Talk:Maratha, Santalaris and Aloda massacre

Very POV due to the following reasons

The article slants an opinion that is highly pro-Turkish, ignores or glazes over the existence of all-out war on the island, and uses weasel words such as murdered and massacre relentlessly. I think the article would also benefit from some further sourcing from the UN Committee for Missing Persons.

Copperhead331 (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The presumed "pro-Turkish" slant is initially referenced by Oberling, Pierre. The road to Bellapais: the Turkish Cypriot exodus to northern Cyprus, (1982), Social Science Monographs, p. 185; L'Événement du jeudi, Issues 543-547 (1995), S.A. L'Evénement du jeudi, p. 45 (French) and Documents officiels, United Nations, all of which are extremely neutral sources. Your statement, however, brings no evidence that proves pro-Turkish POV. As such, I have reverted your massive changes. If you wish to discuss the neutrality of sources and then do a possible major re-write, I would be more than interested in helping. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus, there are 126 people missing in the villages of Maratha, Aloda and Santalaris (people from Santalaris seem to be included in one of the other two villages). I think this is enough to prove the massacre. --Seksen (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That link only shows a listing of individuals and does not state there was a massacre. Thus, making that "source" original research. However, you might be able to use that link as a listing of individuals missing from those areas. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does not, but if we look at the dates, we can see that they are all the same, and the same as the date in the article. Thus, we can say that totally 126 people were killed in one day, and this means that such a killing took place. --Seksen (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not say people were killed. It states "Place of disappearance". So you have re-added your original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, 126 people disappeared in the same place on the same date. This proves that 126 people residing in the villages disappeared on the day of massacre. As other sources say that those 126 people were killed, this proves the number. --Seksen (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is synthesis, since the "source" does not state those individuals were killed, merely missing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, merely missing, and as other sources indicate that 126 people were killed, this means that they are not just Turkish propaganda, and they are at least missing - we know that they were killed and a massacre took place from other sources. --Seksen (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Call for Article Deletion re: What Wikipedia is not

This article basically indicates that a massacre has taken place, yet there is no evidence for it other than a list of missing people. If I am not mistaken, there was an all out war taking place on the island, so how do we know who was combatant and none-combatant? I argue that the sole purpose of this article is Turkish propaganda, and point out that Oberling, P is NOT a neutral source IMO.

The article is grossly offensive. It seeks a one sided view of a purported incident that cannot be universally proven. Most of the dead may well have been combatants killed in action, but we simply cannot say one way or the other, so the author has decided to DECLARE A MASSACRE ON WIKIPEDIA.

I assert that this article should either be made NPOV or deleted.

Copperhead331 (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the sources should be biased in order to have a biased article. As United Nations confirms that 126 civilians were massacred, there is not even an instance of POV in this article. --Seksen (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bollocks, you have decided this is a massacre and tired to pass it as fact and consensus. All you have is a list of missing and some Turkish claims of a massacre.

Copperhead331 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: POV allegations

As it can be seen in the article, some very reliable sources, including the United Nations are used in this article to prove this massacre. However, some POV-based (half-personal attack) arguments has been made that this article includes a Turkish POV. I am requesting comments on this issue, whether this article is biased, with the aim of stopping this offensive comments. Seksen (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Please do not add the POV template until we have some comments here, as an ordinary process, just like not deleting an article during an AfD. --Seksen (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I investigated existing sources by comparing with same article in Turkish Wikipedia. The article tr:Muratağa, Sandallar ve Atlılar Katliamı in Turkish Wikipedia, I detected some non-neutral sources. But this article (in English Wikipedia), I didn't find any problem that harms the neutrality. I recommend User:Copperhead331 to read Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Focus on specific sources and words - The sources appear to support the notability of this topic, so I think the article should exist. Hence, the best path forward now is to focus on specific wordings and sources and ensure that they are neutral and balanced. If any editor has specific issues with sources, those should be enunciated clearly, rather than broad-brushed "this article is biased" claims. Likewise, editors that think the article is too "pro Turkish" should identify those sources, and the article can indicate that the sources might be biased (by stating the affiliation of the sources). Also, editors can supply sources that comment on the "pro Greek" viewpoint. For example, if there are sources that claim no massacre occurred (I dont know if such sources exist or not) those can be included in this article (subject to WP:Reliable sources requirements, etc). In all cases secondary sources are best. --Noleander (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Unless there is other information that is actually missing from this article, I don't see a POV slant in the text. The article as it stands seems to properly represent the sources cited, and these sources (i.e., the U.N.) definitely qualify as reliable. Just from first principles, it's pretty safe to say that the killing of over a hundred civilians who were then dumped in a mass grave fits the common definition of "massacre", even with a war going on. See Duša massacre, e.g. siafu (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Withdrawn - I have withdrawn an objection to this article. It is clear that consensus seeks to retain POV, so I see no point further editing. Copperhead331 (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Happy to support siafu and Noleander - I see no evidence of POV in the article. Berek (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maratha, Santalaris and Aloda massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028223100/http://www.kypros-cyprus.com/maps/1960.jpg to http://www.kypros-cyprus.com/maps/1960.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maratha, Santalaris and Aloda massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110915184403/http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa2006.nsf/0/B645B308356678E0C22571BE00296AEE/$file/TKCLIST.missing.pdf?OpenElement to http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa2006.nsf/0/B645B308356678E0C22571BE00296AEE/$file/TKCLIST.missing.pdf?OpenElement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries

An administrator should redact the last edit summaries of User:Ghhharanosi. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Crimes against Humanity

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/486996?v=pdf

It is just a Turkish allegation at the Security Council that crimes against humanity were commited by the Greek side, not an official UN position or result of an investigation. D.ALX-KM (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not the work cited though. A letter from Turkey is not a Secondary Source. Cinadon36 09:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

it is exactly the work cited, but in a more detailed version. The first citation refers to page 98 of UN monthly chronicle of August 1974, where you can find the Turkish allegation and my link is the full text of the allegation. And you can clearly see that "crimes against humanity" is the Turkish position on the massacre, not an official UN position. D.ALX-KM (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/sim_un-chronicle_1974-10_11_9/page/98/mode/1up

@Cinadon36 D.ALX-KM (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok then. Thanks. Cinadon36 05:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

So, don't you think that this sentence must be removed? D.ALX-KM (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You were correct, it should be removed. I just did it. Thanks for looking into it. Cinadon36 07:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)