Talk:Cyprus problem/Archive 4

message: Dear all,
finally this page has been protected so as to end the editing war between various parties and solve the dispute on the content of the article on the Talk page. As long as this dispute is not solved, the page will stay protected and not be available for editing. This means we should come up with an agreement on how to proceed on this page. Either we have a new start (again), or we decide on one of the available versions as a basis. - Snchduer 12:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because NONE OF WHAT YOU CLAIM EVER HAPPENED. That is the reason why you don't want the figures of the death tolls on both sides revealed or a historical account to be given because they would show that what you claim is a total and utter pack of lies. EOKA did not attack Turkish Cypriots. The facts and figures show that. It only attacked British forces and those collaborating with them. The Greek army did not touch even one Turkish Cypriot not did it ever move out of its barracks whereas the Turkish garrison attacked and captured two main highways and attacked UN peacekeepers, Cypriot civilians and the Cypriot security forces. You don't want any of this revealed because it shows that Turkey planed to destroy the Republic of Cyprus from the moment it gained independence and its atrocities in Cyprus in the 50's and 60's were mirrored in the Pogroms against the Greeks of Constantinople. Why did the Turkish forcibly deport 15,000 Greeks from Constantinople in 1964 ?--Argyrosargyrou 16:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We know full well why the TC's accepted the Annan plan. Because it gave Cyprus to Turkey and deprived the Greek Cypriots of all of their land, property, and human and democratic rights and allowed the Turkish Colonists and Turkish troops to stay in Cyprus forever. By accepting the Annan plan the Turkish Cypriots voted for the Genocide of the Greek Cypriots by the imposition of conditions of life calculated to bring about their destruction. The Annan plan violated the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. That's why the Turkish apologists do not want the details of the Annan plan to be revealed.--Argyrosargyrou 16:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, wasn't that productive? Perhaps you should work more towards the consensus. When you make a massive change all at once, it's more likely to be reverted as going against the collaborative spirit. As much as I hate the idea, it looks like a paragraph-by-paragraph consensus project is the only way to satisfy all parties. Feco 15:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean start

message: {pro/con/contributions}
* Voting on the versions
* Discuss about different ways how to solve this editing dispute
**Given past events in this article, a binary vote on version A or B probably won't work. It seems like the most likely way to arrive at something close to a consensus version is to construct an agreeable outline here, then fill in the grafs one by one. This will be slow and painful, but I can't think of a better way. Feco 15:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because NONE OF WHAT YOU CLAIM EVER HAPPENED. That is the reason why you don't want the figures of the death tolls on both sides revealed or a historical account to be given because they would show that what you claim is a total and utter pack of lies. EOKA did not attack Turkish Cypriots. The facts and figures show that. It only attacked British forces and those collaborating with them. The Greek army did not touch even one Turkish Cypriot not did it ever move out of its barracks whereas the Turkish garrison attacked and captured two main highways and attacked UN peacekeepers, Cypriot civilians and the Cypriot security forces. You don't want any of this revealed because it shows that Turkey planed to destroy the Republic of Cyprus from the moment it gained independence and its atrocities in Cyprus in the 50's and 60's were mirrored in the Pogroms against the Greeks of Constantinople. Why did the Turkish forcibly deport 15,000 Greeks from Constantinople in 1964 ?--Argyrosargyrou 16:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We know full well why the TC's accepted the Annan plan. Because it gave Cyprus to Turkey and deprived the Greek Cypriots of all of their land, property, and human and democratic rights and allowed the Turkish Colonists and Turkish troops to stay in Cyprus forever. By accepting the Annan plan the Turkish Cypriots voted for the Genocide of the Greek Cypriots by the imposition of conditions of life calculated to bring about their destruction. The Annan plan violated the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. That's why the Turkish apologists do not want the details of the Annan plan to be revealed.--Argyrosargyrou 16:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, wasn't that productive? Perhaps you should work more towards the consensus. When you make a massive change all at once, it's more likely to be reverted as going against the collaborative spirit. As much as I hate the idea, it looks like a paragraph-by-paragraph consensus project is the only way to satisfy all parties. Feco 15:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How to proceed

message: I think JL's version was an excellent article, it should be kept as the basis for any modifications which are agreed by the majority of editors here. --E.A 13:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: After having read everyone's comments about this subject, I think everyone involved in the editing of this article has violated the policy of Neutral Point of View.  A simple fix would be to just make a page full of every possible link imaginable about the Cyprus dispute.  I said previously, there is one website that is SUPERB:  www.cyprus-conflict.net (of course knowing the people here I might be accused of being biased).  It is praised by the UK's Guardian newspaper for being impartial, and has links where there offer statements of opposing view points.   I know that the truth about the actions of Greeks and Turks on Cyprus is hard to swallow, but we have to swallow it to move forward.  Most people have. Let me suggest that every political dispute article on Wikipedia, from Spratly Islands, to the Faulkland Islands to even Taiwan and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank should be relegated to just pages with an extensive list of websites as sources of info. (LOL that would mean becoming another Google, or might I say wikioogle. UNFanatic
:I agree with your view of the cyprus-conflict.net site. It is really impartial, and offers also subjective views from both sides, along with a lot of documents. However, this encyclopedia's aim is not to simply duplicate websites - and as for the historical account cyprus-conflict.net offers, it is much too long for an ancyclopedia article. We can of course use this website as a major source of information. - Snchduer 22:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Unfortunate Truth 

message: I just want to remind you that we are not advancing even a millimeter here. <sarcasm>Maybe all the Turkish apologists can sit together, and invent conspire a new article, where the Turkish people are the heroes?</sarcasm>
Or maybe we can stop insulting each other, grow up a bit and start to work seriously on this article. I would personally like to see both sides' (Greek and Turkish Cypriots) views included. There is no need to quote all the numbers (as they will differ anyways according to the sources), but I would like to see included also the unpleasant facts (violence of EOKA and TMT against all Cypriots, displacements and killings by the Turkish army as well as retaliatory actions against Turkish Cypriots) as well.
We should also remember that there are already articles about:
* Turkish Cypriot Genocide (disputed title, proposal to be moved to Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict to include all violence between 1963 and 1974/5),
* Annan Plan and
* Cyprus reunification referendum, 2004,
so there is no need to write lengthy sections about these topics. A question still remains as to whether Turkish Cypriot Genocide should not be merged with this article (including information about displaced and killed Greek Cypriots in the corresponding section, of course). - Snchduer 17:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Unfortunately, dear Snchduer, you either do not OR purposely elect not to understand Cyprus. There is no way to move forward when even the simple, self-evident facts are disputed and the rights of individuals recognized as the basis of a modern society are denied to any group. And I will request that this article remain locked because a few fanatics want to pass on their disinfomation. User:Argyrosargyrou was in many respects right, though expressing his view in a non-elegant and offensive way. Cyprus, you know, has been inhabited since the 6th millenium BC. Many aggressors have come and gone including super powers. The people of Cyprus has survived. The only thing we need is perseverence and dedication - nothing else! So I urge you to first discover Cyprus before attempting to be a mediator. --Ank99 09:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the best terminology is 'Turkish Cypriot North' and 'Greek Cypriot South' - i got that from a BBC News article, which i see as very neutral. --E.A 12:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I dont see whats so sensitive about 'Turkish Cypriot North' and 'Greek Cypriot South', i think both Greeks and Turks accept that Turks are in the north and Greeks in the south (look at this BBC article here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3656753.stm). The term 'northern part/sector' and 'southern part/sector' just sounds like we're trying to be TOO neutral. --E.A 11:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we do not have GC users who want it mentioned that in the north, many of the inhabitants are Turkish settlers, it would be ok - at least for me - Snchduer 15:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: It is not ok with me. We have to be as NEUTRAL AS POSSIBLE to avoid POV errors.  There is no such thing as being "TOO NEURAL."  Please explain this  statement E.A.  Want is so bad about it.  Also to Snchduer, perhaps you SHOULD mention that many of the inhabitants of the northern part are Turkish settlers (in addition to indigneous Turkish-Cypriots).  I mean, that is the truth, is it not?  For the sake of neutrality, please, it is better to say "southern or northern part/sector."  Oh, and by the way, every one has a point of view.  My view is that of a Cypriot-American(not a GC or a TC, but a CA (could mean Chinese-American but here it is not the case). A little different viewpoint from my distant Cypriot brothers(Greek and Turkish).  (UNFanatic 20:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By TOO NEUTRAL i mean going out of the way to implement irrelevancies in face of obvious facts. Turks are in the north, Greeks are in the south. This is a vote between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots - just like you are a Cypriot American, the Turks who came to Cyprus are Turkish Cypriots. I dont see why their settler status should somehow mean Turks in the north can no longer be referred to as Cypriots. We have to make clear the vote is between two ethnicities, not two geographical locations. --E.A 20:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know your frustration.  Nonetheless, we have to keep a calm mind and keep it to geographical references.  Like we mentioned before, it will be evident in the article where Greek-Cypriots or Turkish-Cypriots are located. Suggesting to put "Turkish settlers" was meant to spark a reaction to make a point to keeping things NEUTRAL.  To give you an example: I wonder why the Cyprus flag has no cross?  Answer: to keep things neutral.  Somehow, Greeks and Turks have lost this sense, while Cypriots try to forge a state that will eventually bring shame to those two "homelands"  a cause of much mental suffering for the island.(UNFanatic 20:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: London and Great Britain I should say, is a politically stable unified country that has its own house in order.  Once Cyprus gets its house in order and the people there get to an agreement to a definition, which is their responsibility, not mine, then we should remain neutral for BOTH sides to be fair. By the way, I have been to the north after the barriers were removed and the Turkish-Cypriot family that is living in my father's house referred to the "Turkish settlers" as being different, ideologically and culturally from them.  And this person wants to go back to Paphos.  I do not doubt that most have integrated, though how successfully, that is another story which I have no personal knowledge except for the opinion of the Turkish Cypriot. So as you see, since there is no agreement from both sides about this issue, it should not be mentioned officially in the text of the article.  But if you want to add a small note at the end of the article, in smaller font or in a separate table, be sure to include that.(UNFanatic 21:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This simple issue is really being exaggerated. All we need to accept is that the voters who went to the referendum in April last year were Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, the part 30 year old settlers played in the vote should not mean TC's have forfeited their right to be represented as Turkish Cypriots. --E.A 21:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Advancing, People! 

message: I have moved the Turkish Cypriot Genocide (being a wrong designation in any case) to Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict, as this is much less offensive as a title, and more correct as well. FYI, Argyro tried to copy-edit it with his version of the old page - trying to destroy the page's structure along the way -, but did not succeed (obviously). The page I created is clearly structured, and has place for the two communities' casualties and displacements, partitioned timewise into two sections: 63-74 and 74/5 (Turkish invasion/intervention). I hope in this case nobody can complain that only one side has the possibility to show. I am waiting for Greek Cypriots to contribute to this page  in the appropriate sections; as of now, Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict only shows the TC side - unfortunately. - Snchduer 10:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: However, wikipedia normally wants to present balanced articles; meaning that however sad the casualties and other hardships were for the TCs, it does not mean that we should ignore the GC side of the story - at least, that is the idea of that article. - Snchduer 01:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict]]