Talk:EOKA

Archives (index) no archives yet (create)

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

Talking about torture again and again

@Khirurg:,

• why did you remove the text about how the torture case settle?
• How many sections on torture would like the article to host? 3? 5? 10? [1] Cinadon36 (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Why did you remove this section [2]? And lied with a misleading edit summary? The material you removed does not appear in any other section. And why are you so keen to minimize allegations of torture by the British? Answer. Khirurg (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

A)You didnt answered at my first Question. Answer. B)I removed it because torture allegations are discussed in detail at two separate sections: "EOKA lawsuits against the British government" and "Detention Camps and claims of torture". Foreign Office declassified documents are primary sources for researchers to examine. Why should we have a separate chapter on those documents? Cinadon36 (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The material you removed does not appear in any other section. And you used a deceptive edit-summary to conceal the removal. Next you do this...well, you know. Khirurg (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not. The material is a comment on primary sources and there is no reason having a section about it. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. With such "logic" (and I use the word very loosely here), anything can be removed from any article. Bottom line: The material is reliably sourced to The Guardian. Do not remove. Khirurg (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, here is a proposal, why don't you merge the two sections? Cinadon36 (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The declassification of documents is something relatively recent and an altogether different type of event from those described in the article. That said, a section on "Use of torture by the British forces" might work. Khirurg (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not that different type of event. The declassification led to the lawsuits: "The claimants, now in their 70s and 80s, launched their legal battle in 2015 after government documents detailing their treatment were declassified in 2012" [3] Cinadon36 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Death toll

Ok, Khirurg reverted my last edit due to "organizations don't have "death tolls" - conflicts do" [4]. The added text was:

David Carter has published the most comprehensive list of the death toll due to EOKA's action.

Death toll according to David Carter
British armed forces	Number of Deaths
Infantry	80
Aviation	16
Marines	7
Navy	1
Police
British	12
Greek Cypriots	15
Turkish Cypriots	22
Others	2
Citizens
British	26
Greek Cypriots	203
Turkish Cypriots	7
Others	2
Total	393

On the other hand, 85-91 EOKA's guerillas were killed by the British forces. 17 more died by self-made bombs that exploded in their hands.

References

Can anyone suggest a better wording so we can add the info to the article? Cinadon36 (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

There is also some more text that sums up EOKA activity [5] inserted by GGT. I was the one who removed it [6] as I thought it had a place at the lede, but I feel it would be better if we merge it with this specific section. GGT what do you think? Cinadon36 (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Might I ask you @Khirurg:, since you are the one who reverted my edit, do you have any comments or suggestion to make so the info can be added at the article? Thanks. Cinadon36 11:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Khirurg reverted once more my addition. @Khirurg:, the number of fatalities were not due "to the British colonial administration" as you have claimed in your edit summary. Numbers do not include guerillas hanged or died because at the battlefield because of british fire. Cinadon36 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

You're not getting it. I used that as an example to show you how POV your wording is. Saying that all these deaths are "due" to EOKA is no different than saying they were "due" the presence of British colonial administration on the island. It is simply wrong and POV to attribute, and blame, EOKA, for all the deaths. These data belong in an article on the Cyprus independence struggle, not here. Khirurg (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I it not my POV wording. It is what the RS is saying. If you don't feel comfortable with the word "due", feel free to change it. These data are important to this article because they give an impression on how deadly EOKA's struggle was. And a lot of RS are mentioning them as well. I can't see where the problem is. Cinadon36 05:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

These data are important to this article because they give an impression on how deadly EOKA's struggle was and there's as clear a declaration of POV-pushing as it gets. For the last time, wars and revolts have death tolls, organisations do not. Saying all these deaths are "due to EOKA" is the crudest POV-pushing. For example, the deaths of EOKA members at the hands of the British are not "deaths due to EOKA". But if you can't see where the problem is then I have nothing more to say to you. Khirurg (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

How comes it is POV pushing Khirurg, I am writing what Richter wrote in his book. Will you be ok if we attribute this data to Richter? Do you suggest another wording, be my guest! Not including vital material in the article, is not a solution~ Cinadon36 06:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Please listen to what Khirurg is telling you. You are trying to push a POV. It is clear that you do not understand or you don't want to admit to the fact that you are pushing this POV. This is your problem, not anyone else's. Dr. K. 10:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not POV, but if it were a biased statement, we can attribute and the problem is solved. Cinadon36 10:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

If after all this conversation you still insist that it is not POV, then there is not much I can do. But don't go around telling people that Khirurg is not replying to you. He is. I am. You just refuse to accept the validity of the well-justified objections we raised. Dr. K. 05:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not POV as the proposed text is a fact, not an opinion. But nevertheless, we could attribute.Cinadon36 06:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance and with a single comment by one of the editors, this cannot be considered to be "thorough". If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

Here is my view on why we should add the number of fatalities:

Why is it important to talk about fatalities? Because it is a notable topic. It gives a perspective on how bloody EOKA's struggle was. It also partly explains the tension between EOKA, left-wingers and turkish cypriots (why for examples T/C consider guerillas as terrorists). Many scholars and researchers have dug into it. A non-all-inclusive list follows:

• • Heinz A. Richter, mentioned above already, *Richter, Heinz (2011). Ιστορία της Κύπρου, τόμος δεύτερος(1950-1959). Αθήνα: Εστία. he is discussing the subject at pages 977 to 979
  • David French Emeritus Professor of History, UCL (see also a dispute at RS Noticepad[7]) Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955-1959 Oxford University Press, 2015 p=307
  • Prof John Newsinger also mentions the death toll at his book where a chapter is dedicated at EOKA's struggle. We can read at the final paragraph: As it was, the conflict had cost the lives of 104 soldiers and 51 police, 26 British civilians and at least 90 EOKA. Over 200 Greek Cypriot civilians were killed, the majority by EOKA." Newsinger, John (30 April 2016). British Counterinsurgency. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 107. ISBN 978-1-137-31686-8..
  • Makarios Drousiotes, a prominent Greek-Cypriot journalist and researcher, discussing the various aspects of the fatalities here the Britons killed (article in EN) or here- the Greeks killed by EOKA (article in GR) Cinadon36 13:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (adding one more citation and a quote) Novo, A. R. (2010). On all fronts: EOKA and the Cyprus insurgency, 1955-1959 (PhD thesis). Oxford University, UK. [8] page 291: ". Some 238 Cypriot civilians lost their lives to EOKA during the course of struggle, another 288 were wounded.738 Ironically, 203 of the dead were Greek-Cypriots, killed by EOKA for being traitors, informants, or communists. All together, EOKA murdered twice as many GreekCypriots as Englishmen – a disturbing statistic when one considers the premise of EOKA’s struggle. Turkish-Cypriots also suffered greatly. Approximately fifty-five percent of police casualties and fifty-eight percent of police fatalities were TurkishCypriots, clear evidence both of their prevalence in the force and EOKA’s deliberate targeting of them"Cinadon36 06:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (adding one more citation and a quote) Ireton, K. & Kovras, I. (2012). Non-apologies and prolonged silences in post-conflict settings: The

case of post-colonial Cyprus. Time and Society, 21(1), pp. 71-88. doi: 10.1177/0961463X11431338 [9] page 8: "Assassination attempts were made against 230 Greek Cypriots; approximately a quarter of those executed by EOKA came from the ranks of Greek-Cypriot traitors (Markides, 1977, p.19). Angelos Vlachos, Greek Ambassador in Cyprus at the time, gives the following figures for civilian casualties as a result of EOKA’s struggle: 393 deaths (26 British; 203 Greek (Cypriots); Turkish (Cypriots) 7) (1980, p.96). Daniel Branch – citing information from War Office – provides a slightly different figure; of the 238 civilian casualties, 203 were Greek-Cypriots (2010, p.407)." Cinadon36 07:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to include a brief statement, probably one sentence, with attribution. The statement is verifiable, cited to a reliable source, and most people commenting consider it due, twice as many as not. Most of those supporters of inclusion, however, consider a chart to be excessive, and I somehow suspect that those who oppose even the brief statement would at least prefer a statement to a chart. --GRuban (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the article include number of fatalities of EOKA's struggle?Cinadon36 13:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support for inclusion, ideally a limited statement, with full attribution: Having read the foregoing discussion in the thread above, but not all of the parallel discussion that has taken place in the edit summaries, I feel that there has been some degree of the two sides talking past one-another. For example, much of the fixation here is on the precise wording of a "death toll" and there's probably a lot of better ways to frame/phrase the position of a WP:reliable source that the organization in question was responsible for X number of deaths without using that wording. However, insofar as the source does attribute the deaths to the EOKA, I see no principled editorial reason to censor that perspective from the article. The only argument that could be made against inclusion would be a WP:WEIGHT argument, and I don't see anywhere above where this perspective has been advanced. And even were it advanced, these concerns could be addressed by expressly attributing the statement, which I note is something Cinadon has conceded as appropriate (I'd go farther and say necessary, given the subject matter) above. The proposition that we can't attribute a number of deaths to just one side of a conflict (aside from being inconsistent with a huge amount of scholarship with regard to various conflicts) would be little more than WP:Original research if applied to our content on this project; whatever the noun used and no matter the entity being discussed, if enough reliable sources support a given assessment, we will go with that wording; it's not our place as editors to stamp our own perspectives as to who is or is not capable of being labelled in this and that way. Indeed, our policies on this project expressly tell us not to use such idiosyncratic personal perspectives when evaluating controversial claims. Then again, the back and forth above is more than a little opaque, and I'm not sure of the exact nature of the objections of Khurig and Dr. K: it would be nice to see their objections made more expressly here so that RfC respondents can weigh them against Cinadon's perspective; the RfC question itself is neutrally worded, but some additional context would be helpful here.

All of that said, I would tend to agree that the chart presented above which led to this dispute would be massively excessive, particularly if it necessitates its own subsection. I suggest a much more modest one-sentence, attributed statement which says something to the effect of "According to [Source], EOKA may have been responsible for as many as X deaths (including Y number of British personnel and Z number of civilians), although other assessments put these figures at..." et cetera. Since I do believe that this RfC is likely to resolve with a consensus for including some discussion of the number of deaths attributed to EOKA activities (insofar as sources clearly exist for such figures), I'd urge both sides to try to compromise here and reach wording that everyone can live with, so as to roll discussion of the exact wording into one discussion, rather than dragging it out across several. Again, maybe I'm missing some editorial history here, but I see no reason why this dispute can't be resolved with one straight-forward sentence detailing these figures in a neutral fashion. Without such a middle-ground solution, the likelihood of an outcome to this RfC that one side absolutely abhors increases, and this issue will remain an unstable point of contention for longer than I think is necessary, based on the sourcing I am seeing here. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Snow Rise for your input. The reason I used a table to depict the number of deaths, it is because the fatalities break down to many subcategories and that would make the sentence a little bit awkward. But if it would help to resolve this dispute, here is my proposal (based on yours of course): According to historian [[Heinz A. Richter|Heinz Richter]] EOKA was responsible for the death of 104 British soldiers, 54 policemen (among them 15 Greek Cypriots, 22 Turkish Cypriots among 12 British<--plus two 2 "others"-->) and 238 citizens (among them 26 British, 203 Greek Cypriots and 7 Turkish Cypriots<--plus two 2 "others"-->){{sfn|Richter|2011|p=979|ps=Ricther uses the numbers given by David Carter. The same numbers are used by David French (2015, page=307) and [[John Newsinger]] (2016, page=107)}}.. We could add it at the end of #Armed campaign. Anyway, thanks again.Cinadon36 09:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as POV and UNDUE. Blaming all deaths on EOKA is POV by definition. For example, individuals killed in a crossfire, be they civilian or not, are not "EOKA victims". Furthermore, by not mentioning deaths caused by the other side (the British) this presents a one-sided picture. But it precisely casting EOKA as the villains that Cinadon is after to show how bloody EOKA's struggle was in the section above. Lastly, articles about similar organizations, e.g. PKK, IRA, etc... do not include such figures, for the same reason. Such figures belong in articles about the struggle itself, not the organization. For example, casualty figures are included in The Troubles, but not the IRA article. Khirurg (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

These numbers do not include "individuals killed in a crossfire", they include numbers of people killed by EOKA. Many RS reproduce them, so it is fair to use them. I haven't seen anywhere the deaths caused by the British but this is another issue. You are welcome to add them if you wish (provided they are RS of course). Cinadon36 04:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons stated by Cinadon36 who suggested this. "According to historian Heinz Richter EOKA was responsible for the death of 104 British soldiers, 54 policemen (among them 15 Greek Cypriots, 22 Turkish Cypriots among 12 British<--plus two 2 "others"-->) and 238 citizens (among them 26 British, 203 Greek Cypriots and 7 Turkish Cypriots<--plus two 2 "others"-->).".

ALSO: This is useful information: 371 British soldiers died during the EOKA years (https://cyprus-mail.com/old/2016/08/22/uk-memorial-servicemen-killed-eoka/) Peter K Burian (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Khirurg makes a very good argument. Dr. K. 05:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support with encyclopedic wording. The fatalities are notable and are needed in the article to qualify the level of violence associated with EOKA. But calling it the "Death toll" sounds like something from a sensationalist (i.e. bad) news story. Instead, label it something like "fatalities associated with EOKA" -- more encyclopedic, and avoids the utter nonsense being argued about that that sound like something from Monty Python about "who killed who". There will be minor details about each and every death that would be very important in a murder trail about that one individual's death, but those don't matter at the level of just informing the reader what EOKA is about.

On the argument "organizations don't have death tolls", that's just a form of WP:OTHERSTUFF; what's appropriate for this article can, of course, be different from others, and just because some others do this differently is in no way evidence that the others are doing what's best. The whole basis of the argument is off-topic. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reconfirming my oppose. Quoting essays such as OTHERSTUFF doesn't help address the valid points raised by Khirurg. It also does not help address the glaring POV of adding deaths attributed to EOKA without adding the deaths caused by the British. That's why both death tolls belong in a conflict article, not in the organisation article. It does not make editorial sense to use one-sided statistics without revealing the death toll statistics of the opposition, in this case the British colonialist administration. This is the reason why similar articles do not include one-sided numbers. It is not a matter of OTHERCRAP, it is a matter of violating WP:POV in a WP:WEASEL way. Dr. K. 19:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Certainly not a matter of POV. The numbers are not a matter of dispute, and if they were, if anyone finds other accounts at academic literature, he is welcomed to add those numbers. Moreover, the statement is attributed. So, there are no valid arguments supporting the case for POV. The same goes for WP:WEASEL. No "Words to watch" are used here (pls have a look at the policy). I agree with A D Monroe III on WP OTHERSTUFF (I'd say it is whataboutism, a fault argument). His suggestion on the wording is quite reasonable. Cinadon36 08:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't score any points against me by advising me to (pls have a look at the policy). You may not be aware of it, but is standard to refer to WP:WEASEL to cover also "weasel insinuations", so your advice to look it over misses the point entirely and fails to deliver on its weasel insinuation that I have not read the guideline. And it is not a policy, it's just a guideline, part of the WP:MOS. Read it before you comment on it. As far as the rest of your points, you mechanically utter them every time I make a comment. I repeat: Don't feel compelled to respond to every single comment I make in this RfC. This is a wiki. This means other wiki editors can inform us with their opinions. If you are correct they will agree with your points. Repeating them to me, Khirurg, and others, every time we comment is just your own echo chamber and it is not needed. It also reveals a certain degree of insecurity about your arguments. If you are so certain about them, let others adopt them. Your repeating them ad nauseam, does not make them any more compelling. For this reason, I will not reply to you any further. But if you like your own echo so much, please feel free to fill this RfC, which you created, with your needless replies. Dr. K. 18:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

References

So how should we proceed? RfC template has been removed.[10] All users who politely contributed their opinion were for inclusion. What 's next?Cinadon36 06:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

All users who politely contributed their opinion were for inclusion. I contributed my opinion very politely, so did Khirurg and we were not for inclusion. What is this? An attempt tp disregard the opposition? Also, those who tended to include this stuff, were not for unconditional inclusion. One support was also weak. I suggest you wait for someone to properly close this RfC, instead of distorting the results. Dr. K. 20:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

As opposing users cite POV and DUE issues, I added a comment at NPOV noticepad.[11] Cinadon36 19:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support with encyclopedic wording Seems to me that we do this with other similar types of groups why not this one? It needs to be prose, and maybe attributed, rather then a table.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons mentioned by Cinadon36. Table is better for clarity. Greece666 (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support including. I suggest using {{efn|put detailed info here}} with a brief neutral treatment. Something like According to ____ EOKA was responsible for the death of 104 British soldiers, 54 policemen, and 238 citizens.

References

Notes

Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2019 (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.

anti-English vs anti-British

If one of the two has to be included (Im not convinced about either tbh) it should be British not English. --Greece666 (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeap, anti-british seems better. Cinadon36 18:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Is section "Foreign Office declassified documents and EOKA lawsuits against the British government" unnecessary or too long, resulting inUNDUE weight?

Seems obvious to me that it is. No secondary work on EOKA is giving such a detailed analysis of that document. At least not a book in the sources give such a detailed analysis. Not Richter, not French, not Holland, not Newsinger, not even Barnava whose book was published by the "EOKA fighter Commitee". So why are we discussing in such a detail the EOKA lawsuit? I am worrying that it is UNDUE and hence POV-pushing as it falsly glorifies EOKA fighters (and put shame on UK), for something that literature haven't yet examined. It is clear that the text of our article is solely based on newspaper articles, no academic work, as the rest of the EOKA article.

The specific section is 4,212 bytes, in an article of 52,611 bytes, that is 8% for an insignificant lawsuit, not mention by anyone but newspapers.

I am opening this discussion because my edit was reverted by Dr.K.[12] (Dr.K. elsewhere told me he doesn't need me to ping him) Cinadon36 09:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Your arguments are pretty specious. The argument ad libris you are advancing is ridiculous. I am not going to discuss why books do not cover material that top notch newspaper RS cover in depth. The second nonsense argument you are advancing is that the EOKA victims of torture by the British colonialists get "glorified" because an account of their lawsuit against their torturers is presented in this article. I am not going to discuss this nonsense. You say you are afraid that torture details "put shame" on the UK. Why are you so concerned about that? Are you here to defend Brit colonial torture tactics? Or are you here to deny that torture was administered in Cyprus by the colonialists, despite what RS say? You also connect accounting for this torture to POV-pushing. You had better stop these weasel WP:ASPERSIONS against editors you disagree with. Come to grips with your POV. You have no arguments removing this well-sourced information about torture by the Brit colonialists. You are trying to remove, for no valid reason, a reliably-referenced paragraph, of modest size, on very important legal aspects of the excesses and torture perpetrated by the British colonials. This paragraph is anything but undue. Your argument that it is not found in books, is also very low-grade and doesn't make any sense. Try that at WP:RSN and then observe the laughing wave emanating out of the noticeboard. Alternatively, try to change the WP:RS policy to exclude high-grade newspaper RS in favour of books. Then observe how far you will go on that front. Dr. K. 22:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The "newspapers" that Cinadon36 describes with such derision are reliable sources. Removing the content is out of the question. Seems like a case of WP:JDL and nothing more. Khirurg (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree. Dr. K. 00:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, Dr.K. dont get me wrong, I couldn't care less for UK's fame. But the problem is that we are making a point at the article, that torture was a widespread and acceptable practice, which is not true, at least according to RS. No RS says that UK was implementing torture and no author is giving such a depth coverage to the controversy. As for the " ad libris argument", I can guess the meaning of the phrase but I do not know exactly what it really means. As for the RS-argument, I have never claimed that most of the text should be removed because of the sources are below standards. So it seems that you are missing the point. Anyway I am heading to NPOV noticeboard as you have suggested at your edit summary [[13]- in a day or so. CheersCinadon36 13:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

But the problem is that we are making a point at the article, that torture was a widespread and acceptable practice...: This indicates that either you have not read the section or that you are misrepresenting the section content. Nowhere in that section there is any hint that ...torture was a widespread and acceptable practice.... I repeat: The section contents provide factual details of the lawsuits of Cypriot torture victims against the Brit colonials. Nowhere it is stated that torture was widespread or acceptable. That there was torture employed by the Brit colonials is an accepted and undisputed fact. Also you don't have to link to my edit summary, although you misrepresent this too. I did not tell you to go to NPOVN, I told you to go to RSN. There is no NPOV issue here. But you are free to go anywhere you want. It is your WP:WASTEOFTIME, not mine. As for the RS-argument, I have never claimed that most of the text should be removed because of the sources are below standards. So it seems that you are missing the point: You wrote in your edit-summary: removing staff that is UNDUE. No book on EOKA I know of give such a detail description of the alleged tortured by UK soldiers. If I get reverted, I 'll take it to Talk Page This is a clear ad libris argument. Please own your nonsense and don't try to weasel out of it. As far as your novel "argument ad libris", it is translated as "the argument from books". See "Argument ad ignorantium" as an example. Needless to say, your ad libris argument is not worth the bandwidth it is transmitted on. Dr. K. 18:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

You still do not get the point. No-one disputes that of alleged victims of torture sue UK. What is in question is the Importance of that lawsuit that ended out of court with UK not accepting that torture was employed. It is not a fact, as you claim that "That there was torture employed by the Brit colonials is an accepted and undisputed fact", as you falsly claim. It is an opinion by many, but not a fact. It is already mentioned in another paragraph.("Detention Camps and claims of torture") So, what is the point on re-visiting torture? None. Cinadon36 18:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• pls keep the staple version until we sort this out. Cinadon36 19:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• I have added well-sourced facts from RS. This has improved the stable (not "staple") version. Gain consensus at whatever noticeboard you are going before you blank anything, else you will be reverted. Dr. K. 19:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is not a fact, as you claim that "That there was torture employed by the Brit colonials is an accepted and undisputed fact", as you falsly claim. It is an opinion by many, but not a fact. Nonsense. I claim nothing falsely. Once more: Stop your weasel WP:ASPERSIONS. There are many RS analysing in detail the torture that was perpetrated by the Brit colonials in Cyprus. There are even undisputed confessions by Brit torturers. Do not try to whitewash torture by weasel insinuations and blanking. And do not edit-war to blank until you gain consensus to do so, which you currently and quite clearly do not have. Dr. K. 19:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I think there may be a reading comprehension issue here. "Staff", "staple version". Unfortunately for some people, competence is required. Khirurg (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Took it to NPOV noticepad. Cinadon36 19:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Calling incompetent and making fun of the English of a user who has repeatedly made valuable contributions. Not only the section that Cinadon mentions but the article as a whole has NPOV issues and his arguments should be taken a lot more seriously than they are now. Greece666 (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

His "argument" is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is not a serious argument, and therefore gets treated as such. Even worse though is that this user tried the same exact thing back in April [14], and with a deceitful edit summary on top of that. This is WP:LTA at this point. Khirurg (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It is baffling how he has been destabilising the article since last April by trying to remove this section, and then talking about the stable version of the article which includes the section he has been trying to remove since last April.. Dr. K. 01:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Just because you @Khirurg: are trying to misrepresent my argument, that doesnt mean that it is IDONTLIKEIT. Cinadon36 16:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Should the content of the section on the lawsuit be trimmed (ie oldid = 922940943) due to WP:UNDUE concerns or should it be kept as is? Cinadon36 18:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC) The content should be kept or even expanded. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input AugusteBlanqui. Can you please explain your reasoning? Just to clarify, do you think we should expand on the torture claims per se (as explained in section 3.4.1 Detention Camps and claims of torture) or should we expand on the lawsuit even more? On expanding the torture claim, should we also mention torture by EOKA to greek cypriot Communist members of AKEL as the Savvas Menoikos case? Cheers. Cinadon36 21:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be kept as is. With the relevant citations included I think it's given due weight, especially with the length of the article in full.Cook907 (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Cook907 but can you pls provide the reasoning for your opinion? Why should we have such a huge section, while other parts such as the death toll of EOKA is trimmed to one sentence? Cinadon36 23:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Put down the stick and slowly back away from the horse. Khirurg (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The strategy here is clear: RfC doesn't go you way. You complain to Drmies about the additions that the RfC approved, and Drmies does not agree with you. You wait for a couple of months and restart a conversation with a person who posted last October. You also go to NPOVN to try your luck there about a POV you had no luck at all in any place you posted before. This is not just WP:FORUMSHOPPING. It is WP:MEGAMALLSHOPPING. Acres and acres of FORUM. Endless FORUMSHOPPING. Dr. K. 03:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Clearly wading into a heavily contested political minefield on this one; having read the above comments! However a genuine question regarding this section. Earlier in the article its clearly stated that there are allegations of torture but that this is both heavily contested and there is suggestion that at least some of these allegations were likely EOKA propaganda. It discusses the Red Cross and various authors views on both sides. In this section however it categorically states widespread torture and brutal methods as established facts and isn't balanced by the view mentioned earlier in the article. Essentially the two parts of the article read as if they are entirely different partisan articles. I'm not taking a view as to which viewpoint is correct but its clearly not coherent. Essentially in one breath claiming there are heavily disputed claims of torture that haven't been categorically borne out by the facts and then in the next breath claiming that there was definitely wide spread state sponsored torture on a large scale. I'm not best placed to say which is right, and given that this surrounds a. What Greek Cypriots regards as a war of independence and b. that the British view as a brutal campaign of terror (I assume that Turkish Cypriots will take another view as well) i'm guessing that the two/three sides in this debate are going to be too partisan to agree. But that being said surely some sort of consensus or compromise wording needs to be reached rather than the current split.Cunobeline (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input @Cunobeline:. You are right in most of your remarks. It is kind of pity because this article could acquire a GA status with a little work. The overall narrative should include and explain the POV of all parties (and all RS) As of torture, it is not a big deal in any major work on EOKA and it shouldnt be here. What is also needed is to re write introduction. Feel free to make edits and improve the article. Cinadon36 12:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Garbled sentence amended

Due to intimidation methods and targeting civilians towards local population a number of scholars characterized EOKA as a terrorist organisation doesn't make sense, at least not in English. I noticed it used to say something different, citing the same references. See this version, where it says A number of scholars characterize EOKA as a terrorist organization due attack on public utilities, assassination of members of the security forces, civil servants or civilians suspected of collaborating with the government. I have no particular preference regarding the latter wording, I assume it was accurately cited to begin with, so have restored that. FDW777 (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

One thing I certainly don't accept is the IP editor's attempts to change the sentence to read Due to intimidation methods and targeting civilians, mass murder, arson, systematic ethnic cleansing efforts against Turkish people living on the island, many scholars characterized EOKA as a terrorist organization. Quotes from the references already cited that support this change would be required first. FDW777 (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @FDW777: for your comments, I think you are absolutely right. If it goes on, I will notify an admin. Cinadon36 13:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The IP has been dealt with, do you have any preference on the wording? I only restored the wording including public utilities because the "targeting civilians towards local population" wording didn't make sense. FDW777 (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: EOKA, according to sources, targeted not only British security forces but British civilians and Greek-Cypriots as well. Many left-wing Greek-Cypriots, were not in favor of EOKA and were not getting in line with EOKA's agenda. In early 55, collaboration with the government meant giving info to British sources. In 1958, a collaborator was anyone who was not supportive of EOKA. That 's why scholars named it a terrorist organization- it is vital to explain that the definition of collaboration expanded from 1955 to 1958, so reader will have an understanding of the situation. Cinadon36 13:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I've no problem with any of that. The difficulty I had was the existing sentence made no sense, and I had no access to references to correct it. But as stated, I did find a prior version of the article citing the same references with a different wording, which I assume was also correectly cited. If the wording was changed to Due to intimidation methods towards local population and targeting civilians that would make sense in terms of sentence construction, but that might not be the point references were making. FDW777 (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the point of sources. I am for including it.Cinadon36 14:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Just make whatever changes you want to the text, and if it doesn't make sense I'll let you know. FDW777 (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Fleeing to the north?

I am confused by the sentence "A substantial number of Turkish Cypriots fled from the southern parts of Cyprus and moved to the northern side due to the violence.", cited to the Greek translation of Richter's book. Northern Cyprus as a concept didn't really exist until 1974, so it doesn't make sense. It's also not supported by other sources. Niyazi Kızılyürek's Bir Hınç ve Şiddet Tarihi (Istanbul Bilgi University Press) confirms that Turkish Cypriots fled to town centres or bigger villages from mixed/small villaages in 1958. The PRIO Displacement Project details displacement at village level and generally supports this. I propose that we remove this sentence from the article (we also need a separate article for the intercommunal violence in 1958). --GGT (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@GGT: It was referring to the geographical North Cyprus, not the TRNC that is informally known as "north cyprus". I understand the confusion, so I thanks for your edit.Cinadon36 13:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The division of the island into two separate polities happened following the sudden, violent and illegal seizure of power by the Greek Cypriots in 1963, and the consolidation of vast swathes of the northern portions of the island as the ethnically defined domains of the Turkish Cypriots and the southern portions by the Greek occupied government also occurred during the period 1963-1974. Northern Cyprus as a concept existed during this period. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, however, if that is to which you are referring, indeed did not exist as a concept until 1983. This is coming a bit late (you wrote this on 5 January 2022). But hope that still helps. Nargothronde (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Important Changes Required

1) The description needs to be changed to reflect its international designation as an extremist terrorist organisation. At the least, calling it a "nationalist paramilitary organisation" is incorrect, misleading, has the potential of manipulating and confusing readers, and goes against a number of other Wikipedia guidelines on editing etc including but not limited to:

• Euphemisms
• Verifiability
• Balance

...

Note: Sidelining that it was a terrorist organisation to a short mention stated in WP voice or the body of the article, the latter of which strongly comes across as being painted as "just some opinion", simply does not remain true to what EOKA was and therefore makes the entire article from that point onwards take on a quality whereby it confuses the reader by default.

2) The goal of EOKA is cited as being "the end of British rule in Cyprus, and for eventual union with Greece." That is factually incorrect, there is no evidence in any citation to support that, and it is potentially an example of POV pushing.

In brevity, I strongly recommend that the well-documented, self-confessed, legally conceded and accepted goals of EOKA take priority here. To that end it must include its other goal: the extinction or enslavement of the Turkish Cypriot race, to avoid making this article take on a quality whereby it confuses or misleads readers.

2) The geographical location is also misleading. It is in the Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East and Levant. The same way Turkey is described as "a transcontinental country located... in Western Asia... (and) in Southeast Europe", this type of correct geographical association also needs included in this article, but also more so to avoid supporting any politically motivated POV Pushing that would revel in trying to rhetorically detach the island from its geographical location and proximity and exclusively attach it elsewhere, as well as to respect the following and more:

• Neutral Points of View

...

3) The contemporary history in the following paragraph (i.e. that it became British in 1878) is also simply incorrect in various places, as well as lacking in strong, reliable and cross-verifiable sources, and therefore needs changing.

It is also worth noting at this point that there are a number of individual topics - separate but related to EOKA - that are being brought into this and similarly being discombobulated, and they are certainly of considerable historical significance, adding to why they need to change.

The following is my suggestion to this paragraph:

• Original Paragraph: Cyprus, an island in the eastern Mediterranean, inhabited mostly by Greek Cypriots (majority) and Turkish Cypriots (minority) populations, was part of the Ottoman Empire until 4 June 1878, when in the aftermath of the Russo-Turkish War, it was handed to the British empire. As nationalistic tendencies were growing in both communities of Cyprus, Greek Cypriots were leaning towards Enosis (Union with Greece) which was a part of the Megali idea. The origins of Enosis date back to 1821, the year when the Greek War of Independence commenced, and the archbishop of Cyprus, his archdeacon, and three bishops were beheaded, amongst other atrocities. In 1828, Count Ioannis Kapodistrias, the first governor of Greece, asked for the union of Cyprus with Greece, while small-scale uprisings also occurred. In 1878, when British general Wolsely came to Cyprus to formally establish British rule, he was met by the archbishop of Kition who, after welcoming him, requested that Britain cede Cyprus to Greece. Initially, the Greek Cypriots welcomed British rule because they were aware that the British had returned the Ionian Islands to Greece in 1864, and they were also hoping for British investment in Cyprus.

• Suggested Change: Cyprus, an island in the Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East and the Levant which became part of the Ottoman empire following the fourth Ottoman–Venetian War (1570–1573), was inhabited by Turkish Cypriots, Greek Cypriots and a few other minority ethnic populations. On 4 June 1878 in the aftermath of the Russo-Turkish War the administration of the island was handed to the British empire, and it remained under Ottoman suzerainty until 29 October 1914, when the British empire annexed the island in response to the Ottomans joining the First World War on the side of the Axis Powers. Following a period of forced demographic changes, ethnic agitation, terrorism and violence, nationalistic tendencies were growing in both communities of Cyprus, with the Greek Cypriots leaning towards Enosis (Union with Greece) as part of the Megali idea. In Greek Cypriot nationalist discourse the origins of Enosis date back to 1821, the year when the Greek War of Independence commenced, and the archbishop of Cyprus, his archdeacon, and three bishops were encouraged to incite an uprising on the island, which failed, and for which they were beheaded. In 1828, Count Ioannis Kapodistrias, the first governor of Greece, called for the union of Cyprus with Greece, while small-scale uprisings were encouraged but similarly failed to gain traction. In 1878, when British general Wolsely came to Cyprus to formally establish British rule, he was met by the archbishop of Kition who, after welcoming him, requested that Britain cede Cyprus to Greece. Initially, this did not yield a positive response from Britain but the Greeks still saw British rule as a potential stepping stone to achieving enosis because they were aware that the British had returned the Ionian Islands to Greece in 1864.

Regards and thanks in advance to all for your contributions in this discussion. Nargothronde (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Hi @Nargothronde:, I understand you raise some important issues. Maybe we should discuss different points in different sections. What would you like to discuss first? Cinadon36 13:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Cinadon36 and thank you for replying. Actually I'm more wondering if there are any in particular that you would like to discuss? For example:

• (1) that EOKA be labelled correctly in the description section
• (2) that the goals of EOKA be correctly cited
• (3) that the geographical location be labelled correctly
• (4) that the relevance of the Ottoman period be correctly represented
• (5) that the people and ethnicities on Cyprus be labelled correctly
• (6) that the transitions between different periods of rule and the events behind them etc be labelled and dated correctly
• (7) that the origin story of Enosis dating back to 1821 be correctly labelled as Greek Cypriot discourse, or balanced with historically documented evidence supported by multiple strong, reliable, cross-verifiable sources, preferably authoritative on the subject
• (8) that wrongly-worded, suggestive, euphemistic etc sections be amended

...

Regards, Nargothronde (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest we talk intro-issues last, because intro should reflect the main body. Another issue that I want to talk is the undue weight "Foreign Office declassified documents and EOKA lawsuits against the British government" has. Totally out of proportions. Cinadon36 15:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that undue weight is being given to that topic. I also agree with making changes in the main body of the article to support the introduction. But I disagree that the geographical location of Cyprus, for a start, is something to be defined by the main body of the article anymore than EOKA's clear designation by the British, the Republic of Turkey, the Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as a terrorist organisation, something of such significance, also be degraded to "just some opinion" hidden in the body of the article.

The introduction is the first thing people see and the first thing people connect with and make reference to. The only way to avoid ambiguity, euphemisms, POV pushing... the only way to prevent this article from being a potential platform for misinformation, disinformation, malinformation and rumours... the only way to ensure reliability and neutrality among other things... and the only way to avoid misleading and confusing readers... is to make these changes first at the introduction.

If anything, about the official internationally recognised and accepted designation of EOKA as a terrorist organisation, to give one example, I would suggest the opposite to what you're suggesting, that we make that change in the introduction, because it is the actual designation, first and foremost, and then we can include the Greek and Greek Cypriot opinion that it is a "paramilitary organisation" in the body of the article. The same also needs to be said about the goals of EOKA. Not the intentions. Not beliefs about them. But the actual goals. They need to be noted.

Regards, Nargothronde (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Geography

I am not surprised geography is an issue. To put some context, Turkey tends to say that Cyprus is part of the Asia Minor, implying that they have rights to the island, while Greece tends to suggest Cyprus is a European island, for the same reasons. But what do Reliable sources say? Best RS I could find that discuss the issue, is The Cyprus Problem (2011) by James Ker-Lindsay. At Page 1, we read:

WHAT AND WHERE IS CYPRUS? The island of Cyprus lies at the farthest eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea at the crossroads between Europe, Africa, and Asia. Its nearest neighbour, Turkey, lies approximately 50 miles north of the island. Next closest, lying 70 miles to the east, are Syria and Lebanon. Egypt is 240 miles south. Travelling westwards, the nearest Greek island, Castellorizo, is 170 miles away, with the Greek mainland an additional 330 miles away from Cyprus. At its extremes, the island is 150 miles long from east to west, and 100 miles wide from north to south. Its total land area is 3,572 square miles (9,251 square kilometres). It is the third-largest island in the Mediterranean, after Sardinia and Sicily. Were Cyprus a U.S. state, it would be number 48 in size—falling between Connecticut and Delaware

I suggest we keep the wording of the text, and add a satellite picture of Cyprus mentioning the proximity to Turkey, Greece, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, etc. Cinadon36 15:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we do not degrade this to the view of this being an issue of Turkey's opinions.

But putting an informed look at who says what about Cyprus to one side, as well as all other opinions, politics, euphemisms, everything else... geographically Cyprus is simply in the Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East and the Levant

It might be a good idea to include proximity in a map form. But it is not just in the Eastern Mediterranean and in proximity of Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Greece, Italy, the UK etc. Geographically speaking. In terms of actual location and association with a geographical region. It is in the Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East and the Levant. All of them. Equally. Its proximity or distance to different states is also an entirely different topic.

To avoid reinventing the wheel as I've already mentioned this above, "the same way Turkey is described as: "a transcontinental country located... in Western Asia... (and) in Southeast Europe" this type of correct geographical association also needs included in this article, but also more so to avoid supporting any politically motivated POV Pushing that would revel in trying to rhetorically detach the island from its geographical location and proximity and exclusively attach it elsewhere."

Furthermore, it is only by mentioning this clearly in the introduction and not degrading it to "just some opinion" of Greece or Turkey or whatever hidden in the body of the article can we respect Wikipedia's policies on Neutral Points of View. Otherwise why don't we just change the article about Turkey to say it is a part of Greater Greece? Since Greek assertions can be pushed onto this article about Cyprus, why not others?

Regards Nargothronde (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you please back your claim citing a RS on topic (EOKA)? Cinadon36 05:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

References

TMT Roots

It says "TMT was Turkey's tool to fuel intercommunal violence in order to show that partition was the only possible arrangement". This claim is completely wrong. TMT was initially formed out of fear of EOKA violence, Turkey was not even officially informed until a bit later as the Turkish Cypriot leaders were not sue of the reaction. Even Dr. F. Kucuk was told later. It was specifically formed as an unarmed group initially, more as neighborhood watch as normal channels of communication and roads were often cut off by Greeks and there was concern for remote isolated villages. Again, the founders were not sure initially how Republic Turkey would react to this development. Let me know if you disagree. I will edit with proper references, and there are many. Murat (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)