This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
EOKA article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Alkimos Neolaia EOKA was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 31 May 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into EOKA. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article may be within the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks. |
Archives (index)
no archives yet (create)
Threads older than 90 days may be archived by ClueBot III.
|
||
@ Khirurg:,
Ok, Khirurg reverted my last edit due to "organizations don't have "death tolls" - conflicts do" [4]. The added text was:
David Carter has published the most comprehensive list of the death toll due to EOKA's action.
Death toll according to David Carter [1] |
|
---|---|
British armed forces | Number of Deaths |
Infantry | 80 |
Aviation | 16 |
Marines | 7 |
Navy | 1 |
Police | |
British | 12 |
Greek Cypriots | 15 |
Turkish Cypriots | 22 |
Others | 2 |
Citizens | |
British | 26 |
Greek Cypriots | 203 |
Turkish Cypriots | 7 |
Others | 2 |
Total | 393 |
On the other hand, 85-91 EOKA's guerillas were killed by the British forces. 17 more died by self-made bombs that exploded in their hands. [2]
References
Can anyone suggest a better wording so we can add the info to the article? Cinadon36 ( talk) 15:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
There is also some more text that sums up EOKA activity [5] inserted by GGT. I was the one who removed it [6] as I thought it had a place at the lede, but I feel it would be better if we merge it with this specific section. GGT what do you think? Cinadon36 ( talk) 13:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Might I ask you @ Khirurg:, since you are the one who reverted my edit, do you have any comments or suggestion to make so the info can be added at the article? Thanks. Cinadon 36 11:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Khirurg reverted once more my addition. @ Khirurg:, the number of fatalities were not due "to the British colonial administration" as you have claimed in your edit summary. Numbers do not include guerillas hanged or died because at the battlefield because of british fire. Cinadon 36 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
These data are important to this article because they give an impression on how deadly EOKA's struggle wasand there's as clear a declaration of POV-pushing as it gets. For the last time, wars and revolts have death tolls, organisations do not. Saying all these deaths are "due to EOKA" is the crudest POV-pushing. For example, the deaths of EOKA members at the hands of the British are not "deaths due to EOKA". But if you
can't see where the problem isthen I have nothing more to say to you. Khirurg ( talk) 03:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance and with a single comment by one of the editors, this cannot be considered to be "thorough". If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC) (Not watching this page)
Here is my view on why we should add the number of fatalities:
Why is it important to talk about fatalities? Because it is a notable topic. It gives a perspective on how bloody EOKA's struggle was. It also partly explains the tension between EOKA, left-wingers and turkish cypriots (why for examples T/C consider guerillas as terrorists). Many scholars and researchers have dug into it. A non-all-inclusive list follows:
case of post-colonial Cyprus. Time and Society, 21(1), pp. 71-88. doi: 10.1177/0961463X11431338 [9] page 8: "Assassination attempts were made against 230 Greek Cypriots; approximately a quarter of those executed by EOKA came from the ranks of Greek-Cypriot traitors (Markides, 1977, p.19). Angelos Vlachos, Greek Ambassador in Cyprus at the time, gives the following figures for civilian casualties as a result of EOKA’s struggle: 393 deaths (26 British; 203 Greek (Cypriots); Turkish (Cypriots) 7) (1980, p.96). Daniel Branch – citing information from War Office – provides a slightly different figure; of the 238 civilian casualties, 203 were Greek-Cypriots (2010, p.407)." Cinadon 36 07:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Should the article include number of fatalities of EOKA's struggle? Cinadon 36 13:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
According to historian [[Heinz A. Richter|Heinz Richter]] EOKA was responsible for the death of 104 British soldiers, 54 policemen (among them 15 Greek Cypriots, 22 Turkish Cypriots among 12 British<--plus two 2 "others"-->) and 238 citizens (among them 26 British, 203 Greek Cypriots and 7 Turkish Cypriots<--plus two 2 "others"-->){{sfn|Richter|2011|p=979|ps=Ricther uses the numbers given by David Carter. The same numbers are used by David French (2015, page=307) and [[John Newsinger]] (2016, page=107)}}.. We could add it at the end of #Armed campaign. Anyway, thanks again. Cinadon 36 09:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
to show how bloody EOKA's struggle wasin the section above. Lastly, articles about similar organizations, e.g. PKK, IRA, etc... do not include such figures, for the same reason. Such figures belong in articles about the struggle itself, not the organization. For example, casualty figures are included in The Troubles, but not the IRA article. Khirurg ( talk) 22:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
(pls have a look at the policy). You may not be aware of it, but is standard to refer to WP:WEASEL to cover also "weasel insinuations", so your advice to look it over misses the point entirely and fails to deliver on its weasel insinuation that I have not read the guideline. And it is not a policy, it's just a guideline, part of the WP:MOS. Read it before you comment on it. As far as the rest of your points, you mechanically utter them every time I make a comment. I repeat: Don't feel compelled to respond to every single comment I make in this RfC. This is a wiki. This means other wiki editors can inform us with their opinions. If you are correct they will agree with your points. Repeating them to me, Khirurg, and others, every time we comment is just your own echo chamber and it is not needed. It also reveals a certain degree of insecurity about your arguments. If you are so certain about them, let others adopt them. Your repeating them ad nauseam, does not make them any more compelling. For this reason, I will not reply to you any further. But if you like your own echo so much, please feel free to fill this RfC, which you created, with your needless replies. Dr. K. 18:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
References
So how should we proceed? RfC template has been removed. [10] All users who politely contributed their opinion were for inclusion. What 's next? Cinadon 36 06:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
All users who politely contributed their opinion were for inclusion.I contributed my opinion very politely, so did Khirurg and we were not for inclusion. What is this? An attempt tp disregard the opposition? Also, those who tended to include this stuff, were not for unconditional inclusion. One support was also weak. I suggest you wait for someone to properly close this RfC, instead of distorting the results. Dr. K. 20:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
As opposing users cite POV and DUE issues, I added a comment at NPOV noticepad. [11] Cinadon 36 19:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Notes
If one of the two has to be included (Im not convinced about either tbh) it should be British not English. -- Greece666 ( talk) 15:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Seems obvious to me that it is. No secondary work on EOKA is giving such a detailed analysis of that document. At least not a book in the sources give such a detailed analysis. Not Richter, not French, not Holland, not Newsinger, not even Barnava whose book was published by the "EOKA fighter Commitee". So why are we discussing in such a detail the EOKA lawsuit? I am worrying that it is UNDUE and hence POV-pushing as it falsly glorifies EOKA fighters (and put shame on UK), for something that literature haven't yet examined. It is clear that the text of our article is solely based on newspaper articles, no academic work, as the rest of the EOKA article.
The specific section is 4,212 bytes, in an article of 52,611 bytes, that is 8% for an insignificant lawsuit, not mention by anyone but newspapers.
I am opening this discussion because my was reverted by Dr.K. [12] (Dr.K. elsewhere told me he doesn't need me to ping him) Cinadon 36 09:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
But the problem is that we are making a point at the article, that torture was a widespread and acceptable practice...: This indicates that either you have not read the section or that you are misrepresenting the section content. Nowhere in that section there is any hint that
...torture was a widespread and acceptable practice.... I repeat: The section contents provide factual details of the lawsuits of Cypriot torture victims against the Brit colonials. Nowhere it is stated that torture was widespread or acceptable. That there was torture employed by the Brit colonials is an accepted and undisputed fact. Also you don't have to link to my edit summary, although you misrepresent this too. I did not tell you to go to NPOVN, I told you to go to RSN. There is no NPOV issue here. But you are free to go anywhere you want. It is your WP:WASTEOFTIME, not mine.
As for the RS-argument, I have never claimed that most of the text should be removed because of the sources are below standards. So it seems that you are missing the point: You wrote in your edit-summary:
removing staff that is UNDUE. No book on EOKA I know of give such a detail description of the alleged tortured by UK soldiers. If I get reverted, I 'll take it to Talk PageThis is a clear ad libris argument. Please own your nonsense and don't try to weasel out of it. As far as your novel "argument ad libris", it is translated as "the argument from books". See " Argument ad ignorantium" as an example. Needless to say, your ad libris argument is not worth the bandwidth it is transmitted on. Dr. K. 18:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
"That there was torture employed by the Brit colonials is an accepted and undisputed fact", as you falsly claim. It is an opinion by many, but not a fact. It is already mentioned in another paragraph.("Detention Camps and claims of torture") So, what is the point on re-visiting torture? None. Cinadon 36 18:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
It is not a fact, as you claim that "That there was torture employed by the Brit colonials is an accepted and undisputed fact", as you falsly claim. It is an opinion by many, but not a fact.Nonsense. I claim nothing falsely. Once more: Stop your weasel WP:ASPERSIONS. There are many RS analysing in detail the torture that was perpetrated by the Brit colonials in Cyprus. There are even undisputed confessions by Brit torturers. Do not try to whitewash torture by weasel insinuations and blanking. And do not edit-war to blank until you gain consensus to do so, which you currently and quite clearly do not have. Dr. K. 19:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Took it to NPOV noticepad. Cinadon 36 19:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Should the content of the section on the lawsuit be trimmed (ie
oldid = 922940943) due to WP:UNDUE concerns or should it be kept as is?
Cinadon
36 18:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The content should be kept or even expanded.
AugusteBlanqui (
talk) 19:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Clearly wading into a heavily contested political minefield on this one; having read the above comments! However a genuine question regarding this section. Earlier in the article its clearly stated that there are allegations of torture but that this is both heavily contested and there is suggestion that at least some of these allegations were likely EOKA propaganda. It discusses the Red Cross and various authors views on both sides. In this section however it categorically states widespread torture and brutal methods as established facts and isn't balanced by the view mentioned earlier in the article. Essentially the two parts of the article read as if they are entirely different partisan articles. I'm not taking a view as to which viewpoint is correct but its clearly not coherent. Essentially in one breath claiming there are heavily disputed claims of torture that haven't been categorically borne out by the facts and then in the next breath claiming that there was definitely wide spread state sponsored torture on a large scale. I'm not best placed to say which is right, and given that this surrounds a. What Greek Cypriots regards as a war of independence and b. that the British view as a brutal campaign of terror (I assume that Turkish Cypriots will take another view as well) i'm guessing that the two/three sides in this debate are going to be too partisan to agree. But that being said surely some sort of consensus or compromise wording needs to be reached rather than the current split. Cunobeline ( talk) 12:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Due to intimidation methods and targeting civilians towards local population a number of scholars characterized EOKA as a terrorist organisation
doesn't make sense, at least not in English. I noticed it used to say something different, citing the same references. See
this version, where it says A number of scholars characterize EOKA as a terrorist organization due attack on public utilities, assassination of members of the security forces, civil servants or civilians suspected of collaborating with the government
. I have no particular preference regarding the latter wording, I assume it was accurately cited to begin with, so have restored that.
FDW777 (
talk) 10:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
One thing I certainly don't accept is the IP editor's attempts to change the sentence to read Due to intimidation methods and targeting civilians, mass murder, arson, systematic ethnic cleansing efforts against Turkish people living on the island, many scholars characterized EOKA as a terrorist organization
. Quotes from the references already cited that support this change would be required first.
FDW777 (
talk) 12:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Due to intimidation methods towards local population and targeting civiliansthat would make sense in terms of sentence construction, but that might not be the point references were making. FDW777 ( talk) 14:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I am confused by the sentence "A substantial number of Turkish Cypriots fled from the southern parts of Cyprus and moved to the northern side due to the violence.", cited to the Greek translation of Richter's book. Northern Cyprus as a concept didn't really exist until 1974, so it doesn't make sense. It's also not supported by other sources. Niyazi Kızılyürek's Bir Hınç ve Şiddet Tarihi (Istanbul Bilgi University Press) confirms that Turkish Cypriots fled to town centres or bigger villages from mixed/small villaages in 1958. The PRIO Displacement Project details displacement at village level and generally supports this. I propose that we remove this sentence from the article (we also need a separate article for the intercommunal violence in 1958). -- GGT ( talk) 13:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
1) The description needs to be changed to reflect its international designation as an extremist terrorist organisation. [1] At the least, calling it a "nationalist paramilitary organisation" is incorrect, misleading, has the potential of manipulating and confusing readers, and goes against a number of other Wikipedia guidelines on editing etc including but not limited to:
...
Note: Sidelining that it was a terrorist organisation to a short mention stated in WP voice or the body of the article, the latter of which strongly comes across as being painted as "just some opinion", simply does not remain true to what EOKA was and therefore makes the entire article from that point onwards take on a quality whereby it confuses the reader by default.
2) The goal of EOKA is cited as being "the end of British rule in Cyprus, and for eventual union with Greece." That is factually incorrect, there is no evidence in any citation to support that, and it is potentially an example of POV pushing.
In brevity, I strongly recommend that the well-documented, self-confessed, legally conceded and accepted goals of EOKA take priority here. To that end it must include its other goal: the extinction or enslavement of the Turkish Cypriot race, [2] to avoid making this article take on a quality whereby it confuses or misleads readers.
2) The geographical location is also misleading. It is in the Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East and Levant. The same way Turkey is described as "a transcontinental country located... in Western Asia... (and) in Southeast Europe", this type of correct geographical association also needs included in this article, but also more so to avoid supporting any politically motivated POV Pushing that would revel in trying to rhetorically detach the island from its geographical location and proximity and exclusively attach it elsewhere, as well as to respect the following and more:
...
3) The contemporary history in the following paragraph (i.e. that it became British in 1878) is also simply incorrect in various places, as well as lacking in strong, reliable and cross-verifiable sources, and therefore needs changing.
It is also worth noting at this point that there are a number of individual topics - separate but related to EOKA - that are being brought into this and similarly being discombobulated, and they are certainly of considerable historical significance, adding to why they need to change.
The following is my suggestion to this paragraph:
Regards and thanks in advance to all for your contributions in this discussion. Nargothronde ( talk) 10:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
References
EOKA... is a terrorist organisation for Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot people. The pain caused by the inhumane massacres carried out by this terrorist organisation between 1963-1974 with the aim to eliminate the existence of the Turkish Cypriots on the island remains fresh in the memories.
Segments of the Greek Cypriot community advocated enosis persistently over the years of British rule... In April and May 1892, for example, the High Commissioner, Walter Sendall, sent three separate letters to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which he discussed 'enosis agitation,' 'rumoured disturbances' and 'meetings of Greeks at Nicosia'... The High Commissioner reported on tensions generated in 1897 as a result of recruitment efforts by the Greek Consul on behalf of the Greek Army... That the year 1897 should have given rise to a renewed outburst of pro-enosis sentiment is hardly surprising, given what happened to Crete... Haynes Smith... submitted a very substantial report in which he warned that the 'foreign agents of the agitation ... openly state that the people will resort to violence' if their demands are not met... Haynes Smith described a system of terrorism used to force the schoolteachers to carry out the enosis programme. The particular brand of enosis described in the report of the Inspector of Schools in 1902, is not one that merely advocated Union with Greece, but was specifically loaded with anti-Turkish sentiment and presaged the later expression of ethnic antipathies on the island. The Inspector described the songbook prescribed by the enosis 'programme', containing: ... matter intended to inflame Greek patriotism, war songs, (against the Turks). In practice, whenever I ask to hear the children sing, it is a war song, 'forward, follow the drum that leads us against the Turks'." Nor was this the first time that Greekschool children had been involved with anti- Turkish agitation... In 1895, Mr Seager, the Chief Magistrate of Nicosia, wrote to the Chief Secretary describing hostilities between Greeks and Turks in the capital arising, he said, from a procession of Greek school children who sang songs 'which referred to the slaughter of the hated Moslems' as they paraded through the Turkish Quarter. ... In 1904 another incident was reported: when the schoolboys in Kalavaso paraded through the village singing 'the heads of the Turks must be cut off and their bodies thrown into the filth'
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Hi @ Nargothronde:, I understand you raise some important issues. Maybe we should discuss different points in different sections. What would you like to discuss first? Cinadon 36 13:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I would suggest we talk intro-issues last, because intro should reflect the main body. Another issue that I want to talk is the undue weight "Foreign Office declassified documents and EOKA lawsuits against the British government" has. Totally out of proportions. Cinadon 36 15:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I am not surprised geography is an issue. To put some context, Turkey tends to say that Cyprus is part of the Asia Minor, implying that they have rights to the island, while Greece tends to suggest Cyprus is a European island, for the same reasons. But what do Reliable sources say? Best RS I could find that discuss the issue, is The Cyprus Problem (2011) by James Ker-Lindsay. At Page 1, we read:
WHAT AND WHERE IS CYPRUS? The island of Cyprus lies at the farthest eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea at the crossroads between Europe, Africa, and Asia. Its nearest neighbour, Turkey, lies approximately 50 miles north of the island. Next closest, lying 70 miles to the east, are Syria and Lebanon. Egypt is 240 miles south. Travelling westwards, the nearest Greek island, Castellorizo, is 170 miles away, with the Greek mainland an additional 330 miles away from Cyprus. At its extremes, the island is 150 miles long from east to west, and 100 miles wide from north to south. Its total land area is 3,572 square miles (9,251 square kilometres). It is the third-largest island in the Mediterranean, after Sardinia and Sicily. Were Cyprus a U.S. state, it would be number 48 in size—falling between Connecticut and Delaware
I suggest we keep the wording of the text, and add a satellite picture of Cyprus mentioning the proximity to Turkey, Greece, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, etc. Cinadon 36 15:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Can you please back your claim citing a RS on topic (EOKA)? Cinadon 36 05:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
References
It says "TMT was Turkey's tool to fuel intercommunal violence in order to show that partition was the only possible arrangement". This claim is completely wrong. TMT was initially formed out of fear of EOKA violence, Turkey was not even officially informed until a bit later as the Turkish Cypriot leaders were not sue of the reaction. Even Dr. F. Kucuk was told later. It was specifically formed as an unarmed group initially, more as neighborhood watch as normal channels of communication and roads were often cut off by Greeks and there was concern for remote isolated villages. Again, the founders were not sure initially how Republic Turkey would react to this development. Let me know if you disagree. I will edit with proper references, and there are many. Murat ( talk) 00:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
EOKA article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Alkimos Neolaia EOKA was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 31 May 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into EOKA. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article may be within the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks. |
Archives (index)
no archives yet (create)
Threads older than 90 days may be archived by ClueBot III.
|
||
@ Khirurg:,
Ok, Khirurg reverted my last edit due to "organizations don't have "death tolls" - conflicts do" [4]. The added text was:
David Carter has published the most comprehensive list of the death toll due to EOKA's action.
Death toll according to David Carter [1] |
|
---|---|
British armed forces | Number of Deaths |
Infantry | 80 |
Aviation | 16 |
Marines | 7 |
Navy | 1 |
Police | |
British | 12 |
Greek Cypriots | 15 |
Turkish Cypriots | 22 |
Others | 2 |
Citizens | |
British | 26 |
Greek Cypriots | 203 |
Turkish Cypriots | 7 |
Others | 2 |
Total | 393 |
On the other hand, 85-91 EOKA's guerillas were killed by the British forces. 17 more died by self-made bombs that exploded in their hands. [2]
References
Can anyone suggest a better wording so we can add the info to the article? Cinadon36 ( talk) 15:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
There is also some more text that sums up EOKA activity [5] inserted by GGT. I was the one who removed it [6] as I thought it had a place at the lede, but I feel it would be better if we merge it with this specific section. GGT what do you think? Cinadon36 ( talk) 13:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Might I ask you @ Khirurg:, since you are the one who reverted my edit, do you have any comments or suggestion to make so the info can be added at the article? Thanks. Cinadon 36 11:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Khirurg reverted once more my addition. @ Khirurg:, the number of fatalities were not due "to the British colonial administration" as you have claimed in your edit summary. Numbers do not include guerillas hanged or died because at the battlefield because of british fire. Cinadon 36 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
These data are important to this article because they give an impression on how deadly EOKA's struggle wasand there's as clear a declaration of POV-pushing as it gets. For the last time, wars and revolts have death tolls, organisations do not. Saying all these deaths are "due to EOKA" is the crudest POV-pushing. For example, the deaths of EOKA members at the hands of the British are not "deaths due to EOKA". But if you
can't see where the problem isthen I have nothing more to say to you. Khirurg ( talk) 03:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance and with a single comment by one of the editors, this cannot be considered to be "thorough". If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC) (Not watching this page)
Here is my view on why we should add the number of fatalities:
Why is it important to talk about fatalities? Because it is a notable topic. It gives a perspective on how bloody EOKA's struggle was. It also partly explains the tension between EOKA, left-wingers and turkish cypriots (why for examples T/C consider guerillas as terrorists). Many scholars and researchers have dug into it. A non-all-inclusive list follows:
case of post-colonial Cyprus. Time and Society, 21(1), pp. 71-88. doi: 10.1177/0961463X11431338 [9] page 8: "Assassination attempts were made against 230 Greek Cypriots; approximately a quarter of those executed by EOKA came from the ranks of Greek-Cypriot traitors (Markides, 1977, p.19). Angelos Vlachos, Greek Ambassador in Cyprus at the time, gives the following figures for civilian casualties as a result of EOKA’s struggle: 393 deaths (26 British; 203 Greek (Cypriots); Turkish (Cypriots) 7) (1980, p.96). Daniel Branch – citing information from War Office – provides a slightly different figure; of the 238 civilian casualties, 203 were Greek-Cypriots (2010, p.407)." Cinadon 36 07:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Should the article include number of fatalities of EOKA's struggle? Cinadon 36 13:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
According to historian [[Heinz A. Richter|Heinz Richter]] EOKA was responsible for the death of 104 British soldiers, 54 policemen (among them 15 Greek Cypriots, 22 Turkish Cypriots among 12 British<--plus two 2 "others"-->) and 238 citizens (among them 26 British, 203 Greek Cypriots and 7 Turkish Cypriots<--plus two 2 "others"-->){{sfn|Richter|2011|p=979|ps=Ricther uses the numbers given by David Carter. The same numbers are used by David French (2015, page=307) and [[John Newsinger]] (2016, page=107)}}.. We could add it at the end of #Armed campaign. Anyway, thanks again. Cinadon 36 09:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
to show how bloody EOKA's struggle wasin the section above. Lastly, articles about similar organizations, e.g. PKK, IRA, etc... do not include such figures, for the same reason. Such figures belong in articles about the struggle itself, not the organization. For example, casualty figures are included in The Troubles, but not the IRA article. Khirurg ( talk) 22:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
(pls have a look at the policy). You may not be aware of it, but is standard to refer to WP:WEASEL to cover also "weasel insinuations", so your advice to look it over misses the point entirely and fails to deliver on its weasel insinuation that I have not read the guideline. And it is not a policy, it's just a guideline, part of the WP:MOS. Read it before you comment on it. As far as the rest of your points, you mechanically utter them every time I make a comment. I repeat: Don't feel compelled to respond to every single comment I make in this RfC. This is a wiki. This means other wiki editors can inform us with their opinions. If you are correct they will agree with your points. Repeating them to me, Khirurg, and others, every time we comment is just your own echo chamber and it is not needed. It also reveals a certain degree of insecurity about your arguments. If you are so certain about them, let others adopt them. Your repeating them ad nauseam, does not make them any more compelling. For this reason, I will not reply to you any further. But if you like your own echo so much, please feel free to fill this RfC, which you created, with your needless replies. Dr. K. 18:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
References
So how should we proceed? RfC template has been removed. [10] All users who politely contributed their opinion were for inclusion. What 's next? Cinadon 36 06:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
All users who politely contributed their opinion were for inclusion.I contributed my opinion very politely, so did Khirurg and we were not for inclusion. What is this? An attempt tp disregard the opposition? Also, those who tended to include this stuff, were not for unconditional inclusion. One support was also weak. I suggest you wait for someone to properly close this RfC, instead of distorting the results. Dr. K. 20:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
As opposing users cite POV and DUE issues, I added a comment at NPOV noticepad. [11] Cinadon 36 19:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Notes
If one of the two has to be included (Im not convinced about either tbh) it should be British not English. -- Greece666 ( talk) 15:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Seems obvious to me that it is. No secondary work on EOKA is giving such a detailed analysis of that document. At least not a book in the sources give such a detailed analysis. Not Richter, not French, not Holland, not Newsinger, not even Barnava whose book was published by the "EOKA fighter Commitee". So why are we discussing in such a detail the EOKA lawsuit? I am worrying that it is UNDUE and hence POV-pushing as it falsly glorifies EOKA fighters (and put shame on UK), for something that literature haven't yet examined. It is clear that the text of our article is solely based on newspaper articles, no academic work, as the rest of the EOKA article.
The specific section is 4,212 bytes, in an article of 52,611 bytes, that is 8% for an insignificant lawsuit, not mention by anyone but newspapers.
I am opening this discussion because my was reverted by Dr.K. [12] (Dr.K. elsewhere told me he doesn't need me to ping him) Cinadon 36 09:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
But the problem is that we are making a point at the article, that torture was a widespread and acceptable practice...: This indicates that either you have not read the section or that you are misrepresenting the section content. Nowhere in that section there is any hint that
...torture was a widespread and acceptable practice.... I repeat: The section contents provide factual details of the lawsuits of Cypriot torture victims against the Brit colonials. Nowhere it is stated that torture was widespread or acceptable. That there was torture employed by the Brit colonials is an accepted and undisputed fact. Also you don't have to link to my edit summary, although you misrepresent this too. I did not tell you to go to NPOVN, I told you to go to RSN. There is no NPOV issue here. But you are free to go anywhere you want. It is your WP:WASTEOFTIME, not mine.
As for the RS-argument, I have never claimed that most of the text should be removed because of the sources are below standards. So it seems that you are missing the point: You wrote in your edit-summary:
removing staff that is UNDUE. No book on EOKA I know of give such a detail description of the alleged tortured by UK soldiers. If I get reverted, I 'll take it to Talk PageThis is a clear ad libris argument. Please own your nonsense and don't try to weasel out of it. As far as your novel "argument ad libris", it is translated as "the argument from books". See " Argument ad ignorantium" as an example. Needless to say, your ad libris argument is not worth the bandwidth it is transmitted on. Dr. K. 18:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
"That there was torture employed by the Brit colonials is an accepted and undisputed fact", as you falsly claim. It is an opinion by many, but not a fact. It is already mentioned in another paragraph.("Detention Camps and claims of torture") So, what is the point on re-visiting torture? None. Cinadon 36 18:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
It is not a fact, as you claim that "That there was torture employed by the Brit colonials is an accepted and undisputed fact", as you falsly claim. It is an opinion by many, but not a fact.Nonsense. I claim nothing falsely. Once more: Stop your weasel WP:ASPERSIONS. There are many RS analysing in detail the torture that was perpetrated by the Brit colonials in Cyprus. There are even undisputed confessions by Brit torturers. Do not try to whitewash torture by weasel insinuations and blanking. And do not edit-war to blank until you gain consensus to do so, which you currently and quite clearly do not have. Dr. K. 19:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Took it to NPOV noticepad. Cinadon 36 19:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Should the content of the section on the lawsuit be trimmed (ie
oldid = 922940943) due to WP:UNDUE concerns or should it be kept as is?
Cinadon
36 18:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The content should be kept or even expanded.
AugusteBlanqui (
talk) 19:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Clearly wading into a heavily contested political minefield on this one; having read the above comments! However a genuine question regarding this section. Earlier in the article its clearly stated that there are allegations of torture but that this is both heavily contested and there is suggestion that at least some of these allegations were likely EOKA propaganda. It discusses the Red Cross and various authors views on both sides. In this section however it categorically states widespread torture and brutal methods as established facts and isn't balanced by the view mentioned earlier in the article. Essentially the two parts of the article read as if they are entirely different partisan articles. I'm not taking a view as to which viewpoint is correct but its clearly not coherent. Essentially in one breath claiming there are heavily disputed claims of torture that haven't been categorically borne out by the facts and then in the next breath claiming that there was definitely wide spread state sponsored torture on a large scale. I'm not best placed to say which is right, and given that this surrounds a. What Greek Cypriots regards as a war of independence and b. that the British view as a brutal campaign of terror (I assume that Turkish Cypriots will take another view as well) i'm guessing that the two/three sides in this debate are going to be too partisan to agree. But that being said surely some sort of consensus or compromise wording needs to be reached rather than the current split. Cunobeline ( talk) 12:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Due to intimidation methods and targeting civilians towards local population a number of scholars characterized EOKA as a terrorist organisation
doesn't make sense, at least not in English. I noticed it used to say something different, citing the same references. See
this version, where it says A number of scholars characterize EOKA as a terrorist organization due attack on public utilities, assassination of members of the security forces, civil servants or civilians suspected of collaborating with the government
. I have no particular preference regarding the latter wording, I assume it was accurately cited to begin with, so have restored that.
FDW777 (
talk) 10:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
One thing I certainly don't accept is the IP editor's attempts to change the sentence to read Due to intimidation methods and targeting civilians, mass murder, arson, systematic ethnic cleansing efforts against Turkish people living on the island, many scholars characterized EOKA as a terrorist organization
. Quotes from the references already cited that support this change would be required first.
FDW777 (
talk) 12:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Due to intimidation methods towards local population and targeting civiliansthat would make sense in terms of sentence construction, but that might not be the point references were making. FDW777 ( talk) 14:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I am confused by the sentence "A substantial number of Turkish Cypriots fled from the southern parts of Cyprus and moved to the northern side due to the violence.", cited to the Greek translation of Richter's book. Northern Cyprus as a concept didn't really exist until 1974, so it doesn't make sense. It's also not supported by other sources. Niyazi Kızılyürek's Bir Hınç ve Şiddet Tarihi (Istanbul Bilgi University Press) confirms that Turkish Cypriots fled to town centres or bigger villages from mixed/small villaages in 1958. The PRIO Displacement Project details displacement at village level and generally supports this. I propose that we remove this sentence from the article (we also need a separate article for the intercommunal violence in 1958). -- GGT ( talk) 13:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
1) The description needs to be changed to reflect its international designation as an extremist terrorist organisation. [1] At the least, calling it a "nationalist paramilitary organisation" is incorrect, misleading, has the potential of manipulating and confusing readers, and goes against a number of other Wikipedia guidelines on editing etc including but not limited to:
...
Note: Sidelining that it was a terrorist organisation to a short mention stated in WP voice or the body of the article, the latter of which strongly comes across as being painted as "just some opinion", simply does not remain true to what EOKA was and therefore makes the entire article from that point onwards take on a quality whereby it confuses the reader by default.
2) The goal of EOKA is cited as being "the end of British rule in Cyprus, and for eventual union with Greece." That is factually incorrect, there is no evidence in any citation to support that, and it is potentially an example of POV pushing.
In brevity, I strongly recommend that the well-documented, self-confessed, legally conceded and accepted goals of EOKA take priority here. To that end it must include its other goal: the extinction or enslavement of the Turkish Cypriot race, [2] to avoid making this article take on a quality whereby it confuses or misleads readers.
2) The geographical location is also misleading. It is in the Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East and Levant. The same way Turkey is described as "a transcontinental country located... in Western Asia... (and) in Southeast Europe", this type of correct geographical association also needs included in this article, but also more so to avoid supporting any politically motivated POV Pushing that would revel in trying to rhetorically detach the island from its geographical location and proximity and exclusively attach it elsewhere, as well as to respect the following and more:
...
3) The contemporary history in the following paragraph (i.e. that it became British in 1878) is also simply incorrect in various places, as well as lacking in strong, reliable and cross-verifiable sources, and therefore needs changing.
It is also worth noting at this point that there are a number of individual topics - separate but related to EOKA - that are being brought into this and similarly being discombobulated, and they are certainly of considerable historical significance, adding to why they need to change.
The following is my suggestion to this paragraph:
Regards and thanks in advance to all for your contributions in this discussion. Nargothronde ( talk) 10:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
References
EOKA... is a terrorist organisation for Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot people. The pain caused by the inhumane massacres carried out by this terrorist organisation between 1963-1974 with the aim to eliminate the existence of the Turkish Cypriots on the island remains fresh in the memories.
Segments of the Greek Cypriot community advocated enosis persistently over the years of British rule... In April and May 1892, for example, the High Commissioner, Walter Sendall, sent three separate letters to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which he discussed 'enosis agitation,' 'rumoured disturbances' and 'meetings of Greeks at Nicosia'... The High Commissioner reported on tensions generated in 1897 as a result of recruitment efforts by the Greek Consul on behalf of the Greek Army... That the year 1897 should have given rise to a renewed outburst of pro-enosis sentiment is hardly surprising, given what happened to Crete... Haynes Smith... submitted a very substantial report in which he warned that the 'foreign agents of the agitation ... openly state that the people will resort to violence' if their demands are not met... Haynes Smith described a system of terrorism used to force the schoolteachers to carry out the enosis programme. The particular brand of enosis described in the report of the Inspector of Schools in 1902, is not one that merely advocated Union with Greece, but was specifically loaded with anti-Turkish sentiment and presaged the later expression of ethnic antipathies on the island. The Inspector described the songbook prescribed by the enosis 'programme', containing: ... matter intended to inflame Greek patriotism, war songs, (against the Turks). In practice, whenever I ask to hear the children sing, it is a war song, 'forward, follow the drum that leads us against the Turks'." Nor was this the first time that Greekschool children had been involved with anti- Turkish agitation... In 1895, Mr Seager, the Chief Magistrate of Nicosia, wrote to the Chief Secretary describing hostilities between Greeks and Turks in the capital arising, he said, from a procession of Greek school children who sang songs 'which referred to the slaughter of the hated Moslems' as they paraded through the Turkish Quarter. ... In 1904 another incident was reported: when the schoolboys in Kalavaso paraded through the village singing 'the heads of the Turks must be cut off and their bodies thrown into the filth'
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Hi @ Nargothronde:, I understand you raise some important issues. Maybe we should discuss different points in different sections. What would you like to discuss first? Cinadon 36 13:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I would suggest we talk intro-issues last, because intro should reflect the main body. Another issue that I want to talk is the undue weight "Foreign Office declassified documents and EOKA lawsuits against the British government" has. Totally out of proportions. Cinadon 36 15:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I am not surprised geography is an issue. To put some context, Turkey tends to say that Cyprus is part of the Asia Minor, implying that they have rights to the island, while Greece tends to suggest Cyprus is a European island, for the same reasons. But what do Reliable sources say? Best RS I could find that discuss the issue, is The Cyprus Problem (2011) by James Ker-Lindsay. At Page 1, we read:
WHAT AND WHERE IS CYPRUS? The island of Cyprus lies at the farthest eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea at the crossroads between Europe, Africa, and Asia. Its nearest neighbour, Turkey, lies approximately 50 miles north of the island. Next closest, lying 70 miles to the east, are Syria and Lebanon. Egypt is 240 miles south. Travelling westwards, the nearest Greek island, Castellorizo, is 170 miles away, with the Greek mainland an additional 330 miles away from Cyprus. At its extremes, the island is 150 miles long from east to west, and 100 miles wide from north to south. Its total land area is 3,572 square miles (9,251 square kilometres). It is the third-largest island in the Mediterranean, after Sardinia and Sicily. Were Cyprus a U.S. state, it would be number 48 in size—falling between Connecticut and Delaware
I suggest we keep the wording of the text, and add a satellite picture of Cyprus mentioning the proximity to Turkey, Greece, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, etc. Cinadon 36 15:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Can you please back your claim citing a RS on topic (EOKA)? Cinadon 36 05:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
References
It says "TMT was Turkey's tool to fuel intercommunal violence in order to show that partition was the only possible arrangement". This claim is completely wrong. TMT was initially formed out of fear of EOKA violence, Turkey was not even officially informed until a bit later as the Turkish Cypriot leaders were not sue of the reaction. Even Dr. F. Kucuk was told later. It was specifically formed as an unarmed group initially, more as neighborhood watch as normal channels of communication and roads were often cut off by Greeks and there was concern for remote isolated villages. Again, the founders were not sure initially how Republic Turkey would react to this development. Let me know if you disagree. I will edit with proper references, and there are many. Murat ( talk) 00:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)