Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:55, 13 September 2014

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 31 December 2005, see discussion. No consensus, 30 May 2005, see discussion.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Operation Atilla was copied or moved into Turkish invasion of Cyprus with this edit on 15:15, 13 July 2012‎ (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Balkan / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cyprus Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cyprus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cyprus on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyprusWikipedia:WikiProject CyprusTemplate:WikiProject CyprusCypriot Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. European history This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

The Junta's first choice was not Nikos Sampson

Triantafyllides, Severis were approached to take over the Presidency before Sampson.

"In fact, there were at least two other persons who were asked to take the office of President before Sampson was approached; the Chief Justice, Michael Triantafyllides, and Zenon Severis. Triantafyllides, who was head of the Supreme Court, ..." Cyprus at war: diplomacy and conflict during the 1974 crisis, Jan Asmussen - 2008

"The plotters' second choice was said to be the President of the Supreme Court, Mr M. Triantafyllides, but he was found to be absent from the island. The third choice was Mr Z. Severis, honorary Consul General of Finland, but he sent Sampson ..." A Business of Some Heat: The United Nations Force in Cyprus 1972-74 , Francis Henn - 2004

Not sure but Glafcos Clerides seems to ring a bell too. The text should be changed to "third/fourth choice Sampson" or "the Junta settled for Sampson because they couldn't find any important figure to collaborate with them". Something like that. HelenOfOz (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"More than one quarter of the population of Cyprus (mostly Greek Cypriots) was expelled"

This phrase glosses over the circumstances of the "expulsion". It is not as if their visas expired and they were politely asked to leave in an orderly fashion. They were attacked, terrorized and chased away at the point of a gun. This phrase needs to be changed to reflect that reality. HelenOfOz (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Pogrom and Persecution are nouns of the Expulsion from what I know, but I don't think their meaning describes accurately the events in Cyprus. "Expulsion of Cypriots from their homeland" is correct. --79.130.55.120 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The discussion resulted in the formation of a consensus to merge the articles. SalopianJames (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Afternoon folks, I'd like to propose the merger of the stub Operation Atilla into this article, as it simply covers the code names of the events described in this article and therefore is duplicating information to no real purpose. SalopianJames (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as the Operation is part of the subject of this article, I do not see a problem with the Merge & redirect. This would be the same as how Operation Neptune redirects into the article regarding the "Normandy landings".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support: I agree with RightCowLeftCoast's reasoning. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• I would support the idea only if the new article name use the objective and neutral word of Intervention instead of the non-objective national (Greek) POV Invasion... --E4024 (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The topic of this discussion is the merge proposal, not the article title. If you wish to have it changed, please initiate a separate discussion and gain consensus for change before doing so. SalopianJames (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Merge These are inb essence the saem thing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Merge without prejudice to recreation if the detail becomes too much for this article. CMD (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Merge. The existing Operation Atilla article is a stub with minimal information, all of which logically belongs here. As for the proposal to rename this article, that is a completely separate matter which (IMO) has no bearing on whether the tidbits in the Operation Atilla article should be merged into this article. By saying this, I am not taking any position regarding "invasion" vs. "intervention" — I am only saying that it's a separate issue and needs to be dealt with separately. — Richwales 16:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well folks, this has been up for a week and I'd say calling it a consensus would be pretty non-controversial, so I'm going to execute the merge. The naming issue can be discussed at a later time if desired. SalopianJames (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Invasion-Intervention discussion

Maybe this explanation by British MP Michael Stephen of why Turkey "invaded" Cyprus could also be useful in further developing this article in WP. --E4024 (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for reference, here is our own definition of an invasion, as written in the lead to Invasion: "An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof." SalopianJames (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the easy reference, Salopian. So may I assume now that you already read the source I provided and began to think about how to reshape the Turkish invasion of Cyprus so that it could become a more neutral and reliable WP article? --E4024 (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I did indeed read the reference you provided regarding ethnic strife on the island prior to 1974. That is, of course, very much the case - one of the main reasons the United Nations deployed a peacekeeping force to Cyprus was in order to prevent further intercommunal violence between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, although this of course was intended to work in both directions. I would like to point out that my quoting the passage above in no way indicates my opinions regarding the article's title etc. - I merely thought it useful to provide a etymological reference point for the discussion. SalopianJames (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear that you noticed the UN Force was installed in 1964 (after the Bloody Christmas) not in 1974. --E4024 (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Details of how the intervention was decided

Here. These details may help the users who wish to develop the article to make it a more neutral, balanced and objective text. --E4024 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting piece, and it may be useful as one of many sources relevant to the issue.

A question that needs to be asked/answered here is this: What, exactly, is the underlying issue driving the "invasion vs. intervention" semantic disagreement?

My first reaction, as a native North American English speaker, is that "invasion" implies an aggressive first move — whereas "intervention" implies getting involved in an already-existing conflict, possibly with a view toward forcing a stop to hostilities. At the same time, "intervention" can also imply getting involved in an existing situation regardless of its nature (e.g., unwelcome "intervention" in another country's internal affairs).

I'm assuming at this point that the dispute here has to do with whether Turkey's actions were an "invasion" for purposes of aggressive conquest (a typical Greek Cypriot view?), or whether Turkey "intervened" in response to real or perceived Greek and/or Greek Cypriot threats in order to protect the Turkish Cypriots (a typical Turkish Cypriot view?).

My current gut impression is that both of these perspectives may have some merit — but that's not really the point, because we (Wikipedians) should not be trying to find out "the truth" with regard to this or any other question. The NPOV policy requires us to present, fairly and without bias, all significant views published by reliable sources. It obviously becomes harder to do this when an article's title is involved, but WP:TITLE does give some guidance.

Per WP:POVTITLE: "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Misplaced Pages generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." I'm not at all sure whether this applies to the events in Cyprus in 1974, because these events simply did not permeate the mass media in the English-speaking world to such an extent as to give rise to a name as universally memorable as, say, the "Vietnam war" or the "Cuban missile crisis".

I suspect here that WP:NDESC (the other main criterion, for "non-judgmental descriptive titles" created by Misplaced Pages editors) may be more applicable here. Per WP:NDESC, such made-up titles "should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions." Since there is a clear controversy here over whether the operation was an "invasion" or an "intervention", it might be preferable to select a name for the article that uses neither of these terms. For example, we might want to consider renaming this article to "1974 Turkish military actions in Cyprus" (with both "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" and "Turkish intervention in Cyprus" as redirects). Another possibility might be to call it "Operation Atilla" (with the same redirects) — a name which is probably neutral precisely because it is not widely known or used (!).

Sorry for being so lengthy here, but sometimes an argument like this requires people to go back to the beginning and make sure the underlying issues are clearly articulated and understood. — Richwales 17:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, Richwales, thanks for the insight. I only wonder if you missed the article by the British MP just at the above section. We are not talking only about "threats" against the Turks here, but also massacres committed by the Greeks (see below) under their politico-religious leader Makarios referred as "genocide attempt" by some very serious and important third party statesmen. --E4024 (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking about Cyprus I like to use the words Turk and Greek for the following reasons. (Turks): In Turkish we don't even have an equivalent of "Turkish Cypriot". It should translate as "Türk Kibrisli"; a denomination I never saw used by anyone. We use "Kibris Türkleri" which means "the Turks of Cyprus". As regards the Greeks (of Cyprus): When they pursue ENOSIS they call themselves Greeks, when they wish to emphasize certain separate identity from Greece, they call themselves Cypriots, when they pretend to extend a hand to the Turks of Cyprus they call themselves "Greek Cypriots". This Greek behaviour is important to understand anything about Cyprus and to write Cyprus-related articles in WP. There are two peoples, part of the Turkish and Greek nations, in Cyprus. This is intended to use in the article. It is related to the Greek policies of ethnic cleansing (also see the MP article above) against the Turks of Cyprus. --E4024 (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The terms we use to identify the ethnic groups on Cyprus need to be driven by what the reliable sources say. And since this is the English Misplaced Pages, we have to be guided primarily by what English-language sources say. In English, you're going to find that the prevailing terms are "Turkish Cypriot" and "Greek Cypriot" — possibly also "ethnic Turk" and "ethnic Greek". No matter how awkward and unnatural these expressions may seem to you, the fact is that the bare terms "Turk" and "Greek" are not generally used in English to refer to the people on Cyprus; rather, these terms are universally going to be understood by English speakers to refer to people from Turkey and Greece, respectively. Similar terminology is used, for example, when English speakers/writers discuss the situation in Kosovo — "Kosovar Albanians" or "ethnic Albanians", but not "Albanians" (this last term is generally reserved for referring to people from Albania). You may object to these terms, but you'll be fighting a losing battle, because this is the reality of what terms are customarily used in English-language reliable sources. We can still talk about ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc., wherever we see it documented in the sources, without any need to ignore or defy the established naming conventions in our language.

And I did see the other article you cited. However, we still need to present all sides of the subject in accordance with the way the reliable sources treat it. We can not say that we (Wikipedians) have been so thoroughly convinced by material from one side that this side becomes "the truth", the one and only "neutral" viewpoint, and thus we will be guided completely by this one side and treat other views as belonging to the marginal fringe (treating other sources as unreliable precisely because they disagree with what we have chosen to embrace as the truth). This article (as well as other Cyprus-related articles) can and should explain atrocities committed by Greek Cypriots (and/or Greeks from Greece) against Turkish Cypriots — in accordance with what the mainstream (and primarily English-language) sources have to say about this. But if there are reliable sources alleging atrocities committed by Turkish Cypriots (and/or Turks from Turkey) against Greek Cypriots, we must include that in the article too. Anyone who is so close to this topic that they can't bring themselves to do this may be better off working on other parts of Misplaced Pages (or perhaps not working on WikipediIa at all); this is especially true for anyone (not any of us, I trust) who is so close to this topic that they're prepared to disrupt the article rather than allow the "other side" to be presented. — Richwales 06:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I never quite understood the whole invasion/intervention debate before reading that article, but I think it's a bit clearer now. Intervention seems to be used as a way to describe the aims of the Turkish army, intervening in attacks on Turkish Cypriots, and not simply as a way to avoid the word invasion. Like Richwales, I also understand intervention to be a much broader term, with invasion being a direct and probably aggressive action.

E4024, your sources are interesting and may be able to be used, but just posting them and hoping might not get you far. Many users, while interested in the topic and willing to help, will have time commitments elsewhere. It takes time to create good sourced prose. If you're discouraged from directly editing articles, why not suggest specific prose changes, editing existing text or inserting new information, on the talkpage? Providing a starting point of prose to insert, rather than just a source, will bring much more progress. CMD (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There were no massacres against Turkish Cypriots until after Turkey violated the cease fire on the 14th August and resumed attacks against Greek Cypriots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Maratha,_Santalaris_and_Aloda_massacre

If you want another semantic argument, can we say Turkey "caused" those massacres ? We can argue that those massacres would not have occurred if Turkey did what it was supposed to do. That is, Turkey should have allied itself with the Makarios forces fighting the Junta, help defeat the Junta, restore democratically-elected Makarios to the Presidency, try and jail the coup plotters, and then withdraw the military forces back to Turkey when the political situation was stable again. And repeat this in the future if needs be. That is what the civilized world considers "intervention". Instead Turkey, shamelessly and cynically, treated those Greek Cypriots fighting the Junta as enemies, failed to take any steps whatsoever to join forces with them, attacked them, and eventually violently ethnically cleansed them from their lands on the 14th of August 1974. Obviously Turkey's despicable actions horrified and infuriated *ALL* Greek Cypriots. Sadly, some of these Greek Cypriots had a murderous rage and took it out on the innocent Turks of 3 villages. So there you have your argument. Turkey "caused" the atrocities at those 3 villages. Much more plausible than "intervention". HelenOfOz (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Here you have some text proposal reverted 10-15 minutes ago. --E4024 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That should be discussed on that article's talkpage. CMD (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Denominations+

@Richwales: I have no objection to the use of "Turkish Cypriot" and "Greek Cypriot", as these are UN terminology, just as I had stated in my first days on discussing Cyprus-related issues, here, under the section titled "Cypriots". The question I am trying to raise is to shed some light on how to understand better the history of Cyprus; somehow it is tied to the sad instances of Turco-Greek relations through centuries, especially the past two cc.

And this is the (+) part: I have an impression -it may be wrong, naturally- that in every article that relates to Turks and Greeks in En:WP there is a lack of balance, as regards NPOV, in favour of the Greek positions. We cannot explain this with facts or reasons like the Greeks are more active in WP, there are not so many Turks as Greeks with a good level of English etc; it is a question directly related to the character (not nature), reliability and thus prestige of the encyclopedia called WP. These articles must attract the attention of third country users and they should contribute. (This is why I asked Mr Salopian the other day to give me a hand on a source I found and to write something positive about the Turkish position, instead of me myself doing it, as a declared Turk.)

The sources I provide in Talk pages are available to all; anybody could find them. I wonder why a user with a "Helenic" nickname never adds something positive about the Turks... (I am not questioning their feelings about the Turks, I am questioning their approach to WP.) If you write in search boxes "Good Turks" you find "Good Turks", if you write "Good Greeks" you find "Good Greeks". If you write "Bad Turks" or "Bad Greeks" you find the "bad Turks and bad Greeks".

I may be accused of having tried to impose my national POV at times, especially in my first days here, due to lack of experience, but it was a reaction to my still valid impression on the imbalance stated above. As I also have observed that the Turkish users' eagerness to change this imbalance (in my case only towards a "balance" nothing else) is regarded by suspicion, not to use other words, by users with Helenic nicknames. What would a user think if his/her contribution is only rejected due to a grammatical or even ortographical mistake, instead of correcting that mistake? I suppose that his gr or orth mistake is taken as a "pretext" to keep the imbalance. (I am not saying this for any particular contribution; only as a general observation.)

P.D. I will continue writing in the Talk Pages and hoping others to take action in articles. I have been sanctioned for "edit warring" once and do not want to experience the same; although I still wonder how one can make war "all alone" without another warring party... --E4024 (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on terminology. I certainly believe that Misplaced Pages's coverage of not only the Cyprus conflict, but of other regional/ethnic conflicts as well — including, amongst others, Kosovo, Bosnia, Georgia, and Israel/Palestine — should be as comprehensive and balanced as we can make it, recognizing that people on all sides have grievances they consider to be valid and (for the most part) simply want the ability to live peaceful and pleasant lives.

It is certainly possible that the English-language media, in general, has been slanted to a degree toward the Greek side of the Cyprus dispute. And since WP:NPOV requires us to respect what the available reliable sources say, there might therefore be some risk of our being inclined to favour the Greek side because it is more thoroughly and/or eloquently represented in our sources. I'm not defending this as such, simply acknowledging the possibility of an inherent bias which we may need to be careful with.

And I'll also say that we've certainly got people here who are pro-Turk(ish-Cypriot), as well as those who are pro-Greek(-Cypriot). It's unfortunate that some of our most memorable activity on the Cyprus conflict has come from one pro-Turkish editor who has been so h*||-bent on advancing his viewpoint that even after he managed to get himself kicked off Misplaced Pages for recurring disruption, he has refused to let go and has come back again and again under new identities. This sort of activity, in my opinion, does far more harm than good to his cause; indeed, for a long time to come, I fear that any new editor who tries to get involved with the Cyprus topic, and who displays pro-Turkish sentiments, is going to find himself immediately under suspicion of being a "sock of a banned user", and I can't rule out the possibility that one or more legitimate, naïve new users might end up being chased away on that basis. — Richwales 17:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Richwales: This is the way you are expecting the rather new users to act? Here. Let's see what I receive... --E4024 (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll add my bit. I have no idea why on other Greek and Turkish related articles there is a tendency towards the side of the Greeks but in relation to Cyprus I'll try to explain. This is a country traumatized by Turkey's invasion, and also a country that has had strong nationalism since the 50s. The United Nations recognized Turkey as an invader, and the Greek Cypriots received support in aid as well as in international politics. Remember, this all takes place in the 70s, when the events of the 50s and 60s are still fresh and no history has been written for them. Since the invasion, Greek Cypriots were seen as the victims of the conflict, having suffered the greatest losses and being in control of the recognized state in Cyprus, now in partial occupation. After the invasion, questioning the government on the missing people, on its honesty and its motives in relation to the Cyprus Dispute became socially and politically unacceptable. The events of the 40s, 50s and 60s remained in silence, closed subjects never to be opened. In school the state promoted a mythology instead of history, teaching the EOKA struggle and then the Turkish Invasion. That's 14 years missing. The political elites of the 2 communities promoted their own mythology and propaganda, suppressing proper historical investigation, since many of the members of the political parties were involved in the events of the 60s and 70s. Also remember that no communication existed between the two communities. After the opening of the checkpoints in 2003 researches from both communities met up and co-operated in researching Cyprus history and society using their combined data. Only in the late 90s we start to see a tendency of Cypriot historiography that touches upon the inter-communal conflict of the 60s, the slaughter and marginalization of TCs, the relation of the national party to the economic elite,the suppression of communism, the relation of the cold war to the conflict, the extremist groups of the two communities being linked to the Stay Behind network, the knowledge of the state that the missing persons are dead, the darker sides of the EOKA struggle etc. Therefore what reliable sources you find from the 70s to the 90s will tend to tilt towards the GCs (and I indicate the word reliable, because a lot of material from TCs and GCs in this period is propaganda), following the 90s more reliable and balanced sources start to become available.--Tco03displays (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Article classification

Can I please draw attention to the fact that this article does not appeared to have been accurately assessed for class, given that the five WikiProjects with banner templates here have assessed it differently, with one unassessed, two Start-class, one C and one B given in the templates. Might be considered timely to review these and attempt to gain some consensus on the articles's class? Thanks, SalopianJames (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ecevit

Legendary Turkish Prime Minister -and man of letters- who ordered the "invasion" believed that when "a man was sure he was morally right, he should not hesitate to take action". A man who translated Tagore when he was only 14, the "barbarian Turk" ordered the military intervention in Cyprus but could not even get himself a place in the infobox of the relevant WP article. Here is what the Economist wrote about him. --E4024 (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As best I can tell, the "commanders and leaders" listed in the infobox of this article are the military officers in command of the army units. Bülent Ecevit was Turkey's civilian leader at the time, so it wouldn't seem appropriate to put him there. Nikos Sampson is also not included in the infobox, for that matter; and unless I'm mistaken, the leaders of the Greek military dictatorship aren't there either — just the military leaders directly involved in leading or opposing the invasion / intervention / peacekeeping / whatever-we're-going-to-call-it.

Also, in order to avoid any suggestion that we're straying into WP:NOTAFORUM territory, I would recommend we keep the discussion at a calmer, more dispassionate level. If I were making what I believe is your argument here, I would probably word it something like this: "Turkish Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit was a key player in the Turkish military intervention in Cyprus. Why is he not listed amongst the Turkish 'commanders and leaders' in this article's infobox?" — Richwales 17:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Sinful Past of the Sixties Generation & Henry Kissinger in giving the green light to Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus.

A new article that might help the process of objectivity.

The prospect of Enosis was ruled out forever by a special provision of the Zuerich--London agreements by which Cyprus was proclaimed an independent state. This historical compromise, though opposing the pro-Enosis sentiments of the people, was the tragic epilogue of the armed struggle of EOKA. Tragic because, as things had developed, the compromise of independence was the last barrier in the road to partition.

Independence was, therefore, in 1960 a painful reality to which the Greek Cypriots had to adjust, because any re-agitation of the demand for Enosis would support Turkish claims to the island. Responsibility for the preservation of independence, as the only remaining alternative to partition, fell to the political leadership, because the people were still ignorant of the great national dead ends to which the Cyprus issue had been led.

Makarios Drousiotis Eleftherotypia Athens 19/07/1997

The recent release by the CIA of documents concerning the agency’s illegal surveillance of Americans and involvement in the assassinations of Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Salvador Allende of Chile, and Patrice Lumumba of Congo, as well as assassinations plots against Fidel Castro, prove what authors and scholars have already concluded about the agency. Most noteworthy is the involvement of Henry Kissinger in giving the green light to Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus.

http://grhomeboy.wordpress.com/2007/06/28/cia-document-confirms-kissingers-involvement-in-selling-cyprus-for-30-silver-pieces/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euclidthalis (talk • contribs) 12:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request (Ref. 50)

The ref no 50 is a dead-end link. The sentence referenced by the link is an important claim. If in three days the link is not repaired and I may not see that it is a reliable source, I will delete that sentence. --E4024 (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:DEADLINK. As a matter of good practice we never delete cited information even if dead-linked. Try fixing it instead using the Internet Archive. Δρ.Κ.  14:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I just fixed it. Δρ.Κ.  15:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ref. 50 and the above "intervention-invasion" discussion

We discussed a lot about the wording "intervention-invasion" lately. While we made this discussion the ref 50 of the article was not available to see the source text. (Later it was revelealed it was a question that could be arranged in only one minute.) The text in question, a "Fact Sheet" of the government of the RoC that appeared at the webpage of the Press and Information Office of the said republic, refers to the Turkish intervention with the words "intervention" or "military intervention" while it never uses the word "invasion" as it is (only once as "invaded"). Some of our editors (like myself) have been on the part of the "intervention" wording; if we could read this source we could have used the government of RoC references on our behalf. Well, it is the Law of Murphy; you never have at the right time something you need. As they say in Spanish "cosas de la vida" or with the French saying "c'est la vie". Our bad luck... --E4024 (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of picture

I have removed File:Sandallar turkish cypriots.jpeg for several reasons. First it originates from the now dead link http://www.mucahit.net/dergiler/dergi65/Sayfa_26.htm which is a propaganda website and therefore its contents cannot be sourced to a reliable third-party source which could reliably verify that the depiction is indeed what is claimed to be. Second it is original research to claim that this picture is from the massacre without any reliable published reports supporting such claim. We cannot rely on a now defunct propagande website as the source for the description of this unclear and grainy picture. In addition to these file problems, massacres and atrocities were commited by both sides during that troubled era. It would also be WP:UNDUE to include pictures of one side and not the other, even if, and that's a big if, the origin and contents of the removed picture were reliably verified. Δρ.Κ.  13:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Images from both sides should be dealt with caution. A number of the photographs presented for decades to the two communities as authentic were later found to have been set up in particular ways to be used for propaganda. For example, moving and placing dead bodies in particular stances or places that would arouse emotion later by viewing the photograph. Be careful of what you add.--Tco03displays (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Let's remove the name and flag of the so-called RoC from the "belligerents" section. The "Commanders and Leaders" say the truth we all know already: The Turkish army won another war against the Greek army in 1974. The Greek Cypriots were not present in this equation. (Other than EOKA-B activity of crimes against humanity). --E4024 (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You must be joking right? Where do you come up with this stuff? No, we're not going to do that. And let's not get into the whole "crimes against humanity" thing, because you won't like the result. Athenean (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Good source

I am adding a paper, to the Further Reading section, titled "Policy Watershed: Turkey's Cyprus Policy and the Interventions of 1974" by James H. Meyer published by the Princeton University Press. This paper, quite balanced at a quick first read, I believe could have been used -but not has been, as far as I could see- to give a more objective, thus neutral and balanced tone to this highly controversial idea. Even the choice of "interventions" instead of "intervention" or "invasion" seems to me to be part of an effort to be objective. Anyway, it is here for those who have not read it and for those who could like to have a second look. --E4024 (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Casualties in Infobox

From the Infobox: "Turkey: 800+ military (including Turkish Cypriots), 2200 wounded, unknown civilian dead Total 3500 casualties". What does this mean? First of all, without knowing the (unknown) part of the victims/casualties how do we reach a total number? Who are the "Turkish civilians that died in Cyprus" and why? What were they doing there? If we are referring (as we seem to avoid, who knows why) to the Turkish Cypriot civilians massacred by Greek Cypriot EOKA-B mobs then we should clarify it. With or without a "citation needed" tag, this section is biassed and has to be edited to reflect the correct numbers and the true nature of Turkish (i.e. Turkish Cypriot) civilian killings. On the other hand, although there has been a UN-oriented joint Missing Persons Committee that has worked to the extent the Greek Cypriot Administration let them to, we somehow avoid to refer to Turkish Cypriot civilians missing too. Are we trying to make an encyclopedia, really, or trying to show the Greeks (Cypriot or not) innocent as angels? I really want to know this; without changing the target somewhere else (Turkey) please explain to me why do we try to hide that the Greek Cypriots massacred Turks... --E4024 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I think that "why do we try to hide that the Greek Cypriots massacred Turks" is loaded question which is not a good way to resolve disputes trough RfC. I also think that "we perspective" should be avoided in discussions especially in disputes like this. I propose to close this RfC and to follow other steps of wp:dispute resolutions. My comment here is reply to RfC bot.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Combattans in Infobox

The Turkish operation was carried out against the Greek (i.e. from Greece) military forces on the island. As you may see all commanders on the "defending" side are from Greece. So I removed the flag of the so-called "Republic of Cyprus" for two reasons: 1. At the time of the operations there was a Greek military junta puppet Greek Cypriot administration on the island. 2. The only Greek Cypriot participation in so-called military operations could be the massacres of civilian Turkish Cypriots by the EOKA-B mobs. So I added the name of EOKA-B as a combattant instead of the RoC. --E4024 (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if the commanding officers were Greek (as Cyprus lacked trained officers), the National Guard itself was Cypriot. Also the Efedrikon Soma, with three batallions, was Cypriot. The Cypriot military forces may not have glorified themselves, but they took part in the fight against the invasion. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like in Scandinavia you are all Greek in these issues that matter to Turks and Greeks. Why do I not see you editing to balance this and other Cyprus-related articles so that they may not be so biassed to the Greek standing? How can you accept that the Northern Cyprus article has no links to the "minimal" article about the massacres of Turks in this island while anything Turks may have done in history is labelled "genocide"!?! Is that not a reason to want to establish their own State (living in peace and security, without fear of EOKA-B mobs)? Make an effort to understand Cyprus, especially the Turks of the island... --E4024 (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how your comment (or my geographical position) has anything to do with the question discussed here. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Some people only do not understand what they do not want to. I remember this IP writing they were not from the region but still taking sides, right? Looks like the distance do not help "to see things from a distance". --E4024 (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Atrocities

I have noticed that someone had removed a great part of the section regarding atrocities committed against Turkish Cypriots. Could someone look in to it? Thank you. (Central Data Bank (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC))

Adana camp

The picture in the missings persons section is captioned "Greek Cypriot prisoners taken to Adana camps in Turkey". But at no point in the article or elsewhere in[REDACTED] can I find a reference to what an Adana camp is. Can someone either add this information in or clarift the caption? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.174.23 (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I found kind of a source but its in Greek1. Adana is a city in Turkey, many GCs were taken there as prisoners and later returned.--Tco03displays (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Apteva (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)

Please note, this topic has been discussed several times in the past - see Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Archive 1 and sections above for past discussions.

Turkish invasion of Cyprus → Turkish intervention in Cyprus – Extensive discussions few years ago but should be a no-brainer now: (1)Google hits, 5,110,000 results for Turkish intervention in Cyprus vs. 1,480,000 results for Turkish invasion of Cyprus; (2) Google scholar hits, 26,900 results for Turkish intervention in Cyprus vs. 18,500 results for Turkish invasion of Cyprus; (3) United nations uses "intervention" ; (4) CIA World Factbook uses "intervention" (background section); (5) US State Department uses "intervention" ; (6) European Union uses "intervention" . In Turkey, sometimes "Cyprus Peace Operation is used, but this is also POV. Intervention seems neutral. Cavann (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, as I detailed above, just for reference, here is our own definition of an invasion, as written in the lead to Invasion: "An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof." SalopianJames (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose as Turkush nationalist POV-pushing. "Intervention" is a well-known euphemism used by Turkey to "justify" the invasion, make it respectable. A look through this talkpage and it's archives shows the intensity with which Turkish wikipedians have tried to change "invasion" with "intervention". Nothing new here. Regarding Cavann's search results, 1) Raw google searches are worthless as they contain mostly junk, 2)Major news organizations universally use "invasion", 2) regarding Google Scholar, I get roughly equal number of hits for "invasion" and "intervention" (23,700 compared to 26,900 ), but I note that most of the hits for "intervention" are in fact false positives. For example, of the first ten hits for "intervention", at least 5 are clear cut false positives: , while none are false positives for "invasion". While it does appear that the CIA factbook and the EU use "intervention", the US state department uses both "intervention" and "invasion" . Most importantly, major English language news organizations universally use "invasion": MSNBC , CNN , BBC , The Economist , NYT . Athenean (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Major English language news organizations/newspapers DO NOT universally use "invasion". Few examples: CNN, "intervention" ; CBS, "intervention" ; NY Times, "intervention" ; Economist, intervention . Cavann (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Your isolated examples are not convincing. Major news organizations still predominantly use "invasion" (if not quite universally). CNN uses "invasion" much more often (25 as opposed to 8 hits ), and I don't see CNN use "intervention" after 2004. NYT: 452 hits for "invasion" , 52 for "intervention" . CBS news also uses "invasion" , and The Economist uses "invasion" more frequently than intervention. Btw when you search, you should use quotes otherwise you will get a lot of false positives (especially with "intervention", which is why your results are erroneous). Athenean (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: Changing it would be misleading as it would imply something legal and the invasion has been condemned by every single related UN resolution. The fact that it has been declared illegal is the very reason to be an invasion rather than an intervention. Finally, A/RES/37/253 says:

"The General Assembly, Deploring the fact that part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus is still occupied by foreign forces...." and

Resolution 550(1983) regards northern Cyprus as occupied territory.

Also,

"Turkish intervention in Cyprus"(with quotes): 61,600 hits on Google

"Turkish invasion of Cyprus"(with quotes):1,290,000 2A00:8C40:40:0:0:0:70E9:7B27 (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

How much of that is related to 1974? When I write "Turkish invasion of Cyprus", Venetians, I get 1,200,000 results. '"Turkish invasion of Cyprus", Venetians' refers to Ottoman–Venetian War (1570–73). Cavann (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Searching with Venetians includes books and articles with the History of Cyprus. The invasion does not refer to the Venetians. That is how google search works. When quoted, the exact phrase is searched. When not, it is as many words that match as possible. For instance one of the results searching with venetians is:

The Turkish invasion of Cyprus (Turkish: Operation Peace), launched ... it has :known - Persians, Romans, Venetians, Ottomans and the British. 2A00:8C40:40:0:0:0:70E9:7B27 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The point is your exact quote number isn't reliable either. Cavann (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, more reliable than yours is. — Lfdder (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. As far as I know, this is still generally referred to as an invasion. WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: The proposed term is just an extreme Turkish pov, agree also per above arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Comparing "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus" and "Turkish Intervention in Cyprus" in Google Books shows a clear preference for the former phrase. The latter phrase only gets six pages of results. (Oddly, this lists as 42 results on page 6, but 6,000 results on page 1. Don't ask me to explain the ways of Google, but there's clearly only a few pages of results here.) In addition, "intervention" appears mainly in primary sources like government documents and UN statements, most notably a letter from US President Lyndon B. Johnson that's quoted over and over again. It appears to me that the preference in English-language books is "Turkish Invasion", so I suggest the article stay put per WP:COMMONNAME.

As a side note, it doesn't look like this will make a difference in the !voting, but be aware that the move proposer has placed a clearly non-neutral request for intervention at WT:CSB in violation of WP:CANVASS, accusing Greek editors of teaming up here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Khazar2 for your fair comments that are in the best tradition of Misplaced Pages. Take care. Δρ.Κ.  02:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per all the oppose comments above and per WP:COMMONNAME. And per: "turkish invasion" cyprus encyclopedia 1,310 results. "turkish intervention" cyprus encyclopedia 56 results. Also per Britannica:

In July 1974 the Greek Cypriot National Guard, whose officers were mainland Greeks, attempted a coup, planned by the ruling military junta in Athens, to achieve enosis. Makarios fled to Malta and then to London, and Turkey invaded Cyprus and proclaimed a separate state for Turkish Cypriots in the north. Makarios, vowing to resist partition of the island, returned to Cyprus in December, after the fall of the mainland Greek military junta.

Add a couple of articles from The New York Times since I also found them: For Cyprus, a Sudden Need to Play Nice With Turkey The two halves of the island have been split between the mainly Turkish-speaking north, occupied by Turkey since an invasion in 1974, and the internationally recognized, mainly Greek-speaking Republic of Cyprus in the south.

European Union’s Leverage Over Cyprus Is Ephemeral Turkey invaded northern Cyprus in 1974 in response to a Greek-backed coup in Nicosia by Greek Cypriot hardliners seeking union with Athens. Δρ.Κ.  02:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Google Scholar: "turkish invasion" cyprus 3470 results. "turkish intervention" cyprus 752 results. Google Scholar also sprach. Δρ.Κ.  04:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Makes no sense to change it to intervention because the invasion has been declared illegal. The sentence "should be a no-brainer now" reveals either lack of history knowledge or ignorance in my opinion 108.60.134.206 (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per sources listed above (Brittanica, the U.N., the European Union and etc.). Turkey invaded Cyprus in defiance of international law. In addition to the sources listed above, BBC, Aljazeera and etc. have also called it an invasion. I also firmly believe that the term intervention does not necessarily and accurately mean a military campaign (i.e. diplomatic intervention). The term intervention in itself is vague and does not substantiate a military campaign, let alone an illegal one. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Opinions Section Is Misleading

The section is separated into Turkish Cypriot Opinion and Greek Cypriot Opinion. This is misleading, because different individuals, political parties and organizations within the two communities hold contrasting opinions in relation to the Cyprus problem and the Turkish Invasion. By ascribing these terms to the opinions, immediately you inform the reader that the opinion expressed is the article is the opinion of the whole of the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots. In fact, the division of the opinion into ethnic categories is itself problematic. There are groups in the two communities that have very close, even identical opinions. For example, leftist groups would see it as an imperialist invasion. The whole section needs restructure, a clear distinction between community and state (Greek Cypriots and the Republic of Cyprus for example), a clear distinction of what each major political party in each community holds as opinion, what the government of Turkey holds as an opinion etc. At the moment the article provides a false dishonomy in the matter of opinion as purely a matter of ethnicity.--Tco03displays (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with your well-made comments. Please go ahead and restructure the section if you have the time. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.  17:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

For personal reasons I don't have time right now. It is a complex subject and it needs its share of research. I'll come back in the near future to make some edits on it with proper referencing.--Tco03displays (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(To propose moving more than one page—for example, moving a disambiguation page in order to move another page to that title—see "Requesting multiple page moves" below.) To request a single page move, create a new section at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, using this format:

Requested move: 1974 Cyprus war (08.02.2014)

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus.
Weighing this discussion has not been easy. A pure head-count would lead to recording a clear decision to reject a change to the article title. However, polling is not a substitute for discussion or for policy-based arguments, and consensus cannot be weighed simply by counting heads. It is also a matter of how well arguments are founded in policy.
This was a discussion about the title of an article on a war only 40 years whose consequences are still a live political issue, and on which some editors had strong views. That affected the quality of the debate, and so did the excessive verbosity of some posters, and the protracted arguments over the results of badly-constructed Google searches. WP:AT explains that book and scholar searches are preferable to general web searches because they concentrate reliable sources, but editors on both sides of the debate posted web searches. Other search results were posted which used the title words without quotes, which guarantees a high number of false positives. So a lot of search data presented was irrelevant and misleading, and most of the debate was wasted in arguing over that.
A further problem in the debate was that editors tended to take a binary view of policy on article titles, assuming either that common usage was the most important factor, or that neutrality was the most important.
The reality is more complicated. Misplaced Pages has a policy of neutrality, but also of verifiablity and of avoiding original research, and all of those policies explicitly underpin the policy on article titles. Most topics can be titled with little or no difficulty in reconciling all 3 policies, but cases like this make that harder, because the many options appear to endorse a particular view of the conflict. As a tertiary publication relying on secondary sources, Misplaced Pages tries to give due weight to the various scholarly viewpoints. However, in choosing concise and recognisable article titles, we can't explicitly acknowledge all points of view; the title should be a few words, not the long sentence which would be used in an academic journal. Our policy is that the choice of those few words should be made in light of all 3 of the underlying policies, but too many editors in this debate appeared interested only in one or other of the core policies.
In a complex case like this, assessing the usage frequency of possible titles should be the starting point, followed by assessing whether recent uses followed a different pattern to older mentions, and then considering the neutrality of various options. That didn't happen, and there were pointless references to primary source documents such as UN resolutions and court rulings; inadmissable original research, mostly from the nominator whose walls of green text were highly disruptive.
Finally, there was no attempt in the debate to consider whether a non-judgemental descriptive title might be appropriate in this case, per WP:NDESC.
Maybe the unstructured RM process is the wrong way to consider a question like this, especially when passions run so high. I hope that if editors want to reopen this discussion in the future, they will consider some sort of structured decision-making process, rather than this disjointed and acrimonious debate. (That has been done in other contentious cases, such as the naming of the article called Republic of Ireland). But this discussion shed more heat than light, and cannot be considered to have produced any sort of consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Turkish invasion of Cyprus → 1974 Cyprus war –

Rationale for the proposed page name change:
1. Fair Approach, Neutrality, Objectivity:
This way of entitling the article ("1974 Cyprus war") avoids any qualifying of the war and hence results almost no conflict. Definitely, this way of titleing the article is far more fair approach towards the "invasion/interference" POVs. When one use "invasion" (or equally the "interference") to depict the war in 1974 and hence thereby the entitling in Misplaced Pages, there are millions of Wikipedians on both sides of the conflict who oppose this way of qualifying the war (the qualifying is rejected by one of the sides in each cases). On the other hand, the sides accepts the existing of the "war".

2. Almost closed to objections:
Nobody can deny anything about each of the words in "1974 Cyprus war": It happened in 1974 and the operation finished in 1974; It was in Cyprus island; It was war. Even the Turkish Cypriots entitling it as "peace operation" accept that it was war. "peace operation" is rather to qualify the nature of the war, according to them, I think.

3. Google Search:
"1974 Cyprus War" (without quotes): 8,890,000 results
https://www.google.com.tr/?gws_rd=cr&ei=3TH2UuO_BKOX4wT08YHAAw#q=1974+Cyprus+War and
"Cyprus War" (with quotes): 10,400 results
https://www.google.com.tr/?gws_rd=cr&ei=OFT3UuHDEeWB4ATmk4C4AQ#q=%22Cyprus+war%22
"1974 Cyprus War" (with quotes): 78,500 results
https://www.google.com.tr/?gws_rd=cr&ei=3TH2UuO_BKOX4wT08YHAAw#q=%221974+Cyprus+War%22
Academia: Google Scholar Searchs:
"1974 Cyprus War" (without quotes): 39,700 results
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=1974+Cyprus+war&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
"1974 Cyprus War" (with quotes): 19 results.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%221974+Cyprus+war%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
NGram shows very very sharp decline after 1979 decision of Greece's court, and the usage "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is deflating continuosly.: NGram.

4. Robust proofs of the parties in discussion:
I am giving the following not for supporting the "intervention" side, but to support each side ("invasion"ers, "intervention"ers) has robust proofs to some extent. I will not give the robust proofs of "invasion"ers since they are known to the many participants of the discussion as well. I added the followings especially for those who do not know the followings.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE): (29.07.1974, Res. 573) "Turkish military intervention was the exercise of a right emanating from an international Treaty and the fulfilment of a legal and moral obligation."
Greece's Athens Court of Appeals (21.03.1979): "The Turkish military intervention in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London Accords, was legal".

5. The alternatives may not be that much satisfactory:
Some people may suggest other alternatives ("Cyprus war in 1974" or "Cyprus war of 1974"), but "1974 Cyprus war" (as in "2013-14 Euroleague") suits better in Misplaced Pages practice.

6. Counter arguements of the defenders of "Turkish invasion of Cyprus":
I know there are people who opposes the above proposal. It would be fair and ethical to bring here based on what they objected the above proposal (I added my replies as well):

Δρ.Κ.: It is the WP:COMMONNAME of the invasion. That's what's called by the majority of the reliable sources.

Alexyflemming: Non-neutral but common names https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Non-neutral_but_common_names

Notable circumstances under which Misplaced Pages often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:
1. Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
2. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious

T*U: Somehow you forgot to mention the main clause: In such cases, the prevalence of the name ... generally overrides concern that Misplaced Pages might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. The prevalence of the name "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" for what happened in 1974 is so obvious in English language literature that it is the only possible choice for the title.

Alexyflemming: As you state: "...generally overries...", not "...always overrides..."!. Also, English language literature well metions the events of that period as "the war in 1974" as well. Hence, "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is not the only possible choice for the title. Alexyflemming (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

7. Meeting the requirements of all the good Misplaced Pages article titling characteristics and practices: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency:
Naturalness: "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is troublesome to link from other articles: Linking the war in 1974 as "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" instead of "Cyprus war" have some non-suitablities: Not everybody see and record the war in 1974 as "Turkish invasion of Cyprus", but everybody accepts it as a war!
Precision: Turks did not capture the Cyprus only in 1974, they captured it in 1571 as well, hence "Turkish invasion" is also used for the war in 1571. The phrase "Turkish invasion", besides "non-neutrality", also includes "disambiguity". Look at the beginning introductory directive in "Ottoman-Venetian_War_(1570-1573): "This article is about the 1570 Ottoman Turkish invasion and conquest of Cyprus."
Conciseness: The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
"Turkish invasion of Cyprus", besides "non-neutrality", also longer than "1974 Cyprus war" (26 characters versus 15 characters: %73 longer; and biased)
Consistency: "1974 Cyprus war" is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Also, in topic-specific conventions on article title, in "Infobox military conflict" infoboxes of other similar titles, "conflict" entry is almost filled with "war", not "invasion", "intervention", "peace operation" etc.
In Misplaced Pages (just as in the other places), the armed struggles almost always depicted as "war", not "invasion", "intervention", "peace operation" etc.:
war: https://www.google.com.tr/?gfe_rd=ctrl&ei=79j5Uu6pFKKh8weJyoGgCQ&gws_rd=cr#q=war : 626,000,000 results (12-times more!)
invasion:https://www.google.com.tr/?gfe_rd=ctrl&ei=79j5Uu6pFKKh8weJyoGgCQ&gws_rd=cr#q=invasion : 50,500,000 results
Misplaced Pages war: https://www.google.com.tr/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=Z9v5UrGbNayh8wfVo4HIBw#q=Misplaced Pages+war : 217,000,000 results (3-times more!)
Misplaced Pages invasion: https://www.google.com.tr/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=Z9v5UrGbNayh8wfVo4HIBw#q=Misplaced Pages+invasion : 60,300,000 results
Depicting wars with "invasion", "intervention", "peace operation" etc. are all propaganda and includes some sort of bias. Other than that, every invasion is war, but not vice versa: There are wars that are not invasion!

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's policy on article titles.

• Strong oppose per Common Name. Example:NGram link.--T*U (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The NGram shows very fast sharp decline of the usage "Turkish invasion of Cyprus", especially after the 1979 decision of Greek highest court. Also, the general tendency of academic world to use "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is declining though the visibility of Cyprus issue has peaked for the last decade (2004 Annan Referendum etc.).

As for WP:COMMONNAME (Use commonly recognizable names), "Cyprus war" is easier both to use, remember and cite if compared with "Turkish invasion of Cyprus". Even there are thousands of articles in the NGram that used "Turkish invasion of Cyprus", but at the same time used "the Cyprus war" to refer the event of 1974.

Non-neutral but common names https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Non-neutral_but_common_names

Notable circumstances under which Misplaced Pages often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:

1. Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later

2. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious

Alexyflemming (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"Invasion" is neither a Trendy slogan or a Colloquialism. It is the WP:COMMONNAME which accurately depicts the wide usage of the phrase "Turkish invasion" in the English language and does not attempt to hide the name of the invader by using almost non-extant terms like "1974 Cyprus War" whose frequency in the English language is almost nil. Δρ.Κ.  05:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"Invasion" is a Colloquialism: ((Colloquialism is a word, phrase or paralanguage that is employed in conversational or informal language but not in formal speech or formal writing.)) None of the United Nations resolutions used the word "invasion" in Cyprus dispute. Also, look what Greek's highest court (which definitely read billions of invasion books/articles, millions of intervention books/articles) said and decided: Greece's Athens Court of Appeals (21.03.1979): "The Turkish military intervention in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London Accords, was legal". Formal writing of highest court especially in a related court decision supersides the other usages of scholars. Because, the court decided and said in the light of that scholars as well. There is no court decision in Turkey that used the word "invasion" for the dispute. I gave these two since Helens and Turks are the two parties in Cyprus dispute. Both parties used and uses "intervention" in formal writing (primariliy: court decisions). Anyway, the name change offer is not invasion/intervention struggle as is seen from the proposed title. Rather, completely different: To isolate the issue from any biases. There are biases in Turkish side as well. Alexyflemming (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how 'invasion' is a colloquialism. It is used in formal writing; it's used in academic literature. — Lfdder (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Greece's Highest Court used the word "intervention" and "legal" for 1974-Turkey-military-operation after the court read all the academic literature (books, articles) of 1974-1979 in Greece and in all over the world. Similarly, United Nations Security Council did not qualify it as invasion in all of its resolutions in Cyprus dispute since 1963. The usage of some words ("genocide", "invasion" etc.) in Assemblies/Courts/International Platforms requires undeniable and indisputable proofs and facts. Remember, ECtHR (European Court of Human Rights) decided in 17.12.2013 that 1915 Events cannot be qualiefied as "genocide"! This is perhaps similar to this. The Greece's government itself cannot use "invasion" in international official courts etc. (notice even Greece's Highest Court didn't use "invasion"). Perhaps, the very same officials may use "invasion" for other purposes (lip service to ordinary public, conditioning internal and external spheres, affecting comprehensions with pre-acceptions, many other reasons, etc.).Alexyflemming (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankfully, this isn't a court of law; it's Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages relies on academic literature. And it's overwhelmingly called an invasion in lit (see my comment below). — Lfdder (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

not overwhelmingly: "1974 Cyprus War" (without quotes): 8,890,000 results; "Cyprus War" (with quotes): 10,400 results; "1974 Cyprus War" (with quotes): 78,500 results. Alexyflemming (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, I've wasted enough time here. I'm not playing cat and mouse. — Lfdder (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Your "attempting to hide the name of the invader" and "hiding the name of the PRINCIPAL INITIATOR of that war" accusations were essentially same in character of accusation. I replied below the latter in full extent.

"Cyprus war" returns 10,400 results in Google search. Also, adding the dates/periods/moments to the head of a title is a common and beautiful Misplaced Pages practise: as in 2013-14 Euroleague. Alexyflemming (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if we take 1974 to be some sort of prefix, 'Turkish invasion of Cyprus' is still far more common in lit:

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

— Lfdder (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"1974 Cyprus War" (without quotes): 8,890,000 results; "Cyprus War" (with quotes): 10,400 results. i.e., the "Cyprus war" usage is also one of the very common usages. NGram shows very very sharp decline after 1979 decision of Greece's court, and the usage "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is deflating continuosly.: NGram.

Also, you (Lfdder) are continuously censoring via "hiding by collapsing" my opinions and edits:

09.02.2014 21.54 (1st censorship): https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus&diff=594729932&oldid=594729330

09.02.2014 22.34 (I reverted the censorship): https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus&diff=next&oldid=594734100

09.02.2014 23.18 (2nd censorship): https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus&diff=next&oldid=594740569

I think, it is very very unfair and unethical to censor thoughts and opinions. If you continuously do that, then[REDACTED] becomes CensoredPedia.

Other equally important reasoning: When the proposed name change accepted, "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" phrase can still be put in the article as to inform the readers what alternatives is there for qualifying the event in 1974. But, on the other hand, if "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is protected, then those who want to hide the attrocities of Helens (there is! besides that of Turks) does not allow any counter mentioning and give rise to extreme prejudice. Putting everywhere "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" whenever an issue related with Cyprus Dispute is pre-conditioning and brute-forcing the mind to a certain angle. Here is an example: Dr. K. converted the edit in Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots:

"After the hostilities of the 1963-74 period and the war in 1974, a Population Exchange Agreement was realized between Greek and Turkish Cypriots under the auspieces of United Nations on 02 August 1975."
became

"After the hostilities of the 1963-74 period and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, a Population Exchange Agreement was realized between Greek and Turkish Cypriots under the auspieces of United Nations on 02 August 1975."

with the pretext of "Per standard article name" (this is his edit summary).

This is propogation of certain bias, prejudice, to ALL of the concerned Misplaced Pages articles with "standard title name" pretext. Should a title name in Misplaced Pages propogate everywhere in Misplaced Pages a non-stopping bias, prejudice, and conditioning of Wiki readers? I think, it should not.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Should a title name in Misplaced Pages propogate everywhere in Misplaced Pages a non-stopping bias, prejudice, and conditioning of Wiki readers? I think, it should not.: Misplaced Pages is not to be used to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In Misplaced Pages we go by the terminology of the rest of the WP:RELIABLESOURCES, the great majority of which calls this attack a "Turkish invasion". Δρ.Κ.  17:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if the NGram shows a decline in the use of the full phrase "Turkish invasion of Cyprus", the ratio is still 7:1. Also, when I tried to make a Google Book search to find the books that use only one of the phrases and not the other, I came up with many results mentioning the "Cyprus war 1570-1573" or some Cyprus war in antiquity. These are also included in the small number of "Cyprus war" books, making the real ratio even larger. As for the thousands of articles in the NGram that used "Turkish invasion of Cyprus", but at the same time used "the Cyprus war" argument, it is a nice boomerang. That means that "thousand of articles" that mention the "Cyprus war" (and are included in the count for that phrase) at the same time use the "Turkish invasion". --T*U (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

See the trend: (Google Search is just as the things in paranthesis)

(Cyprus 1974 "Turkish invasion"): 188,000 results

https://www.google.com.tr/?gws_rd=cr&ei=OFT3UuHDEeWB4ATmk4C4AQ#q=Cyprus+1974+%22Turkish+invasion%22

(Cyprus 1974 "Turkish invasion" -war): 96,800 results

https://www.google.com.tr/?gws_rd=cr&ei=OFT3UuHDEeWB4ATmk4C4AQ#q=Cyprus+1974+%22Turkish+invasion%22+-war

More than half of the references used "war"; it is "war", nobody can claim otherwise, even the "invasion"ers.Alexyflemming (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Another nice boomerang! What you have shown, is that half the books that mention "Turkish invasion" does not use the word "war". Actually quite amazing! Just to compare, books that mention "Cyprus war" without using the word invasion ("Cyprus war" 1974 -invasion) gives as few as 2200 results.

https://www.google.com.tr/?gws_rd=cr&ei=OFT3UuHDEeWB4ATmk4C4AQ#q=%22Cyprus+war%22+1974+-invasion

--T*U (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Per my arguments in the closed move request from May 2013 above. This is the common name used in the reliable sources and encyclopedias. Δρ.Κ.  16:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

When deemed both intervention/invasion includes some degree of bias and POVs, "May 2013 move request" ("Turkish invasion of Cyprus" → "Turkish intervention in Cyprus") is in essence a change request from a biased approach to another one; from less biased to more biased or vice versa depending on which side of the parties someone is located. On the other hand, ("Turkish invasion of Cyprus" → "1974 Cyprus war") name change suggestion is almost free from any bias and POVs. Hence, the natures and characters of the name changes ("Turkish invasion of Cyprus" → "Turkish intervention in Cyprus") and ("Turkish invasion of Cyprus" → "1974 Cyprus war") is completely different. Furthermore, the name change ("Turkish invasion of Cyprus" → "1974 Cyprus war") will decrease and lessen total composite aggragate degree of bias and POVs (of both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots) in Misplaced Pages.Alexyflemming (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Our task here is to neutrally represent what is said in leading, reliable sources. Our task isn't to represent the invasion/intervention/war/what-have-you 'neutrally' -- if such a thing is possible. 'Cyprus war' is scarcely used in literature, and so renaming the article to that would not be neutral. — Lfdder (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

'Cyprus war' is scarcely used in literature? : "Cyprus War" (with quotes): 10,400 results

https://www.google.com.tr/?gws_rd=cr&ei=OFT3UuHDEeWB4ATmk4C4AQ#q=%22Cyprus+war%22 What sort of Scarcity is this?

Google Scholar: "Cyprus war" (with quootes): 423 results: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Cyprus+war%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
The scarcity arguement is invalid for both of the sides of the arguement.Alexyflemming (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Plain Google search 10,400 vs. 279,000 "Turkish invasion".

Google Scholar: 423 vs 6,240 "Turkish invasion"

"Scarce" seems right to me. --T*U (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alexyflemming: Google Search isn't lit. Many of the results in Scholar are false positives. — Lfdder (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, 'Cyprus war' isn't the name you're proposing we move this article to; it's '1974 Cyprus war'.

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

— Lfdder (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The term "1974 Cyprus War" is almost non-existent. In addition it is also misleading because it hides the name of the principal initiator of that war, which is Turkey, and the nature of the war which was an invasion. Such transparent attempt to hide these facts is non-neutral POV. Δρ.Κ.  05:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

it hides the name of the PRINCIPAL INITIATOR of that war, which is Turkey !!?. Look at what you wrote a couple of lines below: Britannica: In July 1974 the Greek Cypriot National Guard, whose officers were mainland Greeks, atempted a coup, planned by the ruling military junta in Athens, to achieve enosis.. Hence, you disprove yourself your "hiding principal initiator" arguement. Notice that, almost whatever is handled in Cyprus dispute, there is some degree of bias just as your new "principal initiator" arguement. It should be Misplaced Pages's neutrality aim to be free from this conflict of interests. Also, 15.07.1974, Coup and declaration of "Hellenic Republic of Cyprus", 19.07.1974, Makarios' speech at UN SG: "Cyprus invaded by Greece", 20.07.1974, Turkey's meddling. Are 15.07.1974 and 19.07.1974 not preceding 20.07.1974? Are "coup", "Declaration of Hellenic Republic of Cyprus", "Enosis (union with Greece)", "Makarios(1st President of Cyprus, in UN SC meeting): "Cyprus was invaded by Greece"" not initiator for a war?

There are only 2 possibilities: You either know or do not know the followings:

20.07.1974 (I-day): Turkey's military operation to Cyprus.

19.07.1974 (just 1 day before I-day): Makarios, 1st president of Cyprus, a Greek Cypriot, on United Nations Security Council Meeting: "Cyprus was invaded by Greece"

15.07.1974 (5 days before I-day): Nicos Sampson finished Makarios with a coup and declared "Hellenic Republic of Cyprus"

1st possibility: You know all above but intentionally omit them to propogate one sided biased info.

This is double standard. Because, "Turkish invasion" phrase not only covers up (and HIDES) all the above atrocities performed by Helens, but also pre-conditions normal Misplaced Pages reader. Misplaced Pages must create a fair environment in a disputed article thereby making users freely add the arguements of both sides and thereby should let the reader to form his or her opinion about the article in discussion. That's to say, Misplaced Pages reveals facts, infos and data and leaves the last decision to readers. "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" does not leave reader the last decision, just the opposite: it conditions him/her and it loads many pre-acception to him/her.

2nd possibility: You do not know all above.

This is because, someones made you pre-conditioning and prevent you to learn the above; Someones loaded you many pre-acceptions and many prejudice.

Here is just todays (09.02.2014) article in Cyprus Mail (A Greek Cypriot newspaper), Please read: Loucas Charalambous (A Greek Cypriot) "The truth behind the ‘Turkish revolt’ plan": "....These are the truths that OUR PREJUDICES do not allow us to see....".

"I" am not saying this, "A Greek Cypriot" is saying this! A Greek Cypriot says Greek Cypriots were loaded with many prejudice. In this 2nd possibility, the necessity of name change "1974 Cyprus war" is obvious. "The loading" Helens with many prejudices, pre-acceptions, and conditioning Helens by Greece's and Greek Cypriots' officials and authorities is normal and acceptable to some degree. But, is the very same "loading" to the average Misplaced Pages user of arbitrary nationality the very same many prejudices, pre-acceptions, and conditioning him/her by Misplaced Pages officials and authorities normal and acceptable?Alexyflemming (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

These are the truths that OUR PREJUDICES do not allow us to see...." It is apparent you are after the WP:TRUTH and you are resorting to personal attacks to accomplish it. Cease the personal attacks. I repeat again: This discussion is about the WP:COMMONNAME, not about finding the WP:TRUTH of this invasion and not about attacking any contributor participating in this discussion. Face it: Your proposed article name has been proven by many users to be almost non-existent and your move proposal is unsupportable by WP:COMMONNAME and your walls of text full of personal attacks and original research are not convincing anyone. Δρ.Κ.  14:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH (Verifiability, not truth): Is "Cyprus war" not verifiable?

"1974 Cyprus War" (without quotes): 8,890,000 results; "Cyprus War" (with quotes): 10,400 results; "1974 Cyprus War" (with quotes): 78,500 results; Academia: Google Scholar Searchs: "1974 Cyprus War" (without quotes): 39,700 results; "1974 Cyprus War" (with quotes): 19 results.

NGram shows very very sharp decline after 1979 decision of Greece's court, and the usage "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is deflating continuosly.

You frequently accuse me with "personal attack". When you mentioned "hiding invaders and main initiator of the war", I did not feel I am attacked. "hiding invaders and main initiator of the war" is your opinion. I respected your opinion. I disproved your opinion to the extent of my knowledge. When you feel bothered on something, just try to disprove, not accuse (with wordings like "resorting to personal attacks" etc.)! When my opinions and thoughts are indirectly CENSORED via "hiding via collapsing" just in this discussion, I did not feel I am attacked. I revealed the indirect CENSORSHIP with proofs (see above).

"you are resorting to personal attacks to accomplish it": I did not gave my opinion, but a Greek Cypriot's opinion; I even gave the reference.
Alexyflemming (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of Google Search results are not to RS, and searching for '1974 Cyprus war' w/out the quotes is absolutely meaningless. To insist that the dip in the n-gram's caused by the Greek courts decision w/ no evidence to go by is laughable. Most likely scenario? The invasion wasn't news anymore -- less people were writing about it. You kept saying 'you'. Did you not accuse Dr.K. of '... intentionally them to propogate one sided biased info'? Did you not accuse them of ignorance and prejudice? — Lfdder (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You said: "I've wasted enough time here. I'm not playing cat and mouse. (Lfdder 12:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)"]. It seems the mouses you catched is not big enough. It seems you need extra and extra "wasting" time here. I listed the possibilities: "intentionally omitting the other side of the medallion" is not the unique possibility there! Anyway, "you accused me; I am attacked, etc." are diverting the proposed name change. The rationale is just there above. It is fair for all to speak about how rationale or not are the proposed name change. Focus the rationales and prove/disprove accordingly; nothing else. Alexyflemming (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all of your 'rationales'. What do you need clarification with? I remind you, you're the one who's derailed the discussion. — Lfdder (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Lfdder for your great points, but this is classic disruptive MO. The points included in the walls of text above, have all been made multiple times by other, now perma-blocked, users and have no relevance to this discussion. This discussion is about the WP:COMMONNAME not about righting of great wrongs. It is time for the initiator of this frivolous move discussion to drop the stick. Δρ.Κ.  19:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your "disruptive MO" phrase links to "WP:Tend" (Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole.). When "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" and "1974 Cyprus war" are considered together, it is clear for one with common sense and prudence! that "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is partisan, biased or skewed, not "1974 Cyprus war"!

Also, the link you gave ( https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Northern_Cyprus&diff=prev&oldid=496949746 ) connects it (The info (Makarios: "Cyprus was invaded by Greece")) to official record of UN SC 1780th Meeting, 19.07.1974)! Do you say "giving official UN SC records is partisan, biased or skewed"?

I showed "1974 Cyprus war" has merits to pass WP:COMMONNAME; there are countless references as such. Besides this, WP:COMMONNAME is not the only criteria that must be taken into account: There are others: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency. "1974 Cyprus war" 15 characters, "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" 26 characters. The latter is %73 longer, more than that, it is biased.Alexyflemming (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't some kind of bastion of 'common sense and prudence'. We've been over this many times now. No, it most certainly does not pass COMMONNAME. 'Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency' aren't anybody's criteria but yours. Don't be ridiculous; 'Turkish invasion of Cyprus' is short enough. — Lfdder (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You say "Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency aren't anybody's criteria but yours". With a very very little research, you could have found that the 5 are just exactly the 5 titling CRITERIA OF WIKIPEDIA!. Anyway, I am sure that it is impossible to change the minds of someone even if I have millions of robust arguements and proofs.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, overlooked that. Regardless, they are 'goals' -- not criteria. And which one of those goals does 'Turkish invasion of Cyprus' doe not meet? — Lfdder (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I took out the quotes... Umm, neutral for now I guess, but leaning towards a support. I'll wait and see what more experts say. Red Slash 22:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Whilst I can sympathise with it being a more neutral title, it is not the WP:CommonName. Google Books: 2,970 for "Cyprus War and 56,800 for "Turkish invasion of Cyprus". Google Scholar (Journal): 423 for "Cyprus War" and 1,130 for "Turkish invasion of Cyprus". IJA (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• oppose per my comments above. — Lfdder (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is what it's commonly called. And there is no doubt that the Turks did invade Cyprus! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Move: @Alexyflemming. Frankly, I believe that your intentions are not in bad faith BUT I can't neglect the great deal of synthesis, personal attacks (and canvass). You simplify the Cyprus problem to the G/C being the initiators as it if it was something well known and an established fact. Particularly, you say you are neutral but you neglect the G/C views which claim that documents were found indicating that it was a plan by Turkey all along including (certain events) to invade the island and that even if it was an intervention they should have left as soon as 'peace' was established. You search what you want to find i.e synthesizing your arguments instead of taking a neutral perspective. and yet, you talk as you have solid proofs for your arguments while they are not. An example (irrelevant for this discussion) is that you still mention the International Court of Justice as declaring the independence of North Cyprus legal while I explicitly provided the reasons it was not (Occupation by force). These leaving aside some ridiculous arguments such as the International Court of Justice overriding the UN resolutions.] which is obviously invalid.

In the end, you accuse Dr.K.: "This is because, someones made you pre-conditioning and prevent you to learn the above; Someones loaded you many pre-acceptions and many prejudice" while he is totally correct about synthesis and canvassing. If you continue like that someone will report you. KalJohnson (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose "1974 Cyprus war" is not even an academically accepted term. It only yields 61 results as opposed to "turkish invasion of cyprus", which hits 58,100 results in Google Books --Երևանցի 02:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and suggest we give this a break. No title will satisfy everyone on this matter, but this is the best we can do, and that's been true for some time now, and nothing has changed or is likely to change. Andrewa (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Copy from my comments the previous move discussion in May 2013:

(edit conflict) Copying-pasting from "May 2013 Discussion" is nonsense since "May 2013 Discussion" is invasion/intervention conflict ("Turkish invasion of Cyprus" → "Turkish intervention in Cyprus") whereas the current proposed name change ("Turkish invasion of Cyprus" → "1974 Cyprus war") is invasion-intervention/war strugle that completely removes biases, prejudices, conditionings, brute-forcing pre-acceptions etc. and creates an environment free for a Wiki reader to conclude the result or form his/her opinion taking into account all the info/data/facts of each side; an environment that one side cannot prevent the presentation of proofs/arguements of other side; an environment that none of the sides is allowed to the conditionings, brute-forcing pre-acceptions. Alexyflemming (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Per all the oppose comments above and per WP:COMMONNAME. And per: "turkish invasion" cyprus encyclopedia 1,310 results. "turkish intervention" cyprus encyclopedia 56 results.

Also per Britannica:

In July 1974 the Greek Cypriot National Guard, whose officers were mainland Greeks, attempted a coup, planned by the ruling military junta in Athens, to achieve enosis. Makarios fled to Malta and then to London, and Turkey invaded Cyprus and proclaimed a separate state for Turkish Cypriots in the north. Makarios, vowing to resist partition of the island, returned to Cyprus in December, after the fall of the mainland Greek military junta.

Google Books encyclopaedias have spoken. Encyclopedia Britannica has also spoken. Clearly so.

Add a couple of articles from The New York Times since I also found them: For Cyprus, a Sudden Need to Play Nice With Turkey The two halves of the island have been split between the mainly Turkish-speaking north, occupied by Turkey since an invasion in 1974, and the internationally recognized, mainly Greek-speaking Republic of Cyprus in the south.

European Union’s Leverage Over Cyprus Is Ephemeral Turkey invaded northern Cyprus in 1974 in response to a Greek-backed coup in Nicosia by Greek Cypriot hardliners seeking union with Athens.

Google Scholar: "turkish invasion" cyprus 3470 results. "turkish intervention" cyprus 752 results. Google Scholar also sprach. Δρ.Κ.  00:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"1974 Cyprus War" Google Scholar 19 results: In other words, non-existent terminology. Δρ.Κ.  00:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"1974 Cyprus War" 62 results. Almost non-existent in Google books. Δρ.Κ.  00:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: After the almost surrealistic development of this discussion, with indents and outdents, text changing in old paragraphs, same text popping up several places and same discussions going on several places at the same time, I guess that not only I am a bit confused about who wrote what when and where. I have tried to do two things: fix the indenting and making clearer division between different votes/comments etc. If I have misunderstood anything and indented wrong, I apologize. It was just getting impossible to follow the threads. Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• NOTE another Turkey-Cyprus article is also up for renaming, see Talk:Cyprus oil dispute -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing by Alexyflemming for support of his move request

Alexyflemming has taken to canvassing other users for their support of his move request:

On User talk:Androoox using a wiki-cup-like award image on his Wikilove message and asking him/her for his/her support on a quid pro quo basis:

(→‎I supported your proposed name change: new WikiLove message) Androoox, I supported your proposed name change. There is an ongoing discussion for a name change (Turkish invasion of Cyprus -> 1974 Cyprus war). I thought the proposed name change may seem to reasonable to you as well. If so, I expect your support here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus#Survey Best and Warm Regards, Alexy Flemming.

On User talk:Red Slash using a Wikilove message:

(→‎I kindly request your support: new WikiLove message) Based on my this edit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus&diff=595115144&oldid=595101824 ), I kindly request your support for the proposed name change. Observe the very last two edits: ...

These actions are disruptive and inappropriate and must stop immediately. If they continue they will be reported. Δρ.Κ.  10:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is what I wrote Androoox's Talk page (BEFORE Dr.K. made "canvassing accusation"): "Anyway, if you find the above proposed change unreasonable, you are again welcome to state your own opinion there.". Dr.K., I am sure you know the meaning of "if you find the above proposed change unreasonable, you are again welcome to state your own opinion there". There are 2 sides of a medallion, always! Notice, you said "hiding the main initiator of war", I have proven other "initiatory actions" that you either did not see or did not know at all!Alexyflemming (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Red_Slash already declared his opinion ("neutral, but leaning towards a support") (22:17, 08.02.2014) BEFORE I posted him! My post is dated: 09:12 12.02.2014!Alexyflemming (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deleted content

An editor has just deleted the following content: "Turkish forces primarily used a clear and hold strategy, forcing many Greek Cypriots to flee to the south. By the time a ceasefire was agreed three days later, Turkish troops held 3% of the territory of Cyprus. Five thousand Greek Cypriots had fled their homes.". All three claims here - in particular the percentage of territory captured (which did not even have a citation required tag) - seem important info, and should be retained in the article if correct. So I am recording the deletion here in the hope that a reference can be found for one or more of the claims. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? Do you have a special interest in these claims? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

My special interest is a concern about deleted content and why it is done. I have been looking at your past edits and you seen overly eager to delete article content that has citation required tags. These tags are not there to invite editors to delete content, anyone can put them there and they are (if used correctly) put there to encourage editors to find references for the content. Longstanding citation required tags are not a reason for blindly deleting material from articles - they are just a reason to consider the possibility of deletion. What reasoning did you make to assume the deleted material was incorrect or inappropriate for the article? I think that a better route for you to have followed would have been to have proposed the deletion on this talk page, giving as a reason that there were citation required tags to that content that had gone unanswered for a long time. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that in the first phase of the invasion, "Turkish troops held 3% of the territory of Cyprus." is both important and well known. I am not sure about the other facts but I'll try to find some references when time allows. Δρ.Κ.  21:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid the fact that the Cypriots were evicted from their homes during the invasion and the simultaneous advance of Turkish troops which held the conquered areas, is what we call Clear and Hold strategy. This cannot be disputed. You don't need sources to prove that. The 99% of the Greek Cypriots who lived in these lands, are no longer living here. They were evicted by the Turkish Armed Forces, which in return held this place and stayed here for 40 years. The results we face today, are the natural outcome of this strategy: in the northern parts of Cyprus, today, you can find only Turkish Cypriots and Turks. Any Greek Cypriots who want to return back to their homes, are prohibited even now, by the Turkish Army. No Greek Cypriot is allowed to return home today. This is the Clear and Hold policy. None can dispute these facts. Not even the Turks... --SilentResident (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Before posting my note on the deletions, I did do a quick search for the phrase "Clear and Hold strategy" used in relation to the Cyprus invasion and I could not find any. Even if it was a "Clear and Hold strategy", I think it would be OR to use that exact phrase in the article unless you find a source or sources that uses it. BTW, regarding Why should I have a User Name's edits, my experience of them is that he never actually does the difficult task of searching for sources. He simply adds tags or deletes content that has been already tagged. I have spent a bit of time on other articles restoring and getting references for material that suffered from his deleting. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The same editor has been edit-warring. They just deleted the material again without participating in this discussion. Δρ.Κ.  10:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And he is still edit warring. maybe he should change his name (to match his pov editing style) to the more accurate "Why Should I Be Expected To Use a Talk Page?" Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

POV Check

I have read the article from the beginning, and definitely think that this article isn't neutral and should be checked. You may disagree with me, but it has to be checked. Denizyildirim (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. Even the title of the article is not neutral. I suggested to change it from "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" to "1974 Cyprus war" (see above). That retitling request was resulted as "The result of the move request was: no consensus"Alexyflemming (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

When people stick to their national POV instead of objectivity, discussions in this kind of areas are sentenced to end in no consensus, regrettably. In my view, 'Turkish intervention' is the most approppriate wording. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Balkan military history articles
• Balkan military history task force articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Start-Class Greek articles
• Mid-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• B-Class Turkey articles
• Mid-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• C-Class Cypriot articles
• Top-importance Cypriot articles
• All WikiProject Cyprus pages
• Unassessed European history articles
• Unknown-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages