Talk:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus/archive1 Talk:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus/archive2

There are claims of a population of 220,000 Turks on the island, this seems like nonsense to me. From the votes on the Annan plan, with 88% turnout, there should only be around 80-100,000 Turks on the island, unless there is something I am missing, e.g. women or Anatolians are unable to vote, or each family has an immense number of children.

Take a look at the history section: why is it ok to talk about the 'aftermath of the Turkish Invasion', but NOT about the 'aftermath of the Greek backed military coup'. Why is no mention made of the 1960 Treaty? The history section should include the following points that should be explained in NPOV language. This is a rough outline:

• 1960 independence from Britain
• 1963 constitutional breakdown
• 1963 Turks live in enclaves and are blockaded by the Greeks
• 1974 Greece backs military coup in Cyprus, removes Makarios from office and places Nikos_Sampson in charge.
• 1974 Turkey militarily intervenes under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee and the island is partitioned
• 1975 Federated state and
• 1983 TRNC UDI

--Son of the Tundra 09:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now Son of the Tundra, you are been unfair. Theathenae obviously believes that the Turkish Cypriots don't have the right to establish their own state without asking for permission from the Greek Cypriots and their extremist leader Makarios III and that that wouldn't be a violation of their right to self determination. He is obviously around the twist with Greek nationalism, we can't blame him :-))))))))))))))))) REX 10:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Guys would it be possible to discuss the content of this article and come to agreement. Huh? is that possible? --Son of the Tundra 10:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have been through this before. This article is about the TRNC, not the History of Cyprus or the Cyprus dispute. It should mention the 1974 coup and invasion as the events immediately preceding the establishment of a Turkish state in north Cyprus, but not go into details or discuss events before that. It is perfectly possible to arrive at a factual and non-POV article if both Greek and Turkish nationalists desists from imposing their views. Adam 10:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That is exactly what I would like to see, A NPOV article giving all the relevant facts. I’m happy with the opening section as it was at this point [1] Any references to military coup and invasion should go in the history section. Words like ‘aftermath’ are emotive and can be equally applied to coup and invasion. Better to drop the word, NPOV articles should not be emotive. Also, Please keep in mind that in the history section we should be discussing the events that lead to the creation of the TRNC, i.e. the reader should gain an understanding of why the TRNC was created. Those events began in 1960 when Cyprus won its independence from Britain. No reader will understand why Turkey invaded/intervened, unless the reader also knows about the constitutional collapse in 1963, the TC enclaves, the military coup and the 1960 treaty. --Son of the Tundra 11:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Every event in history flows from previous events. The difficulty is knowing how far back to go. A previous editor wanted to go back to the Ottoman Empire (see at top of this page). I suppose 1960 is OK but it needs to be kept brief, because this is all covered in other articles. Adam 11:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we start from 1960, then the reader has a chance of understanding why all this happened. Also, do you accept my points about the word 'aftermath' (it is emotive and can be applied to both coup and invasion), and also my points about the intro section (I am saying that the 'invasion' cannot be mentioned without ALSO mentioning the 'coup' and the 'treaty', and all that should go in the history section, not in the intro). What do you think? --Son of the Tundra 11:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Adam 11:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Son of the Tundra 11:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find your latest edit rather incongruous with your previous posts. If you agree so wholeheartedly with the Turkish invasion and occupation, why would you object to mentioning them in the opening paragraph? What are you ashamed of?--Theathenae 12:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 'invasion' cannot be mentioned without ALSO mentioning the 'coup' and the 'treaty', and all that should go in the history section, not in the intro section. Adam has agreed with this. Take another look at the points made above. --Son of the Tundra 12:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It can, as this article is specifically about the "TRNC", not the Cyprus dispute in general. And the "TRNC" was a direct result of the Turkish invasion and occupation, without which it could never have existed.--Theathenae 12:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The coup and treaty should be mentioned as they are important aspects of this country's history. REX 12:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They can be mentioned but not written about at length, because that has already been done elsewhere, and certainly not editorialised about. Adam 13:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The 'invasion' cannot be understood without also mentioning the 'coup' and the 'treaty'. The three things go together. --Son of the Tundra 14:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like no one is going to leave the intro alone. So I have added some relevant information. This article should not be biased--Son of the Tundra 01:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

just want to say hi i am new to this site www.northcyprusexists.co.uk

There is clearly a concerted attempt being made by pro-Turkish (or anti-Greek) partisans to sugarcoat the Turkish invasion by using the euphemism intervention instead. It will fail.--Theathenae 18:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove that? Do you have any sources which call it an invasion? The CIA World Factbook calls it an intervention. Who calls it an invasion except anti-Turkish Greeks? Wikipedia polcicy requires the use of this name. NEXT! REX 19:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right REX, explain something to us then. If Turkey's actions in July 1974 were really an intervention that was necessary due to the 15 July coup instigated by the Greek military junta, then why didn't Turkey withdraw its forces as soon as the military governments in both Cyprus and Greece fell? What purpose was served by the raping and killing of Greek Cypriots? Why was it necessary for Turkey to take over more than 30% of the island's area, when Turkish Cypriots comprised less than 20% of the population? And once that area came under Turkish control, why weren't any Greek Cypriots allowed to return to their homes? At some point it starts sounding less like a "peace operation" and more like a conquest, with some ethnic cleansing thrown in for good measure. And then you have to call it an invasion. If you can't make up your own mind by looking at the facts and need a source to tell you what word to use, try [2] and [3] Csymeonides 19:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you get acquainted with Wikipedia policy. I quote WP:V:

• Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research.
• The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable resource, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors.
• One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher.
• It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources.

You see, it doesn't make any difference what I think. The mere fact that the CIA World Factbook calls it a millitary intervention (quote):

• 1974, a Greek-sponsored attempt to seize the government was met by military intervention from Turkey, which soon controlled more than a third of the island. In 1983, the Turkish-held area declared itself the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus," but it is recognized only by Turkey.

The CIA World Factbook is a Wikipedia:Reliable source according to Wikipedia policy. That is why their statistics are used almost on every demographics article on Wikipedia. The mere fact that they call it a military intervention proves that that phrasing can be used as opposed to the trouble-making, hate-promoting military invasion. Personally I am appalled at the behaviour of Turks, Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots in this whole affair. Genocide attempts! Disgusting! Anyway, the bottom line is that we are looking for verifiability, not truth (according to Wikipedia policy). It is not important what the editors think. NPOV remember. The brutality of both sides should be mentioned, there is no doubt about that, just Wikipedia policy is above all. REX 19:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA factbook is a reliable source on statistical matters, but it is also a US government publications and reflects US diplomatic usage. Turkey is an important NATO ally of the US (much more important than Greece), and the language used reflects a desire not to offend Turkey. The fact is that if you send your armed forces into another country without the consent of that country's government, that is an invasion. It is an invasion even if you do it with the best of intentions (eg, the Allied invasion of France in 1944). Adam 01:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! REX quotes from the CIA World Factbook; I gave references from UN and EU websites. Which do you think is more likely to be impartial and hence reliable? You have to remember that we're not discussing a statistical figure but an issue of wording. Did you follow the links I posted or did you just ignore me? More importantly, what exactly are you trying to achieve by replacing "invasion" with "intervention"? Do you think either one of those words gives a complete description of what happened? Of course not. But you have to admit that "invasion" suggests violence while "intervention" is more associated with peacekeeping. Which is closer to the facts? I think we both know.

One of the biggest problems with the Cyprus-related articles is that there is no clear division of topics. The invasion should only be discussed in the article about the invasion (and that's where you should state that some describe it as an intervention). The TRNC article should be used only to describe the TRNC. Please stop abusing this article and make your edits where they ought to be made. Csymeonides 09:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Greek (Greece) Government has declared it as "intervention" and I have posted the relevant judgment including case number in the history section. Let us not forget that Greece was heavily involved during the 1963 to 1974 war in Cyprus so if they call it an "intervention" I believe that the matter is settled and as Csymeonides suggests "stop abusing the article" and leave it at "intervention". Eric:Guest 11.50 15 October 2005

Well, "Eric:Guest" (I have to wonder if you're just REX's sockpuppet): first of all I find it hard to believe that the passage you quoted is true and accurate, because I've only been able to find it in Turkish and Turkish Cypriot websites. Secondly, we would need to see the original Greek to know if the word used was indeed the equivalent of "intervention". And finally, even if it was, so what? Since when does the Greek government, or some Greek court, get to decide what we call Turkey's military action on Wikipedia? Look at the links I posted above, which are definitely much more impartial and objective. Csymeonides 17:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone here is in Greece, I suggest that they go and buy the school book Ιστορία Γ' Λυκείου τεύχος Β'. Go to the index and go to the Τα Εθνικά Προβλήματα (or something like that, I cannot remeber well, but it is near the end) section. It is about the military intervention. That book calls it ανοικτή επέμβαση της Τουρκίας. Which means an open intervention by Turkey. You see, if Greek school books call this an intervention, and we know how propagandistic school books can be, then who would call in an invasion. Only someone who detests Turkey and wants to demonise them. REX 14:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

REX, I find it very irritating that you continue to ignore the links I posted, which clearly refer to an invasion. Or do you actually think that the UN "detests Turkey and wants to demonise it"? Csymeonides 17:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having been to both Turkey and Greece I have nothing but positive feelings for both countries, although I find petty nationalism tiresome no matter who is espousing it. That is not the point, and nor is the content of Greek schoolbooks. What is to the point is the correct usage of English words, and the accurate description of things in an encyclopaedia. As I said above, if a country sends its armed forces into another country without the consent of that country's government, that is an invasion, no matter what the circumstances, the intention or the justification. There are good invasions and bad invasions, but they are all invasions. Adam 15:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, although it's a long time since I studied Greek, I would guess that the derivation of επέμβαση is epi + en + baino, thus, "to go in upon." So it's an exact cognate of the Latin invadere, to go in upon, which is the origin of the English verb to invade. So there is hardly any semantic difference between the two words. One just sounds nicer than the other. Adam 15:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely: and why should we try and make it sound nicer? If anyone wants to argue that the invasion was in any way beneficial, they can go ahead and try. But trying to distort reality by using a different word is just pathetic. Csymeonides 17:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, you are right when you say "the point is the correct usage of English words", agreed 100%. I have to say that I cannot speak a word of Greek and have not studied Greek therefor I thought it would be best if I looked up the word "επέμβαση" and I am sorry to say that your guess that the deriviation of the same is "invation" is wrong. According to Altavista the English word for "επέμβαση" IS "INTERVENTION. So let us please use the "correct" English word and not what each individual believes it to be in his POV. Eric 18:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

A definition isn't the same as a derivation, but never mind. My main point is the political one: the use of the correct descriptive term in English. However, I have had enough of the rampant stupidity displayed by both sides at this article (as in Cyprus), so I am taking it off my watchlist. Adam 02:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Csymeonides, I arguee that it was beneficial to the Turkish Cypriots and the reality is that the "intervention" would never have been needed if there wasn't an "invation" by the Greek army in the first place. Am I correct or not? Eric 18.42, 15 October 2005

Csymeonides, I've read your links. I can't find the words military invasion. Are you sure that they exist. If so, could you please copy-paste the text here so that it will be easier for me to find. REX 17:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that you tried searching for the word "invasion" and couldn't find anything, but anyway, I'm more than happy to paste the passages here:

From [4]: "As a result of the Turkish invasion the Greek Cypriots were forcibly expelled by the invading army from the area it occupied and are now living in the Government-controlled area; almost all the Turkish Cypriots who lived in this area were forced by their leadership to move to the area occupied by Turkish troops, whereas prior to the invasion the two communities lived together in roughly the same proportion of four Greeks to one Turk in all the six administrative districts. ... The policies pursued by Turkey in the occupied area since its invasion of Cyprus constitutes the first case of ethnic cleansing in post-Second World War Europe. ... Although the blow inflicted on the economy by the Turkish invasion of 1974 was devastating ... Another series of United Nations General Assembly and Security Council resolutions condemned the invasion of Cyprus, the continuing military occupation, the colonization and the secessionist acts that followed ..."

From [5]: "whereas the impasse in the negotiations also has a negative impact on the solution of humanitarian problems such as that of the large number of Cypriot civilians, women and children among them, missing since the Turkish invasion in 1974" Csymeonides 00:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Csymeonides, I am not surprised that you cannot find any reference to what I have posted on any other website than Turkish or Turkish Websites, after all it is not something the Greeks are proud of and are trying very hard to hide. It's something like the Akritas plan which some Greeks insist that it never existed and if it did it was either the work of the Greek Communist of that era who "devised" the document to harm the then Government or it was the Turks. It is also the same as there was no war before 1974 and no Turks were killed until Turkey intervened and there was no ENOSIS and all that. Yes we know, the same old story, the Greeks were totally innocent and Turkey "invaded" for no reason what so ever. BTW, I am no ones "sockpuppet", I have no reason to hide and I post under this name in few other forums. Eric 20:55 15 October 2005

No, of course the Greeks are not innocent. But the government of Greece at the time was a military junta that fell immediately after (and as a result of) the events of 1974. The same does not apply to the government of Turkey that ordered the invasion. And since you completely ignored the questions I posted earlier, I'll try asking again: why didn't Turkey withdraw its forces as soon as the military governments in both Cyprus and Greece fell? What purpose was served by the raping and killing of Greek Cypriots? Why was it necessary for Turkey to take over more than 30% of the island's area, when Turkish Cypriots comprised less than 20% of the population? And once that area came under Turkish control, why weren't any Greek Cypriots allowed to return to their homes?

Oh and by the way, if you have "no reason to hide", then why do you sign your posts with a link to the name Eric as if it's your user page? Csymeonides 00:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I guess ypou have failed to see that the only purpose of calling it a military invasion is to paint Turkey a darker colour than she already is. Also, you do realise that there would have been an enosis if Turkey hadn't intervened. They had no choice. That extremist Makarios tried to amemd the constitution and violate the rights of the Turkish Cypriots. The UN had approved that constitution. Why did he try to change it? He caused everything. REX 20:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

REX, I have not failed to see anything and am well aware of everything that went on between 1963 and 1974 and to the present day. I know very well what ENOSIS is and that it has been in the Greeks mind since the 19th century. Some people think that ENOSIS came about during the 1950's but that is very wrong. I know very well why Turkey did what it did in 1974 and that is why I call it an INTERVENTION. I know why the Greeks insist on calling it an "invation" and even try to hide the Ruling of the Greek (Greece) court calling it an "intervention" as if it does not exist or that it was the Turks who first brought about this "rumour". ENOSIS is still THE Greeks and Greeks Cypriots dream and that is the main reason why there is and never will be a unification or a solution in Cyprus. What will happen in the future is that either it'll all stay the way it is now for a long time or the EU will get fed up with the lies of the Greeks and recognise the TRNC. The Cyprus Constitution was changed because the Greeks had ENOSIS on their minds and never intended to keep to their promises in the first place. They proved all this in Dec. 1963 when they locked the Turkish Cypriots out of the Cypriot Government and started to implement the Akritas Plan. As you can see REX, I fail to see nothing, Expatkiwi knows I fail to see nothing. I tried to put a *little* sarcasm into my last posting but it seems I failed. :-) BTW, Csymeonides believes I am your "sockpuppet". LOLEric 23.45, 15 October 2005

"Eric", the above shows that you know nothing about the political climate in Cyprus today. Enosis is just about the farthest thing from the "Greeks and Greeks Cypriots dream" (sic). What most Greek Cypriots want is a fair and viable solution. I cannot speak for all of them, but I for one would like to see a single-state solution where people of Greek and Turkish (and Armenian and whatever else) descent live together as Cypriots. Try and learn a bit more about Cyprus post-1974 and then perhaps you will understand the situation. Csymeonides 00:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Csymeonides, I am sorry but it seems to me that you are the one who either has no idea of the political climate in Cyprus or are trying to hide the truth. What you are trying to do here is to make people believe that the Greeks and Greek Cypriots have all of a sudden stopped dreaming of ENOSIS and now want to live in peace with the people they tried to genocide. If the Greeks wanted a solution they would have agreed to if not the Annan Plan at least to share the country and the Government as it was supposed to be and agreed upon in 1960. But we both know as do many others that the only thing the Greeks will agree to is a Greek administered Cyprus and the T/Cypriots a minority in their own country. The idea of everyone being a "Cypriot only" is a Greek idea because the Greeks know that the whole world believes the "Cypriots" are Greeks. By taking away the Turkish from Turkish Cypriot is assuring that it stays that way. Let us not forget that the Turks living in Greece are not allowed to call themselves Turkish, they must identify themselves as Muslim Greeks. The official stand of the Greek Government is that there are no ethnic minorities in Greece and that my friend Csymeonides is what you Greek Cypriots are trying to achieve in Cyprus. That is how you are trying to achieve your ENOSIS. If the illegal Greek Cypriot administration of the so-called "Republic of Cyprus" is recognised as the "legal" Government and the Turkish Cypriots are made second-class citizens in their own country, what's to stop the GC's from declaring their long crave for ENOSIS. You tried it by force but it turned against you and you lost. Now you are trying to achieve ENOSIS the "legal" way. This you will also loose. Even if it's not for the sake of the Turkish Cypriots Turkey cannot afford to lose a foothold in Cyprus for strategical reason. Turkey will never recognise the Greek Government unles the TRNC is also recognised or at least the embargoes are lifted. I am certain that Turkey would rather turn away from it's EU ambitions the get out of Cyprus. I think you know this, don't you? Eric 02.57, 16 October 2005

Wow. I'd really like to know who it was that brainwashed you into believing all of that BS. Where do you get off telling me, a Greek Cypriot, what it is that Greek Cypriots want to happen in Cyprus??? Where do you get off calling the government of the Republic of Cyprus "illegal"??? Have you ever even lived in Cyprus? I lived there for 21 years! And you claim to have a better understanding of the political climate? Let me try and explain this one more time: Greek Cypriots don't want enosis anymore. Your perspective is so biased and uninformed, the only response I can give you is: stop wasting our time until you know what you're talking about.

By the way, I find it very interesting that you admit that "Turkey cannot afford to lose a foothold in Cyprus for strategical reason". Doesn't quite fit with your whole argument of 1974 being an "intervention" with the sole purpose of protecting the Turkish Cypriots, does it?

As for the Anan plan, this is neither the time nor place to discuss it. Just consider that the plan gave Greece, Turkey and the UK the same "guarantor power" rights that the 1960 constitution did. That worked great for Cyprus, didn't it? And consider whether you would want to live in a country where an ethnic minority comprising 20% of the population gets 50% representation in government. Sound fair to you?

Oh and in case you missed the hundreds of times the word was used above, "invasion" is spelled with an "s". Can you understand that at least? Csymeonides 02:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OH MY GOD! I made a spelling mistake WOW, how dare I?!!! and you revel on that, good for you, well done. Stop being so childish. You sound a little upset finding out I know more about Cyprus than you would like me to. Where do I get off telling you what the Greek Cypriots want? Where do I get off calling the “government” of so-called “Republic of Cyprus” illegal? Well, let me tell you, since the day your granddad and his friends tried to kill me and genocide the rest of the Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus. If anyone is brainwashed it is you who was born after the 1974 “INTERVENTION” and has no personal experience of what it was like in those days and has no idea what it’s like to be isolated from the rest of the world for being just Turkish. You were brought up by your parents and school to believe it to be an invasion (see, spelling with ‘s’, happy now?) I lived through it and know the difference. The “invasion” that took place was by Greece TWICE, once in 1963 to start the war for ENOSIS and the second time in 1974 by the Kollonellos. They were the real invasions, specially in1963 when there was no war and absolutely no need. But Greece, a supposed guarantor for Cyprus, decided to genocide the Turkish Cypriots because of it’s (Greece’s) expansionism policy and “invaded” TWICE. Turkey INTERVENED not the first time in 1963 but 11 years later to stop the SECOND INVASION by Greece and the genocide of the Turkish Cypriots. So who are you to tell ME what is an INVASION and what is an INTERVENTION? Who are you to tell ME that I have been brainwashed whereas YOU are the one who knows the history between 1963 and 1974 not by personal experience but by second hand stories. So stop wasting our time until you know what you are talking about. Had not the Greeks and Greek Cypriots tried to genocide the Turkish Cypriots, had Greece not INVADED Cyprus (not once but twice) Turkey would never have had the need to get a foothold in Cyprus. It would have felt safe enough if Cyprus stayed an Independent Country as was agreed and even signed by the Greek Cypriots as well as Greece. Read some non-biased history written by non-Cypriots and come back and talk to me when you have learned what you are talking about. In the mean time I suggest we leave the TRNC page alone and keep it at INTERVENTION. Otherwise we’ll be changing it back and forth dozens times each and every day. BTW, when an agreement is signed it is expected that both parties keep to it. Where does it in the 1960 agreement say that the Greeks own the island by them selves and are allowed to genocide their partners if they are not willing to do as they are ordered. Do you know what it means to sign an agreement? Eric 04.20, 16 October 2005

I apologise for going off on you about a spelling error - that was petty of me. I think emotions were running very high last night, and we have to try to cool down and have a meaningful discussion.

You may have lived in Cyprus in the 60s and 70s, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you understand the political climate of today; a lot has changed. I can understand why Turkish Cypriots are wary of the Greek Cypriots and vice versa, but we have to learn how to trust each other and share this tiny island.

And I'm sure you realise that my "grandad and his friends", like most Greek Cypriots, didn't try to kill anyone. It was a minority of Greek Cypriots that committed the atrocities you refer to. They were fascist, bigoted, deranged fools, and they are as much to blame as anyone else for what followed.

As for Greece, I agree with you: it completely abused its guarantor powers, and its influence in Cyprus has been as detrimental as Turkey's and the UK's. This is why I advocate a solution with no guarantors: the UN should be the only force responsible for peacekeeping in Cyprus (of course they'll have to actually do their job).

I can only imagine what it was like for you to have lived under those conditions. I would never downplay the magnitude of the suffering that you and other Turkish Cypriots went through. Perhaps I shouldn't expect you to see things the same way when it comes to 1974, because you were so directly affected, but I think that changing "invasion" to "intervention" would be a distortion of the facts. Mistakes were made, and horrible crimes were committed, by both sides of this issue. I'm willing to admit that, and so should you. The fact that you know what happened in Cyprus in those years from first-hand experience means that you have a lot to offer to Wikipedia, but it also means that it's harder for you to be objective and unbiased. Csymeonides 10:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just leave both "invasion" and "intervention" out, and use "operation Attila" with a link instead? I personaly believe it is a very clear case of invasion, but it seems it's hard to come to consesus on the issue, so why don't we just let the reader form its own oppinion? Peter 19:00, 16 Oktober 2005 (UTC)

That could be a good idea, but I'm not sure if the text would still make sense if you replace all occurences of invasion/intervention with "operation Attila". We would have to look into it. Csymeonides 05:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Csymeonides, thank you and apology accepted. My emotions were also running high because in 4 years on the Internet arguing with Greeks and Greek Cypriots I am yet again being accused of being a “sockpuppet”, some one who has no idea about the Cyprus problem and that I am not even a Turkish Cypriot. And even though you apologised you are still assuming that I have no idea about todays political climate in Cyprus. Can you imagine what it would have been like if instead of having this argument on the Internet we were arguing person to person somewhere on the street? Do you realise that we are at each others throats over about what word to use to describe Turkey’s actions? I hate to think what would happen if fanatics from both communities meet and start arguing. Do you now realise that we are not yet ready to live together?

I do hate to think what would happen if fanatics meet and start arguing. But I'm not a fanatic and I trust that you aren't either. Why should we let them decide the future of Cyprus? Living together might not be easy at first, but I think it's worth the effort. Csymeonides 05:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. so you admit that Greece abused it's guarantor powers but even so you have failed to call it an invasion but you demand that Turkey’s action was and should be called an invasion. I am afraid that we are stuck here and we will not agree on using one or the other word. We need to find a different word or way of explaining Turkey’s action. Maybe if we let not-GC’s/Greeks or non-TC’s/Turks make some suggestions we may find a way that is acceptable to both sides. Peter suggested “operation Attila”. I will reply to Peter about his suggestion. What do you say?

Re:Greece, without suggesting that what they did was in any way acceptable, I don't think that it would be accurate to describe it as an "invasion". It was definitely a mistake to allow Greek troops in Cyprus, and it was criminal of them to be accessories to murder and genocide attempts. But Greece never took over a section of Cyprus and declared a new state there. Csymeonides 05:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I do not agree that we should not have any guarantors. We Turkish Cypriots do not trust anyone any more apart from Turkey to protect us. The explanaition for this is very simple. Between 1963 and 1974, we were subjected to genocide by one guarantor power, the other one (GB) didn’t lift a finger to stop the attrocities and the UN folded their hands and watched while the killing went on. The EU even rewarded the GC’s for their OXI vote and allowed them to enter the block. The Turkish Cypriots for their YES vote for peace were told to get lost and none of the promises made by the EU have been kept. Nope, we do not trust them and we do not trust the Greek Cypriots to give us any protection.

I think that your statement that you trust no-one but Turkey is very telling. Don't you see that this is the problem? We have to trust the international community to not turn a blind eye when something goes wrong. And you have to trust me when I tell you that the Greek Cypriots (or at least the vast majority) no longer dream of enosis and getting rid of all Turkish Cypriots.

As for the EU etc., I was never sure why anyone thought that the TC's yes-vote should have been "rewarded". Of course you voted yes: the plan gave you everything you asked for! The GCs voted no because even our minimum, most essential concerns were not addressed. And how come you've been demanding recognition for 20-odd years as a separate country, but just when the EU is about to accept Cyprus you suddenly decide you want to be part of it? Did the TRNC take part in the EU accession talks? Did it do anything to fulfil any criteria? No, so why should it join the EU? I'm sure you understand that when Cyprus joined the EU, it wasn't a reward for the "no"; the referendum simply came at the same time because the UN and EU were desperate to find a solution before the joining date. And that's another reason why the plan they came up with was full of problems, loopholes and injustices.

By the way, we've veered completely off the subject. And to be honest, after all of this, an issue of which word to use just seems stupid. Csymeonides 05:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never denied that crimes were committed by both sides but I do insist that it was all because of the Greeks and Greek Cypriots dream for ENOSIS. You may arguee like other Greeks that Turkey would have “invaded” anyway but the reality is that this could never be proven.

BTW, anything I say or provide anywhere on the Internet is always supported by unbiased proofs with links to non-TC/Turkish web sites or as with the Greek court ruling with case number. Eric 02:45, 17 October 2005

Peter, thanks for your suggestion. What do you suggest the explanation should be for “operation Attila” in the link? Eric 03.05, 17 October 2005

Csymeonides, you are right, we may need to do a little more editing than just replacing the phrase if we adopt the change, but nothin major.

Eric, my sudgestion would be that the link should stick to the facts. More in specific, I think it should have information about the military aspect of the operation. ie the article could start with something like "the term operation Attila refers to a series of offensives by Turkey at the north part of the island of Cyprus in 1974..."

There could be a short paragraph about the events that lead Turkey to take action, as well another one with information about the situation created after the operation, but the terms invasion, intervention, peace operation etc should be avoided. There could probably be a link to the Cyprus Dispute article for more details. Peter 09:05, 17 Oktober 2005 (UTC)

I think this might be the best solution. Let's just call it Operation Attila here and work on that article instead. We can continue this debate there if necessary. Csymeonides 11:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Greeks attact first I would prefer “the term operation Attila refers to a series of defensives by Turkey at the north part of the island of Cyprus in 1974..." but I know this would not be accepted by pro-Greeks. Anyway, it would not be historically right to call it “operation Attila”. I don't have much time to explain it right now but do a search in WIKIPEDIA or anywhere else and you'll know why we cannot use “operation Attila”. [Eric] 19.20, 17 October 2005

It is not a matter of being pro-Greek or pro-Turkish. Calling it a defensive would be wrong from a military point, since the Turkish army landed new troops on the island, even if this was in response to a Greek offensive. In order to be a defensive, the Turkish troops should have already been on the island, and should just be defending their position. In fact, not only this did not happen, but the Turkish army advanced its position quite a bit. This would have been the case even if they were regaining lost territory, which anyway I don’t think is the case here.

With regard to “operation Attila”, I am not a sticker about the name, we can try and find something else neutral, I am open to suggestions. I’m not sure however where your objection is. It is the code name that the Turkish army used for the operation, not something I came up with. If you are referring to the Nazi operation with the same name, it is totally irrelevant, and can easily be dissolved with a disambiguation page. Unless you suggest that there is some kind of connection between the two, which I don't think you are. Peter 23:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Peter, in all this aren't we are forgetting that the Turkish Cypriots lost so much and were defending themselves and were cornered in only 3% of the island? So in every sense of the word they were defending and regained lost territory albeit with the help of the Turkish Army. This is why I and others insist that it was an intervention and not an invasion. Let us also not forget that there was already an invasion underway by Greece, so the question is when someone invades your home can your counter attact with the help of your friends also be described as an invasion? Having said that how about "Turkey launched a counter attack to help the Turkish Cypriots defend themselves from the attacking combined armed forces of Greek Cypriots and Greek Army (from Greece) and divided the island to stop any further bloodshed and ENOSIS"? Please note that I have not used "invasion" or "intervention" to describe the actions of either side.

I like the idea of describing it as a counter attack, I think we should try and work more on this direction. My objection comes to the rest of the sentence, in that it can very easily be characterized as PoV. I am quite sure that the other side will immediately argue that the Turkish army did a lot more than just defending Turk-Cypriots, and here we go all over again (there is no point reproducing all the possible arguments about the displaced Greek-Cypriots and the total area of control before and after the operation). I believe that we should try to find a more neutral way of describing the facts (this goes for both sides). Peter 3:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That's right, I would definitely call it POV. "Counter attack" does seem like a reasonably neutral term to use, but if we're talking about the first sentence in the article, then it could be even simpler. How about something like this:

Operation Attila was the codename for the military operation launched by Turkey on 20 July 1974 at the north coast of Cyprus, and one of the key events in the Cyprus dispute.

This should be followed by a chronological account of the events, probably starting with the 15 July coup, describing the actions of each side without any mention of motives and intentions. Then we can have different sections for the different perspectives. For example, one section should mention that Turkish Cypriots feared persecution and/or genocide because of the coup, and welcomed the arrival of Turkish troops. It should also mention that Turkey has always claimed that it was necessary to intervene in Cyprus unilaterally because the other guarantor powers refused to do so. Then there should be another section expressing the Greek Cypriot doubts about Turkey's intentions and the objections to the partition of Cyprus and the continuing occupation by Turkish troops. Mention should be made of the UN resolutions, the declaration of the TRNC, and the present situation. If we can get some statistics about the casualties, displacements etc. that are considered objective, they should be included. Does everyone agree that this sounds like a good way to proceed? Csymeonides 10:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I said that we cannot use the term "operation Attila" is so as not to confuse the readers with the same named Nazi operation which of course as you know was the ocupation of France. Using this term also means another disambiguation page as you mentioned and I am wondering if we are not forcing the readers to jump from page to page and from explanation to explanation. I know from personal experience that people loose interest if they have to visit page after page trying to understand something that could be explained in a few sentences. [Eric] 01.40, 18 October 2005

I see no problem with the disambiguation page, since this article can link directly to the Operation Attila (Cyprus) article. The disambiguation page can be there for whoever searches wikipedia for “operation Attila”. In fact, I believe it is wrong for such a page not to exist, since whether we like it or not it is an official term. Linking Operation Attila only with the Nazi operation is like hiding information. Now, whether the term should be used in the TRNC article is a whole different issue. As I said, I’m open to suggestions, although I do believe that there should at least be some kind of reference to the term one way or the other. Peter 3:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Let's not complicate this matter even further. "Operation Attila" was the codename used by Turkey, and that's a fact. It also seems to be the most NPOV way of referring to this event from this and other related articles. Then we can go to work on the Operation Attila article and we'll have more space to present all the different points of view. Csymeonides 10:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we seem to be getting somewhere now. We agree to describe Turkeys action as “counter attack”. I am also not really dead against a disambiguation page on “operation Attila. BTW, in case you didn't know, a page for Operation Attila already exists and someone has already added information about Turkey’s “operation Attila” below that of same named Nazi operation. So can someone rewrite the existing paragraph and post it here so that we can maybe agree on it? Eric 18:20, 18 October 2005

The word "invasion" is purelly imotive to me as a Turkish Cypriot and can only be viewed as POV from a Greek perspective. The word intervention is neutral and must be accepted.Bornagain 29 October 2005

I have been reprimanded a few times for using words that have too much of a 'tilt' towards a biast POV. Operation Atilla is regarded by the Greek Cypriots as an invasion, while the Turkish Cypriots refer to it as a peace operation. While I would prefer to use the latter phrase, I chose 'Intervention' as a neutralist term to avoid POV charges. The 1989 USSR invasion of Afghanistan is more popularly known as an intervention, so why blast my useage of the word in this case? Expatkiwi 23:03, 15 October 2005 (URC)

Intervention can be used because the CIA World Factbook. I have never seen a source calling it an invasion. According to Wikipedia policy the the word intervention should be used. Unless of course we have another source calling it an invasion. REX 21:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention can definitely be used because the Greek (Greece) Court Ruled it was Legal and described it as Intervention. The CIA World Factbook, Greek Courts call it INTERVENTION and the Wikipedia policy states that INTERVENTION should be used so I think the problem is solved and the case should be closed. Eric 23.57, 15 October 2005

Case most certainly not closed. See quoted passages above. UN is more impartial and reliable than CIA. Hard to argue against that. Let's discuss the nature of Turkey's military action in an article dedicated to that specific aspect of history, and in all other articles refer to it as an invasion. Stop the abuse, stop the editing wars. Csymeonides 00:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's stop the abuse and discuss the nature of Turkey's military action in an artikle dedicated to that specific aspect of history and in all other artikles refer to it as an intervention. No, I am not being a parrot, I am repeating your words in agreement but a slight change. If you can convince me that it was a "invasion" then I will stop the editing. But I do warn you that I have a vast knowledge of what happened in Cyprus during 1963 and 74 and also am very clued up on the current issues and interests of the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots. Eric 02.30, 16 October 2005

I have had enough of the rampant stupidity displayed by both sides at this article (as indeed in Cyprus), so I am taking it off my watchlist. Khairete and elveda to you all. Adam 02:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Csymeonides, why do you believe that the UN and the EU are likely to be neutral? Both these organisations officially recognise the Republic of Cyprus and officially maintain that the TRNC doesn't exist. Doesn't that suggest a bias in favour of the Greek Cypriot state to you? I think it does. The Republic of Cyprus is a member of both these organisations and naturally their POV will be present in all their reports. However, the CIA is an agency of the United States. The Republic of Cyprus is not one of these States and neither is the TRNC. The American government officially recognises the Republic of Cyprus and not the TRNC, so we can assume that the Americans are more supportive of the Greek Cypriot side. There is no official evidence that the USA perefer Turkey to the Republic of Cyprus or Greece. And yet, they call it an intervention!!! So we can assume that rightousness prevailed in the minds of the authors of the World Factbook and for at least once in their lives were neutral (like the authors of Greek school books). So naturally, we can assume that the case is closed and that we will use the word intervention. NEXT! REX 10:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the EU, let's focus on the UN. Do you really believe that we should consider the views of the CIA, an intelligence agency of a particular country (one that has a reputation for distorting the truth, to boot) to be more objective than those of an international organisation with 191 member states? That just doesn't sound sensible. And although I imagine you'll consider what I'm about to say ridiculous, there have been serious claims about the CIA's involvement in the events of 1974 (both the coup and the invasion). [6] may be part of a Greek Cypriot website, but you have to admit that the evidence shown there is interesting to say the least. After all, it was no secret that Makarios and the USA never got along with each other (they called him the "Red priest") and the USA has always seen Turkey as an important ally. So how can we expect them to be objective about this? Csymeonides 13:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove what you are saying with reliable and neutral sources? The UN is biased. If they weren't, thet would have recognised this country. The Republic of Cyprus is a member of the UN and therefore their POV influences them. REX 13:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course the Republic of Cyprus is a member of the UN. So is Turkey, the USA and almost 200 other countries. Suggesting that the UN is biased because of one of its members is ludicrous. Csymeonides 05:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! There is no way around this. What I am saying is that the UN is more sympathetic to the Greek Cypriot POV, hence the admission and recognision of ONLY their state. Why do you think that the Turkish Cypriot state has not been recognised? Out of love for them? REX 08:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I think Peter's suggestion is the best solution. But I think that when the UN issued resolutions and declared that the TRNC would not be recognised, they made their reasons very clear. Turkey's responsibility as a guarantor was to preserve Cyprus' constitution and protect its citizens. Even if we are to accept that the sole purpose of Operation Attila was to intervene in order to protect the Turkish Cypriots from the effects of the military coup, you cannot deny that all the violence and devastation was wrong, and that the guarantor powers were never given the right to partition the island. The occupation of the north of Cyprus by Turkish troops was supposed to be a temporary situation, but then they suddenly decided to declare a new state there. How could you expect the UN to recognise and legitimise this? And when you say "hence the admission and recognision of ONLY their state", it's as if there was a choice between 2 states, while the reality is that the UN has always recognised a single unified Republic of Cyprus: not a Greek Cypriot state, nor a Turkish Cypriot state.

And I still find it quite bizarre that you actually believe the CIA is more objective and unbiased than the UN. Csymeonides 11:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I also think that Peter's views aren't to bad. I'm not opposing them. Also, I am not saying that the CIA is less POV than the UN. I'm saying that we cannot expect the UN to be truly NPOV if they favour one side more than the other. The attitude of the Turks was terrible, no one can deny that, but no one can say that under the one of the most well-known principles of International law (the right to self-determination), the Turkish Cypriots as a nation on their own right do not have the right to determine their right to a state with or without external assistance. How did Greece achieve independence? With external assistance of course (see Battle of Navarino for an isolated example). Any nation (including the Turkish Cypriots) on earth has the right to a state, something which the UN are conveniently ignoring. REX 11:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you would define "nation", but I think that you can either look at all Cypriots as comprising a single nation (after all, my passport says "Cypriot", not "Greek Cypriot"), or you can say that, because of their ethnic background, Turkish Cypriots belong to the broader Turkish nation and Greek Cypriots belong to the broader Greek nation. But to say that Turkish Cypriots are a "nation on their own right"... I don't think that's accurate.

As for self-determination, of course it's an essential right, but the TRNC clearly crosses the line. It extends to more than 30% of the island's area while the TCs comprise less than 20% of the population. It doesn't even include all the areas in which TCs have historically lived. Its creation was a result of war, violence, and forced displacement of civilians, not diplomatic negotiation and agreement between communities. Imagine if the Kurdish population in Turkey got up one day, took over the Eastern one-third of the country (killing or removing every single person there) and declared a new Kurdish state. Would you expect the UN to recognise it? Of course not. And remember that the Kurds are in fact a quite separate nation that has been fighting for self-determination for ages. Csymeonides 12:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the UN are conveniently ignoring a state for the Turkish Cypriots, then what do they consider the 15 million Kurds of Turkey?--Kakonator 11:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the UN recognised the State of Israel once that was established, and we know their treatment of the existing people there was, so why wouldn't they recognise the proposed Kurdish state? Why aren't they recognising the TRNC? Double standards? And even if the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots are indeed subsets of larger nations, then Cyprus (as the UN originally would have intended) would have been a multinational state, like Belgium is today with French-speaking and Dutch-speaking populations on equal terms, despite a French speaking majority. Or like Switzerland which has French, German and Italian speaking populations with the overwhelming majority being German speakers. All these people in these countries are on equal terms, like what was intended in Cyprus by the UN backed constitution. However, when Makarios III decided to amend the new Cypriot constitution in favour of the Greek Cypriots, then we have a case of discrimination against the Turkish Cypriots. Their right to self-determination was exercised and they invited the Turks (who may or may not be the same nation, that is irrelevant) to assist them in establishing a state of their own so that they would not be subject to a Greek controlled state. It is not unreasonable. I am not applauding the behaviour of the Turks though; there could have been a peaceful intervention. I don't know why they did it; I am suspecting that they feared the enosis taking place. REX 13:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's talk Switzerland: "the 200 members of the National Council are elected directly under a system of proportional representation". Why don't you go and check out Makarios' proposals to amend the constitution and see if you can actually argue that they go against the principles of proportional representation. It always surprises me how people paint a picture of Makarios as an extremist obsessed with the idea of enosis, when it was him that the Greek military junta and EOKA-B wanted to overthrow, because he had given up on the idea of enosis! Csymeonides 15:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To make my point clearer: if you're going to argue that Operation Attila was about the Turkish Cypriots exercising self-determination with the help of Turkey, then you have to explain why they did it, and why it happened in 1974. You can't blame it on Makarios and at the same time blame it on the coup against Makarios. It's one or the other. And it's the latter that makes the most sense, because the coup established (if only briefly) an extreme-right-wing government with a chief aim of achieving enosis. Csymeonides 15:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Turkey intervene/invade? Because Turkish Cypriots were persecuted for over a decade - the mass graves still exist today. Certainly a lot of the Turkish Cypriot deaths happened with the knowledge of Makarios, and i'm sure he was aware of 20,000 mainland Greek soldiers infiltrated on his island and used against Turkish Cypriots. --A.Garnet 18:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to get into a discussion about Makarios, because there is a lot that can be said about him, both good and bad, but it's not what we're here to resolve. As for the Greek soldiers, all I can say is that allowing the presence of foreign troops in Cyprus (be they Greek, Turkish or British) was a huge mistake from the very beginning and has always led to tension and violence. Csymeonides 10:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the only reason for which Turkey intervened/invaded, they also invaded because they know that the Greek government was planning to intervene/invade as well. To this day, the Greeks are bitter over the fact that Turkey beat them to it (annexing whole or part of Cyprus). REX 18:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. What you seem to be forgetting is that the Greek government you refer to was a military junta. Nothing to do with the democratic Greek government of today. And once again you seem to be contradicting yourself. Did Turkey intervene to secure the rights of the Turkish Cypriots, or did they invade to "beat Greece to it" and be the ones to take over Cyprus for themselves? There's a big difference there, and that's why we've been discussing the terms invasion and intervention. But since we seem to be arriving at a compromise on the other thread, let's just drop this and get back to the real issue: sorting out this particular article. Csymeonides 10:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found that Makarios's amending the constitution provoked reaction from the Turkish Cypriots, but Turkey (officially at least) didn't do anything and that failed coup against Makarios is what caused Turkey to invade/intervene. They were probably thinking "what are those Greeks doing, they don't play fair. If they can cheat, so can we!!!" Anyway, that compromise seems perfectly acceptable and NPOV, it'll do nicely. REX 12:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the article for now. Please find a way to discuss the issues at hand in a civil manner, and negotiate a way forward that both sides can live with. I would remind editors about No personal attacks, and staying cool when editing. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Things have gone a bit quiet over the past couple of days. I'll unprotect in the hope that feelings have subsided a bit and all are willing to work together. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make sense only to me, that you can intervene only by invading? I would of hoped that the fanatics would have figured that out by now and mention whatever word is appropriate for that sentence. But of course not. It's only one way or the other. Never compromise for the middle which is what is FACTUALLY correct. Does anyone agree so we can put this issue to rest?

I just wanted to ask if you think its an invasion when someone asks you to come and intervene.Best regards, Bornagain

What I think doesn't matter here. Nor should what you think. Stick to factual accuracy. It's an intervention by invasion, no doubt about it. Whether it was legit or not is what I think you want me to say. I'll pass in order not to get embroiled in a perspective war. I do find it inappropriate though that someone would go make a seperate article of the military coup in Cyprus in order to have control over the way it is edited instead of adding/editing information in the article that already exists. --Kakonator 17:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it’s just lost in translation. In my English to Turkish dictionary, the description of the word “invasion”, includes; Saldiris=Aggressor. The aggressors’ were the Greek terrorists’ who, as history shows, terrorised both communities. The “intervention” came and went and the forces there are now “protectors” of the TRNC as requested by the TRNC government. Legality cannot come into this unless the TRNC are recognised in the courts. I am not trying to be contentious, just stating some facts. I too am fed up with this argument but as the translation states fact in English and fact in Turkish does not agree. As this is about the TRNC should it not follow Turkish wording that is far less emotive for them? I don’t believe there is a definitive answer to this problem and maybe we should look into a moral settlement. Best regards Bornagain

I understand that the word invasion is seen by many as negative, portraying Turkey as an agressor. But to intervene/invade, you can not militarily do so without agression. According to the Operation Attila page, it was a military operation. If their was no agression, how would you expect Turkey to land her troops on Cyprus? --Kakonator

How about “aggressively intervened” I don’t think either side can argue about that.

Best regards Bornagain

I don't think that really works... It sounds like avoiding one word by using many others to describe that action. I don't find it that big of a deal for someone to rewrite the history section to include both terms. I mean it's one paragraph that's causing all this problem.

Using her right to intervene, the TRNC was established after the 1974 Turkish invasion and subsequent partition of Cyprus, which followed a military coup in Cyprus against the government of Archbishop Makarios, led by Greek nationalist Cypriots and backed by the then military régime in Greece.

The sentence is long as is and should be condensed, but why can't any of you agree on something as simple as that. --Kakonator 00:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Greek-observer, please stop adding those twenty-something images to the article. Most of them don't serve any encyclopedic purpose, and there are simply too many; the article has enough images currently. If you want, you can add two or three in appropriate places, but certainly not that many; it'd result in a layout and loading time nightmare. Cheers! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever the hell put those pictures up on the TRNC site, KNOCK IT OFF! If you must put them on Wikipedia, then put them on the CYPRUS DISPUTE page! Expatkiwi

From a Paul to a Pavlos can you please stop stuffing in Greek Cypriot POV (and yes it is POV they way you wrote it). PMA 22:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would dearly love to kill a disgusting mongolian, non white animal also known as a Turk. It would please me greatly to see him suffer and see his as his thick non-white neck broke and squinty mongolian eyes popped as i pushed his head into the fire. The death of Turks is a great thing.