Talk:EOKA/Archive 1

=Non-Neutral point of view=

The article is written in an anti-Eoka manner, which might make people visiting Cyprus to falsely believe that Eoka is considered by locals as something very evil. That is not the case. Not even close. Eoka is considered by most locals as a freedom fighting organization. In addition in the allegation section, the allegations are not just allegations. Locals are considering those people as heroes. I think many editors should be much more careful when writing articles about either Cyprus or any other country, since they jeopardize the visitors experience on the island. There is no point of writing or editing about a country for anyone that has never visited or have no clue on what is going on there. Ron1978 (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

killing civilian children is pretty evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.55.133.135 (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

EOKA
EOKA is a terrorist organization, responsible of massacre activities against Non-Greeks in the Cyprus Island until 1974 - aozan, 14:46 , 10 June 2005

Just read the article, I think the "terrorist" part should be omitted in the definition of EOKA, or rather replaced with "resistance" or a similar word, since -as is mentioned further on in the article- considered as a liberation movement by the majority of cypriots.

IM SORRY TO SAY HOWEVER YOUR FACTS ARE WRONG. AFTER BEEN RUN BY ENGLISH RULE FOR MANY YEARS CYPRUS HAD ENOUGH, HENCE EOKA ( freedom fighters).

Terrorism as opposed to military resistance
I replaced the term "terrorist organisation" to "military resistance organisation" because I felt that -despite the sabotage and guerilla methods of war used- EOKA is still being acclaimed by all Cypriots as a strugle for liberation, as is clearly stated in the course of the article. I believe that "military resistance" is a more neutral and objective term.
 * You felt? Feeling is not a way to write an encyclopedic articles. EOKA was considered as a terrorist organization both by UN & UK at the time it was active. Just because they succeeded in their terror doesn't make them a resistance organization. Can you imagine calling Al Kaida freedom fighters in the distant future? I guess not.

I think this article is fair and moderate in tone and, while it won't please everybody, it is one of the more balanced contributions related to Cyprus. I have made a few amendments to language, but the content of the article is really sound. Terminology is always difficult and change is welcomed, but I think this article is an excellent example for other people writing about similar issues. The users above should take note. Peeper 10:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you just use the term armed violence. Thus EOKA becomes a paramilitary organisation that resorted to armed violence to achieve the political objective of uniting Cyprus with Greece.Sceptic Anonymous 00:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the Greek community in the southern Cyprus welcomes EOKA as a liberation symbol. One should always remember however Cyprus has a Turkish population upon which the Greek Community still holds the Republic of Cyprus title, and this community has never approved EOKA. Turkish community have supported the British in their efforts to keep the island within the Common-Wealth. Hence I strongly would advocate EOKA to be defined similar to IRA

EOKA Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston, in English National Organisation of Cypriot Fighters) was a Greek Cypriot ethnicially biased nationalist paramilitary organisation that fought for the expulsion of British troops from the island, for self-determination and for union with Greece against the wishes of the sizable Turkish minority in the island inthe mid to late 1950s. The organisation has been outlawed and classified as a terrorist group in [Great Britain, Turkey] and many other countries..." Accounted 9:36, 19 June 2006

"The United Kingdom promised Greece that all the above would be a commitment to be fulfilled if Greece would enter World War II on the side of the Allies. Britain did not honor this commitment and EOKA engaged to free the Greek Cypriots from British rule. The leadership of AKEL at the time(a communist organisation) opposed EOKA's military action, preferring strikes and demonstrations, and thus making itself the only Communist party in the world that refused to take part in the anti-colonial struggle of its country". This came into direct contrast with the previous leadership who some 5 years ago organised and plebiscite of 1950, where the vast majority of all cypriot (Greeks, Turks, Maronites and Latins) vote for the union with Greece (98%). Also many members of the party fought in WWII on the side of the allies, in response to Britain's promise of union with Greece. AKEL was accused of receiving fundings from the UK communist party." There are so many factual mistakes in this short passage it hurts my eyes. There was no commitment by Britain to cede Cyprus to Greece, if so would someone verify this. At the plebiscite only the Greek Cypriots voted as the plebiscite was carried out in Greek Orthodox churches and the figure of 97.5%, to be accurate, includes only the Greek Cypriot community. The Turkish Cypriots were clearly against it. The quote about by AKEL being the only communist party failing to take part in an anti-colonial struggle needs to be referenced properly. Even so the comment is a bit harsh because the whole EOKA movement was quite suis generis compared to other de-colonisation movements as it sought to be incorporated with Greece. This political objective was closer to the irredentism of the 19th and early 20th century rather than the decolonisation process that was taking place in Asia and Africa.Sceptic Anonymous

Added names of Turkish Cypriots killed by EOKA during 1963-1974
Everyone can imagine, which term is right for EOKA: freedom-fighters or terrorists? Unfortunately, Greek cypriots are fed with nationalist propaganda and either do not know or do not want to know the truth.

Read and pay silence for those who were killed.

Pamir 00:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

... just to check a few minutes later and they are gone... so much for free speech here. Removing the names were as easy as to kill them, right? Or how did you feel when you did that, "Kirill"?

Pamir 01:04, 18 September 2005 (UT)

Mr. Pamir, yes Turkish Cyprios were killed by EOKA B' terrorists, but Greek Cypriots were also killed by your TMT terrorists, by T/C angry mobs and by the Turkish army in 1974. And, I don't think the one that remove the names you listed actually killed them, that was done by extremists and does not apply to all G/C so please calm down and stop characterising people.

Mr Pamir, did you also list the Turkish Cypriots TMT killed? I am by no means generalising here but such ignorance in Mr Pamir's comments is not surprising. TMT terrorists and corrupt Turkish military officers still operate in the occupied North of Cyprus to this day. Turkey has and will always have blood on their hands. The Turkish-held area declared itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and is recognised only by Turkey. Obviously letting the US have military bases in Turkey can literally let them get away with murder!!!

As a result of the Turkish invasion in 1974 over 120,000 settlers and Terrorist TMT military commanders and sympathisers were brought into Cyprus from mainland Turkey. This was despite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention stating that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

I totally agree with both TMT and EOKA B both being outlawed violence organizations. Never to forget that EOKA-B is referred as a terrorist organization by United Kingdom, Turkey and even archbishop Makarios on his speech at UN because EOKA B engaged in the killing of civillians. One should serious concerns however if EOKA is not better equipped to achieve its objective of enosis, since TMT was modelled after Gladio an underground resistance organization to fight a guerilla war during an enosis enforcement.(Tansu, Ismail. Aslinda Hic Kimse Uyumuyordu, Istanbul, 2000.)


 * See Words to avoid. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(ok there is a good bunch of men who deleted comments) also if you read this book you will see nothing is written about gladioGirayhan (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Flame baits
"AKEL opposed EOKA's military action, preferring strikes and demonstrations, and thus making itself the only Communist party in the world that refused to take part in the anti-colonial struggle of its country". So strikes and demonstrations are not anti colonial struggle? Tell Ghandi that! I'm removing this.Mavros 17:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Split the article?
I think this article should be split, since EOKA and EOKA-B are really two different organization active in different historical circumstances and with a considerable solution of continuity among the two. So a separate article titled EOKA-B should be created. Opinions?--Aldux 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said before, the split would be a good thing, as, while there is a contintinuity, there are much stronger differences due to the mutated political situation in Cyprus and Greece, and due to the far less autonomy of the organization, which became little more than a tool of the Colonels. Also, there is a solution of continuity between EOKA and EOKA-B.--Aldux 17:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I support this idea. Should this become a dab page, or just the stuff about EOKA-B removed? &mdash; Khoikhoi 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the anti-British group should remain here, as its name was EOKA, while the reformed group stuff, EOKA-B, should be removed and placed under EOKA-B.--Aldux 19:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I reject the idea on the basis that both organizations have shared the common goal of Enosis. Both EOKA and EOKA B pursued Enosis and not the Republic of Cyprus co-created by both communities. I understand the concern that EOKA B has overthrown a Greek government however you must provide that these are entirely different set of people. Yes the leader team in EOKA B included more Greek personnell however as far as I am aware the tactical level EOKA B activities were performed by same people those who fought British in the previous decade. -- Not really, EOKA was almost entirely destroyed by the British and when EOKA B was established Grivas had to recruit entirely new personnel, they were basically seperate organizations. They also diferred that EOKA never targetted Turkish civilians, while EOKA B did occassionally. -Kwstis

Wikipedia policy is that an article should be splitted if it is very long. EOKA and EOKA B have their similarities and differences. The leadership was almost the same. Few of them were not in EOKA B, like president Papadopoulos. They both did anti-communist struggle and cause bad effects to Cyprus. Some in the leadership which was the same, targetted also Turkish Cypriots. However it has its differences, like Makarios supporters did not take part, most of the members (not leadership) did really anti-colonial struggle etc..

If you see other encyclopedias, they are all in same article. So by all of this, I insist that article MUST NOT BE SPLITTED.]].--KRBN 22:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO EOKA-B should be a seperate article. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that the article ought to be split. The main reason is that they in fact were two separate organisations, but another reason is accessiblity: Users who seek information specifically about EOKA-B should not need to scroll past what is in effect another article about a related entry. --Thorsen 17:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course the article should be split. EOKA and EOKA B' were two separate organisation (hence the different names!). Larisv 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

EOKA-B
I dont understand; EOKA-B is a terorist group who killed Turkish Cypriots. I have many Greek Cypriot friends who accept this.

I am sure you do. You may even have many Greek Cypriot friends who believe that they have been abducted by aliens, that doesn't make it true, does it? Larisv 18:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone in Cyprus(in both sides) knows that first EOKA was formed to kill "British Invaders" and second EOKA (namely EOKA-B) was formed to kill Turkish Cypriots including citizens.

I dont know about the first but second EOKA-> EOKA-B should be called terrorist organization and the article should state that it was formed to kill Turkish Cypriot citizens in 1974 which resultet in "1974 Turkish Peace Operation" (which by the way saved my grand father and his family including my father from the EOKA-B camps)

Ok, the only problem with this argument is that from the day EOKA B' was formed until the day the Turkish forces landed in Cyprus and (along with some very eager TMT 'fighters') started killing, raping, torturing, looting and ethnically cleansing the areas under their occupation or their Greek Cypriot inhabitants, the only Turkish Cypriot EOKA B' casualty was a young Turkish Cypriot boy who had fallen off his biken and scratched his knee when he heard shooting far away in the Greek Cypriot quarter. Larisv 18:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

These aricles must but stated as "under discussion" because there is 2 sides of every history of cyprus. An Encylopedia should not write opinions as facts —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epinox (talk • contribs) 13:02, 25 October 2006.

EOKA B wasn't formed "to kill Turkish Cypriots" it did killed Turkish Cypriots, sometimes, but it had the same aim as EOKA. Mitsos 22:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Mitsos, EOKA B' probably never had even a single encounter with Turkish Cypriots. Larisv 18:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, EOKA-B never had an encounter with the Turkish Cypriots until July 20th 1974, when the war started. This article should be kept as neutral as possible. User383739 08:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

EOKA B' did not exist on the 20th July 1974. It had been dissolved about a month earlier when all its leadership was arrested and kept in custody. Larisv 11:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree EOKA A and EOKA B is very different to put them together would be a very erroneous assumption of the part of this website

EOKA B' - Neutrality Dispute
It's really difficult to find a part of this section that is factually accurate. It's amazing how, when people talk about EOKA B' they really let their imagination run wild. The whole section has to be deleted and a new stub article has to be created specifically for EOKA B'. Larisv 11:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course i support the idea. EOKA B doesn't belong in this article. Constantinos7 09:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

EOKA B is very different than EOKA A. Although they both had a declared goal of union with Greece, there is enough evidence that the Greek Junta helped create the organization to further it's policies in Cyprus. EOKA A is celebrated by the mainstream G/C whereas EOKA B is considered by a huge majority as a foreign controlled organization and the Cypriots that partipated "traitors". The most lenient G/C consider EOKA B members as naive and the most harsh as paid agents. EOKA B should definately be a separate article. Costas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Costasvouno (talk • contribs) 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have separated the two. Meander ₪ 07:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Although the articles have been separated, EOKA-B (unlike EOKA B) still redirects to EOKA. This should be fixed. Languagehat (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

HIMEOBS
What is the "HIMEOBS" acronym mentioned in this article? the Internet only has 4 references to it, all of which appear to point back to this article (where it isn't explained). --mgaved (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Further Separation of article
I think that this article (which is still very poorly written and cited) needs to be split again. Although undeniably EOKA is intricately related to the struggle, I think that it should be split into: The article EOKA should concern itself mainly with the organisation itself, its inception, makeup, ideology etc, whilst the second article should concern itself with the conflict itself and with all factions involved.
 * an article titled EOKA
 * and an article titled the Cypriot struggle for Independence

Similar examples of such arrangements can be found with articles on:
 * 26th of July Movement and the Cuban Revolution
 * Kosovo Liberation Army and Kosovo War
 * Rhodesian Bush War and Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army
 * and several more

Any objections or other thoughts?

Georgeg (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Struggle for independance is a loaded term. It should be a more neutral Cypriot Independence Movement or somesuch.

I'd agree otherwise though, the EOKA were murderers and terrorists. There were also many decent, rational people pushing for Cyprus independance.--Him and a dog 08:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree a new article is needed. However, I disagree with the title Cypriot Independence Movement. I think the name needs to show that this was a conflict and the word movement does not reflect that. StephP (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a conflict however the movement went beyond that, it was ultimatly peaceful discussion that did the trick. Makarios wasn't a part of EOKA for instance, his followers took a far more Ghandiesque route. --Him and a dog 21:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi all, I agree with the overall concept. And it is necessary. I think the wording however is not 100% justified. The will of the cypriots at the time (from what i know) was 1. to force the british out, and 2. Union with Greece. In my opinion the article's name should be Cypriot struggle for self determination, thus including all reasons why cypriots back then fought. There were petitions to the UN and the British colonial rule, supporting the latter. Those can be used as references. The fact that the British in the after math (because of the struggle) concorded to the creation of an independent country, Cyprus does not, in my opinion mean that the struggle itself was for independence. Independence if i am not mistaken was a compromise between Makarios and the British so that the struggle would end. It is this agreement that a minority of Greek Cypriots back then, decided to nullify by creating EOKA B. Regards, Meander ₪ 09:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:Josquius comments, “murderers and terrorists” depends on whose side you are on so I think that comment is his POV and unfortunate if not extreme. Respected publications such as the Britannica and Hutchinson’s, do not use such descriptions.

However, that is not why I started this discussion, so returning to the issue of a separate article I agree with him in that Cypriot Independence Movement is a better title. It is more inclusive of other groups and as he mentions the one held by Makarios’ faction. The actual guerrilla war waged by EOKA could form one section of the article and if it ever grows to a considerable size it might end up with its own separate one later on. There has been another suggestion by Meander (on my talk page) to title it Cypriot struggle for self determination which I think is also better than my suggestion. Maybe even Cypriot Movement for Self Determination? Georgeg (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't what this is for Cypriot intercommunal violence? Or am I jumping ahead? El Greco(talk) 19:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be mistaking the era. The article you refer to, concentrates on inter communal fighting (between GCs and TCs) between 1963-1974 (as indicated in the opening paragraph and infobox). The article I am suggesting, deals with the period before that and during which EOKA was active. Some information is of course shared.Georgeg (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay. I figured I was jumping ahead some years. I agree then with an article about EOKA and another about the "struggle for independence". El Greco(talk) 00:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cypriot struggle for self-determination would not be an npov title. Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots had different ideas of what self-determination meant, to group them under a catch all "Cypriot self-determination" would be misleading. A better suggestion is Anti-colonial uprising in Cyprus or something similar. --A.Garnet (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Makes sense in a way but again that would place too much emphasis on the rebels and ignore tbe peaceful movement. Perhaps 'Movement that led to Cypriot independance'? That was the end result even though that wasn't a major aim at first.--Him and a dog 16:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys, that is the essence and the beauty of the term self determination. Think of it in this way, Cypriots had a different understanding of what self determination meant that is why they were devided into two camps. But the essence is the same. Both major communities in Cyprus fought for self determination, their right (by UN definition) "all peoples have the right [to] freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development". Cypriots of Greek origin wanted to rule themselves, while Cypriots of Turkish origin decided at first that it would be better if colonialism was preserved. All these may be explained in the article, and the title would be representative, because both Turkish and Greek Cypriots had paramilitary organisations to achieve their aim and both "struggled". Meander ₪ 11:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Originally I thought Cypriot Independence Movement was not a particularly good title, but having looked around I came across the Indian Independence Movement, a well digested and mature article. It incorporates the different factions involved in the Indian version of events vs Britain. On the other hand the title, Cypriot movement for self determination incorporates the way the movement was reported by the mass media of the time and the words used by AKEL, EOKA and Makarios. Everyone seemed to be talking of 'self determination' at the time. I think the title Anti-colonial uprising in Cyprus is not broad enough plus there were several uprisings against the British before the final one in the 50’s.StephP (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * True, self-determination could mean anything. I like thelast one mentioned 'Cypriot movement for self determination'.

Ok then, I will start working on an article titled Cypriot movement for self determination. Feel free to contribute. Georgeg (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It would still be a pov title Georgeg. What your essentially describing is a Greek Cypriot campaign for enosis, not a pan-Cypriot movement for self-determination. Turkish Cypriots were not part of this so called Cypriot movement, they were vehemently against it. So to title the article as you suggest, your essentially stating the Greek Cypriot pov that enosis was a legitimate act of self-determination. It is not a descriptive title, but a prescriptive one in which you are applying a judgement on the nature of what happened. That is why I suggested something descriptive as "Anti-colonial uprising in Cyprus". Someone complained this does not take into account the peaceful side of the uprising, so perhaps Anti-colonial movement in Cyprus would be better. --A.Garnet (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

IRA nationalists' cooperation with EOKA nationalists
As I stated in the discussion page of the Irish Republican Army article, I believe a section should be created in this article (as well as the IRA one) that goes into detail on the obscure but very fascinating fact of Irish-Greek cooperation against the English. As previously stated, "After all, Irish and Greek nationalists were imprisoned together in English prisons and, from what I understand, the Greeks considered the Irish as 'brothers-in-arms'". There should be an abundance of Hellenic, Irish, and English sources on the subject. Critias (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist vs. other terms
I have change the term "terrorist" to "military resistance" as discussed before. The term "terrorist" is subjective and reflects only one point of view. (Mazkyri (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC))


 * You did well. Oh look... --Adoniscik(t, c) 18:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

and what is terorism mazkyri? isnt it killing a man by draining his blood?killing wives and children? and who had deleted my addings —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girayhan (talk • contribs) 23:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with Sheepskin
Is anybody aware of a relationship between EOKA and Sheepskin (Operation Gladio)? I ask because I have read allegations to that effect:. If true, that would mean Operation Gladio was supporting both sides of the conflict, at least until the invasion, when the U.S. withdrew its support to the Turks. --Adoniscik(t, c) 18:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Greece's involvement in WW1
In the first sentence of "background" paragraph, the author claims that Greece didn't take part in WW1 on the Allies' side. Has someone vandalised the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisThat911 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

citation 10
what is it mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girayhan (talk • contribs) 00:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation 15 and 16 are both broken links. Haven't checked the rest of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.192.190 (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Status of Terrorism
Realising this is a highly contentious issue seems to be beyond the vandalistic tendencies of one of the IP editors. Also, some of the sourcing for the Turkish perception of EOKA seems to come from a propoaganda website, rather than an official website.

I suggest that "Perception" replace the word "Status", since the term is subjective.

I also suggest that in the interests of NPOV, the Greek Cypriot opinion also be represented here, under a title "Perception as a Popular and Appropriate Movement."

In this respect, EOKA can then be identified from both points of view.

Copperhead331 (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed your contributions. I pretty much doubt the value of a "Perceptions" section here. What will it contain exactly ? The Greek and Turkish narratives are pretty much obvious, so is the British stance of that period (i don't believe we can speak of an official British historical view or policy on how to treat this historical organization, and that can be said as a general rule, modern states don't have policies on how to evaluate past events that don't affect their present interests, with a few exceptions like the French recognition of the Armenian genocide).The article already contains a coverage of the facts that raise some controversy over EOKA's actions, if someone feels this description should be expanded he's welcome to try. But creating a section that will open the door for a random spew of the sort the previous versions had, gaming with terms like "terrorist" that carry strong negative connotations, is not a good idea, even more so in this context where we're more talking about a political application of the term.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ideologically Right wing
I am sorry to say, but I do not think EOKA was ideologically right-wing. There is no single declaration of EOKA during its 4 year presence being defined as right wing. Please remember that many of the people who would form the Socialist Party EDEK were ex-EOKA fighters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew oni (talk • contribs) 07:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * AGREE. There still appears to be lots of segments here that should be moved to the separate EOKA B section. For example, near the bottom there is mention of EOKA A and it is being accused of what EOKA B did. EOKA A needs to be segregated cleanly from EOKA B. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A good and neutral reference

 * This is a good and neutral reference. This should be used in article to ensure NPOV. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Pilots Christof
Unless someone can give a valid reference for this Pilots Christof claim in the Events section it should be deleted.StephP (talk)

The date on the monument in Larnaca
Why does the monument have the date 21 March 1957? --The long road homw (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Reference"
I have removed the "reference". The first sentence I have left alone.

"There were no fundamental economic problems nor was there widespread poverty or food shortage. A good example was the case of Algeria where the uprising was fuelled in part by a poor wheat harvest, shortages of manufactured goods, and severe unemployment. See article: Nationalism and resistance in Algeria< /ref>" --The long road homw (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

- Why was this removed? It seems like a relevant note. StephP (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"one of them my eight-year-old class mate Mustafa"
This paragraph was added recently. It is not encyclopedical since the viewpoint is—not in quotation marks—of the friend of a described victim. I have removed the paragraph.

"Muratağa, Sandallar and Atlılar are the three Turkish villages that were attacked by EOKA which was founded by Greek Cypriots as a part of a plan named “Acridas” to eliminate all the Turkish Cypriots within 72 hours. On August 14, 1974, 126 innocent Turkish civilians were killed, one of them my eight-year-old class mate Mustafa. Only three people somehow managed to escape from the massacre in Atlılar. All the dead were buried in mass graves by bulldozers. The United Nations described the massacre as a crime against humanity, by saying "constituting a further crime against humanity committed by the Greek and Greek Cypriot gunmen." The massacre was reported by international media, including The Guardian and The Times. Paul Sant Cassia, Bodies of Evidence: Burial, Memory, and the Recovery of Missing Persons in Cyprus, Berghahn Books, 2007, ISBN 978-1-84545-228-5, p. 237" --The long road homw (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

references

EOKA HYMN
Can anybody provide a link to EOKA hymn/anthem (music+lyrics)? Thanks! Etan J. Tal(talk) 18:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It is "EOK-A", not "EOKA"
Please change the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk • contribs) 19:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Any comment please? ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 05:45, 16 June 2014 (UThC)

Hi, Why should it be EOK-A? Do you mean EOKA-A as in the first EOKA campaign?Lefterisg9 (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EOKA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518083948/http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/eoka-fighters-sue-brits-over-torture/20110414 to http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/eoka-fighters-sue-brits-over-torture/20110414

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on EOKA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216001406/http://www.britains-smallwars.com/cyprus/war.html to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/cyprus/war.html
 * Added tag to http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/christofias-comments-spark-eoka-storm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225140244/http://www.simerini.com.cy/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=192716 to http://www.simerini.com.cy/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=192716

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)