Talk:EOKA

message: , 
*why did you remove the text about how the torture case settle?
*How many sections on torture would like the article to host? 3? 5? 10?  Cinadon36 (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you remove this section ? And lied with a misleading edit summary? The material you removed does not appear in any other section. And why are you so keen to minimize allegations of torture by the British? Answer. Khirurg (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

text: A)You didnt answered at my first Question. Answer. B)I removed it because torture allegations are discussed in detail at two separate sections: "EOKA lawsuits against the British government" and "Detention Camps and claims of torture". Foreign Office declassified documents are primary sources for researchers to examine. Why should we have a separate chapter on those documents? Cinadon36 (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The material you removed does not appear in any other section. And you used a deceptive edit-summary to conceal the removal. Next you do this...well, you know. Khirurg (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not. The material is a comment on primary sources and there is no reason having a section about it. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Utter nonsense. With such "logic" (and I use the word very loosely here), anything can be removed from any article.  Bottom line: The material is reliably sourced to The Guardian. Do not remove. Khirurg (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, here is a proposal, why don't you merge the two sections? Cinadon36 (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The declassification of documents is something relatively recent and an altogether different type of event from those described in the article. That said, a section on "Use of torture by the British forces" might work. Khirurg (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not that different type of event. The declassification led to the lawsuits: "The claimants, now in their 70s and 80s, launched their legal battle in 2015 after government documents detailing their treatment were declassified in 2012"  Cinadon36 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Talking about torture again and again

message: Ok, Khirurg reverted my last edit due to "organizations don't have "death tolls" - conflicts do" . The added text was: 
David Carter has published the most comprehensive list of the death toll due to EOKA's action. 
Death tollaccording to David Carter	
British armed forces               	Number of Deaths
Infantry                           	80
Aviation                           	16
Marines                            	7
Navy                               	1
Police                             	
British                            	12
Greek Cypriots                     	15
Turkish Cypriots                   	22
Others                             	2
Citizens                           	
British                            	26
Greek Cypriots                     	203
Turkish Cypriots                   	7
Others                             	2
Total                              	393
On the other hand, 85-91 EOKA's guerillas were killed by the British forces. 17 more died by self-made bombs that exploded in their hands.
Can anyone suggest a better wording so we can add the info to the article? Cinadon36 (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not getting it. I used that as an example to show you how POV your wording is. Saying that all these deaths are "due" to EOKA is no different than saying they were "due" the presence of British colonial administration on the island. It is simply wrong and POV to attribute, and blame, EOKA, for all the deaths. These data belong in an article on the Cyprus independence struggle, not here. Khirurg (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I it not my POV wording. It is what the RS is saying. If you don't feel comfortable with the word "due", feel free to change it. These data are important to this article because they give an impression on how deadly EOKA's struggle was. And a lot of RS are mentioning them as well. I can't see where the problem is. Cinadon36 05:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  and there's as clear a declaration of POV-pushing as it gets. For the last time, wars and revolts have death tolls, organisations do not. Saying all these deaths are "due to EOKA" is the crudest POV-pushing. For example, the deaths of EOKA members at the hands of the British are not "deaths due to EOKA". But if you  then I have nothing more to say to you. Khirurg (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: How comes it is POV pushing Khirurg, I am writing what Richter wrote in his book. Will you be ok if we attribute this data to Richter? Do you suggest another wording, be my guest! Not including vital material in the article, is not a solution~ Cinadon36 06:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please listen to what Khirurg is telling you. You are trying to push a POV. It is clear that you do not understand or you don't want to admit to the fact that you are pushing this POV. This is your problem, not anyone else's. Dr. K. 10:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not POV, but if it were a biased statement, we can attribute and the problem is solved. Cinadon36 10:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If after all this conversation you still insist that it is not POV, then there is not much I can do. But don't go around telling people that Khirurg is not replying to you. He is. I am. You just refuse to accept the validity of the well-justified objections we raised. Dr. K. 05:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not POV as the proposed text is a fact, not an opinion. But nevertheless, we could attribute.Cinadon36 06:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

text: All of that said, I would tend to agree that the chart presented above which led to this dispute would be massively excessive, particularly if it necessitates its own subsection.  I suggest a much more modest one-sentence, attributed statement which says something to the effect of "According to [Source], EOKA may have been responsible for as many as X deaths (including Y number of British personnel and Z number of civilians), although other assessments put these figures at..." et cetera.  Since I do believe that this RfC is likely to resolve with a consensus for including some discussion of the number of deaths attributed to EOKA activities (insofar as sources clearly exist for such figures), I'd urge both sides to try to compromise here and reach wording that everyone can live with, so as to roll discussion of the exact wording into one discussion, rather than dragging it out across several. Again, maybe I'm missing some editorial history here, but I see no reason why this dispute can't be resolved with one straight-forward sentence detailing these figures in a neutral fashion.  Without such a middle-ground solution, the likelihood of an outcome to this RfC that one side absolutely abhors increases, and this issue will remain an unstable point of contention for longer than I think is necessary, based on the sourcing I am seeing here.  Snow let's rap 07:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  for your input. The reason I used a table to depict the number of deaths, it is because the fatalities break down to many subcategories and that would make the sentence a little bit awkward. But if it would help to resolve this dispute, here is my proposal (based on yours of course): . We could add it at the end of #Armed campaign. Anyway, thanks again.Cinadon36 09:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: Certainly not a matter of POV. The numbers are not a matter of dispute, and if they were, if anyone finds other accounts at academic literature, he is welcomed to add those numbers. Moreover, the statement is attributed. So, there are no valid arguments supporting the case for POV. The same goes for WP:WEASEL. No "Words to watch" are used here (pls have a look at the policy). I agree with  on WP OTHERSTUFF (I'd say it is whataboutism, a fault argument). His suggestion on the wording is quite reasonable. Cinadon36 08:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you don't score any points against me by advising me to . You may not be aware of it, but is standard to refer to WP:WEASEL to cover also "weasel insinuations", so your advice to look it over misses the point entirely and fails to deliver on its weasel insinuation that I have not read the guideline. And it is not a policy, it's just a guideline, part of the WP:MOS. Read it before you comment on it. As far as the rest of your points, you mechanically utter them every time I make a comment. I repeat: Don't feel compelled to respond to every single comment I make in this RfC. This is a wiki.  This means other wiki editors can inform us with their opinions. If you are correct they will agree with your points. Repeating them to me, Khirurg, and others, every time we comment is just your own echo chamber and it is not needed. It also reveals a certain degree of insecurity about your arguments. If you are so certain about them, let others adopt them. Your repeating them ad nauseam, does not make them any more compelling. For this reason, I will not reply to you any further. But if you like your own echo so much, please feel free to fill this RfC, which you created, with your needless replies. Dr. K. 18:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

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

text: Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Death toll

message: Should the article include number of fatalities of EOKA's struggle?Cinadon36 13:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: All of that said, I would tend to agree that the chart presented above which led to this dispute would be massively excessive, particularly if it necessitates its own subsection.  I suggest a much more modest one-sentence, attributed statement which says something to the effect of "According to [Source], EOKA may have been responsible for as many as X deaths (including Y number of British personnel and Z number of civilians), although other assessments put these figures at..." et cetera.  Since I do believe that this RfC is likely to resolve with a consensus for including some discussion of the number of deaths attributed to EOKA activities (insofar as sources clearly exist for such figures), I'd urge both sides to try to compromise here and reach wording that everyone can live with, so as to roll discussion of the exact wording into one discussion, rather than dragging it out across several. Again, maybe I'm missing some editorial history here, but I see no reason why this dispute can't be resolved with one straight-forward sentence detailing these figures in a neutral fashion.  Without such a middle-ground solution, the likelihood of an outcome to this RfC that one side absolutely abhors increases, and this issue will remain an unstable point of contention for longer than I think is necessary, based on the sourcing I am seeing here.  Snow let's rap 07:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  for your input. The reason I used a table to depict the number of deaths, it is because the fatalities break down to many subcategories and that would make the sentence a little bit awkward. But if it would help to resolve this dispute, here is my proposal (based on yours of course): . We could add it at the end of #Armed campaign. Anyway, thanks again.Cinadon36 09:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: Certainly not a matter of POV. The numbers are not a matter of dispute, and if they were, if anyone finds other accounts at academic literature, he is welcomed to add those numbers. Moreover, the statement is attributed. So, there are no valid arguments supporting the case for POV. The same goes for WP:WEASEL. No "Words to watch" are used here (pls have a look at the policy). I agree with  on WP OTHERSTUFF (I'd say it is whataboutism, a fault argument). His suggestion on the wording is quite reasonable. Cinadon36 08:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you don't score any points against me by advising me to . You may not be aware of it, but is standard to refer to WP:WEASEL to cover also "weasel insinuations", so your advice to look it over misses the point entirely and fails to deliver on its weasel insinuation that I have not read the guideline. And it is not a policy, it's just a guideline, part of the WP:MOS. Read it before you comment on it. As far as the rest of your points, you mechanically utter them every time I make a comment. I repeat: Don't feel compelled to respond to every single comment I make in this RfC. This is a wiki.  This means other wiki editors can inform us with their opinions. If you are correct they will agree with your points. Repeating them to me, Khirurg, and others, every time we comment is just your own echo chamber and it is not needed. It also reveals a certain degree of insecurity about your arguments. If you are so certain about them, let others adopt them. Your repeating them ad nauseam, does not make them any more compelling. For this reason, I will not reply to you any further. But if you like your own echo so much, please feel free to fill this RfC, which you created, with your needless replies. Dr. K. 18:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

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

text: Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: If one of the two has to be included (Im not convinced about either tbh) it should be British not English. --Greece666 (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeap, anti-british seems better. Cinadon36 18:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-English vs anti-British 

message: Seems obvious to me that it is. No secondary work on EOKA is giving such a detailed analysis of that document. At least not a book in the sources give such a detailed analysis. Not Richter, not French, not Holland, not Newsinger, not even Barnava whose book was published by the "EOKA fighter Commitee". So why are we discussing in such a detail the EOKA lawsuit? I am worrying that it is UNDUE and hence POV-pushing as it falsly glorifies EOKA fighters (and put shame on UK), for something that literature haven't yet examined. It is clear that the text of our article is solely based on newspaper articles, no academic work, as the rest of the EOKA article. 
The specific section is 4,212 bytes, in an article of 52,611 bytes, that is 8% for an insignificant lawsuit, not mention by anyone but newspapers. 
I am opening this discussion because my edit was reverted by Dr.K. (Dr.K. elsewhere told me he doesn't need me to ping him) Cinadon36 09:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguments are pretty specious. The argument ad libris you are advancing is ridiculous. I am not going to discuss why books do not cover material that top notch newspaper RS cover in depth. The second nonsense argument you are advancing is that the EOKA victims of torture by the British colonialists get "glorified" because an account of their lawsuit against their torturers is presented in this article. I am not going to discuss this nonsense. You say you are afraid that torture details "put shame" on the UK. Why are you so concerned about that? Are you here to defend Brit colonial torture tactics? Or are you here to deny that torture was administered in Cyprus by the colonialists, despite what RS say? You also connect accounting for this torture to POV-pushing. You had better stop these weasel WP:ASPERSIONS against editors you disagree with. Come to grips with your POV. You have no arguments removing this well-sourced information about torture by the Brit colonialists. You are trying to remove, for no valid reason, a reliably-referenced paragraph, of modest size, on very important legal aspects of the excesses and torture perpetrated by the British colonials. This paragraph is anything but undue. Your argument that it is not found in books, is also very low-grade and doesn't make any sense. Try that at WP:RSN and then observe the laughing wave emanating out of the noticeboard. Alternatively, try to change the WP:RS policy to exclude high-grade newspaper RS in favour of books. Then observe how far you will go on that front. Dr. K. 22:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The "newspapers" that Cinadon36 describes with such derision are reliable sources. Removing the content is out of the question. Seems like a case of WP:JDL and nothing more. Khirurg (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. Dr. K. 00:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Well, Dr.K. dont get me wrong, I couldn't care less for UK's fame. But the problem is that we are making a point at the article, that torture was a widespread and acceptable practice, which is not true, at least according to RS. No RS says that UK was implementing torture and no author is giving such a depth coverage to the controversy. As for the " ad libris argument", I can guess the meaning of the phrase but I do not know exactly what it really means. As for the RS-argument, I have never claimed that most of the text should be removed because of the sources are below standards. So it seems that you are missing the point. Anyway I am heading to NPOV noticeboard as you have suggested at your edit summary [- in a day or so. CheersCinadon36 13:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  This indicates that either you have not read the section or that you are misrepresenting the section content. Nowhere in that section there is any hint that . I repeat: The section contents provide factual details of the lawsuits of Cypriot torture victims against the Brit colonials. Nowhere it is stated that torture was widespread or acceptable. That there was torture employed by the Brit colonials is an accepted and  undisputed fact. Also you don't have to link to my edit summary, although you misrepresent this too. I did not tell you to go to NPOVN, I told you to go to RSN. There is no NPOV issue here. But you are free to go anywhere you want. It is your WP:WASTEOFTIME, not mine. : You wrote in your edit-summary:  This is a clear ad libris argument. Please own your nonsense and don't try to weasel out of it.  As far as your novel "argument ad libris", it is translated as "the argument from books". See "Argument ad ignorantium" as an example. Needless to say, your ad libris argument is not worth the bandwidth it is transmitted on. Dr. K. 18:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You still do not get the point. No-one disputes that of alleged victims of torture sue UK. What is in question is the Importance of that lawsuit that ended out of court with UK not accepting that torture was employed. It is not a fact, as you claim that  , as you falsly claim. It is an opinion by many, but not a fact. It is already mentioned in another paragraph.("Detention Camps and claims of torture") So, what is the point on re-visiting torture? None. Cinadon36 18:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

text: *I have added well-sourced facts from RS. This has improved the stable (not "staple") version. Gain consensus at whatever noticeboard you are going before you blank anything, else you will be reverted. Dr. K. 19:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nonsense. I claim nothing falsely. Once more: Stop your weasel WP:ASPERSIONS. There are many RS analysing in detail the torture that was perpetrated by the Brit colonials in Cyprus. There are even undisputed confessions by Brit torturers. Do not try to whitewash torture by weasel insinuations and blanking. And do not edit-war to blank until you gain consensus to do so, which you currently and quite clearly do not have. Dr. K. 19:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there may be a reading comprehension issue here. "Staff", "staple version". Unfortunately for some people, competence is required. Khirurg (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling incompetent and making fun of the English of a user who has repeatedly made valuable contributions. Not only the section that Cinadon mentions but the article as a whole has NPOV issues and his arguments should be taken a lot more seriously than they are now. Greece666 (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: His "argument" is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is not a serious argument, and therefore gets treated as such. Even worse though is that this user tried the same exact thing back in April , and with a deceitful edit summary on top of that. This is WP:LTA at this point. Khirurg (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is baffling how he has been destabilising the article since last April by trying to remove this section, and then talking about the stable version of the article which includes the section he has been trying to remove since last April.. Dr. K. 01:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you  are trying to misrepresent my argument, that doesnt mean that it is IDONTLIKEIT. Cinadon36 16:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

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

text: I think it should be kept as is. With the relevant citations included I think it's given due weight, especially with the length of the article in full.Cook907 (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  but can you pls provide the reasoning for your opinion? Why should we have such a huge section, while other parts such as the death toll of EOKA  is trimmed to one sentence? Cinadon36 23:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Put down the stick and slowly back away from the horse. Khirurg (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

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

text: Thanks for your input . You are right in most of your remarks. It is kind of pity because this article could acquire a GA status with a little work. The overall narrative should include and explain the POV of all parties (and all RS) As of torture, it is not a big deal in any major work on EOKA and it shouldnt be here. What is also needed is to re write introduction. Feel free to make edits and improve the article. Cinadon36 12:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is section "Foreign Office declassified documents and EOKA lawsuits against the British government" unnecessary or too long, resulting inUNDUE weight? 

message: doesn't make sense, at least not in English. I noticed it used to say something different, citing the same references. See this version, where it says . I have no particular preference regarding the latter wording, I assume it was accurately cited to begin with, so have restored that. FDW777 (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  for your comments, I think you are absolutely right. If it goes on, I will notify an admin. Cinadon36 13:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP has been dealt with, do you have any preference on the wording? I only restored the wording including public utilities because the "targeting civilians towards local population" wording didn't make sense. FDW777 (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  EOKA, according to sources, targeted not only British security forces but  British civilians and Greek-Cypriots as well. Many left-wing Greek-Cypriots, were not in favor of EOKA and were not getting in line with EOKA's agenda. In early 55, collaboration with the government meant giving info to British sources. In 1958, a collaborator was anyone who was not supportive of EOKA. That 's why scholars named it a terrorist organization- it is vital to explain that the definition of collaboration expanded from 1955 to 1958, so reader will have an understanding of the situation. Cinadon36 13:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no problem with any of that. The difficulty I had was the existing sentence made no sense, and I had no access to references to correct it. But as stated, I did find a prior version of the article citing the same references with a different wording, which I assume was also correectly cited. If the wording was changed to  that would make sense in terms of sentence construction, but that might not be the point references were making. FDW777 (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is exactly the point of sources. I am for including it.Cinadon36 14:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just make whatever changes you want to the text, and if it doesn't make sense I'll let you know. FDW777 (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbled sentence amended 

message: I am confused by the sentence "A substantial number of Turkish Cypriots fled from the southern parts of Cyprus and moved to the northern side due to the violence.", cited to the Greek translation of Richter's book. Northern Cyprus as a concept didn't really exist until 1974, so it doesn't make sense. It's also not supported by other sources. Niyazi Kızılyürek's Bir Hınç ve Şiddet Tarihi (Istanbul Bilgi University Press) confirms that Turkish Cypriots fled to town centres or bigger villages from mixed/small villaages in 1958. The PRIO Displacement Project details displacement at village level and generally supports this. I propose that we remove this sentence from the article (we also need a separate article for the intercommunal violence in 1958). --GGT (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It was referring to the geographical North Cyprus, not the TRNC that is informally known as "north cyprus". I understand the confusion, so I thanks for your edit.Cinadon36 13:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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