![]() | A fact from Pushbacks by Greece appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 November 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | On 5 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Pushbacks in Greece to Migrant pushbacks in Greece. The result of the discussion was moved. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
06:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Created by Buidhe ( talk). Self-nominated at 11:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC).
a human rights violation that encapsulates a will to eliminate a person’s presence on the face of the planet, which was added by you. Khirurg ( talk) 02:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
That's simply untrue, InfoMigrants is a journalism outfit based on a media partnership, not a NGO let alone an "activist" one, and the EJIL Talk piece is expert analysis, not from their editorial section. As for third party mediation, sure why not? But I can't see the use in repeating points that were ignored the first time. ( t · c) buidhe 12:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
– Okay, the "neutrality" tag, which was preventing me from approving this nomination has subsequently been removed as result of a discussion on the talk page. Thanks to
Grapple X for the comments. Again reading the article, it seems that this is ready to be approved. –
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk)
04:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The article has severe POV issues.
I don't know the basis for this. This figure is summarizing the paragraph in the body about BVMN's findings about migrant abuse. If you want to change it to "vast majority" I don't object. I think it does have to be attributed as it's hard to quantify and I suspect Greece disputes it.We are not here to discuss what Greece disputes. As editors our duty is to summarize with plain wording what is stated in the main body of the article. If Vast Majority is an accurate term for 89% then this should be used instead of statistics themselves. Also no need to mention sources on lead otherwise it is like giving them more prominence. Sources may be explicitly mentioned by name in the main body of the article instead.
I've changed the quote to a paraphrase so let me know if that is better.It is.
I don't object to including something like this but I don't understand what "legally shields" is supposed to mean. I also think that without further clarification this could be misleading to readers who don't understand the difference between national, international, and EU law. As stated above any changes in Greek law don't have an effect on Greece's international obligationsOur role is to cover all different views on the matter even if we are not legal experts. By the way, if I am not mistaken, this legal shield is abit complicated. I myself am not certain yet how exactly it works but the following Google results may give you more insight on the matter: [7].
"Allegations of shootings" is misleading. As I state above, there's no dispute that the two men were shot, which "alleged" suggests. The dispute is who did it, with Greece saying it's not responsible and Forensic Architecture's investigation concluding that they probably are. In one of the cases, eyewitnesses said that the victim was shot by Greek soldiers.When we are adding the allegations of shootings in the present article which is specifically about Greece ("Pushbacks in Greece") but these sources refrain from confirming Greece's involvement in them for certain, then the editors ought to carefully name the section as to not imply the opposite, that Greece is indeed involvement in them. Due to the lack of WP:EXTRAORDINARY sources confirming these extraordinary claims, and due to past experiences where testimonies by immigrants were proven to be fake (such as the pushback incident in Evros border where the Turkish government-controlled media asked the immigrants to remove their clothes, and pose naked to the camera for propaganda reasons, that "Greece deprived them of their clothes and pushed them back naked into Turkish territory": [8]), editors are urged to be extra careful here with sources suggesting such possibilities and individual immigrants making big claims, and considering that the country where the immigrants are coming from, Turkey, is being accused by the international community for using the immigration card for political purposes. The section name will have to reflect this for NPOV reasons. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
[n]o new evidence is being presented today. So why is all this being replicated, two months later?.
Comment: Since the POV concerns of mine have been addressed, I would like to ask the other editors if they have any POV concerns still? If all NPOV issues have been addressed and everybody is satisfied, then we may we proceed with the removal of the POV tag. Good day. ---
❖ SilentResident ❖ (
talk ✉ |
contribs ✎)
19:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
The addition of "coercive engineered migration" cannot stand without attribution, no it does not need attribution. Are there reliable sources that challenge this assertion? Is it controversial? No and no. Therefore, no attribution is needed. Otherwise, it is necessary to "attribute" most of the article, since almost all of it is based on allegations by highly partisan NGOs. I'm getting the impression that this whole "attribution needed" is simply a pretext for removal of reliably sourced information that does not site well with some editors. And as SilentResident said, it is directly related to safety. The pushbacks don't happen out of the blue. The article is in general very one sided, and this information is critical to provide the reader with context. Khirurg ( talk) 23:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources that challenge this assertion? Is it controversial?actually, yes and yes. Turkey is under no obligation to prevent anyone from leaving the country. When it does, it violates the right to leave, a fundamental human right. You can read about it in this Council of Europe publication on the topic.
(outdent) Well, well, well, would you look at this? Turns out wikipedia has an entire article dedicated to the weaponization of refugees! And eve more interestingly, you edited that article [9], meaning, you know very well about this. Hoooo boy, there goes good faith. Khirurg ( talk) 01:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
More sources: [10] [11]. Heck, there is even a doctoral dissertation on this topic [12]. More than enough to create an article about it. Oh, wait... Khirurg ( talk) 01:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I came across this article as a result of the above DYK nomination and wanted to cast a neutral eye over things; I have no dog in the hunt as it were so hopefully any assessment of material/sources will act as an impartial second opinion. Here are the points I have identified for possible concern/amendment
Hellenic Coast Guard often use violence during these actions, stab migrant boats or shoot into the water.This is currently backed up by one source, and although Der Spiegel are largely very reliable, I think a single-source claim in this instance should be attributed; "It was reported by Der Spiegel that..."
@ Grapple X: Some sourced material that I had added regarding the engineering of the migrant crisis by Turkey, which led to an increase in pushbacks, has been removed [13]. Could you please have a look? Thanks. Khirurg ( talk) 21:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
In February 2020, Turkey announced that it would no longer prevent Syrians from leaving and bussed some to the border. There was also at least one case in which migrants were coerced into leaving Turkeywhich is well-supported. This is what was mentioned above when I discussed a preference for citing Tijdschrift voor economische over the Associated Press; the description of the situation by a peer-reviewed journal is going to be more dependable than by a newswire. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The organization is repeatedly cited for its reports by various international news organizations, eg. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] as well as academic works [24] [25] [26] I believe it's correct to attribute this organization's findings, so the charts are clearly labeled with the source of the information, but I don't see any reason to remove them. ( t · c) buidhe 05:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
First of all I would like to congratulate @ Buidhe: for creating this article, the work done and his obvious interest in human rights. Though I must note a major drawback of the article. There is no real Secondary Source present. Not an Academic work, a paper at a peer reviewed journal, a book, a chapter (or even a subsection at a chapter), dedicated to the subject that could guide us on the structure and at the overall narrative. The inevitable outcome is that this WP article seems like a ship in a storm. Ok, I understand that this is a notable topic, but notability is not enough in order to build a robust article. So I think, Buidhe, we must think what to do with the article, maybe merge it with another one and just leave a redirect? What are your thoughts? I understand this is a new article and someone might improve it with time (but without a strong RS- I find that difficult). Cinadon 36 10:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I've added some sourced material that was removed with the explanation that "it contradicts everything else in the article". But this is not true. For instance, the Mare Liberum source clearly states that Turkey forced thousands of migrants to the border in February 2020: At the end of February, Turkish President Erdogan drove thousands of refugees to the Turkish-Greek border in a sinister political game.
. So rather than disagreeing, the other sources in the article actually back the material. Pushbacks occur within a certain context, not out of the blue. If the article is to be balanced, the context needs to be provided to readers. Also, the North Macedonia pushbacks sentence implies that Greece is pushing migrants back into its own territory, which doesn't make sense. I would also like to know why the sentence regarding the German ship "Uckermark" was removed.
Khirurg (
talk)
00:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, the North Macedonia pushbacks sentence implies that Greece is pushing migrants back into its own territory, which doesn't make senseIt doesn't matter whether you think it makes sense, it matters what reliable sources say. Chain pushbacks are reported in various parts of the Balkans where migrants are pushed back from Country A to Country B and immediately to Country C through cooperation of the authorities of A and B. ( t · c) buidhe 01:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The country is winding down an aggressive two-week operation to move tens of thousands of migrants to its frontiers.(referring to Turkey), so again that seems to agree with BIC rather than contradict it.
I suppose this is the place to discuss the statement that the migrant crisis was to a certain extent engineered by Turkey. It was removed recently but there are actually plenty of sources which confirm it. Alaexis ¿question? 08:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The article title is one-sided and biased and will require move into a new title that reflects on the fact that the Pushbacks weren't limited in Greece only but occurred on both sides of the Greek-Turkey border. Titling this article "Pushbacks in Greece" without reflecting on the sources reporting that the pushbacks happen in Turkey as well, is one-sided against the one side and negating the involvement of the other side in these pushbacks. My proposal is to move it to Pushbacks at Greece-Turkey border or something like that. This way, all the pushbacks that happened near, or at the borders between the two countries, are reflected accurately on the article title.
The main article, Pushback (migration) already covers the incidents in Northeastern Europe with the section title "Poland–Belarus border" rather than "Pushbacks in Poland" or "Pushbacks in Belarus" and I believe it will be much better if the same is done for Greece-Turkey border pushbacks. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the title is ok. It is supported by RS, and is a notable theme. Pushbacks in Greece do occur within the context of immigration, but since there are enough RS to discuss pushbacks, there is no need of merging the article or expanding it so something new. Cinadon 36 06:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
We can have an article about pushbacks and tax evasion in every country where the topic verifiably occurs." is finding me agreeing absolutely. However mind you: the tax evasion articles are supposed to cover both sides: the causes for this tax evasion (high taxes imposes by the state) as well as the reactions (citizens evading them). The name Tax Evasion is inclusive title by nature (and certainly more than the partial articles "High taxes" and "Tax evaders" could be), allowing to cover both aspects of the problem called Tax Evasion: the state and the taxpayers. So, do you understand why your stance here with "Pushbacks in Greece", (a partial title suggesting that the issues of migrant mistreatments occur only on the one side of that border, and thus, is whitewashing the other side of that border) is problematic? Not including both sides, is not what I would call neutrality I am afraid, because only the problematic policies of the one side in the border are reflected on the article title even though the sources verify that both sides in the border are resorting to problematic policies against immigrants. This is unacceptable to say at least.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 07:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
. (Actually, Wikipedia's naming guidelines favor clarity over ambiguity, and thus, Greece-Turkey Migrant border crisis can be even better so that it doesn't get confused with another border dispute, the Aegean dispute). If you feel that isnt enough then we can work this out.
The idea that "Greece–Turkey" in the title would be appropriate also strikes me as wrong as the article also detailed incidents along the border with Macedonia and so this isn't just one bilateral relationship." Sorry for the slow reply but I am really confused. I keep looking at the article about that but I can't seem to find anything at all. Even if there was, I am not sure I can follow you: Turkey doesn't border the region of Macedonia in any way. Geographically speaking, Greece's Western Thrace, as well as the Bulgarian Thrace, are separating Turkey from the region of Macedonia, including the Greek portion of that region in either way. Perhaps you mean the Greek Turkish border? That's at Thrace, not Macedonia, and the border has has already been covered and is not affected by a title correction in any way, since the new title also covers it. Like I said above, content from Greece-Turkey land border can be merged there once the title is updated in line with the sources. Edit: If by bilateral relations and Macedonia you are referring to North Macedonia, still I am not finding anything that seems to be related to it either. Some clarity will be appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
a more neutral approach to the issue by covering all the parties responsible for the pushbacks within this area, and rather emphasize on one country's pushbacks—The scope of an article titled "pushbacks in Greece" seems clear. This is obviously going to discuss pushbacks happening in one nation's sphere. If you wish to have an article discussing, for example, Turkish instances of this happening, by all means, begin one; if there are sufficient sources to support it then it is notable enough to need covered and we should do so. But it is not correct to take a narrow scope and force it to broaden beyond its remit. This is not a non neutral title; I feel that your impression of a lack of neutrality comes only from the fact that it discusses one nation, but it has no need to do more than that. Broader coverage is better achieved in another article—see for example, Category:The Holocaust by country; rather than over-load one article with information about multiple nations' experience and involvement, a range of articles can be used to cover differing scopes. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it may be appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles" For the split to count a such, a parent article covering the topic, has to exist first of all. Buidhe created the migrant pushback articles within the same week and out of the blue, when they found sources reporting on the migrant crisis that is ongoing in both sides of the Aegean which confirm the pushbacks happening, but chose to ignore anything on the topic except the migrant pushbacks. Ignored what is happening both before the pushbacks and what after, and has focused solely on the pushbacks themselves, preventing the readers from understanding the whole situation. The readers do not know about the incidents occurring right before pushbacks, nor about the dysfunctional asylum processing services, nor about the living conditions in Turkey for migrants, nor about the smuggling networks, nor about the Turkish authorities doing nothing to crack down Aegean Sea's smugglers, nor that these pushbacks are the country's problematic reaction to these aforementioned problems. By leaving all this valuable information out of the article, Buidhe only aims to show one-sided perception that Greece is causing the problems in the region, instead of pushbacks being Greece's problematic answer to a complicated situation in the Aegean sea and the problems coming from the Turkish coast, as well as EU's and the New Democracy government's policies against immigration and how regional politics intensified the rate at which these pushbacks occur. Neglecting to add info on what and why this is happening, is not helpful for the readers to get the full picture of what's going on around there. The fact that the readers not knowing the whole picture behind the pushbacks doesn't bother you, is worrisome at best. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Buidhe only aims to show one-sided perception that Greece is causing the problems in the region
, demonstrates the lack of good faith. Anyway, clearly this is a notable topic and a standalone article. Whats, hows and whys can be addressed in this article, under this title, I do not see any problem.
Cinadon
36
06:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
demonstrates the lack of good faith" Exactly. And correct me if I am wrong here, but for assuming good faith, is necessary that editor Buidhe avoids an WP:OWN attitude here on this article and try cooperate with the others instead of reverting them. Per: WP:OWN: "
it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them—even if you think they are acting as if they "own" the article. (See also Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.)" Now, regarding what you said: "
Whats, hows and whys can be addressed in this article, under this title, I do not see any problem" I am glad to hear that. If the content in the article is balanced and the NPOV issues addressed, then I have no reason to raise my wp:neutral concerns here any further. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 06:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
why wont you just add it? Has anyone stopped you?" The reverts. Wasn't that obvious already? If you didn't notice the history log, they happen quite often and the fact that they may extend even to my own edits considering how certain editors tried to limit the scope of the article, is why I am present in the talk page only. Don't you think it makes sense? Anyways, we will see if content is indeed tolerated.
I think this incident should be mentioned in the article. A journalist asked a question on Pushbacks the Greek PM, received an angrily reply, next days there was a digital witch hunt against her, she received threats and she claimed that someone throw stones on her. After asking the advice from Dutch embassy in Athens, she left Greece.
Sad incident but worth including. Cinadon 36 06:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Unless it is backed from sources, it is SYNTH. Cinadon 36 10:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
References
@ Alaexis:, I do not think that the WIKIVOICE should be that Turkey is engineering this crisis, as you have inserted. [32] I understand that it is an opinion shared by many (esp conservatives in europe) but it does distort the story that refugees are seeking actively to go to Europe. By not stopping them, Turkey is not engineering the crisis. Cinadon 36 08:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Cracking down smuggling networks are obligatory—I'm not sure what the basis of this is in international law, perhaps you can enlighten me. ( t · c) buidhe 09:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
"Cracking down smuggling networks are obligatory"—I'm not sure what the basis of this is in international law, perhaps you can enlighten meBuidhe, if you don't know that Turkey is obliged to combat human traficking networks, then you should update yourself about the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings laws in both EU and Turkey (Turkey is member of the Council of Europe). If you do not know about human traficking being illegal, then perhaps you aren't suitable for editing such a sensitive topic. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 09:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
While it's certainly the case that Turkey encouraged migration to Greece for a few weeks in early 2020, what reliable sources say that those who left Turkey from April 2020 to November 2021 (the subject of most of the media coverage on Greek pushbacks) were "engineered" by Turkey? I don't think any of the cited sources support that assertion. ( t · c) buidhe 09:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Also this should be covered more thoroughly. The problematic policy of pushbacks by the Greek government gained momentum and intensified as response to the Turkish authorities encouraging the migrants to flood Greece:
[35]
About 13,000 migrants have gathered along the 212-kilometer (125-mile) border between Turkey and Greece after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened to allow refugees to cross into Europe, the United Nations said on Saturday.[1]
Turkey cynically pushes migrants toward coronavirus-hit Europe.[2] Othon I ( talk) 10:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Comment: The responses in this talk page, and not just only this section here, instill me little faith that neutrality is everyone's highest priority. Added POV tag.---
❖ SilentResident ❖ (
talk ✉ |
contribs ✎)
11:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion focused. Multiple reliable sources report that Turkey plays an active role in the migrant crisis (engineered, drove, encouraged, coerced etc) so we can absolutely say it in wikivoice. Considering the threats made by Erdogan, I don't think you'll even find a source which would deny it. Regarding Buidhe's comment that it just happened for a few weeks, it's contradicted by RS. Here the Washington Post reminds us of the similar tactics with the Syrian refugees in 2016, and Turkey was criticised for the same thing in 2019. This is highly relevant for the topic of this article, for example Vice discuss the Turkish policy when talking about pushbacks.
Of course, a lot of migrants want to come to Europe anyway and many would have come even if Turkey had been completely passive. We should not make it seem like Turkey is responsible for all the migration into Europe. However its active role is well documented and should not be ignored in this article. Alaexis ¿question? 12:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
This policy(neutrality)
is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @ Alaexis: for your reply though I do not agree. I feel you are mixing opinions with facts. Maybe a more detailed discussion on the role of Turkey is warrant at the main body of the article and then reconstruct the lede. Cinadon 36 13:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Both the Euractiv source reporting the Nov 2021 video and
this article from the Independent report the contents of the video as Greek claims, not undisputed fact. Rightfully so, as there has been no independent journalistic verification of the incident. Now, we as Wikipedia editors don't get to look at that video and say "oh yeah, that looks legit enough", that's the very definition of
WP:OR. The most that we can say is to mirror those sources and report this as a Greek claim, which is
WP:UNDUE for this specific individual case. We certainly don't get to then decide that this merits to be in Wikivoice as the evidence of a purported 'coercive engineered migration' policy that has been ongoing for the past two years, despite a peer-reviewed academic article clearly stating that Turkish border policy returned to normal after the episodes in early 2020. Those episodes are already discussed in the article and it would be inappropriate to expand further upon them - the subject of this article is the Greek policy of pushbacks, not the Turkish border policy. Should there be more encyclopaedic material on this, it can be added to other appropriate articles, which can be signposted from this article. And it is certainly massively undue and completely inappropriate to try and insert a quote from a report by an intern in a niche think-tank with zero clout into the lead. The POV-tagging frankly reeks of
WP:JDLI. The POV-tagging seems to be not more than a case of
WP:JDLI. --
GGT (
talk)
00:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
(unindent) I don't think anyone disputes that in February and March 2020, the Turkish government engineered a border crisis, which resulted in increased pushbacks. This is solidly sourced. Yet, as it stands, this information is barely mentioned in the article. So yes, I would say we do have a NPOV problem in the article. Khirurg ( talk) 04:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment: There are academic sources that describe Turkey's role in migrant crisis as "engineered migration". Turkish professor Ayan Kaya states that:
It seems that Turkey falls into this category of states [i.e. states who practise engineered migration] under the AKP rule, a party that tends to use migration as leverage to achieve goals in both international relations vis-à-vis the EU member states and the Arab world, as well as in domestic politics following the mass migration towards the Middle East before 2015 and towards Europe in 2015. (p. 23)
When 34 Turkish soldiers were killed in an air strike by Syrian government forces in the northwestern Idlib province on February 27, 2020, the Turkish army immediately responded with explosive drones targeting the regime forces. One day after the incident, Turkish state actors, primarily the Minister of Interior, announced that they have opened the borders to let the refugees head towards the EU via the land and sea borders with Greece and land borders with Bulgaria. As soon as the news spread around the country, many buses, taxis and cars full of refugees were already on the way to the western borders of Turkey, mostly towards Edirne, the northwest land border, and towards Çanakkale, the western sea border near the Greek island of Lesbos.The situation at the Turkish-Greek border led to the rise of a new refugee crisis in the EU. (p. 34)
Besides even Turkish pro-government media proudly proclaims that Turkey letting loose refugees on Europe "makes Europeans terrified". [40] [41] I can't see any reason not to add this information to the article. Best regards.-- John the Janitor ( talk) 09:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ John the Janitor: and thanks for the high quality academic sources. I am not disputing that Turkey periodically opens the gates at the borders, I am disputing that this could be called as "engineering the crisis". Calling it as "engineering the crisis" means that Turkey is the prime mover of migration, instead, refugees are active in their pursuit to leave Turkey (and their countries, usually because of poverty and wars). Engineering implies pushing, while in reality, Turkey decides from time to time, not to hold back refugees. There 's a difference among the two ways to put it. Also, note that the first source does not categorically states that Turkey is engineering migration. Maybe we should summarize conclusion than cherry pick a line or two. Cinadon 36 09:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Nice to see that Talk page discussions yield positive results. Cinadon 36 13:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
When saying that they defended Greek border policy, we mislead the reader that they defended Greek pushbacks. Cinadon 36 20:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
“I am absolutely convinced that this prime minister and this government is applying the highest standards and the fact that they have immediately launched an investigation on the issue of the pushbacks is testimony of that…What this country is trying to do is to defend the outer borders of the European Union. It is a lot of tasks that countries have who are lying on the outside like Italy, Spain, Hungary, Slovenia, but also Poland and Greece, and there is an extremely difficult situation.” “What I don’t want again is for people to take boats that are not fully equipped to pass the Mediterranean or to pass the Aegean Sea, to die in those circumstances. I want them to stay there [in Turkey], to be safe, and then we are willing as European Union to take a fair share of people from Africa, from Turkey – refugees, in line with the plans devised in 2015 [the EU-Turkey Statement on refugees-migrants] and 2016.”What else do you need? If it continues like this an RFC and possibly a DR will be in order because you follow the WP:IDHT to the point. Othon I ( talk) 15:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Why do you think I havent read the source? My point is that Dutch PM is not talking about pushbacks, he comments on the official border policy of Greece. Take it anywhere you wish. Cinadon 36
Try to establish compromise instead of edit warring. And a more civil manner would be helpful. Cinadon 36 19:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Try to establish compromise instead of edit warring.You wrote it. Follow it.
And a more civil manner would be helpful.There is nothing civil in your WP:JDLI mass-reverting edit-warring. Don't be disingenuous. Dr. K. 20:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Where did Dutch pm talk about pushbacks? Cinadon 36 19:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
“I am absolutely convinced that this prime minister and this government is applying the highest standards and the fact that they have immediately launched an investigation on the issue of the pushbacks is testimony of that…What this country is trying to do is to defend the outer borders of the European Union. It is a lot of tasks that countries have who are lying on the outside like Italy, Spain, Hungary, Slovenia, but also Poland and Greece, and there is an extremely difficult situation.” “What I don’t want again is for people to take boats that are not fully equipped to pass the Mediterranean or to pass the Aegean Sea, to die in those circumstances. I want them to stay there [in Turkey], to be safe, and then we are willing as European Union to take a fair share of people from Africa, from Turkey – refugees, in line with the plans devised in 2015 [the EU-Turkey Statement on refugees-migrants] and 2016.”. You're welcome. Khirurg ( talk) 20:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who was present, defended the Greek government, pointing that it is in line with EU regulations and that Greece is protecting the EU's outer border". I don't think anyone would believe that there are no pushbacks... everyone knows that the current New Democracy-led government of Greece does not really give a damn about human rights, only pretends to be caring about them. Of course, had the text been writing: "
The Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte defended the pushbacks.", then I would agree with you that it would constitute a source falsification, and thus, warrant removal from the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I have made a WP:BOLD edit to the sentence as per my suggestion above. Feel free to revert and discuss if you think it is not appropriate. -- GGT ( talk) 19:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I removed this sentence from the article, as it was a clear WP:BLP violation in the way that it was inserted. The relevant bits from the policy are: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance." This was clearly not followed in the sentence that I deleted, which reported the accusation but not her response to it. Another aspect to bear in mind is: "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."
I note that whilst her arrest in June was reported at the time by the Guardian, their recent article about the exchange with Mitsotakis fails to mention her arrest. Same goes for Reuters. That to me indicates that her arrest is not directly relevant to the topic of this article and that we must err on the side of omitting it from this article. I must note that Beugel seems to clear the WP:GNG bar - editors might be interested in creating an article about her with more biographical details and then linking from here.
-- GGT ( talk) 20:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Unsigned diatribe
|
---|
Why aren't editors of this article also contributing to Wikpedia articles of pushbacks in other countries?As per above... Chinese pushbacks https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/06/china-stop-expelling-refugees Brazilian pushbacks https://www.npr.org/2018/08/20/640350156/venezuelan-refugees-face-violence-and-closed-borders-as-they-try-to-flee Hungarian pushbacks https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/29944/hungary-4903-pushbacks-after-eu-court-declared-them-illegal Austrian pushbacks https://www.dw.com/en/austria-persists-with-relentless-hard-line-on-asylum-seekers/a-53232600 Turkish pushbacks https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/oct/14/afghan-refugees-accuse-turkey-of-violent-pushbacks Dutch pushbacks. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2016/01/dutch-plan-for-eu-refugee-swap-with-turkey-is-morally-bankrupt/ And so on. Google "pushbacks" and pick a country and you'll find no shortage of articles of countries trying to keep out and/or deport migrants including asylum seekers. If I point out the obvious that Greece is being singled out on Wikipedia, someone manipulatively tried to delete my valid criticism without even addressing my point... thus my charge of prejudice. |
Where should we insert such information? [46] Which is the most relevant section? Cinadon 36 09:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hmmmm....Maybe the article needs restructuring. Cinadon 36 11:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
"Violence, ill-treatment and pushbacks continue to be regularly reported at multiple entry points at land and sea borders, within and beyond the European Union despite repeated calls ... to end such practices," Grandi said in a statement.". The source also confirms what I have been saying for months in this talk page: that pushbacks aren't occurring only in Greece, are part of the broader anti-immigration policies of Europe: "
Pushbacks have also been occurring in other central and southeastern European countries, Grandi said.". Like I have said above: If you both editors insist that the pushbacks are a Greek thing only, then don't expect the other editors to agree with your calls for article restructuring when such obvious POV issues aren't resolved first, and which are the result of you ignoring what the sources (even the one you presented!) verify about the broader nature of pushbacks. My position still stands: For the POV tag to be removed, the article will need to be renamed and restructured and its scope expanded to cover the "Pushbacks in Europe" as whole instead of framing out a specific external border country like how you did with the title "Pushbacks in Greece". The European Migrant Crisis isn't a country-exclusive thing, is an European, hence the title, and so are the pushbacks of migrants across the EU borders, and hence the article needs to be moved to Pushbacks in Europe.
The result of the move request was: moved. No participation since last relist. Moved to alternate suggested title "Pushbacks by Greece". ( closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 11:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Pushbacks in Greece → Migrant pushbacks in Greece – The term "pushbacks" is a bit ambiguous for the average reader, and the new title would naturally disambiguate the article's subject. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 18:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 08:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
criticism of or resistance to a proposal( quoting Wiktionary here), I don't think it makes for a useful title on its own. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Pushbacks by Greece appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 November 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | On 5 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Pushbacks in Greece to Migrant pushbacks in Greece. The result of the discussion was moved. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
06:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Created by Buidhe ( talk). Self-nominated at 11:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC).
a human rights violation that encapsulates a will to eliminate a person’s presence on the face of the planet, which was added by you. Khirurg ( talk) 02:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
That's simply untrue, InfoMigrants is a journalism outfit based on a media partnership, not a NGO let alone an "activist" one, and the EJIL Talk piece is expert analysis, not from their editorial section. As for third party mediation, sure why not? But I can't see the use in repeating points that were ignored the first time. ( t · c) buidhe 12:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
– Okay, the "neutrality" tag, which was preventing me from approving this nomination has subsequently been removed as result of a discussion on the talk page. Thanks to
Grapple X for the comments. Again reading the article, it seems that this is ready to be approved. –
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk)
04:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The article has severe POV issues.
I don't know the basis for this. This figure is summarizing the paragraph in the body about BVMN's findings about migrant abuse. If you want to change it to "vast majority" I don't object. I think it does have to be attributed as it's hard to quantify and I suspect Greece disputes it.We are not here to discuss what Greece disputes. As editors our duty is to summarize with plain wording what is stated in the main body of the article. If Vast Majority is an accurate term for 89% then this should be used instead of statistics themselves. Also no need to mention sources on lead otherwise it is like giving them more prominence. Sources may be explicitly mentioned by name in the main body of the article instead.
I've changed the quote to a paraphrase so let me know if that is better.It is.
I don't object to including something like this but I don't understand what "legally shields" is supposed to mean. I also think that without further clarification this could be misleading to readers who don't understand the difference between national, international, and EU law. As stated above any changes in Greek law don't have an effect on Greece's international obligationsOur role is to cover all different views on the matter even if we are not legal experts. By the way, if I am not mistaken, this legal shield is abit complicated. I myself am not certain yet how exactly it works but the following Google results may give you more insight on the matter: [7].
"Allegations of shootings" is misleading. As I state above, there's no dispute that the two men were shot, which "alleged" suggests. The dispute is who did it, with Greece saying it's not responsible and Forensic Architecture's investigation concluding that they probably are. In one of the cases, eyewitnesses said that the victim was shot by Greek soldiers.When we are adding the allegations of shootings in the present article which is specifically about Greece ("Pushbacks in Greece") but these sources refrain from confirming Greece's involvement in them for certain, then the editors ought to carefully name the section as to not imply the opposite, that Greece is indeed involvement in them. Due to the lack of WP:EXTRAORDINARY sources confirming these extraordinary claims, and due to past experiences where testimonies by immigrants were proven to be fake (such as the pushback incident in Evros border where the Turkish government-controlled media asked the immigrants to remove their clothes, and pose naked to the camera for propaganda reasons, that "Greece deprived them of their clothes and pushed them back naked into Turkish territory": [8]), editors are urged to be extra careful here with sources suggesting such possibilities and individual immigrants making big claims, and considering that the country where the immigrants are coming from, Turkey, is being accused by the international community for using the immigration card for political purposes. The section name will have to reflect this for NPOV reasons. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
[n]o new evidence is being presented today. So why is all this being replicated, two months later?.
Comment: Since the POV concerns of mine have been addressed, I would like to ask the other editors if they have any POV concerns still? If all NPOV issues have been addressed and everybody is satisfied, then we may we proceed with the removal of the POV tag. Good day. ---
❖ SilentResident ❖ (
talk ✉ |
contribs ✎)
19:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
The addition of "coercive engineered migration" cannot stand without attribution, no it does not need attribution. Are there reliable sources that challenge this assertion? Is it controversial? No and no. Therefore, no attribution is needed. Otherwise, it is necessary to "attribute" most of the article, since almost all of it is based on allegations by highly partisan NGOs. I'm getting the impression that this whole "attribution needed" is simply a pretext for removal of reliably sourced information that does not site well with some editors. And as SilentResident said, it is directly related to safety. The pushbacks don't happen out of the blue. The article is in general very one sided, and this information is critical to provide the reader with context. Khirurg ( talk) 23:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources that challenge this assertion? Is it controversial?actually, yes and yes. Turkey is under no obligation to prevent anyone from leaving the country. When it does, it violates the right to leave, a fundamental human right. You can read about it in this Council of Europe publication on the topic.
(outdent) Well, well, well, would you look at this? Turns out wikipedia has an entire article dedicated to the weaponization of refugees! And eve more interestingly, you edited that article [9], meaning, you know very well about this. Hoooo boy, there goes good faith. Khirurg ( talk) 01:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
More sources: [10] [11]. Heck, there is even a doctoral dissertation on this topic [12]. More than enough to create an article about it. Oh, wait... Khirurg ( talk) 01:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I came across this article as a result of the above DYK nomination and wanted to cast a neutral eye over things; I have no dog in the hunt as it were so hopefully any assessment of material/sources will act as an impartial second opinion. Here are the points I have identified for possible concern/amendment
Hellenic Coast Guard often use violence during these actions, stab migrant boats or shoot into the water.This is currently backed up by one source, and although Der Spiegel are largely very reliable, I think a single-source claim in this instance should be attributed; "It was reported by Der Spiegel that..."
@ Grapple X: Some sourced material that I had added regarding the engineering of the migrant crisis by Turkey, which led to an increase in pushbacks, has been removed [13]. Could you please have a look? Thanks. Khirurg ( talk) 21:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
In February 2020, Turkey announced that it would no longer prevent Syrians from leaving and bussed some to the border. There was also at least one case in which migrants were coerced into leaving Turkeywhich is well-supported. This is what was mentioned above when I discussed a preference for citing Tijdschrift voor economische over the Associated Press; the description of the situation by a peer-reviewed journal is going to be more dependable than by a newswire. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The organization is repeatedly cited for its reports by various international news organizations, eg. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] as well as academic works [24] [25] [26] I believe it's correct to attribute this organization's findings, so the charts are clearly labeled with the source of the information, but I don't see any reason to remove them. ( t · c) buidhe 05:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
First of all I would like to congratulate @ Buidhe: for creating this article, the work done and his obvious interest in human rights. Though I must note a major drawback of the article. There is no real Secondary Source present. Not an Academic work, a paper at a peer reviewed journal, a book, a chapter (or even a subsection at a chapter), dedicated to the subject that could guide us on the structure and at the overall narrative. The inevitable outcome is that this WP article seems like a ship in a storm. Ok, I understand that this is a notable topic, but notability is not enough in order to build a robust article. So I think, Buidhe, we must think what to do with the article, maybe merge it with another one and just leave a redirect? What are your thoughts? I understand this is a new article and someone might improve it with time (but without a strong RS- I find that difficult). Cinadon 36 10:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I've added some sourced material that was removed with the explanation that "it contradicts everything else in the article". But this is not true. For instance, the Mare Liberum source clearly states that Turkey forced thousands of migrants to the border in February 2020: At the end of February, Turkish President Erdogan drove thousands of refugees to the Turkish-Greek border in a sinister political game.
. So rather than disagreeing, the other sources in the article actually back the material. Pushbacks occur within a certain context, not out of the blue. If the article is to be balanced, the context needs to be provided to readers. Also, the North Macedonia pushbacks sentence implies that Greece is pushing migrants back into its own territory, which doesn't make sense. I would also like to know why the sentence regarding the German ship "Uckermark" was removed.
Khirurg (
talk)
00:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, the North Macedonia pushbacks sentence implies that Greece is pushing migrants back into its own territory, which doesn't make senseIt doesn't matter whether you think it makes sense, it matters what reliable sources say. Chain pushbacks are reported in various parts of the Balkans where migrants are pushed back from Country A to Country B and immediately to Country C through cooperation of the authorities of A and B. ( t · c) buidhe 01:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The country is winding down an aggressive two-week operation to move tens of thousands of migrants to its frontiers.(referring to Turkey), so again that seems to agree with BIC rather than contradict it.
I suppose this is the place to discuss the statement that the migrant crisis was to a certain extent engineered by Turkey. It was removed recently but there are actually plenty of sources which confirm it. Alaexis ¿question? 08:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The article title is one-sided and biased and will require move into a new title that reflects on the fact that the Pushbacks weren't limited in Greece only but occurred on both sides of the Greek-Turkey border. Titling this article "Pushbacks in Greece" without reflecting on the sources reporting that the pushbacks happen in Turkey as well, is one-sided against the one side and negating the involvement of the other side in these pushbacks. My proposal is to move it to Pushbacks at Greece-Turkey border or something like that. This way, all the pushbacks that happened near, or at the borders between the two countries, are reflected accurately on the article title.
The main article, Pushback (migration) already covers the incidents in Northeastern Europe with the section title "Poland–Belarus border" rather than "Pushbacks in Poland" or "Pushbacks in Belarus" and I believe it will be much better if the same is done for Greece-Turkey border pushbacks. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the title is ok. It is supported by RS, and is a notable theme. Pushbacks in Greece do occur within the context of immigration, but since there are enough RS to discuss pushbacks, there is no need of merging the article or expanding it so something new. Cinadon 36 06:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
We can have an article about pushbacks and tax evasion in every country where the topic verifiably occurs." is finding me agreeing absolutely. However mind you: the tax evasion articles are supposed to cover both sides: the causes for this tax evasion (high taxes imposes by the state) as well as the reactions (citizens evading them). The name Tax Evasion is inclusive title by nature (and certainly more than the partial articles "High taxes" and "Tax evaders" could be), allowing to cover both aspects of the problem called Tax Evasion: the state and the taxpayers. So, do you understand why your stance here with "Pushbacks in Greece", (a partial title suggesting that the issues of migrant mistreatments occur only on the one side of that border, and thus, is whitewashing the other side of that border) is problematic? Not including both sides, is not what I would call neutrality I am afraid, because only the problematic policies of the one side in the border are reflected on the article title even though the sources verify that both sides in the border are resorting to problematic policies against immigrants. This is unacceptable to say at least.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 07:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
. (Actually, Wikipedia's naming guidelines favor clarity over ambiguity, and thus, Greece-Turkey Migrant border crisis can be even better so that it doesn't get confused with another border dispute, the Aegean dispute). If you feel that isnt enough then we can work this out.
The idea that "Greece–Turkey" in the title would be appropriate also strikes me as wrong as the article also detailed incidents along the border with Macedonia and so this isn't just one bilateral relationship." Sorry for the slow reply but I am really confused. I keep looking at the article about that but I can't seem to find anything at all. Even if there was, I am not sure I can follow you: Turkey doesn't border the region of Macedonia in any way. Geographically speaking, Greece's Western Thrace, as well as the Bulgarian Thrace, are separating Turkey from the region of Macedonia, including the Greek portion of that region in either way. Perhaps you mean the Greek Turkish border? That's at Thrace, not Macedonia, and the border has has already been covered and is not affected by a title correction in any way, since the new title also covers it. Like I said above, content from Greece-Turkey land border can be merged there once the title is updated in line with the sources. Edit: If by bilateral relations and Macedonia you are referring to North Macedonia, still I am not finding anything that seems to be related to it either. Some clarity will be appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
a more neutral approach to the issue by covering all the parties responsible for the pushbacks within this area, and rather emphasize on one country's pushbacks—The scope of an article titled "pushbacks in Greece" seems clear. This is obviously going to discuss pushbacks happening in one nation's sphere. If you wish to have an article discussing, for example, Turkish instances of this happening, by all means, begin one; if there are sufficient sources to support it then it is notable enough to need covered and we should do so. But it is not correct to take a narrow scope and force it to broaden beyond its remit. This is not a non neutral title; I feel that your impression of a lack of neutrality comes only from the fact that it discusses one nation, but it has no need to do more than that. Broader coverage is better achieved in another article—see for example, Category:The Holocaust by country; rather than over-load one article with information about multiple nations' experience and involvement, a range of articles can be used to cover differing scopes. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it may be appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles" For the split to count a such, a parent article covering the topic, has to exist first of all. Buidhe created the migrant pushback articles within the same week and out of the blue, when they found sources reporting on the migrant crisis that is ongoing in both sides of the Aegean which confirm the pushbacks happening, but chose to ignore anything on the topic except the migrant pushbacks. Ignored what is happening both before the pushbacks and what after, and has focused solely on the pushbacks themselves, preventing the readers from understanding the whole situation. The readers do not know about the incidents occurring right before pushbacks, nor about the dysfunctional asylum processing services, nor about the living conditions in Turkey for migrants, nor about the smuggling networks, nor about the Turkish authorities doing nothing to crack down Aegean Sea's smugglers, nor that these pushbacks are the country's problematic reaction to these aforementioned problems. By leaving all this valuable information out of the article, Buidhe only aims to show one-sided perception that Greece is causing the problems in the region, instead of pushbacks being Greece's problematic answer to a complicated situation in the Aegean sea and the problems coming from the Turkish coast, as well as EU's and the New Democracy government's policies against immigration and how regional politics intensified the rate at which these pushbacks occur. Neglecting to add info on what and why this is happening, is not helpful for the readers to get the full picture of what's going on around there. The fact that the readers not knowing the whole picture behind the pushbacks doesn't bother you, is worrisome at best. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Buidhe only aims to show one-sided perception that Greece is causing the problems in the region
, demonstrates the lack of good faith. Anyway, clearly this is a notable topic and a standalone article. Whats, hows and whys can be addressed in this article, under this title, I do not see any problem.
Cinadon
36
06:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
demonstrates the lack of good faith" Exactly. And correct me if I am wrong here, but for assuming good faith, is necessary that editor Buidhe avoids an WP:OWN attitude here on this article and try cooperate with the others instead of reverting them. Per: WP:OWN: "
it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them—even if you think they are acting as if they "own" the article. (See also Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.)" Now, regarding what you said: "
Whats, hows and whys can be addressed in this article, under this title, I do not see any problem" I am glad to hear that. If the content in the article is balanced and the NPOV issues addressed, then I have no reason to raise my wp:neutral concerns here any further. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 06:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
why wont you just add it? Has anyone stopped you?" The reverts. Wasn't that obvious already? If you didn't notice the history log, they happen quite often and the fact that they may extend even to my own edits considering how certain editors tried to limit the scope of the article, is why I am present in the talk page only. Don't you think it makes sense? Anyways, we will see if content is indeed tolerated.
I think this incident should be mentioned in the article. A journalist asked a question on Pushbacks the Greek PM, received an angrily reply, next days there was a digital witch hunt against her, she received threats and she claimed that someone throw stones on her. After asking the advice from Dutch embassy in Athens, she left Greece.
Sad incident but worth including. Cinadon 36 06:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Unless it is backed from sources, it is SYNTH. Cinadon 36 10:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
References
@ Alaexis:, I do not think that the WIKIVOICE should be that Turkey is engineering this crisis, as you have inserted. [32] I understand that it is an opinion shared by many (esp conservatives in europe) but it does distort the story that refugees are seeking actively to go to Europe. By not stopping them, Turkey is not engineering the crisis. Cinadon 36 08:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Cracking down smuggling networks are obligatory—I'm not sure what the basis of this is in international law, perhaps you can enlighten me. ( t · c) buidhe 09:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
"Cracking down smuggling networks are obligatory"—I'm not sure what the basis of this is in international law, perhaps you can enlighten meBuidhe, if you don't know that Turkey is obliged to combat human traficking networks, then you should update yourself about the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings laws in both EU and Turkey (Turkey is member of the Council of Europe). If you do not know about human traficking being illegal, then perhaps you aren't suitable for editing such a sensitive topic. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 09:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
While it's certainly the case that Turkey encouraged migration to Greece for a few weeks in early 2020, what reliable sources say that those who left Turkey from April 2020 to November 2021 (the subject of most of the media coverage on Greek pushbacks) were "engineered" by Turkey? I don't think any of the cited sources support that assertion. ( t · c) buidhe 09:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Also this should be covered more thoroughly. The problematic policy of pushbacks by the Greek government gained momentum and intensified as response to the Turkish authorities encouraging the migrants to flood Greece:
[35]
About 13,000 migrants have gathered along the 212-kilometer (125-mile) border between Turkey and Greece after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened to allow refugees to cross into Europe, the United Nations said on Saturday.[1]
Turkey cynically pushes migrants toward coronavirus-hit Europe.[2] Othon I ( talk) 10:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Comment: The responses in this talk page, and not just only this section here, instill me little faith that neutrality is everyone's highest priority. Added POV tag.---
❖ SilentResident ❖ (
talk ✉ |
contribs ✎)
11:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion focused. Multiple reliable sources report that Turkey plays an active role in the migrant crisis (engineered, drove, encouraged, coerced etc) so we can absolutely say it in wikivoice. Considering the threats made by Erdogan, I don't think you'll even find a source which would deny it. Regarding Buidhe's comment that it just happened for a few weeks, it's contradicted by RS. Here the Washington Post reminds us of the similar tactics with the Syrian refugees in 2016, and Turkey was criticised for the same thing in 2019. This is highly relevant for the topic of this article, for example Vice discuss the Turkish policy when talking about pushbacks.
Of course, a lot of migrants want to come to Europe anyway and many would have come even if Turkey had been completely passive. We should not make it seem like Turkey is responsible for all the migration into Europe. However its active role is well documented and should not be ignored in this article. Alaexis ¿question? 12:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
This policy(neutrality)
is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @ Alaexis: for your reply though I do not agree. I feel you are mixing opinions with facts. Maybe a more detailed discussion on the role of Turkey is warrant at the main body of the article and then reconstruct the lede. Cinadon 36 13:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Both the Euractiv source reporting the Nov 2021 video and
this article from the Independent report the contents of the video as Greek claims, not undisputed fact. Rightfully so, as there has been no independent journalistic verification of the incident. Now, we as Wikipedia editors don't get to look at that video and say "oh yeah, that looks legit enough", that's the very definition of
WP:OR. The most that we can say is to mirror those sources and report this as a Greek claim, which is
WP:UNDUE for this specific individual case. We certainly don't get to then decide that this merits to be in Wikivoice as the evidence of a purported 'coercive engineered migration' policy that has been ongoing for the past two years, despite a peer-reviewed academic article clearly stating that Turkish border policy returned to normal after the episodes in early 2020. Those episodes are already discussed in the article and it would be inappropriate to expand further upon them - the subject of this article is the Greek policy of pushbacks, not the Turkish border policy. Should there be more encyclopaedic material on this, it can be added to other appropriate articles, which can be signposted from this article. And it is certainly massively undue and completely inappropriate to try and insert a quote from a report by an intern in a niche think-tank with zero clout into the lead. The POV-tagging frankly reeks of
WP:JDLI. The POV-tagging seems to be not more than a case of
WP:JDLI. --
GGT (
talk)
00:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
(unindent) I don't think anyone disputes that in February and March 2020, the Turkish government engineered a border crisis, which resulted in increased pushbacks. This is solidly sourced. Yet, as it stands, this information is barely mentioned in the article. So yes, I would say we do have a NPOV problem in the article. Khirurg ( talk) 04:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment: There are academic sources that describe Turkey's role in migrant crisis as "engineered migration". Turkish professor Ayan Kaya states that:
It seems that Turkey falls into this category of states [i.e. states who practise engineered migration] under the AKP rule, a party that tends to use migration as leverage to achieve goals in both international relations vis-à-vis the EU member states and the Arab world, as well as in domestic politics following the mass migration towards the Middle East before 2015 and towards Europe in 2015. (p. 23)
When 34 Turkish soldiers were killed in an air strike by Syrian government forces in the northwestern Idlib province on February 27, 2020, the Turkish army immediately responded with explosive drones targeting the regime forces. One day after the incident, Turkish state actors, primarily the Minister of Interior, announced that they have opened the borders to let the refugees head towards the EU via the land and sea borders with Greece and land borders with Bulgaria. As soon as the news spread around the country, many buses, taxis and cars full of refugees were already on the way to the western borders of Turkey, mostly towards Edirne, the northwest land border, and towards Çanakkale, the western sea border near the Greek island of Lesbos.The situation at the Turkish-Greek border led to the rise of a new refugee crisis in the EU. (p. 34)
Besides even Turkish pro-government media proudly proclaims that Turkey letting loose refugees on Europe "makes Europeans terrified". [40] [41] I can't see any reason not to add this information to the article. Best regards.-- John the Janitor ( talk) 09:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ John the Janitor: and thanks for the high quality academic sources. I am not disputing that Turkey periodically opens the gates at the borders, I am disputing that this could be called as "engineering the crisis". Calling it as "engineering the crisis" means that Turkey is the prime mover of migration, instead, refugees are active in their pursuit to leave Turkey (and their countries, usually because of poverty and wars). Engineering implies pushing, while in reality, Turkey decides from time to time, not to hold back refugees. There 's a difference among the two ways to put it. Also, note that the first source does not categorically states that Turkey is engineering migration. Maybe we should summarize conclusion than cherry pick a line or two. Cinadon 36 09:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Nice to see that Talk page discussions yield positive results. Cinadon 36 13:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
When saying that they defended Greek border policy, we mislead the reader that they defended Greek pushbacks. Cinadon 36 20:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
“I am absolutely convinced that this prime minister and this government is applying the highest standards and the fact that they have immediately launched an investigation on the issue of the pushbacks is testimony of that…What this country is trying to do is to defend the outer borders of the European Union. It is a lot of tasks that countries have who are lying on the outside like Italy, Spain, Hungary, Slovenia, but also Poland and Greece, and there is an extremely difficult situation.” “What I don’t want again is for people to take boats that are not fully equipped to pass the Mediterranean or to pass the Aegean Sea, to die in those circumstances. I want them to stay there [in Turkey], to be safe, and then we are willing as European Union to take a fair share of people from Africa, from Turkey – refugees, in line with the plans devised in 2015 [the EU-Turkey Statement on refugees-migrants] and 2016.”What else do you need? If it continues like this an RFC and possibly a DR will be in order because you follow the WP:IDHT to the point. Othon I ( talk) 15:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Why do you think I havent read the source? My point is that Dutch PM is not talking about pushbacks, he comments on the official border policy of Greece. Take it anywhere you wish. Cinadon 36
Try to establish compromise instead of edit warring. And a more civil manner would be helpful. Cinadon 36 19:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Try to establish compromise instead of edit warring.You wrote it. Follow it.
And a more civil manner would be helpful.There is nothing civil in your WP:JDLI mass-reverting edit-warring. Don't be disingenuous. Dr. K. 20:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Where did Dutch pm talk about pushbacks? Cinadon 36 19:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
“I am absolutely convinced that this prime minister and this government is applying the highest standards and the fact that they have immediately launched an investigation on the issue of the pushbacks is testimony of that…What this country is trying to do is to defend the outer borders of the European Union. It is a lot of tasks that countries have who are lying on the outside like Italy, Spain, Hungary, Slovenia, but also Poland and Greece, and there is an extremely difficult situation.” “What I don’t want again is for people to take boats that are not fully equipped to pass the Mediterranean or to pass the Aegean Sea, to die in those circumstances. I want them to stay there [in Turkey], to be safe, and then we are willing as European Union to take a fair share of people from Africa, from Turkey – refugees, in line with the plans devised in 2015 [the EU-Turkey Statement on refugees-migrants] and 2016.”. You're welcome. Khirurg ( talk) 20:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who was present, defended the Greek government, pointing that it is in line with EU regulations and that Greece is protecting the EU's outer border". I don't think anyone would believe that there are no pushbacks... everyone knows that the current New Democracy-led government of Greece does not really give a damn about human rights, only pretends to be caring about them. Of course, had the text been writing: "
The Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte defended the pushbacks.", then I would agree with you that it would constitute a source falsification, and thus, warrant removal from the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I have made a WP:BOLD edit to the sentence as per my suggestion above. Feel free to revert and discuss if you think it is not appropriate. -- GGT ( talk) 19:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I removed this sentence from the article, as it was a clear WP:BLP violation in the way that it was inserted. The relevant bits from the policy are: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance." This was clearly not followed in the sentence that I deleted, which reported the accusation but not her response to it. Another aspect to bear in mind is: "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."
I note that whilst her arrest in June was reported at the time by the Guardian, their recent article about the exchange with Mitsotakis fails to mention her arrest. Same goes for Reuters. That to me indicates that her arrest is not directly relevant to the topic of this article and that we must err on the side of omitting it from this article. I must note that Beugel seems to clear the WP:GNG bar - editors might be interested in creating an article about her with more biographical details and then linking from here.
-- GGT ( talk) 20:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Unsigned diatribe
|
---|
Why aren't editors of this article also contributing to Wikpedia articles of pushbacks in other countries?As per above... Chinese pushbacks https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/06/china-stop-expelling-refugees Brazilian pushbacks https://www.npr.org/2018/08/20/640350156/venezuelan-refugees-face-violence-and-closed-borders-as-they-try-to-flee Hungarian pushbacks https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/29944/hungary-4903-pushbacks-after-eu-court-declared-them-illegal Austrian pushbacks https://www.dw.com/en/austria-persists-with-relentless-hard-line-on-asylum-seekers/a-53232600 Turkish pushbacks https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/oct/14/afghan-refugees-accuse-turkey-of-violent-pushbacks Dutch pushbacks. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2016/01/dutch-plan-for-eu-refugee-swap-with-turkey-is-morally-bankrupt/ And so on. Google "pushbacks" and pick a country and you'll find no shortage of articles of countries trying to keep out and/or deport migrants including asylum seekers. If I point out the obvious that Greece is being singled out on Wikipedia, someone manipulatively tried to delete my valid criticism without even addressing my point... thus my charge of prejudice. |
Where should we insert such information? [46] Which is the most relevant section? Cinadon 36 09:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hmmmm....Maybe the article needs restructuring. Cinadon 36 11:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
"Violence, ill-treatment and pushbacks continue to be regularly reported at multiple entry points at land and sea borders, within and beyond the European Union despite repeated calls ... to end such practices," Grandi said in a statement.". The source also confirms what I have been saying for months in this talk page: that pushbacks aren't occurring only in Greece, are part of the broader anti-immigration policies of Europe: "
Pushbacks have also been occurring in other central and southeastern European countries, Grandi said.". Like I have said above: If you both editors insist that the pushbacks are a Greek thing only, then don't expect the other editors to agree with your calls for article restructuring when such obvious POV issues aren't resolved first, and which are the result of you ignoring what the sources (even the one you presented!) verify about the broader nature of pushbacks. My position still stands: For the POV tag to be removed, the article will need to be renamed and restructured and its scope expanded to cover the "Pushbacks in Europe" as whole instead of framing out a specific external border country like how you did with the title "Pushbacks in Greece". The European Migrant Crisis isn't a country-exclusive thing, is an European, hence the title, and so are the pushbacks of migrants across the EU borders, and hence the article needs to be moved to Pushbacks in Europe.
The result of the move request was: moved. No participation since last relist. Moved to alternate suggested title "Pushbacks by Greece". ( closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 11:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Pushbacks in Greece → Migrant pushbacks in Greece – The term "pushbacks" is a bit ambiguous for the average reader, and the new title would naturally disambiguate the article's subject. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 18:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 08:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
criticism of or resistance to a proposal( quoting Wiktionary here), I don't think it makes for a useful title on its own. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)