Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Rfcjuly2010oldcomments

Earliest discussion

Prior to 2009 (from Archive 1)

Neutrality

to provide neutrality of this page the term "intervention" must be used instead of "invasion".--Hattusili 22:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality is achieved if the views of the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights prevail. Thus, since they term it an 'invasion', it must be referred to as an invasion. Well, one way or another, a masacre of thousands of people and the confiscation of their private property can only be seen an a bloody, barbaric invasion and not merely an 'intervention'.

Ps. Since I have studied the Constitution of 1960 and I have also read law, I can assurre you that there was nothing 'legal' in the barbaric invasion of 1974. If someone disagrees I am willing to explain to him why he is wrong.

The use of the word barbaric clearly demonstrates that your views are not impartial so i am unsure how you can contribute appropriately to a factual piece. ________________________

Ok, as far as I see, you are calling this intervention "barbaric" mostly depending on your prejudices like seeing everything that has something to do with Turkish people as "barbaric". However, you need to research a little bit harder though to get the facts: here you go:

"With the decision taken by the Supreme Court of Athens on March 21st, 1979, The Turkish intervention was approved to be "legal" according to the fourth article of the Treaty of Guarantee. Besides, The Council of Europe accepted that the Turkish intervention was right and on fair grounds with the article numbered "873" which was taken on July 29th, 1974."

Therefore, those articles approved suggest that what happened in the island was not an "invasion", but an "intervention", which had to be carried away. And we should not forget one thing; there were lots of casulties on both sides; who attacked first with hate, anger, and with the feeling of revenge? --E138257 01:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

--- Hatutilisi You are a propagandist Greek Cypriot. "Barbaric Invasion"? Greek Cypriots killing Turkish Cypriots was barbaric, not a peace keeping operation by Turkey as the Gauranteer of Cyprus. The article has now been fixed a bit to provide a more neutral approach, telling people that there is TWO SIDES TO THIS STORY NOT ONE as this article suggests. YOU CANNOT SAY ONE SIDE IS 100% RIGHT without doing research. And whoever made this article, is a stupid propagandist, that links to Propaganda sites that support THEIR view. Arsenic99 01:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Invasion?

From [1]:

"In July 1974, the military junta in Athens sponsored a coup led by extremist Greek Cypriots against the government of President Makarios, citing his alleged pro-communist leanings and his perceived abandonment of enosis. Turkey, citing the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, intervened militarily to protect Turkish Cypriots."

I see it referred to as an invasion in all related articles. If the US government agrees that it was an intervention, doesn't that raise a flag?

---An intervention may imply requested and even welcome help or it may imply interference that is not appreciated or even unwanted. An invasion always has and always will refer to an intrusive form of interference/intervention, occasionally mixed with connotations regarding the interventor's personal benefits. So, I suppose the most suitable word for what Turkey did really depends on how one views the entire thing. Personally, given the fact that my I know someone who was right there when the Turks attempted to come ashore and were repeatedly pushed back, I would say the Turkish intervention/invasion was not quite welcome by the islanders. But that's just me and I am Greek Cypriot so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.209.66.41 (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL

While reading this article I clicked on the Turkish interwiki link, and look what I found! The article is entitled the "Cyprus Peace Operation" (LOL) and the combatants are supposedly Turkey vs Greece and the "Greek Sector of Southern Cyprus" (büyük LOL).Thulium 14:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that wording offensive to those more colourful Turkish Wikipedians who think there should be no "Greek" sector on Cyprus at all? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As much as your an expert on what Turkish people "think", how is this discussion relevant to the article? If any of you want to provide some of your in depth and expert analysis on Turkish affairs there are plenty of forums out there for you. --A.Garnet 19:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the whole world saw it as a conflict between Turkey and Greece, couldn't find the cover of that old TIME magazine on Wikipedia, it depicts the Cyprus issue as a war between both countries. Since everybody is sharing their opinions about the other party, I think Greeks consider Cyprus a humiliating defeat, that's why trying to avoid the use of their name in the conflict, instead on the combatants we see "Greek military junta", as if they are invaders from Mars and have nothing to do with Greece. Plus we see Cyprus next to the Greek junta, as if whole Cyprus fought against Turkey, as if Cyprus consists of only Greeks. Cheers. Sen LOL'lamaya devam et, kuzeyde dalgalanan Türk bayrağı.--Doktor Gonzo 14:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference being of course that the junta was not representative of the Greek people, having usurped power in a CIA-inspired military coup, and its actions have been and continue to be roundly condemned in Greece since the metapolitefsi. On the other hand, most Turks enthusiastically endorse their government's thuggery on Cyprus from 1974 to the present day. Until such attitudes begin to change, the Cyprus problem will continue to fester. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, not Martians, CIA men. Whether junta or a democratically elected party, it is still Greece, pal. You don't see the Argentinian military junta as the combatant in the Falklands War infobox, you see Argentina. What about Cyprus as the combatant at the side of the junta? Still the "Cyprus is Greek" thingy? Of course we were and still are behind the Turkish intervention in Cyprus, you don't get it.--Doktor Gonzo 18:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not your pal, matey. As soon as the junta collapsed, Karamanlis decided against pursuing an armed confrontation with Turkey, so your claim that there was a war between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus is disingenuous. As for your second point, Turkey invaded and occupied sovereign territory of the Republic of Cyprus. Whatever you happen to think about the "Greek Régime of Southern Cyprus" is irrelevant, frankly. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you prefer matey to pal? That old British influence coming out again. Greece didn't intervene in Cyprus not because she didn't want to but because she couldn't. Greek army couldn't even fly an aircraft over the island because of the distance. And after seeing Greeks still today claiming Cyprus Greek and all this hostility, I more strongly believe the intervention was one of the most correct decisions Turkey took in the last couple of decades. --Doktor Gonzo 10:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Do as I say, not as I do"; the eternal principle. Turks condemn the evils of the Megali Idea, but when they follow similar expansionist policies, it's OK. Greeks have long shaken off such ways of thinking (the border with Albania has been recognized at last); when will Turkey recognize the sovereignty of Cyprus? BTW Gonzo, Türklerin sorunlari Kibris ancak degildir; enflasion, Kürtler, Ege sorunu ve tabii Avrupa Birliginin istemleri daha önemli sorunlardir. Merak etiyor musun?--Domitius 16:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Turkey does not have expansionist policies. Cyprus was first and foremost a security issue to Turkey, not part of an ideological drive to expand. Just as Greece was willing to undermine the integrity of Cyprus and so threaten Turkey's southern flank, so too was Turkey willing to employ the same tactics in defending its own security. However, inlike Greece who has gone through five phases of expansion (seven if you count Smyrna and Cyprus attempt) since its creation, Turkey was founded on a policy of strictly abandoning its Ottoman past. --A.Garnet 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Domitius, it is open to discussion who has the expansionist goals in this geography. Turks feel the same kind of threat from its neighbours. Turkish Republic was built in accordance to the Kuvayi Milliye haritası/map, it is clear what Turkish forces were fighting for since day one, nothing is secret. I don't consider the intervention in Cyprus an expansionist move, and frankly no Turk I know of does. Once in a while, just like in Greece, there are some less intelligent who shout "We will take them all" but I assure you, since the foundation of the Republic, none of them has come to power in this country, especially not in the military. For the Turkish part: Valla Türkiyenin sorunları o kadar çokki, Yunanistan'ın bilet alıp sıraya girmesi lazım.--Doktor Gonzo 19:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So Turks do not consider the invasion of Cyprus the implementation of expansionist designs against a sovereign state? To me that situation with the Megali Idea are identical, the aim is the same: to liberate people of the same nation and to unite them with the nation state. That still is expansionism, whatever the ethnic composition of the coveted territories and whatever people in Turkey or Greece choose to call it.--Domitius 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course they don't. According to the Turkish mentality, it isn't expansionism when it's directed against former Ottoman territories, as these lands rightfully belong to them and/or were wrongfully taken away from them in the first place. Hence the persistent Turkish violations in the Aegean and the absurd concept of "grey zones", and the recent kerfuffle over the "Turkish Republic of Western Thrace" garbage on the Turkish education ministry website. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, the Aegean is a strategic concern, not part of an expansionist policy. Turkey's only interest is in keep the Aegean open to its fleet. If it was about expansion, then those islands would have been flying a Turkish flag long ago. --A.Garnet 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How very kind of you. Again, your rants are indicative of your true loyalties, which certainly aren't to Cyprus. Keep up the good work. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's drop the trivialities and talk about some serious stuff: who is going to win on Saturday? Baristarim 01:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We all know the answer to that. This is all part of the build-up. ;) ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As usual Kekrops I am basing my observations on studied facts, and you are basing yours on rhetoric. I happen to study Turkish foreign policy, these are not rants, but observations based on traditional state interests. If Turkey is a neo-imperialist state, which according to you is proved by its position in the Aegean, then why has it not annexed a single Aegean island? Now who is the one ranting? --A.Garnet 01:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Turkey is not as omnipotent as you think. The reason that it has not annexed a single Aegean island is because it simply cannot. It has however tested the waters several times, most notably during the Imia incident, and failed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I also note that the Turks' loud grunting on the annexation of northern Cyprus in the event of the island's accession to the EU proved to be nothing but hot air. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You dont half speak bollocks my friend. According to you, Turkey's Ottoman expansionism is proven by a dispute over a small uninhabited rock in the Aegean? Please, if that was the case, then I dont think you have much to fear from this new empire. The real problem here is that Greece and Greek Cypriots still educate their children to regard Turkey and the Ottomans as one and the same, as an aggresive and expansionist power, meanwhile dismissing their own history of continued expansion until defeat a few kilometers from Ankara. --A.Garnet 02:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the territorial acquisitions resulting from Greek expansionism were illegitimate? Ankara itself regards Turkey and the Ottomans as one and the same when it sings the praises of the "Turkish Republic of Western Thrace" on its education ministry's website and lays claim to an undefined number of islands in the Aegean over which it argues Ottoman sovereignty was never interrupted. Bollocks, indeed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, could you all please stop your off-topic political debates? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok honestly, what we Turks need to do is work harder, think brighter, bring out the true potential of this country, make it a better place. There is no way we can beat Greeks in the talking category for sure, look ahead, less talk, more work.--Doktor Gonzo 11:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Very flattering for Turks, what you just said. Sure, sure, if you're indeed incapable of proper discourse then sharpen those swords and chop few heads, why don't you. Oh and pee around a bit to mark your territory too, since, after all, talking is no option. Very civilised indeed. Did you think at all when you wrote this? You're an embarrassment to all Turks globally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.137.231 (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Irnia Kardak you mean? two pieces of rock, greece tried to invade (but as usual went back saying i will tell you to my brothers but brothers were not there this time, i wonder why?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.92.149 (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent discussion

Post January 2009

Change of Name

Regardless of whatever the United Nations or whoever else says Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that is free from any controversy so therefore all the pages should be translated from Kıbrıs Barış Harekâtı meaning Cyprus Peace Movement not Turkish Invasion of Cyprus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy Benoit (talk • contribs) 11:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not "Cyprus Peace Movement". It is "Cyprus Peace Operation". Maverick16 (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Who the hell is keep on changing the bloody name and why?

One thing I want to say for all these back-and-forth moves: Even if the article should be moved (and I think that's open to discussion, there might be some merit to the idea) the correct translation is most certainly not "Cyprus Peace Movement" but "Cyprus Peace Operation". (From Turkish: Movement -> Hareket, Operation -> Harekat) A "peace movement" is something else entirely, it is a social trend like demonstrations by NGOs and rallies etc. Like "make love not war". You get the picture.

So if we are going to do it, we should do it right. Cheers - Xasf (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the move as such a change should be discussed and decided here. while I have no expertise in the subject, surely the consensus in reliable sources is the correct source for the article name. Google is often a poor substitute for scholarship but.

• "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus" >700 google book hits, > 500 in scholarly articles
• "Cyprus Peace Operation" ~50 google book hits, ~15 scholarly article hits
• "Cyprus Peace Movement" <10 book hits and <5 in scholarly papers

- Seems fairly clear what is the common name for the operation. From what I can see in news sources, "Peace Movement" is used nowhere, "Peace Operation" rarely and then mostly by a few Turkish sources and the BBC reporting Turkish political speaches, "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus" is used almost everywhere. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not change any term of invasion to intervention. Those who believe that this is not an invasion but an intervention may have a point but before doing any edit please consider WP:What Wikipedia Is Not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadagger (talk • contribs) 11:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't change the content of the operation. This operation brought Peace to the island. In the end of this operation Greeks couldn't kill any Turks until this time.Maverick16 (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure to whom I should apply about this but this appears to be the most releveant. According to the United Nations, the 1974 operation is classified as an "intervention" not an "invasion" http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unficyp/background.shtml "A coup d'état in Cyprus on 15 July 1974 by Greek Cypriot and Greek elements favouring union with Greece was followed by military intervention by Turkey"

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr353.htm UN RESOLUTION 353 (1974) 3.Demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus

As such, I can not see how can Wikipedia classifies this as an "invasion". The only possible explanation could be that as one of the previous posters stated, Googling "invasion" returns more results than "intervention", however this issue can not be considered under Wikipedia's in-common-use rule for matters related to language, the very word "invasion" only signifies a sided, subjective view of the event considering UN classifies it as an "intervention". I do not think the obvious need of changing the title is a matter of serious debate under this circumstances as under lots of topics such as the Armenian "genocide", Wikipedia refers to the UN documents over what the title should be in event of a dispute.

So question is, who has the privilege to change the name from "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" to "Turkish invervention to Cyprus" ? Tmhm (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC) --Tmhm (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmhm (talk • contribs) 07:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is typical UN-speak trying to be neutral and inoffensive towards all. Even so, "military intervention" is pretty much a euphemism for "invasion", especially if it concerns another sovereign country. "Turkish intervention in Cyprus" is both vague and deliberately misleading, since the crucial "military" part is missing: the Turks did not come with flowers, aid packages and chocolates, but with bombs and tanks. Anyhow, Wikipedia uses the names that are most common in English usage, not what the UN or other countries use (that is why we use Republic of Macedonia instead of FYROM, for example). And as Peripitus demonstrated above, usage is overwhelmingly in favour of the current form. Constantine ✍ 08:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Turks did not come with flowers and chocolates because you can not defend against people(the Greeks) who has guns and tanks, and whose de facto president states "According to the Greek daily newspaper Eleftherotipia, which interviewed him on February 26, 1981, he said, “Had Turkey not intervened, I would not only have proclaimed Enosis, I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus as well.”"

But this is not the point. Point is; as long as UN classifies this as an intervention and NOT an invasion, classifying this as an invasion can only be the personal feeling of an editor who is siding with one of the parties of the dispute. The name military intervention is also acceptible, intervention obviously signifies a military intervention without further emphasis and was not meant to cover the military aspect of the event, but if that is a concern, it is fine. As I previously stated how English speakers know the event is irrelevant in a historic issue not to mention it is only an unscientific assumption based on Google search that they know it as an invasion. Most of the English speakers know Nadia Komaneci as the "that Romanian girl with freakishly elastic body" or Jean Hill is still known as the "Lady in Red" but I do not see how it affects the title as such definitions are only used when there is no clear or official title, it is not the common default practice. UN classifies it as an intervention so the title shall be such.

So question is, who has the privilege to change the name from "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" to "Turkish invervention to Cyprus" ? --Tmhm (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Tmhm (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmhm (talk • contribs) 20:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The matter has been raised as a matter of POV - that the title "Invasion" is POV and the NPOV title should be "Intervention"
The question being put is "Was it an intervention or was it an invasion". The problem is that it was both. Cyprus is an independant nation.
The Greek Cypriot move for Enosis started the major events that led to the Turkish intervention. Intervention is something that is done to stop an event from happening. Invasion is when the troops from one country cross into another when they are not invited.
Unfortunately the Turkish troops invaded the sovereign state of Cyprus. That invasion was in an attempt to intervene. The article title could equally use Intervention or Invasion. Both are in fact what happened - Turkey tried to intervene and in the end decided to invade.
If there had been a highly significant number of Turkish citizens on the island then the term intervention would be appropriate. If there were not a significant number then the term intervention begins to lose significance.
Editors need to remember that the numbers of Greek and Turkish people on the island is not the same as ethnic Cypriot Greeks and ethnic Cypriot Turks.

• If the person was born on Cyprus they are Cypriot and their ethnic background does not make them a Greek or a Turk.
• Any persons claiming "I am Greek" or "I am Turkish" would need to prove citizenship of those countries and that they were, in fact, not Cypriot.
• Any country "aiding their citizens" would need to prove that they were in fact aiding their citizens and not merely Cypriots of a particular ethnicity.

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Okay, if this is an "invasion" then why isn't the whole country Turkish? Because it isn't!!! An invasion is only an invasion if we had taken over the entire country not part of it. In my opinion, whatever the replacement could be, the word "Invasion" is offensive, aggressive and nothing from the truth. This makes it look like as if Turkey is barbaric, we're not. The ottomans probably were but if we were not there, Cyprus would be, thanks to ENOSIS, annexed to Greece and since the Ottomans ruled over the country from most of the start, Turkey would have lost land. I'm asking all you isguzarlar, I cant find the definition in English, What the f would you do if you're country was in such a state??? UN recognises North Korea, UN recognises Northern Ireland but why not Northern Cyprus? Let me tell you because UN is full of christians and cyprus is muslim, TRNC, That is the sole reason that UN wants to be hyprocritics because if they recognise Cyprus, there is no need for them to have a base in the country so they can't ride their donkeys as they are currently doing so in the interest of fairness, i think it is more of an intervention because there is a military attack for crying out loud, what the hell did you lot expect us to do, stand back and let them kill all the nationals, not mentioning the disgusting sin of raping woman and a 15-year old teenager, and then just say "Ah, Oh well"??? Well, not in my fucking book!!!"