Talk:EOKA/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: Wikipedia 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. [1] (but not in the subsection “Political perception”)

Political perception

As for re-inserting the political perception section, I had removed [2] 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. [3]. 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 Wikipedia'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 [φυλετικό] κινούνται σ ενα οπισθοδρομικό πλαίσιο" (EOKA rhetoric on this issue [racism] 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 Wikipedia. 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[Anthias, F., & Ayres, R. (1983). Ethnicity and class in Cyprus. Race & Class, 25(1), 59–76. doi:10.1177/030639688302500104]. 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 [4]. 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? [5] 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. [6]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)

David French is prof. emeritus of UCL. His books are a p good source, esp. considering what sources one can often find in wiki´s historical articles.

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 [Xhi’s] 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 [[Hellenic Civil War]], he led Organisation X in opposing the left wing [[Greek People's Liberation Army|ELAS]] 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 [[7]].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 [8] (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 [9], 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" [10] and [11]. 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 [12]. 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 [French] 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 Wikipedia'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

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)

A British soldier targeting Cypriot demonstrators in Nicosia, 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

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 [[Fatin Rüştü Zorlu|Zorlou]] 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

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

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 Wikipedia. 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

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

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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. [13] 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.

---

Request for comment on inserting the text proposed by Ktrimi996 [withdrawn by OP]

Should the text proposed by Ktrimi996 be inserted in the article? I had edited several sections of the article on 19th October.[14] 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) 07:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This is a blatantly invalid RfC. But even if we forget it is blatantly invalid, this amounts to a proposal to add POV, novel-like, unencyclopædic text, and copyvios into the article. Please see comments in the thread just above. 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. 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. 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

References

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)

Version 5

Makarios was sent to exile in Seychelles on 9 March 1956, that gave Grivas more free space to act more violently. 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.In order to distract security forces from the struggle in Troodos, EOKA intensified house bombing and riots in the urban areas. Youngsters had a prominent role in accomplishing those tasks. Personnel of security forces as well as members of the public were targets. Later, during January 1957, after the pressure by Harding's forces at the mountains of Troodos was increased, 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. Guerrillas assaulted a group of Turkish Cypriot policemen in Paphos killing one of them. This incident sparked bloody inter-communal protests in Nicosia the next day.In total 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.As for the death toll there were 77 dead men in Security Forces, 70 Greek Cypriot-(most of them alleged 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. Harding also utilized a counter-terrorist organization (named X-platoon) using as personnel men that had deserted the insurgency, perhaps since September 1956. It has been estimated that in a six-month period the X-platoon killed, captured dozens of EOKA members or supporters. By March 1957 the two opponents, EOKA and the British forces were in a stalemate. Grivas declared truce on 14 March 1957.

notes and refs

References

Your comments please.Cinadon36 (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio concerns

We can discuss copyvio concers here. Cinadon36 (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Cinadon36 You have invited me to comment on version 5. Let me first point out that I cannot access all pages in the online version of French's book, and I simply don't have the time to go into town to visit my state library in order to check against the hard copy version. In addition, some of the content appears to come from a Greek text, and I am unable to read Greek. Accordingly, some prose and its corresponding reference remains unchecked, but there is enough to indicate a pattern of editing which causes me some concerns, and quite probably would be problematic for others. My comments on each of the references from French's book follow in a series of dot points, and I will make some general observations at the end of the section.

• Reference 4 French p. 106 - unable to check as p. 106 is not shown in the preview available to me
• Reference 5 French, p. 109 - unable to check as p. 106 is not shown in the previes available to me
• Reference 6 French, p. 110 This is a reference that appears in note (b) which specifically refers to the assassination of an army doctor, yet the relevant page does not mention any doctor. This reference would not survive a validation check. The editor who contributed this passage would be wise to double check page references and ensure that the correct reference was provided.
• Reference 7 French, p.152 The lengthy passage that appears in the notes of this section is a direct quotation from French, p. 152 (without the use of quotation marks)
• Reference 16 French, p. 135 - unable to check as p. 135 is not shown in the preview avaialable to me
• Reference 18 French, p. 136 - This reference includes another lengthy passage which appears to be a direct quotation from French, p. 136 (without the use of direct quotation marks)
• Etc

General comments

• A very cumbersome and complex system of referencing has been employed in this passage. Both references and notes are being used - which is OK, but many of the references also include lengthy notes or commentary, so they appear to double up as both notes and references which is generally seen as poor form.
• Of the references that include commentary, some include direct quotation marks (as in reference 5), but mostly without the use of quotation marks (as in References 2, 4, 6,7, 12 and many others).

Much of the commentary in the reference lines appears to be lengthy direct quotations taken directly from the source- and therefore should be enclosed in quotation marks. However, the simple addition of quote marks would not be enough to fix it. Direct quotations should be kept to an absolute minimum, and should only be used for definitions, statutes/laws or when you are trying to capture a unique voice, manner of speech or a distinctive phrase. The amount of direct quoting actually used in version 5 is arguably excessive, and could lead to concerns about plagiarism. If the article was run through any of the plagiarism checking programs, it would almost certainly result in a red flag.

The use of both notes and references and is not entirely problematic. However, the general guideline is that notes should be kept to an absolute minimum and they should never be used to develop the argument or as a substitute for the narrative. Any article should be capable of standing on its own, without forcing the reader to refer to extensive notes. Some people think that extensive use of notes is overly pretentious and it can be a real "turn off" for some readers.

Notes should be used with care. Notes are never used to present lengthy direct quotations from original works. Notes can be used to tease out complexities in an argument or apparent contradictions in the evidence, but they should not be essential to the reading of the piece. For example, a typical use of notes is to make a comment about inconsistencies in the sources or the nature of an ongoing scholarly debate. You might say, for example, that Bloggs (1992) claims that Peter Pan was born in 1882, while Smith (1999) has estimated a the date of birth as 1886. In general, comments made in notes should be written in your style or should be paraphrased, rather than in the form of lengthy direct quotations. (I realise that the use of quotes in reference lines is not all that uncommon in some Wikipedia articles, but it is generally considered to be poor form and is likely to attract the attention of plagiarism checkers such as the legendary Dianaa).

I would recommend that you think about what you really want to say in the article. And, always think about your reader. What will readers most want to know about this event? Why is this event important? What are the key facts? Who were the key players? What was the main sequence of events? Which details are essential to understanding what happened and why it happened? Which details are incidental to the main story line? Get all that very clear in your mind before you start writing. Only when you have a good idea of where you are going should you start to think about the best way to express the ideas. Finally, think about which sources are authoritative or reliable and provide the type of detail that is needed to support the story you think needs to be told. Take great care to summarise these sources in your own words, reserving direct quotations for particularly "pithy" phrases or for moments when one of the key players is allowed to speak in his or her own voice. Finally, you should double check all references to ensure that bibliographic details and page numbers are accurate.

Try to remember that you are not expected to write an exhaustive account of an event or issue- but just give enough information to give your readers a "flavour" for the topic. Interested readers can follow your references, wikilinks and any external links to find out more about specific facets of the issue, event or person. In general, you should focus on the accepted accounts and avoid giving too much attention to minority or extreme views. That type of forensic analysis of evidence and sources is for the scholars to hash out in academic journals. An Encyclopedia, on the other hand, outlines the most widely accepted version.

I would also strongly encourage you to read one of Wikipedia's articles on referencing and also to look for one of the many style guides available online just to familiarise yourself with the broader aims of referencing, the different methods of referencing that can be used and the finer points of referencing style. BronHiggs (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear @BronHiggs: thanks for your extensive answer and dedicated some time in this subject. My thoughts:

On references

• ref 4--->the quotation appears in the ref box
• ref 5--->the quotation appears in the ref box
• ref 6--->The quoatation in the refs is "Some victims were targets of opportunity. In September 1956, an army doctor, Captain Gordon Wilson was killed because Nicos Sampson received a letter". That is the last paragraph of p.110
• ref 7--->yes, I think that in the ref, we can add the quotations for others to check.
• ref 16--->the quotation appears in the ref box
• ref 18--->yes, as in ref. 7. (I should have added the quotation mark - my mistake)

On the General comments.

• on the heavy use of notes: well, I like using notes, I might be doing more too often though. I will try to keep it low.
• I should add the quotation mark. I thought that it was ok not to add the quotation mark, but ok, I will fix it.
• I have added the quotations in the reference just for anyone who wants to check the text for copyvio or clop. If the proposed text is ok, then add it on the article without the quotations.
• "The use of both notes and references and is not entirely problematic"--->I actually like very much using both systems extensively. The reason is that I can add not-so-notable events in the note that do not qualify for being added in the text of the article but are significant /notable enough so they should not be excluded. Also, as the notability of an event is many times a subject of dispute, using a note is the solution in the middle.
• Thanks for the question asked: "what you really want to say in the article[?]" I want to make clear what the Reliable Sources are saying. I have got in my hands the very best sources available on the subject by prof David French, Heinz Richter and Robert Holland and I 'd like to use them, as the article is very poor for the time being (I have already made some significant contributions though). After that, I 'd ask for a peer review and then for a good article status.
• I do not wish or intend to write a timeline for EOKA's actions, but I think it is important to explain the major tactical steps of Grivas or Harding that had consequences on the struggle.
• Thanks for the advice and your extensive analysis. I will take what you said into consideration. As for the proposed text, I am re-writing it from scratch. This time, I hope I do a better job. I will invite you to have a say if you wish. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:41, 3 November 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)

I 'd like to withdraw my proposals

I 'd like to withdraw all my above proposals. Seems that Dr.K. has some valid points. I will try and write it from scratch. My major concern is that the copyvio claim will once again pop up, but I have to assume Good Faith. I will do my best. It might take me a couple of days or max a week and I will come back. Sorry for the disruption. Dr.K., I feel I owe you an apology. You were a good guardian of WP. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I am happy you all are starting to agree with each other. Write the text again carefully and when you feel ready post the new version to discuss it. Re your concern that copyvio claims will emerge again, it is not good to assume bad faith. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Large scale copyvio investigation

As I expected, and said so multiple times recently, Cinadon has introduced further large-scale copyvios in his earlier proposals. I have reverted his "Forward to Victory" addition and I am now in the process of investigating his earlier proposal and edits. Please all stay tuned. Thank you. Dr. K. 15:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately this isn't the only problematic section. Ideology for example appears problematic in terms of c-e and POV.Alexikoua (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Alexi. I will tag the section. Dr. K. 16:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

When you are done, please let me know to start re-writing the sections more carefully. As for POV, maybe we should discuss it in another section. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio cleanup is done for now. Dr. K. 17:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to make sure Dr.K., why did you deleted the two section? Because of copyvio? Cinadon36 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Large-scale, as before. Dr. K. 17:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Dr.K, you have reverted my edit and re-inserted unsourced material with the claim that can easily be found. I guess the Burden is on your shoulders to find that material? Thanks. ps you have cited an article but there is no preview. Is the book talking about George Grivas using that name? Thanks. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I have provided four sources all of which verify the material. I am sure some of these sources work for you. If they don't, you need to fix your browser. For me, all four work fine. The material, by the way, is very easy to verify. Don't quote BURDEN on me. I always find multiple RS for facts I add on wiki. I never had any complaints. Dr. K. 19:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Mark Weisburd, p 76

The current version states: "The military campaign officially began on 1 April 1955. On that date, EOKA launched simultaneous attacks on the British controlled Cyprus Broadcasting Station in Nicosia, undertaken by a team led by Markos Drakos, on the British Army's Wolseley barracks, and on targets in Famagusta, by a team led by Grigoris Afxentiou. EOKA's campaign initially targeted the British and those Greek Cypriots identified with them.[38]" Check out ref 38. Clearly does not support the text. Next paragraoh is unsourced (Certainly I do not question that the text is very close to truth, but the question is how do we proceed?) Cinadon36 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Removals

If you wish Dr.K, you can check past version of the article and you will find out that I did not add those lines you have removed. [15]. Plus I 'd like to ask you to stop mentioning my name in the edit summary. Thank you.Cinadon36 (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe you Cinadon and I stand corrected. Sorry about that. It was partially plagiarised by someone else and I have partially restored it. Dr. K. 19:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

ok, thanks. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I removed it, since checking once more, the sources were weak. Plus as there is no section for british and tc targets so I felt to remove it. Please revert if you think it should stay. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's ok. I have no objection. Thanks for letting me know. Dr. K. 20:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The first declaration

• First line in the declarations is Με την βοήθειαν τού Θεού, με πίστιν εις τον τίμιον αγώνα μας, με την συμπαράστασιν ολοκλήρου τού Ελληνισμού και με την βοήθειαν των Κυπρίων, αναλαμβάνομεν τον αγώνα διά την αποτίναξιν τού Αγγλικού ζυγού, με σύνθημα εκείνο το οποίον μάς κατέλιπαν οι πρόγονοί μας ως ιεράν παρακαταθήκην: “‘Η τάν ή επί τάς”.

The underlined part is missing. I do not know if other parts are ok, but I am not very sure that it is notable enough to place it in the article. Maybe the Wikipedia Library is more appropriate. But I am not certain. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal of insertion: === From April 1955 to the dismissal of governor Armitage (October) ===

The armed struggle started on April the 1st, 1955. A series of explosions hit army facilities and public utilities in all major towns of Cyprus. Most successful attacks were by the team of Markos Drakos in Nicosia. British forces (at that time troops and arms were transferred from Egypt to military bases in Dhekelia and Akrotiri) were not expecting any attacks. At the end of April, the activity of EOKA paused, giving time to Grivas to organize the youth. The next wave of attacks was initiated in June and was more forceful than the first one, as EOKA members were throwing self-made bombs in public places, British houses or police stations. This second wave of EOKA attacks lasted until the end of June, totaling 204 attacks since the beginning of the insurgency

In Turkey, the public opinion was uneased. Rumors were mounting that a slaughter of TCs by GC was about to happen. The rumors were groundless but nonetheless contributed to the Istanbul pogrom.. At the same time, during the Trilatet Conference among Britain, Turkey and Greece held in London, Turkey kept a tough stance, arguing that Cyprus is a part of Anatolia. The Conference collapsed without reaching an agreement.

Initially, the British government underestimated EOKA struggle and Macmillan's thought was that EOKA wouldn't gain popular support. By the end of September, as the crisis was escalating, the British Government decided to replace governor Armitage.

References

I propose the text for insertion. It is copyvio and clop free. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Could you please supply the Greek text quotes for Richter (Ρίχτερ) and quotes from Holland, and French, on which you base your proposed text? Dr. K. 08:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

That would be rather difficult for Richter. I can take a photo and sent it to you via mail. As for Holland and French, I am summarizing paragraphs and pages, I have learned my lesson, so I will have to copy-paste a lagre text. But will do if you wish. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Just click email user and send me the copies. Send me also some relevant quotes from Holland and French. Thanks. Dr. K. 08:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, expect them tonight (Athens time) I 'll take shots of Holland and French as well. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Dr. K. 09:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I have uploaded all page pictures of Richter 2011 in a dropbox folder (as per Dr.K. request[16]) Whoever wants to have a look, please email me. Plus if you 'd like a look at other ref pages, please let me know and I 'll upload them. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Cinadon36 for the effort. I have a couple of suggestion:

1. It should be mentioned that the T/C community wasn't affected prior to the anti-Greek Pogrom.
2. I've just read this book [[17]], thus some of the below might be vital for the understanding:

p. 95

The night of 29 March a series of bomb attacks occurred in various locations across the island, 18 altogether. The most successful of them was destroying the Cyprus Broadcasting Station's transmitter. The attacks were accompanied by a revolutionary proclamation. The proclamation was signed by "The leader, Digenes". Grivas decided to keep his involvement secret at the moment and used the name of a Byzantine general who had defended Cyprus in the medieval era.

There was some disagreement between Grivas and Makarios about the way to overthrow the collonial reimge. Grivas rejected Makarios attempt, to limit the campaign to acts of sabotage, avoiding loss of life. However he shared Makarios view that victory would be won by diplomatic means.

Grivas goal was to subject the British to continued relentless harassment, making them clear that their continued occupation carried a price, while keeping enosis on the international diplomatic agenda. The British response to the EOKA campaign was crucial in this regard: repression would on the one hand alienate the Greek Cypriot population from British rule, and on the other hand provide Makarios and the Greek government with a stick to beat the British with before the United Nations. EOKA would ensure that there was a Cyprus problem and demonstrate to the world that the British could not resolve it.

Grivas launched his second offensive on the night of June 19 with coordinated bomb and grenade attacks against police stations, military installations and the homes of army officers and senior officials. One bomb planted inside Famagusta Police headquarters by an EOKA policeman demolished the building. A few days later an arms raid on Amiandos police station left a police sergeant dead and the armory stripped of weapons. Those attacks were usually followed by sporadic incidents: shootings and bombings and increasing public disorder. There were attacks on the police, with two Special Branch members being assassinated in separate incidents in August. There were street clashes between demonstrators and police and troops which were easily precipitated by the simple expedient of raising the Greek flag which the British then felt obliged to remove by force if necessary. The final straw, however, was the escape from Kyrenia castle prison of 16 EOKA members including a number of key figures, such as Markos Drakos and Grigoris Afxentiou. As Nancy Crawshaw puts it, 'public confidence in the administration was shattered'. The situation seemed to be deteriorating out of control. The British attempted to safeguard their position in Cyprus by diplomatic maneuvering and a counterinsurgency offensive. The first involved playing the Greek and Turkish governments off against each other. Eden saw the Turkish government as 'the key protecting British interests'

1. About Grivas' preparations&goals:

p. 93: Grivas carried out a first reconnaissance in Cyprus as early as July 1951. p. 94 Makarios was certainly sceptical, telling Grivas on one occasion that he would not find 50 men to follow him. Interestingly enough the British shared the same view. Grivas finally arrived on the island in early November 1954 and set about establishing his underground organisation. He recruited from the Cyprus Farmers' Union (PEK) in the villages and from the two main youth movement, the Church-controlled Christian Youth Movement (OHEN) and the nationalist Pancyprian Youth Movement (PEON) in the towns. At its peak the organisation was to muster seven mountain groups, 47 town groups and 75 villages groups, with a total stranth of just over 1,000 men. The backbone of EOKA were the mountain groups, a conventional guerilla force living in hidden camps in the forests, and the town groups, often continuing their civilian job or schooling...Supporting this armed wing was the much broader National Front of Cyprus (EMAK), which organised the guerilla movement's sympathisers. EMAK provided EOKA with intelligence, supplies, weapons, medicins, recruits and safe houses, confronted the British on the streets with demonstrations and riots and conducted the propaganda offensive.Grivas was prticurlarly concerned with mobilising the young, schoolchidren and juveniles, behind the struggle and was later to identify this as one of the distinctive features of EOKA. He intented to 'to the youth of Cyprus into the sedbed of EOKA'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexikoua (talk • contribs)

Thanks @Alexikoua: for your feedback. Here are my comments:

1. That might be a little risky to add. There is no connotation between the Pogrom and the targetting of TCs. No author as far as I know claims that TCs were targeted because of the Pogrom. Adding such a narrative it would be OR.
2. Newsingers book is certainly a RS but it dedicates only a chapter to EOKA. There are better books on the subject- but Newsinger is just fine.
3. As for the CBS station, it could be added. I wasnt sure if I should add it or not, and as I didnt want to list every minor detail, I choose not to insert it in my proposal. But if you think otherwise, we can put it.

Thanks Cinadon36 (talk)

Having taking all the above material into consideration, I believe the British diplomatic maneuvering deserves a separate section. As for the initial phase of activity (April-August 1955):

The armed struggle started on the night of March 29-April, 1955. A total of 18 bomb attacks occurred in various locations across the island. Most notable incidents were those of Nicosia by the group of Markos Drakos as well as the demolition of the Cyprus Broadcasting Station's transmitter. The attacks were accompanied by a revolutionary proclamation signed by "The leader, Digenes". Grivas decided to keep his involvement secret at the moment and used the name of a Byzantine general who had defended Cyprus in the medieval era. On the other hand the British not expecting this turn of events reinforced their local military bases (Dhekelia and Akrotiri) by transferring troops from Egypt.

At the end of April EOKA attacks temporarily paused, giving time to Grivas to organize the youth. A second offensive was launched on June 19 with coordinated bomb and grenade attacks against police stations, military installations and the homes of army officers and senior officials. One of those bombings demolished the building of the Famagusta Police headquarters. Those attacks were usually followed by sporadic incidents: shootings, bombings and increased public disorder. This second wave of EOKA attacks lasted until the end of June, totaling 204 attacks since the beginning of the insurgency.

In August two Special Branch members were assassinated in separate incidents. The raising of the Greek flag during demonstrations led usually to clashes with the colonial authorities. The later being obliged to remove it by force if necessary. Another major success for the organization was the escape from Kyrenia castle prison of 16 EOKA members including a number of key figures, such as Markos Drakos and Grigoris Afxentiou.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

References

Alexikoua, I think your suggestion on British manouverings is legitimate. It is a difficult task though, so I 'd say we leave it at the end. Anyway, on your proposal for the beginning on the insurgency is pretty good. One note though, the battle of the flags started at Autumn, not Summer of 55, as your proposal claims (plus it peaked at January-February 56) Otherwise, it is ok by me. Cheers. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok then it's a go. In case we can support this change about flags I'm ok.Alexikoua (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Next step will be to add information about preparations and the goals of the organization.Alexikoua (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

British maneuvering and 2nd phase

Some of the below parts from Newsinger, might be quite interesting for the next phase of the Cypriot struggle:

p. 97: The British attempted to safeguard their position in Cyprus by diplomatic manoeuvring and a counterinsurgency offensive. The first involved playing the Greek and Turkish governments off against each other. Eden saw the Turkish government as 'the key protecting British interests'

p. 99 On December 13, Harding who saw Cyprus very much as a pawn in the Cold War, banned AKEL and detained 128 of its leading members, effectively crippling the only political force in Cyprus which opposed EOKA. Repressive legislation and troop reinforcements were not the answer however. The Greek Cypriot population was hostile and the Special Branch was neutered. The Britis response was large-scale cordon and search operations that rarely resulted in arrests or the discovery of arms caches, but which invariably alienated those whous houses were searched or who were roughed up and dragged off to be screened. Collective punishements, far from undermining support for EOKA, only succeeded in making the Greek Cypriots more hostile to British rule....

p. 100 The inevitable result was to increase sympathy for EOKA and to assist its recruitment efforts. The problem was that the Greek Cypriot community was overwhelmingly in favour of Enosis. Fra from moderates emerging with whom Britain could do a deal. It was this popular support, enabling Grivas and his small band of guerrillas to take on the growing security apparatus that Harding was marshalling against him, that sustained the armed struggle. It became clear that EOKA did have an effective intelligence apparatus and that the guerrillas were often forewarned of security intentions... Schoolchildren, domestic servants, civilian personell on the military bases, the police, all were enlisted by Grivas in the intelligence war. While the security forces were operating in the dark, their every move was observed.

p. 101: The British were never to succeed completely eliminating EOKA agents from the police force. The virtual collapse of the police in the face of EOKA did bring some important changes, however. Many Greek Cypriot policemen resigned and those that remained were increasingly distrusted, so new recruits were ought in Britain and among the Turkish Cypriot community. The dramatical increased recruitment of Turkish Cypriots. By the start of 1956 the had come to dominate the police force numbering 4,000 compared to less than 1,000 Greek Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriots were very much in the front line against EOKA. Inevitably the use of Turkish Cypriot police against the Greek Cypriot community exacerbated relations between the two communities.

Alexikoua (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality question

I wonder what makes Thrasivoulou neutral in his description about anti-communism in Cyprus. As I see he is personally involved in Left wing politics [www.biblionet.gr/author/115186/Μάριος_Θρασυβούλου]. This raises serious concerns.Alexikoua (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think that it qualifies for RS, but if you think that the statement is too strong (and hence you need stronger evidence), I am sure there are out there. It is no secret that Grivas was anti-communist, and many scholars describe EOKA as such. But may I pose a question? If an author is a known left-winger, should he be excluded from WP? Then, should we exclude Greeks and Turks and Britons as well? Cinadon36 (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

EOKA and its leadership were against communism, but expression like "communism leads to slavery" etc. are not appropriate for an encyclopaedic description.Alexikoua (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, this part (based on Thrasyvoulou) offers the wrong impression that the Church (Makarios etc.) and Grivas were in full agreement.Alexikoua (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove the expression if you will. As for the Church and Grivas- initially, they were in agreement and as history was moving forward, a gap was becoming more and more visible.Cinadon36 (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Referencing

Just wanted to remind everyone that the references should be formatted such that the author names are in the Latin alphabet. I'm personally fine with understanding the Greek alphabet and I presume so are most editors working on this article, but most of our readers won't be. --GGT (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, will do!Cinadon36 (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal of insertion: === Operation Forward to Victory (phase I, Octomber 1955 to March 1956) ===

Here is my proposal:

John Harding was the newly appointed governor of Cyprus. Soon after his arrival on the 3rd of October, Harding sought to meet Archbishop Makarios, and both agreed on commencing what is now known as Harding-Makarios negotiations. Increased security and stepping up military might was of Hardings priorities. On 26th November, Harding declared stated of Emergency- that meant among other, implementation of the death penalty for non-fatality crimes.

Operation Forward to Victory was declared on 18th of November and was accompanied by several bomb attacks. In urban areas, schoolchildren had a prominent role in the EOKA struggle. The Battle of Flags, escalated during the Autumn of 1955 and peaked in January and February of 1956- that kept British forces busy away from chasing down EOKA. But schoolboys were not only active in riots and stone-throwing the police, but some of them were also trained to throw bombs and carry assassinations. Bombs by guerillas and youngsters were thrown at British personnel houses, police stations and army camps. In some cases, EOKA members managed to steal some weaponry.

Up in the mountains, the struggle continued as the guerillas constructed several hideout in the Troodos mountains. But because of harsh winter and some military pressure by British forces, the activity of EOKA eased during winter.

References

Comments? Thanks in advance. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I have the feeling that a section about British reactions (diplomatic maneuvering, drastic measures, T/Cs in the police etc.) should precede this part.Alexikoua (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean in a separate section or just add them in a paragraph in this section (or the previous one)? Cinadon36 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I assume it deserves its own section but it depends on the size.Alexikoua (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Look, IMO, if we go for a separate section, we should discuss it at the end of the "armed struggle", as diplomatic maneuvers spread from 55 to 59. Makes more sense to me to add a small paragraph in each section for the maneuvers that took place in each specific time frame. Both ways are doable, I dont have a preference. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The events in Cyprus affected the diplomatic agendas of various countries for example British diplomatic manoeuvring of 1955 that happened as a result of the events in Cyprus should be part of the main story & chronologically place in the correct section (proposed text partially based on your paragraph above):

After reading Newsinger, some additions may be more appropriate to be reflected in this phase. How about this:

Oct. 1955-Mar. 1956

The new British governor John Harding arrived at October 3. Harding sought to meet Archbishop Makarios, and both agreed on commencing what became known as Harding-Makarios negotiations. Increased security and stepping up military might was of Hardings priorities. On November 26, Harding declared stated of Emergency- that meant among other, implementation of the death penalty for non-fatality crimes. Repressive legislation and troop reinforcements were not the answer however. The Greek Cypriot population was hostile and the Special Branch was neutered. The British response was large-scale cordon and search operations which rarely resulted in arrests or the discovery of arms caches, but which invariably alienated those whose houses were searched or who were roughed up and dragged off to be screened. Collective punishments, far from undermining support for EOKA, only succeeded in making the Greek Cypriots more hostile to British rule. Moreover, Harding viewed Cyprus very much as a pawn in the Cold War global situation: on December 13 he banned AKEL and detained 128 of its leading members, effectively crippling the only political party in Cyprus that opposed EOKA.

The inevitable result was to increase sympathy for EOKA and to assist its recruitment efforts. The problem was that the Greek Cypriot community was overwhelmingly in favour of Enosis. Far from moderates emerging with whom Britain could do a deal. It was this popular support, enabling Grivas and his small band of guerrillas to take on the growing security apparatus that Harding was marshalling against him, that sustained the armed struggle. It became clear that EOKA did have an effective intelligence apparatus and that the guerrillas were often forewarned of security intentions. Schoolchildren, domestic servants, civilian personnel on the military bases, the police, all were enlisted by Grivas in the intelligence war while the security forces were operating in the dark.

Operation "Forward to Victory" (Greek name) was launched on November 18 and was accompanied by several bomb attacks. In the urban areas schoolchildren had a prominent role in the EOKA struggle. The Battle of Flags, escalated during the Autumn of 1955 and peaked in January and February of 1956- that kept British forces busy away from chasing down EOKA. Schoolboys were not only participating in riots and stone-throwing against the police, but some of them were also trained to throw bombs and carry assassinations. Bombs by guerrillas and youngsters were thrown at British personnel houses, police stations and army camps. In some cases, EOKA members managed to steal some weaponry. The British were never to succeed completely eliminating EOKA agents from the police force.

Up in the mountains, the struggle continued as the guerrillas expanded their network in the Troodos mountains. However, due to harsh winter conditions in addition to certain British military pressure, the activity of EOKA temporarily eased.Alexikoua (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Good job Alexikoua! Cinadon36 (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe that the following should be part of the above section:

The security forces were involved in suppressing a veritable schoolchildren revolt and by end of February had left one boy shot dead and the island's school system almost completely closed down.(Newsinger, p. 101).Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

British reactions

{{quote|The situation seemed to be deteriorating out of control and the British authorities attempted to safeguard their position in Cyprus by diplomatic maneuvering and a counterinsurgency offensive. The first involved playing the Greek and Turkish governments off against each other. Eden saw Turkey as "the key protecting British interests" in Cyprus. By the end of September, as the crisis was escalating, the British Government decided to replace governor Armitage.

In Turkey, the public opinion was uneased. Rumors were spreading in Turkish media that a slaughter of the Turkish Cypriot community was likely to occur. Though they were unfounded they led to nationalist reactions in the country and the government-sponsored anti-Greek Istanbul pogrom of September 1955.. At the same time, during the Trilatet Conference among Britain, Turkey and Greece held in London, an agreement couldn't being reached while Turkey adopted a stubborn position.

In this fashion British policy also aimed at the dramatical increased recruitment of Turkish Cypriots. By the start of 1956 they had come to dominate the police force numbering 4,000 compared to less than 1,000 Greek Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriots were very much in the front line against EOKA. Inevitably the use of Turkish Cypriot policemen against the Greek Cypriot community exacerbated relations between the two communities.Alexikoua (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Seems fine to me Cinadon36 (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal of insertion === Operation Forward to Victory (phase II, March 1956 to March 1957) ===

Here is my new proposal. Anyone who needs to check sources, just send me an email and I will respond with a dropbox link.

The next phase of the struggle commenced in March 1956 and lasted a year, when a unilateral cease fire was declared by EOKA. After the failure of Makarios-Harding negotiations on early March 1956, the British government in a sudden move, exiled Makarios to Seycheles. That left Grivas as the sole leader of the insurgency and turned EOKA more violent. While Harding's forces were making ground up in the mountains, guerrillas and youngsters were trying to assassinate members of the security forces at their leisure time or alleged traitors.

EOKA focused its actions to urban areas during this phase. House bombings and riots, mostly by schoolboys, forced army to keep forces away from the mountains where EOKA's hard core fighters where hiding. Apart from individual citizens or soldiers in their leisure time, army and police facilities where attacked totaling 104 house bombings, 53 riots, 136 acts of Sabotage, 403 ambushes, 35 attacks on police, 38 attacks on soldiers and 43 raids on police stations. But as the pressure of Harding mounted, Grivas undertook a controversial strategy, targeting Turkish Cypriot policemen, in order to initiate intercommunal tensions nailing British forces in the towns. Indeed, guerrillas throw two bombs at a group of Turkish Cypriot policemen killing one of them, effectively sparking inter-communal riots in Nicosia the next day, and a series of strikes

Governor Harding escalated his fight against EOKA. He organised a series of operation from April until July that delivered a severe blow to EOKA as it was never again as effective as the first half of 1956 but failed to eradicate EOKA nonetheless. Harding also upgrated intelligence and created a notorious counter-gang organization, named X-platoon.

Having suffered significant loses both in personnel and in infrastructure, Grivas declared truce on the 14th of March 1957. Harding was far from victory though as he hadn't eliminate EOKA. As David French puts it, he had only "contained its campaign of agitational terrorism.".

notes

refs

References

Anticipating the feedback. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cinadon36:, if the last sentence is a concern for you, you can write the two last sentences in other ways like "Harding was far from victory though, as he contained EOKA's campaign rather than put an end to it". Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on this. Some additional info may be presented for the full picture.Alexikoua (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Ktrimi991 and Alexikoua: Cinadon36 (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I had to take additional material into account with the addition of some important details:

Mar. 1956 - Mar. 1957

After the failure of Makarios-Harding negotiations the British government in a sudden move, exiled Makarios to Seycheles on March 9, 1956. This triggered a week long general strike followed by a dramatic increase in EOKA activity: 246 attacks until March 31 including an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Harding. The offensive continued into April and May and the British casualties averaged two killed every week. While Harding's forces were making ground up in the mountains, guerrillas and youngsters were trying to assassinate members of the security forces at their leisure time or alleged traitors.

EOKA focused its activity to urban areas during this period. House bombings and riots, mostly by schoolboys, forced army to keep forces away from the mountains where EOKA's main fighters where hiding. Apart from individual citizens or soldiers in their leisure time, army and police facilities where attacked totaling 104 house bombings, 53 riots, 136 acts of Sabotage, 403 ambushes, 35 attacks on police, 38 attacks on soldiers and 43 raids on police stations. But as the pressure of Harding mounted, Grivas began targeting Turkish Cypriot policemen effectively sparking inter-communal riots and a series of strikes

Harding escalated his fight against EOKA organizing a series of operations in April-July Harding also upgrated his intelligence network including the creation of the notorious X-platoon. On May 10 the first two EOKA prisoners were hanged and Grivas responded with the execution of two British soldiers. The British were concerned to counter EOKA's mountain units. Large scale operations were launched however Grivas managed to escape. He decided to move to Limassol where he established his new headquarters. Although Grivas escaped, the Troodos operations had some success for the British: 20 guerrillas and 50 weapons were captured. However, they ended up with a disaster: at least 7 British soldiers were killed and additionally 21 were burnt to dead in accident. The last incident overshadowed the first real success against the EOKA guerrilla forces.

On August 9 the British authorities hanged three more EOKA prisoners, however Grivas did not retaliate this time. Widespread strikes held in protest. On November 1956 due to the Suez Crisis large numbers of British troops were tranfered off Cyprus allowing Grivas to launch a new offensive. EOKA launched a wave of attacks in what would became for the British "Black November" with a total of 416 attacks, 39 killed 21 of them British. After the Suez debacle the British military strength was increased to 20,000 and Harding managed to direct a new offensive. However, Harding failed to win over the Greek Cypriot population especially when his security forces resorted to the use of torture.

Although EOKA received a severe blow in the mountains its armed activity continued in the urban areas while the British forces were apparently impotent. Grivas declared truce on the 14th of March 1957 which would last nearly one year.

notes

References

Good job @Alexikoua:. I agree on adding it but here is my main concern: Newsinger does not claim that Harding failed to win over the Greek Cypriot population especially when his security forces resorted to the use of torture. at least in page 104, the cited page. Maybe it is 100-101? Plus, French and Richter claim that British Forces did not systematically use torture. I think it is too strong claim for us to do. But besides that, I am ok! Cinadon36 (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I added the text but removed the sentence, as torture will be discussed in more details later on. Hope it 's ok Cinadon36 (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: === From March 1957 to November 1957 ===

Harding continued to pressure EOKA despite the unilateral truce. Security measures imposed to villagers, i.e. the case of Milikouri, bounced back at the British Forces as EOKA made gains in the field of propaganda. Nevertheless, the truce was kept by EOKA until the 28th of October 1957 (Oxi day, a Greek national fest) when Harold Macmillan (then minister of foreign affairs) declined a Makarios proposal for a settlement.

Meanwhile, as PEKA was continuing the struggle for Enosis with political means (from calling for a general strike to street graffiti), EOKA was trying to recruit new members. Priests and schoolteachers, under strict secrecy, were the scouting for young men aged 14-24, and were mostly successful. Grivas reorganized EOKA's structure. By Autumn, Grivas was increasing his autonomy from Greece and Makarios and was planning to attack the Left and the Turkish Cypriot community. The Greek government and Makarios had little capability of preventing Grivas from doing so.

==== Detention Camps and claims of torture ====
Detention of Persons Law, passed in 15th June 1955, gave the authority to Government to enclose a suspect in a detention camp without a trial. The first Detention camp was Kyrenia Castle and afterward, two more detention camps opened, one in Kokkinotrimithia and another one in Pyla village. PEKA linked the Detention camps to the Nazi ones and described the British government as authoritarian. Makarios and Greek Government voiced the same accusations later on. The living conditions within the camps were decent with the exception of poor building conditions which couldn't protect the inmates from harsh weather. International Committee of the Red Cross visited the camps twice and found no problems.

Torture allegations have been an issue since 1956. Harding declined the torture allegations, describing it as propaganda by EOKA members, who were intimidating the Greek population. Makarios held a press conference in Athens, where he doubled down the allegations, but failed to provide hard evidence and fall into some fallacies. Torture allegations had an impact in the internal politics of the British, as the allegations were discussed at the parliament.

The debate spans our days on whether the torture claims were true. According to Heinz Richter, while police or army was generally lawful, the British turned a blind eye to interrogators many of whom were deliberately undereducated Turkish Cypriot who had hostile feeling towards Enosis. Another aspect that Richter highlights is that many claims of torture were made as the alleged victims were afraid for their lives as it was punished by death to speak to the British. Prof David French on the other hand views that most - but not all- claims of torture were just a propaganda tool of EOKA.

==== The campaign against traitors ====
Initially, EOKA was intimidating the population not to co-operate with the security forces, but steadily the definition of traitor broadened and by late 1956, as the security forces were succeeding against EOKA, the definition of "traitor" was widened to include anyone who did not give active aid to the insurgency. EOKA members who had spoken to the security forces under interrogation were also considered as traitors and Grivas was in favor of the death penalty in such case. The decision for an execution was held by Grivas but even though he was very strict, incidences happened where EOKA guerrillas killed others by their own initiative and not solely based on accusations of treason. The killings took place in public spaces.

The attacks against traitors peaked during three separate time periods: a)summer and autumn of 1956, b)August 1957, and c) April to October 1958. The last two waves of attacks were aiming the left, as the communist party (AKEL) wanted a political role in the Greek Cypriot community, refusing EOKA's claim that Makarios spoke on behalf of all Greek Cypriots. As AKEL was growing in numbers, demanded a more active role in representing the Greek Cypriot community, practically denying the role of Archbishop as the legitimate voice of Greek Cypriots. Grivas was unease with the advances of AKEL within the Cypriot community. British delicately fueled the hostility among the two fractions and during August, the first attacks against the left took place in mid-August of 1957. The last wave of intra-Greek violence against the Left occurred in April to October of 1958, when a peace deal was imminent. AKEL held massive demonstrations and sought the help of Makarios which he granted.

References

@Alexikoua: I guess you can add Newsinger's view on torture in more detail. Anticipating comments! Cinadon36 (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Nice New job again withh this. I feel that some heads need to change to more neutral descriptions, for example "campaign against trators" to something more precise.Alexikoua (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua, whenever you feel comfortable, there is no rush! Cinadon36 (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Almost done. I believe that those two sub-sections don't deserve such detail. For example Makarios' trips and his campaign about allegations of torture can be easily summarized.Alexikoua (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua I know you are busy with other articles and tasks, but is it possible to provide your version or make some comments on my proposal? It 's been almost a month. Don't want to sound pushy though, there is no emergency. Cheers. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm ready. I feel that trimming of some details was necessary as noted above.Alexikoua (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It makes sense. Cinadon36 (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Here it is

Harding continued to pressure EOKA despite the unilateral truce imposing security measures imposed to villagers. This bounced back at the British Forces as EOKA made gains in the field of propaganda.

Meanwhile, PEKA was continuing the struggle for Enosis with political means, while EOKA was trying to recruit new members. Priests and teachers, under strict secrecy, were the scouting for young men aged 14-24, and were mostly successful. Grivas reorganized EOKA's structure. By Autumn, Grivas was increasing his autonomy from Greece and Makarios and was planning to attack the Left and the Turkish Cypriot community. The Greek government and Makarios were unable to prevent those initiatives.

Detention Camps and claims of torture

Detention of Persons Law, passed in 15th June 1955, gave the authority to the British authorities to enclose a suspect in a detention camp without a trial. PEKA and later Makarios and Greek Government pointed to the unhuman conditions in those camps. The situation of the inmates there was a matter of dispute International Committee of the Red Cross visited the camps twice and found no problems.. Harding declined the torture allegations, describing it as propaganda by EOKA. Torture allegations had an impact in internal British politics. The precise use of torture methods remains a matter of dispute. According to Heinz Richter, while police or army was generally lawful, the British turned a blind eye to interrogators many of whom were deliberately undereducated Turkish Cypriot who were against Enosis. Another aspect that Richter highlights is that many claims of torture were made as the alleged victims were afraid for their lives as it was punished by death to speak to the British. David French on the other hand views that most - but not all- claims of torture were a propaganda tool of EOKA. In general Harding failed to win over the Greek Cypriot population especially when his security forces resorted to this kind of measures.

Campaign against Greek Cypriot groups

Initially, EOKA was intimidating the population not to co-operate with the security forces, but steadily the definition of traitor broadened as the security forces had some successes EOKA at the end of 1956. EOKA members who had spoken to the security forces under interrogation were also considered as traitors and Grivas was in favor of the death penalty in such case. Incidences happened where EOKA guerrillas killed others by their own initiative and not solely based on accusations for treason. The killings took place in public. Such activity peaked especially during summer-autumn 1956. The Greek Cypriot Left and in particular the communist party (AKEL) were also targeted. The later aimed at a political role in the Greek Cypriot community challenging EOKA's claim that Makarios was the sole leader of the community. As AKEL was growing in numbers it was practically denying Makarios' role. The British delicately fueled this hostility and in August 1957 a second wave of intra-Greek violence broke out. Another similar wave broke out in April- October 1958 when a peace agreement was imminent. AKEL held massive demonstrations and sought the help of Makarios which he granted.

End of truce

During this period the British were openly tolarating the Turkish Cypriot paramilitary organisations. The British had dellibaretaly set out to use the Turkish Cypriot community on the island and the Turks government as a means of blocking the demand for Enosis. They had effectively allied themselves with the Turkish minority and turned them as the overwhelming majority in the police force. This had now got out of control as far as the British were concerned, but nevertheless they still managed to exploit the situation.

The truce against the collonial authorities lasted until the 28th of October 1957 (Ohi Day, Greek national holiday) when Harold Macmillan, British minister of foreign affairs, declined a proposal by Makarios.

References

Seems great Alexikoua, I 've added the text to the artice.

Proposal: ===The Governorship of Hugh Foot and the Descent into Intercommunal violence, December 1957–August 1958 ===

Sir Hugh Foot arrived in Cyprus December 1956, when was obvious that a military victory for the British was not imminent. Grivas at that time was planning a gradual escalation of EOKA's attacks to the British forces but in mid-December, he called for a truce to give space to negotiations to take place. The truce broke at 4th March 1958 when a new wave of attacks was unleashed but this time, Grivas ordered his guerillas not attack turkish cypriots to avoid intercommunal violence that could lead to partition.

EOKA and Turkish-cypriots

Turkish Cypriot community objected Enosis long before the 1950s, as they were afraid of repeated persecution similar to what happened to other Muslim populations in newly formed Balkan countries the previous decades. Grass root paramilitary fighting groups appeared as early as of May 1955, such as Kitemb, KaraYilan (meaning Black Snake) and Volkan, all of them were absorbed later by TMT (Turk Mudya Teskilat/Turkish Resistance Organization) TMT was Turkey's tool to fuel intercommunal violence in order to show that partition was the only possible arrangement. Like EOKA, TMT was aggressive against members of its own community (ie leftists) that were not willing to stay in line with their cause.

EOKA was not targeting the Turkish Cypriots at the beginning of the insurgency, but this approach was about to change in January 1957. According to French, Grivas decided to attack Turkish Cypriot so to spark intercommunal tensions and rioting in the towns of Cyprus, forcing the British withdraw their troops from hunting EOKA up in the mountains and restore order in urban areas. From 19 January 1957 to the end of March, EOKA's guerrillas attacked members of the Turkish community, starting with a Turkish Cypriot police officer that sparked riots lasting 3 days.

Intercommunal (and intra-communal) violence escalated in the summer of 1958 with numerous killings. French counted fifty-five assassinations by Turks on Greeks, and fifty-nine assassinations by Greeks on Turks between 7 June and 7 August. A substantial number of turkish cypriots fled from the southern parts of Cyprus and moved to the northern side due to the violence . In order to tackle the intercommunal clash, Foot mounted Operations "Matchbox" and "Table Lighter". A truce was called at August, backed by Greek and Turkish Governments.

References

Cinadon36 (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I have the feeling that the above events should be incorporated to the previous part: last subsection about T/C-G/C clashes.Alexikoua (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not quite understand your proposal. Where do you suggest we place the proposed text?Cinadon36 (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Alexikoua Richter and French are both dealing with EOKA and TCs in section specific on 1958. Most prob. IMO, is that the clash between the two communities became more evident/prominent/lethal during the summer of '58. Whenever you can, have a look pls (no rush though)Cinadon36 (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I also have difficulty to understand "they were afraid of repeated persecution similar to what happened to other Muslim populations in newly formed Balkan countries the previous decades." As I know the non-Muslim Balkan countries were formed in the 19th century, c. one century earlier.Alexikoua (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

According to Sotos Ktoris and Niyazi Kızılyürek, during the collapse of ottoman empire in the late 19th century, muslim populations were persecuted and many of them fled to Konstantinoupoli. They were known as Muhacir. Have a look at the WP article. This fact was effectively utilised by turkish cypriots to install fear in their own community.Cinadon36 (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide Ktoris and Kizilyurke's quote? There was no newly formed Balkan country the previous decades. This probably needs some rewording. Moreover part of the previous section needs to be merged with this one, since similar information about T/C community is recycling, as I've stated above: During this period the British were openly tolerating the Turkish Cypriot paramilitary organisations. The British had deliberately set out to use the Turkish Cypriot community on the island and the Turks government as a means of blocking the demand for Enosis.[107] They had effectively allied themselves with the Turkish minority and turned them as the overwhelming majority in the police force. This had now got out of control as far as the British were concerned, but nevertheless they still managed to exploit the situation.Alexikoua (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoting Kizilyurek: "The Turkish Cypriot nationalism mainly developed in reaction to the Greek Cypriot national desire for union with Greece. In the desire of the Greek Cypriots to unify with Greece, the Turkish Cypriot community saw a danger to its own existence. This perception of threat is partly related to the historical experience of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in a period of national movements, which ended up in creating independent nation states. The experiences of the Muslim population in the Balkans, where national struggles caused atrocities and deportation, were the main points of reference in the construction of Turkish Cypriot nationalism. Particularly, the example of Crete was to become among the Turkish Cypriots what can be called a ‘‘Crete syndrome’’. Crete’s attempts to unify with Greece and, finally, the realization of this dream of union in 1912 had resulted in the deportation of the Muslim population of the island and its emigration to Turkey. A few years later (1922), the expedition of the Greek army to Asia Minor increased the fears of uprooting among the Turkish Cypriots".Source. As for Sotos Ktoris, you can have a look at Κτωρής, Σώτος (2013). Τουρκοκύπριοι: από το περιθώριο στο συνεταιρισμό [18]. Unfortunetely I can not provide a quote as I do not own the book- i have read it though. I fail to understand why it is recycling the same info. It has nothing to do with british manipulations of TCs in the police force...Cinadon36 (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. As for recycling similar info in this section its obvious that both parts mention the role of TCs against Enosis & British role.Alexikoua (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, both sections mention TCs but in a different way and providing different info. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: ===Formation (current "EOKA characteristics" section)===

Leadership

EOKA was headed by Georgios Grivas Greek Army officer, World War I and World War II veteran. During the Axis occupation of Greece in World War II, he led a small, anti-communist resistance group, named Organization X. During the anti-communist struggle of December 1944 in Athens after the Axis withdrawal he was saved due to Biritsh intervention. Grivas assumed the nom de guerre Digenis in direct reference to the legendary Byzantine Digenis Akritas who repelled invaders from the Byzantine Empire. Second in command in EOKA was Grigoris Afxentiou, also a former officer of the Greek army. Afxentiou had graduated from the reserves Officers Academy in 1950 without previous experience on battlefield.

Objectives

The main objective of EOKA was Enosis: union of Cyprus with Greece. The organization adopted typical Greek national ideologies and displayed religious, conservative and anticommunist ideas. This was in agreement with the ideologies cultivated in vaiours fileds of the Greek Cypriot society: education, religion, press and politics. There was a widespread believe that leftists opposed national objectives and provided a certain support to the colonial regime contrary to other contemporary anticolonial insurgencies in Africa or Asia, which where led by marxists.

Grivas and Archbishop of Cyprus, Makarios III, disagreed about the way to overthrow British rule from the island. Grivas rejected Makarios attempt to limit the campaign to acts of sabotage, avoiding loss of life. Nevertheless he shared Makarios view that victory would be won by diplomatic means. Grivas goal was to subject the British to continued relentless harassment, making them clear that occupation carries a price, while keeping Enosis on the international diplomatic agenda. The British response to the EOKA campaign was crucial in this regard: repression would on the one hand alienate the Greek Cypriot population from British rule, and on the other hand provide Makarios and the Greek government with a stick to beat the British with before the United Nations. EOKA would ensure that there was a Cyprus problem and demonstrate to the world that the British could not resolve it.

Preparations

Grivas carried out a first reconnaissance in Cyprus as early as July 1951. Makarios was certainly sceptical, telling Grivas on one occasion that he would not find supporters for an armed struggle. The British shared the same view. Grivas finally arrived on the island in early November 1954 and set about establishing his underground network. He recruited from the Cyprus Farmers' Union (PEK) in the villages and from the two main youth movements, the Church-controlled Christian Youth Movement (OHEN) and the nationalist Pancyprian Youth Movement (PEON) in the towns. Grivas was particularly concerned with mobilizing the young behind the struggle and was later to identify this as one of the distinctive features of EOKA.He intended to turn the youth of Cyprus 'into the sedbed of EOKA'.At its peak the organization was to muster seven mountain groups, 47 town groups and 75 villages groups, with a total stranth of just over 1,000 men. The backbone of EOKA were the mountain groups, a conventional guerrilla force living in hidden camps in the forests, and the town groups, often continuing their civilian job or schooling. Supporting this armed wing was the much broader National Front of Cyprus (EMAK), which organized the guerrilla movement's sympathizers. which provided EOKA with intelligence, supplies, weapons, medicins, recruits and safe houses, confronted the British on the streets with demonstrations and riots and conducted the propaganda offensive.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexikoua (talk • contribs) 00:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Great Alexikoua! I do not have many comments to make. Maybe we could say something about Makarios being the political leader or trim a little bit the preparations section. Seems balanced and ok, so I wouldnt mind adding it as it is. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Plus I would add EOKA also used intimidation towards local population. A number of scholars characterize EOKA as a terrorist organization due attack on civilians or public utilities[24] which is heavily referenced, I think it reflects the view of many RS.Cinadon36 (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do some trimming on that. About intimidation methods and attacks on civilians I believe this fits better in the section about "intra-Greek violence" next to similar descriptions about intimitation and attack against potential traitors.Alexikoua (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the trimming-now it is near-perfect. As for the accusation of terrorism, EOKA attacked british civilians, government buildings and soldier out of duty. It was not only the intimidation against traitors. As it is said "A villain is a hero of the other side" and vice versa. If you wish though, we can proceed with your proposal and discuss it in a later stage. Cinadon36 (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure.Alexikoua (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"General views" section removed from the article

During the campaign, the British Army was the foremost target of EOKA and a total of 1,144 armed clashes, of which 53% were in the cities, took place between the two forces.Markides, Kyriakos C. (1974). "social change and the rise and decline of social movements: the case of Cyprus1". American Ethnologist. 1 (2). Wiley: 309–330. doi:10.1525/ae.1974.1.2.02a00070. ISSN 0094-0496. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) The campaign resulted in the deaths of 105 British servicemen (according to the official figure) and 51 policemen. EOKA also targeted civilian Britons in Cyprus, including women and children, due to their nationalities.

EOKA also undertook a campaign of suppression against other Greek Cypriots they suspected of being allied to or informing the British. This included 230 assassination attempts, in which 148 were killed, 69 were wounded and only 13 escaped unharmed. As such, the operations against other Greek Cypriots were more efficient than the ones against the British, albeit on a smaller scale.Markides, Kyriakos C. (1974). "social change and the rise and decline of social movements: the case of Cyprus1". American Ethnologist. 1 (2). Wiley: 309–330. doi:10.1525/ae.1974.1.2.02a00070. ISSN 0094-0496. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) 23 out of the 148 killed have since been characterised as leftists and it has been debated whether EOKA targeted those who did not conform to Grivas' right-wing ideology on the basis of their political views or rather to settle personal differences.

References

I removed this section[19], because armed campain is covered in the article. We might use it in the lede, modified ofcourse. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

New proposal: === From August 1958 to the Zurich and London Agreements ===

Archbishop Makarios III (here in 1962) was the political leader of EOKA.

As the security forces weren't able to achieve a definite win over EOKA, the British government was trying to reach a solution that wouldn't embarrass Britain the eyes of the voters. MacMillan Plan was an effort in this direction. Greeks rejected the plan as they saw it as an open door leading to partition and Grivas cancelled the truce on the September 7th. EOKA attacking methods and targets differed significantly from the previous periods. Grivas ordered guerillas to "strike indiscriminately at every English person wherever they can be found" resulting in the death of 8 British citizens in 104 attacks staged by EOKA against security forces in two months time. But while the military force of EOKA was growing, Greek Cypriots were increasingly getting frustrated from the intercommunal violence and the struggle against the British. Makarios hinted in an interview that he was ready to shift his stance and accept independence. This change of direction infuriated Grivas but was backed by influential members of the Greek Cypriot Community. EOKA was losing its broad support base.

During the last months of 1958, all parties had reasons to favour a compromise. Greek Cypriot side was afraid that partition was becoming more and more imminent, Greece was anxious that the ongoing situation could lead to a war with Turkey, Turkey had to manage the ongoing crises at its eastern borders and the British didn't want to see NATO destabilizing because of Greek-Turkish war. On 5 December, foreign ministers of Greece and Turkey acknowledge the common dangers from the ongoing situation and a series of meetings were arranged, that resulted in London-Zürich Agreements a compromise solution in which Cyprus would become an independent and sovereign country. Both Makarios and Grivas accepted the deal with a heavy heart, instead, Turkish-Cypriot leadership was enthusiastic about the compromise. On 9th of March 1959, Grivas issued a leaflet declaring his acceptance to London agreements.

References

This is my new proposal, anticipating comments. @Alexikoua: would you mind having a look? Cinadon36 (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I reject it. Is a POV narrative, that neither reflects the NPOV truth, nor even cosely touches it. It is also demonizing and misleading. Jazz1972 (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Neither is demonizing nor misleading. Your argument is WP:IDLI.Cinadon36 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope, is your arguments that are WP:IDLI and your edits are all POVJazz1972 (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO, and basically a copy-paste of French. No. Khirurg (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it neither a copyvio nor a copy paste. When someone points to a problem, must explain what the actual problem is so it can be resolved.Cinadon36 (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I did point out the problem. Overreliance on a single source, and copyvio. Fix it or the content will never get in the article. And stop edit-warring while you're at it. Khirurg (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you be so kind as to point at the alleged copyvio? Cinadon36 (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I have checked the text using quetext.com and smallseotools.com and it was clear. @Khirurg: would you mind letting me know where exactly is the plagiarism, so if there is a problem, I may fix it? Cinadon36 (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

As for the source, relying solely on French, it is sure a problematic, but usually, @Alexikoua: adds text based on Newsinger, so I think a balanced section will be created. Alexikoua, can you lend a helping hand here? Cinadon36 (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I'm already working on this.Alexikoua (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Actual ideology of EOKA

Lysarides and his men were socialists and Tasos Papadopoulos who was in charge of Nicosia sector was centre. All of them were EOKA and EOKA was popular among almost all Greek Cypriots. 3 to 4 traditional Cypriot parties were led by EOKA members. Centre, centre-right and centre-left. So the ideology of EOKA was enosis and self-determination onlyJazz1972 (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a Reliable source to support your claim or is it just your POV?Cinadon36 (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

So you don't even know who were the presidents of the three parties in Cyprus, while you are pushing the turkish goverment's propaganda POV, everyday, all day long about Cyprus.? You can imagine my shock!!!! Lol!!!! Speaking for POV, the king of it. War is peace ignorance is strength...Lol!!! Of course I have. Do you really think that is a difficult task, to give sources about this....?Jazz1972 (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is this sentence removed?

"Due to intimidation methods and targeting civilians towards local population a number of scholars characterized EOKA as a terrorist organisation." [20], [21] @Khirurg: You have pointed out that there is no consensus but failed to show what is the actual problem with it. Note that the sentence is not present in the current version (answering to your second edit summary) Cinadon36 (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It is present. Look again. In the "Campaign against Greek Cypriot groups" section. Do your due diligence next time and stop wasting my time. Khirurg (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

My mistake this time. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)