Talk:Evagoras Pallikarides
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evagoras Pallikarides article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Why POV dispute
editThe article reads like a praise for E.P... There is no discussion of the complicated issue around the period... or anything but about how brave he was. Compare Patrick Pearse for an example of how someone many consider heroic (but that some others dislike) ought to be written. Cheers V. Joe 12:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the POV as their is no reason for being there as Joe said ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.253.50 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Why POV, by Paragraph
edit1)Early years- This paragraph seems, OK, although the section about the boycott of QEII's coronation probably needs a citation.
2) EOKA- "When EOKA began the struggle against British colonialism in 1955."- This is highly loaded language, suggesting that British colonialism was implicitly something bad. (Your opinion may vary, but it is certainly outside the scope of this article. If Pallikardes had been a pro-British policeman, it would be equally inappropriate to say something like "E.P. was greatly involved in the suppression of disloyal elements in protecting the Crown." Perhaps a more neutral modification would be "When EOKA began an anti-colonial movement in 1955, E.P....." The rest of the paragraph, oddly isn't bad.
- DISAGREE since that was what EOKA was struggling against. That's the name of the organisation and that was their job description. However, we can add something that says something like "The British considered EOKA to be a terrorist organisation." It is pretty obvious that was the case from the British perspective. But let's face it the British were in another country (they weren't in the UK). It's a bit rich to criticize them as terrorists whilst they were revolting against unwanted foreign rule. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
b)EOKA II This paragraph also doesn't start off badly, but this sentence here is a particularly egregious example of bias "as Evagoras had taken down the British flag although he knew full well what the consequences of such an act would be." I have no idea what a dead guy thought about anything, and neither did the writer of this article. Truth was, he probably was aware of the consequences for his act, but we don't know that... For all we know, he did it out of pique and regretted the consequences later, unless he specifically wrote a letter or something stating that it was part of a plan or whatever... And even then he would probably be an unreliable narrator (e.x. Caesar or Churchill)
- NEUTRAL. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
c) Summary- I think this article still reads entirely too much like a panegyric to its subject. E.P. may or may not have been the Cypriot George Washington... but it is not the place of a wikipedia article to TELL how good someone was... but to show him as he was, flaws and warts and all. V. Joe (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- AGREE. He wasn't the Cypriot George Washington. However, he was widely considered as a hero. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Songs and Poems
editSome believe that he also wrote a song about greece (or a poem) but am not sure of the name of the song/poem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.237.105 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)