Talk:Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name of the article / merge with Cyprus dispute

I personally believe that the word "genocide" is a bit strong for describing the happenings, and still hold the opinion that this whole issue should be incorporated in a new Cyprus dispute article. So:

• Change of name, proposals?
• Merge with Cyprus dispute? Yes/No/Why?

VfD

On May 14, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep rewrite, no consensus to delete. However, renaming to a less POV title may be in order. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Turkish Cypriot Genocide for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• This article is POV and completely unsubstantiated. It refers to an entity, the so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" that was created through the systematic genocide and ethnic cleansing of 200,000 Greek Cypriots by Turkish troops in 1974 and which was declared "legally invalid" by the United Nations Security Council in resolutions 541(1983) 550(1984).--Argyrosargyrou 16:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The vote for deletion is closed -- please stop reinserting the VfD tag unless you wish to begin a new and seperate VfD --Chiacomo 05:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

A new VFD isn't appropriate either, since the old one only closed a few days ago. NPOV the article and title, by all means. sjorford →•← 14:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Copy-edits, etc.

I've removed two irrelevant paragraphs about views of the nature and result of the Turkish invasion, as well as a strange claim that the enclaves covered 3% of Cyprus (a claim that seems to be contradicted by the map). I've also made the map an ordinary illustration, and copy-edited the text. I've added a brief and (I hope) neutral paragraph about views of the events and the term. Finally, I've removed the spurious VfD notice, and the PoV notice, whch I think is no longer needed.

The Map is wrong ! The Turkish Cypriots only owned 10% of the land and property in Cypriots and most of that was in mixed villages with Greek Cypriot majorities. The Map is falsely counting villages in which Turkish Cypriots lived even though they had a Greek Cypriot majority as whole enclaves which is false since only the TC sector was a so-called enclave. The word enclave itself is not even an appropriate description of what actually happened. Don't trust Turkish sources.--Argyrosargyrou 10:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

There's room for more information (for example, the political dimension, the identity of the various groups involved, the rôle of the fascist invasion from Greece, etc., but perhaps there should be a cooling-off period before any more substantial editing is done. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I had a small NPOVification in mind (change image caption to "Map claimed to show...") but got a conflict because major editing had already taken place. Mel Etitis' version looked like a good starting point to develop something in small steps. Can we have a discussion here before people get into another edit war? Rl 10:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately Argyrosargyrou has jumped the gun. I've reverted his large-scale edit (which in any case would have needed to have been substantially copy-edited). If it proves impossible for people to edit this article collaboratively, it can always be protected from editing, thus forcing discussion to take place here rather than through edit-wars.

Argyrosargyrou's comments about the map are too unclear for me to follow; if he could calm down and explain himself more clearly (preferably with sources for his claims), then perhaps the changes he wants will be agreed to. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Should be included in Cyprus_dispute, when time is ready - Snchduer 12:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The article by Mel Etitis is unsubstantiated Turkish lies and Propaganda and has no place on the Cyprus dispute page. Snchduer is a known Turkish apologist and sympathiser of Turkeys illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing of northern Cyprus.--Argyrosargyrou 13:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

So anyone who disagrees with you does so because they're merely propagandists? That must make things very simple for you, but it also seriously misrepresents the real world. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Turkish lies and Propaganda are unsubstantiated Turkish lies and Propaganda. Why are you repeating them. Why are you denying the true facts and trying to prevent them from being known ? There was no Turkish Cypriot genocide. This page should not exist. It has now been refered for deletion--Argyrosargyrou 14:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't say there was genocide; on the contrary, it talks of many killings by both sides, adn points out that only Turkey (and TRNC) accepts that term. You seem not to want the facts given, but all mention of these events to be deleted. That's not acceptable. Incidentally, the article isn't up for deletion. leaving aside the fact that it has just survived a VfD, you seem to have placed a VfD proposal on another VfD page (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mythic beings in Lithuanian mythology (list)), from which I've just removed it. I've also asked for this article to be protected; I can't do it myself, as I'm probably too involved now. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Having an article with that title sure gives the reader an initial preview and idea that there was a genocide, even though there was not. I would refer you to the following website for historical accuracy, published by the US Library of Congress: http://countrystudies.us/  ; http://countrystudies.us/cyprus/13.htm and from the latter is following excerpt from the Country Study of Cyprus:

"Severe intercommunal fighting occurred in March and April 1964. When the worst of the fighting was over, Turkish Cypriots--sometimes of their own volition and at other times forced by the TMT--began moving from isolated rural areas and mixed villages into enclaves. Before long, a substantial portion of the island's Turkish Cypriot population was crowded into the Turkish quarter of Nicosia in tents and hastily constructed shacks. Slum conditions resulted from the serious overcrowding. All necessities as well as utilities had to be brought in through the Greek Cypriot lines. Many Turkish Cypriots who had not moved into Nicosia gave up their land and houses for the security of other enclaves."

(UNFanatic 00:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC))

Edits

I've mentioned that TRNC is recognised only by Turkey at beginning so as not to repeat it through article, changed date genocide refers to from 63-64 to 63 - 74, I've reinstated that TC's were forced in 3% of Cyprus, the 3% does not refer to period of 63 - 74 but towards 74 when TC's fled due to assaults on villages by GC's. I've mentioned Akritas plan and added link, added links to Cyprus-conflict.net aswell. Removed Hellenic Genocide link, has no link with this article. Comments and edits welcome. --E.A 13:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I've given the text another copy-edit, removed a link to Rauf Denktash (relevance?), moved external links to the correct section and identified them, etc. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I made a complete re-edit, trying to put the Akritas plan in a proper perspective, and even citing the original wording from there. Hm. Hope we do not get into another editing war here, I would really prefer a friendlier atmosphere. - Snchduer 16:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I see E.A made a complete re-edit as well. Hm. I re-put now the original wording of the Akritas Plan, so that no dispute can exist over this (in italic and quotes). I still have doubts though about the placement of the Akritas Plan. I believe it should be in the beginning of the article, as it was in the beginning of the whole issue (cf. [1] for comparison btw E.A's version and mine). It was a plan also condemned by many Greek Cypriots, as far as I know, and whether it is the "heart" of the whole matter can be discussed. Maybe something like "Many Turkish Cypriots think that the Akritas Plan is at the heart of the whole matter"? - Snchduer 17:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The reason i changed it is that the Akritas plan was not discovered until April 1966, which makes the events of 1963 separate (though in retrospect Turkish Cypriots see Akritas as the secret behind 63). --E.A 17:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, can you explain your edits? I would like to know also from the other whether or not to include this article here. Unless there are doubts about the factual accuracy, I would like to keep it. - Snchduer 12:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure which edits you're referring to (the diff isn't of my edits). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, probably pasted the wrong link, then. Hope this one is right.

Ah — that was a mistake (I used the admin rollback, and it obviously rolled back to the wrong place). My apologies; I should have checked, but I was probably editing in a hurry (always a bad idea). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

New Edits: Removed death tolls incurred by the invasion by Turkey, this article is about the events from 63 - 74 surrounding the Akritas plan before the inavsion. Mentioned Policarpos Yorgadjis involvement in Akritas plan (source: http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/narrative-main-2.htm). Removed Hellenic Genocide link, now defunct. Removed Turkish Invasion of Cyprus link, article is POV fork of Cyprus dispute. Re-instated book link. Argy if your going to edit, please check your edits, your chopping sentences and not completing them. --E.A 19:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More edits: Added more detail on outbreak of violence in 60's, source:http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/narrative-main-%203.htm --E.A 23:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Akritas

Should we mention that the people responsible for Akritas were the Policarpos Yorgadjis (Interior Minister, code name AKRITAS), Thassos Papadopoulos (curren president, The Minister of Labor at the time) and Glafcos Clerides (leader of House of represantatives, former president)? --E.A 19:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Where are you going to get your proof, from a Turkish website? Hardly a neutral source on this issue. The authors are unknown unless you produce official papers to the contrary. You are no different than Argyros. (UNFanatic 21:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC))

The Turkish apologist can publish the entire Akritas plan, but I bet he wont, since it says nothing that he says it does and anyone reading it will know that he is a liar because it was a plan to reform an unworkable constitution and combat Turkish state sponsored terrorism.--Argyrosargyrou 22:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but keep the arguing over that to Cyprus dispute and Talk:Cyprus dispute. Let's not spill over the dispute over the coup to more articles than we have to. --Delirium 00:30, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Present state of article

Even leaving aside the frothings of irrelevance about Greek-Cypriot casualties (if this were an article of the Holocaust, would we accept a long section on how many German guards died and were injured?), there's much that's vague, stated as what "Greek Cypriots" and "Turkish Cypriots" believe. I've never met a Greek Cypriot who denied that Turkish Cypriots were mistreated, forced out of their villages, attacked, killed, etc. — who are these deniers of whom the article speaks? One doesn't have to believe that the Turkish invasion was justified in order to accept that the Greek Cypriot extreme right, aided and encouraged by the Greek fascists, were responsible for many barbarities against not only Turkish Cypriots, but Greek Cypriots left-wingers too. The behaviour here of editors like Argyrosargyrou brings shame on Greek Cypriots, most of whom would repudiate his ridiculous views. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no use talking to a Turkish apologist such as yourself. Famagusta was NEVER a Turkish Cypriot town. The popultion in 1973 was 25,307 Greek Cypriots and 6,120 Turkish Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriots that died in 1963/4 were mostly TERRORISTS who killed over 200 Greek Cypriots therefore the inclusion of the people they killed is fully justified. In 1974 Turks murdered 5000 Greek Cypriots, raped over 1,000 women and ethnically cleansed 200,000. Since there was an invasion going on and there is no evidence whosoever that retaliatory killings were genocide the inclusion of the Greek Cypriot death toll is fully justified. Since Rauf Denktash has admitted on television that during the violence the TMT terrorist organisation which he founded deliberately attacked Turkish Cypriot targets in order to lay false blame on the Greek Cypriots that should be inclded as well --Argyrosargyrou 22:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

With regards to Akritas plan, i provided an external link for it to be seen in full on this version here: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Cypriot_Genocide&oldid=14445402

Also http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/narrative-main-2.htm states

"Turkish Cypriots rather naturally call attention to a confidential document called the Akritas Plan which was later published in the press. This, which is generally thought to have been circulated in great secrecy by Yorgadjis, the Minister of the Interior, lays down a scenario according to which the 'negative elements' in the constitution should be stressed in public while lavish use should be made of such internationally acceptable concepts as 'self-determination' and 'minority rights' to describe the case for amending it. By this means Cyprus would win control over her own institutions and thus effectively nullify the Treaty of Guarantee since the constitution it was to guarantee would by then be no more. If the Turkish Cypriots showed fight they were to be struck down hard before there was time for outside intervention to arrive."

As for Famagusta i was referring to the old walled city, i should have made this clearer.

If people dont mind, im going to reinsert the casualty lists as i belive its pointless having this article unless the death tolls are highlighted. --E.A 23:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Should this article exist?

A google search for "Turkish Cypriot Genocide" turns up a mere 9 hits. "Greek Cypriot Genocide" actually turns up more, at 23. Since both sides claim genocides occured, and the truth is probably neither of their versions, I don't think it's productive to have separate articles, which will just by POV-pushing. This should be merged into Cyprus dispute, and if there are more details that don't fit there, something like Displacements and alleged genocides during the Cyprus conflict, or some other suitably neutral title that discusses the allegations on both sides. --Delirium 00:08, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, from what I can tell, there are no credible claims of "genocide" except from some extremist groups, so perhaps a title like Civilian casualties and displacement during the Cyprus conflict, or possibly something shorter, would be better. --Delirium 00:10, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

EXCELLENT IDEA. A new article combining the previous two. Afterwards, the previous two articles should be deleted. I like this title.(UNFanatic 00:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC))

I have no opinion on the content of the articles mentioned -- my only interest is in factual accuracy, NPOV, and a great encyclopedia article. While no consensus was reached in the VfD process, it does appear that a new article or a merge would be less contentious, at least for this article, as the title of the article does itself express POV. I KNOW that most of the editors of this article express one POV or another, but, rather than an out-and-out edit ware, do the editors of this article think it's possible to hash out their differences on a discussion page (either here or in a new NPOV'd article) rather than on the main article space? --Chiacomo 01:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree to the idea as well. Sounds quite fair to put the two sides in one article, with both sides' alleged "genocides"/"ethnic cleansings" (however, I would be in favour of avoiding these terms when possible), and would propose to use the plural of displacement for grammar reasons: Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict. Time scope of the article should be 1963-1974/5 (withdrawal of TCs from government until almost total separation of communities). - Snchduer 08:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

To have an article with this title is essentially to accept the Turkish Point of View. And I think it's fair to say that 200 deaths does not constitute a genocide. DJ Clayworth 14:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I emphatically agree with that statement. (UNFanatic 19:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Have to agree with this one, too. - Snchduer 11:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is a sensitive issue i admit. Nonetheless there are Turkish Cypriots and Turkish people who do believe that had Turkey not intervened and had TC's not fought back that village by village Turkish Cypriots would have been removed from the island. I have tried to give reasoning to this belief in the form of the attrocities that did occur and the akritas plan. It is fact that Turkish Cypriots were persecuted from 63 - 74 for getting in the way of enosis, both politically and physically - with the involvement of the highest Greek Cypriot politicians. I believe an article must exist in some form to explain the attrocities that did occur against the TC's before the invasion of 74. Most people still have a perception that Cyprus was a utopia before Turkey invaded and that they were purely self-motivated in doing so, i think this article adds an important dimension to the Cyprus problem. Like i say whether in this form or another, i think the content must still remain. --E.A 13:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would you agree to have an article about Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict instead of the genocide article? Because that is what the dicussion is about currently - not about whether or not to have the atrocities presented. - Snchduer 13:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah i would agree to an article title along those lines, so long as persecution of TC's backed by GC government is adequately conveyed. --E.A 14:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK

Firstly, definitive statements imply that there is 100% agreement on the subject. It is better to say "this side or that side claimed" rather than taking info from a Greek or Turkish website: For example:

During this period, Turkish Cypriots claim they were forced out of government and its agencies by the Greek Cypriot authorities and into enclaves amounting to no more than 3% of the island. Many faced poverty stricken conditions. Greek Cypriots hold (claim) that the withdrawal of Turkish Cypriots from government was voluntary and that the movement of people in enclaves was out of choice. My version.

During this period, Turkish Cypriots were forced out of government and its agencies by the Greek Cypriot authorities and into enclaves amounting to no more than 3% of the island. (this is a definitive statement- reader will assume this is a Turkish viewpoint) Many faced poverty stricken conditions. Greek Cypriots hold that the withdrawal of Turkish Cypriots from government was voluntary and that the movement of people in enclaves was out of choice.

these are small examples, in addition to the title which at first glance would indicate that most or all Turkish Cypriots were killed, which was never the case. A distortion of History. This article should be moved to the new title proposed by the other wikipedian. (UNFanatic 21:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC))

By all means feel free to edit what you deem unfair, i have already changed the language stated above. Note that your edits before left unfinished sentences such as:

"Turkish Cypriots believe that had they not mounted an effective resistance in the form of the TMT (led by Rauf Denktas)." --E.A 21:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Use of the term

Is there a citation for the use of the term "Turkish Cypriot Genocide"? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)