Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Requested move: 1974 Cyprus war (08.02.2014)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus.
Weighing this discussion has not been easy. A pure head-count would lead to recording a clear decision to reject a change to the article title. However, polling is not a substitute for discussion or for policy-based arguments, and consensus cannot be weighed simply by counting heads. It is also a matter of how well arguments are founded in policy.
This was a discussion about the title of an article on a war only 40 years whose consequences are still a live political issue, and on which some editors had strong views. That affected the quality of the debate, and so did the excessive verbosity of some posters, and the protracted arguments over the results of badly-constructed Google searches. WP:AT explains that book and scholar searches are preferable to general web searches because they concentrate reliable sources, but editors on both sides of the debate posted web searches. Other search results were posted which used the title words without quotes, which guarantees a high number of false positives. So a lot of search data presented was irrelevant and misleading, and most of the debate was wasted in arguing over that.
A further problem in the debate was that editors tended to take a binary view of policy on article titles, assuming either that common usage was the most important factor, or that neutrality was the most important.
The reality is more complicated. Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality, but also of verifiablity and of avoiding original research, and all of those policies explicitly underpin the policy on article titles. Most topics can be titled with little or no difficulty in reconciling all 3 policies, but cases like this make that harder, because the many options appear to endorse a particular view of the conflict. As a tertiary publication relying on secondary sources, Wikipedia tries to give due weight to the various scholarly viewpoints. However, in choosing concise and recognisable article titles, we can't explicitly acknowledge all points of view; the title should be a few words, not the long sentence which would be used in an academic journal. Our policy is that the choice of those few words should be made in light of all 3 of the underlying policies, but too many editors in this debate appeared interested only in one or other of the core policies.
In a complex case like this, assessing the usage frequency of possible titles should be the starting point, followed by assessing whether recent uses followed a different pattern to older mentions, and then considering the neutrality of various options. That didn't happen, and there were pointless references to primary source documents such as UN resolutions and court rulings; inadmissable original research, mostly from the nominator whose walls of green text were highly disruptive.
Finally, there was no attempt in the debate to consider whether a non-judgemental descriptive title might be appropriate in this case, per WP:NDESC.
Maybe the unstructured RM process is the wrong way to consider a question like this, especially when passions run so high. I hope that if editors want to reopen this discussion in the future, they will consider some sort of structured decision-making process, rather than this disjointed and acrimonious debate. (That has been done in other contentious cases, such as the naming of the article called Republic of Ireland). But this discussion shed more heat than light, and cannot be considered to have produced any sort of consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


Turkish invasion of Cyprus → 1974 Cyprus war –

Rationale for the proposed page name change:
1. Fair Approach, Neutrality, Objectivity:
This way of entitling the article ("1974 Cyprus war") avoids any qualifying of the war and hence results almost no conflict. Definitely, this way of titleing the article is far more fair approach towards the "invasion/interference" POVs. When one use "invasion" (or equally the "interference") to depict the war in 1974 and hence thereby the entitling in Wikipedia, there are millions of Wikipedians on both sides of the conflict who oppose this way of qualifying the war (the qualifying is rejected by one of the sides in each cases). On the other hand, the sides accepts the existing of the "war".

2. Almost closed to objections:
Nobody can deny anything about each of the words in "1974 Cyprus war": It happened in 1974 and the operation finished in 1974; It was in Cyprus island; It was war. Even the Turkish Cypriots entitling it as "peace operation" accept that it was war. "peace operation" is rather to qualify the nature of the war, according to them, I think.

3. Google Search:
"1974 Cyprus War" (without quotes): 8,890,000 results
https://www.google.com.tr/?gws_rd=cr&ei=3TH2UuO_BKOX4wT08YHAAw#q=1974+Cyprus+War and
"Cyprus War" (with quotes): 10,400 results
https://www.google.com.tr/?gws_rd=cr&ei=OFT3UuHDEeWB4ATmk4C4AQ#q=%22Cyprus+war%22
"1974 Cyprus War" (with quotes): 78,500 results
https://www.google.com.tr/?gws_rd=cr&ei=3TH2UuO_BKOX4wT08YHAAw#q=%221974+Cyprus+War%22
Academia: Google Scholar Searchs:
"1974 Cyprus War" (without quotes): 39,700 results
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=1974+Cyprus+war&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
"1974 Cyprus War" (with quotes): 19 results.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%221974+Cyprus+war%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
NGram shows very very sharp decline after 1979 decision of Greece's court, and the usage "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is deflating continuosly.: NGram.

4. Robust proofs of the parties in discussion:
I am giving the following not for supporting the "intervention" side, but to support each side ("invasion"ers, "intervention"ers) has robust proofs to some extent. I will not give the robust proofs of "invasion"ers since they are known to the many participants of the discussion as well. I added the followings especially for those who do not know the followings.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE): (29.07.1974, Res. 573) "Turkish military intervention was the exercise of a right emanating from an international Treaty and the fulfilment of a legal and moral obligation."
Greece's Athens Court of Appeals (21.03.1979): "The Turkish military intervention in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London Accords, was legal".

5. The alternatives may not be that much satisfactory:
Some people may suggest other alternatives ("Cyprus war in 1974" or "Cyprus war of 1974"), but "1974 Cyprus war" (as in "2013-14 Euroleague") suits better in Wikipedia practice.

6. Counter arguements of the defenders of "Turkish invasion of Cyprus":
I know there are people who opposes the above proposal. It would be fair and ethical to bring here based on what they objected the above proposal (I added my replies as well):

Δρ.Κ.: It is the WP:COMMONNAME of the invasion. That's what's called by the majority of the reliable sources.

Alexyflemming: Non-neutral but common names https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Non-neutral_but_common_names

Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:
1. Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
2. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious

T*U: Somehow you forgot to mention the main clause: In such cases, the prevalence of the name ... generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. The prevalence of the name "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" for what happened in 1974 is so obvious in English language literature that it is the only possible choice for the title.

Alexyflemming: As you state: "...generally overries...", not "...always overrides..."!. Also, English language literature well metions the events of that period as "the war in 1974" as well. Hence, "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is not the only possible choice for the title. Alexyflemming (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

7. Meeting the requirements of all the good Wikipedia article titling characteristics and practices: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency:
 Naturalness: "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is troublesome to link from other articles: Linking the war in 1974 as "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" instead of "Cyprus war" have some non-suitablities: Not everybody see and record the war in 1974 as "Turkish invasion of Cyprus", but everybody accepts it as a war!
Precision: Turks did not capture the Cyprus only in 1974, they captured it in 1571 as well, hence "Turkish invasion" is also used for the war in 1571. The phrase "Turkish invasion", besides "non-neutrality", also includes "disambiguity". Look at the beginning introductory directive in "Ottoman-Venetian_War_(1570-1573): "This article is about the 1570 Ottoman Turkish invasion and conquest of Cyprus."
Conciseness: The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
"Turkish invasion of Cyprus", besides "non-neutrality", also longer than "1974 Cyprus war" (26 characters versus 15 characters: %73 longer; and biased)
Consistency: "1974 Cyprus war" is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Also, in topic-specific conventions on article title, in "Infobox military conflict" infoboxes of other similar titles, "conflict" entry is almost filled with "war", not "invasion", "intervention", "peace operation" etc.
In Wikipedia (just as in the other places), the armed struggles almost always depicted as "war", not "invasion", "intervention", "peace operation" etc.:
war: https://www.google.com.tr/?gfe_rd=ctrl&ei=79j5Uu6pFKKh8weJyoGgCQ&gws_rd=cr#q=war : 626,000,000 results (12-times more!)
invasion:https://www.google.com.tr/?gfe_rd=ctrl&ei=79j5Uu6pFKKh8weJyoGgCQ&gws_rd=cr#q=invasion : 50,500,000 results
Wikipedia war: https://www.google.com.tr/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=Z9v5UrGbNayh8wfVo4HIBw#q=Wikipedia+war : 217,000,000 results (3-times more!)
Wikipedia invasion: https://www.google.com.tr/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=Z9v5UrGbNayh8wfVo4HIBw#q=Wikipedia+invasion : 60,300,000 results
Depicting wars with "invasion", "intervention", "peace operation" etc. are all propaganda and includes some sort of bias. Other than that, every invasion is war, but not vice versa: There are wars that are not invasion!

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
The NGram shows very fast sharp decline of the usage "Turkish invasion of Cyprus", especially after the 1979 decision of Greek highest court. Also, the general tendency of academic world to use "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is declining though the visibility of Cyprus issue has peaked for the last decade (2004 Annan Referendum etc.).
As for WP:COMMONNAME (Use commonly recognizable names), "Cyprus war" is easier both to use, remember and cite if compared with "Turkish invasion of Cyprus". Even there are thousands of articles in the NGram that used "Turkish invasion of Cyprus", but at the same time used "the Cyprus war" to refer the event of 1974.
Non-neutral but common names https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Non-neutral_but_common_names
Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:
1. Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
2. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious
Alexyflemming (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
"Invasion" is neither a Trendy slogan or a Colloquialism. It is the WP:COMMONNAME which accurately depicts the wide usage of the phrase "Turkish invasion" in the English language and does not attempt to hide the name of the invader by using almost non-extant terms like "1974 Cyprus War" whose frequency in the English language is almost nil. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
"Invasion" is a Colloquialism: ((Colloquialism is a word, phrase or paralanguage that is employed in conversational or informal language but not in formal speech or formal writing.)) None of the United Nations resolutions used the word "invasion" in Cyprus dispute. Also, look what Greek's highest court (which definitely read billions of invasion books/articles, millions of intervention books/articles) said and decided: Greece's Athens Court of Appeals (21.03.1979): "The Turkish military intervention in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London Accords, was legal". Formal writing of highest court especially in a related court decision supersides the other usages of scholars. Because, the court decided and said in the light of that scholars as well. There is no court decision in Turkey that used the word "invasion" for the dispute. I gave these two since Helens and Turks are the two parties in Cyprus dispute. Both parties used and uses "intervention" in formal writing (primariliy: court decisions). Anyway, the name change offer is not invasion/intervention struggle as is seen from the proposed title. Rather, completely different: To isolate the issue from any biases. There are biases in Turkish side as well. Alexyflemming (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how 'invasion' is a colloquialism. It is used in formal writing; it's used in academic literature. — Lfdder (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Greece's Highest Court used the word "intervention" and "legal" for 1974-Turkey-military-operation after the court read all the academic literature (books, articles) of 1974-1979 in Greece and in all over the world. Similarly, United Nations Security Council did not qualify it as invasion in all of its resolutions in Cyprus dispute since 1963. The usage of some words ("genocide", "invasion" etc.) in Assemblies/Courts/International Platforms requires undeniable and indisputable proofs and facts. Remember, ECtHR (European Court of Human Rights) decided in 17.12.2013 that 1915 Events cannot be qualiefied as "genocide"! This is perhaps similar to this. The Greece's government itself cannot use "invasion" in international official courts etc. (notice even Greece's Highest Court didn't use "invasion"). Perhaps, the very same officials may use "invasion" for other purposes (lip service to ordinary public, conditioning internal and external spheres, affecting comprehensions with pre-acceptions, many other reasons, etc.).Alexyflemming (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Thankfully, this isn't a court of law; it's Wikipedia. Wikipedia relies on academic literature. And it's overwhelmingly called an invasion in lit (see my comment below). — Lfdder (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
not overwhelmingly: "1974 Cyprus War" (without quotes): 8,890,000 results; "Cyprus War" (with quotes): 10,400 results; "1974 Cyprus War" (with quotes): 78,500 results. Alexyflemming (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Right, I've wasted enough time here. I'm not playing cat and mouse. — Lfdder (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Your "attempting to hide the name of the invader" and "hiding the name of the PRINCIPAL INITIATOR of that war" accusations were essentially same in character of accusation. I replied below the latter in full extent.
"Cyprus war" returns 10,400 results in Google search. Also, adding the dates/periods/moments to the head of a title is a common and beautiful Wikipedia practise: as in 2013-14 Euroleague. Alexyflemming (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Even if we take 1974 to be some sort of prefix, 'Turkish invasion of Cyprus' is still far more common in lit:
— Lfdder (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
"1974 Cyprus War" (without quotes): 8,890,000 results; "Cyprus War" (with quotes): 10,400 results. i.e., the "Cyprus war" usage is also one of the very common usages. NGram shows very very sharp decline after 1979 decision of Greece's court, and the usage "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is deflating continuosly.: NGram.
Also, you (Lfdder) are continuously censoring via "hiding by collapsing" my opinions and edits:
09.02.2014 21.54 (1st censorship): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus&diff=594729932&oldid=594729330
09.02.2014 22.34 (I reverted the censorship): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus&diff=next&oldid=594734100
09.02.2014 23.18 (2nd censorship): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus&diff=next&oldid=594740569
I think, it is very very unfair and unethical to censor thoughts and opinions. If you continuously do that, then WikiPedia becomes CensoredPedia.
Other equally important reasoning: When the proposed name change accepted, "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" phrase can still be put in the article as to inform the readers what alternatives is there for qualifying the event in 1974. But, on the other hand, if "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is protected, then those who want to hide the attrocities of Helens (there is! besides that of Turks) does not allow any counter mentioning and give rise to extreme prejudice. Putting everywhere "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" whenever an issue related with Cyprus Dispute is pre-conditioning and brute-forcing the mind to a certain angle. Here is an example: Dr. K. converted the edit in Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots:
"After the hostilities of the 1963-74 period and the war in 1974, a Population Exchange Agreement was realized between Greek and Turkish Cypriots under the auspieces of United Nations on 02 August 1975."
became
"After the hostilities of the 1963-74 period and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, a Population Exchange Agreement was realized between Greek and Turkish Cypriots under the auspieces of United Nations on 02 August 1975."
with the pretext of "Per standard article name" (this is his edit summary).
This is propogation of certain bias, prejudice, to ALL of the concerned Wikipedia articles with "standard title name" pretext. Should a title name in Wikipedia propogate everywhere in Wikipedia a non-stopping bias, prejudice, and conditioning of Wiki readers? I think, it should not.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Should a title name in Wikipedia propogate everywhere in Wikipedia a non-stopping bias, prejudice, and conditioning of Wiki readers? I think, it should not.: Wikipedia is not to be used to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In Wikipedia we go by the terminology of the rest of the WP:RELIABLESOURCES, the great majority of which calls this attack a "Turkish invasion". Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Even if the NGram shows a decline in the use of the full phrase "Turkish invasion of Cyprus", the ratio is still 7:1. Also, when I tried to make a Google Book search to find the books that use only one of the phrases and not the other, I came up with many results mentioning the "Cyprus war 1570-1573" or some Cyprus war in antiquity. These are also included in the small number of "Cyprus war" books, making the real ratio even larger. As for the thousands of articles in the NGram that used "Turkish invasion of Cyprus", but at the same time used "the Cyprus war" argument, it is a nice boomerang. That means that "thousand of articles" that mention the "Cyprus war" (and are included in the count for that phrase) at the same time use the "Turkish invasion". --T*U (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
See the trend: (Google Search is just as the things in paranthesis)
(Cyprus 1974 "Turkish invasion"): 188,000 results
https://www.google.com.tr/?gws_rd=cr&ei=OFT3UuHDEeWB4ATmk4C4AQ#q=Cyprus+1974+%22Turkish+invasion%22
(Cyprus 1974 "Turkish invasion" -war): 96,800 results
https://www.google.com.tr/?gws_rd=cr&ei=OFT3UuHDEeWB4ATmk4C4AQ#q=Cyprus+1974+%22Turkish+invasion%22+-war
More than half of the references used "war"; it is "war", nobody can claim otherwise, even the "invasion"ers.Alexyflemming (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Another nice boomerang! What you have shown, is that half the books that mention "Turkish invasion" does not use the word "war". Actually quite amazing! Just to compare, books that mention "Cyprus war" without using the word invasion ("Cyprus war" 1974 -invasion) gives as few as 2200 results.
https://www.google.com.tr/?gws_rd=cr&ei=OFT3UuHDEeWB4ATmk4C4AQ#q=%22Cyprus+war%22+1974+-invasion
--T*U (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Per my arguments in the closed move request from May 2013 above. This is the common name used in the reliable sources and encyclopedias. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
When deemed both intervention/invasion includes some degree of bias and POVs, "May 2013 move request" ("Turkish invasion of Cyprus" → "Turkish intervention in Cyprus") is in essence a change request from a biased approach to another one; from less biased to more biased or vice versa depending on which side of the parties someone is located. On the other hand, ("Turkish invasion of Cyprus" → "1974 Cyprus war") name change suggestion is almost free from any bias and POVs. Hence, the natures and characters of the name changes ("Turkish invasion of Cyprus" → "Turkish intervention in Cyprus") and ("Turkish invasion of Cyprus" → "1974 Cyprus war") is completely different. Furthermore, the name change ("Turkish invasion of Cyprus" → "1974 Cyprus war") will decrease and lessen total composite aggragate degree of bias and POVs (of both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots) in Wikipedia.Alexyflemming (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Our task here is to neutrally represent what is said in leading, reliable sources. Our task isn't to represent the invasion/intervention/war/what-have-you 'neutrally' -- if such a thing is possible. 'Cyprus war' is scarcely used in literature, and so renaming the article to that would not be neutral. — Lfdder (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
'Cyprus war' is scarcely used in literature? : "Cyprus War" (with quotes): 10,400 results
https://www.google.com.tr/?gws_rd=cr&ei=OFT3UuHDEeWB4ATmk4C4AQ#q=%22Cyprus+war%22 What sort of Scarcity is this?
Google Scholar: "Cyprus war" (with quootes): 423 results: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Cyprus+war%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
The scarcity arguement is invalid for both of the sides of the arguement.Alexyflemming (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Plain Google search 10,400 vs. 279,000 "Turkish invasion".
Google Scholar: 423 vs 6,240 "Turkish invasion"
"Scarce" seems right to me. --T*U (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@Alexyflemming: Google Search isn't lit. Many of the results in Scholar are false positives. — Lfdder (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, 'Cyprus war' isn't the name you're proposing we move this article to; it's '1974 Cyprus war'.
— Lfdder (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The term "1974 Cyprus War" is almost non-existent. In addition it is also misleading because it hides the name of the principal initiator of that war, which is Turkey, and the nature of the war which was an invasion. Such transparent attempt to hide these facts is non-neutral POV. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
it hides the name of the PRINCIPAL INITIATOR of that war, which is Turkey !!?. Look at what you wrote a couple of lines below: Britannica: In July 1974 the Greek Cypriot National Guard, whose officers were mainland Greeks, atempted a coup, planned by the ruling military junta in Athens, to achieve enosis.. Hence, you disprove yourself your "hiding principal initiator" arguement. Notice that, almost whatever is handled in Cyprus dispute, there is some degree of bias just as your new "principal initiator" arguement. It should be Wikipedia's neutrality aim to be free from this conflict of interests. Also, 15.07.1974, Coup and declaration of "Hellenic Republic of Cyprus", 19.07.1974, Makarios' speech at UN SG: "Cyprus invaded by Greece", 20.07.1974, Turkey's meddling. Are 15.07.1974 and 19.07.1974 not preceding 20.07.1974? Are "coup", "Declaration of Hellenic Republic of Cyprus", "Enosis (union with Greece)", "Makarios(1st President of Cyprus, in UN SC meeting): "Cyprus was invaded by Greece"" not initiator for a war?
There are only 2 possibilities: You either know or do not know the followings:
20.07.1974 (I-day): Turkey's military operation to Cyprus.
19.07.1974 (just 1 day before I-day): Makarios, 1st president of Cyprus, a Greek Cypriot, on United Nations Security Council Meeting: "Cyprus was invaded by Greece"
15.07.1974 (5 days before I-day): Nicos Sampson finished Makarios with a coup and declared "Hellenic Republic of Cyprus"
1st possibility: You know all above but intentionally omit them to propogate one sided biased info.
This is double standard. Because, "Turkish invasion" phrase not only covers up (and HIDES) all the above atrocities performed by Helens, but also pre-conditions normal Wikipedia reader. Wikipedia must create a fair environment in a disputed article thereby making users freely add the arguements of both sides and thereby should let the reader to form his or her opinion about the article in discussion. That's to say, Wikipedia reveals facts, infos and data and leaves the last decision to readers. "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" does not leave reader the last decision, just the opposite: it conditions him/her and it loads many pre-acception to him/her.
2nd possibility: You do not know all above.
This is because, someones made you pre-conditioning and prevent you to learn the above; Someones loaded you many pre-acceptions and many prejudice.
Here is just todays (09.02.2014) [1] article in Cyprus Mail (A Greek Cypriot newspaper), Please read: Loucas Charalambous (A Greek Cypriot) "The truth behind the ‘Turkish revolt’ plan": "....These are the truths that OUR PREJUDICES do not allow us to see....".
"I" am not saying this, "A Greek Cypriot" is saying this! A Greek Cypriot says Greek Cypriots were loaded with many prejudice. In this 2nd possibility, the necessity of name change "1974 Cyprus war" is obvious. "The loading" Helens with many prejudices, pre-acceptions, and conditioning Helens by Greece's and Greek Cypriots' officials and authorities is normal and acceptable to some degree. But, is the very same "loading" to the average Wikipedia user of arbitrary nationality the very same many prejudices, pre-acceptions, and conditioning him/her by Wikipedia officials and authorities normal and acceptable?Alexyflemming (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
These are the truths that OUR PREJUDICES do not allow us to see...." It is apparent you are after the WP:TRUTH and you are resorting to personal attacks to accomplish it. Cease the personal attacks. I repeat again: This discussion is about the WP:COMMONNAME, not about finding the WP:TRUTH of this invasion and not about attacking any contributor participating in this discussion. Face it: Your proposed article name has been proven by many users to be almost non-existent and your move proposal is unsupportable by WP:COMMONNAME and your walls of text full of personal attacks and original research are not convincing anyone. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:TRUTH (Verifiability, not truth): Is "Cyprus war" not verifiable?
"1974 Cyprus War" (without quotes): 8,890,000 results; "Cyprus War" (with quotes): 10,400 results; "1974 Cyprus War" (with quotes): 78,500 results; Academia: Google Scholar Searchs: "1974 Cyprus War" (without quotes): 39,700 results; "1974 Cyprus War" (with quotes): 19 results.
NGram shows very very sharp decline after 1979 decision of Greece's court, and the usage "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is deflating continuosly.
You frequently accuse me with "personal attack". When you mentioned "hiding invaders and main initiator of the war", I did not feel I am attacked. "hiding invaders and main initiator of the war" is your opinion. I respected your opinion. I disproved your opinion to the extent of my knowledge. When you feel bothered on something, just try to disprove, not accuse (with wordings like "resorting to personal attacks" etc.)! When my opinions and thoughts are indirectly CENSORED via "hiding via collapsing" just in this discussion, I did not feel I am attacked. I revealed the indirect CENSORSHIP with proofs (see above).
"you are resorting to personal attacks to accomplish it": I did not gave my opinion, but a Greek Cypriot's opinion; I even gave the reference.
Alexyflemming (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Most of Google Search results are not to RS, and searching for '1974 Cyprus war' w/out the quotes is absolutely meaningless. To insist that the dip in the n-gram's caused by the Greek courts decision w/ no evidence to go by is laughable. Most likely scenario? The invasion wasn't news anymore -- less people were writing about it. You kept saying 'you'. Did you not accuse Dr.K. of '... intentionally [omitting] them to propogate one sided biased info'? Did you not accuse them of ignorance and prejudice? — Lfdder (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
You said: "I've wasted enough time here. I'm not playing cat and mouse. (Lfdder 12:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)"]. It seems the mouses you catched is not big enough. It seems you need extra and extra "wasting" time here. I listed the possibilities: "intentionally omitting the other side of the medallion" is not the unique possibility there! Anyway, "you accused me; I am attacked, etc." are diverting the proposed name change. The rationale is just there above. It is fair for all to speak about how rationale or not are the proposed name change. Focus the rationales and prove/disprove accordingly; nothing else. Alexyflemming (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I've addressed all of your 'rationales'. What do you need clarification with? I remind you, you're the one who's derailed the discussion. — Lfdder (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Lfdder for your great points, but this is classic disruptive MO. The points included in the walls of text above, have all been made multiple times by other, now perma-blocked, users and have no relevance to this discussion. This discussion is about the WP:COMMONNAME not about righting of great wrongs. It is time for the initiator of this frivolous move discussion to drop the stick. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Your "disruptive MO" phrase links to "WP:Tend" (Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole.). When "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" and "1974 Cyprus war" are considered together, it is clear for one with common sense and prudence! that "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is partisan, biased or skewed, not "1974 Cyprus war"!
Also, the link you gave ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Cyprus&diff=prev&oldid=496949746 ) connects it (The info (Makarios: "Cyprus was invaded by Greece")) to official record of UN SC 1780th Meeting, 19.07.1974)! Do you say "giving official UN SC records is partisan, biased or skewed"?
I showed "1974 Cyprus war" has merits to pass WP:COMMONNAME; there are countless references as such. Besides this, WP:COMMONNAME is not the only criteria that must be taken into account: There are others: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency. "1974 Cyprus war" 15 characters, "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" 26 characters. The latter is %73 longer, more than that, it is biased.Alexyflemming (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't some kind of bastion of 'common sense and prudence'. We've been over this many times now. No, it most certainly does not pass COMMONNAME. 'Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency' aren't anybody's criteria but yours. Don't be ridiculous; 'Turkish invasion of Cyprus' is short enough. — Lfdder (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
You say "Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency aren't anybody's criteria but yours". With a very very little research, you could have found that the 5 are just exactly the 5 titling CRITERIA OF WIKIPEDIA!. Anyway, I am sure that it is impossible to change the minds of someone even if I have millions of robust arguements and proofs.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, overlooked that. Regardless, they are 'goals' -- not criteria. And which one of those goals does 'Turkish invasion of Cyprus' doe not meet? — Lfdder (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I took out the quotes... Umm, neutral for now I guess, but leaning towards a support. I'll wait and see what more experts say. Red Slash 22:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose per my comments above. — Lfdder (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is what it's commonly called. And there is no doubt that the Turks did invade Cyprus! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Move: @Alexyflemming. Frankly, I believe that your intentions are not in bad faith BUT I can't neglect the great deal of synthesis, personal attacks (and canvass). You simplify the Cyprus problem to the G/C being the initiators as it if it was something well known and an established fact. Particularly, you say you are neutral but you neglect the G/C views which claim that documents were found indicating that it was a plan by Turkey all along including (certain events) to invade the island and that even if it was an intervention they should have left as soon as 'peace' was established. You search what you want to find i.e synthesizing your arguments instead of taking a neutral perspective. and yet, you talk as you have solid proofs for your arguments while they are not. An example (irrelevant for this discussion) is that you still mention the International Court of Justice as declaring the independence of North Cyprus legal while I explicitly provided the reasons it was not (Occupation by force). These leaving aside some ridiculous arguments such as the International Court of Justice overriding the UN resolutions.[[2]] which is obviously invalid.

In the end, you accuse Dr.K.: "This is because, someones made you pre-conditioning and prevent you to learn the above; Someones loaded you many pre-acceptions and many prejudice" while he is totally correct about synthesis and canvassing. If you continue like that someone will report you. KalJohnson (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose "1974 Cyprus war" is not even an academically accepted term. It only yields 61 results as opposed to "turkish invasion of cyprus", which hits 58,100 results in Google Books [3] --Երևանցի talk 02:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and suggest we give this a break. No title will satisfy everyone on this matter, but this is the best we can do, and that's been true for some time now, and nothing has changed or is likely to change. Andrewa (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Copy from my comments the previous move discussion in May 2013:

(edit conflict) Copying-pasting from "May 2013 Discussion" is nonsense since "May 2013 Discussion" is invasion/intervention conflict ("Turkish invasion of Cyprus" → "Turkish intervention in Cyprus") whereas the current proposed name change ("Turkish invasion of Cyprus" → "1974 Cyprus war") is invasion-intervention/war strugle that completely removes biases, prejudices, conditionings, brute-forcing pre-acceptions etc. and creates an environment free for a Wiki reader to conclude the result or form his/her opinion taking into account all the info/data/facts of each side; an environment that one side cannot prevent the presentation of proofs/arguements of other side; an environment that none of the sides is allowed to the conditionings, brute-forcing pre-acceptions. Alexyflemming (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Per all the oppose comments above and per WP:COMMONNAME. And per: "turkish invasion" cyprus encyclopedia 1,310 results. "turkish intervention" cyprus encyclopedia 56 results.

Also per Britannica:

In July 1974 the Greek Cypriot National Guard, whose officers were mainland Greeks, attempted a coup, planned by the ruling military junta in Athens, to achieve enosis. Makarios fled to Malta and then to London, and Turkey invaded Cyprus and proclaimed a separate state for Turkish Cypriots in the north. Makarios, vowing to resist partition of the island, returned to Cyprus in December, after the fall of the mainland Greek military junta.

Google Books encyclopaedias have spoken. Encyclopedia Britannica has also spoken. Clearly so.

Add a couple of articles from The New York Times since I also found them: For Cyprus, a Sudden Need to Play Nice With Turkey The two halves of the island have been split between the mainly Turkish-speaking north, occupied by Turkey since an invasion in 1974, and the internationally recognized, mainly Greek-speaking Republic of Cyprus in the south.

European Union’s Leverage Over Cyprus Is Ephemeral Turkey invaded northern Cyprus in 1974 in response to a Greek-backed coup in Nicosia by Greek Cypriot hardliners seeking union with Athens.

Google Scholar: "turkish invasion" cyprus 3470 results. "turkish intervention" cyprus 752 results. Google Scholar also sprach. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"1974 Cyprus War" Google Scholar 19 results: In other words, non-existent terminology. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"1974 Cyprus War" 62 results. Almost non-existent in Google books. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: After the almost surrealistic development of this discussion, with indents and outdents, text changing in old paragraphs, same text popping up several places and same discussions going on several places at the same time, I guess that not only I am a bit confused about who wrote what when and where. I have tried to do two things: fix the indenting and making clearer division between different votes/comments etc. If I have misunderstood anything and indented wrong, I apologize. It was just getting impossible to follow the threads. Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


Inappropriate canvassing by Alexyflemming for support of his move request

Alexyflemming has taken to canvassing other users for their support of his move request:

On User talk:Androoox using a wiki-cup-like award image on his Wikilove message and asking him/her for his/her support on a quid pro quo basis:

(→‎I supported your proposed name change: new WikiLove message) Androoox, I supported your proposed name change. There is an ongoing discussion for a name change (Turkish invasion of Cyprus -> 1974 Cyprus war). I thought the proposed name change may seem to reasonable to you as well. If so, I expect your support here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus#Survey Best and Warm Regards, Alexy Flemming.

On User talk:Red Slash using a Wikilove message:

(→‎I kindly request your support: new WikiLove message) Based on my this edit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus&diff=595115144&oldid=595101824 ), I kindly request your support for the proposed name change. Observe the very last two edits: ...

These actions are disruptive and inappropriate and must stop immediately. If they continue they will be reported. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 10:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is what I wrote Androoox's Talk page (BEFORE Dr.K. made "canvassing accusation"): "Anyway, if you find the above proposed change unreasonable, you are again welcome to state your own opinion there.". Dr.K., I am sure you know the meaning of "if you find the above proposed change unreasonable, you are again welcome to state your own opinion there". There are 2 sides of a medallion, always! Notice, you said "hiding the main initiator of war", I have proven other "initiatory actions" that you either did not see or did not know at all!Alexyflemming (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Red_Slash already declared his opinion ("neutral, but leaning towards a support") (22:17, 08.02.2014) BEFORE I posted him! My post is dated: 09:12 12.02.2014!Alexyflemming (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus/Archive_4&oldid=1137272472"