Talk:Operation Atilla (Turkish Invasion of Cyprus)

message: Part (or all) of the lists regarding the order of battle seem to come from this webpage: . I'm not sure if such information can fall under copyright since the creative element in any such list will be very limited. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for the order of battle 

message: Can we PLEASE change that Junta picture and put a Greek flag there instead? I do not know how to do it. Thanks!!
--Eae1983 (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Junta = Greece

message: :Image:21April1967emblem.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:21April1967emblem.PNG

message: I have begun an extensive upgrade of the article by supply in-line citations, new sources and new sections, as well as a general clean-up. 
(Dogfight1001 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive Upgrade of the Article

message: This article summarizes the fighting mainly from the greek side and at times one can faintly feel the authors' pride of the resistance put up by much smaller greek forces. It would be much better if this article would be written cooperatively by a group of people who are capable of investigating both greek and turkish sources. After saying that, I must admit that cyprus is not a terribly popular topic of interest in turkey and I have seen no book or journal / magazine article about this war (except for some very particular incidents of the war like he sinking of warship kocatepe by friendly fire). So not including turkish language sources is probably not a big loss. Actually, this is the first time I saw an article specialized to the pure military side of the cyprus war.
One problem in this article is the omission of an introductory section which detail the military geography of cyprus. The unique position of besparmak mountains and the passes over them dictated all the movements of the opposing forces. Without taking a note of this, he respective movements of two sides can not be understood.
A second problem is the names of the villages. The battle is generally described village by village, but these villages are too small to be shown on commercially available maps. Worse still, each village seems to have two names, one turkish and one greek. So some maps would be a great help to improve the intelligibility of the article. 78.184.2.105 (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very good article 

message: This is a very poor and one sided article. It tells the story completely from the greek side. It highlights the greek accomplishments with enthusiasm, and finishes at the end with a very dull "turks managed the capture 35% of the island". How did all this happen while greek heros were busy killing turkish soldiers here and there in hundreds? Furthermore, no mention of the turkish paratroopers and the critical role they played and their sacrifices (my father was one of them, so i am personally involved in this). I dont think it is hard to get turkish sources on this, but it seems the editors need for chauvinistic masturbation prevent them from doing so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.30.210 (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: very good article

message: Chauvinistic masturbation? Who the hell are you??? 
If you don't like the article the way it is, why don't you get some GOD DAMN books and source some edits that actually contribute to the article. 
You DISGUST me you RACIST PIG. 
(Copperhead331 (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Daddy was a paratrooper!

message: Hey, better be a Turkish paratroopers son rather than being the son of a looser greek cypriot, no? Cant you guys learn at least to loose in dignity? Racist my A$$.
===COWARD AND RACIST ===
You are a coward for not putting your name after your personal and racist attacks. You have nothing to contribute here, which makes you a useless, cowardly little shite, just like your paratrooper father. 
Copperhead331 (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: Daddy was a paratrooper!

message: You are a coward for not putting your name after your personal and racist attacks. You have nothing to contribute here, which makes you a useless, cowardly little shite, just like your paratrooper father. 
Copperhead331 (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: COWARD AND RACIST 

message: This is Wikipedia. There are no editors under contract, somehow responsible for producing a scientific article. It all depends on the individual's good will and time to improve this article. If you find that the article lacks the Turkish perspective (which I believe is true) then YOU bring it in. Your nagging about "chauvinistic masturbating editors" is directed nowhere. No particular one is repsonsible for conducting a thorough bibliographical research, especially in a foreign language. If there are no Turkish sources it's because there are no Turkish contributors. Be one. --Xristar (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Do it

message: The main problem in reviewing this article has been the lack of Turkish sources, which I imagine are quite difficult to obtain. I also agree that some maps would useful here, and will try to produce some for that purpose. 
Copperhead331 (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Very good article 

message: Have commenced a major upgrade for the article, since I think it is a unique, rare and valuable piece of insight to the Cyprus war. The upgrade will include new info, maps and pictures. 
Copperhead331 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Up and Upgrade

message: someone has been repeatedly changing the numbers of casualties, wtih ridiculous unsourced numbers.
UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO CONTIBUTE STOP DESTROYING THE EFFORTS OF OTHERS. YOUR POLITICAL AND NATIONAL IDEOLOGIES ARE YOUR OWN.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xristar (talk • contribs) 07:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop hijacking the casulaties section 

message: I wrote a general overview of the Attila 2 operations. 
Most information is from Sergis's book, some comes from newspaper articles and other books. In general I have used the most reliable information available. I hope it's quite objective and agreeable.
I haven't got the time to put the exact references now, so i skipped this part. If you feel like you need the exact source, I'll provide it, but unfortunately you'll have to wait for quite some time (1-2 months propably, until I fully return to my house).--Xristar (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attila 2 operations 

message: Dear Xristar. Thank you for your substantial contributions. Please could you provide the references as soon as is possible for you to do so. If you will permit me, I will edit some of your added content to clean up spelling, punctuation and re-arrange some sentences. Thanks again. Copperhead331 (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Attila 2 operations

message: This article does list the commanders for either side. Could that information could be found? RadManCF (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanders 

message: Hi there. To be honest, it had been a long time since I last took the time to read the whole article. The article obviously holds a lot of information, but is still lacking some, and equally importantly, it is confusing and not well organized. Especially the part on Attila 1 is confusing and uneven: it has too much detail on some matters, while no mention on others 
So, I propose a re-write of the article. Not write it over, but edit it, repositioning and merging some paragraphs, and add some new stuff. Since much of the text isn't mine, I wouldn't make so big changes without permission. In any case, I think we should work jointly if possible, on some agreed lines
To begin with, i think we should make a skeleton of the new text, rewriting the contents. Currently the chapters do not follow the same logic -or any logic.
Question: Should we divide the text on timeline basis, or on geografical basis, or something between the two?
Anyway, to get the discussion going I'll propose a new contents table:
["Combatants" section dropped]
1.[Introduction]Events leading up to the 1974 Invasion of Cyprus
as is
2.Operational situation on the eve of the war
as is + Aphrodite Two Defence Plan[a description]
3.Attila 1 Operation
3.1 20 July
3.1.1 Aphibious Landing
3.1.2 Airborne Landing and the Geunyeli enclave
3.1.3 Other Turkish-cypriot enclaves
3.2 Greek night counter-attack (20-21 July)
3.2.1 Attack on Pentemili beachhead
3.2.2 Attack on Geunyeli enclave[This can perhaps be broken in two sections, one regarding the attack in the plains against Geunyeli itself, the other regrading the commando operation on Pentadaktylos]
3.3 21 July
3.3.1 Pentemili beachhead
3.3.2 Geunyeli enclave
3.3.3 Other Turkish-cypriot enclaves
3.4 22 July
3.4.1 Reinforcements in Pentemili and the fall of Kyreneia
3.4.2 + 3.4.3 as in July 21
3.5 Armistice
3.6 Attila 1 aftermath
[the rest remains the same]
--Xristar (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upgrading the article (Novemmber 2009) 

message: Dear Xristar, 
I agree to this. If you wish, you may go ahead and proceed with the reorganisation as you feel it is appropriate. Once this is done, I will focus on making sure grammar, spelling, citations and sources are all met for B-class status. 
Please try to retain as much of the information as possible, and post any deletions on the talk page so that we can discuss them here first. 
Once the work is agreed to be complete, we should proceed towards making the article an A-class by working through the criteria, as as I think this aspect of history is important. 
Copperhead331 (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Upgrade

message: Can someone explain why most of the Greek casualties are marked as missing, about 1000, is there anyone looking for them after 35 years or is it just a pointless effort to make numbers confusing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.248.140.221 (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing military personel?  

message: I have decided to begin a new round of updates for this article, and will begin with correcting spellings, grammar and general clean up. 
I have recently purchased a new Greek Cypriot publication on 1974, and will be using it to source some major additions of information as it is very comprehensive and includes some Turkish sources. 
Regarding Turkish sources, if someone can provide any, that would be great as we seem to have found very few at the moment. 
Regarding previously proposed structure changes, I propose keeping the article as it is at the moment as it flows quite well given the structure is organised around multiple offensives, counter-offensives. 
Copperhead331 (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Improvements of the Article

message: I actually looked at the page to see what part, if any, the ex-German battlecruiser [Goeben], re-named Yavuz Sultan Selim, played in the operation.  I recall the Turkish Navy threatening to use it for NGS, but as far as I know she never left harbour.  Someone who knows about her needs to add a sentence and a link.  --Wally Tharg (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  And what about the ''Goeben''?

message: Is there any official statement by turkish army or goverment about the exact turkish casualties during the operation?  Pavlos1988 (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish casualties during the operation? 

message: For adding new information on losses on each side, a Reliable Source should be used, the MS Excel data from the Foreing Realtions of Cyprus names 1,200 killed. But its far from those reported by the other sources (300) and added with the other combatants is more than the 1,800 dead reported in all the war. Maybe this list include the MIA (900 reported), but this is a Guess. Since is in Greek, any Greek speaking editor could check that? Changes will be not accepted unles one or two Reliable Sources back them. Mr.User200 (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek Losses