Talk:Cyprus Emergency

TMT in the infobox

While the Cyprus Emergency and the Cypriot intercommunal violence were concurrent as long as the former lasted, I believe the conflict between EOKA and the TMT is largely covered in the latter article. This article is about the conflict between EOKA and the United Kingdom, and unless direct cooperation between the TMT and the British can be proven, I believe the TMT should be left to the other article. Comments? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is called Cyprus Emergency and not EOKA-UK war or something. TMT was fighting EOKA, so it should be in the combatants.Ron1978 (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Everyone, please read WP:BRD and WP:3RR and establish consensus here before making a controversial edit. Clearly Mikrobølgeovn you haven't convinced everyone (yet) so please do not persist in making the change.

For what it's worth, I agree that the TMT probably should be in the infobox unless I see a good source to demonstrate why it shouldn't be.—Brigade Piron (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have locked this article for three weeks, at the last stable version (no doubt the WP:WRONGVERSION™). This does not constitute prejudice to either point of view. Discuss and settle this here or at another talkpage as appropriate, please. You may wish to consult the Milhist project to gain further opinions. Personally I suggest people go back to the sources and see what WP:Reliable Sources describe as the Cyprus Emergency. For what it's worth, I've just examined my copy of Lapping, End of Empire, and it appears to me as if he counts both pro-Greek and pro-Turkish fighters as part of the fighting after 1952. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I would also agree on keeping the TMT in the infobox. That we cover the intercommunal aspect of the emergency in another article at the moment does not mean that the TMT was not a combatant in the emergency, I would personally have a separate article for that period of intercommunal violence anyway (acting as a sub-article of this) as I do not believe that it is a healthy approach to group it together with 1963-64, which was very different. I would propose having the TMT on a different column, though. --GGT (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A third column I can agree to, with a link to the intercommunal violence. That being said, the current version should be altered urgently, as placing EOKA and TMT on the same side is about as wrong as it gets. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the view that placing TMT and EOKA on the same column is inaccurate. --GGT (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Note your views. Can implement infobox change as soon as I work out how to insert a third column. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh no! Let's not go down the third column route! I know why people do it, but the result invariably is just a mess that doesn't make sense to anyone who don't have a working knowledge when they first see it - it kind of defeats the point of an infobox! At worst it ends up like Yugoslavia in World War II... Putting them on the same side (as long as properly separated) certainly doesn't indicate that they were allies of any sort! —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Three sides are accurate; we are not trying to force reality into infoboxes, we are representing the complexity of real, complicated situations with an absurdly simplified version. I intend to change the infobox to three parts. In any case, I have just received the following message from User:Ron1978:

"The Cyprus emergency version that you have reverted to, is a POV version of the story. The combatants are placed wrong, EOKA and TMT were not fighting together, but on the opposite sites, the number of British troops and police was not 17,000 but 40,000, EOKA was 1250 and not -, and the combatant casualties were 151 for the British and 108 for the EOKA and obviously not 371 killed by EOKA, and EOKA -, which is an obvious POV. I suggest of reverting to at list the following version, which is more NPOV, it is widely accepted, and is also covering the previous. You can add it and then ask the other users if they accept it if you want. I don't think that we will have any issues on this version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyprus_Emergency&diff=685628087&oldid=685620271. For more information on the subject you can conduct me, and discuss the issue more.Ron1978 (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC) If you decide to revert it, to the more NPOV and widely accepted version that I have suggested, then we can discuss on adding more NPOV information on the article, and make it a proper NPOV article. As it was reverted now though, it went backwards to a higher degree of POV.Ron1978 (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)"

I am no particular expert on the emergency, but Ron1978's version appears well referenced though the 108 figure reference must be improved. Does anyone else have any comments on Ron1978's preferred version? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A case for an EOKA victory definitely needs the backing of better sources. EOKA was fighting for unification with Greece, and the conflict ended with a treaty forbidding such a thing. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ron's figure about British deaths is definitely well-sourced and is fully supported by the source. The source he uses (see this edition, from the Oxford University Press) also tells about 203 Greek Cypriot civilians being killed by EOKA (so "371 killed by EOKA" is not that inaccurate). The source also talks about 56 Greek Cypriot and 53 Turkish Cypriot deaths in intercommunal violence - civilian or military not specified. The total death toll for the emergency is given as 509. This could be added to the infobox. The 108 figure has no reliable sourcing, I am afraid. The case for an EOKA victory is by no stretch of imagination acceptable. Sigmalive is a ridiculously unreliable source to use for this, we need more than one reliable (peer-reviewed, I would say) source for such a claim given the volume of academic literature on this. --GGT (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Having looked about five times at Ron's alternate suggested version, I cannot find a 'victory won by EOKA' anywhere. Can someone help me here? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Here. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

But it is not in the suggested alternate revision of 14 October that Ron1978 suggests reverting to. Please examine Ron's proposed diff linked in his section above, *not others*. Do either of you have a problem with the 14 October version linked above - that's the question I am asking. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Has he dropped this claim - is that what you're saying? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I do. The figure of 108 is not properly sourced. I commend Ron's effort to find the 156 figure, but the rest of the figures in the source should also be added while we are at it IMHO. With regards to the TMT being on the left-hand side, I still believe that a third column would be optimal but it is better than its being on the same column as EOKA, despite the line in between. --GGT (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what's the problem with having three columns, anyway. Why this insistence on keeping the TMT and the UK on the same side when there's another option? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn:, @GGT: please both of you take the time to *READ* this discussion carefully. I have said I will change the info box to three columns as soon as I find a three-column infobox to copy over. GGT, as referenced a couple of time above, the 14 October version, suggested by Ron1978 did not claim EOKA victory. This discussion is going to take *MUCH* longer if I have to keep repeating myself over and over!! Buckshot06 (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

If anyone can find a page with the template formatting for a three-column infobox that I can copy over, please advise. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: apologies if my comment caused misunderstanding. I am fully aware that that version does not feature a claim for EOKA victory and I do not think that my last comment mentioned anything about an EOKA victory. I believe that this is the version that you are talking about. I am only concerned because includes the TMT being on the same side with the British on the infobox (though I am aware that we will have three sections just mentioned it as it was not the case on the 14/10 version), the figure of 108 deaths for EOKA, and using the figures in the book by Simpson (source for the figure of 156) selectively i.e. not including deaths during the intercommunal violence and not including the number of Greek Cypriots killed by EOKA, all part of the death toll of the emergency. --GGT (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A three column info box can be found here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_occupation_of_the_PhilippinesRon1978 (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If everyone's pleased with the current version, I think we're done here? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Changes made 12/01/2024

Made a few changes, With regards to the result I just re-arranged and added the independence of Cyprus and placed the London-Zurich agreements underneath, with regards to support I added that Greece gave EOKA political support (UN summits) and Turkey likewise for TMT (Also added material support since they wre trained and armed by TMT and Turkish military), for EOKA leaders, some of the men there were not leaders but are now very important (Symbolic) for EOKA, E.g. Evagoras Pallikarides, he was not in any command position at the time of his death but his sacrifice and his young age are what makes him a notable member of EOKA, as such, I'm adding the district chiefs like Tassos Papadopoulos for Nicosia.ShovelandSpade (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The infobox result should be the London-Zurich agreement at is head regarding the result. The ENOSIS result should stay since it was it was important in the history of the island along with the failure of Turkish Takism which should also be included next to ENOSIS. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

With your logic we should add that the uk also didnt want independence under any circumstance and that failed, but again, its pointless, keeping it at independence not only rules out all other 3 (Enosis, taksim and no independence), its also the least likely to cause a conflict. Also important to note that EOKAs first goal, was "self determination and eventual union with Greece", as to self determination (independence) that was achieved, ShovelandSpade (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

For the first point you are wrong, the UK was already in a process of decolonization, and Britian wanted to avoid a civil war. Aslo EOKA's main objective was union with Greece even if the British granted independence. This has been explained in many sources. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

If the UK was in the process of decolonisation like you claim, they wouldnt have fought 4 years to not decolonize. Also it was said in the UK house of commons about Cyprus never getting full independence, Henry Hopkinson to be specific so there is that. Grivas quite clearly states in his memoirs the first aim was self determination and eventual union with Greece. ShovelandSpade (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/113we11.html "

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1959-03-19/debates/e972ca63-9370-410c-9982-b53762e60fdf/Cyprus

https://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/494?lang=en#ftn51

These 3 pertain to Hopkinsons statements so it doesnt get clearer than that as to British aims on the island ShovelandSpade (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Please stop the sock puppetry. Again you're wrong - George Grivas envisaged EOKA's guerrilla campaign as a 'means of compelling the British to negotiate seriously, union with Greece (enosis) rather than independence being the aim.' And that was a quote. So there from Grivas' mouth ENOSIS first. Debating about it in Parliament is not the full story. Note the Decolonization in the Mediterranean which is in the infobox, Britain wanted to keep the island as a means of post Suez Crisis but to keep two large bases on was satisfactory enough. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Judging by your talk page, youve had this problem before, clearly causing trouble on purpose, said it before ill say it again, enosis not happening is covered in independence of Cyprus, literally what independence means, I will be reverting your disruptive edits one last time, if you have such a serious problem with it, by all means, report me and we can have this settled elsewhere. ShovelandSpade (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, the suez crisis ended in 1956 if im not wrong, the Cyprus crisis went on until mid-late 1959 and what youre doing here is adding your opinion not facts. If you can find a source that says the uk only wanted Cyprus as a means to have access to the suez by all means. ShovelandSpade (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Also French isnt the most reliable source, he makes disputed claims in his book or at least outdated ones, E.g. Where he says Grivas attacked the Turkish Cypriots to stoke ethnic tensions, that claim is now verifiable false as a former Turkish Special Warfare Department has admitted that it was them that originally engaged in false flag attacks against Turkish Cypriots (The mosque incident being the most notable) to stoke the ethnic tensions on the island furthermore. ShovelandSpade (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Funny you say that about sources, when you keep linking bias info from EOKA Website which is rather Bias, Not to mention half of the links or references are complete bogus 86.7.30.90 (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is over and youre a troll, goodbye ShovelandSpade (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You will be reported if you keep making disruptive edits by removing sourced and factual information, Regardless of your childish attitude. 86.7.30.90 (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Sourced has to be reliable and/or factually correct. EOKA Bs existence disproves French's claim, and I'm not the one being disruptive here. ShovelandSpade (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

yes you are, Your the only one changing any pages in the last few months regarding the Cyprus Emergency, And it's rather obvious your Cypriot in the way you do kt as most of the "Sources" and "facts" you've posted are all heavily Biased from Greek websites no one could even confirm facts too, And you literally just keep deleting random bits of sourced Information, It's revisionist's like you that give Wikipedia it's bad name. 86.7.30.90 (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You are free to hold any opinion youd like (Btw youre editing off an ip that traces back to the UK and all your edits have magically been pro UK opinions with at times no backing) ShovelandSpade (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh and in response to your claim that im editing pages regarding the Cyprus emergency, yes I am, because most of these pages either lacked in sources or content and clearly need the updates. E.g. This page, a 4 year liberation war and there is barely any content to it even though major events happened in those 4 years and the events prior such as the 1931 revolt and the 1950 union referendum, so please by all means, how should I improve wikipedia by your standards, not editing it at all? ShovelandSpade (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Now that I have cited and sourced what was already there and has never been an issue until it was removed by you, and then you consistently want to keep removing it – I’d say that was disruptive editing. Please read WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Whether I have had this problem before is neither here nor there, I don’t understand why you are so fervent at removing the part of the result of the infobox, so why now? Your excuse at saying the source is unreliable is a matter of your opinion – the sources are WP:Reliable Sources and WP:PR. You are the one with your own opinion by questioning the author? The only sources you have provided are unreliable – particularly one. If you feel the need to for it to be removed (since it was already there) then a consensus needs to be reached. Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The Suez crisis changed Britain’s position so strategy was changed – I don’t need a source since the base of Akrotiri and Dhekelia.was the result – that is fact not an opinion. Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you should write to the author David French to verify your opinion on the matter. It seems you are using an unreliable source in the article. Perhaps you can enhance it further with reliable source content that is peer reviewed? The article is in serious need of expanding. Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

No need, the perpatrators confessed, immediately becomes a moot point. ShovelandSpade (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok I've changed it since you're too disruptive to make grounds with, I've added that Enosis and taksim did not happen, that the UK lost efgective control over most the island except for Akrotiri and Dhekelia and that EOKA was not defeated, all of which are true and since per your original point are important to Cypriot history ShovelandSpade (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, you're mixing opinion with fact where it suits you. ShovelandSpade (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I made my reasoning simple and concise, enosis obviously didn't happen since independence was achieved, based off of your previous edits you're not trying to inform but rather indirectly push a point that EOKA failed, something very few people would agree with. You previously stated taksim didn't happen and should be added, something again you did not do. Which again would be pointless because... you guessed it, Cyprus became independent. You're the one who's come and started trouble on this page again, clearly you can't be objective on the matter. ShovelandSpade (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Good. Thank you, and I concur with the infobox as is, and so with that, lets hear no more on the matter. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes sir. ShovelandSpade (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Reversion of edits 27/08/2022

@Eastfarthingan 1) The claims made by Nicholas Van der Bijl regarding Grivas being afraid is being reverted for the simple reason that the source is clearly biased and it is unsupported by other non bias sources. If you read the book description it calls EOKA a "terrorist organisation" which sure in his point of view it may be, he then proceedds to call Turkey's invasion of Cyprus a "intervention" which for context, is whitewashing the term "invasion of Cyprus", proceeding to later say that the UN has only 2 sectors which is categorically false, the UN had 4 sectors and are now down to 3 (Since 1993), this book was released in 2010, if he cant get a simple statistical fact correct which has no political implications then I have reservations about his trustworthyness elsewhere. Additionally, he served in British Military Intelligence (Not exactly someone who id trust to make a NPOV claim aboout the leader of EOKA), so making a claim such as Grivas was "embarrassed" and trying to use it as a fact is laughable. Its like me saying a British Officer wet his bed from fear of EOKA and using George Grivas or another member of EOKA as my source who werent even there to see (Sure it may be true but could you trust it?). I dont think I need to go any further into Nicholas van der bijl. 2) "EOKA's main goal to achieve ENOSIS however had failed, and although undefeated militarily, they had been defeated politically" again, EOKAs main goal was to get rid of British rule, something that was achieved, also saying a military organisation or rather a paramilitary/militant organisation was defeated politically is the equivalent to me saying the US military was politically defeated by the taliban, there is no such thing, whats more in this case, the political organisation was PEKA not EOKA. For reference, the 3 sources im adding now regards to this is one news outlet commenting on the declaration of the campaign by Grivas, the second is again in quotes the begining of the announcement by Grivas third source is a recording of the original announcement by Grivas in full so that these claims about who said what are resolved. I have since uploaded the audio to wikipedia too and will use it in this article as it is within the guidelines so that this whole issue is put to bed as it is tiring and annoying to keep having to address this issue. 3)French. French cannot be trusted to quote things about EOKA due to the simple fact that as he himself leads readers to believe, has never interviewed anyone on the other side, his sources come primarily from the British Armed Forces and British Universities. I have no issue with having him as a source if there are other sources which are cross referenced but this author when it gets to EOKA, lacks that. 4) "As the successes of the security forces increased, the tempo of EOKA's operation in turn decreased. By the end of 1958, EOKA had been dealt a body blow by the continued exertion of pressure by the British" Not only is that unsourced, but even French claims the exact opossite in page 248 of his book Fighting EOKA "But in early 1958 Grivas opted to intensify rather than relax civil disobedience. Hitherto it had involved only the enforced resignation of Greek Cypriot village authorities. Henceforth it would involve not merely the boycotting of British local establishing unofficial committees to arbitrate in civil legal disputes, thus making the government institutions but also efforts to create a parallel EOKA state by, for example, official court system redundant."

Im starting to get tired of having to come on this page every so often and needing to clean up your mess. Its clear that you have an issue with the result of this campaign but thats not anyone elses problem and yes though I also have my opinions on this conflict (clearly), I dont go around using one source which can be highly disputed or that cant be cross referenced or using language that can misinform or misslead people about the conflict, something you do and have done in multiple cases in this article. And it isnt just me with this problem, other authors who have written about this topic share my reservations about some of these authors due to their one sided nature such as Simon Couper, who I will add at a later date who was talking about EOKAs counterintelligence activities who says "The academic literature related to EOKA, however, predominantly reflects a British perspective. EOKA’s intelligence gathering and counterintelligence activities are largely neglected (French, 2015b; Robbins, 2012; Jeffery, 1987; Corum, 2006)". I think my point has been made and the infobox result needs to change because this article (Thanks to you) attempts to seriously downplay the success EOKA has and I will be using many different sources so that we dont have the issue of one-sidedness but for now these changes ive made will suffice. ShovelandSpade (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Clearly you have problems with sources, and you question them using your own POV. This is a well balanced article and yet every source I add you seem to question it, claiming it is biased. You also seem to have an issue with Holland now that I removed French's quote as clearly you disapprove of him. I aim to restore some of what I added and then integrate with what you have added. If you need to change anything else, then a consensus is needed. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies about the image removal, genuine mistake.Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I didnt say a word about Holland and no im not using my own POV, its the majority POV from many authors, the problem is, nobody seems to think the EOKA campaign was a failure except for one British Military Intelligence Officer and another author who only took the time into looking at the British militarys/ government POV so yes, that is clearly a problem. ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I said id look into Holland, I dont know the guy and I havent read his work, I dont see why you have a problem with that. ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You deleted the content that I used from Holland's book after I decided not to use French 's quote, as you had a problem with him. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Which content ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This one, but I have since shortened it - 'EOKA's main goal to achieve ENOSIS however had failed, and although undefeated militarily, they had been defeated politically'. I also didn't keep Iakovos Menelaou's quote about Grivas being humiliated by the agreement as you were also unhappy about that, as I'm happy to compromise. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Because there is qiute literally an audio recording, of the original speech made by Grivas himself who clearly states the goal of the organisation was to get rid of British rule and yet you still choose to write that enosis was the main goal (Also there is no need for caps) even though enosis was not the primary objective of EOKA. If you cant translate Greek thats fine, find a user who isnt me who can and they can tell you what is being said, the recording is there for the world to see. After the UK was to have been removed from the island then the enosis was to be achieved but that was not the primary objective of EOKA. ShovelandSpade (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

And yes I am familiar with wikis policy on primary sources but this isnt Grivas' book that makes a claim after the campaign, this was recorded "live" on the day April 1st 1955 where he clearly states what his intentions were. ShovelandSpade (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't question Grivas' goal to rid the British. If that was his primary goal then why was he so against the London Zurich Agreements and at Makarios for agreeing to it. If a source says enosis failed & Grivas was displeased then it stands. A consensus needs to be agreed upon. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

He was originally for it but later changed his mind, Im not 100% on why but with your same logic why would he ever have agreed to it in the first place if it was not his goal? Also I believe you that you think that Grivas' goal was to get rid of the British administration, youre simply trying to paint some form of EOKA failure which virtually no author agrees with your judgement on.

And again, you cant have Grivas saying (Literally in this case) one thing, and another author saying another, thats why I put the Holland source elsewhere so that it doesnt cancel him out, instead of it saying "EOKAs primary objective" which we both know it wasnt, I simply put that enosis and taksim were ruled out by the agreements, its literally as NPOV as it gets. Also as to the 'heavy heart' thing, again, youre trying to sway people to one side, its irrelevant how heavy or light his heart was, he abandoned enosis, thats the point of the source, unless the source was for some form of heart condition Makarios had? ShovelandSpade (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Please stop removing cited content. If you have a problem with it a consensus needs to be gained, I have already compromised changes you have made.

Please stop being childish and changing/removing them. Also, 'He was originally for it but later changed his mind' where is there a source for this? Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I made a mistake on the Novo edit and re-added it. Also as to Holland you may wish to take a look at page 3/5 in this review by Zenon Stavrinides (PhD) who is a faculty member of the University of Leeds and if you dont wish to download it or press the link ill copy paste for you "Holland's sources are for the most part offi- cial British reports, and these tend to be written in a language and style that express the characteristic anti-EOKA attitudes of the officials who wrote them."

Why is it that literally everytime I do one second of digging into your sources, it always boils down to either UK government agents or UK government sources? I wouldnt even have a problem with this if you were keeping it to military operations against EOKA but youre not, youre purposely trying to force a point of view that sheds this conflict in a different light than it was.

I am A-ok with you brining other people in on this and we can discuss your sources

1) Nicholas Van der Bijl - British Military Intelligence Officer

2) David French - Uses almost purely British government or British government sponsored sources

3) Robert Holland who not necessarily unreliable, a lot of his content is heavily reliant on official British government records, the same British government which (To all our suprise), was fighting EOKA (Yes that was sarcasm).

If you notice, I havent touched anything that relates to British military operations that has used these authors as references as given their expertise and specific knowledge on the subject, they will most likely know better about said operations taking place, but im not just going to allow you to try distorting fact with fiction because the British government says so (And yes im saying British government because all these authors' sources are from the British government).

So yes by all means lets get a consensus and also maybe we can judge the reliability of these sources when relating to the overall result of the campaign. ShovelandSpade (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

And btw failure to look at the provenance of your sources isnt my problem, at the very best if you continue to revert my edits even though im getting to the point just removing the POV language, the sources will either be tagged as failing verification or being tagged as unreliable because they quite literally are. As ive said, I have no issue when it gets to their use regarding military operations but to use these authors for anything else is intellectual dishonesty. ShovelandSpade (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This is fair enough, like I said I was trying to create a balance on the article. We'll see if there's a consensus on using said sources for anything else other than military operations. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. ShovelandSpade (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Infobox description

@Alexandros17 If you want to change the infobox it's better you bring that here to be discussed as not everyone agrees with that outcome. Also sourcing these things is usually a good idea. ShovelandSpade (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox result

I brought this point up a few months back when discussing with @Eastfarthingan, I believe that the infobox should be changed to EOKA victory, my reasoning for saying this is that most academic and historical researchers on this subject have co me to agreement that the EOKA struggle regardless of enosis being achieved or not, was altogether a sucessful campaign. Im not denying there are opossing views especially from authors like David French but this constitutes the minority view and should be included in the article as a seperate view. ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, and I don't understand why it is already being brought up again. The above quotes don't add anything new to what the article already has regarding the content within. The infobox has EOKA not defeated, which pretty much reflects all of the quotes above. I might as well add the argument the other way around, EOKA failed to defeat the British forces too. There is more of a political issue as we already know, and how many times have we harked on about ENOSIS. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Other users have clearly had the issue too and this is the result of the Cyprus emergency not the Cyprus problem, and EOKAs job wasnt to "beat" the British forces, it was to make them well give up basically, which they did. Grivas himself said itd be foolish to expect to defeat the British Armed Forces. ShovelandSpade (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Both sides gave up when the London Zurich agreement was reached, the article reflects that correctly. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

One side gave up, one side technically got what it wanted, hence why its celebrated as a victory in Cyprus and not in the UK (I think) ShovelandSpade (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)