Talk:Makarios III

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unnecessary comments relating to Cyprus Question[edit]

Turkey which was trying to find a chance to capture a part of Cyprus, as the only Guarantor power which was willing to act, found its best chance and acted.

This is a subjective argument of the writer and has nothing to do with the life of Makarios. I am therefore, removing it.

90.242.7.62 11:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makarios' sexual preferences[edit]

pperos censored my following inclusion:

Makarios's alleged homosexuality is discussed by British politician and historian Rupert Allason (a.k.a.Nigel West) in (The Friends : Britain's post-war Secret Intelligence operations, London : Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1988, p. 78) as well by author Stephen Dorril (M16 : Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service, New York : Touchstone, 2000, p.556).

He consideres it strange and unsubstantiated. As you can see I provide two references, so it is not unsubstantiated. Furthermore, it is quite relevant to the extent that it sheds light on the circumstances under which Makarios ratified the London-Zurich agreement (see references). Removing this information is certainly tantamount to white-washing Makarios, possibly homophobic, and certainly not NPOV!

Response: Firstly, please sign your posts by using four tildes like this: ~~~~ . As to your comment, I removed your edit because it referred to a largely speculative, marginal theory to which I could find no references outside the two books you mention, which are both expose-style memoirs and not scholarly contributions to the historical or political understanding of Makarios. Unless and until a theory like this gains widespread notability, there is no real call for it to be included as it amounts to little more than a sectional gossip theory about a largely irrelevant topic. I have instead included the books you mention in the Further Reading section. (Incidentially, writing a book about a theory does not make that theory 'substantiated', as you seem to suggest).
Secondly, how dare you suggest that my edit was either censor[ship], white-washing or, more venomously, homophobic. That is a serious and malevolent accusation which you have made with no knowledge of my personal views or the reasons for my edit. I do not feel that salacious speculation about sexual orientation had a place in this particular article. If anything, you display a more homophobic attitude by your suggestion that his 'sexual preferences', as you term them, were a consideration in his signature of the Zurich Agreements than I do by removing this crackpot theory. If you wish to take this further, please do so on my talk page, but I advise you not to make scurrilous remarks like this without thinking through what you are saying first. Peeper 12:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Counter response
Firstly: The issues of importance here are neither Makarios's sexual preferences (I was not aware that this expression is no longer politically correct!) nor your or my views on homosexuality. The issue is that two publications suggest that information gathered by the MI6 was used to blackmail a politician into signing an agreement he was vociferously opposed to. Such things do happen in real life, very much so during the cold war era. Makarios's volte face was of pivotal significance, as it helped lead to the creation of an independent state in Cyprus. The possibility that Makarios was blackmailed at the time has been published and discussed over the years in Cyprus, Turkey and Greece.
Secondly: By what higher authority are you ordained to arbitrarily dismiss any publication as "unscientific" and to unleash expressions such as "speculative, marginal theory," "expose-style memoirs and not scholarly contributions" and "crackpot theory"? I feel that such a snobbish attitude is neither conducive to NPOV historiography nor scientific. The explanations presented by the authors are certainly worth including in a balanced account of Makarios's biography, and I will revise the article accordingly in the near future.
Finally: I apologise for suggesting homophobia as an explanation of your revision. That was ad hominem of me (pun intended!), and as noted above, I do not believe ad hominem arguments are conducive to any constructive dialogue.

Rastapopoulos 15:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for withdrawing your suggestion of homophobia. It is appreciated. I hope you will bear with me while I explain my reasoning. Firstly, I removed the edit because what you wrote originally ( Makarios's alleged homosexuality is discussed by British politician and historian Rupert Allason (a.k.a.Nigel West)) suggested that the significance of the theories was that Makarios might have been homosexual, and does not reflect either the facts or what you say you meant (The issue is that two publications suggest that information gathered by the MI6 was used to blackmail a politician into signing an agreement he was vociferously opposed to). As you point out here, the serious point of the argument is that Makarios may have been blackmailed into signing the Zurich Accords, for whatever reason. What you did - and this was the reason that I objected to it - was take the sexual element of the discussion and bring that to the fore, totally omitting any context for the remark about his sexuality. (I am not arguing that it should be totally withdrawn, but it should be placed in the context of alleged MI6 blackmail, otherwise it is salacious and misleading).

As to my criticism of the sources, I still do not consider that two books, which are both 'expose-style', are more aimed at the popular market rather than making serious, academic contribution to historical discourse. As to your other comments and criticisms, I do not and did not claim any 'higher authority'. I am not interested in 'political correct[ness]'. I did not describe them as 'unscientific'. I acknowledge that 'crackpot' does smack of snobbery, which is totally unintentional and I withdraw that remark. But nonetheless, these theories are not supported by a great deal of evidence to my knowledge, and I have been unable to find any similar references either on or off the net. It is not unreasonable to describe them as 'speculative'. However, it would of course be perfectly within policy to restore the mention if you can support it with more reliable and wider references, from reputable sources (not necessarily academic, but certainly 'scholarly'). I am firmly committed to NPOV but also to accuracy and to a balanced description of the relevant historical understanding of the subject, and do not wish to see a great deal of attention paid in Wikipedia to theories which have not gained very wide currency outside.

I don't want to type for too long or these discussions get terribly boring. But thanks for your measured response, and I hope we can now look at compiling a suitable addition to the article. As long as the argument is placed fully in context as I detailed above I would have no objection. Perhaps we could just move on now to writing and editing a paragraph - if you are in agreement with this and don't mind me editing your edits in a spirit of reaching consensus, then do go ahead, otherwise we can carry on the discussion here, or here. Peeper 17:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad the misuderstandings are over. I look forward to updating the article on Makarios, and your critical input is more than welcome. Rastapopoulos 14:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Text[edit]

Please 70.85.77.100, discuss any proposed changes here before replacing the whole article. As you will see from the earlier discussion below, I gave notice of my reasons for proposing a change and my intention to do so with plenty of time. If you have an issue with the article I have written, please raise it here rather than start an edit war. I am happy to discuss any issues you may have, but it is important that major changes start with a discussion on this page. Thanks. Peeper 08:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How did he die[edit]

how did he die

Response: I am fairly sure he died of a heart attack but will look this up before adding. Peeper 12:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuitable article?[edit]

First up I must admit to being pretty new to Wikipedia. But I have spotted nearly the whole text of this article, after the first paragraph, is lifted directly from the Cypriot government's biography of Makarios III and can be found in its original home at http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/cyphome/govhome.nsf/Main?OpenFrameSet . That may or may not be a problem, but I also feel that it doesn't have the NPOV that Wikipedia demands.

If you agree or disagree, please let me know. Unless I receive a deluge of reasoned responses in favour of keeping this text, I intend to compile an alternative, neutral version which I hope to post in a couple of weeks.

Please note that I do not want discussion of this article to get caught up with inevitable controversy over the Cyprus Question. The fact remains that the text as it currently stands is not neutral. Additionally it seems a bit long so any replacement will be shorter. Comments please?

Peeper 12:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I object you replacing this article. You saying that is not neutral is not enough. Of course it's not neutral in your belief. Please state what you consider NPOV before doing any editing. The fact that most of the text comes from an official source is not enough argument. --Ank99 11:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Response: Firstly, I'm going to ask you please not to use attacking language like 'of course it's not neutral in your belief'. You don't know what I believe, do you? It looks like you are already expecting a blazing row. That's not what I want, so let's think before launching into the usual passionate attacks.

Secondly, the following phrases in the article are not, in my view, written from an NPOV:


"the colonial government of Cyprus enforced the anti-sedition laws for the purpose of preventing or suppressing demonstrations for freedom"

"The talks...did not result in agreement. As a consequence, Archbishop Makarios was exiled to the Seychelles..."

"...he was accorded a triumphant welcome by the people of Greece"

"he...worked hard to achieve freedom for his people"

Repeated use of the clerical title "His Beatitude" to refer to Makarios

"The Turkish side adopted a negative attitude towards the President's proposals...a Turkish rebellion, which had long been planned with the object of bringing about the Island's partition, broke out..."

"Turkey, using the coup as a pretext...uprooted 200,000 Greek Cypriots."


Unless you want me to go into specifics for each phrase, suffice it to say that these phrases show an obvious sympathy towards Archbishop Makarios and the Greek Cypriot cause as it has been portrayed since 1974.(Note that I am NOT necessarily suggesting that the comments are substantively incorrect, just that the 'spin' applied to them is not historically balanced.) This is not to understate the suffering of the Greek Cypriots in Cyprus at the hands of the Turkish army. But the article as it stands suggests that the Greeks were the only sufferers, and makes no attempt to offer any alternative view of events, placing Makarios above any sort of historical analysis and referring to him in purely sympathetic terms.

I am not suggesting that this article be replaced with one which paints Makarios as a crook and a terrorist. I tend to be sympathetic towards him. But it does him, and Cyprus, no justice to eulogise him in this rose-tinted, un-historical and occasionally fawning manner.

I will post a proposed alternative text in the next few days for your comment. Please remember that I am trying to be fair, not just to disagree with you for the sake of it.

Peeper 14:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


"On the 30th of November, 1963, President Makarios submitted to the Turkish leadership 13 proposals for amendment of the Cyprus Constitution which were aimed at removing obstacles in the way of the smooth running of the State. The Turkish side adopted a negative attitude towards the President’s proposals and in lieu of an answer a Turkish rebellion, which had long been planned with the object of bringing about the Island’s partition, broke out just before Christmas."

This paragraph is representing a definite greek point of view on the Cyprus dispute and clearly not NPOV. I'll edit it to a more objective expression in a few days if there is no opposition. barfly 22:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Response: I had already been working on this article as a replacement (see above for my comments on the whole of this article as it stands). Please have a look - comments are welcome. I will be away next week, and dependent on the responses I may post this article with amendments on 14th or 15th August. Let me know what you think. Many thanks. Peeper 13:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Alternative text[edit]

As you can see I have now posted my alternative text for this article, which is original and, I believe, fairer than the previous version and has more of an NPOV. Comments are welcome. I would be happy to discuss what I have written and I would appreciate input from other users. Peeper 12:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


With the Greek government in collapse, however, and the British facing constitutional uncertainty of a hung parliament, Turkey which was trying to find a chance to capture a part of Cyprus, as the only Guarantor power which was willing to act, found its best chance and acted. As is to be expected, the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey on 20 July, five days after the coup, remains highly controversial. Northern Cyprus remained occupied despite with the presence of Turkish Army, despite that the constitution and presidency were restored. To Turks and Turkish Cypriots it is known as a ‘peace operation’, designed to protect the Turkish Cypriot community. To Greeks and Greek Cypriots, it represented the execution of a long-standing ploy to re-establish Turkish control of a large portion of Cyprus.

Without having checked the edit history at all, I can comfortably bet my mortgage that this section was written by a Greek or Greek Cypriot - indicating that emotions have overcome encyclopaedic integrity. What the motivations of Turkey were and how long they had harboured any such motivations is complete speculation that could be argued endlessly. I am not planning to make any edits but just with to draw to attention that the above text reads like propaganada.

Makarios Turkish Cypriot?[edit]

On a bicommunal Cyprus forum I am a member of, there was a discussion about rumours that Makarios had a Turkish Cypriot father or grandfather. Does anybody have any evidence to back this up? Frankly, I think it could well be true...

Cypriot stud 12:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really work like that. Back then, under the Millet system, there's nothing particularly salient about one's blood, or even language, that distinguished oneself as being a Turk or a Greek. It would have been whether you're a Moslem or a Christian. In this case, if there's such a rumour it would be that he was a Moslem. This could be possible, though the wedding would have had to have been a Moslem one. Unless it was illegitimate. We may never know. Eugene-elgato (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makarios III/proposed entry[edit]

Is still article still important or could it be deleted? I asked the creator of the page, but got no response. Garion96 (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Makarios Photo profile.jpg[edit]

Image:Makarios Photo profile.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. El Greco(talk) 01:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion[edit]

Richwales should kindly add the same at Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Thanks... --E4024 (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makarios's speech to the UN Security Council is already mentioned in that article (see the "Greek Cypriot opinions" subsection near the end). However, I did copy the Los Angeles Times story from my addition here as a source for this statement. I initially considered adding mention of Makarios's speech farther up in the article (at the end of the "Greek military coup of July 1974" subsection) — arguably reasonable given the other stuff in that subsection about Makarios — but I didn't want to risk violating WP:UNDUE. I see that the "Opinions" section is flagged with an "overlaps too much" notice, BTW, but I'm not prepared at this point to take on the task of reworking this entire article. It may also be appropriate to mention Makarios's UN speech in various other articles — including Northern Cyprus (after the current edit-warring-sock issue dies down) — but I think I'll leave that task for others to do. — Richwales 20:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I am too new to tackle with all those technical details like adding references etc. If not... --E4024 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could help. Especially with a contentious, hot-button topic as this, it's that much more important to include references to reliable sources for any material that might even possibly be controversial. I'd suggest reading (and re-reading) WP:CITE for a discussion about how to cite sources in Wikipedia articles. — Richwales 21:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How Makarios III died - Assassination[edit]

Makarios was assasinated.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Makarios III. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Makarios III. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth[edit]

In the section 'Primacy and presidency', I suggest inserting '(British)' before 'Commonwealth of Nations', to avoid confusion with the post-Soviet Commonwealth of Independent States.HuPi (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

background of the name[edit]

His borrowed name Makarios comes from Macarius which is a Latinized form of the old Greek given name Makários …

Why not skip the Latin step? Is it known that he adopted the name from the Latin form rather than adopting the original Greek form directly from Greek? —Tamfang (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Makarios_III&oldid=1194472677"