Template:Did you know nominations/Pushbacks in Greece

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)

DYK toolbox

Pushbacks in Greece

(
)

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)
  • 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)

– 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