Talk:Pushbacks by Greece

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Frontex's role in pushbacks of migrants in Greece has led to investigations by the European Parliament, EU Ombudsman, and EU anti-fraud agency? Source: various, see article

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pikrolimni (lake)

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 11:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC).

• – The article is long enough (16,688 characters) and new enough (created on October 4, 2021). It cites various sources, and Earwig's Copyvio detector shows 29.1% similarity (violation unlikely). But ... It has few neutrality issues including a neutrality tag. The hook seems fine, and maybe cited in the article. Can we have a source here? Rest, a QPQ has been done. Till the neutrality concerns are resolved, this DYK nomination should be on hold. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Kavyansh.Singh I rewrote the disputed section based on more reliable sources. Unfortunately, it was reverted immediately by ‎Khirurg who appears to think that the New York Times is not a reliable source. Perhaps they would explain here why they object. (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah you rewrote it alright - by removing a whole bunch of sources. Maybe you can explain why AP is not reliable source? Perhaps you can also explain why you removed the POV tag, even though your edit did not address any of the issues raised in the talkpage? Khirurg (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Khirurg : Hi, I don't think the AP source supports the content it's cited for. The AP source reports that Greece has made certain accusations, it doesn't say whether they are correct or not. I'm not sure how Greek accusations against Turkey (regardless of whether they are correct or not) have any bearing about this article, which is about Greece. Cleanup tags should be removed unless there is active discussion ongoing and the person placing it can substantiate that there is a problem with the article. (t · c) buidhe 03:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Not only you removed AP news, you also removed the Brussels International Center. Your edits made the article even more POV, by trying to spin away the hostile actions of the Turkish government. And it's not a "cleanup tag", it's POV tag, and there is very much an active discussion going on, first of all right here. If you are avoiding the article talkpage and spin that "no discussion ongoing", that's not going to work. Khirurg (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Khirurg Actually I have no opinion on the reliability of BIC at this point, but I hesitate to cite think tanks when there are better sources available (I cited the New York Times, Verfassungsblog and an academic paper, all of which are higher quality than a think tank). I checked several sources and all of them mention that the main change in February-March 2020 was opening the border to migrants, some also mention that Turkey bussed migrants to the border or that at least one incident of coercing migrants was reported. Your wording suggests that all or many migrants since then were coerced to travel to Greece. This is misleading because few if any reliable sources support coercive "push" tactics being a widespread or systematic practice by Turkey at its border with Greece. (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Not only is BIC itself a perfectly reliable source (much more so than the partisan NGOs you have filled the article with), but it's really not hard to find sources about the Turkish government coercing migrants to the border [1]. This assume of course that one in inclined to look for sources, instead of pretending they don't exist. And here [2] (and then doubled down [3], you seem to have followed me to a Requested Move I recently participated in, in what appears to be clear WP:HOUND behavior. So everyone can see what's going on here. Khirurg (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, coming back to the DYK criteria, this seems to meet everything except the neutrality issues. I see that there has been no active discussion on the talk page form at-least 17 days. @Buidhe Any updates on @Khirurg's concerns? I can' formally approve this until the neutrality concerns are resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Kavyansh.Singh, Buidhe, and Khirurg: this nomination should probably be closed if the neutrality concerns are not resolved one way or another. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Great, now you can filibuster DYKs you don't like by raising spurious "concerns" and inserting loaded language. (t · c) buidhe 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

What "loaded language"? I raised my concerns in the talkpage, and you've done nothing but edit-war since then. Khirurg (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The most egregiously loaded language I recall was 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)

You insist on inserting loaded language like "Weaponization of migration" and "coercive engineered migration" which simply do not reflect the majority reliable sources (and are only tangentially related to the article topic, because they are accusations against Turkey rather than Greece) as explained above. I explained that you have misrepresented sources as seen above, and substituted opinion pieces for news coverage and peer-reviewed academic papers, and all you do is revert. So it's unclear to me how any progress can be made here. (t · c) buidhe 02:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Everything I have added is sourced to reliable sources. As far as opinion pieces, you're the one that has added those, such as this opinion piece written by grad students [4]. You haven't made the slightest effort to meet me halfway, instead you just blanket-revert all my additions claiming "my sources are better than yours". No attempt at dispute resolution, just blanket reverts like this [5]. The article is mainly based on activist NGO sources. Yes, there can be no progress under these conditions. Khirurg (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You literally replaced a news article from the New York Times and academic paper with an opinion piece from The Hill regarding the March 2020 escalation in order to replace fact-based description with loaded language of "weaponization". I did not cite any opinion pieces in the article, and it's a lie to say that the article is "mainly based on activist NGO sources". (t · c) buidhe 03:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed). I just linked to an opinion piece you put in the article in my previous post. InfoMigrants, Mare Liberum, Aegean Boat Report are all activist NGOs used as references (to name just a few). The only way to resolve this is through some form of third party mediation. Would you be agreeable to something like that, yes or no? Khirurg (talk) 04:01, 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)

• • @Buidhe: imho, the best way to break a filibuster is the old fashioned way: cloture motion. I'd recommend that you get as many eyes on this as possible, see if a clearer consensus falls out. my confidence in either of you conceding your point is dwindling, so this back-and-forth seems unhelpful, as you both pointed out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Theleekycauldron: Please see the non-involved editor Grapple X's comments on the article talk page [6] (t · c) buidhe 19:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
      • @Buidhe: I'm not your reviewer, Kavyansh.Singh is—if he's satisfied with the neutrality's article, the review will go forward. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:56, 23 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)

To T:DYK/P7

Severe POV issues

The article has severe POV issues.

• Chief of these is tone, which is very accusatory, and the article reads like a hit-piece written by a WP:ACTIVIST, rather than a neutral encyclopedia article.
• The article relies heavily on NGO websites and blogs as sources.
• The article presents allegations and accusations as undisputed facts in wikivoice.
• The article studiously omits rebuttals of the accusations issued by the Greek government, for example over the alleged shootings. This is the very definition of WP:POV. Khirurg (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• • This article is one of those cases where there's a ton of evidence that the government has done the thing (in this case pushbacks) but despite the evidence continues to deny it. How do you handle it? Most of the sources do not say that there are alleged pushbacks, but that they actually happened, because there is a lot of evidence.
  • The source you cited on the shootings doesn't say that the shooting is still denied by the Greek government, they simply claim that Greece is not responsible.
  • Actually, most of the article relies on news sources, sometimes doubled up with NGO sources that give more information on the incident. Blog sources used are reliable, such as EJIL Talk which is published by the European Journal of International Law. The only section of the article that relies substantially on NGO resources is the "estimates" section simply because they're the only ones who are making estimates, so far as I can find any.
  • You removed Border Violence Monitoring Network as a source. I'm not sure why you think it isn't a reliable source, its reports have been cited a bunch on Google Scholar, indicating it has a reputation for fact-checking an accuracy.
  • Perhaps you can give examples of the "accusatory" tone of the article? I think it does best to report facts in an impartial tone and where appropriate attributed to the source of information.
  • In the case of legality, you have to separate national from international law. Greece could legalize anything but it wouldn't change the status according to EU or international law.
  • I think if you are trying to expand the article a section could be added with background information on the European migrant crisis and why Greece has taken these steps. I can definitely see that Greece as well as Turkey has really gotten the short end of the stick in this situation, but it doesn't negate the content of the article. (t · c) buidhe 08:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, I appreciate the hard work you have put to the article. However there are some POV issues which have me worried.

• First of all, statistics can not be used both on lead and main body of the article. I corrected this by removing them and still maintaining on lead that the vast majority of cases involve abuse.
• I see that despite objections by the other editor, the source from www.ejiltalk.org has been restored even though we avoid citing such blogspots and especially quotes dramaticizing in an unecyclopedic way the human right violations of the kind "a human rights violation that encapsulates a will to eliminate a person’s presence on the face of the planet". If the purpose of the quote is to explain to the reader how important these violations are, this can be done in a less dramatic way than that.
• "According to the Ministry of Migration and Asylum [...]" has been removed even though both views are supposed to be present on the topic. It has nothing to do with law, but about covering the view of the accused side. This has been restored per WP:NPOV.
• Last, the sentence about the shooting allegations: There are no sources confirming who the culprit of the shootouts is, however, it is alleged that it is someone from the other border. In this case, an allegation remains still an allegation and may by no means be portrayed by us editors as a proven fact. Unless any strong sources do specifically prove that WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim to be a fact, then we editors may do so as well.

Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, its very unfortunate that you just reverted even me and restored the POV completely back to the article, which shows that you are dismissing everyone's NPOV concerns. I added the POV tag to the article. It may be removed only once the NPOV concerns detailed there, are addressed adequately. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• "statistics can not be used both on lead and main body of the article" 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.
• EJIL Talk is definitely a reliable source and has editorial oversight. I'm happy to discuss on reliable sources noticeboard if you like. One of the authors, Itamar Mann, has written the book on migration and maritime law. I do think it's due to mention that the word "pushback" is considered inappropriate by some as "pushback" refers to non-refoulement and that is not the only or even the primary human rights issue with Greece's tactics. I've changed the quote to a paraphrase so let me know if that is better.
• "According to the Ministry of Migration and Asylum, this legally shields the country in dealing with migration flows." 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 obligations
• "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. (t · c) buidhe 10:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• 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 obligations Our 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)

• I changed it so the source and the exact figure are not mentioned.
• Actually, the "legally shields" is not the stated reason of the Greek government for the decision, this is from an unofficial source according to the cited news article. None of the international media that covered the decision mentions this rationale. The official stated reason is “they are not in any danger ... due to their race, religion, citizenship, political beliefs or membership in some particular social group, and can seek asylum in Turkey instead of in Greece.” I've added that to the article.
• I moved the shooting incidents to a different section to avoid conflict about what the correct header might be. I agree Turkish state media is not a reliable source for this topic, which is why I didn't cite them. (t · c) buidhe 12:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for listening to my POV concerns. As for the Evros incident, I have searched the web for more information and I realized that the shootings per se are lacking the characteristics of a pushback and is rather part of a list of incidents that occurred at Evros independently of the pushbacks. Perhaps it should be moved to the more appropriate article Greece–Turkey border instead? There is already a section about such incidents in it: Greece–Turkey border#European migrant crisis --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done (t · c) buidhe 13:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I slightly reworded a sentence under the "Domestic law" section. The provided quote is an excerpt of the reason, not the full reason.

Second, i saw that the Shootings/Evros section moved to Greece–Turkey border, but i would like to address some new edits; both here (for other editors who were concerned) and in the new article it moved. Namely:

• In-text attribution for the Forensic Architecture citation describing the incident with Muhammad al-Arab, will move at the beginning of the sentence.
• Mention of the possibility, as stated by the relevant Der Spiegel article, that the shooting could be accidental due to a ricochet.
• The shooting of Gulzar has been dismissed by the Greek government as "fake news" that was spread by the Turkish authorities. This position hasn't been retracted as was written and is implied in the article by The National (Abu Dhabi). The aforementioned article refers to this following official statement, "STATEMENT BY THE DEPUTY MINISTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER AND GOVERNMENT SPOKESMAN STELIOS PETSAS", where the Greek MFA adds upon earlier quotes regarding "fake news", that [n]o new evidence is being presented today. So why is all this being replicated, two months later?.
• Inclusion of the statement by Forensic Architecture, that there is no commonly accepted account of what happened on both incidents. Demetrios1993 (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Also I have clarified the lead by replacing "More than a decade" with more specific "Since 2013". Otherwise it would falsely imply that this was happening much longer than it actually had happened, even before the actual immigration took place, which is not true, is not supported by sources and wouldn't be verified. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

No, the pushbacks definitely precede the 2015 crisis by years although less frequent than they are now. The 2008 HRW report cited in the body indicates that this had been going on for quite some time prior although I can't find any earlier sources that use the word "pushback" in relation to Greece's migration policies. (t · c) buidhe 19:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh thats right, was googling myself for the earliest possible dates but it seems the results are failing me. Since you found it already yourself and it is at least verified to have happened since 2008, then we can mention "Since at least 2008". As a wording, it's still preferable over "For more than a decade" here as to help readers get an idea of at least how long the event for which the article is named after, has been going on, without having to dive deep into the article to find out, and without risking giving them a more stretched out impression. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

 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 and still does not belong in a safety section since it has nothing to do with the safety of pushbacks. (t · c) buidhe 22:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly. Safety goes two ways: The immigrants in question are risking their lives twice, not only at the moment the pushback is happening, but also at the moment the push is also happening. Besides the risk of being pushed back, it is also their encouragement by the country they came from, to use these dangerous routes for their entry into Europe. If we are to cover the deaths resulting from immigration, then safety isn't limited to the actions of the one country only, but also to the actions, direct or indirect, of the other side of that border as well. I understand it is complicated, but we have to cover both sides's responsibilities in their deaths, not just the one's or the other's, when these deaths happen in a shared border. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:31, 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)

Khirung, where statements are an opinion they must be attributed. That's not optional. The phrase you add to the lead is directly prohibited by MOS:WEASEL. If there are any statements in the article that you think should be attributed, feel free to list them here. 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.

Silent Resident, This article is not about deaths resulting from immigration, otherwise I would partially agree. (if we were talking about overall deaths, many sources highlight the closing off of any safe and legal route of entry—carrier sanctions, visa restrictions etc.—to those would be eligible for asylum) I only added the overall death figure as a placeholder because I could not easily find any related to pushbacks in particular. I have no objection to removing the figure and I think that would be a better solution than adding unrelated content to this section. (t · c) buidhe 00:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not an opinion, it is your opinion that it's an opinion. Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof. What we have here is a rogue state trying to weaponize the refugee crisis, and certain WP:ACTIVISTs on and off wikipedia trying to spin this. We're not talking about right to leave, we're talking about rounding up migrants and forcibly moving them to the border in the hope of sparking a crisis. So enough with the straw men. Not going to happen. More sources will be added regarding the instrumentalisation of refugees by Turkey. Khirurg (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

(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)

It's a point of view, a notable one, therefore it has a wikipedia article. Turkey's position is that its actions are a legitimate tactic to use in diplomacy, not "weaponization". (t · c) buidhe 01:50, 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..."
  • Done
• Re: Ayşe Erdoğan. This is characterised in the article as a forced disappearance, but we also report on what happened to her in Turkey. I'm not clear whether this is a contradiction in terms since we appear to know her fate, unless the source indicates she disappeared after sentencing.
  • According to the legal definition, a forced disappearance may be either temporary or permanent. Since this may confuse readers I added a definition from the Baranowska source and clarified that she is referring to Greece rather than Turkey as causing the temporary disappearance.
    • Okay, that clarification helps. Having grown up with the disappeared I'm used to the term meaning an unresolved disappearance, so this clears up the confusion. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Although there are generally sufficient attributions for claims being being made, it does strike me that a number of the bodies or concepts involved are currently red-linked. This isn't inherently a problem but it means with no corresponding article for a reader to gain context, it would be helpful to gloss briefly in text who, for example, Greek Helsinki Monitor are—identifying claims as having been made by a state body or NGO is useful context. On a related note, Mare Liberum is linked in the text but this appears to be the wrong target and so a similar gloss may be useful here.
  • I've stubbed the redlinked organizations and fixed the link for Mare Liberum
• I agree with this removal but not with the reason given, which is why I want to highlight it. As presented (I do not have access to the journal to review their wordings) it gives a figure of deaths without explicitly tying this to the pushbacks; the presence of the figure in the article would lead a reader to connect the two but I would not be comfortable using this without explicit clarification of a connection--a not insignificant number of these may very well have taken place without any Frontex or Greek pushback regardless. However, to remove it on the basis that pushbacks are "happening in the Aegean" only is incorrect, as the article does go into significant mention of the Evros border as well.
• Have to disagree with this removal; there is nothing wrong per se with citing the Associated Press but not at the preference of a peer-reviewed journal; Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie is something I would have much more confidence in citing contentious material to than a newswire, however reliable that newswire may be.
  • The edit summary was referring to other sources. The AP source was not removed because of issues with reliability but because it did not support the cited content, which I mentioned on the DYK nomination.
    • Sorry, what I meant was that the replacement of the journal with the AP was what I disagreed with, not the other way around; but that this wouldn't preclude the appropriate use of the AP source alongside if so desired. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• As of this revision, I am happy with the neutrality of the sources. Quality overall seems high with several quality journals and well-regarded news outlets, and the breadth of origins is important here too—Greek, EU, non-EU European, Turkish, and US sources are all evident, which I see as a strong indicator that the scope here is not simply a matter of contrasting Greek/Frontex claims with Turkish ones and has a broader viewpoint in mind. Additionally turned up this BBC report which may be useful.
• I hope the above proves helpful in finding the optimal balance for the article, which is clearly well-researched and largely strikes me as appropriate at present. I will keep this on my watchlist for a while but don't hesitate to ping me for any clarification or follow-up. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much for taking a look at this article. (t · c) buidhe 19:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@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)

• • The text in question has been replaced by a more neutral and better sourced one regarding Turkey's role in the events of February–March 2020. (t · c) buidhe 22:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • As I see it there is specific mention of Turkish encouragement; 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 Turkey which 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)
• There is also an issue with the pushbacks at the North Macedonian border. Since the migrants are trying to get from Greece to North Macedonia, it seems that in this case the pushbacks are being done by the North Macedonian authorities. As far as I know the migrants are trying to leave Greece and head to North Macedonia, and thence Europe, not the other way around. Khirurg (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, the pushbacks are being done from North Macedonia to Greece, but they're being done with Greek support according to the cited article. (t · c) buidhe 22:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Are there any sources which support the idea of migrants wanting to leave Greece for Macedonia? As I see it, Greece affords entry to the wider EU, Macedonia as a non-EU state does not, so this seems counterproductive and would need clear sourcing to demonstrate. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    • For additional sources on migration from Greece through North Macedonia see this map of migrant routes in the Balkans. Danish Refugee Council's map from 2021 (pg. 4) also shows pushbacks from North Macedonia to Greece and Border Violence Monitoring Network also reports several accounts of such pushbacks in 2020. In general migrants are passing through North Macedonia and hoping to reach EU countries farther north. (t · c) buidhe 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Indeed, the Balkan route goes through Greece into North Macedonia. As such, any pushbacks at that border would be done by North Macedonia, not Greece. This needs to be clarified. Khirurg (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

        The sources that I found state that various authorities are involved in these pushbacks, including the Greek authorities as well as Frontex. (The Graf source states: "Pushbacks wurden eine alltägliche Praxis, teils auchin Kollaboration mit den griechischen Grenzbehörden") I don't see any indication that pushbacks are being done without North Macedonia's agreement, but that's not the same thing as saying that NM is the only entity responsible for these pushbacks. Also, since Greece is on the other side of the border I do think it's relevant to mention in the article, as well as Albania–Greece pushbacks. (t · c) buidhe 00:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

        • Uh no, the issue is no that the "pushbacks" are being done with North Macedonia's agreements", the issue is that they are being done 'by North Macedonia, but the text implies the opposite. Khirurg (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Lastly, maybe something could be added about public reaction to the pushbacks? My understanding is they broadly enjoy public support, in Greece as well as in Europe in general. Khirurg (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Citation needed. (t · c) buidhe 22:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Furthermore this is something I'd want to see independently reported, either way; a source directly promoting or decrying it would not be as useful as a third party commenting on the reaction would be. I've tried looking through the BBC who have broadly skewed conservative and can't see any mention in their coverage of whether the tactic is supported or not, perhaps another news source might discuss this. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Mare Liberum

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)

A comment on the article

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). Cinadon36 10:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about, Cinadon36? There are numerous academic works that discuss the article subject. Some are currently cited in the article, others are in the further reading section, one was removed by an editor who doesn't like it (see the page history) (t · c) buidhe 16:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh! I hadn't noticed all those sources @Buidhe:. When I had a look at the references section, I mostly noticed some sites from organizations that defend human rights. Ok then! Stick to those academic sources! Good work! Cinadon36 17:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

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)

You have told me repeatedly not to cite the sources considered by you to be "advocacy" so it seems a bit hypocritical to then cite them when you think they agree with your POV. It's not clear what Mare Liberum means by "drove". Many sources say that Turkey bussed migrants to the border, but other sources such as the NYT article or the Dutch journal article don't support the theory that this was coercive (except one incident per NYT in which coercion was reported).

As for the BIC source, I don't think it is reliable. I'm skeptical of think tanks in general and in this case, the author is listed as "Middle East Research Intern" with no further information. Furthermore, I think you are cherry-picking the article, as the main point that the author is making is that Erdogan is only able to exploit the migration "crisis" because the EU does not follow its own principles and rules. If you like, this can be discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

I don't support including the material you added to the "safety" section because Frontex involvement is already covered in a separate section.

Also, the North Macedonia pushbacks sentence implies that Greece is pushing migrants back into its own territory, which doesn't make sense It 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)

Well you insisted that Mare Liberum is a reliable source, so what's the issue with using it? As for "drove", the fact the same sentence describes it as a "sinister political ploy" makes the intent of the "driving" quite clear.

What's the issue with BiC? The article has a bibliography, so it does appear scholarly. If you feel BiC is unreliable, there's always RSN. And if you think I am cherry-picking, you are welcome to add more from it. The NYT article begins with 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.

Pushbacks done on the territory of North Macedonia, by North Macedonia, belong in a separate article, not this one.

As for the "Uckermark", I still don't see a valid explanation for why it was removed. If you feel that it belongs in a separate section, that's fine, you can move it to that section. But that's not a reason for wholesale removal. Khirurg (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Bottom line on the BIC source, I see no indication that there is consensus that it is a reliable source, let alone any argument why some intern's opinion on a tangentially related topic is even WP:DUE in this article.

By definition, it's impossible to do a pushback solely on the territory of one state.

It would be POV to highlight individual German ships involved in pushbacks without naming individual Greek coast guard ships, who by all accounts are responsible for the majority of incidents. (t · c) buidhe 14:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You posted at RSN (without notifying me) regarding BiC, but so far there is no indication that there is anything to suggest that it's not reliable. And at least one user has said that other sources corroborate what BiC says. Even the Mare Liberum source backs what BiC says. And then there is also Vice News [27] which backs what BiC says. The sourcing on this is simply too strong to be kept out. Regarding the Uckermark, that is just used as an example of the several German navy ships that have been used in the pushbacks. Again there is no reason to remove it. And why did you remove Mare Liberum? Khirurg (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

---

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)

One-sided title will require correction for neutrality

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)

As far as I am aware, the pushbacks done by Turkey are along its eastern and southern borders and have nothing to do with Greece. What sources say that Turkey did pushbacks against migrants that traveled from Greece to Turkey?? The scope of this article is geographical related to all of Greece's borders so I don't see how it is a POV issue. (t · c) buidhe 02:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Not only it does, but also the pushbacks are part of the Greece(and EU)-Turkey migrant crisis which is still ongoing, albeit not in the the same intensity as in the past. Also, another thing to consider about the article title move is inclusion of info about the broader migrant crisis-related issues which are too still pressing and ongoing, albeit in much slower rates than in the past due to tight border controls, such as smuggling routes, deaths at sea and issues concerning the migrants themselves such as living conditions near the borders, etc. Allows also the inclusion of the background of the crisis and move the content from the Greece–Turkey border article here to the present article. An inclusive title will allow for aspects relating migrant living conditions and smuggling-related issues at the Turkish side of the borders as well as other relevant migrant info regarding the borders of the two countries, which helps provide the readers a more complete picture of the issue. Note that this idea has already a precedent: the article made for the Poland-Belarus crisis (which I mentioned earlier on my above post) is titled in an way that it is far more inclusive of the issues caused by the crisis between the two sides: 2021 Belarus–European Union border crisis. This title is offering the readers a more complete picture of the issue while also mentioning the pushbacks that happened there. Having a title similar to this by mentioning both parties in the event, and expanding it, not only helps provide a more full picture to the readers, but also covers both involved parties, not just the one of them.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 02:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I ask for even one source that states that Turkey is doing pushbacks against its border with Greece. You haven't provided it. These other issues you mention are not pushbacks so they should not be discussed in this article. (t · c) buidhe 02:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Well it does appear Turkey is collaborating with Greece (it picks up the migrants Greece pushes back), so by your own logic [28], that should be mentioned in the same way as the pushbacks by North Macedonia at the GR-NM border. I also agree regarding with a possible expansion and more inclusive title, as SilentResident is suggesting. Khirurg (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, there are reports that after the migrants are escorded from the Turkish side to the Greek side of the border, they are pushed back by the Greek side, and then the Turkish boats approached the boats to push them back to prevent the boats from returning the Turkish side of the border and this continues until the migrants are collected. For example here, in this incident where a Frontex boat belonging to Finland also was involved: [29]. Don't you think this has to be covered?

Besides pushbacks, my point here is that we gotta cover all the aspects of the crisis, not only the actions of a certain side during that crisis, but also the crisis itself, which strangely is completely missing from the article. This is unacceptable. Instead of focusing only at pushbacks, the readers should be able to be informed of the migrant crisis between Greece and Turkey as whole, part of which are also the pushbacks, but not only. The crisis includes more kinds of incidents, and it is our duty as editor to have all the kinds of the incidents happening at the border covered there: both pushes, pushbacks, and more pushsbacks-after-pusbacks. If we want to tackle the crisis neutrally, without one-sided POV, then all aspects of that crisis will need to be covered, not only what suits an editor's POV. The article should inform the readers about anything related to what is happening at the borders, not only Greece's pushbacks, but anything. The name should be something like Greece-Turkey border crisis and it should cover pretty much anything about what happens before and after the pushbacks Greece does at the border.

There is already a source which uses that name, thats why I am proposing it: [30]

Also note that the sources, including third party ones, and even Turkish government-controlled ones, acknowledge that this situation is called a "Migrant Crisis". Here is Daily Sabah, a pro-government media outlet, published this article just this month (November 2021): [31] acknowledging that this constitutes a migrant crisis.

Its likely that editor Buidhe may be worried that a change in the article title may mean that present content will have to be removed from the article. This is NOT what I am asking here. The current content may not only remain but also be expanded as well. What I am asking here is a neutral and more balanced approach to the crisis than looking just at the trees (pushbacks) and ignoring the forest (crisis). There is alot of content to add, but the way the article is named and structured, prevents it from being neutral and inclusive. The article should follow the example of 2021 Belarus–European Union border crisis and be named Greece-Turkey border crisis or something like that. (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) That would be a step in the right direction. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hi SilentResident, the article you linked doesn't appear to mention pushbacks. Reliable sources say that pushbacks have been used by Greece for more than a decade. It's not a tactic used in individual crises, it's a long term phenomenon. What you are proposing is effectively to delete the article without going through AfD. (t · c) buidhe 05:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion? Not at all. In your replies to others I sensed you arent actually reading them and I am having the impression you havent read my comment. What makes you think that pushbacks started before immigrations from Turkey begun? Immigration at Aegean was ongoing for more than decades as well, and the pushbacks are the reaction to it... The immigration intensified from 2011 and peaked in 2015 before we reached the current situation. To separate pushbacks from the context they happen in, the immigration, is a dangerous WP:OR claim. There is absolutely no source verifying that pushbacks decades ago happened for reasons any other than immigration. The pushbacks still happened at the border, are indisputably part of the immigration topic, and are a method of curbing it, and the proposed article name Greece-Turkey migrant border crisis reflects exactly on that. Nothing less, nothing more. Your argument is problematic since it suggests that the pushbacks more than a decade ago are unrelated to immigration or didnt occur at Greece Turkey border, is false and absolutely no source can back your position that the move to a new title actually makes content covering pushbacks from more than decades ago become offtopic to the article due to not relating to immigration. Like I said -and I think I made myself quite clear earlier-, the article will lose no content, nor gets deleted. The article title only is changed and topic expanded, so that the pushbacks which are occuring in the context of the immigration, will be covered in the context of that immigration. Simple as that. All the sources, and I repeat: all the sources, link pushbacks to the immigration. There is no source mentioning Greece's problem with pushbacks without mentioning the context they occur: immigration. Per Wikipedia's rules, the article title has to reflect on the WP:RS, not WP:CHERRYPICK out a country's policy of pushbacks and create an article based on them without covering everything on the subject! - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 06:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, SilentResident, if you think it's inappropriate to have an article on the topic of Pushbacks in Greece I suggest you take this article to AfD in order to get consensus on removing it from the encyclopedia. It is true that pushbacks do not occur without immigration, but pushbacks are a valid subtopic of immigration in the same way that tax evasion is a valid subtopic of taxes. We can have an article about pushbacks and tax evasion in every country where the topic verifiably occurs. (t · c) buidhe 06:24, 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. Cinadon36 06:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Pushbacks is not an inappropriate topic I am afraid. Quite the opposite. They need to be covered, not taken to AfD and deleted, otherwise it is a blatant whitewashing attempt of Greece's problematic policies, and a AfD isnt the solution to a problem concerning not the quality of content but the article title. Suggesting AfD is out of the question here. Is like saying that either we mention only pushbacks, or delete it instead of covering all aspects of the problem with pushbacks. Please correct me if I am wrong here, but in this discussion, I didnt get the impression that anyone here wants to delete anything. Rename ≠ Delete. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 06:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, what you said about: "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)

The agent that is doing the pushbacks is Greece. Maybe it could be renamed "pushbacks by Greece"?Cinadon36 07:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"Pushbacks and Illegal Returns by Greece, Pushbacks and Pushes by Turkey and mistreatments by both Greece and Turkey". How does that sound for you? Let me guess. Too long title? Oh yes right.... Because you didnt actually bother reading what others tell you and skipped my proposal for a plain simple, yet, inclusive title. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 07:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I have read your proposals but it seems the are attempts to dilute the topic. "Turkey-Greece border crisis" could include military confrontations and much more. We have to keep pushbacks at the title and Greece at the title, since the topic is about this specific issue. Cinadon36 07:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. You claim to read my comments but why I get the feeling you didnt? Like I wrote above: (quoting myself) . (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.

"Dilute" pusbacks? If adding the missing migration content to the article about the aforementioned issues are merely "diluting" the topic instead of completing it, then I cant help but feel that your priority here isnt to be neutral with migrant issues in mind, but to raise a personal campaign against the one or the other country only. Sorry but politics should have no place here. As someone who recommended inclusion of Journalists being attacked for their migration activism, this is an unreasonable and contradictory conclusion since the one moment you appear to acknowledge that all things related to the issue should be mentioned on the article, yet you seem to consider other aspects of the same topic as being a threat that risks diluting it. -- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 07:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I have read your argument and your proposal. I find your suggestion changes the topic of the article (from pushbacks to something pretty broader). Cinadon36 08:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no broader and non broader. All are part of the same topic. The structures will be unaffected except the following: the Pushbacks for example will be their own section and unaffected, and create 2 new separate sections: asylums and returns, and mistreatments. If something would dilute the topic, isnt the topic itself, I am afraid. And the stuff like journalists getting attacked, I fail to see how can they dilute it either. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 08:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not find a problem with the title; it sets out a clear scope. That some editors wish to change this scope isn't really the same as the title being inappropriate; this covers—verifiably—pushbacks involving Greek agents and territory. Is there material which might support another article detailing another country's approach or involvement? Most probably, but that's solved by creating another article and not shanghaiing an existing one to cover a different scope than it was intended for. 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. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"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)

I'm not sure why you would think I meant Macedonia bordered Turkey. Information on the pushbacks at the Greek–Macedonian border was present until it was removed in this edit which I don't agree with, as it demonstrates a broader scope than just Greek–Turkish relations and should be retained. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Now the comment by Khirurg, above, in reply to Buidhe makes sense. At first I wasn't sure what this was about. Checking at the edit diffs, shows that there was disagreement between editors: Buidhe appears to only seek to include pushbacks happening with Greece's responsibility but not pushbacks (on the same borders) happening with other sides's responsibility as well. To include pushbacks at border with North Macedonia but not pushbacks at border with Turkey indeed is another issue that shows a lack of neutrality the article has. If the name "Greece-Turkey border crisis" isn't as inclusive about this, then perhaps a different name would be more inclusive. But considering how 3 editors here seem to not like 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, then the issue of neutrality will never be addressed adequately. My proposal still stands for the record and whoever is bothered by the lack of neutrality in the article, then they are welcome to make more proposals. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not true, I think that IF Turkey were in fact carrying out pushbacks into Greece it would be within the scope of this article but so far you have not been able to find even one source that says this. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 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)

Sigh.... The Holocaust is the event, thats why the category has the event's name per country. Migrant Pushbacks on the other hand are not an event, are incidents within an event, the Migrant Crisis. Wikipedia's standard practices are to reflect on WP:RS and cover the event, not cherrypick from individual incidents within that event without covering the event itself!

Notice carefully how there is "Category:The Holocaust by country" but no "Category:The Holocaust deportations by country" or "Category:The Holocaust forced labors by country" or "Category:The Holocaust deaths by country", or "Category:The Holocaust tortures by country", the same rationale should be followed here about the Migrant Crisis as well! That is, to reflect on the sources which call the event "Migrant crisis" and reported human right violations on both sides of the Aegean Sea, instead of re-imagining it one-sidedly as the the "Pushbacks in Greece" which leaves out of the entire rest of the event.

One article should be created instead of 10 separate ones just for the Migrant crisis. Going down the road to create "Pushes in Turkey", "Migrant smuggling networks in Aegean", "Boat sinkings in Aegean by Greece", "Boat sinkings in Aegean by Turkey", "Migrant deaths in Aegean", "Migrant mistreatments in Greece", "Migrant mistreatments in Turkey", "Migrant asylums in Greece" and "Migrant asylums in Turkey", so that we can finally cover info about the migrant crisis in the area, sorry, but it isn't the way to go. The usual practice is to have one article for each event and its incidents, instead of dividing it into separate ones based on incidents. If an event has to be divided, it should be divided only per country or per region if the event has multiple actors involved or responsible, like how Wikipedia created this sister article: 2021 Belarus–European Union border crisis.

No matter how many times you may argue, what is done here at Pushbacks in Greece is not the way things are done elsewhere in Wikipedia and does not reflect on the sources which call the event between Turkey and Greece as the Migrant Crisis and the Pushback incidents are verified by the RS to be part of that event, not separate event by itself. If you want to use the Holocaust here as an example, then get your facts straight first. Then we can talk about whether the article title is neutral or not. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

SR makes a very valid point. The article is sorely lacking in context. The pushbacks don't happen out of the blue. I've added some context, but it's still very limited. Khirurg (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a long block of text to say absolutely nothing of value. What you call "cherry picking", wikipedia calls content splitting. The scope of this article is well defined, and its existence does not preclude the existence of other articles. If anything, an article on a broader migrant crisis should be a separate page as this focuses on one specific aspect, and if 19kB and 3000 words can be written on one aspect of a broader topic then it quite certainly is a topic suited to more than one page. Bloating out something with a clear scope to cover more than it intends to is not the answer here. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Split? From which article? There was no parent article this was split from. Buidhe created two Pushback related articles in the very same week, and none of them are about the topic itself. Since you cited WP:SPLIT, lets see what it says. Per WP:SPLIT: "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. Cinadon36 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)

So a revert means that he is not ready to engage constructively with other editors? I think not. Anyway, if there are content issues, why wont you just add it? Has anyone stopped you? Cinadon36 07:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

As stated in the verifiability policy, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." It's perfectly appropriate to remove content if it's disputed (for example, on source reliability or WP:DUE grounds) and there is not consensus for keeping it in the article. Those who want to include the content should get consensus on the talk page, for example with a RfC if agreement can't be found. It's pretty ludicrous to claim that my editing is somehow targeted at Greece. I've also been harassed for "anti-Turkish" editing so maybe I've got the balance right... (t · c) buidhe 07:42, 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.

@Buidhe: Sorry I havent followed your involvement in the Turkey Topic area close enough so that I can verify that, but I do know that you framed an particular state out of the involved ones in the Migrant Crisis and your edits are solely focusing on it based on criteria that NPOV tells us exactly to avoid, considering that Wikipedia has to stay neutral and cover the whole issue, not emphasize on a certain side and leaving out the other. That's not neutrality and you should consider updating yourself about what the guidelines tell us to do. And that is not to AfD the present article to whitewash Greece as you suggested, nor is to whitewash Turkey by leaving the other side in the Aegean from being covered as you insist. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 07:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@SilentResident: Next time you get reverted, start a new topic at discussion page to talk about it separately. Also, when accusing other editors of bias, it might just reveal that you are biased. Cinadon36 08:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, Cinadon. Seems you haven't noticed that there is a 2 month-long reverting war taking place right under your nose in the article. To downplay the wp:neutral concerns and the issues stemming from Buidhe's handling of the situation as being merely an uninvolved editor's bias in the talk page, then it rings bells about you. Expect no more replies from me. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 08:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

No I havent. When I accidentally noticed the article, I didn't check the history log. But if there were edit wars, you guys should have used talk page more, or ask for help at a noticepad or inform an admin. Cinadon36 09:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Dutch journalist Ingeborg Beugel leaves Greece after threats related to Pushbacks in Greece

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.

• Greek PM defends migration policy in heated exchange with journalist
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/10/greek-prime-minister-angrily-defends-treatment-of-refugees
• Journalist Ingeborg Beugel leaves Greece early due to threats
• Dutch journalist leaves Greece following threats to her life

Sad incident but worth including. Cinadon36 06:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This could be indeed mentioned along with the replies from PM Route and PM Mitsotakis and a part about her arrest by the Greek authorities back in June for illegally facilitating residence to an immigrant at her home with pending asylum process. Also, I think that she is due for a trial too. Othon I (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Rutte did not say anything about Pushbacks in Greece so it is of zero relevance to the article. Any legal issues with Beugel are also irrelevant to the article. (The changes against her probably violate EU law). (t · c) buidhe 10:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Rutte did take sides I am not sure why you keep denying that. I have even heard that myself. As for the charges, it is part of the context similar to her leaving the country, does not have anything to do with the pushbacks. Othon I (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Buegel awaiting a trial for helping an immigrant is irrelevant to the topic of the article. Cinadon36 18:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe that it is as relevant as the reason that she left the country. It will provide to the reader the whole image of the situation based on the WP:NPOV. Othon I (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That s not the reason she left the country, per sources.Cinadon36 10:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

None implied that, but it is part of the general context. Othon I (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Unless it is backed from sources, it is SYNTH. Cinadon36 10:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Engineering migration by Turkey

@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. Cinadon36 08:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, it's not clear why so many people apparently expect Turkey to do migrant suppression/border control for the EU. (t · c) buidhe 08:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not about you guys but for everyone else is crystal clear that Turkey has an active role and this should be reflected. It is reflected on the European migrant crisis. Neglecting facts that led to these one can assume that the article fall under a certain POV. Othon I (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly, Cinadon36 and Buidhe. The problem is that Turkey is encouraging the migrant smuggling networks to act uninterruptedly at the Aegean sea. Cracking down smuggling networks are obligatory and this particular country chose intentionally to not intervene against, but actually help by having state-owned Turkish coast guard boats escort the smuggler boats to the border with Greece. Something that both of you chose to turn blind eyes, thus causing serious questions about this article's neutrality on the topic of the Migrant crisis. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

SilentResident, 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 me Buidhe, 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)

SR, Human trafficking is modern slavery. It is not the same as smuggling (helping people make unauthorized border crossings). Although these things are often confused in news media. (t · c) buidhe 09:14, 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)

April 2021 incident reported on GreekReporter

November 2021 incident reported on Deutsche Welle

The point here is not whether there are reports in 2021, about the official practice of the AKP government escorting migrants to another country's borders, is that there is bias of your part which prevents these from being mentioned on the article, making Greece appear as the "problem" and not the problematic reaction to a problem caused by the Turkish government. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Both of these incidents are reported in the linked sources as "Greece accuses Turkey of towing migrant boats towards Greece". It would be best to report that as Greece's claim, not fact. Neither of them make the case that the tens of thousands of departures from Turkey to Greece since April 2020 are the result of "engineering" by Turkey. (t · c) buidhe 09:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure. But when these claims however are accompanied with evidence such as photos indisputably showing the Turkish boats escording the smuggling boat heading the direction of the Greek border then, as an editor you can tell whether these claims are thin air or if there is more to it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I just don't think that presenting it as "Turkey's fault" reflects either reliable sources or common sense given that these two reported incidents are a tiny minority of attempted crossings since April 2020. Regardless, I support sticking to a factual description ("ceasing to prevent departure of migrants" or "(accused of) escorting migrant boats") as opposed to using vague and overly expansive language like "engineering migration" (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree @Buidhe:, getting closer to RS will solve this issue, but I 'd like to wait for Alaexis input. Cinadon36 10:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not an editor's job to analyse claims to judge their validity, that's called original research. Our job is to proportionately represent the coverage in reliable sources. Moreover, the formulation of the sentence describes the refugee crisis itself as an engineered one by Turkey which is not supported by any of the sources. According to the NYT article, despite Turkey's active role in encouraging the migrants in 2020 to go through Greece, the actual instance of migrants had decreased by 90% since the peak in 2015 and even describes the encouragement itself to be more of a "media stunt" for the sake of extra funding from the EU, rather than an escalation of the crisis. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate:, the decrease in migrant flows is the result of 2 factors: Greece stepping up border controls both at Evros and at the Aegean Sea, and EU's new promises of giving more funds to Turkey. Lately, new media reports are surfacing and confirm the migrants are skipping Greece and are going to Italy, due to Greece's strict border measures aimed at curbing these flows of migrants. [33] [34] But the flows didnt stop entirely and there are still incidents reported that migrants try to reach Greece, and there are accusations that attempts are made through force. Also there are still accusations that Greece is still responding with pushbacks to the migrants trying to cross its borders. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:33, 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]

Turning a blind eye to the active role of Turkey and diminishing the shed loads of sources stating that I would assume that it would be beneficial to read again the sources for a better understanding. It is clear that Turkey has an active role and supporting the opposite shows that individuals have an agenda. 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. Turkey cynically pushes migrants toward coronavirus-hit Europe. Othon I (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Exactly, Othon. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I've said repeatedly that it's not disputed that Turkey encouraged people to go to Greece in early 2020. The issue is that other sources like this journal article state that it ended after a few weeks. Whereas the current wording implies that this "engineering" by Turkey is still continuing today. (t · c) buidhe 10:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

If Turkey is no longer weaponizing migrants, then why it does force migrants to enter Greece even during this November month, as we speak? More reports on Greece's accusations are accompanied by videos which verify these Turkish tactics: [36] --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Othon I, can you explain what the edit summary in Special:Diff/1057243415 is supposed to mean or why you're edit warring to include material that is a synthesis of sources? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Plain and simple English. There is an ongoing discussion and you are reverting. There is no consensus that this sourced material that you reverted can be removed. Hope my explanation helps. Best Othon I (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Your edit summary claims that the discussion "contradicts [my] rv summary", yet I do not see anyone addressing the fact that the line is synthesising sources. In addition, please carefully read WP:ONUS which states that "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

 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)

Exactly. I agree absolutely with Alaexis. It is our duty as editors to report the wrongdoings of both Greece's and Turkey's governments in this crisis, not focus solely on the one side's and turning a blind eye to the other side's actions. Doing so, goes against Wikipedia's WP:NEUTRAL which is the project's core pillar policy. It seemed to me that some editors here may have suggested that consensus is needed for the inclusion of balancing edits for neutrality. (hope I am wrong, so please correct me if I am). But per WP:NEUTRAL: 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)

Hi Alaexis, I think it's important to separate the political rhetoric vs. what's actually happening on the ground. The sources you link above (apart from Vice which is discussing the early 2020 incidents) do not indicate that any actual encouragement of migration by Turkey towards Greece has occurred. Vice is not rated reliable at WP:RSP so I wouldn't rely on it for anything controversial.

In fact, Turkey has in the past been intercepting boats and preventing them from arriving in Greece's territorial waters. For example, this journal article states that in March 2020 "The Turkish border authorities returned to their usual semi-efficient interception of irregular migrant border crossings". In fact, in the past, there have been more interceptions by Turkey than people arriving in Greek territorial waters: "In March 2020, about 4,400 irregular migrants left the Turkish coast towards the Greek islands. The Turkish border guards and the police intercepted about 3,000 of them before they crossed the maritime border, so about 1,400 migrants managed to reach the islands." So suggesting that Turkey's policy, in general, over the last few years has been to encourage migration towards the EU is not accurate. (t · c) buidhe 12:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, I am feeling you are getting into WP:IDHT territory. Please read the sources, will you? This month, Greece released videos confirming that Turkey is still engineering the migration as of November 2021.[37] --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but you are trying to justify the inclusion of original research and one should not be listening to it. Please understand that neutrality means representing "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" and that content needs to be directly supported by the sources (see WP:V).

If the accusations from Greece against Turkey were confirmations, they would be reported as such but they haven't been. Following 2020, there are some independently reported specific instances of them actively encouraging migrants to cross but that should not be given disproportionate weight nor should you be analysing them to make broad generalisations about the crisis that are not supporting by any of those source, instead relying on a scholarly source for an overview is what one should be doing.

By the way in response to Alaexis, to engineer the migrant crisis, to encourage migrants to cross over or to coerce them do so are not the same thing. Coercion and engineering can be sourced to only one think tank. Per the WaPo and DW sources, being passive, as in not actively preventing migrants from trying to get to Europe and instead using it as a bargaining tool is what Turkey is being criticised for. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:54, 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. Cinadon36 13:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel like we are going in circles. Possibly an RfC is in order. Alaexis_¿question? 20:17, 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)

Don't use ugly words to describe the contributions of your perceived opponents. In a politically-charged article such as this, you sound like a polemicist with battleground mentality. Your comment doesn't pass the smell test. Stop it. Dr. K. 01:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I have toned down the last sentence. I do find the repeated POV-tagging of the article on spurious grounds disruptive -especially when it might very well derail its DYK appearance on the main page- and have no problems calling a WP:SPADE what it is. If you find any evidence of a battleground mentality in my edits, please escalate to the appropriate fora. Otherwise stop with the ad hominems and do feel free to respond to the substance of my comment - it has already been claimed in this talk page, in no unequivocal terms, that those that espouse a certain viewpoint in this discussion do not have neutrality in their priorities. --GGT (talk) 02:08, 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)

We need to keep opinions separated from facts. Also this article is not about migration from Turkey. Cinadon36 20:03, 28 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)

[38]

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)

[39]

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)

It's not controversial that Turkey has leveraged migration in an attempt to get its way in diplomacy. But this is just a basic feature of international relations. The EU and Western countries use visa restrictions, economic sanctions, trade deals, tariffs, arms deals, etc. as an effort to get their way in international relationships, but it would be equally inappropriate to describe these instruments in wikivoice as "engineering" or "weaponization". The article already discusses events in early 2020 in appropriate balance. We should avoid any statements that make it seem as if the default is stopping migration versus taking no action or constitute loaded language/opinion-based statements. (t · c) buidhe 09:38, 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. Cinadon36 09:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to both of your for your feedback. However, I'd like to clarify that "engineered migration" is an academic term not an emotional phrase that is used to influence the audiance. Greenhill (Weapons of Mass Migration, 2010, p. 13) defines "coercive engineered migration" as "cross-border population movements that are deliberately created or manipulated in order to induce political, military and/or economic concessions from a target state or states" which is exactly what Turkey is doing. Tsourapas & Zartaloudis (2021) states that: "Interestingly, this stance mirrors the rhetorical approach of another refugee host state that sought EU economic payoffs at the same time, Turkey. In February 2016, for instance, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan declared to EU officials that ‘we can open the doors to Greece and Bulgaria anytime and we can put the refugees on buses … so how will you deal with refugees if you don't get a deal? Kill the refugees?’". [42] Best regards. --John the Janitor (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Just because it is used by some academics does not mean that such language is not contested.[43][44] On Wikipedia especially it is important to use a WP:IMPARTIAL tone and avoid any form of loaded language. Such descriptions are used by political actors to legitimize breaches of the rule of law and human rights abuses against migrants[45] This shows that such descriptions are not neutral. Furthermore, even if it is used in a certain context as a term of art that does not mean that readers will understand it. With "coercive" it's unclear who is purportedly being coerced and "engineered" can make readers think that the migration movement is caused by the accused state, even though it is certainly not the case for Turkey. And as I state above, it would be non-neutral for Wikipedia to imply that enforcing the EU's border is the default for Turkey. That's why I think neutrality is best served by describing in plain language the actual actions taken by Turkey (and Greece). (t · c) buidhe 10:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I completely agree that such terminology should not be used to justify human right abuses however considering there are even Turkish authors who use this term I think that is not the case here. If your point of disagreement is about the quantity of works and academicians who endorse the term, I can cite more sources. I'm not familiar to the sources you have cited but with a brief overview, they seemed to me more of an opinion piece/blog rather than an academic one that we should rely on. Lastly as an ordinary person, I don't feel myself to be qualified enough to discuss the wording of the term itself. Best regards. --John the Janitor (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

How is the reader supposed to know that "Turkey engineers migration" mostly means "Turkey agrees to stop migrants from leaving the country in exchange for large sums of money from the EU" or "Turkey threatens to open its borders in order to obtain concessions from the EU"? The latter expressions do not risk misleading readers and carry a better impression of the overall situation. Academic jargon is rarely suited to an encyclopedia intended for the general reader. (t · c) buidhe 11:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

We can add a footnote explaining the term which would inform the reader about term's actual meaning. Unfortunately, wikipedia has no article on this term however when I look up for the term on a search engine it turns me to Refugees as weapons article in which there is a subheading reserved for Turkey. Best regards. --John the Janitor (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

This suggestion does not explain why using jargon benefits the reader. In fact, Wikipedia style guides urge writers to avoid jargon and use plain language wherever possible.

Furthermore, this article is not even about Turkey... (t · c) buidhe 11:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that mentioning this will help the reader understand how the events escalated which is mostly omitted in the lead. If you have a suggestion that we can use instead of the formal jargon, I'd like to hear your suggestions. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion is a plain language description based on the Dutch paper discussing migration during COVID-19 and the already existing part of the article discussing this episode. Something like, "Turkey ceasing to prevent migrants from leaving for the European Union in February 2020" (t · c) buidhe 11:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like to improve the lead by adding the sentence you have suggested. How would you react if I added a Background section to the article which attempted to explain these in more detail? We can always alter/delete/modify it, if you disagree.--John the Janitor (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I support adding that sentence to the lead. However, I would recommend proposing a background section on the talk page. Ideally it should be restricted to events that reliable sources tie to Greece's use of pushbacks. (t · c) buidhe 11:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice to see that Talk page discussions yield positive results. Cinadon36 13:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Buidhe:, I'd like to inform you about an edit I want to make for the last sentence of the first paragraph. I like the sentence, however in this context, it sounds like Turkey released migrants out of the blue. I want to add at the end of the sentence this: "...to gain political and economic compromise". I wondered if you think that that would make the sentence undue. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to the changes John the Janitor has proposed, the article's neutrality took a step towards the right direction. Well done! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 02:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Currently that's not reflected in the body of the article. Can we be more specific based on reliable sources about what Turkey was hoping to obtain in February 2020? (t · c) buidhe 02:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

A "Background" section along the lines John the Janitor is proposing sounds like a very good idea and I strongly support it. Khirurg (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The article is about a longstanding Greek border policy dating back to at least 2008. The background section, if there is to be one, should serve to put the policy as a whole into context. It should focus on the evolution of Greek migration policy overall, refer to other aspects of the said policy, and provide a historical perspective. As long as the sources clearly link Turkish border policy to that, it would be fine to discuss it in context, but if the section were to focus solely on Turkish actions, that would clearly be inappropriate. —GGT (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Neither Dutch PM nor EEP defended Greek Pushbacks

When saying that they defended Greek border policy, we mislead the reader that they defended Greek pushbacks. Cinadon36 20:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You are reverting sourced material without reading first. This is word by word what the Dutch PM said: “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. Cinadon36

As the article makes clear, the pushbacks are part of Greece's border policy. So the material should be added back. Khirurg (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

We have a bad case of WP:WIKILAWYER and WP:IDHT here, not to mention POV-edit-warring. I agree with both Othon and Khirug. Dr. K. 19:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Try to establish compromise instead of edit warring. And a more civil manner would be helpful. Cinadon36 19:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The material is sourced and directly relevant to the article. "No consensus" cannot be used to prevent the addition of relevant sourced material. Khirurg (talk) 19:34, 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? Cinadon36 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)

And if I may add, if we truly aspire to make a neutral article that covers all viewpoints on the matter, then, both the Dutch journalist and the Dutch PM should be mentioned, not only the one or the other, as certain editors may wished. After all, covering different viewpoints regarding the pushbacks, does not mean that Wikipedia is supporting or opposing anti-immigration policies. Wikipedia's role is just to cover the subject and that is to include information relevant to the subject. Simple as that. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The conclusion is not the he is defending pushbacks but apparently accepts the Greek government's official position that there are no pushbacks occurring. The comments on other aspects of Greece's border policy are irrelevant to this article. (t · c) buidhe 01:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The text which the editors restored to the article, does not imply that the Dutch PM defended the pushbacks, but that he is expressing his support to the conservative Greek government in that there is no wrongdoing about the policy of the current government against migrants. That's a big difference, IMO. The text specifically states: "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)

The reinserted text doesn’t state that the Dutch PM defended the pushbacks, only that he defended the Greek government, which is relevant given the topic of the conversation. The phrasing could be improved for clarity but as it stands I don’t think there’s a problem with it being in the article. I would suggest replacing ‘pointing that it is in line with EU regulations’ (he doesn’t specifically say that, if we’re splitting hairs) with ‘stating that the Greek government’s investigation of the issue of the pushbacks is an evidence of their “applying the highest standards”…’ to establish clarity and direct relevance. It’s a rare instance of a foreign leader commenting on this so it’s definitely noteworthy. —GGT (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This discussion is surreal. The comments by Rutte are fully relevant to this article. Pushbacks are a subset of Greek border policy. Any comments by Rutte that Greek border policy defends the borders of the EU, are absolutely relevant to this article. It would be ridiculous to demand that Rutte utter the words "Pushbacks in Greece" to include his comments to the article. If that absurdity were to occur, then this article has to be renamed to "List of pushbacks in Greece" and name specifically each pushback, in a list, with no other comments by politicians or governments, because "pushbacks" is an activist POV-term and not part of the diplomatic vernacular employed by governments. This edit-warring is just a transparent attempt to convert this article into a POV walled-garden article. Dr. K. 02:25, 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)

Beugel's arrest

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)

Good points. I agree with the removal. Thank you, GGT. Dr. K. 23:27, 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... US pushbacks https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2019/04/usa-government-must-stop-illegal-pushbacks-of-asylum-seekers-to-mexico/ 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.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) called to end pushbacks in Greece.

Where should we insert such information? [46] Which is the most relevant section? Cinadon36 09:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Also

• https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/statecrime.10.2.0238
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13642987.2021.1874936
• https://www.proquest.com/openview/92ad6b2bf9618f6ebf11c3866780263e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=55113

Even EU citizens are affected: [47] (t · c) buidhe 10:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmm....Maybe the article needs restructuring.Cinadon36 11:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact, the source you presented to us here, states the opposite of what you are claiming there. According to the source, the call is for pushback practices to cease across the EU, not just Greece. Per source: ""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.

Also, a side note: I am afraid the POV issues arent limited to this article here. The current right-wing conservative ruling political party of Greece, the New Democracy (ND), appears to be given, in Wikipedia, a more positive spotlight than it should. ND is notorious particularly for its large-scale corruption of state institutions which affected not just the ordinary citizens but also migrants and asylum seekers, financial mismanagement and embezzlement of the EU funds for Migration, and the severe human right violations and abuse of laws against migrants, and the Victor Orban-level of Greek Press Freedom suppression which also affects the objective coverage of immigration-related incidents in the Aegean Sea. I believe all these will have to be mentioned on the Wiki article about that political party, if not here as well, along with the problematic stance of the European People's Party, of which ND is a member.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Oppose What ambiguity? What other topic is called by this name? From your proposed title it seems like migrants are doing the pushbacks, which isn't accurate. (t · c) buidhe 18:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

For starters pushbacks are an aviation term as well, and appear to be the WP:PTOPIC. Would "Pushbacks of migrants in Greece" be better? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

If you search pushbacks in Greece on Google scholar, literally all the first ten results are about this topic. Same with Google News, so regardless of any hypothetical ambiguity this is the clear primary topic. It's true that the word "pushback" has multiple possible meanings but no other meaning would make sense to have a by country article about it, so I don't know why there would be any confusion (I also doubt that this aviation pushbacks are the primary topic). (t · c) buidhe 21:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Human rights has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 18:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Greece has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 18:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support This is far too generic term. It can refer to anything, e.g. pushbacks against Athenian imperialism, pushbacks against Spartan hegemony, pushbacks against Macedonian despotism, etc. The proposal is clarifying and helpful. Walrasiad (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per WP:CONCISE, we should not make an article title longer than it has to be. The current one is not the most precise of title but still precise enough as far as primary topic goes. Also, I would prefer we move this to Pushbacks by Greece instead since it is about any pushback being done by the Greek government specifically. StellarHalo (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would also support StellarHalo's suggestion pushbacks by Greece. (t · c) buidhe 01:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Support and I find ''by Greece'' instead of ''in Greece'' just as good. Killuminator (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support clearer meaning. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support as an improvement in clarity. Since "pushback" is frequently used to mean 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)

Relisting comment: Relisting to generate consensus between the suggested (longer) title and alternate title Pushbacks by Greece. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 08:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.