Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Invasion of Cyprus

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Turkish Invasion of Cyprus[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted 85.101.216.181 20:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) This article is not objective.[reply]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 03:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Turkish Invasion of Cyprus[edit]

  • DeleteThis article should be deleted because it is very subjective. All articles in Wikipedia should be objective.
  • KeepThe events pertaining to the 1974 twin illegal invasion, partition and occupation of the northern areas of the Republic of Cyprus and described in the article are true. You should keep this article. unsigned comment by IP 134.58.253.113
    • possible sockpuppet the IP addy for that comment is a shared IP at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. The IP has a total of >50 edits, but has 4 in the last day, all relating to the Turkey/Greece/Cyprus dispute. Feco 17:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A strongly POV fork of Cyprus dispute, created by User:Argyrosargyrou as an apparent means of getting around the current protection of the Cyprus dispute article. Argyrosargyrou appears to be something of an edit warrior, judging from the Cyprus dispute page history. I suggest that this article be merged with Cyprus dispute and deleted. -- ChrisO 11:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Added) Large chunks of the content appear to be a straight copy-and-paste from http://countrystudies.us/cyprus/15.htm . It's not clear whether this constitutes a copyright violation, but it's certainly bad practice. -- ChrisO 17:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well if that's where the introduction originally came from then why don't you nominate the "Cyprus dispute" page for deletion as well since that's where I copied it from before editing it. Dobule standards is what is and more prove if any more was need that the vfd for this page is part of a contend war and therefore invalid ! --Argyrosargyrou 10:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That section has now been reworded so this no possibility of copyright violations.--Argyrosargyrou 10:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is the 3rd attempt of User:Argyrosargyrou(currently under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Argyrosargyrou) to get around the protection of Cyprus dispute, he has tried Cyprus issue, Cyprus problem and now this. Request immediate deletion or redirect. --E.A 12:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being a POV fork. This is yet another attempt of User:Argyrosargyrou to push through his view on the Cyprus dispute/issue/conflict, and is virtually identical with his last edit there (before the page was locked): Argyro's last edit - Snchduer 13:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This Vfd is an attempt by the Turkish propagandists and apologists named above (Snchduer and E.A) to deny the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the crimes against humanity which Turkey perpetrated against Greek Cypriots including mass human rights violations of which Turkey has been found Guilty of by the European Court of Human Rights, destruction of cultural heritage, illegal colonisation and fate of missing persons. These Turkish apologists have repeatedly vandalised the Cyprus dispute page in order to prevent the facts and figures from being included and now they are using the same disruptive tactics here.--Argyrosargyrou 13:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense. I nominated it for deletion, and I have no involvement with any of the parties nor the disputed articles. -- ChrisO 16:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are a Turkish apologist and do have involvement in disputed articles since you have nominated this historical article for deletions. That makes you a holocaust denier. It is sickening that people like you want to deny the truth about crimes against humanity to the whole world.--Argyrosargyrou 09:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CIV, WP:NPA, Godwin's law, don't compare people to nazis. Radiant_* 13:19, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • And anyway this page was originally nominated for deletion by the Turkish apologist Snchduer who is involved in a content war on the Cyprus dispute page and is responsible for repeated vandalism of that page in order to exclude that facts that I have placed on this page.--Argyrosargyrou 09:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either way, it's a POV fork, so merge back, unfork and delete and use WP:RFC to decide the debate if necessary. Radiant_* 14:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a point of fact not a point of view. The Turkish invasion of Cyprus occured and is a historical issue. Deletion of this page is tantamount to denying the NAZI hlocaust ever happend--Argyrosargyrou 14:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CIV, WP:NPA, Godwin's law, and read what I just wrote. We already have an article on the Cyprus matter and there's no point in having two of them. Radiant_* 13:19, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • As I have already said that article does not contain anything about war crimes, ethnic cleaning, missing persons, destruction of cultural heritage, human rights violations and illegal colonisation and it equates the innocent victims with the brutal aggressors. Every attempt I have made to include the historical facts in that article has been met with Vandalism by the Turkish apologists who have taken it over and are conspiring with each other to prevent the truth form being heard.--Argyrosargyrou 15:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It will contain as soon as you calm down a bit, and stop trying and rewriting the whole article in order for these facts to be included. Oh, and start accepting the Turkish Cypriot point of view as well. (mind, I am not Turkish nor Turkish Cypriot) - Snchduer 15:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. POV forks like these are not candidates for speedy deletion, to the best of my knowledge—and I asked around. JRM · Talk 15:08, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The policy clearly doesn't allow for speedy deletion in such circumstances. -- ChrisO 16:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, but regular deletion may be appropriate. Or not. That's what this discussion is for. Radiant_* 13:19, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
    Note that my comment was in direct response to several speedy delete votes that have since mysteriously disappeared. JRM · Talk 07:48, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • send to RFC; there probably is scope for an article on the specific military actions of the Turks as a subpage to the Cyprus dispute page, but RFC is the place to sort it, not VFD. Dunc|☺ 17:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and send to RFC. A POV fork is not the solution to a content dispute. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more of Argyrosargyrou's attempt to rewrite history. RickK 19:40, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, everyone note that there is already an RfC on the user in question b/c the problems are spread across multiple articles. Feco 04:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another well known Turkish apologist that has also nominated the Hellenic Genocide page for deletion as part of a content war. --Argyrosargyrou 09:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess you're having a hard time keeping all us Turkish apologists straight. I never nominated Hellenic Genocide for deletion. In fact, I actually voted to keep it, stating that wiki had a big gap in covering the events in question. I changed my vote to delete after seeing you monopolize the article, abuse wikipedia, insult users and refuse to accept any other editors' contributions to the article. I highly encourage folks to read Hellenic Genocide and its associated VfD page. Feco 17:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete if possible as a re-creation of previously deleted content. If that argument doesn't convince, then delete as POV fork. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no place on WP for this sort of POV fork. OpenToppedBus - Talk 10:27, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV fork. - Mustafaa 18:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as skewed POV. This site ignores ligitimate Turkish concerns, the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, and the primary motivation for the UNSC resolutions (setting precedents affecting British, U.S. and Russian spheres of influence with restive oppressed minorities)- Expatkiwi 05:01, 2 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The text as it currently reads is full of pro-Greek POV and clearly needs a lot of work. However, the concept of the article is valid (it has the potential to be far more than a POV fork). Just because we have an article Napoleonic Wars doesn't preclude the existence of Battle of Waterloo. I think that everyone needs to calm down and get back to editing good articles. Phlogistomania 13:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This needs sorting out, but not on VfD. My preference: Get rid of obviously POV titles (like Greek Cypriot Genocide or Turkish Cypriot Genocide), treat a broad overview in Cyprus dispute, and have a neutral article specifically on the Turkish invasion (which is part of the broader conflict but a specific military "event") at this location, preferably one that treats the invasion as narrowly as possible and refers the reader to Cyprus dispute for information on the wider geopolitical issues (so as to avoid fighting over the same issues on a multitude of pages). --Delirium 01:27, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Duplication of Cyprus dispute. ~~~~ 16:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep We need different views of the same subject. Aalien 20:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Nobody is saying that the information shouldn't be there, nor that the Greek POV not be reported, but separating out all pro-Greek information into one article is not the Wikipedia way. RickK 23:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The Cyprus Issue itself is a POV issue. In my opinion there is no way that articles surrounding it will get away from POV issues. So, best thing to do is let both POVs exist not suppress them. I know that user Argyrosargyrou has been trying to pass his GC POV on Cyprus dispute without success due to an "organised gang" of Turkish or TC POV individuals. Also, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus is a significant event in the Cyprus dispute which does deserve its own article. --Ank99 05:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Your personal attacks are not acceptable. Just because someone wants to keep an article NPOV does not mean they adhere to the opposite POV from the one in this article. RickK 23:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The article is definitely not perfect, but it does contain relevant material. --Valentinian 22:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Why can't that information be in the original article that this was forked from? RickK 23:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This article certainly has more references than the pro-Turkish side. In light with recent developments of another user, I think we should keep this and let him share his point of view, just as others have. BTW this is not a duplication of the Cyprus dispute. It only uses the same sources of info. This is not rewriting history. This action is obviously a historical truth. There was an invasion. But if I were not so busy or if I were not on vacation, would I sit back while I see various new articles pop up with a Turkish POV allegedly, which may be historical just as this article is? No I would not. I would state my own opinion as others have done. Nevertheless, I would have done thinks a lot differently than anyone here. I was already branded as a person with a POV but I would not go on a crusade to write articles for the hell of it. By now whoever started it is irrelevant and the fact that it is happening is the issue. I have a lot more to say on this matter but I have to be brief right now. I have to get back to my vacation. PEACE and GOD BLESS.(UNFanatic 05:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  • Strong Keep I cannot understand why it should be deleted. I thought the Turkish Military is very proud on the success of the invasion. When there are articles on single battles, why a war cannot have its own article? —Geraki 2005-06-13 T 14:56 Z
    • Who said it couldn't? Where has that ever been anyone's contention? RickK 23:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Argyrosargyrou, your comments only discredit yourself, not the others. Stop behaving like a spoiled child. - Snchduer 12:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argyrosargyrou, I'd like to know what your vision for Cyprus would be, as you obviously oppose two countries on the island. Is your mood for (a) a federal state in Cyprus, (b) a unitary state under the 1960 constitution, (c) a unitary state under a new constitution, (d) or a province of the Hellenic Republic? As you know, I support recognition for the TRNC. )- Expatkiwi 05:04, 2 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what user talk pages were made for. I cannot see such a discussion contributing meaningfully to the VfD—no disrespect intended. JRM · Talk 17:02, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
  • Delete This article should be deleted or there should be another article as "Cyprus Peace Opearation". Turks did not come to the island to make an invasion. Turks came to island to protect the Turkish Cypriots who were sufferring of persecution by Greek Cypriots. Maverick16 (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Turkish_Invasion_of_Cyprus&oldid=356948081"