Talk:List of wars involving Cyprus

POV article

Northern Cyprus is not a recognized independent state and there seems to be a big problem in recognizing Greek Cypriot victories.Ron1978 (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the article to a more NPOV one. Ron1978 (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

All content on this version is either sourced in this page or in the article of Cyprus - I can move the sources here as well if requested. The exception seems to be claiming "political victory" or "victory" for the Emergency, which is unsourced. Claiming that the intercommunal violence is a "victory" (for whomever that is) is WP:OR unless you can substantiate it, and original research cannot be tolerated. And I cannot see a reason to remove figures for T/C displacement in 1963, when they are given for 1974. "Northern Cyprus is not a recognized independent state" is not argument or reason for removal of valid information and is symptomatic of the general line of thought that lack of international recognition automatically means exclusion on Wikipedia. Not so. The lack of international recognition only means the lack of int'l recognition and must be dealt with at the politics section of Northern Cyprus, Cyprus and Cyprus dispute. Not on every single article that happens to mention its name. Please do not engage in an edit war. --GGT (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus is not a recognized independent state and that is a fact, so it can not be added as one. If it is added as one then it is POV. Victory is a victory as the result shows victory. Anything else is POV. If you accept the results of the civil wars in Turkey to be counted as Turkish victories, then why you don't accept this one to be counted as one.? Turkish Cypriots moved to enclaves and left their positions in the government. That is a result and that is NPOV. Anything else that you have described is POV. You are the one that seems to wants to engage in an edit war. Me I have discussed the issue and I have left it open for two months, to reach to an NPOV with out my additions in it, something that was totally ignored. If you continue to add all the information that you want and delete all the rest, that you don't want, and in very subject about Cyprus, then what we will have is POV, as we have now, in several ones. Ron1978 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

You did not really discuss anything, I'm afraid. "Northern Cyprus is not a recognized independent state" is simply a statement and not an argument. The article, as far as I can see, makes no implication that Northern Cyprus is recognized, and I have no idea how you inferred anything about recognition from "Eventual independence of Northern Cyprus". Can you show me how the article shows explicitly that Northern Cyprus is recognized? "there seems to be a big problem in recognizing Greek Cypriot victories" is not a valid argument by itself either - you have to substantiate your claim - which victories? according to whom? There was no argument to merit a response. "Victory is a victory as the result shows victory" is original research. Greek Cypriot victories according to which source? Which scholar? According to you, I am afraid, and that is original research and completely unacceptable. Please stop dragging on about Turkish Cypriots withdrawing from the government by themselves - we have a source that says that they partly withdrew and partly forced out, and that source, by James Ker-Lindsay a leading scholar on Cyprus, is more valid then some nationalistic POV-blaming. If you can substantiate anything that you say is true with reliable sources, I would be happy to concede that I was wrong and insert that myself to the article . --GGT (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You are the number one source of POV, in the articles related to Cyprus and yet you continue lying to yourself and others thinking that anyone will believe you. You are imagining things, you blame others for what you are, and then you are engaging in edit warring with anyone adding anything in the articles that you don't like. You will make Cyprus a favor if you stop filling the articles related to it, with your POVRon1978 (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

Please stop making personal attacks. --GGT (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You are the one that started and continue them. See what you have written in the previous. I from the other hand, spoke politely, made a comment and left it open for 2 months, before I even stat editing, plus gave you all the chance to come to an NPOV agreement. This chance is still openRon1978 (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, deleting information from a top-notch academic source, published by Oxford University Press, and dismissing it as POV is unacceptable. Censoring the fact that 25-30 thousand T/Cs were displaced in 1963 is not tolerable either. That source explicitly states that there was no unilateral withdrawal of Turkish Cypriots as is the impression created by the text now, and a statement in such a source can only be countered by a peer-reviewed, academic publication, not a random website found on the net. The source that you provided, however reliable it is, indeed says that Turkish Cypriots were on the "losing side", but it says that they found themselves on the losing side in 1967. I reiterate my proposal in the edit summary to divide the intercommunal violence into three separate conflicts: 1950s, 1963-64 and 1967. 1967 can be listed as a Greek Cypriot victory (the enclaves that were attacked were captured anyway), and this would be supported by the source. Please leave it at the stable version and do not revert until further discussion. --GGT (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You still keep adding POV and deleting the NPOV. Team work is not permitted by the way, under Wikipedia rules. You may want to tell this to the account that has reverted the article, for you.Ron1978 (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

Should wars before 1960 be listed?

Is this list about wars the modern state's been involved in, or is it about wars throughout the entire history of the island? I think the latter would make for a much more valuable list. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A "list of wars" with only one war? We should delete this thing. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

What is this in response to? I see 3 listed. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I was planning to propose this thing for discussion at AfD, saw your talk and I wanted to inform you. (Wrote before your 3 addition, I see only one war, that in 1974.) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the first one's a guerrilla war. Anyway, I don't feel strongly about it, but I don't see why this article can't be expanded. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You can express your views at the deletion discussion. We will neither do it here nor only the two of us. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've no interest, thanks. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• "This is a list of wars and conflicts that Armenia or Armenians have been involved in." (that started in 87BC!).
• I strongly object the deletion of "List of wars involving Cyprus". The wars and conflicts are all military fightings. The entitling "conflict" etc. to a war does not change the character of the event.Alexyflemming (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes we should as in everything else, but this is not a neutral, valid or accurate article in the first place. First we should try to make it valid, accurate and neutral and then we can add everything. All efforts made to give the actual results with accuracy on anything were deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talk • contribs) 20:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Consistency

This list is merely a navigation tool, and should not contradict the main articles. In other words, this is not the place to discuss whether the Turks or the Greeks are right. This article has been plagued by nationalist editors for quite some time, and it's about time discussions are moved to where they actually belong; the main articles' discussion pages. If users insist on making original research, which is not allowed in the first place, at the very least don't do it here. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me shoot this in: A Greek Cypriot victory in the 1955-67 conflict makes at least somewhat sense to me. I'm not opposed to this idea if it turns out it can be backed up by academic sources and survive in the main article, but I am opposed to someone adding it here without first bringing the discussion to the main article. I oppose nationalist POV pushing no matter who is doing it, and I have no particularly strong opinions on the Cyprus dispute, but this article seems at least more plagued by Greek than Turk nationalist editors. I don't care what either camp think is POV - let us find a middle ground everyone can live with. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

He has no particularly strong opinions on the Cyprus dispute, but this article seems at least more plagued by Greek than Turkish nationalist editors and he doesn't care what either camp think, says the one that is deleting ALL the victories of the Greek side for a whole year now, and is reporting anyone that is adding any kind of NPOV in the article, on false accusations, accusing them for exactly what he is doing. In a matter of fact I don't see any Greeks here, as it seems you have pushed them all on edit warring in the past, in cooperation with other users, and then your report them and they got blocked for it. No Greeks on what so ever here, yet he sees nationalists Greeks all over the place.

Who exactly are the so called nationalists here? The ones that are adding in the culture of Cyprus, the common things of the people of the island, or the ones that are adding the victories of both sides, in an NPOV manner.? The articles are clear in all three cases, both in terms of major or minor involvements, victories, and everything else. The rest of the editors have shown some kind of NPOV, as well some kind of discussions, in their edits and have cooperated in other articles such as in the culture of Cyprus and the common things that the people have on the island to add NPOV versions in relation with the island. They didn't engage in edit warring in those, since the results was NPOV. There has been extensive discussion on this already, but not by you but by the ones that you are accusing, and the ones that you are reporting on false accusations. There are no Greek nationalists editors here. What you are stating, totally contradicts your actions both now and in the history of the article and each time. The same exact contradiction is happening with your accusations as well, where you are falsely accusing editors that you believe that they belong to the Greek side for a whole year now, even yesterday, on exactly the things that you are doing. I see only one Norwegian to be pushing plain POV here, and only towards and totally to the Turkish side, and no one else, and this is going for a whole year now. I definitely don't see any Greeks here. Stop trying to foul people, it is not working. The only thing that it needs to be checked is your motives and your ego and nothing elseRon1978 (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

What you keep calling "the victories of the Greek side" is NOT NPOV as long as it remains unsourced. The only main article that uses the word victory is the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Do you simply fail to see this? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Courtier1978 - You ought to know EOKA's goal was not Cyprus' independence, but its unification with Greece. Neither of the conflicts you insist on being Greek-Cypriot victories produced such a result. Regardless, we have to go by the main articles. Why this insistence on introducing contradictory claims here before even touching the main articles? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

To constantly distorting the truth, in your effort to push a total pro-Turkish POV as you are doing for more than a year now, constantly deleting all the Greek Cypriot and Greek victories on the articles related, doesn't change the NPOV version of the story. Me from the other hand I am adding the victories of both sides and what the people of the island have in common, always in an NPOV wayRon1978 (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

@Courtier1978, please either back up your claims with reliable sources in the main articles, or stop flooding this one with contradictory, nationalist bias. I don't care about how you define "discussed extensively". Just do it, or leave this article alone. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Saying the one, that is pushing a totally Pro-Turkish POV in the articles, in cooperation with Turkish users, reporting all the rest on false charges, after pushing them in edit warring again in cooperation with Turkish users, and deleting ALL the victories of the Greek side for a WHOLE year now. Don't worry I will provide you with even more sources.Ron1978 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Accusing me for deleting "ALL the victories on the Greek side" is no argument, neither is accusing me for being pro-Turkish. Gathering a bunch of links from google that vaguely support your claim can be done by anyone, so at the very least, use google scholar. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Now not only you are deleting all the victories of the Greek side as usual, but you have proceeded to be deleting all the sources that state them as well or adding non-reliable sources. Pretty strange for someone that has stated that he has no particular interest on the subject, after edit warring the article for a whole! year. Greek nationalist, Che Guevara, seem to disagree with you. which I guess was a special case of an Argentinian communist, Greek nationalist. Now, tell us don't you think that there is a significant, pro-Turksih POV in the articles related, as I have stated and explained the reasons why, that you need to delete?Ron1978 (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not how we do things. You can't just gather a bunch of random google search results and expect that to justify your POV pushing. Are you here to build an encyclopaedia, or are you here to make a point? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Google books are POV according to you? I am here to build an NPOV encyclopedia, while you are obviously push with mania pro-Turkish POV as it shows from your history. Distorting the truth and accusing others for what exactly you are doing doesn't change thatRon1978 (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Unprotect

This article can be unprotected now, as the reason behind the constant edit warring just got resolved. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not convinced at all that this article should exist; it's a three-entry list better incorporated, in my view, at a page such as History of Cyprus. As regards Cyprus bickering, I would need to have the other disputants agree that the issue has been solved before unprotecting anything. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

We could incorporate the wars that involved the Kingdom of Cyprus. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need to exist for a specific reason. Associating two entities that existed from 1192-1489 and 1960-with significant interruptions - to date merely because people like putting lists together is completely outweighed by the trouble this article is causing. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

An AfD should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: would happily do this, even citing IAR to avoid prolonged bickering over a list which is better expressed with the content available in a textual fashion, but an AfD has already failed. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

We could just as well include wars fought on Cyprus in the long periods when the island was not an independent entity. Regarding the trouble, I agree - but it seems like the dispute between the previously edit-warring parties (myself included) have been solved. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The dispute has been resolved, since all three editors that we have been involved in this we have agreed, so it is fine to unprotect the articleRon1978 (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)