Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:07, 1 November 2018

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cyprus Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cyprus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cyprus on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyprusWikipedia:WikiProject CyprusTemplate:WikiProject CyprusCypriot Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. British Empire Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Balkan / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force

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.

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.

Archives (index) no archives yet (create)

Threads older than 90 days may be archived by ClueBot III.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Political perception

I removed the section "political perception" because it was a Synthesis of Primary sources or Original Research. No scholarly article on the political perception of EOKA was identified. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Ideology of EOKA & perception of EOKA

Dear @Khirurg: Thanks for getting in trouble reviewing my edit. I was so sorry to notice that a part of contribution was reverted, but I believe we can sort it out.

Ideology of EOKA

• As I see, a part of my contribution to ideology of EOKA has been removed due to “poorly written, poorly sourced” as you have stated in the edit summary. I acknowledge that is poorly written, English is not my native language. But WP:IMPERFECT states that ‘’”Perfection is not required: Misplaced Pages is a work in progress”’’ So I would appreciate if you could help improve the wording, but I do not understand why my contribution was removed. As for the sourcing, I used 2016 secondary source (Μαριος Θρασυβουλου, introduced by a well-reputed uni prof Giannis Stefanidis

More sources can be found though. I.e.

• Richter, Heinz A. (2011). Ιστορία της Κύπρου. Vol. B΄ (1950-1959). Mετάφραση: Χαράλαμπος Παπαχρήστου. Αθήνα: Βιβλιοπωλείον της Εστίας. ISBN 978-960-05-1502-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Novo, A. R. (2013). The God Dilemma: Faith, the Church, and Political Violence in Cyprus. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 31(2), 193–215.
• Takis Hadjidemitriou (2018). «Κύπρος 1950 -1959 – Το τέλος του αλυτρωτισμού. {{cite book}}: Text "Εκδόσεις Παπαζήση" ignored (help)

• As for removing the other part of my contribution, I agree that section “Dissolution and legacy” seems more appropriate place. (but not in the subsection “Political perception”)

Political perception

As for re-inserting the political perception section, I had removed it seems to me that the whole section is Original Reseach and Synthesis using inappropriate sources. Let me give an example or two

• On Cyprus, the flagicon of Cyprus (Republic of Cyprus) might transmit the wrong narrative that the population of the island has a single opinion on EOKA. But, as it is easily understood, leftists and Turkish-Cypriot have a different idea than the official narrative. More to that, the source is Primary Source to a dead link.
• On Greece, the flagicon of Greece is also problematic. The text claims that the press refers to EOKA as, but the source is just a newsletter, that does not support what the text states. Even if the reference refers to EOKA as “an organisation that mounted a "liberation struggle"”, it still wouldn’t be able to support the statement: “Greek press refers to EOKA as an organisation….”. But the text of the source, does not even claim that.
• On UK, the first sentence sites an article of BBC, which is used as an example. The source does not support the sentence that Media “‘’in the United Kingdom referred to EOKA as a "terrorist organization" ‘’’’ Seems to me that the editor did his own research on the matter. The second article is base on an article of Manchester Guardian, still, not a valid source for the claim of the text.
• On Cuba, political maneuvers of dictators are translated as the perception of EOKA struggle in Cuba. Even the article that is cited does not state that the perception of Cubans

The same goes for USA and China, in my honest opinion. The one solution is to remove the text, another solution is to replace it. Here is another ref that discuss the perception of EOKA among greek Cypriots (nationalists and cypriotists)

• Mavratsas, C. V. (1997). The ideological contest between Greek‐Cypriot nationalism and Cypriotism 1974–1995: Politics, social memory and identity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 20(4), 717–737. doi:10.1080/01419870.1997.9993986

Sorry for the long text. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if the leader of the Republic of Cuba, communist or dictator or both or whatever, was lying (this needs some support by rs) but he declared that he admired EOKA's "liberation struggle". He was the head of a state at the time he made this statement. In case we find something that this was a manoeuvre it would be a good addition too.Alexikoua (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel that the sentence on Cuba, as with the rest sentences of that section, need RS. I think it is UNDUE and a little bit irrelevant with the struggle of EOKA. Using news articles is not the way forward for historical articles. I hope more users contribute to our discussion. Cheers Τζερόνυμο (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The rest of the section is sourced by BBC, NYT, Huriet, a Chinese media. I feel that the entire section is based on newspapers (not academic papers but still RS, Casto statement is sourced by RS newspaper too). I agree that wp:HISTRS should apply in this case as you noted, but for the entire section.Alexikoua (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet, those sources are not supporting the text in the article as I have pointed out above. An article in the NYT or Hurriet cannot support a claim that "In american/turkish press, EOKA is considered". Plus the flagicon gives the wrong impression that the opinion of each country is homogenous.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

In general flag icons are about governments & authorities: we don't know what was the opinion about EOKA among the majority of the people of a specific country. If NYT or Huriet claim something that doesn't make it de facto as the public opinion in their country. By the way I agree that your argument is a good one to remove the entire section, not just Cuba.Alexikoua (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Did it, thanks. I have made some other minor changes as well, have a look and let me know if you have any objections. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Perception of EOKA

Here is a proposal on how to change the sub-chapter of perception of EOKA in Cyprus

In Cyprus the perception of EOKA has changed through time. A major turning point was the events of 1974. Before 1974, EOKA’s struggle was seen as aiming to Union (Enosis). After 1974 and the decline of nationalism, EOKA was seen as an anti-colonial independence struggle.{{sfn|Mavratsas|2010|732}} EOKA still spurs tensions among pro-Greek greek Cypriots and Cypriotists (those who support the independent Republic of Cyprus) According oto nationalistic narrative, EOKA was nationalistic in military terms, but its victory was compromised by Makarios who betrayed the ideal of Enosis. The cypriotist camp, on the other hand is very critical of the direction which the anticolonial struggle was pushed by the nationalists and maintains that it makes no sense to talk about a victory. They support Makarios who realized that, given the circumstances, enosis would be disastrous, wisely adopting a policy of independence.{{sfn|Mavratsas|1997|p=732}} reference = Caesar V. Mavratsas (1997) The ideological contest between Greek‐Cypriot nationalism and Cypriotism 1974–1995: Politics, social memory and identity, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 20:4, 717-737, DOI: 10.1080/01419870.1997.9993986

Any thoughts? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

We cannot use words like "wisely" per WP:NPOV and WP:EDITORIAL. I would also avoid "nationalistic" per WP:LABEL. Otherwise ok. Khirurg (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, let me try again: In Cyprus the perception of EOKA has changed through time. A major turning point was the events of 1974. Before 1974, EOKA’s struggle was seen as aiming to Union (Enosis). After 1974 and the decline of nationalism, EOKA was seen as an anti-colonial independence struggle.{{sfn|Mavratsas|2010|732}} EOKA still spurs tensions among pro-Greek greek-Cypriots and Cypriotists (those who support the independent Republic of Cyprus) According to the pro Greek Cypriots, EOKA was victorious in military terms, but its victory was compromised by Makarios who betrayed the ideal of Enosis. The cypriotists camp, on the other hand, is very critical of the direction which the anticolonial struggle was pushed by the nationalists and maintains that it makes no sense to talk about a victory. They support Makarios who had realized that, given the circumstances, enosis would be disastrous, and adopted a policy of independence.{{sfn|Mavratsas|1997|p=732}} Τζερόνυμο (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, except some minor grammar stuff. Khirurg (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Great, if Alexikoua finds it ok, I hope you 'll help with grammar! Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure, this is an improvement. I'd never favoured the flag parade.Alexikoua (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Section Background

I feel that starting the story with a promise, is a little awkward. I feel that we should start either from 1878 or the early 20th century, stating that Greek Cypriots felt that Union was a legitimate and natural aim and Turkish Cypriots (the minority) did not feel comfortable with this, to say the least. Also, there is an inaccuracy on AKEL's participation at the plebiscite of 1950. AKEL did not organized the plebiscite, the Church did. AKEL urged for YES and after the plebiscite, a committee of AKEL tried to promote the Union cause to Eastern bloc (as unsuccessfully as the Church's committee to Western bloc) Τζερόνυμο (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Racial prejudice

A part of the EOKA's ideology has been removed by @Dr.K.: as Synthesis. . I really can not understand why it is a synthesis. It is not combined material. If someone understand greek, I can take a photo of the page and post it here (I wont do it though if copyrights are involved). Dr. K, do you think is UNDUE? That could be a debatable argument. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

No pinging please. I have this page watchlisted and I don't need to be pinged. To answer your question: Your assertion that Racial prejudice was another part of EOKA's ideology. According to a leaflet be PEKA... is very tenuous. First, there is no inline citation where this statement can be verified. Also, there is no quote from the references to help in verifying this statement. In addition, you should not use Misplaced Pages's voice to assert these facts, even if the sources state that. A single leaflet is a ridiculous artifact on which to base the assertion that EOKA's ideology was racist. If the assertion was not included in the source, as I suspect, it is obvious SYNTH. If the assertion was made by the source, then the source bases their conclusion on a single leaflet, which is ridiculous, and demonstrates that the source itself is not reliable. Again, someone wrote something stupid on a leaflet. How is this part of EOKA's ideology? How can a single leaflet represent the ideology of EOKA? Did EOKA have a record of denigrating the people of Africa? Where is the proof of that? That a rogue member of EOKA wrote something silly on a single leaflet cannot be used as proof that the whole EOKA organisation had a racist ideology. I just can't believe I have to explain this to you. Dr. K. 09:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't put it correctly. Θρασυβουλου, (Thrasiboulou) is examining the ideology of EOKA in the section "ideology of EOKA" pg298 to 320. A subchapter is dedicated to racial prejudice pp 303- 305. There it asserts that "οι αναφορές της ΕΟΚΑ σ' αυτο το ζήτημα κινούνται σ ενα οπισθοδρομικό πλαίσιο" (EOKA rhetoric on this issue is in a backward framework). He goes on and mentions the leaflet from PEKA, the one I quoted on the text. After that, he mentions another leaflet by PEKA, that states "αυτοι ειναι μαύροι που δεν ξέρουν την λέξη πολιτισμός" (these are blacks who do non know what is civilization". Thrasyboulou goes not and states that that EOKA was respecting the British people, but while glorifying their greek ancestors, they would ask the british: "πως τολμάτε σημερον να κραήτε δια της βιας εναν λαον, ο οποίος σας ανοιξετα τα μάτια με το φως του πολιτισμου του και σας μετέτρεψε από καννίβαλλους ανθρωποφάγους εις άνθρωπους πολιτισμένους" (how dare you keep, by the use of force, a nation that opened your eyes to civilization and turned you from human eating cannibals to civilized persons?". Thrasyboulou goes on stating "Ανεξάρτητα απο το αν τα συγγράματα που προωθουνται στον λαο εχουν γραφτεί απο διαφορα στελέχη της ΕΟΚΑ, σχεδον στο συνολo τους συντηρουν ακραίες ρατσιστικές ιδέες και θέσεις, προβάλλουν την διάκριση των λαών, υποτιμούν τους άλλους πολιτισμούς." (The books and articles of EOKA that were handed to greek Cypriots, almost all of them, had extreme racist positions, they were discriminating among people and underestimate other civilizations) After that mentions another article in an EOKA journal, where someone can read "I would nt want to be an english woman because I know that Englishmen are cowards, sneaky, atheists, barbarians, liers, traitors, selfish, very rude, αφιλοτιμοι, greedy (...) inhumane (...) scums". So there it is, it is not a synthesis. Maybe we should write that "some authors point out that racial prejudice was a part of the ideology of EOKA. (or EOKA members)"Τζερόνυμο (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

From Thrasyboulou's online biography:

Ο Μάριος Θρασυβούλου γεννήθηκε στη Λευκωσία. Πολιτικοποιήθηκε πολύ νωρίς στον ευρύτερο αριστερό χώρο της Κύπρου. Βασικά του ερευνητικά ενδιαφέροντα είναι το Κυπριακό, η ιστορία και η πολιτική της ελληνοκυπριακής και ελληνικής Αριστεράς, καθώς και το σταλινικό φαινόμενο. Έχει δίπλωμα στην Ιστορία-Αρχαιολογία. Η έκδοση "Ο εθνικισμός των Ελληνοκυπρίων" είναι το πρώτο του βιβλίο.

The main point of his short bio is that he "became politicised very early in the area of the wider left-wing politics of Cyprus". It is also mentioned this is his first book. Other than a generic "diploma in History/Archaeology", no other academic credentials are mentioned. I think this author is an unreliable source because he is not notable, he has not published any peer-reviewed articles, and his analysis carries a strong leftist POV. Dr. K. 10:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

So, do you drop your claim that it was a SYNTHESIS? Now, on your newly critique: being leftist does not disqualify Thrasyboulou from being cited in Misplaced Pages. As for the book, it was published by a well-reputed publisher and introduced by a well-reputed prof. The author has studied in the fields of history (what are the generic diplomas?). Its main topic is the nationalism of Greek Cypriots from early 20th century to mid 20th century. The argument that the author is unreliable because he is not notable is not valid. Notabily is a criterion for articles and context (or material), not for authors. Anyway, I read his book and I mentioned it. Other sources can be found claiming more or less the same. Here is another "The form that the national liberation struggle took in Cyprus was contextually related to the form of nationalism that arose within the Greek-Cypriot population and was articulated most forcefully by right-wing and chauvinist elements" Women and Nationalism in Cyprus, page 159. Here is another article by the same author (Anthias Fl) that tells the same story. I think with a proper rewording, we can find a commonly accepted solution. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

EOKA and the conflict where it got involved were racist . Τζερόνυμο makes a good point. On the content that was deleted after I added it, which was the problem and how can it be fixed? Deleting well-sourced content on EOKA is not a solution, some modifications are. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Lol, not so fast. Doing a Google search with the string "EOKA racist" and getting a book by an unknown author, from Zed Books, an activist and relatively unknown publisher, not known for scholarly research, is not the way to go. We need a much better source for this WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. Dr. K. 18:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems that every source does not have the academic credentials you want from them. The matter of racism is of little to no interest to me. It is easily understandable for readers that EOKA and the conflicts of it were racist. I was just saying that Τζερόνυμο is right when they say that EOKA was racist, not that it should be literally written on the article. The religious character of EOKA is all I care about. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Τζερόνυμο: Regarding SYNTH, from what you wrote above about Thrasyboulou, your conclusion about ideology still looks SYNTHetic to me. As far as Thrasyboulou's notability, let me explain a few points further: This guy is a novice author with no peer-reviewed publications. That's bad enough. He is also a political activist making generalisations from a few political leaflets and anecdotes. In addition, nobody seems to know him, apart from his publisher. He is not acknowledged as an expert on the subject by anyone. Including this guy's views in this article, is the very definition of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Having said that, your new quote "The form that the national liberation struggle took in Cyprus was contextually related to the form of nationalism that arose within the Greek-Cypriot population and was articulated most forcefully by right-wing and chauvinist elements" sounds much more sober and scholarly to me. Also the new source you provided from Palgrave Mcmillan, looks scholarly to me and the publisher is well-known and respected. If you want to go with the new quote and source, I would agree. Dr. K. 18:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

(ec) @Ktrimi991: The source you posted shows the British were racist towards the Cypriots, not EOKA. Regarding the other content you added, it is WP:FRINGE and anachronistic, so unfortunately it cannot be added to the article. Not to mention that you followed me to this article in retaliation for edits in another article (diffs stored for future use). Khirurg (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it is about EOKA. Anyways, racism of EOKA is easily understandable for readers. My concern was the religious character of EOKA and Τζερόνυμο added good content on the matter. I am satisfied with the article as it is now. However, you shold prove that the content you deleted is fringe. (diffs stored for future use) lol Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Please provide the quote from the (admittedly low quality source) that shows "EOKA was racist". Thanks in advance. As for fringe, let's see, anachronistic comparisons to jihadi movements 50 years into the future? Yeah that's fringe all right. Unless you can somehow prove that EOKA had a time machine that enabled them to travel to the 2010s, so they could copy 21st century jihadi tactics and retroactively apply them in the 1950s. Khirurg (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I provided a link to the page of the book where the stuff on racism is. Τζερόνυμο might use it if they wish. The comparisions with the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq are not fringe. Cyprus, Afghanistan and Iraq had wars against colonialism and all of them chose religion as the main inspiration. As I said, I do care about the religious character of EOKA. Forget the other stuff (Afghanistan, Iraq, racism), I do not care about it. I want you to prove that the following text is fringe: EOKA was led by a charismatic religious leader and its memmbers were committed to Hellenism, an ideology which has an important religious aspect. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Problem is, the link to the book you provided (which is about feminism, not Cyprus, or EOKA, or anything like that) does not say anything about EOKA being racist. Now it could be I didn't search the book enough, which is why I asked you for a quote, which you have failed to provide. As far as Afghanistan and Iraq being "wars against colonialism" (did the US invade Iraq to fight colonialism?? I don't follow), you are deep into WP:OR territory. As you are about "Hellenism" being an ideology. It is not. Anyway, I consider the matter closed. Khirurg (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope, you are in OR territory as you have provided no sources. Only conclusions of yourself. I am not going to explain you the history of the Middle East/W. Asia. I was worried because the article did not elaborate on the religious character of EOKA. I tried to solve the problem in a way or another but you rv me. Today a good editor added an "Ideology" section that satisfies me. The article finally gives a true depiction of EOKA and its nature. I am happy, hope you are happy too. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, here are some comments and a suggestion on the wording based on Anthias Fl quote. Firstly, you are right that Thrasiboulou is a novice author but that does not exclude him from being scientific and reliable. But I acknowledge that he is not a strong source. Strong claims need a strong source. I thought that the claims he did were not that extraordinary, as it is textbook knowledge that eoka was extreme right wing and nationalistic. As for the anachronistic comparison, I feel that a)it a philosophical debate about absolutism (or universalism) vs relativism b)50 years ago are not that long, the proclamation of Human Rights is dated in 1948, and c)if sources are making a connection between an ancient organization and a modern concept, who are judge? Anyway, I think we are getting a little out of topic, so here is my suggestion and (feel free to make improvements): Chauvinistic elements inside EOKA intensively expressed the nationalism of Greek Cypriot community.{{sfn|Anthias|1989|p=159}}{{snf|Θρασυβούλου|2016|p=303-05}}. Or would you like Thrasyboulou to be excluded? Feedback?Τζερόνυμο (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Thrasyvoulou should be excluded in my opinion. Too POV. Khirurg (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

POV is not a reason for exclusion though, but ok, I 'll will not mention him. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's not forget that EOKA also included many Left-wing socialist members, and some of them were even in leading positions e.g. Vassos Lyssarides. Having a religious basis doesn't make a movement racist. And in the case of the Greek national identity (both in mainland Greece and in Cyprus), it is historically an ethno-religious one, bound to Orthodox Christianity. 2A02:587:2802:6F00:8839:F08C:5CAA:A4BD (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You correct. Unfortunately in the minds of some people the two are connected. That said, this POV cannot stand in a neutral encyclopedia. Khirurg (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not correct. Vassos Lyssarides was an exception of the rule, and his role was rather insignificant in EOKA's struggle. He gained notability in the forthcoming years. Plus, the claim that EOKA (many EOKA members to be more accurate) was racist is not based on EOKA's religious tendencies.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Religions such as Islam and Christianity are the opposite of racism. EOKA ia regarded as racist due to other factors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

EOKA as it is currently presented in available literature can't be considered as being "racist". Such organization had enemies & objectives but a racist ideology can't be confirmed (see declarations & bibliography).Alexikoua (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

EOKA as it is currently presented in the available literature, had racist elemets, and that is why I am suggesting the following: Chauvinistic elements inside EOKA intensively expressed the nationalism of Greek Cypriot community.{{sfn|Anthias|1989|p=159}}.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems rather meaningless and redundant. "Chauvinist elements...expressed nationalism"? Unless of course the intent is to portray EOKA in as negative light as possible, of course. Khirurg (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The intention is to portray EOKA as it is presented in Reliable Sources. Not a bit worse, not a bit better. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

By using hyper-partisan sources like Thrasyvoulou? Khirurg (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What Thrsyvoulou said, has been said by many others, like let's say Heinz Richter. Thrasyvoulou is a reliable source in my opinion, being partisan does not exclude someone from using him as a source. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What makes Thrasyvoulou reliable exactly? Anyway, we digress. Your proposed addition adds very little of substance to the article. Khirurg (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is it of "very little of substance"? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Because it's basically a tautology. Thought that was kind of obvious. Khirurg (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

yes i got the tautology, I am asking why you think does not have a place in the article (#ideology)? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Glad you agree it's a tautology. Tautologies don't add anything to articles. By definition. Have a nice day. Khirurg (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a kind of misunderstanding here. I was not talking about my addition being a tautology. Nevertheless, I repeat the question, why you think does not have a place in the article (#ideology)? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"after anti-greek pogrom"

This specific contribution by Alexikou, seems to me that has some problems. a)It is taken way out of context. Libitsiouni is discussing rumors among turkish Cypriots, she does not examine when EOKA modified it's target group. b)The resulting narrative created by the newly formed sentence is that EOKA chanced tactics because of the Pogrom. This is wrong. Grivas resisted attacking Turkish Cypriots during the EOKA struggle. First, dead Tc was in January 1956 and was a British security personnel. Intercommunal violence (killing unarmed civilians, both sides) started at June 1958, at Kioneli. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Libitsiouni states that members of the TC community were targeted only after the September 1955 pogrom. Nothing wrong with that. The examples you give concern the period after the anti-Greek Istanbul events (1956-58). By the way since there is a TC section there should be an addition about Turkish politics & EOKA.Alexikoua (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not say it is not a factual truth. I said it is taken out of context as Libitsouni discusses the impact of rumors (fake news in nowaday's terminology) in raising the tension between the two communities. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

ref 1, 4, 5

I think we can remove references 1, 4 and 5 safely without altering the text. Ref 1 is not a Reliable Source. Ref 4 is not a RS either, is an unsigned text from a site with many advertisements. Ref 5 is also not the ideal RS.(I am talking about this version)Τζερόνυμο (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, nothing useful about them.Alexikoua (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

1877, the Enosis movement had only few supporters

"At 1877, the Enosis movement had only few supporters mainly from the upper classes. But that was about to change as two groups of disappointed with the new ruler began to form: the Church and the Usurers. More to that, the following years a growing number of Cypriots were studying in Greece, and upon their return, they were fierce preachers of Enosis."

This is almost ridiculous. Not even Rauf Denktas would make such a fantastical claim. Let's not forget that Greek Cypriots had a Greek national identity even before the creation of the modern Greek state: Cyprus actively participated in the Greek War of Independence, way back in the 1820s (Archbishop Kyprianos was executed in 1821 for being a leading member of Filiki Eteria). If the Enosis movement only had few supporters, then why Cypriots would fight for Greece even before its creation as a state? 31.54.70.5 (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking this particular matter. I made that contribution. There is a reliable source supporting the text. As for your question, I 'd suggest you search for the answer in the academic literature (not blogs, not youtube). I suggest A concise history of modern Cyprus by Professor Heinz Richter. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There are zillions of reliable sources that highlight that in the beginning Enosis had limited support mostly from elite circles. It is understandable, all movements of its nature face much opposition. The same happened with national movements for independence throughout the Ottoman Empire. Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Karyos's article LSE

Karyos article seems legit to me, but as I understand it is not published. I 'll list it as an article, but if you feel otherwise, please feel free to bring the former citation details back. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Preventing "David French's POV"

@Dr.K.: I have noted that you deleted a part of my contribution claiming "Remove more David French POV. Yes, we know, he thinks EOKA are terrorists. It's already included in the article."diff here. It is not POV for someone to claim that EOKA was a terrorist organization. A lot of scholars have the same opinion (see ref number 29 which cites 7 RS in current version). This should be presented in the article, along with the heroics aspects of the struggle. Plus, POV is not a reason for exclusion. You might argue that it is UNDUE, that would be a valid argument. Being POV is not a valid argument. I am not going to re-insert the specific paragraph in the article, for now, as I do not want to spark an edit-war. But please have in mind that when I find another RS telling the same story, I am going to place it once more. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, no pings, as I told you before just above. First, when you quote my edit summaries, quote all of the text in the edit summary: "Remove more David French POV. Yes, we know, he thinks EOKA are terrorists. It's already included in the article. No need to beat this drum so hard." See? You missed the part: "No need to beat this drum so hard". The part you missed has a link. If you click on it, it takes you to WP:UNDUE. So, despite your claims, I did make the point that including so much of David French's POV into the article is WP:UNDUE. David French's POV against EOKA is simply monumental. His main thesis is that EOKA are comparable to jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here he is doing a comparative analysis of suicide bombers with EOKA tactics. This is anachronistic, revisionist POV. Yet, despite myself and Khirurg explaining this to you, you seem bent on adding more of this POV into the article. In my second edit-summary I note: We know French keeps referring to EOKA as a terrorist organisation. His opinion is also written in the next sentence as part of other authors' opinion. How many times this POV must appear in this article?. You should know. You added the part that other authors, including French, think EOKA is a terrorist organisation. Given the WP:FRINGE magnitude of French's POV, that's enough. We should not give any more prominence to the views of someone bent on making the point that EOKA are jihadist terrorists. I hope you understand this much. Dr. K. 17:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you find a cited reference that says that David French is unreliable and POV? Can you provide a cited reference that his main thesis is that EOKA are comparable to jihadist? (but: if his main thesis was that, it should be included in the article) Or is it just your POV? Conserning his alleged relativism, it is a philosophical debate. We are not here to prove him wrong or right on any matter. (plus, what you are doing is committing a strawman fallacy, as Frence didn't said that as far as I know, and certainly your link doesnt prove your claim.) We are here to summarize what reliable sources are saying. EOKA acting like a terrorist organization is certainly not FRINGE. Way too many scholars describe it as a terrorist organization (Are all of them are Fringe?).Ah! and French book Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955-1959 (2015) has already 27 citation, while his book covering the same topic The British way in counter-insurgency, 1945-1967 (2011) has 190. Not bad for a "Fridge" author, isnt it? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You said: EOKA acting like a terrorist organization is certainly not FRINGE. and Way too many scholars describe it as a terrorist organization (Are all of them are Fringe?) I will WP:AGF that you are confused, rather than accuse you that you are trying to distort my arguments. I didn't say the things you imply in your ridiculous rhetorical questions. Read what I said above. I think you are able to read, so I won't repeat it. Also, if you can't find in the link I gave you French's anachronistic WP:FRINGE POV comparing EOKA to jihadists, including suicide bombers, that's your problem and not mine. As far as the rest of your failed arguments, like your clumsy insinuations about my alleged POV and your equally badly-formulated strawman arguments, I'm not interested to start a petty fight with you. Since you insist on defending this POV source, we simply have to wait for other editors to comment. I can't waste my time further repeating my arguments so that you can ignore them and then counterattack with specious allegations while conveniently ignoring the anachronistic FRINGE POV I pointed out in the link I gave you. So once more, let's wait for other opinions. Finally, the amount of citations for French's books is irrelevant. A book is not a peer-reviewed paper, and the number of citations are not indicators of acceptance of French's WP:FRINGE theory comparing EOKA to jihadists. If French is sincere about academically establishing his fringe POV that EOKA is comparable to jihadists, let him publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. If that fringe theory gets published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal, I will be the first to add it to the article.

I also point to your attention that you revert cited material, as you did here with the flimsy excuse: did nt found that claim in the reference. This is not how it's done. If you can't find something in a reference you ask about it on the article talkpage. You don't remove it. You removed material here also, specifically the part:

By 1915, the Greek Cypriots seeing that neither the British investment, nor Enosis, had materialised, increased their opposition to British rule.

which was not connected to the justification you had provided in your edit summary: The British had withdrew their offer when Greece entered the War. I then had to restore it again. This type of editing is careless at best and disruptive at worst. I advise you to be more careful. Dr. K. 01:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I had asked for a very simple thing, reviews that supported your claim that French is unreliable, making extreme claims etc. You provided none. Ok, let me bring the evidence.

• Robbins, S. (2017) says s David French has produced a very readable and lucid account which offers an excellent analysis of the origins, course, and consequences of the British counter-insurgency campaign on Cyprus. It is well researched, exploiting the available primary sources skilfully, and providing a thoughtprovoking evaluation of the motives and actions of the participants involved in the insurgency and counter-insurgency on Cyprus during the second half of the 1950s. It is likely to be the standard volume for scholars and researchers interested in this particular subject for the foreseeable future.Robbins, S. (2017) Book Review: Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955–1959. David FrenchFrenchDavid, Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955–1959. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2015; xi + 334pp. 9780198729341, $110 (hbk). War in History, 24(2), 250–251. doi:10.1177/0968344516686518i

• Dr Andrekos Varnava says Fighting EOKA is an engaging and, thankfully, not overly long read. In my view, it hits the spot. Some people may not like it, but French calls a spade a spade, and for this, as a Cypriot (who had one side of his family ‘serve’ in EOKA, including a cousin of my mother’s as an Area Commander’, and the other side of my family be prominent, at least locally, AKEL supporters), I am pleased and relieved, and as a historian I am thankful that he has done such a thorough job that I am not tempted to take to the archives on this subject.Dr Andrekos Varnava, review of Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955-1959, (review no. 1901) DOI: 10.14296/RiH/2014/1901 Date accessed: 4 October, 2018

• Thomas M. writes: David French offers answers in what will surely endure as the authoritative account of the Cyprus ‘Emergency’. His book title, pithy as it is, sells him rather short because Fighting EOKA is not confined to analysis of British security force practices. It also delves deeply into the workings of their opponents: the National Organization of Greek Fighters (Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston – EOKA) and, latterly, the Turkish Resistance Organization (Türk Mukavermet Teşkilati – TMT). The result is a gripping investigation of a fast-moving but ultimately exasperating conflict. An ‘investigation’ for two reasons: one is that the book’s findings rest substantially on recent releases from the FCO ‘migrated archive’ of security-related colonial files; the other is that French, a scrupulous empiricist, applies the skills of the foren"Thomas, M. (2016). Fighting EOKA: the British counter-insurgency campaign on Cyprus, 1955–1959. Intelligence and National Security, 31(7), 1057–1058. doi:10.1080/02684527.2015.1125209

NOTE: David French is Professor Emeritus, University College London.

None of these reviews inform us of French's extremist positions, of "jihadists" or historical relativism. Seems to me that French is a Reliable Source, and I will use him further to improve the article (to upgrade it to a "good article" status). Τζερόνυμο (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I had asked for a very simple thing, reviews that supported your claim that French is unreliable, making extreme claims etc. You provided none. Ok, let me bring the evidence. This is a bunch of nonsense. First, why would anyone bother to critique yet another FRINGE theory, in this case the one advanced by French comparing EOKA fighters to jihadists. In the real world, books by unremarkable academics often get ignored, as is the case here. That you found some accolades from similarly-minded people, is not surprising. Such positive commentary is to be expected, and it is often solicited by the author. I'm not impressed. In any case, this discussion is useless, as you have taken this matter to RSN, where I replied already. No need to keep this dispute on two places. I also note that, in your reply above, you have not addressed my comments regarding your repeated and arbitrary removal of cited information that I had added to the article. Dr. K. 12:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not bother to answer your comments regarding by edits, because I want to stick to the topic. If you insist on talking about them, we can discuss about it either on my TalkPage, or in this Talk Page, in another section. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

We are well within WP:FRINGE here, as well as WP:UNDUE. Please read WP:FRINGE, especially the parts Inn Misplaced Pages parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Misplaced Pages aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Misplaced Pages article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is., We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field., and Reliable sources are needed for any article in Misplaced Pages. They are needed to demonstrate that an idea is sufficiently notable to merit a dedicated article about it. For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, independent reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious and substantial matter.. Khirurg (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Khirurg are you talking for a particular opinion of prof French or are you rejecting him as a whole? His peers reviewed his book and didn't make any claims on extraordinary opinions. Seems to me that he is not that Fringe. Please have in mind WP:FRINGE Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Misplaced Pages. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Misplaced Pages as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines. The complicated relationship between the level of acceptance of an idea and its notability is explored below. and FRINGENOT WP:FRINGE has nothing to do with politics or opinions. (For example, a small political party may be a fringe party, but it is not appropriate to cite FRINGE when discussing such parties.) Politics and opinions may be on 'the fringe' of public perception, but the matter of our FRINGE guideline deals directly with what can be proven or demonstrated using the scientific method by academics, scholars, and scientists. Political opinions about recent history, future predictions, social opinion, and popular culture cannot be fringe because the basis of the opinion is not scientific or academic. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about the idea of comparing EOKA to modern jihadi movements. Yes, it is very, very fringe. Khirurg (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I havent seen D. French making such claim, to be honest. But fringe opinions by academics have a place in WP anyway- as per WP:FRINGE.(please see my previous post) Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, fringe theories do have a place on Misplaced Pages. Except they have a place in the article of the author. Not in the article which is the focus of the fringe theory. For example, a fringe theory about Barack Obama's birthplace does not belong in Obama's BLP. But it could go in the biography of the person who claims it. Dr. K. 23:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

a)Says who? b)The views of university prof D. French are not fringe. c)The view that D French is fringe, is fringe as there is no supporting evidence. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I was replying to your previous question when you said: I havent seen D. French making such claim, to be honest. But fringe opinions by academics have a place in WP anyway- as per WP:FRINGE.(please see my previous post). Now you are going around in circles. You have just said that I havent seen D. French making such claim, to be honest. If you haven't seen the claim, then how can you judge it? I have seen the claim and I judge it to be fringe. Now, let's stop this circular discussion. The matter is at RSN. It's up to the wiki now. No need to keep discussing this among us, especially since there seems to be no convergence. Dr. K. 04:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Your judgement is meaningless unless you provide evidence (peer reviewed articles) claiming that French actually made that claim and that claim is fridge. Until then, your objection is summarized as WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 05:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks per WP:NPA. You took this to RSN for the rest of the wiki editors to judge. Now, let them render their verdict. Your POV is so large that there is no point discussing this with you further. Thankfully, this is a wiki, and not your private property. So we have to wait for the consensus of the editors at RSN. I am not interested in your POV and your petty bickering. What does it take for you to stop discussing this with me and wait for the RSN editors to decide, instead of badgering me? By the way, the spelling is "fringe", not "fridge". Fridge, is a refrigerator, not a theory. Dr. K. 05:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I have experienced personal attacks but anyway, lets wait for the verdict. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Organisation X

Dear @Alexikoua:, concerning this edit of yours, I think the author justs states the obvious: it is stigmatized as collaborators. Xhi has been considered nazi collaborators by many greeks and various authors, so the fairest thing to say is that it is stigmatized and not get into the core of the heated debate wheather they were or weren't collaborators. So should I bring in more sources linking X with the nazis? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

First, you blatantly misquoted the source, which only states that a number ‘of its associates were tainted with the stigma of collaboration, not the organization as a whole. If this happens again, we are going to have big problems. Second, this article is not about X, and there is no overlap between the two. Any material about X will be removed per WP:COATRACK. Khirurg (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Fist of all, we should all be polite and resist from threatening each other. Secondly, a lot of RS that talk about EOKA mention Xhi organization as well. (Holland, Richter, Novo et cetera). Thirdly, I was not the one that inserted first text about X. Lastly, I do not want to discuss X but if a positive POV is presented, there should be room for the negative POV as well. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is what the article states in the current version: "After the war and during the ], he led Organisation X in opposing the left wing ] resistance.{{sfn|Ganser|2005|p=213}} Lets see what Ganser writes in his book.

"The turn around of the British came as a shock to ELAS and its difficulties increased when former Nazi collaborators and right-wing special units, such as

the fascist X Bands of Cypriot soldier George Grivas, with British support started to hunt and kill ELAS resistance fighters"

Now, that is a blatant misquotation. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The specific work used as inline quotes another writer, it doesn't accept this claims. We have also no reason accept this too as a fact. In general EAM sympathizer authors claim that everything else was collaborating, but generally speaking even EAM collaborated since it passed info offered by the British to the Germans.Alexikoua (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

By the way the AKEL was accused by EOKA and the Church for collaboration with the British ].Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears that some members of the X were indeed former S. Batallionists but simply using the term collaborator for the organization is misleading. Right or anti-cummunist is a more neutral expression.Alexikoua (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It is well known that EOKA considered AKEL to be traitorous. But I am hesitant to cite a sentence in a book I do not have access but a few lines above and below-not even the whole paragraph. I believe the particular sentence refers to the 1950's, some years before the 1955, when AKEL declared its support for Enosis. As for Novo, I think it is clear that he accepts the historian's claim. Why would he mention his opinion if not he believes there is some credibility? It is well known that there is a debate on X, with the left claiming that X were collaborators and the Right denying it. Why should WP's voice resonate with the right-wing pov? both opinions should be represented, or none. I have provided another quotation from another author (Ganser Daniele), already used as a source in the article claiming that X was a collaborator. ps-we shouldnt add to the text that X was collaborators, but that there is such a claim by some authors.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure there is a claim by a third part author. However, claims are not necessary accepted facts. Indeed some fighters during the Dekemvriana were former members of the S.Batllions (this last might be ok for addition).Alexikoua (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't strive for facts but for verifiability. Anyway, I have placed a note on the word "resistance", so have a look and tell me if it is ok. If so, we can close this discussion. :) Τζερόνυμο (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC):::

It's ok.Alexikoua (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Massive RV

@Khirurg: I have noticed that you reverted massive well-cited material that improved the article. You claimed in the edit summary "rv massive, unexplained changes (not even edit summaries), POV language, bad grammar. This is not how we do things". If it is grammar-->you can improve it. As for POV language, I used the language in the text. I have added the armed struggle as illustrated in the work of prof David French, Heinz Richer and Robert Holland (by far the very best sources used in the article that are specific for EOKA). It was a huge improvement compared to the version you reverted to. So I am asking, why? Cinadon36 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. First of all, your edits didn't just add material, they also removed material, most of which was sourced. Not only that, but you did so sneakily, as in here (the old trick of concealing the removal within a larger addition). Second, you seem to rely too much on one source that has a very strong POV (French). Third, the language you inserted in the article (e.g. "EOKA terrorists", "Cypriot society lacks maturity", etc.) is very POV and unsuitable for a neutral encyclopedia. Yes, I know, muh sources, but authors are not bound by NPOV, they can push any POV they like. We on the other hand, are bound by NPOV. We have to follow NPOV, it is non-negotiable. Using terms like "EOKA terrorists" in wikipedia's voice is a gross violation of NPOV. And fourth, your grammar and spelling are atrocious and unsuitable for an English-language encyclopedia. And no, it is not my job to fix your bad grammar and don't even think about making such demands. I do not work for you, I am not your copyeditor. The onus is on you to make edits suitable for an English-language encyclopedia. If this is too difficult, there is always the choice of returning to the Greek wikipedia. I am starting to get the impression that you have personal beef with EOKA. Do you? Because if so, you should recuse yourself from this article. Your edits have a very strong anti-EOKA POV (even trying to make Harding look good, of all people). Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The fact that you seem to refresh your watchlist every 30 seconds doesn't help impressions either. Khirurg (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I added material, source material, much superior than random events that are now in placed. I wrote the storyline of EOKA, which is nonexistance in your version. I didnt do anything sneaky, one can check the first and last edit I have done. The language I have used is non-POV as it is used by French (a RS) and Holland (RS also) and many more RS as you can find out in the article. So not accepting it is NPOV, might just mean that you have a strong POV and that is the reason you are being obstructive. So, my version is NPOV. It is non of your bussiness why I have been blocked in el.WP. Harding was either good or bad, this is not how history works. I have tried to explain why Harding did this and that, as per what RS are stating. So, I see that you have a very strong pro-EOKA sentiment, so I am taking this elsewhere. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Take it wherever you like. See WP:CHERRY, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:TERRORIST, while you're at it. Khirurg (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

As for WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS I am not portraying as a monster anyone, the authors have portrayed EOKA as an organization filled with heroes and villains. I am nor writing a fringe story here, I used Best academic sources available. As of WP:TERRORIST, the term is exceciveily used in Holland and French, and I did a minimal use of it. If you want to lower a little more, I wont object. As for WP:CHERRY, most of the text I used can be found in both textbooks (Richter and French) and did not cherry picked anything. Do you have any examples you might think is cherrypicked? I do want to find a solution together, even though I do not high hopes. But I am willing to give it a try. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Calm down all of you. Discuss all changes carefully. Evaluate every source and claim and find common ground. There seem to be some non-constructive comments on this discussion. One of you (Khirurg) was warned some time ago by an admin due to usage of personal attacks. To avoid interrupting this discussion I am not pinging an admin but if non-contructive comments are repeated, I will have to draw admin attention. Respect each other and everything will be solved properly. I fixed a red link that Khirurg posted above. Cheers to all, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ktrimi991. If anyone want to help with the grammar, please feel free to edit on my sandbox (other constructive edits are welcome also) Cinadon36 (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

After all editors agree on what content should be added to the article, I can improve its English and add it to the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(unindent) Here's just one example of the kind of dishonest sourcing and cherry-picking: In Cinadon's version of the article , we are led to believe that claims of torture of EOKA members are spurious, but in fact according to French himself, "use of torture was endemic" and . But this is left out of the article. This is a perfect example of selective quoting and selective sourcing to push a narrative. Khirurg (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a perfect example indeed. Where does it say in page 201 you have cited twice that there was endemic use of torture? The text says that Greek government made an appeal to the European court and ..."In June the Council of Europe Human Rights Commission ruled that the Greek petition was admissible, although it deleted the accusations of torture"So, where is the endemic use of torture according to French? Cinadon36 (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Here . It's the same link I posted above. Did you not click on it? Khirurg (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

As I have told before, I used the books of David French, Robert Holland and Heinz Richter. I didn't use that one. If it says anything about torture it shoud be included, with attibution, as is the case of French. But anyway, you were telling me of being dihonest. So, where is my dishonesty? Cinadon36 (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

See WP:CHERRYPICK. Khirurg (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You have claimed that French says there was endemic use of torture and I did not mention that. Where does it says so? You are falsely accusing me. Now as for Cherry picking, the same story French says, it is repeated by Richter as well. I do not see that is cherry picking. Both RS are talking about it in the same manner.Cinadon36 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Page 105 from the link Khirurg gave you: Nevertheless he goes on to quote an Intelligence Corps veteran that in Cyprus 'torture of suspects was endemic'. Dr. K. 22:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Look, this is not sustainable. You cannot keep dumping large swathes of POV and terrible grammar and writing directly from your sandbox into this article without establishing consensus on the talkpage. A lot of of your material is without attribution and in Misplaced Pages's voice. This is an absolute no no. You also seem to miss cardinal points where even French criticises the British, and you seem to add only the negative points. That's not good either. I suggest, choose one section at a time, propose it on the talkpage, and as Ktrimi suggested, he can add the text when agreed upon by the rest of the editors. Dr. K. 22:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

As I have said earlier, I have used the book of French. Do you have a quotation by the French book? Now as for what the snipped version of Newsinger's book, does it cite a page? Because I have the book of French in a pdf format and when searching for the terms "endemic" or "torture of suspects" and I get no results. As for the second part of your answer, I have added negative points for turkish cypriots and the British as well, where a negative point is being made by the aforementioned authors. Discussing it piece by piece might not be that bad idea anyway.Cinadon36 (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The link I gave you is an RS and makes this statement about "endemic". French may use a slightly different term with similar meaning. There are many other points that French makes critical of the British that you have not included. In any case, it is good that you agree with my prior vetting proposal. Dr. K. 23:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It does matter because French discusses several stories of people involved and he might just mention it but didn't gave it very much gravity.French says "Allegations that the security forces systematically tortured prisoners to extract information were another staple of EOKA propaganda". He is very firm denying systimatic torture. Cinadon36 (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am certain the RS did not fake that quote. In any case, French states that the British emergency regulations included the "whipping of juveniles" and "collective fines" and that these things were found to be particularly offensive by the ECHR. Somehow, these details never made it to the article. Dr. K. 23:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cinadon: Why is it so important to you that the word "terrorist" be used? Are you aware of WP:TERRORIST? Khirurg (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed subsections in "Armed Campaign"

The start of the armed struggle. (April 1955 to Octomber 1956)

The armed struggle started 30 minutes after midnight on 31 March to 1 April 1955 with explosions in Nicosia, Limassol and Larnaca. In general, the greatest success was the team of Markos Drakos in Nicosia, where he managed to damage the radio transmitter of value 150 thousand US dollars. British forces were not expecting any attacks and had minimal security at the time of the attack. Barracks were not yet ready as military personnel was moving from Canal Zone to Cyprus. Modestos Panteli was the first casualty of the insurgency. Next day, Grivas published a pamphlet where he explained his objective, using histrionic and hyperbolic language in order to stoke up the courage of Greek-cypriots. The first wave of attacks ended on 9 April.

The following wave began the evening of 19– 20 June and endured until the 28th of June. This time, aside from military and government structures, assaulted police stations and individual policemen and soldiers, both in their homes and in bars. By then the initial focus of the EOKA killer groups was the Special Branch. Assaults on individual policemen and their homes additionally duplicated. They were not always deadly, but on 10 August a Greek Cypriot special constable was killed in Nicosia, an assassination that was intended to tell the Greek Cypriot community not to side with the police. By September, the morale of the low paid police officers had collapsed.

References

1. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 248-250. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
2. ^ French 2015, p. 71. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
3. ^ French 2015, p. 72. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
4. French 2015, p. 73. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
5. French 2015, p. 74. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)

What do you say about it? I thought I should write about the pre-1st of April events (EMAK and St George) but I was afraid that the article would tend to be too long. Cinadon36 (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Right off the butt Next day, Grivas published a pamphlet where he explained his objective, using histrionic and hyperbolic language in order to stoke up the courage of Greek-cypriots.. By then the initial focus of the EOKA killer groups was the Special Branch. These POV descriptions have to go. It is just French's strong POV. Dr. K. 23:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

French is a RS as discussed in the noticepad. I am amazed you find that French has a strong POV. It was a very passionate pamphlet, as one can see by himself. According to Richter, p248, "το παθος του κειμένου συνεπείρε τους παρευρισκομέους. Ακόμη και ο ίδιος ο Γρίβας δάκρυσε απο την συγκίνηση του". So as for the first sentence, I wouldn't object if we could state "next day, Gr published a pasionate pamplet in order to ...." Would that be ok? As for the second sentence, I do not get what is POV. According to Richer p 257: "Targets were the places who hanged english soldiers, residents of british offices, police stations, cantine of the army and barracks". Richter goes on (same page) and quotes Grivas who says that his target was to terrify the police. So...they are saying the same story, both RS sources. Cinadon36 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to remind me about the RSN discussion. That does not mean we have to accept French's strong POV at all times. Your first suggestion about "passionate" message is ok. The second description about "EOKA killers" has to go too. Dr. K. 00:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

French does not have a strong POV but anyway, I wont discuss it right now. As for the description of the killers/freedom fighters, would you agree to use the word describing the act (assassins for assassinations, guerillas for fights in the forests and so on) and on this case to make a note, stating that the {{efn|According to British and Turkish Cypriot narrative, members of EOKA were characterized as ‘gangsters’, ‘murderers’,‘killers’, and ‘terrorists’ while for most Greek Cypriots, EOKA members were heroic freedom fighters}} In this case we could use the word "guerilla.Cinadon36 (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok with "guerrillas". Dr. K. 01:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Great, I have added the above section (and removed another text on the begining of the campaign) Cinadon36 (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Operation Forward to Victory (phase I, Octomber 1955 to March 1956)

The Trilateral London Conference among Britain, Turkey and Greece was held from 29 August to 7 September without reaching an agreement. Turkey held a tough stance, as Zorlou was insisted that Turkey will never accept Cyprus to fell in Greek hands. Meanwhile, the Istanbul pogrom against the Greeks in Istanbul had taken place during the night of 6 and 7 September 1955. The previous weeks, rumors had mounted that Greek Cypriots were about to attack Turkish-Cypriots, rumors were proven wrong- there was no such plan. This failure led Grivas to increased its efforts and on 9 October, EOKA embarked on the ‘Operation Forward to Victory’ which lasted until the deportation of Makarios, in March 1956. During that time, there had been 520 security incidence (54 House bombings, 116 riots, 87 sabotage, 133 ambushes, 31 attacks on police, 57 attacks on soldiers 42 raids on police stations)

Meanwhile, the British Empire changed the governor of Cyprus, Armitage's place took Field-Marshal Sir John Harding, a move seen by some as handing the problem to the military. Harding knew though he was appointed as a civilian governor Soon after his arrival, Harding seeked to meet Archbishop Makarios, starting what is known as Harding-Makarios negotiations.

But it was school children, who were in the forefront of rioting in the autumn and winter of 1955–6 in an uprising, riots that escalated to the Battle of Flags. The youth trained to throw bombs and carry assasinationsThe photos of children rioting against the British soldier became a powerful propaganda weapon for EOKA Riots were aggravated by the trial of a twenty-two-year-old Greek-Cypriot, Michael Karaolis, for the murder of Constable Poullis, a policeman shot in Ledra Street, Nicosia. Karaolis's trial drew publicity and amid tensions, was found guilty, and sentenced to death.

House bombing continued at the autumn and winter of 1955. Mostly, British personnel living in rented accommodation within towns and villages. In December an army chaplain, his wife and four-year-old daughter were ‘moderately injured’ when a grenade landed in their dining room. Another child was injured in early January when a bomb exploded at his father’s home in Nicosia. The most serious injury was inflicted on the wife of an army sergeant whose foot was blown off when a bomb was thrown through a bedroom window.The only fatality was Georgios Charalambous, killed when his own bomb exploded prematurely.

Most of the raids on police stations were fire shots and bombing over the walls. At a few instances, EOKA's guerillas managed to steal some weaponry. Such attacks occurred at Lefkoniko, Rizokarpasso, Yialousa, and Ayios Therapon. But in January of 1956, army secured the most vulnerable police stations and EOKA resumed bomb-throwing attacks at police stations. The same pattern of attack was followed at army camps.

In November EOKA members constructed a network of seven hideouts, near and overlooking Spilia and Kourdhai in the Troodos mountains. They used the hideout to unleash several ambushes, leaving a soldier dead and three wounded. But in mid-December's Grivas's gang faced a setback when they were forced to relocate when they ambushed a 45 men strong Commando group.In another ambush two days later, a guerilla died and two others were arrested. Because of these drawbacks and with the harsh weather condition, the activity of EOKA eased during winter. Telephone lines and post offices were also targets.

References

1. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 299 & 313. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
2. Holland 1998, p. 73:Zourlou seems to have taken an extreme stance. As Holland puts it: Zorlu proceeded to put the Turkish case in its most extreme form, as he had been encouraged to do. It need have surprised nobody that, rhetorically, he went the whole hog. His argument that any alteration of the status quo in Cyprus would automatically throw into question the legal basis of the settlement arrived at in the Lausanne Treaty of 1923 was grist to this mill. Turning from law to geography, Zorlu pointed out that not only was Cyprus closer to Anatolia than to Greece, it was part of Anatolia, having been linked to it by land within recent geological eras, so that 'when we take into account the state of the population in Cyprus, it is not sufficient to say ... that 100,000 Turks live there. One should rather say that 24,000,000 Turks live there.' Zorlu went on to make the claim that if self-determination were ever to be applied in Cyprus, 'the guiding principle shall not be the consideration of majorities and minorities, but rather the granting of full equality to the two groups' sfn error: no target: CITEREFHolland1998 (help)
3. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 313- 326. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
4. French 2015, p. 82-83. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
5. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 375:Richter claims that the aim of the attacks was to force the enemy (British) to spread their forces. Richter mentions an attack in Mitseros mine where EOKA and an attack in Famagusta Port, where the guerrillas seized arms that had just arrived from Suez sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
6. French 2015, p. 83-84. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
7. Holland 1998, p. 83-84. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHolland1998 (help)
8. Holland 1998, p. 84-85. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHolland1998 (help)
9. ^ French 2015, p. 86. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
10. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 376. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
11. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 383:Richter cites Cyprus Government, Corruption of Youth in Support of Terrorism, Government Printing Office, Nicosia, 1957 pp. 18,22. Richter seems to agree with the report sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
12. Holland 1998, p. 92. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHolland1998 (help)
13. Holland 1998, p. 90-91. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHolland1998 (help)
14. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 376 & 378-381:Worth noting that Rauf Denktaş was the prosecutor. Eyewitness were hard to find because they were afraid for the consequences. The defense presented some witnesses who were deemed unreliable, according to Richter. Karaolis sentence was announced in October 28th that sparked further furor sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
15. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 482. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
16. ^ French 2005, p. 86. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2005 (help)
17. French 2005, p. 87. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2005 (help)
18. ^ French 2005, p. 88-89. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2005 (help)
19. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 385-86. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
20. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 386. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
21. French 2005, p. 89. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2005 (help)

Any objections?Cinadon36 (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• First paragraph: Zorlu's stance was indeed extreme, not just "tough", as evidenced by his ridiculous claims about geology and "24 million Turks" living there. Furthermore he objected to any form of self-determination, not "Cyprus falling into Greek hands". The current wording is very misleading. Regarding the pogrom, it would be better phrased as "In the weeks prior to the pogrom, rumors were circulated that...". In the next sentence, instead of "This failure", it should be "The failure of the Trilateral talks...". It's also "Trilateral" commission, not "Trilatet".
• Third paragraph: "The youth trained to throw bombs and carry assasinations" is POV and a no-no. "Richter seems to agree with the report" is speculation and is not a valid argument to support this text. Regarding the Battle of the Flags, more info should be added, e.g. what it was about. Also, the sentence "Press coverage of British troops manhandling schoolchildren" from French should be added. At this point it should also be mentioned that the British whipped schoolchildren (as evidenced in the quote in French). Lastly, instead of listing every incident of every bomb thrown by EOKA, a single sentence based on the following passage from French should be used: "the campaign caused little damage, with fewer than a dozen personnel or family members hurt. The only fatality was...".
• Last paragraph: "Grivas' gang" is POV and cannot be used in wikipedia's voice.

Other than that it's ok. Khirurg (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• On first paragraph, (we should all resist from describing historical persons) an addition for the self-determination could be added as ] was insisted that Turkey will never accept Cyprus to fell in Greek hands or any form of self-determination. I wouldn't like to change the word "tough" as it would be me judging from a greek perspective. Writing Zourlu's stance as extremist would be a anti-Turkish POV. But anyway, if you insist, I don't feel to strongly about it.

• Third paragraph: on Schoolchildren. It is an oponion from an RS and it should be there. If you 'd like, an attribution should be added though, but have in mind that other authors same the same story. "Richter seems to agree with the report" should be deleted, he does agree with the report plus he also writes "according to Grivas diary, even teachers were training pupils in the use of arms" and mentions 3 quotations from the diary: "In Famagusta... most riots and assassinations were committed by schoolboys....Schoolboys had become terrorists able to commit murder without any moral hesidations". On the same subject, French writes "The most active members of EOKA were aged between 16 and 25. More than 87 per cent of all those brought to trial for offences ranging from possession of fire arms, throwing bombs or murder, were below the age of 25. Thirty-two per cent of them were high school students. The median age of the nine men executed for terrorist offences was only 22.185 Of the 1118 men in detention in June 1957, 65 per cent were below the age of 26, and nearly one in five was 19 or younger." (p 66). Some pages afterwards, French quotes Grivas memoirs (edition by Foley) "The liveliest and bravest boys would graduate later to the fighting groups."

• Third paragraph: Battle of flags- ok, we could add (Harding had banned raising the greek flags in schools. Soldiers were sent to schools to take the flags down, only to be raised again upon their departure)

• Third paragraph: manhandling-Would you agree on this-> "The photos of children rioting against the British soldier, and subsequently of British manhandling and whipping the schoolboys became a powerful propaganda weapon for EOKA?

• Listing every incident. I am not listing every incident. There have been 1000+ incidencts during the insurgency. I am mentioning the notable incidents, as per RS.

• Last paragraph: the word guerilla is already used in the paragraph, so what would your suggestion be?

Thanks. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

First paragraph: I don't see "Cyprus falling into Greek hands" in the sources, only "self-determination". We can make the test "Extremely tough" if you don't like "extreme".

Third paragraph. Regarding the schoolboys, this is very problematic. 22 and 25 year olds are not schoolboys. If one third of those brought to trial were schoolboys, that means two-thirds weren't. Regarding battle of the flags and the manhandling, I think we have a deal. However, regarding the individual house bombing incidents, I insist that it should be a single sentence describing the fact that the house bombings did not produce fatalities, rather than a laundry list of incidents.

Fourth paragraph: It is not "guerilla" I object to, it is "gang"

See below for my counter-proposal:

The Trilateral London Conference among Britain, Turkey and Greece was held from 29 August to 7 September without reaching an agreement. Turkey held an extremely tough stance, as Zorlou was insisted that Turkey will never any self-determination for Cyprus, saying any change inthe status quo would call into question the Lausanne Treaty of 1923, and further insisting that Cyprus was geologically part of Anatolia. Then, on the night of September 6 and 7, the Istanbul pogrom against the Greeks in Istanbul had took place. In the preceding weeks, rumors had circulated in Turkey that Greek Cypriots were about to attack Turkish-Cypriots, rumors which were eventually proven wrong- there was no such plan. The failure of the trilateral talks led Grivas to increased its efforts and on 9 October, EOKA embarked on the ‘Operation Forward to Victory’ which lasted until the deportation of Makarios, in March 1956. During that time, there had been 520 security incidence (54 House bombings, 116 riots, 87 sabotage, 133 ambushes, 31 attacks on police, 57 attacks on soldiers 42 raids on police stations)

Meanwhile, the British Empire changed the governor of Cyprus, Armitage's place took Field-Marshal Sir John Harding, a move seen by some as handing the problem to the military. Harding knew though he was appointed as a civilian governor Soon after his arrival, Harding sought to meet Archbishop Makarios, starting what is known as Harding-Makarios negotiations.

In the autumn of 1955 and winter of 1955-1956, the Battle of Flags took place, when Harding prohibited flying the Greek flag from schools. This placed high schoolers at the forefront of the struggle. The photos of rioting children being manhandled by British soldiers and whipped became a powerful propaganda weapon for EOKA The riots were aggravated by the trial of a twenty-two-year-old Greek-Cypriot, Michael Karaolis, for the murder of Constable Poullis, a policeman shot in Ledra Street, Nicosia. Karaolis's trial drew publicity and amid tensions, was found guilty, and sentenced to death. Former Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash was the prosecutor.

At the same time, EOKA resumed its campaign of house bombings of British personnel living in rental units outside the military cantonments. About a dozen people were injured, including women and children , but the only fatality was Georgios Charalambous, killed when his own bomb exploded prematurely.

Most of the raids on police stations were fire shots and bombing over the walls. At a few instances, EOKA's guerillas managed to steal some weaponry. Such attacks occurred at Lefkoniko, Rizokarpasso, Yialousa, and Ayios Therapon. But in January of 1956, army secured the most vulnerable police stations and EOKA resumed bomb-throwing attacks at police stations. The same pattern of attack was followed at army camps.

In November EOKA members constructed a network of seven hideouts, near and overlooking Spilia and Kourdhai in the Troodos mountains. They used the hideout to unleash several ambushes, leaving a soldier dead and three wounded. But in mid-December's Grivas's guerillas faced a setback when they were forced to relocate when they ambushed a 45 men strong Commando group.In another ambush two days later, a guerilla died and two others were arrested. Because of these drawbacks and with the harsh weather condition, the activity of EOKA eased during winter. Telephone lines and post offices were also targets.

References

1. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 299 & 313. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
2. Holland 1998, p. 73:Zourlou seems to have taken an extreme stance. As Holland puts it: Zorlu proceeded to put the Turkish case in its most extreme form, as he had been encouraged to do. It need have surprised nobody that, rhetorically, he went the whole hog. His argument that any alteration of the status quo in Cyprus would automatically throw into question the legal basis of the settlement arrived at in the Lausanne Treaty of 1923 was grist to this mill. Turning from law to geography, Zorlu pointed out that not only was Cyprus closer to Anatolia than to Greece, it was part of Anatolia, having been linked to it by land within recent geological eras, so that 'when we take into account the state of the population in Cyprus, it is not sufficient to say ... that 100,000 Turks live there. One should rather say that 24,000,000 Turks live there.' Zorlu went on to make the claim that if self-determination were ever to be applied in Cyprus, 'the guiding principle shall not be the consideration of majorities and minorities, but rather the granting of full equality to the two groups' sfn error: no target: CITEREFHolland1998 (help)
3. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 313- 326. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
4. French 2015, p. 82-83. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
5. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 375:Richter claims that the aim of the attacks was to force the enemy (British) to spread their forces. Richter mentions an attack in Mitseros mine where EOKA and an attack in Famagusta Port, where the guerrillas seized arms that had just arrived from Suez sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
6. French 2015, p. 83-84. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
7. Holland 1998, p. 83-84. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHolland1998 (help)
8. Holland 1998, p. 84-85. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHolland1998 (help)
9. ^ French 2015, p. 86. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
10. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 376. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
11. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 383:Richter cites Cyprus Government, Corruption of Youth in Support of Terrorism, Government Printing Office, Nicosia, 1957 pp. 18,22. Richter seems to agree with the report sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
12. Holland 1998, p. 92. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHolland1998 (help)
13. Holland 1998, p. 90-91. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHolland1998 (help)
14. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 376 & 378-381:Worth noting that Rauf Denktaş was the prosecutor. Eyewitness were hard to find because they were afraid for the consequences. The defense presented some witnesses who were deemed unreliable, according to Richter. Karaolis sentence was announced in October 28th that sparked further furor sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
15. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 482. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
16. ^ French 2005, p. 86. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2005 (help)
17. French 2005, p. 87. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2005 (help)
18. ^ French 2005, p. 88-89. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2005 (help)
19. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 385-86. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
20. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 386. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
21. French 2005, p. 89. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2005 (help)

Ok, I am adding the text and we can discuss disagreements on details later on.Cinadon36 (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Operation Forward to Victory (phase II, March 1956 to March 1957)

Makarios was sent to exile (Seychelles) on 9th of March 1956. His capability of controlling Grivas violence was reduced. Deportition of Makarios drew criticism in Britain, stanned the Cypriots and hostility arose in Greece The next phase of the campaign on Cyprus lasted from March 1956 until March 1957, when Grivas declared a unilateral truce. During this period there had been 104 Date House bombings, 53 riots, 136 acts of Sabotage, 403 ambushes, 35 attacks on police, 38 attacks on soldiers and 43 raids on police stations. The pattern of EOKA operations also changed significantly. Most house bombings and riots were ordered by EOKA as a way of forcing the army to commit more troops to the towns and so relieve pressure on the mountain gangs. Most house bombers and rioters had been school boys. The pattern of sabotage operations remained the same.

Individual members of security forces were targets. In September 1956, an army doctor was killed in his car, at a stop sign. Greekcypriot Assistant Superintendent Kyriacos Aristotelous was assassinated on 15 April 1956 while leaving the maternity clinic in Nicosia after visiting his wife and four-day-old son. In total, there had been 77 dead men in Security Forces, 70 Greek Cypriot- mostly by the hand of EOKA after they have been listed as traitors, 2 Turkish Cypriots and 5 British civilians. Other acts of terrorism occurred such as the killing of the son of a soldier in a beach near Dekelia base A Maltese shop owner (fiance of a greek Cypriot woman) was killed by shooting in the back. The photo of his fiance looking at his dead body went viral. Another couple, a British customs officer and his wife, was murdered while picnicked.On 16 June 1956, the bombing of a restaurant by EOKA led to the death of William P. Boteler, a CIA officer working under diplomatic cover. Grivas immediately issued a statement denying a deliberate attempt to target American citizens.

Governor Harding carried out a series of operation from April until July that failed to eradicate EOKA but they were nonetheless a severe blow to EOKA as it was never again as effective as the first half of 1956. New techniques, better intelligence and more troops, led to a decrease in EOKA's activity between November 1956 and 14 March 1957, when Grivas declared a unilateral ceasefire.

The security forces had also run a counter-gang organization (named X-platoon), probably since September 1956. It has been estimated that in a six-month period the X-platoon killed, captured, or obtained information leading to the identification and capture of thirty-five hard-core EOKA terrorists, forty-seven village group members, five policemen, and twenty priests who were actively helping EOKA, together with considerable quantities of weapons and explosives

Feeling the pressure of Harding's rigid grip on the mountains of Troodos, Grivas embarked upon the far more dangerous strategy of ordering town groups to attack Turkish Cypriot members of the police force in the expectation that doing so was bound to provoke intercommunal violence, which the government could only contain by withdrawing troops from the mountains. Insurgents throw two bombs at a group of Turkish Cypriot policemen killing one of them. This incidence sparked inter-communal riots in Nicosia the next day, and a series of strikes as Greek Cypriot workers protested at Turkish violence in Nicosia

By March 1957 neither EOKA or the security forces could claim victory. The very best of Grivas guerillas have been captured or killed, the Limassol arm smuggling network had been eliminated. The security forces were on top but did not eradicate EOKA, they had only contained its campaign of agitational terrorism. Grivas declared truce on the 14th of March 1957.

References

1. ^ French 2015, p. 106. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
2. Holland, p. 120 & 124. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHolland (help)
3. French 2015, p. 107-109. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
4. French 2015, p. 109. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
5. French & 2015 110. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015110 (help)
6. French & 2015 111. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015111 (help)
7. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 489-491:Richter claims that the assassination took place in the hospital's ward, while Aristotelous was talking to the doctor. The doctor was injured, according to Richter sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
8. French 2015, p. 112. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
9. ^ Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 493. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
10. Ted Gup 2000, p. 90. sfn error: no target: CITEREFTed_Gup2000 (help)
11. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 496. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
12. French 2015, p. 135. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
13. French 2015, p. 136. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
14. French 2015, p. 145. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
15. French 2015, p. 146. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
16. ^ French 2015, p. 152. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
17. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 491-92 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help):According to Ricter, the Turkish-Cypriot policeman Ali Riza was killed outside of his house in Paphos.
18. French 2015, p. 157. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
19. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 651. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)

Your comments please.Cinadon36 (talk) 06:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This text needs severe copy-edit in order to have a change to be part of the article. Also note that "terrorist" is POV since after 1960 they are considered freedom fighters in Cyprus.Alexikoua (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Good catch Alexikoua. But there are other problems as well. For instance, the passage:

By March 1957 neither EOKA or the security forces could claim victory. The very best of Grivas guerillas have been captured or killed, the Limassol arm smuggling network had been eliminated. The security forces were on top but did not eradicate EOKA, they had only contained its campaign of agitational terrorism.

is a copyvio from French's book Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus. That's bad enough. But also the phrasing belongs in a book or novel. It does not belong in an encyclopædia. Descriptions such as The security forces were on top ..., and The very best of Grivas guerillas have been captured or killed, the Limassol arm smuggling network had been eliminated... is not encyclopædic writing, even if it were not copyvio from French. I am also concerned that large portions of this article are being uncritically converted into French's POV, making the reliance of this article on French a severe violation of WP:UNDUE. For example, the terminology agitational terrorism is a favourite of French. Just check his book. Also "killer groups", which are dismissive of EOKA as packs of killers. I don't think these descriptions are scholarly. This cannot go on. The article cannot rely so much on a single source, even if we did not have the copyvio problems and the broad usage of verbatim copying of French's dismissive POV descriptions of EOKA. Dr. K. 22:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Dr.K. regarding copyvio and writing a novel. We are writing a neutral encyclopedia, not a novel. This is not sustainable. Khirurg (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• I do believe it is legit to talk about terrorism, as EOKA's actions are deemed terroristic by Reliable Scholars. Among right-wing greek Cypriots, are considered freedom fighters but among Turkish Cypriots are deemed as terrorists. Among Scholars, as it is obvious by the article, many of them consider EOKA or its actions as terrorist.
• French is the best Reliable Source we have got, hence he is mainstream.
• As for the copyvio, the problem could be solved with the goodwill help of others editors.
• The article does not depend on French that much.

I will request the help of other users on these subjects, as there may be strong pro-EOKA (pro-Greek) bias among us. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

It is your privilege to dismiss without much discussion the comments you received regarding the unencyclopædic tone of your writings. However, your copyvio problems cannot be dismissed so easily, and do not depend on the "goodwill" of other editors. You should know how not to copy from sources, and not to propose or add copyrighted text on Misplaced Pages. Finally, you should stop accusing editors who discuss in good faith with you your many editing problems and tell you how to fix them that they have strong pro-EOKA (pro-Greek) bias, even if you do it in a WP:WEASEL way. If you continue along that path, I will give you a formal WP:NPA warning. Dr. K. 19:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I will take the section back to the sandbox and bring it back. The copyvio problem will be addressed. As for French, he is a RS and will be used, according to the policies and guidelines of WP. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a very ambitious statement, since so far you have been violating quite a number of these policies and guidelines. Dr. K. 08:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the using the word terrorist

Please see discussion above. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: This is an invalid RfC. For a start, which discussion "above"? I count at least fifteen. Please see WP:RFC; its subsection WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief; also WP:WRFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Since you have commented on several other threads (and one new thread) without posting here, you are clearly not going to put this right, so I have removed the {{rfc}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Redrose64: and sorry for answering your comment earlier. I think it would be really helpful if more editors were involved in the discussions. The problem is that there are a few areas of dispute, so I have re-writen the proposed version and if we are unable to reach a consensus I will issue a RfC once more. I will try to be more specific this time. I would appriciate any other comments or suggestions on how to resolve the dispute. Once more, thanks for jumping in. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Operation Forward to Victory (phase II, March 1956 to March 1957) Version 2

Makarios was sent to exile (Seychelles) on 9th of March 1956 and thus his capability of controlling Grivas violence was reduced. As French notes, in this period, EOKA carried two separate terroristic campaigns, one aiming the British administrations and the other one was targeting those GCs who were not supportive of his cause. The next phase of the campaign on Cyprus lasted from March 1956 until March 1957. During this period had been 104 Date House bombings, 53 riots, 136 acts of Sabotage, 403 ambushes, 35 attacks on police, 38 attacks on soldiers and 43 raids on police stations. The pattern of EOKA operations also changed significantly. Most house bombings and riots were ordered by EOKA as a way of forcing the army to commit more troops to the towns and so relieve pressure on the mountain gangs. Most house bombers and rioters had been schoolboys. The pattern of sabotage operations remained the same.

Individual members of security forces were targets. In September 1956, an army doctor was killed in his car, at a stop sign. Greekcypriot Assistant Superintendent Kyriacos Aristotelous was assassinated on 15 April 1956 while leaving the maternity clinic in Nicosia after visiting his wife and four-day-old son. In total, there had been 77 dead men in Security Forces, 70 Greek Cypriot- mostly by the hand of EOKA after they have been listed as traitors, 2 Turkish Cypriots and 5 British civilians. Other acts of terrorism occurred such as the killing of the son of a soldier in a beach near Dekelia base A Maltese shop owner (fiance of a Greek Cypriot woman) was killed by shooting in the back. The photo of his fiance looking at his dead body went viral. Another couple, a British customs officer and his wife, was murdered while picnicked.On 16 June 1956, the bombing of a restaurant by EOKA led to the death of William P. Boteler, a CIA officer working under diplomatic cover. Grivas immediately issued a statement denying a deliberate attempt to target American citizens.

Governor Harding carried out a series of operation from April until July that failed to eradicate EOKA but they were nonetheless a severe blow to EOKA as it was never again as effective as the first half of 1956. New techniques, better intelligence and more troops, led to a decrease in EOKA's activity between November 1956 and 14 March 1957, when Grivas declared a unilateral ceasefire. The security forces had also run a counter-gang organization (named X-platoon), probably since September 1956. It has been estimated that in a six-month period the X-platoon killed, captured, or obtained information leading to the identification and capture of thirty-five hard-core EOKA terrorists and others who were actively supporting EOKA

Feeling the pressure of Harding's rigid grip on the mountains of Troodos, Grivas embarked upon the far more dangerous strategy of ordering town groups to attack Turkish Cypriot members of the police force in the expectation that doing so was bound to provoke intercommunal violence, which the government could only contain by withdrawing troops from the mountains. Insurgents throw two bombs at a group of Turkish Cypriot policemen killing one of them. This incidence sparked bloody inter-communal riots in Nicosia the next day, and a series of strikes as Greek Cypriot workers protested at Turkish violence in Nicosia

By March 1957 neither EOKA or the security forces could claim victory. Grivas best men were eliminated as it was its arms smuggling network. But the security forces were far from declaring victory. Grivas declared truce on the 14th of March 1957.

References

1. Holland, p. 120 & 124. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHolland (help)
2. ^ French 2015, p. 106. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
3. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 486:Richer also mentions the memoirs of Grivas, who was stating that after the deportation of Makarios, he was the political and military leader of the isurgency. In greek: "Πολιτικός και στρατιωτικός αγών, συνδεδασμένος πλέον, θα έπρεπε να αναλυφθεί υπ' εμού. Richter cites p 94 of Grivas memoirs, the greek edition sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
4. French 2015, p. 107-109. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
5. French 2015, p. 109. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
6. French & 2015 110. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015110 (help)
7. French & 2015 111. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015111 (help)
8. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 489-491: Richter claims that the assassination took place in the hospital's ward, while Aristotelous was talking to the doctor. The doctor was injured, according to Richter sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
9. French 2015, p. 112. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
10. ^ Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 493. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
11. Ted Gup 2000, p. 90. sfn error: no target: CITEREFTed_Gup2000 (help)
12. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 496. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
13. French 2015, p. 135. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
14. French 2015, p. 136. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
15. French 2015, p. 145. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
16. French 2015, p. 146. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
17. ^ French 2015, p. 152. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
18. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 491-92 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help):According to Ricter, the Turkish-Cypriot policeman Ali Riza was killed outside of his house in Paphos.
19. French 2015, p. 157. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
20. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 651. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)

The copyvio problems have been addressed. The phrase "Killer group" has been deleted. Some other phrases have been eliminated as well. French is still the main RS of the section (He is the best RS available after all). Is it ok? Cinadon36 (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Still huge POV problems on first glance. Will look at it in more detail later. Khirurg (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: I read the content as I promised you. I appreciate your determination to enrich this article. Due to your work this article adheres to NPOV. The content you are proposing is fine in my view. Lets see what concerns Khirurg has so a solution is worked out. Khirurg, you should provide your suggestions. Otherwise Cinadon36 should add the content and you can suggest changes later. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The current text is not suitable for a neutral encyclopedia. One, it's copyvio. Two, terms like"terroristic campaign" and "mountain gangs" are out of the question. Third, the section looks like it reads like a novel, not an encyclopedia. Completely unacceptable in its current form. Khirurg (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that usage of words such as "terrorist" should be avoided. You are right there. Re copyvio issues, I will rewrite the entire content. You should list your concerns regarding the content in general such as any UNDUE issue, any lacking info etc. After you and Cinadon36 find common ground, I can solve copyvio issues. But you should list them otherwise it will be interpreted as the only issues are the usage of words such as "terrorist" and copyvio. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with avoiding the word "terrorism" as much as possible (and any other word with negative or positive nuances) but sometimes it is hard to transfer what the author is saying without using the word terrorism. A lot of RS are using that specific word and the reader should be informed about it. Let's solve the problem arising in this specific section. In the second sentence, I used the word terrorism. Here is what the author(RS) is saying in the opening of the fourth chapter. (French, p.106)

EOKA conducted two parallel terrorist campaigns. It waged a campaign of agitational terror which took the form of attacks against the security forces and symbols of government. This was intended to undermine the prestige of the British administration, to demonstrate that it was no longer capable of ruling the island, and to persuade the British government that the price of blocking Enosis was more than it could afford. It is this campaign, and the British response to it, which will be the focus of this chapter. But EOKA also waged a campaign of enforcement terror. This took the form of efforts to intimidate, and where intimidation failed to assassinate, those Greek Cypriots who were not willing to lend their support to its campaign for Enosis or who actively worked against it. The conduct of that campaign, and the British response to it, will be examined in the next chapter.

Ktrimi991, if you can find an alternative wording, without discarding the meaning of the text, please go ahead. As for the copyvio, I do not think there are any problems in this version. If there are, someone should point them out, so we could resolve the issue. As for the language, it can be improved in a later stage, and I would like to remind everybody that perfection is not required. See WP:IMPERFECT. Thanks Cinadon36 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cinadon36 No worries. I can rewrite the sentences to avoid "terror" and its derivate words. I do have no major concern with the content you have proposed to add to the article. There are a few minor things that can be solved. If Khirurg does not have any concern other than those listed by him above, I will rewrite some sentences and then we can add the content to the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Post your proposal here and we can talk about it. Any additions to the article that contain POV or COPYVIO will be reverted. Khirurg (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not proposing anything. Cinadon36 asked me to help with grammar and other issues and I promised to help. My concern re EOKA was its religious character, sth that now is solved due to Cinadon36's great work. Anyhow, I will rewrite some sentences and you and Cinadon36 can find commong ground. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed version by Ktrimi991

Makarios was sent to exile in Seychelles on 9 March 1956. Makarios' capability of controlling Grivas' violence was reduced. As French notes, in this period EOKA carried two separate campaigns, one aiming the British administration and the other one those Greek Cypriots who were not supportive of its cause. The next phase of the campaign on Cyprus lasted from March 1956 to March 1957. During it there were 104 date house bombings, 53 riots, 136 acts of sabotage, 403 ambushes, 35 attacks on police, 38 attacks on soldiers and 43 raids on police stations. The pattern of EOKA operations changed drastically. Most house bombings and riots were ordered by EOKA as a way of making the army commit more troops to the towns, thus relieving pressure on the mountain gangs. Most house bombers and rioters were schoolboys. The pattern of sabotage operations remained the same.

Individual members of security forces were targets. In September 1956, an army doctor was killed in his car. Greek Cypriot Assistant Superintendent Kyriacos Aristotelous was assassinated on 15 April 1956 while leaving the maternity clinic in Nicosia after visiting his wife and four-day-old son. In total, there were 77 dead men in Security Forces, 70 Greek Cypriot- most of them victims of EOKA after they had been listed as traitors, 2 Turkish Cypriots and 5 British civilians. Similar acts included the killing of the son of a soldier in a beach near Dekelia base. A Maltese shop owner (fiance of a Greek Cypriot woman) was killed by shooting in the back. The photo of his fiance looking at his dead body went viral at the time. Another couple, a British customs officer and his wife, was murdered while being in a picnic. On 16 June 1956, the bombing of a restaurant by EOKA led to the death of William P. Boteler, a CIA officer working under diplomatic cover. Grivas immediately denied a deliberate attempt to target American citizens.

Governor Harding carried out a series of operations between April and July that failed to eradicate EOKA but were still a severe blow to the organization as it was never again as effective as in the first half of 1956. New techniques, better intelligence and more troops led to a decrease in EOKA's activity between November 1956 and 14 March 1957, when Grivas declared a unilateral ceasefire. The security forces also ran a counter-gang organization (named X-platoon) perhaps since September 1956. It has been estimated that in a six-month period the X-platoon killed, captured or obtained information leading to the identification and capture of thirty-five hard-core EOKA members, as well as others who were active supporters.

Feeling the pressure of Harding's rigid grip on the mountains of Troodos, Grivas embarked upon the more delicate strategy of ordering town groups to attack Turkish Cypriot members of the police forced hoping that doing so was bound to provoke intercommunal violence, which the government could only contain by withdrawing its troops from the mountains. Insurgents threw two bombs at a group of Turkish Cypriot policemen killing one of them. This incident sparked bloody inter-communal riots in Nicosia the next day, and a series of strikes as Greek Cypriot workers protested at Turkish violence in Nicosia.

By March 1957 neither EOKA nor the security forces were able to claim victory. Although Grivas' best men and his arms smuggling network were eliminated, the security forces were far from declaring victory. Grivas declared truce on 14 March 1957.

References

1. Holland, p. 120 & 124. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHolland (help)
2. ^ French 2015, p. 106. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
3. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 486:Richer also mentions that in his memoirs Grivas considered himself to be the political and military leader of the isurgency after the deportation of Makarios. In greek: "Πολιτικός και στρατιωτικός αγών, συνδεδασμένος πλέον, θα έπρεπε να αναλυφθεί υπ' εμού. Richter cites p 94 of Grivas memoirs, the greek edition sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
4. French 2015, p. 107-109. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
5. French 2015, p. 109. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
6. French & 2015 110. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015110 (help)
7. French & 2015 111. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015111 (help)
8. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 489-491: Richter claims that the assassination took place in the hospital's ward, while Aristotelous was talking to the doctor. The doctor was injured, according to Richter sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
9. French 2015, p. 112. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
10. ^ Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 493. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
11. Ted Gup 2000, p. 90. sfn error: no target: CITEREFTed_Gup2000 (help)
12. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 496. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
13. French 2015, p. 135. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
14. French 2015, p. 136. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
15. French 2015, p. 145. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
16. French 2015, p. 146. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
17. ^ French 2015, p. 152. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
18. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 491-92 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help):According to Ricter, the Turkish-Cypriot policeman Ali Riza was killed outside of his house in Paphos.
19. French 2015, p. 157. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
20. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 651. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)

This is barely any different from the previous text. Copyvios remain, as does the problematic novel-like prose. Also, the minute detailing of every EOKA action is WP:UNDUE. Khirurg (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

A)There are differences, ie the word terrorist was removed. B)You haven't pointed to any copyvio problem, C)Even if there was novel-like prose, it still wouldn't be a reason not to insert the text, as Misplaced Pages is not perfect, it is a work in process. D)There have been 1000+ EOKA actions, just a couple are mentioned that have discussed by Reliable Sources. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A) Yes, that's progress. B) You haven't pointed to any copyvio problem Yes, Khirurg has pointed to you that there is a copyvio problem. You, not bothering to fix it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. C) Even if there was novel-like prose, it still wouldn't be a reason not to insert the text, as Misplaced Pages is not perfect, it is a work in process. Not so. If you don't understand what in your prose is novel-like, you need to get help to fix it, like your copyvios, not insist on inserting it in any article. D)There have been 1000+ EOKA actions, just a couple are mentioned that have discussed by Reliable Sources.. Again, the absolute number of EOKA's actions does not matter. We have to exercise editorial discretion and that means that many of the examples you propose to add are not useful and clutter the article with unnecessary details that are not germane to the reader's understanding of the subject. You are trying to convert this article into a list or WP:NOTDIRECTORY of EOKA's actions. This is not good. Dr. K. 07:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

On B)Please someone point out the copyvio problems so we can fix them. Just claiming that there are copyvio problems, it is not constructive. C)I do understand it D) These 2-3 incidences mentioned, help readers to understand the subject, maybe that's why they are also mentioned and discussed in detail by Reliable Sources. It is not terning the article to a directory (other incidences are mention in the artilce already as well) Cinadon36 (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Please someone point out the copyvio problems so we can fix them. If you don't understand what a copyvio is please read WP:COPYVIO. Just claiming that there are copyvio problems, it is not constructive. Again, don't blame the editors that point to your copyvio problems. The WP:BURDEN is on you to find them and eliminate them. If you don't know how to avoid copyvios you have no place proposing edits. Asking other editors to become your copyvio cleaning crew is ridiculous. C)I do understand it If, as you say, you do, then WP:SOFIXIT. D) Nope. Too much detail in the listing of EOKA's actions. Dr. K. 07:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I do not agree with what you say, but as the discussion is going round and round, let 's wait for other users to jump in. Cheers. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The only thing that is going round and round is your unwillingness to fix your copyvios. If you understand anything about copyvios, the first thing you should do is withdraw your RfC proposing insertion of copyvios into the article, until you find them and fix them. That would be the responsible thing to do. Dr. K. 07:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice but I will not follow it as I can not find any copyvio problem.Cinadon36 (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, you have just proved that you will need a lot of work to overcome your copyvio problem. But proposing an RfC text with copyvios in it, is a first. I have never seen this before. Dr. K. 08:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

No, that is not a valid proof. Anyway, let us see what other users are saying. PS: You are misusing the WP:BURDEN policy. Burden is about sources, not detecting a claim another editor has made. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Dictionary definition of "burden": obligation; onus. If you don't think you have an obligation, an onus, to not violate copyvio in your edits here, I have nothing to add. My advice: You should be studying WP:COPYVIO and WP:CLOP, instead of trying to score points. Dr. K. 11:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

You didn't point to the dictionary definition of the word "burden" but linked to a WP policy. Clearly, you made a point that there is copyvio, but failed to provide evidence. This is obstructing the improvement of the article. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You didn't point to the dictionary definition of the word "burden" but linked to a WP policy. WP:Wikilawyering will not absolve you from your burden/onus/obligation to provide copyvio-free content to Misplaced Pages. Clearly, you made a point that there is copyvio, but failed to provide evidence. You've got it backwards. I repeat: It is your burden/onus/obligation to provide copyvio-free content to Misplaced Pages. I pointed it out, it is your burden/obligation to remove it. If you don't know what you copied or plagiarised, you have no business editing articles. This is obstructing the improvement of the article. Nope. I have improved the article from the get-go by not allowing you to insert copyvio text into the article. Now, I see that you went in a flurry of activity recently changing Ktrimi's proposal. First, you cannot change others' comments per WP:TPO. Second, care to explain why you did that? Third, it looks as if you were trying to hide copyvios. Perhaps, you can now thank me for guiding you to that development, instead of attacking my guidance. Dr. K. 16:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

You have the burden to explain where you spot copyvio if you are claiming there is a copyvio problem. You linked to to WP BURDEN which is discussing the references of the text. My proposed text is very well sourced.I am not hiding anything. I am trying to find in the dark what you mean by talking about copyvio and probably fix it. I thank Ktrimi991 for his help. Cinadon36 (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

You have the burden to explain where you spot copyvio if you are claiming there is a copyvio problem. Nope. I have no such burden. As I told you before, I will not become your copyvio cleaning crew. I point to you that you have plagiarised, and it is up to you to go to the source, compare it to your edit, and spot the WP:PLAGIARISM. If you are incapable of doing that, you have no place proposing edits on Misplaced Pages. I am trying to find in the dark what you mean by talking about copyvio and probably fix it. This is a straight-out admission that you are incapable of understanding what copyvio is, since you cannot understand how you copy and paste from a source and you do not understand how to compare what a source writes with what you write. That's a simple task, it is not rocket science, but, nevertheless, it is a task that you cannot do. That's your problem, not mine. On top of that, you have a tendency to accuse other editors who try to help you and make you improve. That's WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Dr. K. 19:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

He who makes a claim, has the burden to prove it. You made a claim that there is copyvio, you should prove it. We have talked about it before. There are no straight-out admissions but you are entitled of your opinion. There is another version, I 'd like your comment to go on.Cinadon36 (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting to get the impression that we are running into WP:IDHT issues here. Khirurg (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I am almost certain about that. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

To repeat what I said above, I am proposing nothing. Cinadon36 asked me to help with issues such as grammar and I rewrote the said content. I asked an admin to help with copyvio concerns and they promised to help soon. My concern regarding that content is to be without copyvio and grammar issues. All editors involved in the content dispute should concentrate on any UNDUE and NPOV issues and suggest how they can be solved. Re copyvio issues, they will be solved by editors who are more experienced in them than all of us. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio claims

I have checked through an app (The Copyright Violation Detector) the proposed text and found 0,0% violation. Note: I did not used Use search engine, just Use links in page and Turnitin. I couldnt use the search engine as per "(Google Error: HTTP Error 403: Forbidden)" I had copy-pasted the text of Ktrimi996 in my sandbox and performed the search. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

the text proposed by Ktrimi996 be inserted in the article? I had edited several sections of the article on 19th October. The edit has been reverted and each sections is discussed seperately here, in the TalkPage, before inserted in the text. Common ground was found for the first two sectons. On this proposed section "Operation Forward to Victory (phase II, March 1956 to March 1957)", more comments by other users will help us improve the article.Cinadon36 (talk) Dr. K. 07:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

yet another version of the same section (version 4)

Makarios was sent to exile in Seychelles on 9 March 1956. Makarios' capability of controlling Grivas' violence was reduced. As French notes, in this period EOKA carried two separate campaigns, one aiming the British administration and the other one those Greek Cypriots who were not supportive of its cause. The next phase of the campaign on Cyprus lasted from March 1956 to March 1957. During it there were 104 date house bombings, 53 riots, 136 acts of sabotage, 403 ambushes, 35 attacks on police, 38 attacks on soldiers and 43 raids on police stations. The pattern of EOKA operations changed drastically. House bombings and riots were ordered by EOKA in an attempt to force army troops to retreat from the mountains and focus on the urban areas. Youngsters had a prominent role in house bombings and riots. Individual members of security forces and members of the public were targeted. In total, there were 77 dead men in Security Forces, 70 Greek Cypriot- most of them victims of EOKA after they had been listed as traitors, 2 Turkish Cypriots and 5 British civilians.

Governor Harding carried out a series of operations between April and July that failed to eradicate EOKA but were still a severe blow to the organization. Advanced intelligence and increased number of troops led to a decrease in EOKA's activity between November 1956 and 14 March 1957, when Grivas declared a unilateral ceasefire. British forces also formed a counter-gang organization (named X-platoon) perhaps since September 1956. It has been estimated that in a six-month period the X-platoon killed, captured or obtained information leading to the identification and capture of thirty-five hard-core EOKA members, as well as others who were active supporters.

Feeling the pressure of Harding's rigid grip on the mountains of Troodos, Grivas commenced a more delicate strategy of ordering town groups to attack Turkish Cypriot members of the police forced hoping that doing so was bound to provoke intercommunal violence, so the government would be forced to retract troops from the mountains. Insurgents attacked a group of Turkish Cypriot policemen killing one of them. This incident sparked bloody inter-communal riots in Nicosia the next day, and a series of strikes as Greek Cypriot workers protested at Turkish violence in Nicosia.

By March 1957 neither EOKA nor the security forces were able to claim victory. Although Grivas' best men and his arms smuggling network were eliminated, the security forces were far from declaring victory. Grivas declared truce on 14 March 1957.

notes

1. These operations have been a) Operation ‘Kennett’b) Operation ‘Pepperpot’, c) Operation ‘Lucky Alphonse’ and d)Operation ‘Spread Eagle’. 21 soldiers died at a forest fire during Lucky Alphonse
2. Deportation of Makarios though drew criticism in Britain, stunned the Cypriots and hostility arose in Greece
3. These operations have been a) Operation ‘Kennett’b) Operation ‘Pepperpot’, c) Operation ‘Lucky Alphonse’ and d)Operation ‘Spread Eagle’. 21 soldiers died at a forest fire during Lucky Alphonse
4. The deportation of Makarios drew criticism in Britain, stunned the Cypriots and caused hostility in Greece.
5. These operations were a) Operation ‘Kennett’b) Operation ‘Pepperpot’, c) Operation ‘Lucky Alphonse’ and d)Operation ‘Spread Eagle’. 21 soldiers died at a forest fire during Lucky Alphonse
6. The deportation of Makarios drew criticism in Britain, stunned the Cypriots and caused hostility in Greece.
7. In September 1956, an army doctor was killed in his car. Greek Cypriot Assistant Superintendent Kyriacos Aristotelous was assassinated on 15 April 1956 while leaving the maternity clinic in Nicosia after visiting his wife and four-day-old son. Similar acts included the killing of the son of a soldier in a beach near Dekelia base. A Maltese shop owner (fiance of a Greek Cypriot woman) was killed by shooting in the back. The photo of his fiance looking at his dead body went viral at the time. Another couple, a British customs officer and his wife, was murdered while being in a picnic. On 16 June 1956, the bombing of a restaurant by EOKA led to the death of William P. Boteler, a CIA officer working under diplomatic cover. Grivas immediately denied a deliberate attempt to target American citizens.
8. These operations were a) Operation ‘Kennett’b) Operation ‘Pepperpot’, c) Operation ‘Lucky Alphonse’ and d)Operation ‘Spread Eagle’. 21 soldiers died at a forest fire during Lucky Alphonse

References

1. Holland, p. 120 & 124. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHolland (help)
2. ^ French 2015, p. 106. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
3. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 486:Richer also mentions that in his memoirs Grivas considered himself to be the political and military leader of the isurgency after the deportation of Makarios. In greek: "Πολιτικός και στρατιωτικός αγών, συνδεδασμένος πλέον, θα έπρεπε να αναλυφθεί υπ' εμού. Richter cites p 94 of Grivas memoirs, the greek edition sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
4. French 2015, p. 107-109. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
5. French 2015, p. 110. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
6. French 2015, p. 111. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
7. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 489-491: Richter claims that the assassination took place in the hospital's ward, while Aristotelous was talking to the doctor. The doctor was injured, according to Richter sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
8. ^ Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 493. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
9. Ted Gup 2000, p. 90. sfn error: no target: CITEREFTed_Gup2000 (help)
10. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 496. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)
11. French 2015, p. 112. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
12. French 2015, p. 135. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
13. French 2015, p. 136. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
14. French 2015, p. 145. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
15. French 2015, p. 146"The security forces also ran a counter-gang organization. Captain Alistair Duncan, a Territorial Army SAS officer, who was doing intelligence work on the island, claimed that the gang was his brainchild.236 Its commander was Captain Lionel Savery, who had previously served as a Military Intelligence Officer in Malaya, where he had handled captured or surrendered terrorists who had agreed to cooperate with Special Branch. He was posted to Cyprus in 1956 and worked initially as a district intelligence officer in the Troodos mountains. The members of the gang were terrorists who had been turned. The date of its formation is unclear, but it was probably established in about September 1956" sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
16. ^ French 2015, p. 152. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
17. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 491-92 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help):According to Ricter, the Turkish-Cypriot policeman Ali Riza was killed outside of his house in Paphos.
18. French 2015, p. 157. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrench2015 (help)
19. Ρίχτερ 2011, p. 651. sfn error: no target: CITEREFΡίχτερ2011 (help)

Two major changes in this version

1. I took into considaration the request not to list every incidence - even though from 1000+ incidences of EOKA, only 3-4 were mentioned. So I placed them in a note.
2. I reworded some other parts of the section.

Thank you and awaiting your comments. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC option

As the discussion above has become pointless, and editors involved are showing a lack of experience in solving simple problems, I'd suggest opening a RfC. The part from Individual members of security forces were targets to Grivas immediately denied a deliberate attempt to target American citizens should be avoided, IMO. Cinadon36, I think that you can seek WP:RfC on the matter as you wish to add the content you have prepared to the article. Uninvolved editors could give balance to the situation and help the editors involved decide how the article should be improved. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I 'd agree with the RfC option but if other editors would like to suggest another option (ie dispute resolution or 3rd opinion or whatever) I am ready to listen. Cinadon36 (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:Third opinion requires having only two editors involved in the dispute while you are three. WP:DRN could be another useable option. RfC might be the most effective one, probably. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Greek articles
• Mid-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• B-Class Turkey articles
• Mid-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• B-Class Cypriot articles
• Mid-importance Cypriot articles
• All WikiProject Cyprus pages
• B-Class British Empire articles
• Mid-importance British Empire articles
• All WikiProject British Empire pages
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Balkan military history articles
• Balkan military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board