Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Greece

FT reports that militant Orthodox groups endanger public health

I was just reading an article by FT about the progress made in Greece against the coronavirus and the danger posed to it by some ultra-Orthodox groups:

This week militant Orthodox church members distributed leaflets around provincial cities calling for churches to open for midnight mass on Easter Saturday, the most popular service in the Orthodox calendar.

“Believers like us feel it was wrong to deprive of us of the Easter celebration. We sympathise with the priests and members of our flock who are protesting,” said Aspasia, a shop owner in Lamia, a small city in central Greece.

And protestors gathered on Friday evening outside a closed Orthodox church in an Athens suburb, calling for the parish priest to hold a Good Friday service. Police took 18 people into custody after militant members of the congregation hammered on the church doors and shouted anti-lockdown slogans.

At several other churches around the city, priests allowed worshippers to light candles and kiss icons in defiance of lockdown rules.

Are there any reports in Greek with more details about the actions of the government against these groups? The Guardian says that drones will also be utilized against them.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There is more than that: The nazi far-right organization (organization, because, calling it a "Party", is a disgrace to democracy), Golden Dawn, is also behind some of these events. I have sources if you want. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I am interested in seeing these :). --Calthinus (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems to have much more depth than I thought when I was reading the FT article. Maybe you could expand the section, too.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Golden Dawn (GD), a shade of a former party that has plummented from 9% in the past to just about 1% in April 2020, is opposing the Government's strict measures against the outbreak, and in this context, tried to gather its members publicly outside a small church and urged for its opening, but they failed. Instead, this triggered a public outrcy against them in the social media, the church remained closed, and GD members were arrested by the Greek Police. This coincide with the recent polls (2 days ago) which showed a sharp rise in public support for the government's strict measures against the outbreak and a sharp decline of 50% (from 2.9% to 1.5%) in GD's popularity among the Greeks. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is notable. I'll review it for a bit then perhaps we can work on a sentence to three. Link? --Calthinus (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Calthinus, the correct threshold for determining inclusion in an article is WP:DUE. Notability is for the creation and retention of whole articles, not facts inside them. Elizium23 (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"notable" as in "note-able" is not WP:Notability. This is why I hate rules that are also relevant words, as they confuse people :/. --Calthinus (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

About (mis)use of sources

@Skylax30: Since I do not do edit wars, I have to resort to using the talk page. Snide remarks in the edit summary aside, I have read the National Herald article thoroughly. (Have you?) Yes, the word police is used in the article. It says that police have helped moving migrants toward the Turkish coast. No-one is disputing that. Furthermore, the article states that 1) Greek officials fear that Turkey ... will send infected migrants to Greece, 2) Other sources ... believe that Turkey has a plan to push infected migrants into Greece and 3) Greek authorities ... are anxious Turkey will flood Greek islands with infected refugees and migrants. The article does not even claim that such plans exist, only that Greek officials/sources/authorities fear/believe/are anxious that such plans may exist. And there is nothing in the article to support the sentence about the police being actively involved in such plans. --T*U (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

If you are saying that "help" is not an "active involvement", then we can resort to verbalism and transfer here exacctly the wording of the sources. You can do it. But it seems that you only want to downgrade the whole paragraph. Btw, I notices the presence of certain user banned in the Greek WP.--Skylax30 (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

T*U, IMO the use of this source - Protothema, is accurate, it's simply that the claim is so vague as to be meaningless. "The Turkish military and police appear to be actively involved" is what both the source and this article say, but what does "appear to be" mean - are they or aren't they - or do neither the source nor WP have any idea? Ditto "seems to be trying … ", " reportedly executing …", which simply means "other papers have reported it is executing …" all info supplied by "well informed sources". I don't want to be a grammar pedant, but the source uses 'planned' (ie did have a plan) in the heading, while the body uses present tense. If Protothema were ever cornered to justify their claims (unlikely I know), they would have a whole deck of "get out of jail free" cards ready to hand.

I think the mere fact that some of these stories have been reported so widely, probably means that they should be recorded here - but properly attributed and not simply taken at face value in WP:VOICE. I agree with your general point, that sources - which are already superheated on anything to do with Turkey/migrants - are not being used faithfully, or with due caution on this issue. Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you Pincrete. --Calthinus (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I have not commented on the Protothema source (although I find it extremely vague). The source I made comments about to Skylax30 was an article from National Herald, at that time used for a claim that was not covered by it. The source has now been mowed, and the text changed to fit the source, so the question I raised has been resolved. Regards! --T*U (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Full protection

I see that Calthinus has changed their mind about the addition, but the edit warring still persists, without any attempt to discuss the dispute, here, on the article talk page. Note that if edit warring continues after the protection expires without an attempt to discuss the dispute here, WP:GS/COVID19 may be used to apply a range of sanctions. El_C 21:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I have seen POV-pushing in my long tenure here. But POV-pushing at the lead and in a newly-created section for an obsolete and old factoid with no context to explain it sets a new low in the history of editing Wikipedia. We are long past 30 April when this POV-pushed factoid was reported and it is now obsolete as it is too old. Also, Greece's testing rate, even on 30 April, was 14 times higher than Mexico's and over 3 times higher than Japan's. It was also in the same order of magnitude as other European states. So the POV-pushing phrasing that Greece was the third lowest testing country in OECD simply adds OR insult to the POV injury. Edit-warring to push this OR POV in this article, just adds one more layer of POV-pushing insult to the editing of this article. Dr. K. 21:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Really not sure what POV is pushed here. It is useful info regarding the situation in late April. Was it maybe that you thought someone was pushing some POV that the numbers are actually higher currently? Well that makes no sense, because there has been plenty of testing since April 30. People come to this page (and elsewhere) for discussion of the data pertaining to how the virus spread chronologically -- it was valuable for understanding that. Hence, it belongs in the stats section, imo (the lede... no? But accusing the poor guy of POV pushing based solely on that? Well I better censor myself). But if you realllllly care, feel free to umm NPOV-push away or whatever, because I don't care enough to revert again. Do talk to that other guy, Randam or whatever his username was though. --Calthinus (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That guy was even worse. He is trying to put this obsolete info at the lead. It doesn't get worse than that. I think if he continues he should be blocked. The POV being pushed here is that on 30 April Greece was the third country from the bottom of the OECD list of covid19 testing. This factoid is a. obsolete b. useless c. misleading d. does not deserve its own section e. does not deserve to be at the lead e. lacks context f. its insertion phrasing is POV and OR g. Wikipedia editing doesn't get lower than that. Dr. K. 22:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Look, you have to come up with something better than this if you want to have a chance. The inconsistencies make it look like a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Allow me to explain. (1) Imagine calling 30 April outdated. We are in 11 June for sake. Yeah sure. (2) Imagine calling 30 April irrelevant. 30 April is reflecting to the period before, i.e the period when the pandemic was highest and at most relevant point. (3) Imagine defending your case by saying that the lowest 2 countries have lower testing rates, while ignoring 33 countries with higher testing amount, or even ignoring the average. Is this where I debunk your logic by saying that Greece testing was 232 times lower than Iceland, 5 times lower than Israel, 6 times lower than Estonia? (4) Imagine calling 30 April outdated and pov-push, while literally the same paragraph talks about "credited internationally" that uses sources centered around ±5 April. (5) Imaging seeing this as a POV-push. Who says that being at the bottom of a testing list among industrialized countries is a bad thing or a good thing? It's simply a fact, and the decision of interpretation of good or bad pov is up to the reader. (6) Imagine calling it a old factoid while the current statistics shows Greece still having lower test amount among industrialized countries.

So, spare me your POV nonsense and let's talk business. Help me in creating how the consensus should be. How can we include this in such a way, that it is reflected both in the header and the rest of article. How can we include information about the testing amount in Greece? How do we need the change that sentence? (Also show me articles where we can derive that Greece's testing per capita is stated to be on the higher end if that is your case) Randam (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

In your rush to advertise your WP:OR that Greece had the third lowest test rate on 30 April you abused WP:LEAD which states that for a fact to be included at the lead of an article, it has 1. to be important 2. significant 3. be included in the body of the article. None of these apply in this case, yet you made your sloppy edit anyway, and edit-warred over it. Thankfully, this article is covered under COVID GS. You do this again, you get blocked. Simple. Dr. K. 23:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith here, for a number of reasons:

1. The edit seems like a clear case of poisoning the well, given that the factoid was placed in the lede, and right next to the statement that Greece has been praised for it's handling of the crisis. It is my impression it was placed there deliberately so as to undermine the preceding sentence, which would be a clear case of poisoning the well.
2. Randam (talk · contribs) has a history of hostile behavior (...like a toddler [1]) towards Greek users, does not seem to be interested in COVID-19 articles in other countries (besides Turkey), and the edit was made on May 29th, which may or may not be a coincidence (my guess: NOT a coincidence).
3. The veracity of the statement itself is dubious. The data is conflicting, for instance, this source here shows Greece does not have the third lowest per capita testing for OECD countries [2]. I hope this is not the case, but I can't help but wonder that the source and date were not chosen by accident.
4. Lastly, per capita testing is not necessarily indicative of a country's efforts to fight the pandemic. Japan, for instance, which closed itself off relatively early, has a low rate of testing because it simply doesn't need to test as much. In general, countries where the pandemic is not as devastating as elsewhere do not have a reason to administer as many tests as countries that are hit harder. Whatever the case, this is certainly not lede worthy. Khirurg (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

1. I don't care if Greece has been praised or not. Wikipedians add information to Wikipedia. And I'm adding an information here. I don't care whether you like that factiod or not, because you liking the fact or considering it as "poisoning the well" is not part of Wiki guidelines and policy.

2. This is just ad hominem. And what is May 29th? And who makes edits based on dates anyway? What does someone gain from it? Also I'm free to edit which articles I want, to my preferences.

3. Am I being punk'd right now? You're showing me a link, where you can select countries, and you select non-OECD countries like Uruguay, Ukraine and Taiwan? Why? Even at your link Greece is on the lower end of the list.

4. Again, how is this relevant? Even if Greece was the best country in the whole world in fighting the pandemic, I'm just stating a fact. It's up to the reader to perceive it the way they want. You may like the fact, or not like the fact. It's not my business, because my business as Wikipedian is to only add information according to it's guidelines. Although, I must compliment you that you dropped some of your arguments like calling "30 April outdated" after my initial reply. However, I'm sad you didn't reply to the more critical parts of my reply like to show what an example sentence should look like regarding the testing. So spare me and yourself some time by not adressing your previous points, write about "How can we include information about the testing amount in Greece?". Randam (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.K, spare me your empty threats of getting me blocked. If a user doesn't edit according to a guideline, you show/educate him in good faith about that part of the guideline on how it supposed to be and reach for a consensus. Not threaten him with blocking. Especially when you accuse me of adding a fact in the lead because it's "not in the body of the article" while you are literary the one deleting the the fact in the body of the article together with my sentence in the lead. You say it's unimportant and insignificant. That's debatable. So let's debate. Importance and significance are subjective terms. I put it up there as part of WP:BALANCE. Because the sentence before my sentence speaks about Greece being "most proactive in Europe", "strictest", "slow spread" and "low deaths". It's comparing apples to oranges as every country has it's own way of data policy. So a indication of testing amount is good way to balance it. Also explain to me how this is Wikipedia:Original research. It's directly verifiable and reliable published source. It's seems you only want to accept it as not-WP:OR when I can find a news article for you with the headline "Greece has the third lowest testing among OECD". Guess what, the world doesn't turn about Greece. You can't find such detailed headlines for everything out there. The smaller the country, the less news there is solely focussed about that country. Does that mean we don't write anything about San Marino, Liechtenstein and Monaco? Of course not. And finally, you deleting that fact because you find 30 April "outdated" is really a very weak argument. You really want to continue that path of reasoning? Randam (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Unlike your walls of text, I have made my points clear in my short and precise replies and I have nothing to add. It is your problem you don't get it. By the way, I don't make threats. I just informed you about the consequences of POV-pushing on this article. Read the post of the admin. It informs about WP:GS/COVID19 for this page. Try to pull the same stunt after protection expires and see what happens. By the way, don't ping me again. It is annoying. Dr. K. 03:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Randam: Thank you for so openly admitting your intention to push POV Because the sentence before my sentence speaks about Greece being "most proactive in Europe", "strictest", "slow spread" and "low deaths".. It is rare that people so transparently declare their intention to push POV, but people can surprise you sometimes. We're done here. Khirurg (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Khirurg makes an excellent point. You don't get to blemish Greece's distinguished record by slapping an old factoid at the lead, a single data point which you misrepresent without context, in order to cast doubt on Greece's achievements at fighting the disease. The world is full of COVID experts. You are not one of them. If Greece was so bad at testing as you try to insinuate with your sloppy edits and obnoxious WP:SYNTH at the lead of all places, many experts would have come out by now to cast doubt on Greece's extremely low numbers. But they haven't. Not a single one. The reason is Greece's testing rate is up to standards and experts are satisfied with it and the very low numbers of reported cases in Greece. You are attempting to poison the well with your POV, to borrow Khirurg's comment. Again, you have to reevaluate your approach before it's too late. Dr. K. 15:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Guys, stop beating around the bush. I told you to come up with an example sentence about the testing amount in Greece. Yet, for some reason, you tackle all the issues except a consensus example. Dr K is somehow complaining about my 289-words reply being TDLR, while he afterwards takes the time to write two replies directed to me containing 245 words. As a bonus, he even states that he read the 259-words reply of user Khirurg. This shows me you are avoiding a consensus. On the other hand, we have user Khirurg, who doesn't reply to my arguments, only to be hang up on 1 argument of mine. Where I stated adding some context to a certain POV-perceivable sentence is a good thing. I humoured this façade long enough. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2007. I know when I have irrational stubborn activism against me. You gave yourselves away by saying I will not let you blemish Greece's distinguished record or let me "poison the well".

So this is the deal. You guys either come up in a few days with an example sentence of Greek testing amount (with a context) that we can discuss, or I will ask other people of the community for their input. In the first option, you guys have some control. In the second option not so much, as any objective person reading the discussion above will immediately see who is trying to form a consensus and who is beating around the bush coming up with commical arguments like "30 April is outdated". Calthinus, what is your advice on the course of action? Randam (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Your sloppy attempts notwithstanding to paint my comments as POV, Greece has in fact a distinguished record in fighting the pandemic. Stating so is backed up by RS so it is a verifiable fact. You don't seem to like it, so tough. There is no compromise here. The factoid is not entering the article in its current state of a one-day record of testing. If more data become available, then it would be fine to mention testing in Greece in the body of the article but not the lead. If a reliable source makes a connection between the testing numbers and the number of cases in Greece, then the fact is mentioned in the article. Do-it-yourself SYNTH connections like you are attempting are an absolute no no. Also stop the silly personal attacks talking about nonsense such as irrational stubborn activism and commical (sic) arguments. --Dr. K. 22:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Dr.K., just ignore this guy and his ultimatums. He is clearly WP:NOTHERE as far this article is concerned, by his own admission. I showed him a source that showed Greece does not have the third lowest rate of testing in the OECD, but he pretended not to see it. It is also quite clear nothing will persuade him that this material is not lede-worthy. The issuing of ultimatums is also beyond the pale. So, let him go on with his threats and ultimatums. We know very well how to deal with people like this. Khirurg (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

All right Dr.K. I see you have presented an opening for me. So I will try to adjust it accordingly. Then we can talk about this new edit again here, if necessary. First we set up the body. Then we try to reach consensus about the lead. (I will edit it on tomorrow evening)-Randam (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Randam my apologies, I will admit I did not (and will not) read all this text. However, what I support is this -- that source about April 30, as well as others about testing, should be added to a subsection in the Statistics section (not the lede). This will further enrich the page. Everyone wins.... if the goal is not fighting, that is. --Calthinus (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like something I can support. Good idea, Cal. --Dr. K. 00:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit of 14 June

Seems some users want to talk about the edit of 14 june. I prefer you guys adjusting the text directly, than rather explaining how it should not be. This way we all save more time and work. Randam (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

No one here works for you. It is up to you to make honest edits, so as to not waste everybody's time. Υour edit was intellectually dishonest because:

1. It repeats the same thing over and over for effect.
2. You cite the sources out of context, therebey presenting a misleading picture. For instance, EU observer also states the small proportion of deaths still demonstrates the impact of extreme social distancing.. Bloomberg state but there are no signs that the pressure on its health-care system is comparable to that experienced by the latter two countries.. The Independent also states But its total deaths have been low — 138 in a population of about 10.7 million — a surprise to experts, especially given the elderly population. And a big relief. and Only 69,833 people have been tested for the virus in Greece, but experts agree that the country’s decision to quickly enforce social distancing measures and fortify its ailing health care system helped curb the outbreak.. This is crucial information that places the testing rate in proper context. Yet, you deliberately left that out to present a distorted picture of the situation. Khirurg (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Showing what an example of consensus should be, is not "working for me". Because you are not cutting out the parts you think are wrong, you delete the whole thing!

1. You guys taught that one sentence wasn't enough and wanted more, so I did. If it repeats too much now, feel free to trim it back to the right amount. Why are you not trimming it?
2. Euhh.. Yes? I'm not disputing any of that green text. I'm not disputing the overall "health-care system". I'm not disputing the "impact of extreme social distancing". I'm not disputing the "low deaths". I'm not disputing the "country’s decision to quickly enforce measurements". You can allready find all that info someway or another in the body. I'm just putting info about "testing" in the section about testing. It seems I'm not allowed to put sourced info about testing, on an pandemic article! My edit is not saying the amount of tests is good or bad. My edit is not saying the amount of tests is disputing any of that green text for that matter. You choose it to interpret it that way.

User:Calthinus, your assistance is once more really appreciated. It seems I can't reach consensus with Khirurg because he sees pov interpretians in neutral facts about the testing amount. Instead of adding or changing my edit, he reverts the whole thing. Randam (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree on mentioning testing in Greece in the article, but not the way Randam is trying to add it. Now let me provide some sources that will hopefully help us all agree on a sentence or paragraph that actually reflects the reality of the situation.

First of all, the source that OECD uses to create the "Diagnostic testing for COVID‑19 in OECD countries" figure (here and here) is this website and its dataset is updated at least once a week (so I see no need to stick to the April 30 stats). Now according to that source (last updated on 13 June), the number of tests conducted in Greece for each new confirmed case of COVID-19 is actually among the highest in Europe currently -and has been for a long time. This is crucial information. Moreover, if you compare between the European countries, Greece is around the average when it comes to the number of daily tests performed per thousand people, as of this week.

I would also like to bring to everyone's attention the fact that the Ministry of Health's spokesperson, Sotiris Tsiodras, has said on multiple occasions that the true number of infected people in Greece is actually quite low, "much less than 1 percent of the population". According to Tsiodras, the basic reproduction number (R0) for the disease in Greece is less than 0,5 -estimated at 0,33 (sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Esslet (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Esslet. Please propose a sane alternative to the POV we have been experiencing. --Dr. K. 18:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Esslet, feel free to add anything, but the initial discussion isn't about "number of tests per each new confirmed case" as you mention, it's about "number of tests per capita". But according to some people it's somehow POV to add Greece's testing per capita while comparing it to other industrialized countries. So if you somehow can incorporate that, than the discussion is over. (All the other things you mentioned "R0" and "tests per each new confirmed case", I never had any problem with it.) -Randam (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Randam: the initial discussion isn't about "number of tests per each new confirmed case" as you mention, it's about "number of tests per capita". Yeah I saw that (discussion was actually about the "daily number of tests per thousand people", at least that's what the sources you added here and here are referring to). I just tried to point out that there are more data available that we can and should use if we are to cover this angle of the topic fully.

So as I already mentioned above, the "number of tests per new confirmed case" chart is actually crucial as it shows how well a country monitors the pandemic and whether or not more tests should be performed;I really believe it's easy to understand the importance of the "tests per new case" parameter. Here are the relative graphs: share of daily tests that are positive (7-day average), Total tests for each confirmed case (Greece is № 4 among the European countries).

feel free to add anything Actually, I'm not that interested at the moment to spend time to analyze and compile all the information into a paragraph. For now, I collected and provided all the information I could find and I believe it is enough to cover the topic fully and objectively. Maybe I'll work on it at a later time if no one does in the meantime. Esslet (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Esslet for your comments. I fully agree with you and I hope you can write something on the topic in the near future. I trust you because you are a great editor and a subject-matter expert. Best regards. Dr. K. 17:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and trust! Esslet (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You are very welcome, Esslet, and I thank you, in turn, for your excellent work on this article and for offering to help improve it further. Best regards and stay safe. Dr. K. 15:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

To be honest Randam Esslet's idea seems fine though yeah I see nothing wrong with comparing Greece's testing level to other countries with similar economic backgrounds. Number of tests per each confirmed case and number of tests per population are BOTH useful.... so let's have both... no? --Calthinus (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Randam has been indefinitely blocked from this country article due to PAs and other disruption. I see nothing wrong with comparing Greece's testing level to other countries with similar economic backgrounds. As infection conditions vary from country to country, country testing comparisons may be a bad and misleading idea. I also checked other country covid articles and I have not seen such comparisons being made. I would suggest treading carefully on that idea. Dr. K. 21:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"I would suggest treading carefully"........ is that a threat? Don't worry I don't care, article is all yours. --Calthinus (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Since when treading carefully has become a threat? --Dr. K. 00:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

When the context is discussing someone who got indef banned from the page. Your words: Randam has been indefinitely blocked... tread carefully.... And yes that phrase (tread carefully) is frequently used in threats. You will now probably point out that there are gazillions of other interpretations. Don't. I wrote a question mark. If you don't want to be interpreted as making threats, don't write things that can be interpreted as threats. --Calthinus (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Randam has been indefinitely blocked... tread carefully.... And yes that phrase (tread carefully) is frequently used in threats. You will now probably point out that there are gazillions of other interpretations. Don't. Don't presume to dictate to me what to point out. The only reason I told you about the topic indef, was a very practical one. So that you don't ping them. But you chose not to AGF. Too bad. Dr. K. 11:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with all the above. Testing rate has to be presented in context. This isn't like GDP, where a simple per-capita comparison across countries makes sense. I also just find it a bit odd how some people are so...interested in this particular article, but show no such interest in similar articles about other countries. Khirurg (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You too, spare me your defamatory (and baseless) insinuations, I've extensively edited the corresponding pages for other countries.--Calthinus (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected "COVID-19 cases in Greece" bar graph?

Why is the "COVID-19 cases in Greece" bar graph/chart protected? I haven't been here in some time and saw it was stuck at June 23rd. Went in to update it and I'm not allowed. If you're going to "protect" it, at least bother to update it. Otherwise open it up. Everything else on the page appears editable. Kalambaki2 (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Dubious claims with poor English, NPOV phrasing and use of primary or dubious sources

My knowledge of Greek and Gk sources is not good enough for me to wholly fix matters, but much of the 'controversy' section is very poorly and un-neutrally phrased, sometimes uses primary or (what appear to me to be) dubious sources.

With section titles like Persecution and silencing of free expression on the internet and social networks - Persecution of doctors who disagree with extreme measures - Control of the Mass Media by the Government, and a fair bit of poor/loaded English.

I've fixed the worst examples, sometimes having to guess intended meaning, but somone with better Greek should probably look at these sections. Pincrete (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I concur. I have tried to limit the section but... my work was quickly undone. --Calthinus (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. The 'Controversies' section is badly one-sided and uses a lot of unreliable sources (makeleio is a prime example). It's hard to explain every issue but I suggest keeping an eye on this section (Note: I apologize if my comment somehow violates Wikipedia's guidelines. I haven't used Wikipedia in a long time so if I made any mistakes please notify me. I know that I should edit the section, not just report that it's problematic, but it has a lot of issues so I thought of informing fellow users at first.) 79.107.31.14 (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The more you dig into this section the crazier it gets. At one point it relies on the known WP:FRINGE voice Sucharit Bhakdi, who is widely rebuked. At other points it seems to claim that masks have adverse "effects on health" and wonder if a mask was "connected to" a heart attack. Deletion spree underway. --Calthinus (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

these paragraphs were probably written by "rebels" (or negationists) against the measures. However it is true that exists controversy in the parliament and by the opposition parties abt the funding of media with state money by the governmentGreco22 (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. A balanced section would not be unwelcome. One accusing BLPs of crimes while citing fringe sources and reporting every time a sympathetic person with some vaguely medical degree shows up on a radio talk show is not welcome. --Calthinus (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I also think that some parents objecting to masks in schools, is part of the narrative, even if it is probably medically misinformed. Pincrete (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with this too. --Calthinus (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Statistics - repeat headings at bottom

Full marks for the editors who are doing the daily 'updates' of Statistics. BUT does anyone know how to REPEAT the column headings at the base of the stats and/or to section them by month with the facility to hide each month? Reading the most recent figures is difficult as one cannot see (and must remember) what each column represents. Pincrete (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Vaccine

Guys why is there no category for vaccines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodle hair boy 2 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Why would there be? Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)