Talk:Human rights in Greece

Untitled

Francis are you on a mission here? This is getting ridiculous. --Avg 21:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean a mission to improve coverage of Human rights issues on Wikipedia? Then sure I'm on a mission — well, not really a mission, more like a short sojourn. What other kind of mission would I be on? And explain exactly what is ridiculous about this article (apart from the paltry size for such a large issue). - FrancisTyers 21:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is ridiculous (and infuriating if you ask me, but that's me) that you start the article by saying "Greece has been accused of varying degrees of human rights abuses" blah blah, as if Greece is a third world country with no respect to human rights whatsoever. The article should obviously start by putting things in perspective, namely stating that Greece is a DEVELOPED country with a VERY GOOD human rights record and praised for it by the international community. See the point? And then, of course you can mention your issues. You're just pushing your POV fanatically, this is what I see.--Avg 21:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if it appears that I am pushing any kind of "POV". I searched for "greek human rights" in Google and just made the article out of the first stuff I came up with. None of it mentioned Greece being praised, incidentally. I have added an introduction taken partially from the Human rights in Romania article which I hope allays some of your concerns. I will work on a more comprehensive introduction shortly. - FrancisTyers 21:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort after all, so I shouldn't direct my criticism to you. I can edit what I don't like and then you can edit what you don't like and so on. My guess is that in some days (or weeks or months, I don't know), this article will reach a good and mutually acceptable level.--Avg 21:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool :) - FrancisTyers 21:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And since we both live in the UK, see what I mean: Human rights in the United Kingdom. This seems the way to go. It is more appropriate to compare Greece with another EU country and since I've lived in both countries for quite a few years, let me tell you that there are issues where the UK is far worse than Greece. --Avg 21:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude, don't get me wrong I totally agree. The government of the UK are largely criminals — unfortunately that is a minority position :( Not only do we export our bad record on human rights to other countries, cf. Iraq, but we do it at home too, cf. Northern Ireland. I think that article could do with expanding too. Its been on my watchlist a while, but I keep getting distracted into other things... - FrancisTyers 22:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any praise from Amnesty... [1] - FrancisTyers 21:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This one from HRW is fair and I consider these actual and serious issues (by the way do you see Macedonians even mentioned? This should tell something to you, I hope) [2]. --Avg 22:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Super ultra comprehensive: The State Department's report for 2005 (latest):[3]--Avg 22:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thats a good report. They mention Macedonians/Macedonian issues ten times, and corroborate most of what was written in Amnesty. I'll probably take that source over to Ethnic minorities in Greece, I'd like to avoid getting too much of the Human rights stuff bogged down over there though. I was hoping for it just to be an introduction to the topic. Specific human rights issues can go here. - FrancisTyers 23:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I've actually read the whole report and not only scanned for the word Macedonia but you're welcome to take it wherever you want. I believe the phrasing of the report is excellent in terms of NPOV. It does present the issues but does not use hard verbs. If only the phrasing here was the same. --Avg 23:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

HRW block quote

User:P m kocovski has been adding this to a number of articles, in an apparent POV push. I have removed it accordingly until it is properly summarized and referenced. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i did add it to 2 articles. I did not mean for it to be a point of veiw push but it should be found as a whole on possibly one article and summarized on the others as you have done kekrops. That is a good point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P m kocovski (talk • contribs) 06:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but I summarised it ;-). BalkanFever 09:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The "minorities" paragraph

BalkanFever you say that "current issues include the treatment of minority groups". What is that supposed to mean? The US Department of State's up-to-date report which I added explicitly defines the problem as "limits on the ability of ethnic minority groups to self-identify; and discrimination against and social exclusion of ethnic minorities, particularly Roma". This is much better than your vague paragraph since it specifies the exact problem and it is supported by an authoritative reference.Dexippus (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he wants each group mentioned separately and explicitly. I think the extra paragraph on the "ethnic Macedonians" is a bit much, though, apart from giving them disproportionate attention in comparison to the other groups. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just think HRW should be mentioned, since Amnesty and USDOS are. BalkanFever 13:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What was the point of mentioning the Bletsas case? That was a private initiative, in no way supported by the government, and he was finally acquitted. That shouldn't even be come into the picture.Dexippus (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? a private initiative? It was a criminal case; he was charged by a public prosecutor and sentenced by a public judge. Like it or not, this case has (rightly, IMO) been cited in the international press as an example of human right problems endemic in the Greek state, and of course it was an event that is only explainable in the context of the public nationalist hysteria of the 1990s. The fact that the judges in the court of appeal had a bit more sense doesn't take away from the scandalous miscarriage of justice that was the first trial. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Public nationalist hysteria of the 1990s"? His case was pursued by a small group of Vlach leaders; it barely rated a mention in the Greek media. You should know that that kind of holier-than-thou rhetoric doesn't really register with Greeks, especially coming from a German. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would I care how what I say registers with Greeks? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Και τούμπαλιν. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe you when you say that the Bletsas case barely rated a mention in the Greek media, although that may be more telling about the Greek media than anything else. It was featured in French, Belgian, British, Swedish, Finnish and Swiss media at the very least, probably in other countries as well. It did much to shape the public influence throughout Europe about the treatment of minorities in Greece and is clearly worth mentionin. JdeJ (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? I'd say less than 1% of people in Europe would have any inkling of the existence of the Aromanians, let alone Bletsas. But include it if you must. Maybe the article should include some colourful artwork too, such as this poster plastered all over Skopje in recent days. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair use. BalkanFever 08:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the "Културно-Информативен Центар - Скопје" wouldn't mind. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Then go ask them with your Dopia skills. BalkanFever 08:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they'd want to talk to a Nazi like me. You do it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm on hold right now. BalkanFever 09:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

They told me to get it from Skai news - it's their photo. Back to you. BalkanFever 09:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

May I recommend that we stay on topic. That poster, certainly in very bad taste, has no relevance to this article. JdeJ (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why restrict ourselves to the opinions of NGOs and the US State Department? The municipal authorities of neighbouring countries also have something to say about the subject, apparently. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would kindly ask that you read WP:POINT. This is a rather typical case of that policy. JdeJ (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

FP said "The fact that the judges in the court of appeal had a bit more sense doesn't take away from the scandalous miscarriage of justice that was the first trial". My reply is: Apparently it takes something away, what we are debating is how much it takes away. In my view the response comes from the more recent sources, which choose not to even mention that fact. This is logical; I mean at some point, after, say, 15+ whole years, those isolated incidents, especially when rectified, especially when initiated by private individuals, should be taken away. Shouldn't they? NikoSilver 12:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, please cut out the "initiated by private individuals". In a functioning liberal democracy under the Rule of Law, the complainant would have been laughed out of the prosecutor's office within five minutes. The fact that he wasn't, says a lot. The responsibility for the persecution lies squarely with the public prosecution and the judge. Second, the fact that those sources no longer mention the event is understandable, but those sources have a different scope from ours: they focus on following the current state of affairs exclusively, our task as an encyclopedia is to give a full overview, including past developments. As for how long ago it was: the event happened in 1995, and it took the Greek state a full six years, until 2001, to rectify it. That's not long ago in my book. Fact is that as recently as a few years ago, it was apparently conceivable that a person could face jail, for saying what were incidentally the same things we are saying about Greek minority languages here in Wikipedia all the time. Is that not noteworthy? Also, the incident points to a wider issue, because the law that was (ab)used to justify the conviction had been previously identified and criticised by European institutions as incompatible with human rights. (Heck, will you help me find a good lawyer when I visit Athens next time? I'm sure that by publishing that minorities map here on Wikipedia, I've run afoul of that same paragraph. Is it still in force?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If they pay attention to Wikipedia, then I don't think I'm allowed in. BalkanFever 15:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best never to have to find out. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(To FP:)

"Laughed out": I give you that. Times change though.

"Different scope": In WP too, it is the current state that matters. If you want a history of the human rights, then you'll have to start from 1821, and not selectively from 1995.

"Not so long ago": The scope of all those sources includes "not so long ago". The fact that it excludes the incident shows that the incident is enough long ago.

"Noteworthy": Certainly not. If it were worthy, it would have been noted in the recent ones. It isn't.

"EU criticism": It does not exist anymore. Therefore, either the issue is considered closed, or the law/paragraph is fixed, or... EU changed their policy. :-)

"Your Map": See? You would have been arrested already. NikoSilver 15:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the Middle East Technical University of Ankara would provide us with a map of the minority languages of Turkey. If we were ever allowed to have a relevant article, that is. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the Bletsas case may have been related to the company he may have kept. Bletsas is a member of the Greek EBLUL committee. Another member is the journalist Abdulhalim Dede from Thrace; see here at 00:35 to see what he has to say about Greece, Turkey, PKK etc. If a gang of people with views like that were spreading propaganda (or what may be perceived as such) at the same time that things were so unstable in the Balkans (for the first time in decades), you can understand that the prosecutor may have had public interest concerns. In any case, academics have been freely discussing minority languages in Greece for years long before the Bletsas case. This is a one time thing and happened a long time ago, it doesn't belong in this article which is about human rights in Greece as they are today.--Dexippus (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the EBLUL map has no indication whatsoever of the huge Russophone minorities in the Baltic states. Wtf? False information, indeed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That map doesn't reflect the situation as it is, it reflects the situation as EBLUL feels it ought to be. Why else would it show Corfu 100% Albanian-speaking (!) and Ireland 100% Irish-speaking, it's fiction. EBLUL supports policies such as discrimination against people living in arbitrarily-defined minority zones who don't learn what they deem as the language of the place. In the Basque Country in Spain, you can be dismissed from your job if you refuse to learn Basque (so much for Article 14). Imagine if the 2/3 Greek majority in Thrace was liable to dismissal from their jobs if they didn't learn Turkish and Pomak and Romany (of course, if Turkey had their way, the only compulsory language would be Turkish).--Dexippus (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Here I have to agree with our Greek colleagues to a certain extent. The EBLUL map is almost spectacular for how bad it is. I particularly like how 3000 Cornish speakers out of 300.000 in Cornwall make the area Cornish and how my own dear French language seems to have disappeared from 60% of the area where it's spoken. Strange, I had no problem speaking French last time I was in Toulouse or in Marseille or in Lyon. Come to think of it, I've never even heard anyone speak Occitan in any of those cities. So yes, the map is pretty bad.

On the other hand, I don't see language knowledge as discriminatory and don't see any problem with employers in the Basque Country rewarding learning Basque. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it might be pretty hard to find a job in Greece if you don't speak any Greek, right? It certainly is hard (not impossible, but much harder) in France without speaking French. And I were to employ someone and had the option of one applicant speaking one language and another speaking four languages, of course I would hire the one who could speak with as many customers as possible, probably the one who speaks most languages. So nothing discriminatory about that. JdeJ (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What's discriminatory is that in most cases, it's a language that very few people speak and it puts everyone else at an unjustifiable disadvantage. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be recommended to employers that they hire multilingual people, I'm saying that it's discriminatory that you require them to without good reason (and preserving a language that is practically dead at considerable waste of time, money and resources, in order to further what is usually a separatist agenda is not a good reason). You brought up Cornish, imagine for example if the 297,000 inhabitants of Cornwall who do not know Cornish would have to learn at their own expense (either directly or indirectly via further taxation) it in order to be employable in the public service (and further the separatist agenda of a few hundred people). That's ridiculous considering that it's likely that there are more Urdu and Arabic-speakers in Cornwall than Cornish-speakers (the same is true for Occitan in south France). I found out about the Basque case from this article that was in the Wall Street Journal in which the Chief Basque Promoter admits that it is discrimination (only positive discrimination, as if that makes it all right).--Dexippus (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As you rightly points out, it would be ridiculous to demand Cornish knowledge in Cornwall. On the other hand, it's not that uncommon that bilingualism or multilingualism is required for some professions. If you're a doctor, a police, a judge or even working in any public sector, bilingualism is often required in bilingual countries. It would be quite disastrous if a Dutch-speaking patient would die in hospital in Brussels just because the doctors only spoke French. This has to be proportionate, and the case of Cornish clearly isn't. The case of Basque is a bit different, since it's quite widely spoken in parts of the Basque country. I would also treat anything the Wall Street Journal has to say on language matters with extreme scepticism. I usually enjoy their reports on business (that's what they know) but they have far too often been eager propaganda-makers of the "English-only" policy. Everybody should speak English and those who are silly and uneducated enough to speak smaller languages should stop immediately. Given that policy of the WSJ, it's hardly surprising finding an article such as this. The article is, in my opinion, so bad that it's absurd. Consider the following statement "it is an ancient language little suited to contemporary life." As a Greek, you are presumably proud of the long history of Greek language and culture. Rightly so, as the roots of European philosophy and literature are solidly founded in Greek. But just because Homeros and Socrates wrote in Greek, an ancient language, it doesn't make it any less suited for modern life. All languages evolve, and Basque has done so as well. Trying to disqualify a language with kind of patronising nonsense is rather typical of the "English imperialism" at the WSJ. JdeJ (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with you re the Basques. I can see why they would be as defensive as they are about their language. Apart from being indigenous to the region where it is spoken, Basque is an endangered language. I'm sure the fear is that if people are "allowed" to stop speaking it in the Basque country, it will simply disappear; the same can't be said for Turkish and Slavic in Greece. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The map doesn't so much reflect what minority enthusiasts would "want" the situation to be, but (for the most part) simply the cartographic difficulty of handling multilingual situations. Of course, any realistic language map would consist of a hugely complex overlay pattern of multiple languages everywhere. But that would make it unreadable. In a situation where a smaller and a larger language are spoken on the same territory, perhaps with the larger one in a strong majority, but your cartographical purpose is primarily to show where the smaller language communities are, you have no choice but to simplify, and that basically means the smaller community "wins out", unless you want your whole map to end up striped and spotted and chequered to the point of absurdity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So the charge against Bletsas ("dissemination of false information") was at least technically correct, whether or not one agrees with the law or its enforcement in this case. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what Bletsas was handing out was a Greek translation of this (it used to be on the old EBLUL website). I also doubt there was a map, if there were, it would have been mentioned.--Dexippus (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Despicable whitewashing. Bletas case stays in, end of discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not whitewashing. I'm trying to show insight, understanding and sensitivity to the issues in question, that each individual case has its own unique mitigating factors... ;-) Dexippus (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're in a position to dictate the end of any discussion. You obviously have nothing more constructive to contribute than pathetic rhetoric about "nationalist hysteria" and your personal fears over whether or not you'll have to entertain the boys at Korydallos Prison next time you set foot in Greece. The discussion will go on as long as it needs to. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This coming from the guy who complained the HRW quote was not summarised and properly sourced, and then removed it later because it was "unnecessary". BalkanFever 17:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It was, in the context of the new information added. And, pray tell, why should your mob be given disproportionate attention at the expense of groups with real human rights issues, like the Roma and refugees? The types sipping frappé in Florina's main square dreaming of Obedineta Makedonija don't engender quite the same sense of sympathy, I'm afraid. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's touching to see so many kind editors eager to refine this article. I'm sure they show the same zeal in the relevant article about their respective countries? --   Avg    02:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights in Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090607100340/http://www.rsf.org/en-classement794-2008.html to http://www.rsf.org/en-classement794-2008.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Revert everything?

You're not helpfull by reverting everything and not explaining in talk what parts are "inflammatory language", "out-of-context misuse of sources", and "cherry picking". For example, the pages about Italy and Sweden have the same "current issues" section. Nonetheless, I tried to incorporate the feedback. But I'm still not sure what version the reverter thinks is not cherry picking. --Randam (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

What's not "helpfull" is your clear agenda-driven editing. Most of your effort on wikipedia seems intended to portray Turkey and Turkish regime figures in a positive light (e.g. [4] [5]), now all of a sudden you have an interest in human rights in Greece? Your edits are extremely problematic in that they seek to amplify minor issues or non-issues to portray Greece in as negative a light as possible. Yes, there are isolated instances of police misconduct, but your wording is intended to portray it as something widespread and systemic. The rest of your edits are not human rights issues. Pushing back migrant boats is not a human rights issue, nor is "right to health". Not to mention that all of these (treatment of migrants in camps, police misconduct) are already in the article. So what's with the massive addition to repeat what is already in the article? Khirurg (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but after exchanging thoughts through the Edit summary and on this talk, there is no constructive consensus building by the way you respond which includes (1) discussing me as a person (Ad hominem) and (2) not checking the references as you otherwise would have not said that "right to health is not an human rights issue". On top of that you're WP:HOUNDING me as you suddenly start reverting my edit on other pages you never edited before in your life time. Plus you keep reverting everything while told not to do so, and when you revert everything you don't talk about every aspect such as why reports of torture is reverted too, while on other aspects you try to defend by saying "it's already in the article". Which is basically 1 sentence vs my indepth section. Somehow you choose to delete my indepth sections instead of the 1 sentences. --Randam (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Randam, as an editor myself who is focusing on Human rights-related articles of Greece, such as LGBT rights in Greece, I am afraid I will have to agree with Khirurg here. Your additions are problematic and are not supported by the sources and the issues are present even at the very beginning of your additions. If I were you, I wouldn't have done that. For example a source which reports on police misconduct through the years, you have portayed it as being excessive even though the source doesn't state such a thing; the source refers to cases over the years, not that it has been excessive. It is important to avoid amplifying the issues to portray them as something bigger than they actually are. Another example which shows how problematic your edits are, is the addition about healthcare issues in Greece, (and I am pointing to it since you mentioned here the right to health in your responses to Khirurg). The article Human rights in Greece isn't the appropriate place for reporting on healthcare issues in the country and I am sure you know that already, since you pointed on articles such as Human rights in Italy in your response. Please note how the article Human rights in Italy is avoiding reports on healthcare issues in Italy. Note how even Human rights in Turkey is avoiding any reports on healthcare issues in Turkey too, yet for some unknown reason you seem persistent in adding this kind of info to the Human rights in Greece, despite Khirurg having reverted you already. I can't help but wonder that the reason you are persistently seeking to add what reports have said, amplified, and even include to the article stuff not appropriate for it, such as healthcare issues, is done with the purpose of giving the particular country a negative light rather than contribute to improving the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:SilentResident thank you for your reply. If you feel a sentence isn't sourced properly (1) you add a template something like "source needed" or "dubious source" and (2) ask me for clarification, instead of deleting every byte of my edit. That said, the Amnesty International reference in that section literally states "excessive use of force". It's not my words. I assume everything is fine, if we only change the place of that reference?

Now coming to your right of health argument. The argument "it's not mentioned in other pages" is a weak argument, because every section on Wikipedia was a "first of it's kind" one day. Having said that, the absence of health issues on other pages doesn't change the fact that it's still a human rights issue. Having said that too, there are other country pages that do have a health section like Human rights in the United States. Having said that too, again it's not chic to delete every byte instead of precise editing. I hope I answered all your points and got your blessing. --Randam (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Nope, you cited the following source to back up your sentence about excessive force: [6], which however doesn't support this claim (the word is totally absent from the article). Perhaps you cited wrong source to back up this sentence? However, one of the other sentences following it, do use this source from: [7]. Although in this case, the sources clarify the excessive force in relation to certain cases (foreigners/unaccompanied immigrant children), which is already covered on the article since the 2007 Amnesty International report and it is nothing new for the article. Again I will ask that you heel to Khirurg's advice and refrain from generalizing certain cases of police abuse as being widespread and systematic as your edit does.

Regarding the health care in the United States, I am sorry but no, this isn't the same. In US, the healthcare isn't universal and the problem is of political nature and has permanent characteristics, persisting through both during times of economic growth and economic recession in the country, while in Greece the health care is universal and problems that had emerged were temporary ones due to emergent difficulties caused by the Greek government-debt crisis. Please do not compare apples and oranges to make a point here. The two issues are totally unrelated to each other. If you want to add Debt crisis-related stuff, you are welcome to do so, but that article here is more appropriate for that. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

With your helpfull and constructive feedback I feel we're closing in on a consensus. I was talking about the latest version that got reverted. And from now on let's only use that version to built consensus. There you see this reference. Which describes the recent situation, not old data like 2007 like what we have now on the page. So I assume your concerns are gone and we can add that section back now?

@User:SilentResident I feel like you glossed over some of my points. So I will number them, so we can reply to each other number by number.

1. As can be seen in the reference of the human rights organization Amnesty International about Greece, there is a section called "Right to health". If they think it's noteworthy enough to have that section about Greece, then we should too here in Wikipedia.

2. The USA example was just an example against your "other countries don't have it" argument. With 4 clicks further, I found a health section in Human rights in Cuba too. If I click more, I'm sure more country pages may or may not come up

3. This ties in to my next point. We DON'T need other country pages to have it, to have it here too. Right to health is a human rights issue, thus it belongs here. Yes?

4. Regardless whether Greece has universal healthcare or not. Having universal healthcare doesn't mean it stops being a human rights issue and that there is nothing noteworthy left ever again.

5. I have not see you make any objections about my other sections: Refugees and asylum-seekers, Migrant pushbacks and Conscientious objection. I assume we have consensus on those sections? --Randam (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I will repeat myself a last time: there is already an article dedicated to the debt crisis and the issues it has caused, including political, economic, social and health problems: Greek government-debt crisis. If you want to add information about how the debt crisis affected healthcare, then this is the article to go. Cuba's human rights article is about health care overall, not about healthcare issues related to a certain crisis. Unlike Cuba's, the Amnesty report for Greece's healthcare is in relation to the Greek debt crisis and you ought to reflect this accordingly, by adding it to the relevant article about that crisis, not here. Wikipedia's common practice isn't to mix human right articles with the debt crisis that stroke the Southern European countries, and more recently, Turkey. This is the reason you won't see Italy's debt crisis-caused problems being added into Italy's human rights article like how you are insisting of doing here in Greece's article. Nor you will see Turkey's lira depreciation-caused problems being added into Turkey's human rights article. Do not ask me again because I won't consent either. I still stand with Khirurg on this and respect Wikipedia's rationale on the matter. As for stuff about the European migrant crisis and Frontex's conduct, we created the article European migrant crisis where we covered the European migrant crisis and policies of the European authorities such as Frontex in it. Since the stuff you want to add is about an issue relating to Europe as whole and not just Greece and is about the conduct of Frontex, an European authority, then this is the article to go. As for the rest of your edits, Conscientious objection may be added to Greece's human rights article. I don't see where the problem is with that. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy we've reached partial consensus by you not stating objections anymore about the sections "Excessive use for force" and "Conscientious objection". However, I couldn't disagree more with your other points, especially the point: it's addressed in other articles. There is no Wiki policy preventing similar topics being addressed in different articles. You talk like you have never seen the templates Main and See also. Also, every human right issue is a result of a crisis/scarcitiy of some sort. It's not like someone wakes up and says "today is a nice day to do human right abuses". If Italy's and Turkey's governments created a notable right to health problem due to economic problems (which it didn't), I have no problem if you put it in their pages too.

Also don't use vague phrases like "Wikipedia's common practice". There is no common practice. There are only rules and guidelines. If I'm violating one, tell specifically which one it is. As a middle ground, the "Migrant pushbacks" section will not come back, but the section "Refugees and asylum-seekers" will be reinstated because, unlike what you said, it's directly about Greek authorities, not European authorities. --Randam (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"If Italy's and Turkey's governments created a notable right to health problem due to economic problems (which it didn't)" I am afraid they do. Since your edit log shows that Turkey is your main focus, I will just pick some Turkey-related examples of economic or pandemic-related healthcare problems reported: 1) Due to economic crisis, Hospitals in Turkey cannot provide treatment to patients unless they buy themselves the syringes (translated from Greek to English for your convenience: "To make a simple injection, the healthcare professional will have to force the patient to leave the hospital and buy a syringe." [8]). 2) Doctors being forced to choose the Turkish patients that will be saved or die at hospitals amid the Covid outbreak: (english text provided here for your convenience: "Several Turkish hospitals are on the verge of maximum capacity and doctors are forced to "choose the patients", the president of the Ankara Medical Association (ATA), Ali Karakoç, denounced on Saturday." [9]).

I have no problem if you put it in their pages. It doesn't matter what your "consent" is about this information, because they won't be added to the Human rights in Turkey anyways. Just because you think so (or precisely, you "don't have a problem with that"), it doesn't mean it is indeed the most suitable article for them. Pandemic related healthcare problems in Turkey clearly belong to the article about the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey, and economic crisis-related healthcare problems in Turkey belong to Turkish currency and debt crisis, 2018. Like it or not.

the section "Refugees and asylum-seekers" will be reinstated because, unlike what you said, it's directly about Greek authorities, not European authorities Sorry but again no. We editors use the European Migrant Crisis and particularly the section covering cases of immigrant mistreatments in Greece to report on such cases. Please respect the Wiki community's decision to create dedicated articles for these topics and keep all the information organized and tidy in one place for easier referencing. Ignoring this and insisting on adding it here isn't helpful. Your edits will be reverted. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 02:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Just because you think so. Again, I'm repeating myself. It's not about me. This is Amnesty International saying it, a human rights organization addressing the most noteworthy human rights issues in Greece!

Please respect the Wiki community. Don't make false arguments. This is similar like when a politician talks about "the people want this". Again, I'm repeating myself. Show which specific Wiki policy or guideline I'm violating, so we can argue about that. But you didn't. In fact, you ignored my comment about the templates like Main and See also, which directly contradicts your vaguely defined "Wiki community" or "common practice".

Your edits will be reverted. If you revert, I see no other option than invoke the dispute resolution policy for outside help. This means I'm going to edit this page, implementing some of the feedback, so that we have a new specific version. So that, if needed, outsiders can see what the new differences are that are reverted. --Randam (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

you ignored my comment about the templates like Main and See also, which directly contradicts your vaguely defined "Wiki community" or "common practice" Nope. As far as I am aware, this is what how it is done and other editors and the administrators can attest to this. Here some cases involving me and the administrators of the English Wikipedia:

• Editors and IPs attempted to add information about Turkey disputing Greek sovereignty of certain Greek islands, particularly Agathonisi and Farmakonisi, not to the article Aegean dispute (which was created specifically about this topic) but to the articles of the islands: Agathonisi and Farmakonisi. All of their attempts were ofc reverted by Administrators and me, among others: [10], [11].
• Editors and IPs attempted to add info related to the Greek Economic crisis (like how you are trying to do here now), into the article of Greece instead of the one made specifically for that purpose: Greek government-debt crisis. All of their attempts have been reverted ofc. The article log of Greece confirms it: [12].

There are many such examples. Do you want more?

This will be the last time I am repeating myself. Insisting on going on with adding Economic Crisis-related info about Healthcare, not to the article Greek government-debt crisis but here into the Human Rights article, is disruptive. I can't help, but pay attention to Khirurg's concerns about you. I just checked your Special:Contributions/Randam carefully only to realize how right he was about you. Your Contributions log shows that these days you tried to whitewash Turkey's authoritarian government and, at the same time, to portray democratic countries such as Greece, (a country which Turkey is at odds with), in a negative light. For this reason, your edits have been reverted. Edit: I also looked further and just found that even Admininistrator EdJohnston concluded that you are probably here with an anti-Greece agenda. EdJohnston's conclusions on ANI: "There is a possibility that User:Randam is here on Wikipedia with a pro-Turkey and anti-Greece agenda." [13] which speaks volumes. To me it is clear that your true motives here aren't to improve the article but to advance your POV agenda like how Khirurg, EdJohnston and the others suspect.

Considering these, and the fact that you are in WP:IDHT territory despite the 20KB of text in this talk page discussion, expect no more replies from me anymore, its pointless to argue with you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 07:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, let's see my anti-Greek agenda. In my 14 years of editing, I only have engaged 2 times about Greece: one is this article and the second is this article about the testing rate in Greece. The latter, was the basis of an argument with, you guessed it, Khirurg himself. So you might consider taking the word of Khirurg and EdJohnston about my "anti-Greek agenda" with grain of salt. But hey! Look we're talking about me instead of the content.

I like how you give the example of "Editors and IPs attempted to add info related to the Greek Economic crisis (like how you are trying to do here now), into the article of Greece instead of the one made specifically for that purpose: Greek government-debt crisis. All of their attempts have been reverted ofc" while the article of Greece literally has, and I kid you not, a section about the crisis! Randam (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Editor Randam unfortunately not only appears to be refusing to "get the point", which is disruptive, but also fails to read more carefully the others' comments (misreading "attempted to add info related to the Greek Economic crisis" as meaning "attempted to add info about the Greek Economic crisis"; and arguing that "the article of Greece literally has a section about the crisis! even though this doesn't stand as an argument since there is no Debt crisis section in Greece. Randam is pointing only to a Debt Crisis sub-section of the Economy section, which isn't the appropriate place for healthcare problems (Economy section may not have non-economy subsections such as Healthcare anyways, nor the article's lead may be a summary of such, as some may like to think). In my example I was pointing out to the Healthcare section as the appropriate place but Randam not paying attention to these differences, is part of the failure to pay attention to where an info belongs and distinguish the difference between "about" and "related to" which is common in Wikipedia, and for this reason I have patiently provided more than one examples, such as: Agathonisi and Farmakonisi, or: Human rights in Italy and Human rights in Turkey. It is impossible to believe that, after this lengthy Talk Page discussion the editor Randam would still fail to get the point or be reasoned with. If they still insist, then this is a clear sign of anti-Greek agenda and I will have no other option but call for admin intervention and have the editor be blocked from editing the Greece topic area in the future. Good day everyone. Edit: however I am afraid that I will have to correct myself here for using Greece as an example, as the the article doesn't have a Healthcare section; is a subsection of Demographics and its purpose is solely to provide the readers with basic info about the country's healthcare sector. Mentioning healthcare problems caused by the crisis in this subsection, exceeds the scope of the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 08:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)