Talk:Cyprus massacre

message: Is this thread a joke??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.135.5.177 (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

message: Hi. Could someone with access to the following new sources please describe what each of them says about the Cyprus massacre?
*Kıbrıs'ın Fethi 1570-1571, Genelkurmay Askeri Tarih Başkanlığı, Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1986 
*Kıbrıs Tarihi ve Kıbrıs'ta Türk Esirleri, Halil Fikret Alasya, Türk Kültürünü Araştırma Enstitüsü, Ankara, 1964 
*Kıbrıs Tarihi 2, KKTC Milli Eğitim ve Kültür Bakanlığı, UNIT I, 2004 
Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If it can't be confirmed that the sources above support the statements in the second paragraph, then they will have to be removed, and the second paragraph with them. Which would be a shame, because it's instructive to have a Turkish perspective in the article, but we can only present verifiable information. As this is the English Wikipedia it would be preferable to find sources on the subject of the Turkish perspective written in English, so that readers can explore the subject themselves, but the Turkish references are fine until English sources are found, so long as they actually support the statements in the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned before, those sources tell the conquest but do not mention any massacre. Since, a massacre in 1570 is not a popular and widely known issue; it is normal for those sources not to mention an extra "a massacre did not happen" line specifically.--hnnvansier (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. The article cannot reach conclusions unless those statements are reached in the sources, because original research is not allowed. Therefore we'll have to change the second paragraph to reflect the sources. However, I'm confident that reliable sources are likely to exist to support a statement that Turkish historians/politicians/etc deny the massacre occurred, and if we find such sources then statements to that effect can be re-inserted. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I've found sources, and if you do not know Turkish to read and understand them, it is not my problem.--hnnvansier (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyway, HOW CAN you espect to see "we did not kill anyone" note in those books? Turkish history is full of conquers, wars, battles, wins and loses. Turks built or conquered tens of thousands of castles, towns, cities. Can you really believe that history books should note "we did not massacre anyone" for each of them -if they did not do-. This is nonsense, and would be an insult.--hnnvansier (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles can only make statements that are made in sources. These sources don't say there was no massacre, and they certainly don't say that a massacre "story" was invented, which is what the sentence you're trying to keep says. That is a conclusion that you have drawn personally from the lack of mention in the sources, and such personal conclusions are not allowed as they are original research. Also, I didn't say that English sources are required, only preferred. Non-English sources are fine where no suitable English source exists. The Turkish sources we have, as you have so kindly and honestly explained, don't mention the massacre. So that's all we can draw from them. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish sources