrayed as having participated in the war on the Greek side. It must be portrayed as a neutral force. Deniz.Sulay (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Beshogur (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

TMT Declares war?

This statement got my attention: "...and the TMT declared war on the Greek Cypriot rebels as well". Reference given is very unclear, a page number form a book. Is it possible to elaborate about this "declaration of war"? The tag attached (more reference) seems unaddressed. Murat (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)