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 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)