Talk:Cyprus problem/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Untitled

Moved old discussion to archive:

Vandalism by Snchduer and EA.

Your continued reversions of this page to a pro-Turkish biased account which is neither neutral not accurate and your removal of all of my contributions which are historical and legal facts and figures so can in no way be biased is considered to be Vandalism. It is clear from what you have written that you are favouring Turkey and are trying to promote the views of the illegal occupation regime in occupied Cyprus which the UN has declared "legally invalid" and called upon all members not to facilitate in any way in Security Council Resolutions 541(1983) and 550(1984).

Snchduer your attempt to equate the Turkish massacre of 5,000 Greek Cypriot civilians with the death of 200 Turkish Cypriots, by replacing the facts and figures I gave with "Thousands of Greek and Turkish Cypriots had been killed and wounded and many more were missing" is truly repugnant.

Since your contributions amount to Vandalism I am entitled to revert to the version before the sabotage occurred without incurring any penalties. Either start from the point before the sabotage occurred or don't edit at all if you cant present a neutral point of view.

Discuss what you want to add here first, dont you have anything constructive to add to Wikipedia other than political tripe about Greek suffering? You seem to blame Turks for everything that has happened to Greek people. You should blame Greece's failed dictators and terrorists like Sampson and Grivas for putting Cyprus in this situation. --E.A 20:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

How to edit

Dear everybody, especially dear Argyrosargyrou!

We have a nice, albeit too neutral (in my opinion) version of the page now, mostly contributed by JL (articles should be balanced, not necessarily neutral). Please, make smaller edits, do not try to transform the page into a completely different one, without a consensus reached on this beforehand on this very same Talk page. If you want to make major or important changes (incl. changing the summary), start a discussion about this beforehand. In this way, I hope we can improve this page slowly. Also, refrain from personal attacks here.

Oh, and dear people, do sign your contributions to this talk page! - Snchduer 12:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Controversies

If you have any dispute with the facts presented, or are concerned about the way they are presented, please do not edit the main page. Please post your concerns here first.

Please remember that Wikipedia is a respected source of information. It is not meant to be a propoganda tool or a place for advocacy. Please use the links section to point people to sources of extra information that you believe convey an accurate picture of the views of one side or another. The aim of the page is to give readers a set of agreed basic facts and then give them the means to make up their own mind about the positions of the two sides.

Table of the Annan Plan

First of all, a little excuse from myself for converting it to neutral-speak a bit and killing off the percentages (40% and 100%), which are in my opinion only confusing. I would actually even propose to erase the second table totally, and to include instead a third row to the first one with the total percentages, and a note about the fact that 60% of the voters in the north are considered Turkish settlers and thus without the right to vote by the RoC government. - Snchduer 23:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Introductory summary

Dear 194.42.16.218 (I guess you are in fact Ank99 and forgot to sign in,

your introduction makes it sound as if Britain should take all the blaim for causing the Cyprus conflict. I think this is a personal opinion and does not belong in the introductory mini-summary, that is supposed to shortly explain what this article is about, and not already "inform" the user on who's-to-blame. We can discuss this, but let us discuss this here, on the Talk page! - Snchduer 12:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was actually me! Well yes much of the blaim goes to Britain and there are facts to back this up. As the opening paragraph is right now it only says half true. But before we go through this I would like to find out what your qualifications are to discuss the Cyprus issue with such authority and revert every edit made on the subject except your own. --Ank99 12:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to have reverted your edit, but I thought that it should be discussed first here, and I would like to hear more opinions of course than yours and mine. The reason is also that this is the first thing people will read when opening the page, and will be their first impression of the whole issue. Maybe we can agree on another formulation? While your opinion may be that most of the blame goes to Britain, other users might not share it. As I know the Cyprus problem, we are very likely to also hear the opinions that either Turkey or Greece (or the Greek Cypriots) has most of the blame. You can follow the links at the bottom of the page to the Cypriot government or the KKTC page, read a bit and see what I mean. - Snchduer 12:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Blaming Britain is only one theory amongst many, to make it dominate the introduction makes it completely out of place. You do not need a Phd to recognise this. Also, Saying Greece abanadoned claims to the island from 1960 makes no sense when they staged a coup in 1974. --E.A 12:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• I have never said that MOST of the blame goes to Britain. But certainly they are at the root and the cause of the problem (and continue to be). And certainly they have been the dominant player. Therefore an introduction should at least say so. My edit was balanced and not against any of the communities in Cyprus, to the contrary. As to Snchduer qualifications: You are a long way from getting the authority to revert (thus censor) everybody's edits. The Cyprus issue IS a controversial issue but it also has historical facts that are disputed only by those that want the continuation of the dispute. --Ank99 12:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Let us not discuss qualifications here. I do not want to censor either, I said I wanted to discuss and will continue to do so. I would simply prefer that the introduction be as balanced as possible, so that nobody gets the wrong impression from the very start.

If you say that Britain is the root and the cause of the problem, to me it sounds very much as if they are to take most of the blame. However, from 1960 on, Cyprus was practically independent; even though Britain retained some rights on the island, somewhere in the 60s they practically gave up on the Cyprus problem, and are now - at least to what I can see - only a side actor (main parties today include UN, EU, Greece and Turkey, and the two leaderships on Cyprus). There are long accounts of intercommunal violence in which the British did in fact not participate, and they did not do anything much during the 1974 events either.

Please, to further the discussion, state some good reasons why in fact Britain is the root and the cause of the problem, and we can talk about this. - Snchduer 13:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

To move away from a dead-end road: I think including Britain in the summary is not a bad idea - while i do think that they had a role to play, I think to say that they are the root of the problem is a bit too much. Maybe sth like "While Britain did not directly involve in the dispute, it was certainly under its rule that things started to get out of hand." - they certainly had some unlucky decisions (like, for instance, to recruit TCs for the police in the middle of the 50s EOKA campaign). Plus, I would also like to include a short note on the (general) strategic importance of the island. - Snchduer 14:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with changing the introduction, there is no need to complicate it or start pointing the finger so early on in the article. I agree with a section on strategic importance though. --E.A 14:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

1967 Intercommunal fighting

Should we not mention the mainland Greek contingent that had been smuggled in violation of Treaty of Guarantee?

"They forced Athens to recall Grivas and 9,000-12,000 Greek soldiers who had swelled the ranks of the National Gurad on Cyprus to around 24,000 in violation of the 1960 Treaty of Gurantee" John L. Scherer, Blocking the Sun: The Cyprus Conflict p 29.

He also adds an important note "One report estimated that as many as 20,000 Greek troops were stationed on the island. New York Times, 19 Novemeber 1967" p116.

I think its important to highlight the fact that such a large proffesional army contingent was despatched against what were poorly armed villagers. --E.A 13:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. The Greek forces were ther leaglly under UN resolution 186(1964)to protect the peope of Cyprus from over 10,000 fully armed TMT fighters.

Just to point out that it wasn't a professional army, the only professionals were the officers, the soldiers were conscripts. Mavros 10:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The current text makes it clear that the attack was made on the Turkish Cypriots by the Greek Cypriots and that Greece was forced to remove a number of its troops. While I agree that Greek forces had been increased to a number larger than the size permitted under the Treaty of Alliance (950 troops for Greece and 650 for Turkey), there is also evidence to show that Turkey had also been smuggling in army officers to train the Turkish Cypriot militias. (I was even told this by a group of TMT veterans.) Both sides were at fault in this regard. In any case, I think that this captures the main point, namely that an attack was made on the Turkish Cypriots that almost led to an invasion by Turkey and forced Greece to relent and ensured that Makarios had to start reconsidering the policy of enosis and taking Turkish Cypriot concerns more seriously. Let's not try to flesh out every incident too much. Remember this is for general readers who want to know the basic issues. - JL

It was the TMT terrorists that attacked the Cyprus security forces, the UN and users of the Larnaka to Limasols highway. These were acts of terror and had to be dealt with. Wrong. The Greek forces were there leaglly under UN resolution 186(1964)to protect the peope of CYprus from over 10,000 fully aremd TMT fighters.

Plus, if we start mentioned all the violations of Treaties by the two sides, we will end up with quite a lengthy and not very informative article... _ Snchduer 13:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Now, the first change for discussion: referring to 1967, I have removed any reference to who started what. It is just neutral. There were intercommunal clashes. The TCs say the GCs started it. The GCs say vice versa. Also, the troops increases by both sides were illegfal under the Treaty of Alliance, so let's not get too bogged down with that detail. Regardless of who started it, and whether the force sizes were legal or not, can everyone can accept that fighting took place and that this led to consequences outlines? Yes or No?

That is not true and you know it. The treaty of alliance was declared invalid by the UN because it contravened Article 2 Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter and resolution 186(1964) superseded it.

The Greek troops were there legally under the mandate given in numbered paragraph 2 of that of that resoultion.

Your editing out of the historical facts is unacceptable. The TMT and the paramilitaries of the Turkish garrison attempted to destabilise the Republic of Cyprus. You are trying to portray this as the two communities not getting on with each other and that is simply NOT TRUE. Greek Cypriot civilians were not fighting Turkish Cypriot civilians as you are trying to portray. Cypriot security forces were fighting Turkish state sponsored terrorists.

Population sizes

The text under the Annan Plan is repeatedly correct to show that the GCs are 90% of the population and that the TCs are only 10%. I have never seen this written in any credible publication. The standard position that is accepted by the international community is that the GCs are 80% and the TCs are 20%. However, in the spirit of compromose, I propose to include a clause referrign to the fact that there are no current figures, but that at the time of independence it was 80:20. It may have changhed. We just don't know. We certainly cannot say it is now 90:10 and withotu knowing it would be dishonest to present it as a fact. Can we therefore note that it is contested and put the 1960 figures down? Yes or No?

The population statistics given by the Republic of Cyprus state that 90% of the legal population are Greek Cypriots and 10% are Turkish Cypriots. The illegal Turkish colonists are not Turkish Cypriots nor are they considerd as Cyprus citizens.

"Population: 802,500 (2002) 80.1% Greek Cypriots (642,600), 10.9% Turkish Cypriots (87,400), 9.0% foreign residents and workers (72,500)"

http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/All/AB56397DF1BA68F4C2256DCE00423A6B?OpenDocument

CIA factbook places population from 2001 as 77% GC, 18%TC 5%Other https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cy.html --E.A 13:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Argyrosargyrou,

Your way of leading a discussion - and i hope i speak for many here - seriously goes against anything i know of leading a pragmatic, result-oriented discussion. You think your view of the history is the only acceptable one, while everyone else here (or, at least, most people) tries to reach a consensus.

LOL.. Neither Expatkiwi, Snchduer, and RickK are contributing from a neutral standpoint. Snchduer, and RickK have all shown from their contributions here and elsewhere that they are behaving like apologists, with RickK going so far as to demand that the page on the Hellenic Genocide be deleted. EA. is a Turkish Cypriot nationalist and like RickK wants the history of the Hellenic Genocide suppressed so its no wonder he is doing the same on the history of Cyprus. And you accuse me of saying my view of history is the only acceptable one. I am saying that Expatkiwi, Snchduer, RickK and EA. are all on the side of Turkey and that balance is needed which none of them have provided. Snchduer has deleted all the historical facts and figures I added so as to equate legality with illegality and EA continues to reputedly sabotage the page by reverting to earlier pro-Turkish edits. --Argyrosargyrou 17:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that we all are wrong and you are the only one who has the truth on his side? I have deleted your figures because you refuse to contribute in a healthy and cooperative way; you are simply reinstating your version over and over again, which is anything else but balanced. - Snchduer 17:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I am saying that you are taking sides with Turkey. My figures are all neutral and so are my historical contributions which have all been on the basis of legality. You have repeatedly tired to equate legality with illegality. You have systematically removed all the historical facts and figures in order to portray this as a dispute between Greek and Turkish Cypriots as if Turkey invasion of Cyprus and its violation of the UN resolutions and the human rights of the Greek Cypriots did not happen and as if its occupation of 40% of Cyprus territory has to be condoned in order to be fair on the Turkish Cypriots. That's why you don't want it known that 90% of the property in the north is owned by Greek Cypriot's who made up 90% of the legal population and are being prevented from returning, and thats why you don't wont that contrasted with the fact that all the Turkish Cypriots are free to return to the south at any time the like. It's also why you have tried to sanitized the Annan plan into something the Greek Cypriots should have accepted even though it violated every human rights norm in existence and that's why you removed all of my references to those. You who editorial bias has been from the point of view of Turkey and the US and the UK all of which have perpetrated crimes against Cyprus and thats why Ank99's contributions as well.--Argyrosargyrou 18:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

If you read the balanced article version (not yours) properly, you will find it mentions a lot of the things you want to express already (also the human rights violations by the Turkish army). I do not know why you would call your figures neutral - I figure many of them can be found on the RoC's homepage, which - as well as the TRNC's homepage, btw - I consider heavily biased. We do not want to edit out historical facts, but we do want to present them in a balanced way, which you seem to want to avoid. - Snchduer 20:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As a footnote: I found it very interesting that you refer to the killing of 1957 of GCs by TMT as "first intercommunal killing", nonregarding the fact the EOKA started killing TCs in 1955/6 (at least afaik). It is these small phrases that make the history lessons on Cyprus...

EOKA did not deliberately target Turkish Cypriots in its campaign against the British. The first intercommunal killing were carried out by the TMT in 1957 after Turkish government instigated provocations that were based on the Pogroms in Constantinople of 1955. --Argyrosargyrou 17:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. When the GCs pulled out of the security forces for fear of being persecuted by EOKA, the British started employing more and more TCs, who of course became a favored target of the EOKA campaign against the British. - Snchduer 17:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

To 213.207.149.234 Historical Edits Unaccptable

You and EA have both removed historical facts from the original texts without discussing it. The only reasons why this historic facts were removed was because the show deliberate Turkish aggression and Turkeys brutal violation of the human rights of the Greek Cypriot which was not reciprocated. After doing this you tried to portray the Greek Cypriot as the aggressors by falsely accusing them of attacking Turkish Cypriot villages when in fact they were attacking TMT terrorists who were firing on civilians and UN personnel. But you deliberately went and removed all the references I made to that didn't you because it did not suit you biased view. In the same vain you have deliberately tired to equate legality with illegality. While the original text cited proof of the Turkish ethnic cleansing of 200,000 Greek Cypriot you went and removed all reference to that and tried to portray it as if the Greek Cypriots left their homes voluntarily and that this was equivalent to what happened to the Turkish Cypriots in the south who were never ethnically cleansed and were only 1/4 of the number of the Greek Cypriots who were driven out of their homes by the Turkish forces. You are nothing more than a Turkish apologist and you contributions are neither historical nor neutral. They have all been political. Instead of recognising that the Cyprus government made the decisions in Cyprus you started referring to Greece doing this, Greece doing that, Greece sending in troops unilaterally, all by itself as if the Cyprus didn't existed and didnt didn't for them. Again this was all part of you deliberate attempt to equate legality with illegally. We all know that Turkey tried to invade Cyprus twice in the 1960's and sent in commandos and armed terrorists illegally while the Greek troops in Cyprus were there legally under a UN mandate but you went and removed all reference I made to that. You wanted to equate Cyprus attempt to stop the TMT terrorist violence in the 1960's when there were over 10,000 fully armed TMT fighters in Cyprus with the Turkish invasion of 1974. You are nothing more than a propagandist who removes all the historical facts you don't like (just like EA)whereas I am a historian who has included all the facts so that people can make their own decisions based on them.

This sums up the Cyprus Dispute

In response to an attempt to find an impartial account of the Cyprus Dispute, the following warnings were posted by a Greek Cypriot contributor who objected to the attempt to present a more 'neutral' tone.

Neutral tone. You must be joking. Removing historical facts which show deliberate Turkish provocations and aggression and attempting to equate legality with illegality is not neutral. Its Turkish propaganda.

You have evidently decided to ignore the pleas to try to generate a balanced account based on a text that has been subjected to academic scrutiny. Instead, you are intent on putting up your side of the story and denying any other perspective. What is worse is that as soon as anyone puts up anything that does not fit with your world view you immediately pull it down, replace it with your own text again and say that they are trying to misinform people. You then 'warn' them about their behaviour! Given your clear desire to advocate a Greek Cypriot position in the article, this is intellectually dishonest in every way. Moreover, it goes against the very essence of the Wikipedia. What is so hard about taking the text put up and discussing changes here first? EA was prepared to do so. Why can't you?

Nonsence. You and EA have both removed historical facts from the original texts without discussing it. The only reasons why this historic facts were removed was because the show deliberate Turkish aggression and Turkeys brutal violation of the human rights of the Greek Cypriot which was not reciprocated. After doing this you tried to portray the Greek Cypriot as the aggressors by falsely accusing them of attacking Turkish Cypriot villages when in fact they were attacking TMT terrorists who were firing on civilians and UN personnel. But you deliberately went and removed all the references I made to that didn't you because it did not suit you biased view. In the same vain you have deliberately tired to equate legality with illegality. While the original text cited proof of the Turkish ethnic cleansing of 200,000 Greek Cypriot you went and removed all reference to that and tried to portray it as if the Greek Cypriots left their homes voluntarily and that this was equivalent to what happened to the Turkish Cypriots in the south who were never ethnically cleansed and were only 1/4 of the number of the Greek Cypriots who were driven out of their homes by the Turkish forces. You are nothing more than a Turkish apologist and you contributions are neither historical nor neutral. They have all been political. Instead of recognising that the Cyprus government made the decisions in Cyprus you started referring to Greece doing this, Greece doing that, Greece sending in troops unilaterally, all by itself as if the Cyprus didn't existed and didnt didn't for them. Again this was all part of you deliberate attempt to equate legality with illegally. We all know that Turkey tried to invade Cyprus twice in the 1960's and sent in commandos and armed terrorists illegally while the Greek troops in Cyprus were there legally under a UN mandate but you went and removed all reference I made to that. You wanted to equate Cyprus attempt to stop the TMT terrorist violence in the 1960's when there were over 10,000 fully armed TMT fighters in Cyprus with the Turkish invasion of 1974. You are nothing more than a propagandist who removes all the historical facts you don't like (just like EA)whereas I am a historian who has included all the facts so that people can make their own decisions based on them.

Warning to 213.207.149.234

Stop using this page as a Turkish propaganda site and stop trying to equate legality with illegality and remove all references to Turkeys crimes against humanity. Your attempt to equate Turkeys brutal and savage ethnic cleansing of 200,000 Greek Cypriots with the UN/UK transfer of 51,000 Turkish Cypriots to the occupied areas as demanded by Tureky following threats to bomb the free areas is UNACCPTABLE.

Your portrayal of the events of 1967 is nothing short of Turkish propaganda. Why did you exclude all reference to Turkish terrorist attacks on UN peacekeepers and all users of the Larnaka to Limasol highway.

All the long you have deliberatly tried to portray the Greek Cypriots as the aggressors by leaving out all reference to Turkish state sponsored terrorism in Cyprus to which the Cypriot securitiy forces were duty bound to respond to. Your allegation that Greek Cypriot atacked Turkish Cypriot villages is unacceptable. They did not attack Turkish Cypriot villages at all. They attacked the terrorists who were in them after they were attack themselves. But that's what you've been calculating all the long isn't it?

Warning to E.A.

The same warning to you. Stop using this page as a Turkish propaganda site. The history of Turkish aggression in Cyprus WILL be given like it or not. Your attempt to remove it and introduce a Turkish biased propaganda account is sabotage.

This discussion forum is percisely for the purpose of airing of views. If the other side doesn't like it, then too bad. You are entitled to your opinions as well.....Just like the Turkish Cypriot people. Self-Determination and Freedom is an inalienable right. It's amazing how many people forget that.

Expatkiwi 19:19 20 MAY 2005 (UTC)

This is getting beyond ridiculous

With an attitude like that, no wonder neither side can seriously live together in a unitary state. If neither side wishes to leave the island, then partition is the only answer.

Expatkiwi 19:16 20 MAY 2005 (UTC)

Referendum results table

I dont think its neutral to place Turkish Cypriots under "Areas of the Republic of Cyprus" and "Republic of Cyprus Citizens". TRNC is neither an area of RoC nor are its citizen part of RoC. I took a leaf out of BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3656753.stm and renamed it Turkish Cypriot North and Greek Cypriot South. --E.A 19:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

More unacceptable Turkish propaganda.

The north of Cyprus is not Turkish Cypriot. It is part of the Republic of Cyprus and 90% of the legal inhabitants are Greek Cypriots. Under UN resolutions 541(1983) and 550(1984) the self-declared "TRNC" has been dammed "Legally Invalid" and all UN members are asked not to facilitate it in any way.

Which is why i didnt refer to it as TRNC. I see a pattern emerging here. I am a Turkish propogandist, the user contributing excellent material is a propogandist, all the authors you use are propogandists, the Financial Times is propogandist and now the BBC is also propogandist....Could it just be that they say what you dont want to hear? --E.A 11:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It is POV for this article to deny that TRNC is a separate nation, even if the UN also denies that it is. It is also POV to use a 90:10 population split based on the argument that some TRNC inhabitants are illegal. KVenzke 17:18, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever else you've done, this back-and-forth squabbling has rendered the results table totally incomprehensible. "Ballot total: % of voters: 100% + 40%" -- I don't think I'm a particularly stupid person, I've got a better-than-average understanding of the Cyprus dispute (among non-Greeks, non-Turks, & non-Cypriots, at least) and I was a close watcher of the referendum when it happened, but I'm afraid I cannot get any sense out of that. Congratulations. –Hajor 17:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree i dont fully understand whats being portrayed below the simple yes/no vote. I'll gladly get rid of it if people agree. With regards to squabbling, i suggest you read the neutral version several others and myself are trying to re-instate and then read the one Argy claims to be neutral. I'll eat my hat if you find his neutral. --E.A 18:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

How about something like this:

Sector / Community / etc.	Yes votes	No votes	Turnout total votes
North	64.90% xx,xxx	35.09% yy,yyy	87% zz,zzz
South	24.17% xxx,xxx	75.83% xxx,xxx	88% xxx,xxx

Where the actual figures of votes cast are indicated under the corresponding percentages. You'll also note the regional identifiers have been changed from "Occupied areas" and "Free areas". North and South aren't optimal, either, but at least it's unlikely they'll lead to bloodshed. The Annan Plan (RIP) proposed "Turkish Cypriot State" and "Greek Cypriot State" for the two halves of the union, of course...

We should also try to keep in mind that, for the purposes of this referendum, the undisputed fact that there are more "Greek" Cypriots than "Turkish" Cypriots didn't matter one whit, because all the referendum needed was a simple majority on both sides of the Green Line. But, by all means, add another line showing the total (combined) vote in the two halves/sectors/communities, whatever.

It'd nice if this article linked (as I'm sure it must have done at some point) to the main referendum article at Cyprus reunification referendum, 2004, too, to save overlapping too much. Or to spread the edit war out over more pages, depending on your perspective. –Hajor 23:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The penny just dropped as to what the "40% vs. 100%" in the second half of that table is referring to. Oh, my; wasn't I naïve? Outta here, –Hajor 23:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

One thing you're not telling us, Hajor: Just what is it you hope for Cyprus: one unified paradise for all Cypriots, or simply as an ethnically cleansed province of Greece? Turkish Cypriots have just as much right as Greek Cypriots to live without fear, which is why the 1960 Constitution was established. If one side insists upon either forcing assimilation or eviction of the other side - which what was attempted in 1974 - then what else is one going to expect than resistance and partition?

"Louis, are you pro-Vichy or Free France?" Is that a tribute to my NPOV, or are you just pleased to see me? It was me who started both the referendum and the Annan Plan articles. I was rootin' for Kofi all the way down the line. Best chance they had in this generation or the next to sort out the whole damn mess. –Hajor 01:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Given the similar hatreds that exists in Bosnia-Herzegovina between Serbs and Muslims, you really think that Greeks and Turks can bury their differences and live in a unitary state? I'm sorry, but human nature means that emnity between Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot will continue until either community can think of themselves purely as Cypriot. Until then, partition is the only answer for peace. Sepearation worked for the former Czechoslovakia, so let it work here.

Added figures

I have added the figures of TC's and GC's displaced in the events of 1963/4 to give a more balanced view and also added the number of TC's that died in 1974. I have also made the table clearer and done more explaining of the Annan plan.

Come on people

Am i the only one who finds the changes by Argy to be totally skewed towards GC's? We had an excellent impartial article provided by a

What ? I added the 20,000 TC's who left thier villages didn't I. I added those who were displaced by the fighting.

historian on the subject and no one seems to be trying to preserve

The article was not impartial. Impartial means listing all the facts and surrounding events so people can make their own judgement. The author of that article was trying to make a political point and was equating legality with illegality. It is precisely that kind of approach which led to the Annan plan which violated every human rights norm in existence.

Impartial especially means listing the major facts and surrounding events in an impartial way, not inserting pure speculations. Listing the facts in a certain way (like, putting a long phrase about the GCs who were "brutally and savagely ehtnically cleansed", and then mentioning that the TCs went to the north "voluntarily") can indeed be very POV. - Snchduer 12:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The brutal and saved ethnic cleansing of the Greek Cypriots by Turkey is a historical fact proven to the satisfaction of the ECHR. In contrast the Turkish Cypriots were not ethnically cleansed from their homes nor were they intimidated to leave. They left because Turkey threatened to bomb the free areas if the UN and British Authorises did not transport them to the occupied areas. While the TC's are free to return to their homes in the south the Greek Cypriot's are not despite ECHR judgments against Turkey. Your attempts to equate legality with illegality are unacceptable and not neutral at all and make you sound to like and apologist to the people whose families have suffered at the hands of Turkey like mine have. --Argyrosargyrou 17:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

that article, but instead are mopping up after Argy and leaving a trail of GC POV. For instance if he wants to start getting into the deaths caused by TMT, why should i not mention the mass graves in the North or the attack by Greek mainland forces on villages (which was deleted)? Why does he not mention the 10-20000 Greek soldier

There were no attacks on any villages by any Greek mainland forces.

Since I have given the total death toll accepted by both sides, what are you complaining about. The were clashes between TMT fighters and Cypriot security forces and people were killed.

were violation of Treaty of Guarantee, yet he will point out Human right violations by Turkey, how can we allow sentences such as "the plans legality was highly questionable" - is this the job of an encylopedia? Does this sentence sound Neutral to to you:

The Treaty of Guarantee violated the UN charter and was de facto declared invalid by UN resolution 186(1964). Since the Greek troops were requested by the Cyprus government how could they violate the Treaty of Guarantee anyway.

"Note: The 120,000 Turkish colonists who have been brought into the Turkish occupied areas of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey in violation of Article 49 of Geneva Convention are not recognised as Cypriot citizens by any member state of the United Nations"

Even a simple table becomes a POV, TRNC is not part of the RoC and neither are its citizens part of the RoC, this is accepted.

The so-caleld "TRNC" does not legally exist. That is not POV but fact. The violation of Article 49 of Geneva Convention is also a fact.

Clarification: The TRNC does not legally exist as it is not recognised and shall not be mentioned in the statistics. I find southern/northern Cyprus very acceptable for this. And the citizens of the TRNC - insofar they are TCs living on Cyprus before 1974 (or form such a family) - can become citizens of the RoC. - Snchduer 12:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"In the process about 200,000 Greek Cypriots who made up 82% of the pupulation in the north became refugees; many of them forced out of their homes (violations of Human Rights by the Turkish army have been acknowledged by the European Court of Human Rights), the rest fleeing at the word of the approaching Turkish army. 5,000 Greek Cypriot civilians were killed, over 1,000 women were raped. Approximately 1,600 Greek Cypriots were abducted and remain missing, their whereabouts never disclosed by the Turkish authorities. There were also over 200 deaths among the Turkish Cypriot community." - He may as well say "Oh yeah 200 Turks died as well".

Is it the job of an encylopedia to list human right violations against Turkey?

It's job is to list facts. Those are they. If you know the number of Turkish troops that were killed I'll add those as well.

It is not the job to list these violations in full length and full account. We can point to the fact that there were recognised violations, but that's about it. - Snchduer 12:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyprus_dispute&oldid=14082231 imo is an excellent reference for anyone who wants get an impartial account. --E.A 01:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

---

The version by JL is not neutral and is anti-Cypriot propaganda. I have already edited it to make it acceptable. Stop sabotaging my changes.

That seems to be only your point of view, dear Agry (start signing your contributions to the talk page!), and has not been accepted by anyone else so far. - Snchduer 12:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Well just look at this from your User Bio "Cyprus - very nice island, good for a holiday, especially as long as the North is not overrun - ah, empty beaches! Though do not talk about politics too much..."

So it seems that you are promoting holidays in the occupied areas of the Republic of Cyprus and through that the usurpation of Greek Cypriot property there. You are happy that the beaches are not overrun (which is a results of Greek Cypriot's being ethnically cleansed). It is clear from this that you don't give a damn for the Greek Cypriots property rights and you are not a neutral observer. You even have a link to a page page the illegal regime. No wonder you consider the Turkish propaganda that the has been published here to be neutral. You have no credibility whatsoever.

Thank you for putting this against my credibility *totally confused*. I did enjoy a stay on Cyprus (sleeping in the south, visiting both parts), and I enjoyed the northern beaches for not being overrun - but for this simple fact, not for having any second thoughts. Obviously not everybody likes empty beaches ;). What you deduce from this I see as a personal attack, as it is absolutely not true. I do care for the property rights of all Cypriots, but I see it also in the light of what has happened here in Germany after the fall of the Berlin wall, when a lot of people claimed property in the "new federal states" they had owned before Germany was separated. A lot of personal tragedy here - imagine you live in a house for 40 years and are thrown out one day because the former owner wants it back... - Snchduer 13:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I put a link to the TRNC for informative reasons, so people are informed about the political and legal situation in the northern part of the island as well. Note that I also put a link to the general Cyprus article, and that I put the TRNC under "non-countries". - Snchduer 13:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

As for people agreeing with me. There are lots of Cypriots who have seen this page who have emailed me and agree with me and I suspect Ank99 also has the same view.

Indeed, none of them (except for Ank99) has edited the talk page... - Snchduer 13:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

--Argyrosargyrou 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

There was never any agreement to keep restarting from the version by JL everytime you don't like the truth and the historical facts being mentiond. I have made chages to the JL version to make it neutral. Your (both Snchduer and EA) removal of the historical facts, statistics and description of events is sabotage. Start from those if you want to contribute any further like Ank99 has done. If you don't like the facts, the legal definitions and statistics then here is the place to discuss them.

Truth and historical facts are so relative on Cyprus. The version by JL was quite balanced and NPOV. It was in fact not Turkish propaganda. We can start from this version, adding facts and also points of view, but your first action after JL finished his contribution was reverting to your previous version in complete disregard of his achievement and effort - Snchduer 13:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

--Argyrosargyrou 13:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

And to Snchduer. What were you doing in the occupied north in the first place. Don't you realise that the Greek Cypriots who made 90% of the population can never enjoy the beaches and the property they own. By staying in the occupied areas you contributed to the coffers of the occupation regime and perpetuated Cyprus division. You are no different to the people who perpetuated apartheid in South Africa by trading with the Africana regime and whereas that regime was recognised by the UN the Turkish occupation regime in Cyprus is not so you are far worse.

This actually does not really deserve a comment, so I will make it short: I do not think the fact that the island is divided deprives me of the right to see the whole island. And I do not believe that my visiting the north gives about any statement about the regime there. - Snchduer 13:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

How can you dismiss the credibility of Snchduer, when you write to the British Foreign Affairs Committee in the hope of starting a war against Turkish Cypriots and Turkey. Let me quote you from your submitted evidence:

"decisive military action must be taken against Turkey to force its capitulation, once air-superiority and superiority on the ground and in the sea has been achieved by Greece and the United Kingdom as guarantor powers of the Republic of Cyprus and the European Union which has the duty to protect its territorial integrity, so that Cyprus can be liberated."

Why don't you quote everything I said. If Turkey does not comply with UN resolutions and ECHR judgments and sanctions fail to make it comply then the only option is to use force in the same way that it was used against Saddam by George Bush Snr.--Argyrosargyrou 22:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This doesnt seem to make you the best source for impartiatlity on this aritcle does it. I'd rather someone promote holidays to the North than wars... --E.A 13:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's a question, How many Turkish Cypriots owned property in the north before the events of 1963 started to force Turkish Cypriots into enclaves? If property was taken by Greek Cypriots from Turkish Cypriots between 1963-1974, then they have no ligitimate right to that land. The sword cuts both ways, you know. --Expatkiwi 17:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The TC's owned less than 10% of the property in the north before 1963. Value wise they owned less than 5%.

Most TC's lived in property rented from GC's landlords in GC majority villages. When they moved into enclaves the GC's were deprived of a living.

Before 1963 97% of the Greek Cypriots in the north lived in villages with a Greek Cypriot majority (1963 census) and 66% of Turkish Cypriots lived in villages with a Turkish Cypriot majority (1963 census). Less than 20,000 TC's lived in Greek Cypriot villages and only 6,000 GC's lived in Turkish Cyprtot villages out of a population of 144,000 GC's that lived in the north (excluding Varosha).

The question you have to ask is why the Annan plan did not allow all Greek Cypriot majority villages in the north to be placed under GC's control which would have ensured that 97% of the Greek Cypriot refugees could return to their homes and would have affected only 20,000 TC's.

Because it has been agreed any future plan will comprise of 2 federated states. How can you have a Turkish Cypriot federate state if its majority is Greek Cypriot, they will be minority in their own country. Which of course would suit GC's down to the ground but not very tempting for TC's. --E.A 18:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The cantons under TC administration should only consist of villages that the Turkish Cypriots formed the majority in before 1963. If this were done 97% of the Greek Cypriots would be unaffected and could all return to their homes under Greek Cypriot control. 66% of the TC's would be able to from their own administration and be the outright majority in the TC cantons with only 18% of the population there being GC's without any of the ethnic cleansing which would have heppend under Annan plan having to take place.--Argyrosargyrou 22:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line

The bottom line is that the Greek Cypriot community still wants Cyprus to be an integral part of the Hellenic Republic (Greece) while the Turkish Cypriots wish to retain their presence on the island without fear of persecution. The events of 1963 and 1974 have made the Turkish Cypriots extremely wary of the current motives of the Greek Cypriots (who also shot themselves in the foot by voting down the 2004 Annan Plan). If the international community is unwilling to officially recognize the existance of the TRNC, then a federated state is the only answer. The sooner that the Greek Cypriot side can fully accept this - as well as that Turkish Cypriots are people too, the better, otherwise the TRNC should be finally acknowledged. --Expatkiwi04:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

--Argyrosargyrou 22:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC) deleted personal attack - RickK 23:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

How do you explain your recommending the page on the Hellenic Genocide for deletion ? --Argyrosargyrou 17:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Rick, I appreciate your gesture, but Argyrosargyrou is entitled to air his opinions on the issue. Personally, I have followed this particular issue for years. Being neither Greek or Turk, I like to think that my conclusions on who is more to blame for the inter-communal conflict on Cyprus is taken from a more impartial viewpoint. But to answer Argyrosargyrou, I make no apologies for my stand. I believe fully in the principle of self-determination and if the Turkish Cypriots desire to live in their own state, then their wishes should be respected.--Expatkiwi04:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Fine! Are you also willing to give YOUR house and possibly a part of the state YOU live in for them to establish their own state? If not, then you make no sense and are theorizing and adopting propaganda style arguments. --Ank99 06:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Except for the (very unrealistic) prospect of some army chasing Turkey out militarily from Cyprus, any agreement in the Cyprus issue will need to be agreed on by at least Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots and Turkey. A separation will never be accepted by the GCs, for a lot of reasons. Neither will a complete and sudden reinstatement of ownership be accepted by the TCs, also for quite some reasons. So I find any discussion on this pure theory, however your own personal opinion on this may be. - Snchduer 15:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Very soon the EU will be setting up navel patrols to stop illegal immigration in the north. If Turkey tries to challenge these patrols or send more troops and colonists to Cyprus then it will be a war with the EU. Lets see how long the Turkish occupation can last with Turkeys military supply line cut off. --Argyrosargyrou 17:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that the naval patrols will stop the military supplies for the Turkish armed forces in northern Cyprus. Also, I do not think they will start shooting down planes, so it is highly unlikely that the supply line will be cut off. - Snchduer 18:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

He is entitled to make reasoned discussion, he is not entitled to make personal attacks. See WP:RPA. RickK 04:33, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ank99, The GC's tried to force out the TC's from the island from 1963 thru 1974, so that ALL of Cyprus would be theirs. That is why I don't sympathize with them. It's called taking consequences for their actions. --Expatkiwi17:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

They did nothing of the kind whatsover and what you have written is typical Turkish propaganda. How dare you accuse the Greek Cypriots of trying to force the Turkish Cypriots out of the island in 1974 who you know perfectly well they did not and that Turkey massacred 5,000 Greek Cypriot civilians and savagely ethnically cleansed 200,000 more. And how dare you accuse the Greek Cypriots of trying to force the Turkish Cypriots out of the island in 1964 when they were being systematically attacked by Turkish state sponsored TMT terrorists who along with Turkey were trying to portition the island as is evident from the Galo Plaza report.

Neither you nor EA, nor RickK, nor Snchduer can be considered neutral. --Argyrosargyrou 18:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Neither are you. The moment I heard the GREEK national anthem being played when a Cypriot won a Gold Medal at the 1990 Commonwealth Games, I knew then that the Greek Cypriots wanted all TC's out. --Expatkiwi21:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)