Talk:Ganchvor monastery

"Turkish Cypriot extremists" and "mutiny"

This concerns not only this article, but all articles about Armenian Cypriots (and more if they exist) that uses such terminology regarding the topics mentioned below.

Neo ^, I am well aware that as a person who probably lived through the conflict as it evolved, you have very strong views regarding it. I personally have nothing but respect for your opinions on the issue and publications regarding Armenians in Cyprus, but this is emphatically not an issue of personal opinions, but rather established usage in reliable and neutral sources and refraining from attempts that would undermine Wikipedia's core policies. Your edit summaries concerning the "playing down of reality" are thus invalid as your personal perception of reality cannot be reflected in Wikipedia's material, and I kindly call upon you to refrain from personal attacks.

The use of the word "extremist" to denote Turkish Cypriot fighters is POV, and the use of the words "mutiny" or "self-segregation" to denote the intercommunal violence is extreme POV. It is akin to calling the Turkish invasion of Cyprus a peace operation or the Republic of Cyprus the "Greek Administration of Southern Cyprus". These expressions are not even used once in the relevant articles about the intercommunal violence, invasion, Turkish Resistance Organization and so forth, which are relatively neutral, their sole use on Wikipedia stems from Neo ^, who keeps re-inserting them. They are certainly not established in literature (see this, this, this, among countless others). The word "extremist" particularly constitutes an obvious violation of WP:LABEL, even given as an example in the policy. As such, there can be no question regarding the use of such terminology in articles like this. The word "Turkish-occupying regime" also suggests a dictatorial/brutal "regime", akin to the case with the suffix -gate in the LABEL policy, and as Neo ^ himself stated in his edit summary, is the official terminology of the Republic of Cyprus, a party to the conflict. Wikipedia is certainly not the right place to stay true to the official narratives of parties in conflict, no matter their status in the international law.

Therefore, I request the removal of such terms from Cyprus-related articles. What would other users think about this? --GGT (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The official line of the Republic is that it was a separation, a mutiny. This is a fact, but I am willing to accept the politically neutral term "intercommunal troubles". Now, regarding those who burnt the church: they were extremists, in that they resorted to extreme measures to separate themselves from the Republic. It wasn't all Turkish-Cypriots who wanted this, only the extremist ones. Therefore, the terms will stay there to reflect reality. Neo ^ (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The term "intercommunal troubles" would do, thank you for your cooperation. However, I would say that we should use "intercommunal violence", not only because it is the name of the article, but also as it is much more specific than merely "troubles". However, accepting the Republic of Cyprus narrative of events as facts and using terminology of one of the sides is a perfect example of an NPOV violation and out of question. Regarding the burning down of the church, if this event is established as correct by multiple independent reliable sources, I would personally call these people extremists as no ideology can justify damage to cultural heritage, but this is emphatically my personal way of putting things. On Wikipedia these terms should not be used based on original research and personal beliefs, which seems to be your justification. This does not in any way imply any assumption about your justification; it is inappropriate as it is based on a personal analysis of events. Whatever they did, TMT fighters are not called Turkish extremists in established independent literature and even though it might have been a group of extremists who allegedly burned the church, the use of the word "extremist" implies that the TMT was an extremist organization. This is a clear violation of the LABEL policy per reasons stated above and I believe the current expression in the article, "militia" is a rather good way to put it. --GGT (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)